• 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.

Why America has a "President" that it hates

jfuh said:
I have an idea, register repub if you live in a republican state, dem if you live in a democratic state, but then just vote as you please anyway:D

What about the primaries?
 
GySgt said:
Makes no never mind to me. As long as the guy is pro-military, he'd get my vote. So far, Republicans have proven to take better care of us.

I noticed you said "guy". Freudian slip? Would you vote for a qualified woman?

What's you're take on Gen. Wesley Clark? Chomsky said Clark was the logical nominee in 04 pick since he had the most cred in an election that was mostly about security and war.

My good friend works at the local VA and talks about how the vets are upset by the shafting Bush is giving them.

Consider the following:

With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the “imminent danger” pay added to soldiers’ paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they were termed “wasteful and unnecessary” by the White House, Congress blocked those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic votes.

This year’s White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals—despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago.

The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all Priority 8 veterans—those with “non-service-related illnesses”—who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year.

Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured are treated.
In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries—military-run stores that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted troops and their families get by—along with the possiblility of closing 19 more.
At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers’ children at 14 military installations.

The White House is seeking to block a federal judge’s award of damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come from Iraqi assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that country’s reconstruction.

The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush’s request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to “the cost of the extraordinary security” during Bush’s recent trip to Asia, which he noted grimly “would cover a vest for every soldier” in Iraq.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Dishonorable_discharge_112603.htm

The data is available elsewhere if you happen to have a problem with veterans in favor of peace.
 
Captain America said:
Dude! This was only the third post and two of them were yours! The insults will be coming soon enough.

I sense that master logan's tongue was planted firmly in cheek. ;)
 
hipsterdufus said:
I noticed you said "guy". Freudian slip? Would you vote for a qualified woman?

No slip. I just don't go out of my way to be "politically correct." To answer the question, sure.....and Hillary aint qualified.




hipsterdufus said:
What's you're take on Gen. Wesley Clark? Chomsky said Clark was the logical nominee in 04 pick since he had the most cred in an election that was mostly about security and war.

My good friend works at the local VA and talks about how the vets are upset by the shafting Bush is giving them.


http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Dishonorable_discharge_112603.htm

The data is available elsewhere if you happen to have a problem with veterans in favor of peace.


I'll break it down...(Can't touch this...Hammer time)

1) Your "good friends" need to wake up and smell the government coffee. What this administartion is doing is trying to support the military while appeasing the American nation and trying to run a well oiled society. History has shown us that this is an impossible task. With President Reagan, we saw our defense build up to face the threats of the Cold War and we encouraged a deficit. With President Clinton, we saw our defense cut to ribbons as we encouraged a surplus and as Radical Islam ran rampant and unmolested. With President Bush, we have seen a deficit as our defense has been beefed up to face today's and tomorrow's threats. The point is that the military is always tossed around as the primary means to appease the public and fix any sort of economy shortfall. So far, with President Bush, we have seen unprecedented gains in equipment and technology in the shortest period of time. There should be no surprise to anyone that with all of the money spent to repair the damage the military sustained through the 90's that there are eventual consequences and repercussions. Also, it is of note to add that the last time incentive combat pay was cut from the military quite recently, incentive combat pay was raised in other places. For example: Combat Pay and Imenent Danger Pay are two seperate incentives. Where one may be cut, another may be raised to compensate. The seperation of incentives has some to do with taxes. Some things are taxable and some things are not.

2) Publicly, he has made remarks and criticisms that do not represent what he is educated to. He has shown to be too partisan and has become dissapointing. Personally, General Clark definately has the pulse on today's and tomorrow's threats. He knows the scourge of Radical Islam very well. But, he has the tendency to reflect on the past. He suffers from the same addiction that many Army and Air Force Generals have - he is facing forward while holding on to the old order. I will explain.....

When General Clark criticized the prior planning of the Iraq war, he didn't do so out of political partisanship like so many Republicans would like to think. He did so, because he is clinging on to the old system. The old system demanded large military build up and big box equipment (Cold War Europe, Gulf War). The Gulf War was the worse thing that could have happened to the U.S. Army since the end of the Cold War. The Marine Corps has been adapting to the information era admirably and has focused on terrorism and "block to block" fighting for years. As far back as the Gulf War, when the Marines were pitted against the Republican Guard, they used tactics and wheeled vehicles in such a manner that Army Generals (Clark was one) said wouldn't work. They were shocked and proved wrong. With the invasion of Iraq, the Marine Corps continued to adapt and employ urban tactics and equipment to meet today's aggression to the tune of Army Generals who repeated the sentiments of the Gulf War. Again, they were wrong and shocked. Baghdad fell quickly enough to the collective shame of all those dictators and mullahs who prefer militant or dogmatic theologic governments over western inspired democracy. The invasion of Iraq broke records of speed (even though we learned of a logistical weakness now still being corrected), lopsided casualties, and almost a complete lack of fracticide - 98 percent of the casualties in the Gulf War was from friendly fire. Now, it is of note to mention that nearly all of the fighting during the Iraq invasion was by the Marine Corps using the tactics that Army and Air Force Generals criticized and forecasted not to work and continue to reject within their own branches. The U.S. Army has been working towards a model that mirrors more to what the Marine Corps is, but the dinosaurs of the Cold War are still around and are still influencing the way we think and the way we fight, with the greatest spirit of Tyranusaurus Rex. They want their "Gulf Wars" and the preperation that it entails, without the recognition that those wars are a thing of the past.

Would I vote for General Clark? I really don't know.

3) I do have problems with "veterans in favor of peace." It is an organization full of people who merely wanted to cruise through their careers to receive the educational benefits and wound up having to deploy. Some of the members of such a site are plain liars (Recall Jim Massey). The majority of these individuals are draftees of the past or Reservists and National Guard. Are some sincere? Of course, but I type of the generality.
 
hipsterdufus said:
What about the primaries?
:shock:
:roll:
:doh
:think:

...... register independent?
 
Back
Top Bottom