So you are saying that Bush was SMART in how he went about winning.
I am guessing this means you are for gay marriage? Never mind I do not want to know (not that there is anything "wrong with that")!

Some might say "smart" or "shrewd." All's fair in love and politics, right? But the stuff that's within the rules is not necessarily within acceptable ethical behavior. While some might say "smart" or "shrewd," others will use terms like "dishonest," "deceitful" and "manipulative."

And some call me....."Tim."

Tim, it's completely irrelevant what I think on the issue, but in spirit of full disclosure, here's my quick take. Marriage is a religious term, and it is between a man and a woman. I don't know of many religions that espouse same sex partnering, although there was certainly a lot of it and incest too going on in the Old Testament.

Being that marriage is a religious value, no, homosexuals should not be married unless their religion condones it.

The State, however, is an entirely different entity, and there's that pesky thing in the Constitution and Bill of Rights about separation of church and state. No sure what that's all about. Anyway, this country being founded on the pursuit of happiness and liberty for all, remember those LIBERAL values, well, that means that things like civil unions which guarantees the same rights for homosexuals as they do heterosexuals is the State's RESPONSIBILITY to its people. the New Right makes me sick as it is slowly corrupting and eroding the TOPLINE values on which this country was founded. Please don't give me a tier 2 value response, please!!!

Anyway, back to the original topic, was the president being smart as you put it or did he lie about his intentions. What's the definition of fraud? Oh my, here it is from www.dictionary.com:

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
1. One that defrauds; a cheat.
2. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

the president defrauded the country to win the election, using gay marriage as a wedge issue.

He did the same thing connecting 9/11 with Saddam.

Now this may be OK for corporate America, etc., but we are talking about our president here. We are talking about the leader of our country, one that has a lot of different people in it.

Ever read a management textbook? What are the top 5 qualities great leaders have? I'm pretty sure the ability to defraud his followers is not in that list.

Conservatives, WAKE-UP!!!!!! and most importantly, THINK. please.

Mike, we were selling Saddam chemical weapons and military gear in the 80s.

Hmmm, he fires missles at planes in his airspace. Hmmm.

Did he ever say he would attack Americans on US soil?

Did he have any conncections to people who would attack Americans on US soil?

did he have the ability to attack the US?

No.

BTW, I see that you are another product of the apologist right wing media, Fox, the same people who bring us the Trading Spouses show.

I am quite sure that there are people happy in Iraq, and I am happy about that. I'm not happy that we leveled Fallujah and the homes of probably 100,000 people for nothing. I'm not happy about so many innocent dead Iraqui's. And I'm not happy with how we've both strategically and tactically bungled this thing since day 1.

Is Iraq better today? No, will it be in 10 years, most likely. Is that worth the lives of the 1300 plus dead soldiers and over 10,000 wounded? You'll have ask their families.

As I said in the beginning, its just odd how you stand by certain facts and not others. You can make a good case that way.

"Did he have any conncections to people who would attack Americans on US soil?"did he have the ability to attack the US?"

I never said he did. We went in 91 because he was attacking his neighbor. (You read: for oil) He should have obeyed the UN sanctions from that time after. Shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone years after... we should have attacked then.

I am not happy for the deaths either. It is quite sad, but also necessary in my point of view. The same would happen if we assisted Rowanda... should we do nothing, because there will be casualties? Or is Genocide better?

Last and not least, I am not a product of Fox. Although Married with Children was a hell of a show! :cool:

I am a very proud second generation of the US Air Force. My opinions have been formed by strictly... me :eek: and my experiences since in the service. I was around in 91 and sat through the daily frustrations of having our planes targeted for years afterwards; and US lives constantly threatened.

Your statement was "Is that worth the lives of the 1300 plus dead soldiers and over 10,000 wounded? You'll have ask their families."

I'll give you one better. Ask my wife. She knows better than anyone why a soldier lays thier life on the line every day. You take your freedom for granted... go ahead, deny it, but its true.

Sometime in history, MANY soldiers have died and been wounded for YOUR freedom YOU now have... and toss around so freely. Everyone deserves it as much as you.

I personally would fight anywhere, for anyone, who is denied freedom. Iraq is just one of the many. SmileWavy

you see Mike, that's where you are dead wrong about my taking freedom for granted. I wouldn't be here in the OT if I did, I wouldn't be involved in local politics if I did, I wouldn't be trying to influence our very culture with G9Girl if I did.

You haven't posted one good reason why we should have attacked Iraq. You haven't given one good reason why it is or will be worth it.

Your "ask your wife" statement is silly, unless you are dead my friend, and demeans the grief of all the wives whose husbands have fallen.

I applaud you for fighting anywhere freedom is denied. I am sorry that you are really an unwitting pawn in a much bigger picture.

Oh please Shaun, I think I'm gonna puke. Perspective my boy perspective.

In the U.S. 31,000 convenience store clerks are shot every year! And why I ask you, why? Because we want a quick and convenient place to buy snacks, beer, and chips. Is this convenience worth the price these clerks pay? You'll have to ask their families:rolleyes:

Len, talk about perspective, dude, let's think about your apples and not quite oranges, more like blue ringed snails in Manilla comparison!!!!!!!!!! BTW, yes, I have no idea if there is actually such a thing as blue ringed snail, let alone in Manilla, but you get my point.

You guys on the right are so damn cavalier about our soldier's lives like they are a commodity, or "they joined, they know what to expect" mentality that truly angers me.

We've sent these guys over there to die, we did it without giving the proper tools up front, we did it without international support, we made serious, strategic blunders that they pay the price for... we've stacked the deck so high against them, it's no wonder why many don't want to return. No lack of patriotism, just so many times you'll put your hand on a hot stove before you stop believing someone telling you it's cool.

And Jesus Christ man, comparing clerks to heroes who have absolutely no choice in the matter of the situation they are in is down right dispicable.

Pass me that barf bag, you should be ashamed.

Read back in some of my posts and you'll see I have the highest esteem for our soldiers. Commodity????? I guess your use of them as a political tool may make them feel as such...

Right you are, Lendaddy. The decision to have a convenience store on every street corner is a deliberate one, but one that is very indirect. We have chosen a particular economic system that allows these stores, and we create a need for them. People are in a hurry because their lives are pinched. There is NOT enough time for family and community. Most of us spend 9 to maybe fifteen hours at work or commuting. That leaves time for sleep. There is a better way, but we somehow have bought into the notion that running around like chickens with our heads cut off is GOOD for society. So, we keep doing it. And convenience store clerks keep getting killed.

But the Iraq decision is different. It is not indirect, and it was not made as a group decision. The decision was made by Dubya, after significant exaggeration and propaganda, and that blood is on his hands.

Perspective indeed.

hate to say it, but you're pulling a Conde Rice here (Saddam will/won't have nuclear weapons in one year). Saying one thing in some posts and another in this one. I expect more.

Just take it back. that's all I ask.

So your heart pains equally for each group, but on the soldiers death is "wrong" because we ALL like nachos, but only some wanted this war? Did I get that right?

Dude, you're going all sappy on me in an attempt to claim moral highground. Well I ain't gonna cave. You're taking my statements in a way to paint me with your "evil republican" brush and it's just BS. The point of my post was obviously to say these men have not died in vain and there was great value in their and their families sacrifice(s). If you're so historically ignorant as not to realize what an amazing amount has been accomplished with such little (yes I said it cause it true) loss of life then I can't help you. Like I said perspective. You sir devalue their sacrifice by mocking its intent. You should be ashamed.

Did Flinstone get access to your Pelican account? Len, we all love good debate and the chance to discuss our POV, but this bottom of the barrel meanderings. :mad: :( :rolleyes:

Look, I'm just sick of you guys crying alligator tears for our soldiers because it is convenient for your cause. I will flat ass 100% guarantee that our boys would tell you to take your sympathy and shove it. It's support they need.

Knock it off, you two. Go to your rooms.

Here, read this. Maybe it will help you understand what our guys are really doing and why they believe in it. It may also help you realize your own warped view and how you got it.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html

Do you really think I'm that shallow? And it's not sympathy, it's that silly liberal concern for human life, that it's precious and too easily squandered by government.

And as far as support goes, I send magazines and shaving stuff on a regular f***ing basis, and I think supporting our president is the worst way to support our troops, and more importantly, the foundation of our country. All this f***ing talk about freedom and taking it for granted; pawns fall in lockstep behind their government, patriots question government. go ahead and laugh, it's at least sincere.

It's long, I'll read it. here are the headlines on the home page:

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality — LTC Tim Ryan

Regional terrorists in Iraq got on-the-job traininga

U.S. intel report: Iraq War could 'professionalize' Al Qaida

Fear of early attack by U.S. spurs Moscow trip by Syria's Assad

No I don't think you're that shallow, but that's the button that got pushed. Also I haven't had a smoke in two weeks so it's either take it out on you or something small and furry.

I will say that it's "that silly liberal concern for human life" that gets us in trouble. Sometimes you must be willing to risk some lives so many can live. Sounds terrible but it's true. I have faith our guys understand that. If it could be accomplished with zero loss of life , then by all means......