You can type here any text you want

President Kerry - A Bush Hater Challenge

Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
Success - I Found What Kerry Supports!

smokin'6, here's your man:

Kerry has voted for at least SEVEN major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:

1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.

2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.

3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."

4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:

In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.

In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.

In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%

Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber

Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)


Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.

F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88)

7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

"So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?'"
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)
_______________________________________________

When you go to the ballot box in November ask yourself this; "Who would the terrorists prefer as our next President?". Once you have your answer, cast your ballot appropriately.
 
OK Smokin'6,

Each time you and Foolish go to another thread and blame President Bush for 9/11, I will follow and post the chain of events from a prior disaster.

Everyone should know, we DID have a chance to prevent this.

Instead of the Trade Towers it is a plane that goes down. The President makes a major anouncement that he is putting the Vice President in charge of making the airlines safer and they start with $300,000,000 for a budget. The Vice President comes back and says we need:

Strict passenger screening.
Every bag matched to a ticketed passenger and the passenger on board.
New explosive screening machines at airports for all baggage.

But then it comes back the wife of the senior Senator of the party is the lobbyist for the airlines. And that after the plane crash the airlines are afraid of losing additional passengers if the new measures are put in place.

The Vice President aggrees and the costly measures will not be put in place. Within 10 days three airlines make contributions to the Presidents reelection, including two represented by the Senator's wife. Within the next six months the airlines contribute over $450,000 to the party of the President.

The year is 1996. The plane was Flight 800.

So just keep saying it was President Bush's fault. You can not rewrite history.
 
Re: Success - I Found What Kerry Supports!

Originally posted by TT/A1233
smokin'6, here's your man:

Kerry has voted for at least SEVEN major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:

I don't even get into the specific votes Kerry has made. With defense vote somebody can always say "he wanted to vote for a bigger Democrat alternative bill" blah, blah, blah.

I'm just looking for core beliefs. Something he stands for that we as car loving average american's stand for.


The list:

#1. Against the Death Penalty.

#2. Anti-gun.

#3. For a CAFE of 36 MPG for SUV's and Pickups (say Goodbye to the Lightning and Newtonian Physics )

#4. Against Drilling for Oil in ANWR

#5. For "Partial Birth Abortions" (but against the death penalty... I guess murderers: OK, Babies: Not OK)

#6. For NAFTA, GATT AND wants to EXPAND trade with China (betcha didn't know that)

#7. From a wealthy family and has NEVER been Poor.

#8. Married 2 Rich Widows, but NOT a Goldigger.

#9. Served in Nam for 4 months, got three Purple Hearts but never missed a day of Duty.

#10. Missed 64% of Senate votes in 2003 including a $29 Billion Homeland Security Bill that Provided additional funding for "First Responders"

#11. Voted to fund the War in Iraq, right before he voted against it.

#12. Can Snowboard, Ski , Ice Skate and Surf (If I only showed up for work 36% of the time, I bet I'd be as good as he is)

#13. Voted against penalties for harming unborn babies during the commision of a violent felony but favors "hate crime legislation" (as long as you hate babies, it's OK)

#14. Supported a $.50 per gallon federal gasolene tax.

Anybody? Please somebody dispute my list. Find where John Kerry doesn't belief in the above, tell me what HE DOES believe in. Then ask your self, do you want somebody like this leading the country? And try to do it without Bush bashing.

If you learned how to answer this question without Bush bashing the american people might agree to follow instead of getting turned off politics completely. How hard can it be?
 
Condi Rice isn't testifying publically because it is ILLEGAL for a National security advisor to testify publically in before Congress. She DID testify privately and will again

Welp, as of 10:00 EST, she is going to publicly testify....I guess she'll arrested?
:o



You'd think with ALL the alternative news media available to Canadians, you'd know this by now.


Back at ya.


BT
 
Since **** Clark himself stated he doubted that even if the new admistration had put into affect all his recommendations.......it is very likely the planes would have still flown into the towers. The plan was already advanced to that stage.

And for Condoleezza Rice having to testify under oath and in public, lets take a look at the direction taken by **** Clark under the prior administration.

On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!

The congressional record; Senator Bennett:

Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.

We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.
 
Missle Defense? B-2? Waste of huge amounts of money. The B-2 was specifically designed as a cold war weapon. It was suppose to be able to fly into the USSR undected and drop its nukes. What use do we have for it now? Missle Defense? What a joke, it doesnt work and probably never will. And if it did, it would only be used against ICBM's. What about cruise missles, it doesnt work,
what about briefcase nukes, it doesnt work.
How many terrorists are carrying ICBM's in their back pockets? How many middle eastern countries have long range missles? And if they did, would they be stupid enough to launch one against the U.S.? Duh, the minute they fired it we would be all over them. The U.S military has spoken out against it, but ol' bush is insistent on it...More paranoia!
We do need to make cuts and revamp our military. It needs to be streamlined and be able to respond at a moments notice. Look how long it took to build up enough military force to invade iraq. As if they didnt know it was coming. We need more remote controlled aircraft armed with missles, lighter aircraft and quick strike capability. We need to get away from the cold war mentality.
ANYONE IS BETTER THAN A BUSH IN THE WHITEHOUSE!
 
Originally posted by smokin'6
Yeah another true blue delusional, only 8 months to react! you should hang with Condoleezza Rice, post quick while you can before G.W. takes that right away.



www.howardstern.com
You should change your username to 'smokin' crack', cause-head.
 
Originally posted by We4ster
Missle Defense? B-2? Waste of huge amounts of money. The B-2 was specifically designed as a cold war weapon. It was suppose to be able to fly into the USSR undected and drop its nukes. What use do we have for it now? Missle Defense? What a joke, it doesnt work and probably never will. And if it did, it would only be used against ICBM's. What about cruise missles, it doesnt work,
what about briefcase nukes, it doesnt work.
How many terrorists are carrying ICBM's in their back pockets? How many middle eastern countries have long range missles? And if they did, would they be stupid enough to launch one against the U.S.? Duh, the minute they fired it we would be all over them. The U.S military has spoken out against it, but ol' bush is insistent on it...More paranoia!
We do need to make cuts and revamp our military. It needs to be streamlined and be able to respond at a moments notice. Look how long it took to build up enough military force to invade iraq. As if they didnt know it was coming. We need more remote controlled aircraft armed with missles, lighter aircraft and quick strike capability. We need to get away from the cold war mentality.
ANYONE IS BETTER THAN A BUSH IN THE WHITEHOUSE!
You've made some good points. Hard to argue against updating our military from one built to fight the USSR to one that needs to fight terrorism.

However, the quote that "anyone would be better than Bush" is a bit scary. Could you imagine Gore in office when 9/11 hit? Good God...what a nightmare that would have been.
 
We4ster,

Do you know how many long range heavy bomber platforms we currently have? I Believe it lists B-52 and B-2. The B-52 is a Korean war veteran.

We won't hit a cruise missile with our defense system? Our defense department must be a pretty simplistic one level does it all operation. Did they change that much since I retired?

The Soviet army was the big threat and it is gone? Do I have that correct? It seems Libya had a much more advanced nuclear program than anyone in the world knew. And the money to buy delivery systems. And North Korea can now drop a missile on our West coast.

"And if they did, would they be stupid enough to launch one against the U.S.?" You must sleep very peaceful at night believing in others as you do. After all, well educated world traveling young men wouldn't chose to fly planes straight into the World Trade center towers. It doesn't make sense. Or to skim just off the waves as they head into the Pentagon.

You may like to study the military a bit more. It seems to interest you some.

It took much longer to prepare for Iraq than it did say Afganistan. There was a much larger threat to address. And a large amount of our forces have been transfered to the Guard and Reserve. After all we needed to cut the federal government workforce and the defense department was an easy target after the Berlin wall fell.

With your thoughts on fighter aircraft, you must have thought the war in Yugoslavia was well done. That war was fought from the air because it had to be. Our "Rapid Deployment" forces were not trained to fight at that level, their equipment status was very poor, parts were not available to bring their equipment on line, and we did not have sea or air lift capability to move a force in time.

That one conflict used our entire stockpile of cruise missiles. The Air Force was taking warheads off nuclear missiles in our strategic defense so the missiles could be rearmed with conventional warheads. And no new missiles were in production. The admistration had no reason to believe we needed them in the defense budget. At that point we could not have brought a high level of response anywhere else in the world.
 
Did you have some point to make? Were we supposed to just read the headline or read the entire article?
 
Re: Kerry saves you money, instead of Bush taking it


Monkeying with the strategic reserves has been tried before. It's OIL in the strategic reserves. It's GASOLENE that cost's "too much".

The problem isn't Oil cost too much, its that making it into Gasolene cost's too much/takes too long to meet demand.

What's Kerry going to do to provide more refining capacity?

Read the article, it's the same Kerry that was a proponent of a $.50 gallon gas tax. What are Kerry's core beliefs? Cheap Gas or expensive gas?

Or does he just say stuff people want to hear?
 
Originally posted by Foolis
Welp, as of 10:00 EST, she is going to publicly testify....I guess she'll arrested?
:o

Back at ya.


BT

They are saying it's not a Congressional Panel :rolleyes: to get around the legal issues. They have nothing to hide.

When she does testify UNDER OATHE and make's Clarke look like a pathetic weasel, the Democrat's will be a little more careful of what they wish for, next time.
 
Originally posted by Silver 6
That one conflict used our entire stockpile of cruise missiles.

We fired at least $500 Million in Cruise missles during Monicagate alone.

Everyone always talks about how much money Ken Starr spent investigating Clinton... but the cruise missle bill was 10 times Ken Starr's bill and accomplished less.
 
Hey, UNGN just bought your parts CD... don't spend the 13$ all in one place. Thanks
 
Originally posted by KevinG
Hey, UNGN just bought your parts CD... don't spend the 13$ all in one place. Thanks

I promise it will go "to the children"
 
Re: Kerry saves you money, instead of Bush taking it

"Kerry said he would pressure the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to provide more oil, simplify rules on gas to reduce costs, and develop more energy-efficient vehicles."

Now this is what I call a detailed plan. How EXACTLY will he pressure OPEC into pumping out more oil? We have no control over OPEC nor do we have any bargaining chips against them. They own our ass, we need their oil...end of story.

What rules does he plan on simplifying? Let's get specific. Anyone can make blanket statements like this and make big headlines. He's offering NO solutions whatsoever.

The government has been providing millions of dollars for alternative energy vehicle research and development. Some are available for purchase right now. Those include hybrid (gas/electric), hydrogen, electric and solar vehicles. In fact, there's a law that a minimum number of alternate fuel vehicles be sold in certain states with California being one of them. Guess what...they don't sell. You CAN'T force people to buy something they don't want no matter who the President is.

Here's the simple fact; We NEED to reduce or eliminate our dependency on OPEC/foreign oil. We have an enormous and untapped oil supply in Anwar Alaska. Why not use that until we can make alternative fuel vehicles affordable?

In all honestly, Kerry sounds like Carter in the mid 70's. What an energy success he was :rolleyes:.

smokin'6, I give you credit for being involved in this debate. But you need to look at the big picture instead of snipits had from news sources. Ask tough, specific questions when you see "simple" answers to national problems. The fact is there ARE no simple answers.
_________________________________

On a side note, we see gas prices jump every spring. For those who've been driving a while can verify this. One reason is the fact refineries must change the chemical composition of gasoline for the summer driving months to control smog. Different areas of the country mandate a different blend. This is very cost INEFFICIENT, thus they pass the added cost on to....you guess it, US. This is fact, look it up.

Peace,
 
I promise it will go "to the children"

Well you could always donate towards "smokin 6's " needed therapy!!
 
Tons of oil in Alaska! What a joke! The oil has a very high sulfer content and cant be refined in the U.S. We would have to ship it overseas where it would be refined and then shipped back to the U.S. Real profitable for us! haha!

You want oil?
1. Russa has more oil than all of the middle east combined.

2. Our neighbors south of the border have lots and lots of oil, and they arent terrorists! Maybe drug dealers! But we dont have problems with that, just look at Afghanistan since we have saved them from the Taliban. They are the largest producers of opium in the world now. Good ol democracy at its best.

Why arent we looking into these resources? Why, because we have billions of dollars invested in the middle east and the oil companies "have to make a profit". AT OUR EXPENSE!
 
Back
Top