SkyDekker 1,465 #101 January 26, 2007 Quote"Without question, we need to disarm SH"-Kerry and then he voted to support the use of force And then he voted for the use of force if there was a clear and present danger to the US. There are more ways to disarm than to invade. As it turns out, the diplomatic way was pretty effective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #102 January 27, 2007 QuoteAnd then he voted for the use of force if there was a clear and present danger to the US. There are more ways to disarm than to invade. As it turns out, the diplomatic way was pretty effective. He did what they all did...Went along because to not go along would be career suicide. They wrote it so that later they would have an exit plan if it didn't work. If they really didn't want to use force, they should have voted no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuote"Without question, we need to disarm SH"-Kerry and then he voted to support the use of force And then he voted for the use of force if there was a clear and present danger to the US. There are more ways to disarm than to invade. As it turns out, the diplomatic way was pretty effective. Can you show me where it says "only if there is a clear and present danger" in the authorization to use force? They either authorize the use of force, or not - if they didn't vote their conscience then, it's a bit late to be squawking about it now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #104 January 27, 2007 QuoteFirst pass is a quick "no" clarification is it's not that simple. I'd like to say it depends on who he would be running against. But I don't think the dems would put up a 3rd lousy candidate in a row unless they are getting really arrogant. They are, but not so much as to completely divide the nation with a wing dweller. Nor do I think the Reps would nominate him again with the current approval ratings. So even if 3 terms was allowed, it is VERY unlikely he'd get the nomination. I am a big believer in term limits - politicians do more to stay in office rather than for the good of the country. two terms is a nice balance. It would be VERY hard to vote for a 3rd term even if the alternative is complete pond scum. Who had the most terms before the 10 year limit was set? Was it FDR? Talk about the damage done to the country by King Roosevelt!!! never again Oh God, it was horrible, workers gained rights, elderly got SS, we came from the Great Depression to WWI, to prosperity post-WWII in that era, virtually all happened before he died. Yea, hell it was bad unlike those Hoover years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #105 January 27, 2007 QuoteThere, I have put them side by side. You tell me who has the better deal. Germany or the U.S.A. I'd vote bush back in, look at what you might get if you don't. And this is what you get if you had him for 3 terms: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #106 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteAnd what are you goiong to say AFTER this actually happens???? "Amazon, get your gun." (provided of course they are not outlawed) Now, what are you gonna say when it does not happen? Are you still going to claim it will happen if a Dem gets elected next time? Did you read the rest of that article? He said some nice things about Bush. “As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he’s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he’s very, very bright. And I suspect that he’ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.” QuoteA very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he’s not very smart. Yea, don't misunderestimate him. Quote..And I suspect that he’ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.” I don't see it, but I think Reagan will be seen as the fascist pig that he was, not as the great leader people now think he is, after the debt raises to levels that are no longer bearable. I think people will ask how we got into that mess and look to his years as the ones that started it all. Of course chimp will be credited with exacerbating it, Reagan will be charged with starting teh spedning fury, so perhaps Bush will be thought a hero one day, ya got to leave the door open. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #107 January 28, 2007 I would not vote, I would have to shoot him Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites