1
   

Military background of our Commander in Chief

 
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 07:20 am
edgarblythe wrote:
I don't believe Bush won either election, but, the fraud aside, the opponents should have run better campaigns and not needed the votes they were cheated out of. Particularly the first time around. Gore should have won by a landslide against the most bumbling candidate anyone could have dreamed up instead of needing Florida. I fault the Gore campaign as much as the cheating that went on in Florida.


I don't believe you still don't believe Bush won.

As Tico said, GW won TWICE, Democrats lost TWICE.

If as you say Gore can't run a campaign, how can he run a country?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 07:32 am
we'll never know the answer to that question woiyo. We do however know the results of how bushco runs a country... more's the pity.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 07:54 am
We know Bush can only run a country down. Being an ineffectual campaigner, especially with the press being at lengths to gloss over Bush's ineptitude, does not necessarily mean one can't do the president's job well. It just means the public did not buy an image, although slightly more than half picked Gore.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 09:32 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Bush became commander in chief because the media gave him a pass and Gore screwed up royal in his campaign strategy, not because he, Bush, was worth a **** at anything in particular.


Except winning elections? :wink:



Winning? I didn't know that Vote fraud was considered winning.
One time appointed by Daddy's boys.... obviously lost.
Second time brazen Vote fraud.

You can wink all you like Tico but you will have to pay for the results too.


Man, you're all about the wild and unproveable accusations, aren't you? He won ... twice. You lost ... twice. But don't get over it ... just be bitter.

:wink:



Not bitter Tico......... totally pissed off that idiots ignore reality, yep.

Just like I have always stated..... If bu$h walked out into the middle of Penn. Av., dropped his pants and physically/literally crapped in the middle of the street, people like you would find some way to say that he was defeating terrorism and that his action was patriotic.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 09:45 am
woiyo wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I don't believe Bush won either election, but, the fraud aside, the opponents should have run better campaigns and not needed the votes they were cheated out of. Particularly the first time around. Gore should have won by a landslide against the most bumbling candidate anyone could have dreamed up instead of needing Florida. I fault the Gore campaign as much as the cheating that went on in Florida.


I don't believe you still don't believe Bush won.

As Tico said, GW won TWICE, Democrats lost TWICE.

If as you say Gore can't run a campaign, how can he run a country?


Bu$h not only did not win two times, he probably didn't win the governorship of Texas either because Rove was pulling his dirty tricks even then.

Furthermore there are a number of Congressmen from the fraud testing election of 2002 who should not be there including idiot from GA who visiously attacked a Veteran member who left 3 of his 4 limbs on the ground in Vietnam.

Another is that bucktooth, embecile, Norm Coleman who stole the seat he now occupies.

All of these elections defied all odds and all mathematical probabilities just like the three building at the WTC complex on 9-11. In Florida, where people were angrier than ever before at this insane war and other BS, we had another miracle inducing S-election. 42 out of 67 counties who were as angry as all hell suddenly, overnight (if you chose to believe improbable odds) not only had 100% of all registered republicans voting, but large numbers of Democrats & independents turned out to vote for the scam artists currently occupying the oval office.

Just like the WTC..... ain't never happened before in the histroy of man kind.

Sorry whiyo.... we're not buying your bullschitt and the good news is that most of this country seems to be awakening from it's long slumber.

Your last comment about running the country is hilarious unless you mean like your fake pRes..... running it into the ground in comparison!
Al Gore couldn't ffffff up this country as bad as the village idiot if he worked at it 24/7!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 06:45 pm
March 23rd, 2006 1:30 pm
Support for Bush erodes in South Carolina


By Chuck Crumbo / Knight Ridder

COLUMBIA, S.C. - By the spring of 1945, Allied forces had defeated Germany in World War II. Japan, knowing it could not win, was determined to wage a war of attrition.

Reflecting on more than three years of bloody combat, Gen. George C. Marshall, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, feared Americans would lose their will to wage war if Japan was not decisively and swiftly defeated.

This week marks the third anniversary of the war in Iraq. Unlike World War II, the current conflict shows no indication that victory or an end to the fighting is near.

President Bush's job approval ratings have suffered, falling to the lowest point in his presidency. Support for his war policy has eroded, even in South Carolina, a conservative stronghold.

Local organizations that support troops scramble for help and donations. But military recruiters are making their goals.

"I get a feeling that the public support of the policy is unraveling," said Edwin Moise, a professor of military history at Clemson University. "I think that we are going to be pulling people out in the very near future regardless of how it's going on the ground."

A recent poll conducted by Elon University in five Southern states found 52 percent of adults disapprove of the president's job performance, and 57 percent disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq.

Among South Carolinians, the poll found 46 percent approve of Bush's handling of his job, compared with 49 percent who disapprove. Nationally, polls show Bush's approval rating about 10 points lower, at 37 percent.

As for the war, 52 percent of South Carolina adults polled disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq war compared with 45 percent who approve.

The poll surveyed 1,277 persons in households in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.8 percent.

It's a startling turnaround for Bush, who won 58 percent of South Carolina votes in the 2004 presidential election, said Hunter Bacot, who directed the poll for Elon, located in the Piedmont, east of Greensboro, N.C.

"Clearly we see that when it comes to Bush, traditionally `red' (Republican) states do not hold the strong support they once did," Bacot said.

The poll also measured support for Bush's handling of the war among those affiliated with the military. Respondents included people who are either in the military, retired military, or have family in the armed services.

Forty-seven percent of the military group said they back Bush's handling of Iraq, compared with 49 percent who disapproved of his job performance.

But 63 percent of South Carolinians affiliated with the military supported the war effort, the poll found.

The difference is Bush, Bacot said.

"The military is disenchanted with how he's handling the war," Bacot said. "They see him as vacillating. Rumsfeld is not popular with the military. I think Bush should change out defense secretaries to help morale."

While the numbers indicate Bush and his Iraq policy have lost support, Elaine Johnson, of Cope, S.C., said she doesn't see an anti-war groundswell building in South Carolina.

Johnson's 22-year-old son, Spc. Darius Jennings, died in a November 2003 helicopter crash in Iraq. She has channeled her grief into speaking out against the war.

Johnson has appeared at a number of rallies in Washington, D.C., and other cities. She has shared billing with Cindy Sheehan, the California Gold Star mother who led a protest last summer near the gates of Bush's ranch in Texas.

"Right here in our area, I have had not many chances to speak," said Johnson, who'd like to line up engagements at schools, colleges and churches. "Maybe it's so hard because this is a red state.

"Everyone is not going to agree (with her view), but that's OK," she said. "I'm not angry with the ones who don't agree."

Ann Ricard, of a Columbia, S.C.-based support group for troops, doesn't need a poll to know that public interest in the war effort is flagging.

"As far as donations and people doing anything, it's down to nil," said Ricard, projects manager for Blue Star Families of South Carolina. "People get complacent. It (the war) is not the first thing in the news."

Janet Parsons, a founder of Military Support Ministry, said it's getting more difficult to keep the organization up and running.

"I beg for support," said Parsons, whose daughter served with the Army in Iraq. "Getting stuff for the care packages is like pulling teeth. It breaks my heart."

Donations have dried up. Parsons said she's working harder to keep the ministry going, but the enthusiasm from the public just isn't there.

Ricard said Blue Star Families once had up to 300 members statewide; now about 10 to 15 are active in the organization.

Many of the members were families of South Carolina National Guard soldiers and Army reservists who had been called up for active duty, Ricard said.

More than 7,000 Guard members and 3,000 reservists have been called up since Sept. 11, 2001, most of them serving in the first two years of the war.

Now, there are about 300 South Carolina Guard members in Iraq. Those lower numbers translate to fewer participants in the Blue Star projects, Ricard said.

"It's a little different when you know someone in the Guard," Ricard said. "It makes a difference."

The military's decision to use the Guard and reserves - which constituted about 40 percent of the U.S. force in Iraq - was a lesson that the military learned from the Vietnam War.

During the Vietnam years, U.S. leaders relied on an unpopular draft to provide troops for the military and kept the Guard and reserve at home.

The draft ended in 1976. It's absence has kept down protests against the Iraq war, Moise said.

"Nobody who doesn't want to fight feels any danger of being dragged into the military," Moise said. "It's a lot easier to ignore the war if you don't like it."

Reliance on an all-volunteer force to fight in Iraq raised concerns that U.S. forces would run short of people.

Those concerns have proved to be unfounded.

Retention of troops has been high in both the active-duty and reserve forces, the military reports. Also, recruiting of new volunteers appears on the upswing after a disappointing year.

Last year in South Carolina, the Army achieved about two-thirds of its goal, signing up 1,840 recruits. But for the first five months of the 2006 fiscal year, which started Oct. 1, the Army has exceeded its goal for both active-duty troops and reservists.

The Army's Columbia battalion, which covers all of the state plus areas around Asheville, N.C., and Augusta, signed up 1,000 recruits between Oct. 1 and Feb. 28, or 15 more than its goal. The unit also recruited 356 into the Reserve - five more than its goal.

Recruiting for the South Carolina Army National Guard, which has had about 70 percent of its troops called up since Sept. 11, also is well ahead of its goal.

Guard recruiters have signed up 717 people, more than the goal of 513 for the first five months of the fiscal year.

Nationally, the Marine Corps is 4 percent above its goal.

"I feel the reason recruiting is doing so well is because people are more informed of the many benefits and opportunities that the Army has to offer," said Staff Sgt. Jose Rivera, a recruiter in Columbia.

The Army has changed its pitch over the past year, emphasizing more how it can help a prospect achieve career goals, Rivera added. It also has boosted sign-up bonuses to $40,000 for hard-to-fill jobs, and now will pay off college loans up to $65,000.

While the bonus money and benefits are attractive, young people, like Kyle Page, said there are more important reasons to join the military.

"I'm not ready for college," said Page, a Marine recruit who heads to boot camp at Parris Island on June 12, three weeks after graduating from Blythewood High School.

"I want to have a greater purpose in my life, and I saw the military as a way of doing that."

---
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 07:03 pm
I gotta ask.

The dems on here that say Bush lost,that he stole the election,etc...

If the next repub candidate wins 49 of the 50 states,are you then going to claim that there was still fraud,that the election was stolen,etc?

And,if a dem wins,will you also then claim that there was fraud,that the election was stolen,etc?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 07:13 pm
There's one sure way to have an honest election. Let all qualified voters get to the polls without being harrassed or otherwise hindered. Make the voting machines spit out a bit of paper to drop in the ballot box, in case a real recount is requested. Do this, and I will never again accuse the vote of being tampered with.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 07:49 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
There's one sure way to have an honest election. Let all qualified voters get to the polls without being harrassed or otherwise hindered. Make the voting machines spit out a bit of paper to drop in the ballot box, in case a real recount is requested. Do this, and I will never again accuse the vote of being tampered with.


Is asking voters to show ID harrassing or hindering them?
Is the fact that it might be raining on election day harrassing or hindering them?
Is expecting voters to use ballots printed in english harrassing or hindering them?
Is it harrassing or hindering them if we expect them to actually READ and understand the ballot?

All of these things have been brought up as proof of fraud,or proof of voter disenfranchisement.

ARE you actually saying that if we conduct votes your way,that no matter who wins you will accept it and not complain at all?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 07:53 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
There's one sure way to have an honest election. Let all qualified voters get to the polls without being harrassed or otherwise hindered. Make the voting machines spit out a bit of paper to drop in the ballot box, in case a real recount is requested. Do this, and I will never again accuse the vote of being tampered with.


Then are you going to complain about vote fraud if a Democrat barely wins and those measures haven't been taken?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 09:25 pm
I will never trust a voting machine that has no accountability, but, like Republicans, I will take a win. Particularly since I have read that Bush's pals make the machines.

Mystery man's deal about ID. You know why those ID laws are being passed as well as I do.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 09:36 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I will never trust a voting machine that has no accountability, but, like Republicans, I will take a win. Particularly since I have read that Bush's pals make the machines.

Mystery man's deal about ID. You know why those ID laws are being passed as well as I do.


Why are those ID laws being passed?
I have a 13 year old stepson,but he looks about 18.
Since he looks old enough,that means he should be allowed to vote?
Also,should someone be allowed to vote for another person?
What I mean is,can I walk into a polling place,claim to be you,and vote in your name?
Then go to another polling place and vote in my name?

Should an illegal alien,or other non citizen,be allowed to vote,just because they claim to be someone else?

Those are all things that can happen if voters arent asked to present ID.
Are you in favor of all those things,or do you want controls on the voting process?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 09:42 pm
Ridiculous. The kind of scenario you describe is more in the imagination than fact.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 09:52 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Ridiculous. The kind of scenario you describe is more in the imagination than fact.


Is it?

You are actually in favor of people being allowed to vote as many times as they like in an election?

FYI,
Here is what each state requires for ID...

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/taskfc/voteridreq.htm

Why do you disagree with this?

And here we have one of the Dems heroe's,Jimmy Carter,also saying that voters should be required to show ID...

http://www.macon.com/mld/telegraph/14163644.htm

And you dont think voter ID fraud happens?

Then explain this...

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=297225

If every voter had had to show ID,none of these would have happened.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Mar, 2006 10:17 pm
I'm not in favor of fraudulent voting. The kind of ID these states want to require is skewed against the old and extremely poor, not designed for the kind of situation you describe. The ones passing these things will spout any kind of soft soap to get away with it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 05:49 am
edgarblythe wrote:
I'm not in favor of fraudulent voting. The kind of ID these states want to require is skewed against the old and extremely poor, not designed for the kind of situation you describe. The ones passing these things will spout any kind of soft soap to get away with it.


Requiring a photo ID is skewed against the old and the poor?
Wanna explain how!!
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 09:35 am
March 25, 2006
Editorial - NY Times
Go Away: You Can't Vote
The right to vote should never be curtailed in a way that disenfranchises a whole class of people. This view is gaining traction even in the Deep South, which pioneered the shameful state laws that barred nearly four million ex-felons, parolees and probationers from voting in the last national election. It's heartening to see those laws being modified or repealed across the country. But states will need to re-educate elections officials, who are often dismally ignorant of election laws and biased against people who have been convicted of even minor crimes. As a result, many men and women who have paid their debts to society remain disenfranchised, even in states that guarantee them the right to vote.

One good example is New York, where the State Board of Elections has failed to uphold a state law that guarantees voting rights for people on probation, as well as for those who have completed their maximum sentences or been discharged from parole. As is completely appropriate, the law presumes that ex-offenders are as eligible as anyone else once they meet age, citizenship and residency requirements.

Unfortunately, the law isn't being followed, as was vividly documented in a new study by two civil rights groups, the Brennan Center for Justice, and Demos. Canvassers who contacted all of the state's county election boards found that nearly 40 percent were actually ignorant of the state's voting rights law and that nearly one-third continued to disenfranchise probationers and former inmates who were eligible to register and vote under state law.

This is all the more distressing because the State Board of Elections was made aware of all these problems after a similar survey three years ago. New promises to look into the matter aren't good enough.

State officials need to require every worker at every local board of elections to know the law, and make their own spot-checks to make sure that the law is being followed. It should do this quickly, before prisoners' rights advocates file a lawsuit that could well put the state's elections under a layer of court supervision that would be far more difficult to contend with than simply doing the right thing now.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 11:02 am
It has been discussed infinitum on other threads why what I say is true or not true. Since you frequent such threads, MM, I won't bore everyone by restating what has been stated and restated already.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 06:52 pm
Your signature line says it all EdgarBlythe, "What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open
their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 04:55:15