Iacobus Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 It was Bush the 41st the order storm but didn't Clition order Sheild? I know we bombed them a few times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I think Clinton's was called Operation "Distract the Nation So Congress Doesn't Impeach Me Over Monica" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 A vote for Kerry is a vote for something, and then you vote against it. And then you vote for it again. And against it. No, for it. No, against it. Or was it for it? Wait. I forgot. I'm hankering for a big, hot, steamy waffle fresh from the griddle with melting butter and 100% pure Canadian maple syrup. Mmm, mmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Desert Shield was in 1990, when the troops were building up force in Kuwait after Hussein invaded it. Desert Storm was in 1991 when the U.S. actually went in and liberated Kuwait. Both under Bush Sr. Was it Kosovo that was Operation Monica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Mar 29 2004, 11:41 PM'] Was it Kosovo that was Operation Monica? [/quote] That one and also that one... what was it called? Operation Desert Rat or something when some random bombs were thrown at Baghdad in 99. And then didn't he throw some more random bombs at Osama around that time? Sorry, too tired to think straight. Maybe someone else can clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 [quote] I think Clinton's was called Operation "Distract the Nation So Congress Doesn't Impeach Me Over Monica" [/quote] LOL thats funny, I know it was one of them, I said Desert Storm, but they all mesh together in my head so im sure im wrong. Point being, he ordered certain sites to be blown up where WMD's were being created at. So it was no secret Saddam had weapons. [quote] LOL, you know what I love. The other day I was watching the history channel and some KKK guy called Lincoln a "liberal." LOL sorry that is just kind of funny. [/quote] See what happens when they interview an uneducated redkneck? I kinda wish I had another republican choice to make..isnt there someone else that could challenge bush to be president? Its not that I really dislike G-dub, but I just dont think he has done the best that he could. Maybe its just me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 They should boot Bush off the ticket and give it to John McCain. Bush looks pleasant and has a preacher's smile and can charm the masses to donate money - he'd be a much better vice president. John McCain's Vietnam "hero" record would blow John Kerry out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Dont know much about McCain, is he pro-life and is he a Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 He was raised Episcopalian but is now a Baptist. He is pro-life, but he got into trouble during his first campaign when he attacked Bush for going to Bob Jones University looking for support from the Christian Right, which is notoriously anti-Catholic. Before making him out to be some kind of saintly defender of Catholicism, which would be nice , I think it was more a Reagan-Republican campaign stunt. He went further and attacked Jerry Fawell and Pat Roberston for supporting Bush's attendance and that sealed the deal on his chances of getting the GOP ticket. He is pro-life, but the Christian Right claimed he wasn't pro-life enough because he has never authored any pro-life bills, but his voting record is totally pro-life; these attacks came up oddly after McCain attacked Robertson, Fawell, and BJU. McCain has said that he would prefer to gradually eliminate Roe v. Wade to sort of ween society away from the idea that abortion is murder; the Christian Right attaked this idea too. They also started a rumor that he supported using aborted baby parts for experimentation and he was mentally unfit to serve because of his war experience and trama in Vietnam, but all this was disproved after the BJU histeria died down and after Bush won the ticket. He is a former POW,an experienced senator, and a war hero, and the best man for the job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Actually, in 2000, the reason that National Right to Life opposed McCain was because of his campaign finance reform proposals which would limit what special interest groups could do and contribute. National Right to Life is one of many special interest groups. That's when all the stories regarding the aborted baby parts came out. Then, lo and behold, after McCain dropped out of the race, what do you know, McCain has a 100% pro-life voting record after all, it is announced. I lost a LOT of respect for National Right to Life over that stunt. Pro-life groups should not get mixed up in other non-related issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 It would also make life a lot clearer for us if the bishops would state in their document what is non-negotiable or not, or at least rank the issues (the last time I read the release was a few years ago and if I recall correctly any mention of the abortion issue being #1 was not enunciated clearly enough). *edit* I looked at the NCCB link. It does discuss abortion/euthanasia first. I just hope that translates to people knowing to put abortion at the top of the list of issues to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 McCain would have gotten my vote and I do think that we need campaign reforms (I don't care if it hurts some groups becuase they can't run ads in the month up to the vote). Too many of these "good" men were going negitive in there ads. Now most of that is off the tv and online (LOL). Also I question (I live in IL one of the most courrpt states, at least under Ryan) how a polticain can really remain close to serving his voters when they give him 5% of his funds and 80% comes from noe company (like Enron). Who does he owe more too? So I like the McCain Fingold Law. If McCain was only running.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamattman1 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I think I've decided that I will vote specifically for abortion only if the candidate realizes the necessity to use a pro-life lithmus test to vote for Supreme Court justices. If he doesn't, then other variables I think would have to be considered because, considering history thus far, I can't see voting for someone strictly for that issue only for the possibility that he might change anything when other issues need attention. As for this election, I think I will vote for Bush because Kerry has explicitly said he has a pro-choice lithmus test. I am still deciding and considering factors, but that is my tendency right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 One of the problems I have with Bush is that he is noming pro life judges but not very good judges. I mean this is about what heppens. He noms a pro life guy, all good. But the guy also has some bad rulings in the past on the enviroment, big business, etc and to get this man to the bench Bush will have to nom some one closer to the middle. I mean these judges are there for life on the USSC and if they overturn abortion all good. Than we have to move on to other issues, DP, welfare (reform and refoucs), ethunisa, etc. And if these judges block that we have to fight it out, like we have done for abortion, for years on end. So Bush may be pro life but he isn't going to get us much closer to overturning Roe v. Wade by sending radical right judges to be comfirmed. So than is Bush really pro life? He could have done a lot more for the fetus by noming cooler guys and gals for the courts. Guys that will be approved. The Senate will (mostly) approve someone with pro life views as long as they are not a member of the Christian Right (which is some cases is neither Christian nor right not all and esp not on PM but in Byron I know it is) or some radical firnge group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts