• 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.

One thing I have never understood....

GySgt said:
Let's sum something up here....

You stated....."Our Vets have a right to state their feelings. But remember, listen to what many others Vets have to say too! They like Kerry."

I replied...."My Father doesn't and neither does the Veteran community surrounding Camp Lejeune. You've got your facts wrong also regarding what the protester did for you. They, along with the political dissent in Washington, actually prolonged the war and cost more lives."

You replied out of left field with...."I have NEVER heard of one Vet ever saying:
I am NOT glad to be on American soil again, I wish I were still fighting in Nam!"


My reply then was....."Nor have you heard every Vet thanking the protester that "saved his life" or hoisting the likes of John Kerry up on their shoulders, who made them look bad. Fool your intelligence and try to follow along.......I made no such statement that declared that vets weren't happy to be on American soil or that they wished they were back in Nam."
After then you still persist in trying to make an argument out of nothing. So, as others may see, It's not that the "cat caught my tongue." It's that I haven't the patience to talk with people that can't stay focused. I also haven't the patience to talk with someone that was in uniform during these times but have a lack of understanding of what actually happened with politics and protesting of it and the effects it had on the Vietnam War.

And by the way, regarding your signature...."your either with America and our troops, or with Bush and his followers?" Guess what. This isn't Vietnam. If you wish to talk for the National Guard or the few dissentors that are being made to do their job, then go fo it. Iraq is an 'Active Duty' war. Not a civilian draftee war. The majority of all troops are with Bush and, therefore, are the followers. Don't do us any favors. Stop pretending to talk for us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "you've got your facts wrong also reguarding what the protester did for you"
I replied: "I have NEVER heard one vet ever saying: I am NOT glad to be on American soil again, I wish I were still fighting in Nam."

That is what the protesters did for me and thousands of other soldiers! They put us back on American soil>>>ALIVE<<<!
---------------
Reguarding my sig:
You say that the majority of our troops are FOR Bush! I say they are NOT for Bush!
You are talking about our troops that were sent on a mission into Iraq on a LIE that Bush told! YES! These troops WERE for Bush but that was 3 years ago and before they found out that Iraq had NO WMD and IRAQ and SADDAM had NOTHING to do with 911 OR any terrorists activitys against America!!!
Then they heard Bush change their MISSION to "IRAQI FREEDOM"!!!
Since our troops found out that they were not really protecting America but they were now LIBERATING the Iraqi people and that Bush was cutting their hazordous duty pay, their familys benifits, our Vets benefits, our troops have now have a different take on Bush.
Ever notice that the recruiters CAN NO longer make their monthly QUOTES!!!

EVERY ONE except the diehard Right knows that! You need to get updated!

SO "NO NO NO NO NO"!!! My SIG will stay as long as it is not violating any rules here and the right keeps saying "you cannot be for our troops and not for Bush."

BTW: What does "stop pretending to talk for "US" mean???

If you are part of the "US" then I sure am too!

Perhaps YOU should STOP pretending to talk for "US"!!!
 
GySgt said:
Anyone that burns an American flag is a traitor. You can masque it under your "freedom of speech" or under your "civil liberties", but in the end you are simply desecrating everything that flag represents.

Foreigners burn our flag to make a political statement on their hatred for America. Any American would burn it for the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

UH! STOP saying that I did this and I did that!!! I did not nor did I ever desecrate any American flag!
You DO NOT know me and anything that I did or DID NOT do! So STOP with the personal attacks!

------------
Agreed! Anyone that burns an American flag is a traitor!

Now I have one Question for you:
Did YOU attend any of those flag burning rallies and burn American flags???
 
Navy Pride said:
One more time now concentrate like a laser beam........Have you ever seen the people at the support the president and the troops burning the American Flag?............At your rallys they treat it like dirt..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hummmmm! Nope! Never been to a rally! How about you?:2wave:
 
taxpayer said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "you've got your facts wrong also reguarding what the protester did for you"
I replied: "I have NEVER heard one vet ever saying: I am NOT glad to be on American soil again, I wish I were still fighting in Nam."

That is what the protesters did for me and thousands of other soldiers! They put us back on American soil>>>ALIVE<<<!
---------------
Reguarding my sig:
You say that the majority of our troops are FOR Bush! I say they are NOT for Bush!
You are talking about our troops that were sent on a mission into Iraq on a LIE that Bush told! YES! These troops WERE for Bush but that was 3 years ago and before they found out that Iraq had NO WMD and IRAQ and SADDAM had NOTHING to do with 911 OR any terrorists activitys against America!!!
Then they heard Bush change their MISSION to "IRAQI FREEDOM"!!!
Since our troops found out that they were not really protecting America but they were now LIBERATING the Iraqi people and that Bush was cutting their hazordous duty pay, their familys benifits, our Vets benefits, our troops have now have a different take on Bush.
Ever notice that the recruiters CAN NO longer make their monthly QUOTES!!!

EVERY ONE except the diehard Right knows that! You need to get updated!

SO "NO NO NO NO NO"!!! My SIG will stay as long as it is not violating any rules here and the right keeps saying "you cannot be for our troops and not for Bush."

BTW: What does "stop pretending to talk for "US" mean???

If you are part of the "US" then I sure am too!

Perhaps YOU should STOP pretending to talk for "US"!!!

Misguided. You are too far removed from the sentiment of the Active Duty. You do not speak for us. Most of us could care less about the WMD as there were a multiple of reasons for Iraq. It's not my problem that you chose to focus solely on WMD and have fallen into this bandwagon sense of American selfishness and self-centeredness. None of us were lied to. You chose to be lied to. None of us "want" to be in Iraq. Nor do want to just leave it. We do not want a repeat of Vietnam.

As far as your sig...I don't care what you do with it. I just wanted you to be aware that you are speaking out of your ass.
 
Last edited:
taxpayer said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

UH! STOP saying that I did this and I did that!!! I did not nor did I ever desecrate any American flag!
You DO NOT know me and anything that I did or DID NOT do! So STOP with the personal attacks!

------------
Agreed! Anyone that burns an American flag is a traitor!

Now I have one Question for you:
Did YOU attend any of those flag burning rallies and burn American flags???


Again..you are flying off on a tantrum. I did not say you burned a flag. I simply said you can't masque it under "freedom of speech."
 
Navy Pride said:
One more time now concentrate like a laser beam........Have you ever seen the people at the support the president and the troops burning the American Flag?............At your rallys they treat it like dirt..........

Most of the "Support the troups", "Support the President" rallys are nothing more than Republican PR companies hired stunts. Moreover, I drive by Peace rallys in my city quite often, and every time they are waving the flag high.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Misguided. You are too far removed from the sentiment of the Active Duty. You do not speak for us. Most of us could care less about the WMD as there were a multiple of reasons for Iraq. It's not my problem that you chose to focus solely on WMD and have fallen into this bandwagon sense of American selfishness and self-centeredness. None of us were lied to. You chose to be lied to. None of us "want" to be in Iraq. Nor do want to just leave it. We do not want a repeat of Vietnam.

As far as your sig...I don't care what you do with it. I just wanted you to be aware that you are speaking out of your ass.

That is to funny. Your right, there have been multiple reasons for the war in Iraq. The thing is they were only given after they didn’t find any WMD. Of the litany of speeches the president gave before the war, the only thing he talked about was WMD.

I know a few guys who have served over in Iraq. Everyone one of them after they got back said they never could figure out what the hell we were doing over there. A lot of them like the president, but I think other than with Clinton, just about all presidents have strong support from the military, but just because they like the president, that doesn’t mean they are big on the war.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Most of the "Support the troups", "Support the President" rallys are nothing more than Republican PR companies hired stunts. Moreover, I drive by Peace rallys in my city quite often, and every time they are waving the flag high.


Isn't it funny how both sides have these not so grand rallies protesting very opposite things, yet they both hold the flag high? Ou country is so damn confusing. I guess freedom supposed to be that way.

I believe Navy Pride was referring to the Vietnam era when he brought up flag burning, rich college punks and hippies "wearing" the American flag, etc.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is to funny. Your right, there have been multiple reasons for the war in Iraq. The thing is they were only given after they didn’t find any WMD. Of the litany of speeches the president gave before the war, the only thing he talked about was WMD.

I know a few guys who have served over in Iraq. Everyone one of them after they got back said they never could figure out what the hell we were doing over there. A lot of them like the president, but I think other than with Clinton, just about all presidents have strong support from the military, but just because they like the president, that doesn’t mean they are big on the war.

I don't know why people have told me this. I was in the 7th Marine Regiment (REIN), which is approximately 10,000 Marines. After all of the attachments that came out of nowhere, I have no idea how high that total number was. We were told time and again by Major General Mattis why we were there and WMD was not the focus. We were instructed to take down all flags from our vehicles a week before we launched into Iraq. We were instructed that we are not to be seen as a conquering force, but a liberationg force. Our vehicles were full of ammo, MRE's, water, fuel, and humanitarion MREs (yellow packaged and double the size of regular). General Mattis was the 1st Marine Division Commanding Officer. This means that he spoke to over 50,000 Division Marines, to include Task Force Tarawa (East Coast Marines). We all were on the same page.

Who you talked to had to be in the Army, because I do not know what impression they were under way out on the west flank where they had a direct path to Baghdad.
 
GySgt said:
I don't know why people have told me this. I was in the 7th Marine Regiment (REIN), which is approximately 10,000 Marines. After all of the attachments that came out of nowhere, I have no idea how high that total number was. We were told time and again by Major General Mattis why we were there and WMD was not the focus. We were instructed to take down all flags from our vehicles a week before we launched into Iraq. We were instructed that we are not to be seen as a conquering force, but a liberationg force. Our vehicles were full of ammo, MRE's, water, fuel, and humanitarion MREs (yellow packaged and double the size of regular). General Mattis was the 1st Marine Division Commanding Officer. This means that he spoke to over 50,000 Division Marines, to include Task Force Tarawa (East Coast Marines). We all were on the same page.

Who you talked to had to be in the Army, because I do not know what impression they were under way out on the west flank where they had a direct path to Baghdad.

What I meant about WMD, was that the Administration sold the war to the American people on the premise that Iraq posed this huge threat because of these massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons they had. I didn’t believe it then, and everything since has shown me to be right.

That said, I have known a few guys that have been over there, most of them went to high school with my brother and they all were in the Army. When I say that they say that they never could really figure out why we were there, is basically, they all said that the people over there are largely ungrateful, they don’t like us, they don’t want us there and they really couldn’t figure out what the point was of being over getting shot at and they were all glad to be home.

There is all this talk about how the fact that a majority of Americans don't support the war is bad for morale over there, but hell, if the Iraqis that you are getting shot at to help over there hate you, then I can't see how morale is going to be that great anyway.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Most of the "Support the troups", "Support the President" rallys are nothing more than Republican PR companies hired stunts. Moreover, I drive by Peace rallys in my city quite often, and every time they are waving the flag high.


That is very strange because I live near the Naval Submarine Base at Bangorm and Fort Lewis Army base andMcChord AF base in Tacoma and have attened many support the troops rallys and was never informed of this.....All I saw was thousands of patriotic people wavving American Flags and sining patriotic songs..........

Don't think its like that where you live either consider the South has been a bastion for President Bush lately.....

You must be awful lonesome doen there.......
 
Navy Pride said:
That is very strange because I live near the Naval Submarine Base at Bangorm and Fort Lewis Army base andMcChord AF base in Tacoma and have attened many support the troops rallys and was never informed of this.....All I saw was thousands of patriotic people wavving American Flags and sining patriotic songs..........

Don't think its like that where you live either consider the South has been a bastion for President Bush lately.....

You must be awful lonesome doen there.......

Oh, even down there, he does not have near the support he used to have. The only ones that seem to like him are the fundies, and I think they just like him because they think he will help bring about "the rapture". I am from Hot Springs, Arkansas, but I live in Kansas City now. In Kansas, he still has strong support. Then again, the farming agricultural subsidy welfare queens have not voted for a Democrat for president since FDR (I know they are not welfare queens, I just think its ironic that they depend on the government more than anyone). On the Missouri side, Bush has very poor support.

Do people usually think of Missouri as the south?
 
GySgt said:
Misguided. You are too far removed from the sentiment of the Active Duty. You do not speak for us. Most of us could care less about the WMD as there were a multiple of reasons for Iraq. It's not my problem that you chose to focus solely on WMD and have fallen into this bandwagon sense of American selfishness and self-centeredness. None of us were lied to. You chose to be lied to. None of us "want" to be in Iraq. Nor do want to just leave it. We do not want a repeat of Vietnam.

As far as your sig...I don't care what you do with it. I just wanted you to be aware that you are speaking out of your ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOPE! I'm not speaking out of my butt!
If you didn't mind being lied to, well, than thats up to you.
-----------
Focus on WMD???:roll: :doh
Duhhhhhh!!! About 1900 of our Troops have been killed because Bush said that Saddam-Iraq had WMD and that they were a imminent threat to the U.S which proved to be a FALSE statement from >>>GUESS WHO???<<< BUSH!!!

------
BTW "YOU" "DO NOT SPEAK FOR US"!!!

"YOU" are in the MINORITY! 58% of all Americans now disagree with Bush AND YOU!!!
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Most of the "Support the troups", "Support the President" rallys are nothing more than Republican PR companies hired stunts. Moreover, I drive by Peace rallys in my city quite often, and every time they are waving the flag high.
----------------
BINGO!!!
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Oh, even down there, he does not have near the support he used to have. The only ones that seem to like him are the fundies, and I think they just like him because they think he will help bring about "the rapture". I am from Hot Springs, Arkansas, but I live in Kansas City now. In Kansas, he still has strong support. Then again, the farming agricultural subsidy welfare queens have not voted for a Democrat for president since FDR (I know they are not welfare queens, I just think its ironic that they depend on the government more than anyone). On the Missouri side, Bush has very poor support.

Do people usually think of Missouri as the south?

I just go by your handle as to where your from.........As far as Arkansas goes President Bush carried it twice as he did Missouri........Its all pretty irrelevent as to the presidents popularity now though since he won't be running again......You Democrats have to worry about McCain and Guliani who in head to head polls with Hillary crush her...........

Looks like another 8 years without a dem in the white house////////
 
GySgt said:
Again..you are flying off on a tantrum. I did not say you burned a flag. I simply said you can't masque it under "freedom of speech."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

GySgt: Today 12:06:

In a post to Taxpayer:

------------
"Anyone that burns an American flag is a traitor. You can masque it under your "freedom of speech" or under your "civil liberties",
but in the end you are simply desecrating everything that flag represents."
---------
But in the end "YOU" are simply desecrating everything that flag represents.
----------
Now, what was that about you not saying WHAT???:roll: :doh
 
Navy Pride said:
I just go by your handle as to where your from.........As far as Arkansas goes President Bush carried it twice as he did Missouri........Its all pretty irrelevent as to the presidents popularity now though since he won't be running again......You Democrats have to worry about McCain and Guliani who in head to head polls with Hillary crush her...........

Looks like another 8 years without a dem in the white house////////

I would take McCain over Hillary anyday. I don't think the radical right would like him though.
 
Navy Pride said:
I just go by your handle as to where your from.........As far as Arkansas goes President Bush carried it twice as he did Missouri........Its all pretty irrelevent as to the presidents popularity now though since he won't be running again......You Democrats have to worry about McCain and Guliani who in head to head polls with Hillary crush her...........

Looks like another 8 years without a dem in the white house////////

------------
McCain is now side by side bashing Bush with Hillary!

2008>>>

Hillary>President.
McCain>VP.

OR

McCain>President.
Hillary VP.

Get used to it! It AIN'T going away!!!:donkeyfla :2party: :clap: :2usflag:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I would take McCain over Hillary anyday. I don't think the radical right would like him though.

I would take Leiberman over either of them but sadly your party is so far to the left that a moderate has no chance for the nomination......Nothing proves that more that when he ran for president in 2004 he did not win one primarywhere at least with a McCain or Guiliani, although they are moderates they will have a shot at the nomination in 2008.......

With left wing whackos like Dean, Kerry, Kennedy and Taxpayer in this forum running your party you will never win another presidential election.....This country is mostly made up of moderates and will never elect someone from the far right or the far left......
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I would take Leiberman over either of them but sadly your party is so far to the left that a moderate has no chance for the nomination......Nothing proves that more that when he ran for president in 2004 he did not win one primarywhere at least with a McCain or Guiliani, although they are moderates they will have a shot at the nomination in 2008.......

With left wing whackos like Dean, Kerry, Kennedy and Taxpayer in this forum running your party you will never win another presidential election.....This country is mostly made up of moderates and will never elect someone from the far right or the far left......
--------------------------

Geee! Thanks for putting me up there with some of the BEST people in the U.S.A!!!:2wave: :mothers_d
-------------
HOWEVER YOU calling me a "LEFT WING WHACKOS" may get YOU BANNED!
:caution:
 
taxpayer said:
--------------------------

Geee! Thanks for putting me up there with some of the BEST people in the U.S.A!!!:2wave: :mothers_d
-------------
HOWEVER YOU calling me a "LEFT WING WHACKOS" may get YOU BANNED!
:caution:

I just calls em as I sees em............:roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
I would take Leiberman over either of them but sadly your party is so far to the left that a moderate has no chance for the nomination......Nothing proves that more that when he ran for president in 2004 he did not win one primarywhere at least with a McCain or Guiliani, although they are moderates they will have a shot at the nomination in 2008.......

With left wing whackos like Dean, Kerry, Kennedy and Taxpayer in this forum running your party you will never win another presidential election.....This country is mostly made up of moderates and will never elect someone from the far right or the far left......

Ideology has nothing to do with it. It all has to do with what side is better at politics. The people in power in the Republican party are largely much further to the right than most Dem party leaders are to the left. Republicans are just a lot better at politics than the Dems are right now.

I can't think of a single moderate republican who enjoys any power in the Republican party. It is true that Kerry and Kennedy are liberals (I cant stand Kennedy), but they are the only liberals with much influence at all in the Democratic party. Mostly the Democratic party is ruled by the centrist DLC. You might think that Dean is a liberal, but I just think his talk is out there. His actual position on most issues ranges from moderate to conservative. When he was the governer of Vermont, he had a 100% rating from the NRA.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Ideology has nothing to do with it. It all has to do with what side is better at politics. The people in power in the Republican party are largely much further to the right than most Dem party leaders are to the left. Republicans are just a lot better at politics than the Dems are right now.

I can't think of a single moderate republican who enjoys any power in the Republican party. It is true that Kerry and Kennedy are liberals (I cant stand Kennedy), but they are the only liberals with much influence at all in the Democratic party. Mostly the Democratic party is ruled by the centrist DLC. You might think that Dean is a liberal, but I just think his talk is out there. His actual position on most issues ranges from moderate to conservative. When he was the governer of Vermont, he had a 100% rating from the NRA.


Hmmm maybe you can name me one prominent democrat who is pro life.....I can name you prominent republicans like Arnold and Guliani who are pro choice..........I can even remember in 1992 when Governor Casey of Pa. was not allowed to even speak at your convention becasue he was pro life.......

Did you happen to notice at the 2004 Republican Converntion that 2 pro choice people (Arnold and Guliani) were prominent speakers?

If the Democratic party is so centrist then whey did a Moderate like Leiberman not win one primary in 2004?:confused: Why can far left Liberals like Gore and Kerry only win the nomination for president in your party?

Even though I am not a Republican I usually vote for them becasue they are the more moderate party.........

I personally believe that Dean is a loose cannon that hurts your party with his comments.......Even prominent dems like Biden and Bayh have said he does not speak for them.........
 
Navy Pride said:
Yeah those Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats......Problem with your scenario is I am not a Republican.......

Your so happy and such a patriot, I bet you even sent your tax rebate back....:roll:

I'm sorry, but what does sending your tax rebate back have to do with being a patriot? And why is it so unpatriotic to protest a war? It is possible to support the troops (which I do whole-heartedly) and not support a war (which I also support this particular war, but that neither here nor there). The troops are our fellow citizens and they are doing a job that deserves, no commands, respect and support. A war is a decision made by an administration and administrations make bad decisions sometimes. To not raise your voice in protest against a bad decision by the administration is far less patriotic as that is the right our troops fight and die for us to have.

And one last thing...why does protest automatically make you a liberal?
 
taxpayer said:
Ever notice that the recruiters CAN NO longer make their monthly QUOTES!!

You are using dated material. yes the military recruitment quotas were a problem for a Short while
but now they are at record levels
might want to get current talking points ;)
yours are out dated
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom