ViperPilot

You French bastard, I want a piece too!

Not to mention someone who shows selfishness, even at the smallest level, and demonstrates no understanding of our military and disdain for the same(which of course I take personal offense to) should be considered for Presidency. If she can't get simple stuff together, how can she run a country. That's part of how I see it.

Didn't get to read the rest of the thread obviously...wonder what you guys said.

Well, I wasn't really using that as justification. Just making a comment on their civilian "status." Anyways, the justificiation was that although it took lives, it saved more in the end. So basically the end justifies the means.

Wait, people actually die from messing w/ their aquariums? God, what idiots.

No matter how you feel, I don't think any of us will be seeing Hillary in office anytime soon. I think a minority will be elected before a woman is. That's what polling shows. Obama anyone?

Philh, I think you and I both agree that racism is bullshit and that killing civilians sucks. However, the death of Japanese civilians (which many would have been military had we invaded...so could we really consider them civlians...I don't know) brought about the immediate halt of Japan's atrocities and agression. It's a give/take sitatuion. There was loss, but for a greater gain. I think that's what these guys are saying, despite their comments which seem to have racist undertones. By the way guys, I think the Japanese did terrible things and were really shitty people, but that analysis only applies to the military folk, not the entire Japanese population.

Ok, I guess this one just comes down to personal preference. If some computer program can check my email, my phone records and my bank statements...well to tell you the truth, I don't care. If it will save lives, then go for it. I have nothing to hide, so I don't care. I know many view this as horrible invasion of privacy, but IMO, this minute invasion of privacy is worth the added safety. *** Well, I'm all for people doing whatever makes them happy. If it makes some guy happy to love another guy, then fine, do it. Just don't rub it in my face or get to take advantage of what I can. I do believe that marriage is between a man and woman and thusly they should be the ones to benefit from tax breaks, etc. I'm fine with the unity thing, but I don't think it's fair to just butt in on regular marriage's benefits. And Bush backs Civil Unions, so I don't think he's restricting anyone here. If you choose to marry another guy, you just don't get the tax break...oh well. So it would have been cool if your mother chose to not have you? It would have been fine if your best friend's mother chose to not have them? I realize accidents and crimes happen. Give a woman the first 3 months, but after that, it's their own damn fault if they haven't chosen by then. Well, legally they're not POWs, so he's being legal. Yes I hope the innocent ones get out of there quickly, but as much as some people like to think, these guys were not just randomly rounded up. They were taken there for one good reason or another. I doubt there's too many 100% innocent guys.

Very well put. Thanks.

Well, I like that analysis better . Why do you think GWB is restricting personal freedom? Are you refering to the Patriot Act?

Indeed you did.

Good way to think about it. I'm glad voters are making informed decisions.

Would I vote for someone who voted no on $350 billion in tax breaks (breaks go to Medicaid, and state discretion..not big compaines) and no again on cutting $1.35 trillion in taxes? Now of course some of you are going to say I'm an idiot for not seeing it as Hillary does, but you just go ahead and pay socialist levels of taxes while others fight to not fork over 1/2 or more of their sallary to the govt. And, she's about as good of friend to the military as cancer is to my friend.

Through this entire thread you've continously alluded to how incredibly hurt and pissed the troops must be at Bush for this "vacation" as you call it. Well Funks, what gives you the grand idea that you have any right or basis to be the "fearless representer of the troops?" Well Funks, you're not us, so don't think you can speak for us. I don't give a shit that he's down in TX because I know damn well he can do the same work there as he can sitting in the Oval Office. It's a wonderful world of technology we live in today. The President's job consists of mostly meetings, phone calls, letters, speeches, etc....ALL of which he can do at the WH, Crawford, or my backyard. It doesn't matter, it all gets done regardless of location.

There's a lot of things that could have been done to either prevent or lessen the 9/11 attacks. Clinton could have taken up Sudan on its Osama offer the few times they made it. Our stupid laws could have NOT prevented intel sharing between civilians and military, and more importantly, this country and the rest of the world could stop being so damn worried about PC and just do what it takes to keep us safe. Lastly, our intelligence could have stepped it up. Maybe I'm wrong in this assumption and there was stuff I don't know about (100% likely), but it still seems we should have had some wind.

Yep, Chavez is a complete idiot. If he is right about us trying to assasinate him, then why oh why did we have to screw that one up? Damn, if only we could have done that the right way And China is also to blame for the ridiculous prices. So, lets not put all the blame on poor old Chavez.

Looks like an A/C gun with a muzzle brake on the end...damn that things big.

Funks, all you're doing is calling the man an idiot for not having the info you do now with 20/20 hindsight. All I'm saying is you'd better call all those other politicians idiots too because they did the exact same thing. It's so easy to judge character when you have all the info after the fact. Well, if you're going to judge Bush's character for what you perceive to be total idiocy because of his thoughts on Iraq, then you wouldn't be fair or unbiased until you admit that all those other guys have to be judged as idiots too since they ALL had the same line of thinking as Bush. Make a case for yourself by trying to present unbiased posts. I know it's hard sometime, for me and everyone else here, but refusing to accept this simple fact is just ridiculous. If Kerry had made the exact same decision back in 2001 (which based on him having the exact same opinion as Bush, he would have), would you be screaming hell at Kerry? I highly doubt it. One of Kerry's large planks was that he would have done things differently...but people saw through his obvious hindsight tactics and called bullshit. It's obvious the man would have most likely made similar decisions as GWB did in 2001, based on Kerry's opinions and statements at the time. His words at the time dictate my thought that he would have gone to war with Saddam.

Completely worth it. Why? It all comes down to numbers. With 75,000 killed and the same wounded, these numbers would have easily been the same, if not more for a conventional invasion. Not to mention the loss of Allied life. The death toll would have been around a million, or even more, if a conventional invasion would have been used. The Japanese were still dangerous at the time, much like a wounded beast. Sure their Navy had been realtively destroyed, and the same for the Air Force, but their Army was incredibly large, their population believed strongly in the mission and thusly would have easily joined in arms had their been a conventional attack. And the next option of just stopping where we were prior to the attacks was just not an option. Sure they may not have been able to mount an attack on US soil at the time, but turning your back on a wounded beast can be deadly. They could easily rebuild and finish off what they started (especially for their pride). Japan's pride was so huge that nuclear weapons was the only thing at the time that could stop it, short of a full invasion which would have costs almost 10 times more lives.

I personally think of it as the PC being thrown out. Just like Daniel was saying...wouldn't it just be called "wave-off" altitude when you're waving? When I was a student, my instructors told me "wave off at xx altitude and then pull at yy altitude." Oh and Daniel...I can dance all day, I can dance all day! (haven't seen anyone else on this board who's alluded to that)

First one military...why not get paid to get shoved out of a plane by yourself for jump #1?

Its problems outweigh its benefits IMO. Reasoning being is that sure everyone has an "equal" shot at healthcare unlike in capitalism where the more money you have, the better care you can get, but say you need some surgery...sure you won't have to spend your soul to get it, but too bad you have to wait 2 years to get it. While in America someone has the same condition and has to pay an arm and a leg for it, but they get the surgery within a month. Socialist and Capitalist healthcare programs have their share of problems, I just think socialist medical care is not the "answer to crappy capitalist healthcare" that many people seem to think it is (not saying you do). Some people have more money, those people will be able to afford better healthcare (i.e. surgeries). If they have the ability to do it, then why not let them? That's why I like the capitalist way of doing things.

Bush will be doing just as much work there as he would sitting in the WH. Just like gravity said, it's now a wonderous part of your technological world today where you can get the same work done at a multitude of locations. And none of us know what kind of stress that job entails...just doing the work in a homely environment would help stress a lot...I would think anyways. None of us has the right to comment on if he chooses to do his job somewhere else for a while to calm the stress. The President's job is more stressful than any other person on this planet. None of us have any idea about it because none of us have been there. Oh, and as a member of the military, I don't take offense to him doing his work in TX. As long as the stuff gets done, fine by me. While military service brings us to shitty places sometimes, that's just part of the deal. None of us signed up to have an easy 9-5 job...we all knew that wouldn't happen. We give up a shitload of comforts some times to do our jobs, but we all knew this from day 1 (or at least we should have

The Clintons, your beloved John Kerry (I'm assuming, so sorry if I'm incorrect), Senator Byrd, William Cohen, good ol' Chirac, and countless others ALL agreed that Iraq had WMDs, or at least posed some sort of threat related to WMDs, and thusly had to be disarmed. Every single one of them thought Saddam had to be dealt with. So yeah, all those people, including Bush, made decisions based on the intel at the time. So if you want to call Bush an idiot for doing it, then call Kerry, Clinton, Chirac, and the rest of the lot idiots too. They were all in the same boat together on this one. We all like to say what we would have done knowing what we do now, but none of us can say what we would have done only having the info at the time. When someone points a gun at you, you don't stand there and wait to see if he actually pulls the trigger, you do something to try and stop the action that you perceive is about to happen (whether the gunman is actually planning on shooting you or not). Personally, someone pulls a weapon on me, they're getting a nice .40 right though the head from the good old Glock. Were they only planning on scaring me and not actually shooting me? Well who will know, because I'm not taking the chance, I'm saving my own life.

Great info Gawain. Everyone should realize, based on info such as provided by Gawain, that socialism, although good on paper, DOES NOT function properly in the real world. Socialized medicine basically functions the same as the worst of HMOs. Sounds so great, but proves to be horrible in actuality.