Re: How embarrassing
 

Sounds like those grapes taste mighty sour.

:rolleyes: Riiiiight. The Dems will keep sponsoring bills to revive it and blame them on the Republicans.

Stop getting your news from MTV.

I hear that Senator Kerry is looking for some more medals to throw over the fence.

Re: Re: Re: How embarrassing
 

Re: Re: How embarrassing

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thrown_hammer
There is the possibility that Americans are right and you ARE stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




And I was trying to be nice. ;)

Sadly, it's a distortion. Would we expect less from the republicans?

The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.





I don't expect you to read this though......

Re: How embarrassing
 

Just the liberal Americans...and they don't seeem to be embarrassed by anything.

Ya, you're "proud"...I know.

No comment on my distortion post above, huh? Figures.

Re: How embarrassing
 

I know exactly how you feel..

if anyone asks, I'm from Canada.

do a search...we discussed that long before you started posting here...I have no new arguments and I am sure you don't either...another round would be ...tiring

true. pointless too.

i just hate hearing the distortions being perpetuated without one doing research to determine if these claims are valid.

Cool, careful about the mil machine funding - far more complex than many imagine. The AH-64 was formatable but true be known, MD's Long Bow would have suited the needs then and now much better if the original plans stuck (as would have the A10 which is another failed story). The Trident only made fiscal sense for Groton CT and Newport News VA, not much else. Fast attacks work better now that USSR is all but gone. The mil and aerospace funding questions that get brought to the floor have far reaching ramifacations for local and reagonal economies than you can imagine, but also the Sen knows the next programs being proposed, we, the public don't. In many, not all, they do the right thing for the right reasons. It is only years later that we marvel at the F117A, B2 and the F22/23. These allow you and me and all the others to be doing what we are doing right now!

Cool et al, don't put too much passion into a topic that is to be far more complex than your philosophies would ever dream.

lol. i'm a passionate person.

Why all the blame on solely Kerry?

Re: How embarrassing
 

Truly you don't believe this. "Stupid" to me would be either Kerry or Bush winning by a landslide because the opposing side didn't show up to vote.

If stupid still sticks as a criticism, we all should own up to it because of the ridiculous two-party system we still subscribe to.

But not in this election, no there was no stupidity - just strategy vs. no strategy (or a lack of strategy - Kerry - and ignoring a whole portion of the populace - again Kerry - which was stupid in and of itself).

I'm not a republican, I'm not a large subscriber to moral values of the Evangelical sense, either. But what I take as very interesting, and dare I say, refreshing about this election is how resolved Americans are.

These elections were a great learning lesson, IMO.

If 58% of eligible voters voted and bush allegedly won 51% he really only received 29.5% of the eligible voters.

some mandate

Ain't it a b1tch:)

The smilely face which someone drew on my sign, left me hope that not all Americans are stupid. The sign which I put my office door election day is a reminder that we are not alone.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1099592180.jpg

Re: Re: How embarrassing
 

Regretfully I must say that, with all due respect, if that's the way you feel, the door is wide open.

The grass is always greener on the other side and that means you most mow it more often...

If everyone voted, the results still would have been the same. Mandate or not, Bush will start pushing his agenda from day one, just like last time when there was not even a majority.

I voted and I stand by the results. Just because someone doesn't agree with me does not make them stupid. "I" am not America..."We" are America.