• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Kennedy on Bush's speech to vets:

KCConservative said:
So what does that leave us with? Bush served his country in the National Guard and did nothing unlawful. What was your point again? Natioanl Guard service is second rate in some way, is that it?

Kerry has siad over and over again he would sign his form 80 that lists how he got his medals in Nam but never has and never will because it would show what a fraud he was...........
 
Iriemon said:
Lawful it was; how honorable it was is a matter of opinion.

So did Roosevelt, Wilson, and Jefferson have no honor sir? Have you served your country? If not does this mean you're not an honarable man, if so does this mean you're more honarable than someone who hasn't? Thomas Jefferson didn't serve in the revolution, Benedict Arnold did, which is the more honorable man? Military service is not a prerequisite to be the president **** your boy Clinton actually dodged the draft by moving to England:


Presidents who never served in the military:

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
Grover Cleveland
William Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt
Bill Clinton

Presidents who served but never saw action:
James Madison
James Polk
Millard Fillmore
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan - kept out of combat due to bad eyesight
George W. Bush

So now according to those you talk to on the left being in the military or serving in combat are prerequsites now for leading your country, being on t.v., or supporting the war effort? Well then fair enough I'll stop claiming support for the war if they quit protesting it.

Notice the two presidents who led us during the two most important wars in history were never in the military let alone see any action.
 
"Honor" is in the man. Not so much the occupation.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
aps said:
What better day to address revisionist historians trying to rewrite how the war started? Bush knew it would get air play.
I guess the message must have been muddled, again as this just published CNN story shows:
Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low

Monday, November 14, 2005; Posted: 9:08 p.m. EST (02:08 GMT)

PRESIDENTS' LOW MARKS

-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952

-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960

-Kennedy: 56% mid-September, 1963

-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968

-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974

-Ford: 37% early January, 1975, and late March, 1975

-Carter: 28% late June, 1979

-Reagan: 35% late January, 1983

-George H.W. Bush: 29% late July, 1992

-Clinton: 37% early June, 1993

-George W. Bush: 37%* mid-November, 2005

* to date

(CNN) -- Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.

Bush also received his all-time worst marks in three other categories in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The categories were terrorism, Bush's trustworthiness and whether the Iraq war was worthwhile.

Bush's 37 percent overall approval rating was two percentage points below his ranking in an October survey. Both polls had a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points....(snip)

Sixty percent said it was not worth going to war in Iraq, while 38 percent said it was worthwhile. The question was asked of about half of those surveyed and had a margin of error of five percentage points.

The results marked a decline in support of seven percentage points from two months earlier.(snip)

Bush's overall approval mark matched the 37 percent rating of newly elected President Clinton in June 1993.(snip)

In the poll, 56 percent of registered voters said they would be likely to vote against a local candidate supported by Bush, while 34 percent said the opposite.

Only 9 percent said their first choice in next year's elections would be a Republican who supports Bush on almost every major issue.
The entire story is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
 
Navy Pride said:
aps, that is your opinion, I don't happen to agree with it.........If the left can place all the blame on him for a natural disaster like Katrina and ignore the incompetence of the mayor and governor then all bets are off........
Really Navy Pride? Care to prove your untrue post that "the left" put ALL the blame on Bush for Katrina? That's quite an accusation. Prove it or please stop posting lies...
 
26 X World Champs said:
Really Navy Pride? Care to prove your untrue post that "the left" put ALL the blame on Bush for Katrina? That's quite an accusation. Prove it or please stop posting lies...

Even you know the Governor and Mayor blamed President Bush fot not reacting to Katrina fast enough whne they did nothing.........

Never mind..........:roll:
 
GySgt said:
I am a veteran of OIF = 2003
I am a veteran of OIF II = 2004

OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom. Do you know what the original name of the invasion was supposed to be?

Operation Iraqi Liberation, at least until they wrote it out like this:

OIL

It then occured to the resident Bushie geniuses that this might not be a good choice. I think they got that one right....OIL! Can you believe it?
 
KCConservative said:
They want Bush to fail in this war on terror, all for political gain.
OK big boy...time to put your proof where your keyboard is...please prove to us rhetoric writing Liberals that "they want Bush to fail in this war on terror,"

To me it reads that you think that Democrats are traitors, they want to "lose" this war, they want the terrorists to win. I say that's BS...so please prove me wrong...

You've asked a lot of posters to prove their point, so now it's your turn, prove that Dems are traitors and want to lose the war on terror!
 
Navy Pride said:
Kerry has siad over and over again he would sign his form 80 that lists how he got his medals in Nam but never has and never will because it would show what a fraud he was...........
You're doing it again Navy Pride, posting lies without substantiation! Will you ever learn?

Prove to the world Navy Pride that Kerry's medals were received fraudently!

You've written some pretty shocking stuff, but to discredit another soldier who received multiple medals just so you can get your bash Democrats rocks off is really, really low...not as low as when you call Clinton a Rapist, but damn close.

So, are you going to ignore this post and by thereby default admit that you're lying about Kerry?

Oh, BTW, don't you dare cite those lame Swift Boaters as your "proof" because that is pure hearsay.

I can prove that he earned his medals...can you prove that he did not?

My proof? He was awarded them and even your God, George W. Bush clearly stated that he believes Kerry earned each and every one of those medals, as did McCain, as did every legitimate politician in America, even Ahole Cheney...

So dear, dear Navy Pride the time is now for you to unmask Kerry with your proof...or apologize for writing lie after lie after lie....People who write lies are called what?
 
Navy Pride said:
Even you know the Governor and Mayor blamed President Bush fot not reacting to Katrina fast enough whne they did nothing.........

Never mind.
Another cop out Navy Pride? You wrote that the ENTIRE LEFT blamed Bush for Katrina, now one post later you claim it was the Mayor & Governor of Louisiana.

That's quite the retreat Navy...
 
26 X World Champs said:
OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom. Do you know what the original name of the invasion was supposed to be?

Operation Iraqi Liberation, at least until they wrote it out like this:

OIL

It then occured to the resident Bushie geniuses that this might not be a good choice. I think they got that one right....OIL! Can you believe it?

Hadn't heard that one. A week before the assault we were still under OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom.)
 
Back
Top Bottom