He uses a listening earpiece to get by when he has to face questions. You'll debate that I'm sure but if you and I were in a debate and I was talking then suddenly WHISPERED 'let me finish' to no one present while you weren't even talking to necessitate me saying 'let me finish' you'd know I was speaking to someone else hence the bulge oh his jacket. You know you'd say Kerry was doing it too if he WHISPERED 'let me finish' when Bush was dead silent. You know it. He sends men off to war while having avoided combat himself. Again you'll debate it but he did in fact leave his duties to help on that compaign, he did in fact leave his duties in the national guard to the point where people don't recall him ever being around. If Bush served one minute in a combat role my opinion of him would be considerably different, but not too considerably. Ha. He's a known drunk. Or was. He was a known coke user. He used pot. But hell, don't we all? He treats the US public as if they were total idiot morons who don't know any better. He lies. That's not debatable. And repeating a lie is still a lie. Yellowcake from Africa. Lie. Iraq's WMD. Lie. Iraqi drones hitting the coast of the US with Chemwarfare. Lie. He, a war evader, invited armed men, in a volatile hostile region, to attack his own troops. In the real world that's called High Treason. Not to you though I suspect. It was a simple beating-the-chest forgivable ignorable quips we all make. "Bring em on!". He said either we're with the US or with the terrorists, then turns around and let's the US negotiate with the liberty-loving 'insurgents' in Iraq. Translation: "Either you are with us, or you are with the evildoing people we will negotiate with if they manage to kill enough of our men". The list goes on.

Why don't you go sit with "Clueless Old Liberal". His line of thinking is right up your alley

Bush refuses to acknowledge global warming.

Hard to acknowledge something that hasn't been proven.

He uses a listening earpiece to get by when he has to face questions. You'll debate that I'm sure but if you and I were in a debate and I was talking then suddenly WHISPERED 'let me finish' to no one present while you weren't even talking to necessitate me saying 'let me finish' you'd know I was speaking to someone else hence the bulge oh his jacket. You know you'd say Kerry was doing it too if he WHISPERED 'let me finish' when Bush was dead silent. You know it.

What are you talking about? Does your blind hatred for Bush just get in the way of all common sense? Where do you get your conspiracy theories from?

He sends men off to war while having avoided combat himself. Again you'll debate it but he did in fact leave his duties to help on that compaign, he did in fact leave his duties in the national guard to the point where people don't recall him ever being around. If Bush served one minute in a combat role my opinion of him would be considerably different, but not too considerably. Ha.

Dan Rather is that you? Bush did nothing wrong while he served in the National Guard. He got an honorable discharge, so what's the problem? Did you criticize Clinton for avoiding combat when he used the military?

He's a known drunk. Or was. He was a known coke user. He used pot. But hell, don't we all?

You should say he's a former drinker. Just like some people are drunks that drive cars into lakes and runs off to protect their political future.

He treats the US public as if they were total idiot morons who don't know any better.

Proof?

He lies. That's not debatable. And repeating a lie is still a lie. Yellowcake from Africa. Lie. Iraq's WMD. Lie. Iraqi drones hitting the coast of the US with Chemwarfare. Lie.

Are you prepared to call all the democrats who repeated those "lies" liars as well?

He, a war evader, invited armed men, in a volatile hostile region, to attack his own troops. In the real world that's called High Treason. Not to you though I suspect. It was a simple beating-the-chest forgivable ignorable quips we all make. "Bring em on!".

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read today.

He said either we're with the US or with the terrorists, then turns around and let's the US negotiate with the liberty-loving 'insurgents' in Iraq. Translation: "Either you are with us, or you are with the evildoing people we will negotiate with if they manage to kill enough of our men".

That statement was made way before the war in Iraq started. And what insurgents did Bush negotiate with again?

Clinton avoided the draft like our VP. Bush wanted to make it look like he served without serving. His honorable discharge was undeserved since he did not obey regulations or attend drills for the last six months of 1972. He got help from Daddy's friends! If he had been im my unit, I would have reported him for active duty when he failed to attend drills. If he did not obey regulations(The physical) I would have recommended an Art 32 investigation, under the UCMJ. That would have been the end of any honorable discharge.

I stand corrected on the number killed in Iraq, how many were your children? Stutefish, you keep talking about facts but give none. What are your facts supporting a war in Iraq that are not associated with Saddam being a mean old man? The world is full of mean old men in power. P.S. I am a diehard Republican, do drop the liberal crap.

Why is President Bush a bad President?

The decisions he has made.

And Iraq. Those tropps should have been used in hunting down some one who actually hurt us: Osama.

Sorry miler that wasn't exactly a well-thought out response at all. It was a defensive insult. Why on the defensive I have to ask. The answer (real answer not a silly insult) is it's getting harder every day to make excuses for the killing of innocent people. That's precisely why it's best to get the local military to do the killing for you, as in South America and such.

So here's my question for all you Bush-haters (and/or rational moderate sensible people) out there: if you were given the opportunity to present a single argument, a single concrete fact or line of reasoning, to change my mind on this, what would you choose? What evidence or logic would you employ to support your position?

My biggest problem with Pres. Bush is his obsession with appeasing Vicente Fox with respect to illegal immigration. Witness his Amnesty proposal from January 2004.

Sorry for having two. But I must confess I'm not a hater either, just not happy with everything he does.

1. Abstinence-only Education: Has been proven to not work * Link *, but he still wants to spend my tax dollars on a program that is only Abstinence. IMO Abstinence should be first, not only.

2. He wants to use my tax money to fund religious schools. I'm not against the vouchers system (that took awhile to decide ya or nay, being a future teacher and all). But giving money to religious schools without requiring religious teaching to be optional and after school hours using only Church money. I attend a catholic school myself, so I know what is taught there. Remember Pakistan’s and Saudi madras schools are also federally funded too.

That's My Two Cents

Ok, I'm not a Bush hater, I do support Prs. Bush, but (if I may), I'd like to horn in on your challenge. So at the risk of looking like a person with depth and the ability to disagree with a Prs. I happen to like, here goes:

I strongly (yes I said strongly) disagree with the whole "No Child Left Behind" thing. I understand that our country has forgotten a little thing called "seperation of powers", but no matter how much the activists whine and complain, the Federal Government has absolutely NO jurisdiction when it comes to K-12 education. The federal government treats everything with a "one size fits all" attitude, which dooms any national education policy from the onset.

So my issue would be No Child Left Behind specifically, but only as an example of Federalizing issues that belong to the local community.

Great idea for a discussion though!

gman said:

Stutefish, you keep talking about facts but give none. What are your facts supporting a war in Iraq that are not associated with Saddam being a mean old man? The world is full of mean old men in power. P.S. I am a diehard Republican, do drop the liberal crap.

Gman, I'm not here to convince you of anything. Quite frankly, "Saddam was a mean old man" is good enough for me (so long as we both agree that "mean old man" doesn't even begin to describe how truly disgusting Hussein's regime was). Bush made a comprehensive case for the war in several speeches before the invasion began. Feel free to read any one of them; they all cover my reasons nicely. Including the part about WMDs (and let's not forget that WMDs were only ever a part of the case for war). But that's not the point.

The point, once again, is what have you got? Are you worried that if you give evidence, facts, logic, I will nitpick your arguments away? I assure you, I will accept your arguments humbly and thoughtfully... as soon as you actually make them.

And I'm sorry for offending your diehard Republican sensibilities, with the liberal crap. Please note, however, that knowing your true political affiliation hasn't changed my opinion of your thinking so far on this topic.

Sorry miler that wasn't exactly a well-thought out response at all. It was a defensive insult. Why on the defensive I have to ask. The answer (real answer not a silly insult) is it's getting harder every day to make excuses for the killing of innocent people. That's precisely why it's best to get the local military to do the killing for you, as in South America and such.

That's because yours wasn't well thought out either. So I responded in kind.

Clinton avoided the draft like our VP. Bush wanted to make it look like he served without serving. His honorable discharge was undeserved since he did not obey regulations or attend drills for the last six months of 1972. He got help from Daddy's friends! If he had been im my unit, I would have reported him for active duty when he failed to attend drills. If he did not obey regulations(The physical) I would have recommended an Art 32 investigation, under the UCMJ. That would have been the end of any honorable discharge

That is what *you* would have recommended....that's fine. But that's NOT what he got is it? As far as the National Guard is concerned he *served* honorably. Case closed. Next case.

gman wrote:

What are your facts supporting a war in Iraq that are not associated with Saddam being a mean old man? The world is full of mean old men in power.

I'm not sure I follow that particular logic. The world is also full of mean old rapists, but I still support arresting those we can. The existance of other mean old men doesn't grant immunity to all.

I live in San Francisco, so my views on the matter aren't really shared by any of my local friends, but I really don't believe that stability is more important than progress. I don't believe that death is too high a cost to establish a government that believes in justice and rule of law for all individuals. As for the "insurgents", I believe that the first innocent civilian you publicly decapitate as part of your war strategy destroys any credibility you might have. And I believe that an immediate pull out of our military from Iraq will be a death sentence for the true rebels in Iraq who believed in the elections.

When I walk home and pass the protesters who hold up the "leave Iraq now" signs, I really can't believe how heartless they are. Are our own lives, and the lives of our soldiers, so precious that we must leave a downtrodden people to the whims of Ba'athist, Syrian, and Iranian terrorists? They need our strength & protection right now, more than they ever have in the past. I refuse to believe that we've turned into a nation of cowards. Is sacrifice, nobility, and justice important to anyone anymore? Or is fear of death all that matters in the 21st century?

Ahhhh, I'm glad to see that in my hours away everyone has made nice! I'm so glad my bleeding heart liberal expectations of everybody hugging and getting along is going along splendidly! Please. Being against pre-emptive and unnecesary war does not make anyone naiive or touchy-feely. It makes them humane. And I must just say to Stutefish, lots of people have condescended to give your their honest opinions, some of them with facts to back them up whether or not you agree. It might be better to word yourself as just trying to understand the other side, instead of challenging them to change your mind since it's so clear you have no intention of changing it. Just my current two cents, minus facts of course.

dmiler

As a person who commanded three Army Reserve Units, I know Bush did not serve honorably. The first and most important requirement is to obey orders. Bush failed that most basic principal by not attending drills and by not taking the required physical which resulted in him being grounded. You do not know what you are talking about. What military units have you Commanded? If the military of today acted like Bush, we would not have an effective military!

Ok, I'm going to be a tad bitchy here but it seems to me the idea we can export democracy and make little American style utopia's all over the world and then everyone will be free, happy, voting capitilists just like you and me seems more naiive than anything any of the "tree huggers" have said here.

Ok, I'm going to be a tad bitchy here but it seems to me the idea we can export democracy and make little American style utopia's all over the world and then everyone will be free, happy, voting capitilists just like you and me seems more naiive than anything any of the "tree huggers" have said here.

Sarah, make this a new thread and I'll give you my oppion on this subject.

As a person who commanded three Army Reserve Units, I know Bush did not serve honorably

You don't quite seem to get it do you? What *you* personally feel/think about GW's service is IMMATERIAL. The National Guard says OTHERWISE. And ain't nothing you can do or say to take away the man's "honorable" discharge. Just as an aside what the heck does having commanded 3 units have to do with this? YOU were not his commanding officer so you have nothing to say about wether or not he gets an honorable discharge. So all you protesting amounts to a fart in a whirlwind.

Bush got an honorable discharge because he had help from daddy. Not following regulations and not showing up is not an option of the local commander. Bush had a two star who had connections to the Bush family allowing Bush to disobay regulations and get off scott free. Yes he got an Honorable Discharge because of special treatment by the Chief of the Texas Air National Guard. The CO of Bush was pressured which his secretary admitted when this story broke. I had contact with the professor of Bush at Harvard who confirmed to me that Bush told him he got both in and out of the guard with the help of his father's contacts. Had his name not been Bush, he would have been placed on Active Duty when he did not attend drills and he would have received punishment when he did not take a required physical. Yes I commanded hundreds of troops and none of them acted like George W. Bush!

While I agree with his focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel that he is neglecting the vital war on liberal Democrats at home.

The CO of Bush was pressured which his secretary admitted when this story broke.

Which she later retracted.

I had contact with the professor of Bush at Harvard who confirmed to me that Bush told him he got both in and out of the guard with the help of his father's contacts.

Which since this did not occur under oath is hear-say.

Which all of this rolls back to reply #45. What you think or say about this subject means absolutly *NOTHING* in the real world.

*chuckle* for the Spc...to which I say, "Bring it on!"

As a person who commanded three Army Reserve Units, I know Bush did not serve honorably. The first and most important requirement is to obey orders. Bush failed that most basic principal by not attending drills and by not taking the required physical which resulted in him being grounded. You do not know what you are talking about. What military units have you Commanded? If the military of today acted like Bush, we would not have an effective military!

With all do respect Sir, I have to disagree.

I was an AGR (Active Guard Reserve) NCO for an Aviation Unit for over four years, and have served on a Battalion staff since then.

The man was able to complete what is called a "good year". That is why he got an Honorable discharge and his retirement points. To receive a good year you need to attend 48 SUTAs (Training periods). There are generally 78 SUTAs in a year (2 per day, 24 drill days and 15 Annual Training days). If you check the records posted all over the internet you will notice and count at least 48 (the count is fifty four), and that is not accounting the missing six months that happened to all National Guardsmen during that period when they changed the system from manual hand records to an automated system. I would ask you to check your records as proof Sir, but the Reserve Component was not using the same system at the time.

Even if you don't want to accept the six months that no records exist that shows that he missed the drill or was at drill, you only minus 4 SUTAs for each drill month. So if you minus 24 from 78 you get 54. Since the required is 48, case closed Sir.

Sir, I am not sure if you served in an aviation unit. But life for an officer is much different in an Aviation unit then those of none aviation units. During my time in that aviation unit, I had met many of officers and could not tell you if 1LT John Doe made all his physicals and drills just five years later, let alone 20 years. If you’re saying he disobeyed a direct order to get his physical, then produce the orders. I personally know that many flight officers (can't remember their names now), didn't give a s*%t about taking their last physical before they left service. Why, they will be out of service flying for Delta in no time. Why waste the time, when or if you're called back to service you will receive a physical then.

Losing flight statue for the last few months in service is no big deal. Us NCOs get ticked off when we see the different standards officers received. By all accounts Bush’s Admin NCO who did handled all such records and details can't remember anything special about Bush. That is why someone had to fabricate documents that did not exist.

As for leaving service months early before the end of contract? I am sure you didn't questioning Mr. Kerry about the same thing are you. Not only did he leave Vietnam in a flash, but he was completely out of Service within a year of return and years before his contract ended.

With all due respect Sir, That's My Two Cents

PS: Sorry Fish for taking this off subject, respectfully I am ashamed for the interuption.