George W. makes a surprise visit to the troops in Baghdad!

[higgybaby]

I thought that this was a really brave move, not to mention a major surprise to everybody.

[Skinzaholic]

Good move by the President. He was moved to tears several times during the visit... He spent Thanksgiving away from home just like those men and women did... good move.

[jsarno]

VERY BRAVE indeed. I think that just might put him "over the top" come poll time. It was a win / win situation for him. Bravo Mr. President!

[rskinsfan10]

Very good gesture. I only hope that it was from the heart and not politically motivated. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[jporterweb]

I truly believe it was from the heart. I mean if it was politically motivated, it would've made more sense to tell everyone about it. Instead he snuck overe there and said something on the way back. No big press coverage, no big fanfare. Just being a regular guy. I mean look at the crap he is getting from a lot of the media. A guy from the Washington (Post or Times don't rememeber which) Is mad because he was lied to. I mean get over it, it's an awesome thing for a president to walk right into a combat zone like that.

[Spence]

:D

No big fanfare??? That's priceless.

[Spence]

Aides Prodded Reluctant Bush on Iraq Trip

By Adam Entous

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - For a president fond of a tough-guy image, George W. Bush was uneasy when an aide casually asked him, "You want to go to Baghdad?"

With Bush safely back at his Crawford ranch on Friday, White House supporters seized on the U.S. Thanksgiving Day visit to Iraq as a public-relations coup that could boost troop morale and Republican fund raising.
...
One day after the president left Iraq, another high-profile visitor, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, toured Baghdad to meet with troops and top officials from the occupation administration and aid groups.

It was White House chief of staff Andrew Card who first proposed the surprise trip -- not the president. That's why Bush went to Iraq--as a fundraising ploy and to use the video for commercials during the 2004 campaign. That's it. Nothing else.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton actually saw some of the city. She didn't just jet into a military base and jet out. As usual, she shows she's got a lot more guts [and nuts] than Mr Bush. He was a sissy during Vietnam and he's a sissy now.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&u=/nm/20031128/ts_nm/bush_iraq_dc&printer=1)

[RedskinsDave]

Holy Christ you're sad man. You really think that Clinton has the security concerns that Bush does? Woo hoo, ship me some of that fine stuff you're smoking over thar in Merryland.

[Ford]

Originally posted by Spence
That's why Bush went to Iraq--as a fundraising ploy and to use the video for commercials during the 2004 campaign. That's it. Nothing else.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton actually saw some of the city. She didn't just jet into a military base and jet out. As usual, she shows she's got a lot more guts [and nuts] than Mr Bush. He was a sissy during Vietnam and he's a sissy now.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&u=/nm/20031128/ts_nm/bush_iraq_dc&printer=1)

:rolleyes:

What do you expect? Senator Clinton isn't a terrorist target all over the world .. just a worthless senator hated by just as many people as liked who has positioned herself in the extreme liberal part of the party rather than following the more moderate, beneficial path that her husband took.

It was a good move by the president for the troops morale and it just seems like ANYTHING bush does, the most liberal part of the party finds the most petty things to try and bring him down on. I mean come on, I'm not a big bush fan but everyone who bashes bush for doing literally ANYTHING, are the people who cried foul at the rediculous amount of Clinton bashing from Newt Gingrich and company.

[jporterweb]

Thanks Ford and Dave. It is sad. I'll admit that the president isn't perfect, but it's just sad that everything he does people have to find wrong with something. His "tax cut that is surely wortheless" seems to be working. As a matter of fact, someone else did the same thing. A Mister Ronald Regan made an identical type tax cut and within time the economy flourished. When the top 1% are paying the majority of the taxes in America they deserved a tax cut.

[BigCountry]

I hate Bush as much as anyone but even if he did do it for fanfare, there could have been much less riskyer ways to do it so I think there were some good intentions involved here.

[higgybaby]

Spence, this is pretty sad and petty. at least most of your anti-bush posts have some kind of meat to it, not just a lash out at the president and spew rantings that are obviously just rooted in a hatred. This is sinking ever further into a bush bashing low, even for you, Spence.

[rskinsfan10]

Some of you guys are acting as if Spence said something shameful about the man's mother. To label his thoughts as "sad", "petty" and any other adjective used makes me scratch my head and ask is it really that serious? You right-wingers, conservatives, Republicans, whatever you want to call yourselves haven't exactly been low-keyed with your criticisms of Democrats and your perceived wrongs that they have done in your opinions.

Get off the high horses....

[RedskinsDave]

High horses? I'd need to be on a Clydesdale on stilts to top Tom.

[Ford]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Some of you guys are acting as if Spence said something shameful about the man's mother. To label his thoughts as "sad", "petty" and any other adjective used makes me scratch my head and ask is it really that serious? You right-wingers, conservatives, Republicans, whatever you want to call yourselves haven't exactly been low-keyed with your criticisms of Democrats and your perceived wrongs that they have done in your opinions.

Get off the high horses....

I said it was petty and I happen to be a democrat ..

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by Ford
I said it was petty and I happen to be a democrat ..

Well, consider yourself a Democrat that needs to dismount then.

[Ford]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Well, consider yourself a Democrat that needs to dismount then.

I'm not allowed to have an opinion about something that was posted?

[Skinzaholic]

Truthfully... this entire site is about different opinions. Although I am not surprised by Spence's comments (hear them on CNN every day)... I still respect his right to make them. On the other hand, others also have that same right to label those comments as "sad" and "petty" should they see fit. Spence has labeled several of my posts, and I took no defensive reaction to it.

I suppose if someone can't handle their comments being disected then they best not make any.

[BigCountry]

Anyone remember that little personal attack rule?

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Anyone remember that little personal attack rule?


I really dont see how that rule applys here at all. I am always one to stick up for someone when personal attacks come (and I have even defended Spence in that area)... but I didnt hear anyone making any personal attacks against Spence... just calling out what he said.

Perhaps I missed it... and if that is the case... then I defend Spence... but I dont remember reading one.

[Skinzaholic]

It also seems some people are stepping out in this regard... yet surprisingly have nothing to say when the roles have been reversed.

Gentlemen... that doesnt seem fair now, does it?

[NamVet4]

Really, some of your people surprise me. Do you really think it matters a hill of beans to the American G.I. in a war zone what anyone thinks about the Comannder-in-Chiefs visit? Those men that day were glad to have the opportunity to break bread with the CIC! And if any of them, and their families back home, got the benefit of the photo ops and tv coverage, all the better.
Republicans, democracrts, conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists, all of you, get a grip on yourselves. It's not what is made out of the trip, it is that the trip was made!

[NamVet4]

And, do you really think that those servicemen and women spend their days concerned about the politics and political intrigue that consumes the folks back home? I seriously doubt it ! They are there to do their job, get home, hopefully in one piece, and go on with their lives.
Take it from one who knows !

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by Ford
I'm not allowed to have an opinion about something that was posted?

I'm not saying that. My point is this. We have threads here that accuse senators of supporting the KKK (Hillary) when all she said was that she looked at Byrd as her idol. We have Dave in here basically accusing Bill and Al of committing or arranging for folks that could incriminate them to be murdered. Isn't that "sad" and "petty"? Yet, there was no outcry of pettiness or how sad those very thoughts and accusations were. I call it the way I see it. This entire off topic forum can be deemed petty and sad if you really want to be technical about it. There is the right side taking their shots, and the left doing the same.

The day after Thanksgiving, I saw at least four different news telecast where politicians and everyday citizens questioned whether or not the Bush's actions were politically motivated. To sit here and act as though that such a thing is simply unfathomable is laughable IMO. I wouldn't put it past him, nor would I put it past a Democrat if his approval ratings had been tanking recently. That is why I say that those that decry Tom's post as something dasterdly need to get a grip. Again, he didn't say anything disparaging about the man's mother or father. He stated what apparently a good portion of the population feels about Bush's trip.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
I really dont see how that rule applys here at all. I am always one to stick up for someone when personal attacks come (and I have even defended Spence in that area)... but I didnt hear anyone making any personal attacks against Spence... just calling out what he said.

Perhaps I missed it... and if that is the case... then I defend Spence... but I dont remember reading one.

You are correct. I'm not accusing anyone of attacking anyone. No where in my post did I state that he was attacked in a way that steps out of bounds.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Truthfully... this entire site is about different opinions. Although I am not surprised by Spence's comments (hear them on CNN every day)... I still respect his right to make them. On the other hand, others also have that same right to label those comments as "sad" and "petty" should they see fit. Spence has labeled several of my posts, and I took no defensive reaction to it.

I suppose if someone can't handle their comments being disected then they best not make any.

Correct you are again, just as I have the right to point out that those that are taking the Spence comments are sad and petty road need to do the same as far as the comments from the right. Again, many of your fellow Americans feel the same way that he does. On the other hand, isn't accusing a sitting President and and his second in command of murder pretty outlandish? Where was the outcry?

[RedskinsDave]

What, did I bring charges against them? It was an intended shot at the number of folks who died during those 8 years. No different than anything said about Bush, his family, his grandfather, etc. Also, I'm quite sure it wasn't the first time that's been mentioned.

I called Spence's post sad because he actually tried to make it seem that Hillary had an iota of the security concerns Bush did in Iraq.

[rskinsfan10]

Who ever accused Bush, his family, his grandmother, etc. of committing or arranging the murder of someone that could implicate them in a crime? Surely, no one here at hR has ever uttered such a post.

[RedskinsDave]

It has to be murder? Geez, I think enough other things have been tossed out. Sorry no one died mysteriously under their watch.

[rskinsfan10]

You said "no different", not I. If you didn't mean to imply that we were talking about the same charges, then maybe you would be better served to re-word your post.

[RedskinsDave]

I wrote, "no different than anything said about Bush, etc." meaning that if you feel the accusation holds no merit and is uncalled for, I'd hope you'd jump to defend the current sitting president and his family of accusations as well. I won't hold my breath.

[rskinsfan10]

You would be wise not to hold your breath. Did it ever occur to you that the accusations leveled at the current president are a result of the right and their countless attacks that they themselves launch and have launched?

You know the saying, what comes around goes around?

[RedskinsDave]

I see, so two wrongs make a right as long as it's some sort of retribution. I'll keep that in mind.

[rskinsfan10]

Surely, I didn't just open your eyes to that. As much time as you spend here discussing politics, I cannot believe that served as an awakening for you. As I've been saying throughout this thread, mud slinging has come from both sides.

Even my 5yr old is wise to the way things go in this regard.

[RedskinsDave]

If that's the case, why did you bother taking issue with what I said? Apparently I was only playing the game.

[rskinsfan10]

Because I want to see it called both ways. Don't label someone's actions as you and others did when you yourself do the same.

[RedskinsDave]

I'll label them as I see them and I have no problem if someone does the same to me. I don't post opinions with the expectation that no one will disagree with them.

You, on the other hand, had a problem with what I wrote but when I pointed out that others do the same, you called it tit for tat.

[rskinsfan10]

And when I see the pot calling the kettle black, I will do the same as far as posting my opinions.

[Skinzaholic]

See what you started Tom? :D :D :D

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
See what you started Tom? :D :D :D

:D

[Spence]

The story uses Republicans themselves as the source for the contention that the White House intends to use the Iraq visit as a campaign commercial. Attacking me might make some people feel better, but I didn't tell the media that, the Republicans themselves did.

Of course Senator Clinton does not have the security concerns that Mr Bush does, but if anyone thinks Iraqi insurgents would not love to kill a U.S. Senator named Clinton who voted for war authorization, then you're the ones smoking something funny.

[Ford]

Originally posted by Spence
The story uses Republicans themselves as the source for the contention that the White House intends to use the Iraq visit as a campaign commercial. Attacking me might make some people feel better, but I didn't tell the media that, the Republicans themselves did.


Nope .. that's not what you said. If Bush plans to use the visit in a campaign commercial .. more power to him. He did something noteworthy and can portray that in his campaign ads. To portray yourself as being unwrongly attacked for your earlier post isn't really warranted here. You said bush did it for one reason and one reason only ... you didn't just mention it would be in a campaign ad. You think the morale of troops and consideration for them played no role in this decision? I say there are much safer ways of campaigning and it's a false accusation. With your logic and american politics today, all good deeds should be denounced, because they're all politically motivated. I just think it's petty to bring someone down on those grounds, and it angers me as a democrat because I think it makes the party look weak and hopeless.

[higgybaby]

I agree with Ford wholeheartedly and that is why I said what I said, Spence.

[C-7]

It was all for the cameras. There is nothing brave about G. Bush. This man is sending his country to it's death. I would not call that a brave gesture.

Smile for the camera, Bush. Say cheese!

[RedskinsDave]

blah blah blah, learn how to spell canNibal.

[C-7]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
blah blah blah, learn how to spell canNibal.



blah blah blah.... very interesting statement.

[RedskinsDave]

The troops liked it and it helped morale. That's good enough for me.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Ford
Nope .. that's not what you said. If Bush plans to use the visit in a campaign commercial .. more power to him. He did something noteworthy and can portray that in his campaign ads. To portray yourself as being unwrongly attacked for your earlier post isn't really warranted here. You said bush did it for one reason and one reason only ... you didn't just mention it would be in a campaign ad. You think the morale of troops and consideration for them played no role in this decision? I say there are much safer ways of campaigning and it's a false accusation. With your logic and american politics today, all good deeds should be denounced, because they're all politically motivated. I just think it's petty to bring someone down on those grounds, and it angers me as a democrat because I think it makes the party look weak and hopeless. I'm afraid I don't understand this post at all. I said the visit was politically motivated. I've seen nothing to change my opinion. You disagree. Great. That's America--at least for a few more weeks. Other than that, what's your point here?

[Ford]

Originally posted by Spence
I'm afraid I don't understand this post at all. I said the visit was politically motivated. I've seen nothing to change my opinion. You disagree. Great. That's America--at least for a few more weeks. Other than that, what's your point here?

No. You didn't say it was politically motivated. You said it was only politically motivated .. period, end of story, opinion stated as fact. Isn't everything somewhat politically motivated? Who cares? He did it, he didn't have to, and I think anyone who thinks it was done for nothing more than a campaign ad has got to be kidding themselves. Attacking the visit, which was a good thing, only makes democrats look desperate ..

[Spence]

Originally posted by Ford
No. You didn't say it was politically motivated. You said it was only politically motivated .. period, end of story, opinion stated as fact. Isn't everything somewhat politically motivated? Who cares? He did it, he didn't have to, and I think anyone who thinks it was done for nothing more than a campaign ad has got to be kidding themselves. Attacking the visit, which was a good thing, only makes democrats look desperate .. Okay, okay. It was only politically motivated. Is that what your post was about--me omitting the word only?

Considering the Bush admin has forbidden media coverage of funerals for soldiers returning from Iraq and is censoring mail from soldiers to the families back home, you will forgive me if I think public relations is always foremost in their minds. That "Mission Accomplished" photo op on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln is now ruined by the fact that the mission has not been accomplished and virtually every reason the admin offered for the war has now proven false. [It got so bad that Mr Bush blamed the U.S. Navy for putting up that "Mission Accomplished" sign, though the White House boasted they did it at the time.] This Thanksgiving Day visit was meant to replace that ruined photo op. You and everyone else, of course, are free to disagree. Makes no difference to me.

In addition, I just thought I'd note that the White House story that Air Force One was confronted by a British Airways plane in mid-flight has turned out to be false, so the White House changed their story about it. It turns out this latest revision of the truth is also false (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_30.html#002262).

Question the Bush administration's motives? Heaven forbid!

[Spence]

Thanksgiving visit

So the boss came to visit us on Thanksgiving, under wraps and under the American flag. Thanks for coming. Oh thank you, kind leader, merciful leader, for taking one day out of your busy schedule to visit us. The shepherd looking over his flock. Thanks for making the sacrifice. God knows we’re making one. Re-election is coming up, but that had nothing to do with it, now did it?

I remember your victorious landing on the ship. Oh how all those then alive, and now dead, would love to sit down next to you, cutting their families’ turkeys and filling the empty seats at the tables. Leader of the free world, be our guest at the head of our table. Or would you like to sit in one of the many empty seats left by the war? There’s plenty of room. Enough turkey and stuffing to go around. Fat and happy, delirious and exhausted. That’s how I feel.

In a hurry? Going so soon? Have time for questions? You sure do have time for compliments. Do you ever feel responsible? I’m tired of this. Go back home to the ranch and tell them how happy and fulfilling the trip made you feel.

Spc. Damian Torres
Iraq
Source (http://estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=19144)

[jporterweb]

That is a minority voice Spence. That's not fair. A few people think that doesn't make it fact. You find me a poll done by a neutral source that shows the majority of Americans think it was politically motivated.

[RedskinsDave]

Spec. Damian Torres should be summarily dismissed from his duties as a soldier and sent home with a dishonorable discharge.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jporterweb
That is a minority voice Spence. That's not fair. A few people think that doesn't make it fact. You find me a poll done by a neutral source that shows the majority of Americans think it was politically motivated. I think most Americans believe the trip was politically motivated and they still liked it. My guess is that the troops are pretty much the same. I can't prove either of those things, of course, and don't feel a great need to do so.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Spec. Damian Torres should be summarily dismissed from his duties as a soldier and sent home with a dishonorable discharge. Baloney. We don't live in that kind of country yet. Thank God.

[RedskinsDave]

Yes we do and we always have. The day we don't, the military will be weaker than any liberal could make it.

From the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
Any person who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[Spence]

He wasn't contemptuous, he just disagreed. You should read the military newspapers more often. That sort of letter if fairly common, especially on the subjects of Iraq and Bush's betrayal of military veterans.

In 2004 we'll have a liberal repair all the damage George W Bush has done to the military and the intelligence agencies. Thank goodness Bill Clinton did such a good job taking care of the military that it was able to do its jobs so well. Afghanistan and Iraq: Proof of all the good work Bill Clinton did. :)

[RedskinsDave]

Cutting their budgets and closing bases was a good job? You may want to chat with the people who lost their jobs or maybe my brother who wanted to stay in the service but due to cuts was unable to be promoted even though he was soldier of the month at Ft. Campbell (huge base) and had double the promotion points needed.

[Spence]

The military did the job it was supposed to do. The defense budget is treated like a gigantic welfare and public works project by too many people. Clinton thought the military existed to defend the nation and project power overseas, not to employ people at gigantic cost to the taxpayer.

Kosovo
Afghanistan
Iraq

Bill Clinton's military did what it was supposed to do. It destroys enemy armies and wins wars. It did not employ as many people at taxpayer expense as Ronald Reagan's military did, but that process actually started in 1987 and continued through the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

You needn't worry too much, though, Dave. The policy of treating the defense budget as a big tasty cake to be sliced up and distributed to favored political supporters is back in vogue now and, in fact, more prevalent than ever.

Take that, Ike! You may have conquered the Nazis, but the military-industrial complex has conquered America.

[RedskinsDave]

Then don't EVER take up for the reservists who have to serve because the active duty numbers were slashed. I do love, however, that you want to credit Clinton when the U.S. military has always kicked ass.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Then don't EVER take up for the reservists who have to serve because the active duty numbers were slashed. I do love, however, that you want to credit Clinton when the U.S. military has always kicked ass. Why can't I take up for reservists? We had more than enough troops to conquer Iraq, just not enough to occupy it effectively. This was well-known by all sensible people before the war. General Eric Shinseki [army chief of staff at the time] told Congress that the U.S. would need at least 250,000 troops to occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz told Congress that Shinseki was "wildly off the mark." Turns out, as it has so often, that the uniformed military was correct and the civilian chickenhawks in the Bush admin were wrong. If the Bush admin foolishly decided to invade and occupy a country without enough active duty troops to do the job properly, that's their fault. They screwed it up. The Bush admin was completely unprepared for this [as a growing number of Republicans are admitting publicly] and they are abusing the reservists to help cover up their colossal mistake. And it still isn't working.

I don't give Clinton credit for building a great U.S. military. I just give him credit for maintaining it. It was the right wing who absurdly accused Clinton of gutting the military. Then the military goes out and performs perfectly in Kosovo and Afghanistan and Iraq. Just proof of another right wing lie about Bill Clinton, our last elected commander-in-chief.

[RedskinsDave]

Wow! That was quite a twist. Hang on, I have to stop spinning. Whew. Clinton cut back the military to the point where we can't even take over a country the size of Iraq and he maintained the great military? I guess if I go buy a Nascar and take off two wheels, you will give me credit for maintaining the car.

Whether you agree with the war or not is irrelevant when considering how decimated the military numbers are thanks to the fornicator-in-chief. I'm sure you'll just point me back to Bush I, even though there was never the intention to slash and burn the way ole Willie did.

Another point since you tossed in that "last elected" bit. I remember Gore's folks went out of their way to fight counting the military votes during the whole Floriduh snafu. I guess the military folks weren't as happy with Clinton and company as you'd like to think.

[Spence]

Dave, the military was designed for destroying armies and it does that job very well. It was not intended for these long-term occupations. Long-term occupation is the sort of job taken on by conscription armies, not all-volunteer armies. Of course, occupying Iraq would be a lot easier if we had more allies with us, but since it was official White House policy to offend every friend and ally we ever had, we can't count on that. [The South Koreans just left, by the way. I guess they figured it was Mission Accomplished. No carrier landing photo op, though.]

The Bush admin was warned REPEATEDLY that they had enough troops to conquer Iraq, but not enough to occupy it. They chose to ignore those warnings. Now you want to blame Clinton for that?

It's Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld repeatedly told a disbelieving general staff that he could occupy Iraq with 100,000 troops?

It's Clinton's fault that the Bush admin told a disbelieving State Department that we would hardly need any troops to control Iraq once Saddam Hussein was gone because the people wouuld be so happy to see us that they would throw flowers at the feet of our soldiers?

It's Bill Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld said most of our troops would be home by Christmas with the job already done?

It's Bill Clinton's fault that the Bush admin told the American people that Iraq was so wealthy it would be able to finance its own reconstruction?

The Bush admin screwed up badly. It needed far more troops for this occupation, but didn't get it. Now that it is obvious, the Bush admin is refusing to send more troops because they fear the political consequences of doing so. We have enough troops to do the job, which is exactly what John McCain [and many others] have been saying for weeks. The Bush admin just won't send them.

And that's Bill Clinton's fault? I guess this must be the Era of Personal Responsibility we've been hearing about. Make every problem you've got Bill Clinton's personal responsibility.

[RedskinsDave]

You can continue to twist it but the fact remains Clinton cut the military to a shell of itself. The reason there would be political consequences sending more troops is they would all have to be called up from their civilian lives. I'm sure you'd be first in line to lambast that move.

Again, whether you agree with this war or not, if we do not have enough active military to pull off something this size, we're toast if we have to fight a more able opponent.

[higgybaby]

Spence says:

"Thank goodness Bill Clinton did such a good job taking care of the military that it was able to do its jobs so well"


This is would be one of the funniest posts I have read here in this forum; if only you weren't serious. I served under Clinton and I know for a fact that the overwhelming opinion of our Commander in Chief at the time was one of complete dislike and if I were not such a gentlemen I could use a lot harsher words to describe the sentiment at the time. (by the way, this was one of the reasons I converted from my liberal ways to the conservative that I am today....yes spence I used to be as decieved as you)

[Spence]

HIGGY: I don't care a fig what people in the military thought of Bill Clinton. The fact is, they did their job under Clinton and did it well and when he used the military it worked. Jobs well done. That's all that matters.

[RedskinsDave]

Oh that's right, you blame Bush for Somalia. That's funny too.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
You can continue to twist it but the fact remains Clinton cut the military to a shell of itself. The reason there would be political consequences sending more troops is they would all have to be called up from their civilian lives. I'm sure you'd be first in line to lambast that move.

Again, whether you agree with this war or not, if we do not have enough active military to pull off something this size, we're toast if we have to fight a more able opponent. Dave, we DO have enough active military to occupy Iraq. As I noted. As has been noted by many observers for months now. The question is not whether we have the troops, the question is whether or not they will be used. To date, the Bush admin has decided not to use them and to continue the fiction that the occupation can be handled by a smaller force. Nobody is forcing the Bush admin to do this. People as far apart as John McCain and Hillary Clinton have called for more troops in Iraq. Bush won't send them. If you've got a problem with that, blame him, not Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was too smart to invade and occupy Iraq. [So was Mr Bush's father.]

Aside from a brief spike in 1991 because of the Persian Gulf War, defense spending had been falling pretty sharply since 1987. In the mid-1990s, the people calling loudest for military cuts were Congressional Republicans, not White House Democrats. By 2000 the United States was spending as much on defense as it was in 1990. And in the three wars fought since the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. military performed brilliantly.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Oh that's right, you blame Bush for Somalia. That's funny too. I blame Bush for sending troops to Somalia. Why? Uh, because he sent them.

[Spence]

“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero." -- George H.W. Bush

“To have brought the (Gulf) war into the populous Iraqi capital of Baghdad where Hussein is based would have involved a different type of military operation than in the desert, and would have put large numbers of Iraqi civilians and hundreds of thousands of our troops at risk of being killed.” -- Dick Cheney

“From the standpoint of the president, the question was how many additional (U.S.) lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And his answer was, `Not very many." -- Dick Cheney

“The only way to make certain you could get him was to go occupy all of Iraq and start sorting through Iraqis until you find Saddam Hussein.” -- Dick Cheney

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?" -- Dick Cheney There was a reason President Bush did not occupy Iraq in 1991. He knew the U.S. army was not well-suited for tasks of empire. Destroying Iraq's armies and occupying the country are two different things. George H.W. Bush knew that. A pity his son didn't listen to him.

[higgybaby]

That's funny, I thought Cheney is the one who according to your liberal conspiracy theory toting friends; claim has had it out for Saddaam and his regime to the point of making up lies of WMD's to go to war. Now you are using his quotes to highlite why we shouldn't have gone to Baghdad... You liberals always try to have it both ways.

[Keino]

Higgy...I think Spence is showing why OCCUPATION was a bad idea. The above quotes clearly demonstrate that there was no concrete plan once the regime was toppled.

Have we found those WMD's yet by the way?

[rskinsfan10]

The Cheney quotes also look to me to be of a man that flip-flopped on what he thought was the best thing to do.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally posted by Spence
I blame Bush for sending troops to Somalia. Why? Uh, because he sent them.

We went through this once already. Bush was pulling troops out of Somalia and the U.N. was going to take over. Clinton sent more troops in and it was under his watch that our guys got ambushed and a dragged around the streets of Mogadishu.

[Spence]

More on the troops in Iraq issue: The requirement that America’s Special Forces units operate in secrecy, a former senior coalition adviser in Baghdad told me, has provided an additional incentive for increasing their presence in Iraq. The Special Forces in-country numbers are not generally included in troop totals. Bush and Rumsfeld have insisted that more American troops are not needed, but that position was challenged by many senior military officers in private conversations with me. “You need more people,” the former adviser, a retired admiral, said. “But you can’t add them, because Rummy’s taken a position. So you invent a force that won’t be counted.”

At present, there is no legislation that requires the President to notify Congress before authorizing an overseas Special Forces mission. Source (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031215fa_fact)

[jsarno]

there is no use arguing guys...Spence (even though well liked here) will argue this point to his very end. Either he knows he's dead wrong and still makes comments, or he truly "believes" in the lies and bias of the democratic party on these issues. I don't know which one is more sad.

[jsarno]

Oops...clicked too eary.
Spence, I applaud your constant drive on these issues, it's what makes you so lovable and fun to argue with! :D
But I think it's time to see your party for what it really is and how it has messed up this country.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
Oops...clicked too eary.
Spence, I applaud your constant drive on these issues, it's what makes you so lovable and fun to argue with! :D
But I think it's time to see your party for what it really is and how it has messed up this country. My party left this country at peace, with 22 million jobs created in eight years and the largest budget surplus in the history of the human race on this planet. In three years, your team gave us 3 million jobs destroyed and the largest budget deficit in the history of human life on this planet.

Oh, and your team also lied repeatedly about war in Iraq.

Thanks for the offer, jsarno, but I think I'll stick with my own. Fewer gigantic screw-ups play for my team.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
My party left this country at peace, with 22 million jobs created in eight years and the largest budget surplus in the history of the human race on this planet. In three years, your team gave us 3 million jobs destroyed and the largest budget deficit in the history of human life on this planet.

Oh, and your team also lied repeatedly about war in Iraq.

Thanks for the offer, jsarno, but I think I'll stick with my own. Fewer gigantic screw-ups play for my team.

Since when did the "Independant Party" destroy jobs?
Spence I've told you time and time again, I am not a republican. I am one of the few completely unbias political Hr members here. And as such, I see what both parties do right and wrong. Is Bush and the republican party always right? NO. But the republican party is the far lesser of two evils right now. Maybe that won't be the case in years to come, but it is right now.

(I'd like you to create a thread, if you find the time, on why you think / feel the deficit is such a big deal. We've had it for DECADES yet it doesn't seem to matter in life, why is that?)

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
Since when did the "Independant Party" destroy jobs?
Spence I've told you time and time again, I am not a republican. I am one of the few completely unbias political Hr members here. And as such, I see what both parties do right and wrong. Is Bush and the republican party always right? NO. But the republican party is the far lesser of two evils right now. Maybe that won't be the case in years to come, but it is right now.

(I'd like you to create a thread, if you find the time, on why you think / feel the deficit is such a big deal. We've had it for DECADES yet it doesn't seem to matter in life, why is that?) jsarno, you're about as independent as I am.

As for the impact of the budget deficit on economic and fiscal policy and how that affects every day Americans, I'm not sure I could explain it to you if you actually think it is so unimportant. The Republicans themselves thought it important enough to try to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution during the 1990s. Once Mr Bush started running up gigantic budget deficits they forgot about all that. Did you know there is actually a bill circulating among House Republicans that would bring back the balanced budget amendment, but they don't plan to submit it until 2009--the year Mr Bush leaves office! I can think of no better example of the cynicism of the Republican party under the odious Mr Bush than that.

There is a lot of research you could on this subject, but perhaps
this article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0917/p02s02-usec.html) is one place to start.

I'll close this by noting the Bush White House mantra on deficits since coming into office:

2001: We will not run deficits
2002: We will run deficits, but not for long
2003: Deficits don't matter.

I see. Well, if deficits don't matter, why did they go to such lengths to tell us they would not run deficits or wouldn't run them for long? Telling.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
jsarno, you're about as independent as I am.

Now Spence, we all know you're a democrat as they come!

Did you know there is actually a bill circulating among House Republicans that would bring back the balanced budget amendment, but they don't plan to submit it until 2009--the year Mr Bush leaves office![/B][/QUOTE]

I actually did not know that. Makes sense though.

The reason I asked you is becuase you apparently feel pretty strongly about this deficit, while I am fairly ignorant on the subject and feel like many americans that it doesn't affect us.

You know if I go buy a 30,000 car, and don't pay for it, it gets repoed and I get sued. I know it's not the same thing, but we've racked up a huge deficit and no consequences have occured in the DECADES we've had it. Why is it such a huge point?

[Spence]

No consequences? jsarno...jeez

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
No consequences? jsarno...jeez

Can you name some to us the people?
(I did say I was fairly ignorant on the subject...again...this is why I am asking. Here is your chance to sway my mind AGAINST Bush which is something no one has been able to do with their rantings of WMD)

[Spence]

No, thanks, jsarno. I want you to continue to believe that deficits matter for nothing. The right wing ignoranti should remain ignorant. It keeps them in their place.

[Keino]

Jsarno - Im sure you are aware that when Mr. Bush took office there were no budget deficets.....there was actually a budget Surplus. Good job Mr. Clinton!!! The only time in my 30 years that had occured was under Mr. Clinton's Administration.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Keino
Jsarno - Im sure you are aware that when Mr. Bush took office there were no budget deficets.....there was actually a budget Surplus. Good job Mr. Clinton!!! The only time in my 30 years that had occured was under Mr. Clinton's Administration. That's why he is pretending they have no significance. If these deficits had occurred on Bill Clinton's watch you can be sure jsarno would be hopping mad.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
No, thanks, jsarno. I want you to continue to believe that deficits matter for nothing. The right wing ignoranti should remain ignorant. It keeps them in their place.

In other words...you have no clue.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
Jsarno - Im sure you are aware that when Mr. Bush took office there were no budget deficets.....there was actually a budget Surplus. Good job Mr. Clinton!!! The only time in my 30 years that had occured was under Mr. Clinton's Administration.

Actually I was not aware of that. This is the first time I've heard it.

quoted by spence
That's why he is pretending they have no significance. If these deficits had occurred on Bill Clinton's watch you can be sure jsarno would be hopping mad.

Why would I be hopping mad? I didn't concern myself with it during CLinton's 8 year run, nor the 4 year run of Bush, nor the 8 year run of Reagan...so why would I now? I have not seen where it affects the common people. This does not mean it doesn't affect us, just that I have not seen it, or recognized it. I already claimed ignorance on this, it's nice of you to not state your case. This is why millions of Americans don't care about a deficit. If no one explains the consequences, why should we care? Our deficit is "going up", yet interest rates are down, unemployment is down, the economy is flurishing! Those are the points the people care about. It just doesn't "seem" to affect us. I've asked several friends at one point (that have brought up the deficit) to explain how it affects us the people, and they say I really don't know. If you really don't know Spence...that's fine. But don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do. I'm truely open to this, and if this really affects the people as much as you imply, then I'd be all over Bush's ass about it. I just don't know.

[Keino]

Well apply it to your personal economy Jsarno and see if it makes sense to you that way. Could you Spend more Money than you Bring in? Sure, but eventually you won't be able to pay your bills or afford to keep a roof over your head. Can you see the relevance now for the Common Folk? Mr Clinton's Admin put us in a position to not only pay our bills, but have a litttle left over....Budget Surplus.

And Please, Unemployment may be down from where it was, but it grew to historic proportions in the last 3 years. Interest rates are down because the federal reserve is trying to help the market recover and they are keeping the prime rate low.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
Well apply it to your personal economy Jsarno and see if it makes sense to you that way. Could you Spend more Money than you Bring in? Sure, but eventually you won't be able to pay your bills or afford to keep a roof over your head. Can you see the relevance now for the Common Folk? Mr Clinton's Admin put us in a position to not only pay our bills, but have a litttle left over....Budget Surplus.

Well see, that's the problem. I have tried to relate it to my own economy. I already said if I bought a 30,000 car and didn't make the payments it would get repoed and Iwould be sued. So how can the country spend more than it gets in return for decades and there not be any consequences? Or are there and I am just not aware of them?

And Please, Unemployment may be down from where it was, but it grew to historic proportions in the last 3 years. Interest rates are down because the federal reserve is trying to help the market recover and they are keeping the prime rate low. [/B][/QUOTE]
The economy has taken such a huge turn that it grew by standards we haven't seen sicne the early 80's.
It wasn't "historic proportions"we were in a recession, not a depression, but Bush did warn us of this. The key is he turned it around.
Interest rates are low because of 9/11. The country stopped spending. That was a direct result of Clinton not protecting us well enough and Bush Sr. not finishing the job that he was sent to do. SOmething that GW has learned from. But it was done on GW's watch. Bush turned the country around. Even with this crisis on crude oil, I notice my gas is down to $1.39 a gallon.

[jsarno]

about clinton's "surplus"...wasn't that supposed to take affect / correct teh deficit by the year 2015 or something like that?
I can budget my life out til then too, and I can show you that I'll be a millionaire by then, but I seriously doubt it would happen. We didn't budget for a child, but that's what we're getting. And Clinton didn't budget for an attack on the country, but it happened.

[Keino]

This was not a Projected Surplus. It was an actual surplus. It was real in 2000, not projected for 2015. HOw is it that you claim ignorance on a subject then proceed to try and debate it?

I didn't use your car example, because frankly it was a poor example. You would lose the car and your credit rating would be such that you would never (Or at least for 7 years) not be able to obtain financing again.

It's really quite simple. When there is defecit spending, and the defecit increases, future generations end up footing the bill. It's like me spending more than I make, then putting the overage on Credit Cards...then dying and leaving my kids to pay off my debt. It's essentially waging economic war on future generations.

As for laying the blame of 9/11 at Clintons' doorstep, that is utterly ridiculous and doesn't deserve a response beyond that.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
This was not a Projected Surplus. It was an actual surplus. It was real in 2000, not projected for 2015. HOw is it that you claim ignorance on a subject then proceed to try and debate it?
I was just going off what I "thought". This is why I did not make a STATEMENT in asking. Please pay attention to the tone and sentencing of which I speak so you don't get confused in the future. This is what I said:
about clinton's "surplus"...wasn't that supposed to take affect / correct teh deficit by the year 2015 or something like that?
You have corrected me, thank you. That's all I asked.
Do you happen to have a link to these surplus figures. That one is still quite shocking to me.

I didn't use your car example, because frankly it was a poor example. You would lose the car and your credit rating would be such that you would never (Or at least for 7 years) not be able to obtain financing again.

I know it was a poor one, I even said so...but you said personal economy and that's why I brought it up.

It's really quite simple. When there is defecit spending, and the defecit increases, future generations end up footing the bill. It's like me spending more than I make, then putting the overage on Credit Cards...then dying and leaving my kids to pay off my debt. It's essentially waging economic war on future generations.

So basically all you're saying the consequences are is that future generations will have to "plan better"? Is that the only consequence there is?

As for laying the blame of 9/11 at Clintons' doorstep, that is utterly ridiculous and doesn't deserve a response beyond that.

haha, well, it's been widely debated and commonly accepted by most of those not in the democratic party.
ps- don't forget I threw in Bush Sr...funny how you left him out of that last comment and just defended the democrat.

[Keino]

I actually didn't notice you bringing up Bush, Sr. but that statement is equally prepostrous. As for the Surplus, why would I need to provide you a link to something that's common knowledge....ask one of you conservative buddies if I speak the truth, they will tell you...of course they will spin it to somehow being Clinton's fault it no longer exists, but the Surplus WAS very very real when he left office....

As for your statement that there is no real consequence other than future generations will have to plan better, well I feel very sorry for your child if that is your thinking. My feeling is that we have a duty and a responsibility to provide our Children (future generations) with MORE that we have not less. It's a shame the guy you support doesn't care about future generations......

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Keino
I actually didn't notice you bringing up Bush, Sr. but that statement is equally prepostrous. As for the Surplus, why would I need to provide you a link to something that's common knowledge....ask one of you conservative buddies if I speak the truth, they will tell you...of course they will spin it to somehow being Clinton's fault it no longer exists, but the Surplus WAS very very real when he left office....

As for your statement that there is no real consequence other than future generations will have to plan better, well I feel very sorry for your child if that is your thinking. My feeling is that we have a duty and a responsibility to provide our Children (future generations) with MORE that we have not less. It's a shame the guy you support doesn't care about future generations......

Save your breath, Keino. I have had an innordinate amount of difficulty in the past trying to explain the difference between budget surplus/deficit (which Clinton produced surpluses, Bush deficits) and the national debt (which Reagan tripled during his admin). It is truely amazing how Rebublicans once clamored for mandatory budget balancing and reduction of debt, and now appear to have little interest in either.

[higgybaby]

spence, please grace us with your wisdom and explain this to us poor lowly uneducated,hating the poor, kicking the sick, shoving the elderly down the stairs republicans and conservative independents with your knowledge on this issue of the harm caused by deficit spending.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by higgybaby
spence, please grace us with your wisdom and explain this to us poor lowly uneducated,hating the poor, kicking the sick, shoving the elderly down the stairs republicans and conservative independents with your knowledge on this issue of the harm caused by deficit spending.

Kind of "baffling" isn't it higgybaby? You ask them to explain why they are all up in arms, and the best they can give you is "I feel sorry for your children", or "well, you should know".
I'm glad I'm not the only person ignorant as to why this deficit is SUCH A MAJOR DEAL that Bush needs to be castrated. The only consequences they have given is "our children will need to budget a little more". OUCH.

Kieno .of course they will spin it to somehow being Clinton's fault it no longer exists
Spare me the "spin" crap k. We all know the biggest muckrakers and bitchers and whiners are from the democratic party. According to the Democratic party, the Bush administration has not done one single thing right. You are the people that spin things into whatever you want to make you look better. It's sickening, and it's no surprise the once dominant party is no longer THE dominant party. Better be careful before you turn into the "WHIGS".

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
The only consequences they have given is "our children will need to budget a little more". OUCH.



Ignoring the insipid view that huge deficits have no harmful effect, why shouldn't it be US that "need to budget a little more" to solve the problem being brought about by our spending instead of our CHILDREN?

[Keino]

What part of Sticking our Kids with our debts don't you two get? That is the consequence. The question was asked and answered and you act like my only response was to sling an insult. And I seriously mean it.....if you cannot see the obvious immorality of sticking our kids with our debts, then I do feel sorry for you kid. That is not meant to be funny, or insulting, just real.

Deficit Spending is the equivalent of borrowing money to pay your debts, while doing nothing to increase your revenue to pay additional debts incurred by borowing...

[jsarno]

I suppose you can't see that the deficit is only rising thanks to terrorism. Now that Saddam is caught and things will eventually wind down, that deficit will go down as well. (it will take time.)

I'll take a high deficit ANY DAY to PROTECT those children, and the rest of us. Something you seem to ignore.
But to stick to the point. Obviously, the deficit (from what you all have provided) means jack squat. You claim the children, but to have to budget better is not hurting any child. If terrorism comes around again (thanks to a democrat depleting the armed forces or something similar) then the deficit will NEED to rise again.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I suppose you can't see that the deficit is only rising thanks to terrorism. Now that Saddam is caught and things will eventually wind down, that deficit will go down as well. (it will take time.)

I'll take a high deficit ANY DAY to PROTECT those children, and the rest of us. Something you seem to ignore.
But to stick to the point. Obviously, the deficit (from what you all have provided) means jack squat. You claim the children, but to have to budget better is not hurting any child. If terrorism comes around again (thanks to a democrat depleting the armed forces or something similar) then the deficit will NEED to rise again.

Guess you are conveniently ignoring that this year's deficit was to be in the neighborhood BEFORE taking into account spending on the war. You don't even try to understand such simple concepts. By the way, do a little more homework. Clinton had begun an initiative to resolve many of the problems associated with the lack of informational, and turned an initial blueprint for a homwland security like agency over to Bush. Of course, Bush was not interested in the work done, nor funding such a creation, until 9/11.

[Keino]

I love it when people claim ignorance and the proceed to debate the point and then make erroneous claims without the documentation support they demand from everyone else. It is really quite comical. Sticking future generations with debts they didn't incurr is appearantly meaningless and doesn't mean jack squat.........What color is the sky in your world sir?

Once again, if you cannot see the obvious immorality of sticking your kids with your debts then it raises the question as to whether one is even fit to be a parent. "I think I will incurr a bunch of debt and stick my kids with it, and they will simply have to budget better than I was able to do". What an oversimplistic, moronic viewpoint.........I see why you like Bush so much. Neither of you can seem to master the obvious.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
I love it when people claim ignorance and the proceed to debate the point and then make erroneous claims without the documentation support they demand from everyone else. It is really quite comical. Sticking future generations with debts they didn't incurr is appearantly meaningless and doesn't mean jack squat.........What color is the sky in your world sir?

It is most certainly blue, unlike your world that likes to point blame whenever they can to serve your own agenda.
I made no such "erroneous claim", and would love for you to provide proof of such. Cause all you will find is a QUESTION. Hardly a claim. Saying it's like talking to a wall is an understatement. Of couse you really aren't interesting in READING are you? Or maybe it's comprehention?

Once again, if you cannot see the obvious immorality of sticking your kids with your debts then it raises the question as to whether one is even fit to be a parent. "I think I will incurr a bunch of debt and stick my kids with it, and they will simply have to budget better than I was able to do". What an oversimplistic, moronic viewpoint.........I see why you like Bush so much. Neither of you can seem to master the obvious.

Clearly you have FAILED to prove a point. I asked to hear your side and you provided no info to show this was a big deal.
You still claim we're charging debt to our children. (which is not even a debt, cause debts have to be paid back in a TIMELY fashion and our deficit does not) Yet you completely ignore that this debt that is being tallied is from protection of this country and those SAME children, I guess you feel protecting the country and the world is something not worth of spending money. Tells a lot about your character. I guess I am more concerned about this world and this country still being here in the future. If we don't protect the children now, there will be no children of the future to protect. It astounds me that you fail to grasp that.
PS- your analogy blows. They will not have to pay a cent out of their pocket for this deficit. So it's not even close to "racking up credit card bills and sticking my kids with it".
What is sooo comical is that democrats think Bush has done jack squat for this country. It doesn't matter what happened, it matters to you the label that is placed with him. If he was a democrat you would be praising him.
Clearly this thread is no longer going anywhere. You refuse to give consequences for this massive deficit other than budget better. So either you have no clue what this deficit means to the people, or there is no consequences to this deficit. Having to budget better (cutting the fat) is NOT a consequence. I beg of you and all bias democrats to stop being so narrowminded and realize that good can be done by someone other than a democrat.
So I leave you with this question that you only need to answer in your head. How much is your childs life worth? If it's an unlimited figure than the deficit shouldn't matter to you either.

[Keino]

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that the War on Terror was not the Cause of the Budget Deficets, only the cause of them being much larger than Projected. As pointed out by Dukeuch, but there is a problem with my reading Comprehension.
Maybe someone more articulate than myself can convince you as to why Budget Defecits are not a good thing. I tried to simplify it for you in hopes of increasing your understanding....you respond with a non-chalant "Our kids need to budget better" response. Gimme a break. WHY SHOULD OUR CHILDREN HAVE TO BUDGET FOR OUR SPENDING? MAYBE WE SHOULD BUDGET BETTER? Of course I would expect that from someone on record as being in default on their student loans and doesn't feel the need to make repayment (to our governemnt mind you)...in fact considered moving to Canada to avoid said repayment.

Again, I think the consequence of sticking our children/future generations with our expenses is obvious, eventually the well runs dry. Maybe someone can help jsarno where I have obviously failed. My example was oversimplified to help someone who admitted they were ignorant on the subject.......Do you not realize that when there is budget shortfall, the country borrows to make up the difference? Analgous to not having money to pay your bills and putting said bills on your credit card.....it's called deferring debt. Again, the problems with doing that should be obvious to any adult. Conversely, when there is a Budget surplus, you can use the Surplus (The difference between what is spent and what is made) to pay down previous debts. Every choice has a consequence........

Jsarno, if you call me a democrat one more time............
I am Liberal, but have no Party affiliation. I have voted for GOP members for Congress and on the state/local level.

Am I biased? Sure. Everyone is. Some will admit it freely, while others post under guise of objectivity when clearly they are not. Of course when you support a president who is also less than honest (about issues that matter, not who's giving him head) that is probably to be expected.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Keino
Of course I would expect that from someone on record as being in default on their student loans and doesn't feel the need to make repayment (to our governemnt mind you)...in fact considered moving to Canada to avoid said repayment.


Can this be true? Jsarno has suckled on the teat of bloated government spending, and failed to pay back? Guess I at least understand where you are coming from now.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
Of course I would expect that from someone on record as being in default on their student loans and doesn't feel the need to make repayment (to our governemnt mind you)...in fact considered moving to Canada to avoid said repayment.

You know, if you're going to open your big pie hole, at least understand what you're talking about.
Since when am I "On the record" about not wanting to repay my student loans? They broke their contractual agreement. Maybe you are the type to sit there and take things up the ass, but I am not. This is why I have a lawyer to try to straighten this out.

AT no time were we going to move to Canada because of the student loans. If you read what I said before (I know...you don't like to read or comprehend) then you would have realized that. My wife had an offer from a Toronto based company which we have since turned down.

SO if you're going to quote someone, do it right. Don't twist things to serve your own agenda...then again, that's what you are best at huh?

[Keino]

LOL - Must be that reading comprehension thing again.

Ok, I'm going to try to make a long story somewhat short.
My student loans have caught up with me. They found me.
5 years ago Iwas told that I needed to pay $600 a month (or so) or there will be consequences. I said I can afford $200 a month, and that's it. They said I'd still be in default and deliquent, and I would still be sent to collections (this loan is with the government). Well I basically said "have a nice day" and changed my phone number and everything so I that I would never be contacted by them again. (even though I get a statement once a year) (keep in mind that every time I tried to pay on my account, they would promise to take me out of deliquency / default, and set up a scheduled payment, and they would never do it...it was all lies...which is why I just left the laons to rott.

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5784

My wife has a person that works for her that is from Canada, and my wife was offered a very lucrative job from them in the Toronto area.
I've never before considered leaving the country, but it is quite lucrative and Canada has nation wide medical coverage for free (well not for free...it's taxed, but you get the point). Having all these difficulties with federal student loans, Ihave to say Iam quite entrigued.
http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5812

Twisting words for my own personal gain? What do I gain by pointing out the obvious contradiciton in your politics and the parts of your real life you've shared with us? BTW if you were in default when they tried to contact you it was YOU who had broken contractual arrangments by Not paying as agreed. They have programs to help people get out of default status, but the longer you prolong it, the greater the risk of having your wages garnished. Hope your Lawyer can buy you some time and knock off some of the interest...good luck with your situation (Seriously).

[RedskinsDave]

I think jsarno meant to say he invented the internet while in college so he shouldn't have to repay the loans. :D

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
Twisting words for my own personal gain? What do I gain by pointing out the obvious contradiciton in your politics and the parts of your real life you've shared with us? BTW if you were in default when they tried to contact you it was YOU who had broken contractual arrangments by Not paying as agreed. They have programs to help people get out of default status, but the longer you prolong it, the greater the risk of having your wages garnished. Hope your Lawyer can buy you some time and knock off some of the interest...good luck with your situation (Seriously).

Where is the "contradiction"?

I was not in default 5 years ago...where are you getting that from? They wanted $600 a month, THE CONTRACT SAID INCOME CONTINGENT and I was making $7 an hour at the time. I did not break the agreement, they did. I said I would gladly send them $200 a month, and they said "no, and you will be in default regardless if it's not $600 a month". So why send $200 a month if I would go into default anyway? I'm not going to throw away $200 a month and still be in the same situation. $200 a month at the time was more than I could afford, but I was willing to do it. So you saying I was not willing to pay is clearly not true. I was willing.
I was making only $896 a month after taxes. So how could I possibly afford $600 a month to student loans? I'd have $296 left over for bills and food.
Do you understand the situation now? I don't know how you misunderstood even what you quoted, but maybe what I just said made it clear for you.

This is what you said:
Of course I would expect that from someone on record as being in default on their student loans and doesn't feel the need to make repayment (to our governemnt mind you)...in fact considered moving to Canada to avoid said repayment.

I said moving to Canada was intriging basically with that as a perk, I did not say I would move there just to avoid repayment...did you not read what you just quoted? Turns out it wouldn't be enough money to move there anyway. I would never move to a foriegn country to get out of a bill. But had I moved, I would most certainly have forgot about that bill. Is that wrong...yeah. But why should I stick to a contract if the other party clearly doesn't want to. My lawyers are going after the government right now for that exact problem. It is possible that since they broke the agreement (not me) that I will be able to have the whole bill wiped out. (not probable though)
again...do you understand the situation now? Clearly I did "feel the need to make a repayment", and clearly having a job offer in Canada had no factor on my student loans. Especially since we didn't take it. It would have been nothing more than a perk.
You were off base on your above comment and vindictive to try to prove a point, but you were incorrect.

Just keep in mind that 1- I am a credit / collections manager and understand the laws regarding credit and collections, and 2- both my wife and I have excellent credit ratings. Mine is worse than hers thanks to the student loans, but it's better than most in the country.
If all goes according to plan, we could be making substantial money by this time next year. I recently just got my degree (bachelors of Business Administration in Finance, took 10 years to get it) and I will now be able to work for big time lending institutions making serious money. With both my wife and I making large sums of money (hopefully) these student loans won't be even a concern.
My hope (at worst) for the loans is that they drop the interest to the original fee, and allow what we agreed upon. The income contingent plan. It's wrong that I even need a lawyer for this. Best case scenario is they drop the amount to a fraction of the cost and I take out a second mortgage to pay it off. (well actual best case is to drop it completely, but that's not going to happen)

[jsarno]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I think jsarno meant to say he invented the internet while in college so he shouldn't have to repay the loans. :D

Actually, Gore and I invented the thong, it's a shame I'm not rich from that!
;)

[Keino]

Well as far as the Canada comment, you have to admit that your wording implies that at the very least it (Stident loan issues) factored into your decision. I didn't say it was your SOLE reason just one.

As for your sudent loan situation, I understood before getting all the details. With Hindsight being 20/20 and all, Im sure you realize that your position would have been stregthened Now had you made the $200 per month payments then. The Lawyer could then argue that you were complying with what you understood as the terms of the agreement and you'd have proof in the form of cancelled checks. By not paying anything, you did nothing to resolve your default status and failed to comply with repayment terms (Even if you are right about the terms and they are wrong). Obviously if it's a choice between Eating/Payng rent and paying a student loan, the right thing to do is eat and have a roof over your head, nobody can fault you there. It sucks that you have to pay a lawyer to get it resolved, but as I said before...Good Luck. If you are lucky they will retroactively reinstate you with the terms that you agreed upon.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally posted by jsarno
Actually, Gore and I invented the thong, it's a shame I'm not rich from that!
;)

I'm not sure if you meant to type an I or and O there but the result is pretty funny. Of course, I'd rather not know how you and Al came about inventing skimpy underwear.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
Well as far as the Canada comment, you have to admit that your wording implies that at the very least it (Stident loan issues) factored into your decision. I didn't say it was your SOLE reason just one.

I can understand the confusion there.

As for your sudent loan situation, I understood before getting all the details. With Hindsight being 20/20 and all, Im sure you realize that your position would have been stregthened Now had you made the $200 per month payments then. The Lawyer could then argue that you were complying with what you understood as the terms of the agreement and you'd have proof in the form of cancelled checks. By not paying anything, you did nothing to resolve your default status and failed to comply with repayment terms (Even if you are right about the terms and they are wrong). Obviously if it's a choice between Eating/Payng rent and paying a student loan, the right thing to do is eat and have a roof over your head, nobody can fault you there. It sucks that you have to pay a lawyer to get it resolved, but as I said before...Good Luck. If you are lucky they will retroactively reinstate you with the terms that you agreed upon.

But see, I did make payments...I said it was a long story and I didn't involve all before that. I just told when I stopped paying completely. They kept telling me it wasn't enough. Then we made arrangements to bring the pay down and drop all the excess fees off (for not making the $600 a month) and the very first bill I got was over 2k. We're talking about 2-4 years of dealings with these people. I was fed up.
At worst, now, they will garnish me and take $190 a month (which is what my lawyer says), and I said why don't they take $250 a month then? (which is what I am offering now) He said they are very difficult to deal with. (no sh--!!)

[Keino]

When I said I understood, it's because I've had my own dealings with the good folks at the US Dept of Education. The only thing about garnishment is that it negatively effects your credit rating, because that is viewed as a refusal to pay, unlike payment arrangements.

I tell you what, if you are able, I'd advise you to go ahead and take out the 2nd Mortgage (Assuming you have the equity) and take advantage of the low interest rates. It may actually make sense to get them completely off your back. Robbing Peter to pay Paul sucks, but it can at least give you some breathing room.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
When I said I understood, it's because I've had my own dealings with the good folks at the US Dept of Education. The only thing about garnishment is that it negatively effects your credit rating, because that is viewed as a refusal to pay, unlike payment arrangements.

I don't think it can hurt it anymore than the damage they have already inflicted. Not 100% sure though.

I tell you what, if you are able, I'd advise you to go ahead and take out the 2nd Mortgage (Assuming you have the equity) and take advantage of the low interest rates. It may actually make sense to get them completely off your back. Robbing Peter to pay Paul sucks, but it can at least give you some breathing room.

I can only do that if a deal is struck to reduce the sum by a large portion. But I'd like to get them off my back and on to terms that are law bound. The government is above the law.

[Spence]

A Baghdad Thanksgiving's Lingering Aftertaste


By Dana Milbank

Friday, December 12, 2003; Page A35


Stars and Stripes, the Pentagon-authorized newspaper of the U.S. military, is bucking for a court-martial.

When last we checked in on Stripes, it was reporting on a survey it did of troops in Iraq, finding that half of those questioned described their units' moral as low and their training as insufficient and said they did not plan to reenlist.

With the Pentagon just recovering from that, Stars and Stripes is blowing the whistle on President Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, saying the cheering soldiers who met him were pre-screened and others showing up for a turkey dinner were turned away.

The newspaper, quoting two officials with the Army's 1st Armored Division in an article last week, reported that "for security reasons, only those preselected got into the facility during Bush's visit. . . . The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit."

The paper also published a letter to the editor from Sgt. Loren Russell, who wrote of the heroism of his soldiers and then added: "[I]magine their dismay when they walked 15 minutes to the Bob Hope Dining Facility, only to find that they were turned away from their evening meal because they were in the wrong unit. . . . They understand that President Bush ate there and that upgraded security was required. But why were only certain units turned away?"

Russell added that his soldiers "chose to complain amongst themselves and eat MREs, even after the chow hall was reopened for 'usual business' at 9 p.m. As a leader myself, I'd guess that other measures could have been taken to allow for proper security and still let the soldiers have their meal."

The 1st Armored Division officials told Stars and Stripes that all soldiers had the opportunity to get a proper Thanksgiving meal -- possibly more than the newspaper's editors will get in Guantanamo next year.

It's been two weeks since Bush made that secret trip to Iraq, but the flight itself continues to cause turbulence. You can read it all here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57870-2003Dec11?language=printer).

[RedskinsDave]

"The 1st Armored Division officials told Stars and Stripes that all soldiers had the opportunity to get a proper Thanksgiving meal -- possibly more than the newspaper's editors will get in Guantanamo next year"

[NamVet4]

Realistically, anytime the President of the United States is going to be among any sizable group for an extended period of time, the group is pre-screened.
It is my understanding that this has been a long-standing effort of the Secret Service. It is not intended as a smack or affront to any military members. With a very controlled number of people actually aware of what was transpiring, it does not seem unreasonable to me that measures, possibly extreme, were taken to insure that the President was in an area as secure as possible.
The fact that some soldiers were turned away is regrettable, but according to the story they were offered a Thanksgiving meal – but rather chose to eat MRE’s
(Personally, I wouldn’t have eaten the MRE’s on a bet on that day!)
just my 2 cents

[Spence]

LOL
Stars and Stripes editors in Gitmo! We're probably not too far away from that sort of country.

[RedskinsDave]

We'll see how they feel about dealing with Col. Nathan Jessup.

[rskinsfan10]

What's a Code Red?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by NamVet4
Realistically, anytime the President of the United States is going to be among any sizable group for an extended period of time, the group is pre-screened.
It is my understanding that this has been a long-standing effort of the Secret Service. It is not intended as a smack or affront to any military members. With a very controlled number of people actually aware of what was transpiring, it does not seem unreasonable to me that measures, possibly extreme, were taken to insure that the President was in an area as secure as possible.
The fact that some soldiers were turned away is regrettable, but according to the story they were offered a Thanksgiving meal – but rather chose to eat MRE’s
(Personally, I wouldn’t have eaten the MRE’s on a bet on that day!)
just my 2 cents

Thanks for the input. I was going to say something similar, but you sized it up quite nicely.

[higgybaby]

there have been at least two attempts to make Bush look bad for Secret service policies, maybe the lefties would prefer that we just got rid of the secret service all together?

[Spence]

It was the righties objecting to numerous Secret Service policices during the 1990s and it was the righties who, against the publicly-stated wishes of Secret Service professionals, demanded that Secret Service officers testify to Congress about intimate aspects of their official duties in the Clinton White House. Of course, nothing illegal or unethical behavior in the Clinton White House was dug up by these outrageous invasions, but everything was justified in the mad dash to destroy our last elected President.

Don't look at my side, Higgy. Your side is the one who has been abusing the Secret Service lately.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
but everything was justified in the mad dash to destroy our last elected President.

Don't mean to state the obvious, but GW Bush was the last "elected president", doesn't matter how those votes were tallied, he is the "elected president".

[higgybaby]

Spence, the secret service never did testify in those hearings, due to the fears that it would the trust that is obviously needed in their job.(and rightfully so) In my post, I was not saying that the lefties were attacking the Secret Service, I was just stating that the Libs were throwing everything that they could at W and alot of their recent mudslinging had nothing to do with W but everything to do with Secret Service policy... The Dems are grasping at air in their silly attempts to throw as much at him as possible. There are legitimate complaints and yet the lefties seem to want to stick to the strategy to throw as much as they can(even if most of it is not legit) just to see what will stick! This, in my opinion only lessens the impact and or credibility of all the other legitimate complaints that you guys throw his way.

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
I'm not saying that. My point is this. We have threads here that accuse senators of supporting the KKK (Hillary) when all she said was that she looked at Byrd as her idol. We have Dave in here basically accusing Bill and Al of committing or arranging for folks that could incriminate them to be murdered. Isn't that "sad" and "petty"? Yet, there was no outcry of pettiness or how sad those very thoughts and accusations were. I call it the way I see it. This entire off topic forum can be deemed petty and sad if you really want to be technical about it. There is the right side taking their shots, and the left doing the same.

The day after Thanksgiving, I saw at least four different news telecast where politicians and everyday citizens questioned whether or not the Bush's actions were politically motivated. To sit here and act as though that such a thing is simply unfathomable is laughable IMO. I wouldn't put it past him, nor would I put it past a Democrat if his approval ratings had been tanking recently. That is why I say that those that decry Tom's post as something dasterdly need to get a grip. Again, he didn't say anything disparaging about the man's mother or father. He stated what apparently a good portion of the population feels about Bush's trip.

Good portion feels? O.K. Facts are Facts my man, I'm sure you know that Congress and the Senate where asked on a trip for him months ago. No one could no when, but they new he was going to help boost the troops morale. Rather you and Spence hate Bush or not, that was a President doing his job, being a leader. Agree with the war or not, it is a fact of life. It has happened, it was a great boost for our son's and daughter's over there, and it was a good boost for the people back home.

You want Bush gone, then get your party back to what it once was. You guys can't even support what your country is about because to do it would mean helping Bush in your minds. It's sick

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
Good portion feels? O.K. Facts are Facts my man, I'm sure you know that Congress and the Senate where asked on a trip for him months ago. No one could no when, but they new he was going to help boost the troops morale. Rather you and Spence hate Bush or not, that was a President doing his job, being a leader. Agree with the war or not, it is a fact of life. It has happened, it was a great boost for our son's and daughter's over there, and it was a good boost for the people back home.

You want Bush gone, then get your party back to what it once was. You guys can't even support what your country is about because to do it would mean helping Bush in your minds. It's sick

Facts are facts? Okay, then tell me where is your factual proof that disputes what I said that a good portion of Americans looked at that trip as something more then just a morale booster? Show me your facts.

What's sick, that I don't agree with you? That makes me un-American? Man, please. Once again, you stroll through here like thief in the night once in a blue moon and leave, and I'm left to ask myself "WTF"?

[higgybaby]

Redskinsfan10 that is a ridiculous question....I challenge you to prove that a good portion of Americans looked at that trip as something other than a morale booster!

***** But I find it even more disgusting and a much more important issue; that you would condemn somebody for"posting once in a blue moon" I would think that you, as an administrator would be above that and more importantly would invite and be enthusiastic that this person posts, even if it is only once in a blue moon. I do not believe that this attitude is not a very good representation of what I have come to love about this HR community. I believe for some reason, that if DALPUMPKIN'S "once in a blue moon" post was more supportive of your view you would not be complaining about their attendance to this board!!

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by higgybaby
Redskinsfan10 that is a ridiculous question....I challenge you to prove that a good portion of Americans looked at that trip as something other than a morale booster!

I watched every single news cast (local and national) that I possibly could after this trip was made, and I saw many people, average citizens, that questioned the President's motives. If you like, call the networks and ask them for the unedited copies of all the sound bites that they received from ordinary citizens that they questioned on the street. I spend a considerable amount of time on Capitol Hill while I work. I know several US Capitol police officers. It's not hard for me to get a pulse of what is being said in front and behind the cameras around here. What, are you looking for a majority (I hope not), because majority doesn't define "good portion". If only half of the registered Democrats in this country said that they thought it was a crock, then there is your good portion. 1 out of 10 defines a good portion. Without launching my own Mason-Dixon poll, I'm pretty certain thaat the numbers support my argument.

***** But I find it even more disgusting and a much more important issue; that you would condemn somebody for"posting once in a blue moon" I would think that you, as an administrator would be above that and more importantly would invite and be enthusiastic that this person posts, even if it is only once in a blue moon. I do not believe that this attitude is not a very good representation of what I have come to love about this HR community. I believe for some reason, that if DALPUMPKIN'S "once in a blue moon" post was more supportive of your view you would not be complaining about their attendance to this board!!

Laying it on kinda thick there, aren't you? Let's start from the beginning:
1. Disgusting? (that's laughable)
2. Where did I condemn anyone? Where did I say that he was beneath me because of how often he posts? Where did I say that his thoughts mean absolutely nothing to the overall good of hR because he posts so little? Where did I say that he wasn't welcome here because of his post count? Please show me where I COMPLAINED about his attendence. You seem to be making accusations that cannot be supported by FACTS.
3. dalpumpkin has made posts before where he interjects himself within debate, then isn't heard from for seemingly an eternity. That should explain the "blue moon" reference. And for the record, the thief in the night reference was more to do with the time his post was made, as when most of his posts are made, which are during the early morning hours. It was also more to do with his seemingly I'm anti-American rhetoric that he displayed towards myself. A very serious accusation if you ask me. I'm left to wonder WTF because I was deemed as such by your comrade.

You find it disgusting that I mentioned his posting habits, but you have no problem with him telling me that I don't support my country. I guess because you and he share the same political views, YOU don't feel a need to complain about that ridiculous assertion, now do you? Go figure. Where are the facts to support my non-patriotism? Are you going to defend me as you are defending him? Am I to believe that another love that you have for hR is reading someone that sits on the same side of the political spectrum as yourself accuse someone of differing opinions as being un-patriotic without fact to support such an absurd assertion? It would be different if the pictures of me selling CIA secrets to the N Koreans were posted here, then I could understand. Since they aren't, admin or no admin, I will not sit back and allow myself to be termed as such without defending myself. It is a very serious charge. Sorry if you don't approve of my methods. Sad and petty were some words that I recall reading earlier in this thread. Hmm....

[rskinsfan10]

And to further support my statement, here is a list of the posting times for dalpumpkin: (all times are AM unless PM is noted)

356,321,253,250,301,221,140,118,106,1244,227,219,1 00,1212,1150PM,1131PM,1111PM,257,217,346,325,317,1 31,100,1246,1219,633,602,519,314,257,235,215,251,2 23,153,343,322,1254,210...

...hence the thief in the night reference (lets not forget that un-patriotic claim also, it's very important here). I already had mentioned my reasonings for that reference, but you seem to like facts, so there you go. Maybe it's early for him wherever he is, but it sure is middle of the night for me (on average).

[RedskinsDave]

" It would be different if the pictures of me selling CIA secrets to the N Koreans were posted here"

Don't tempt me. :cool:

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
" It would be different if the pictures of me selling CIA secrets to the N Koreans were posted here"

Don't tempt me. :cool:

I did say "if".;)

[Odyn]

Me thinks it was a good idea that Bush went down and showed that he knew where Baghdad was and that he cared.