|
|
Post by Travis2261 on Apr 12, 2009 17:46:41 GMT -5
there are now 3 less pirates in the world.there is a family and crew happy this ordeal is over.i hope the partisan crap can be put aside to acknowledge this fact.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 12, 2009 19:29:26 GMT -5
there are now 3 less pirates in the world.there is a family and crew happy this ordeal is over.i hope the partisan crap can be put aside to acknowledge this fact. I cheered the heroism seen today. As for partisan crap, I have no problem giving the same credit to President Obama for this happy day that liberals give President Bush for protecting us from terrorists for nearly eight years.  JOR-EL |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 12, 2009 21:45:23 GMT -5
Besides, Bush would have had that guy home a lot sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by Travis2261 on Apr 13, 2009 17:06:39 GMT -5
im not a liberal,but i hated bush and think he destroyed the party of reagon.my 401k lost 20,000 in 2008,lets see who was president that year.gas went to 4 dollars a gallon and caused massive economic problems and what did bush do,nothing.i guess it is also a huge fluke that a oilman was president when oil companies made all time record profits.those same companies have been around for 50 or more years.wasnt part of the terrorist plot on 911 was to destroy our economy.listen to facts not political rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 13, 2009 17:37:34 GMT -5
Gas went to 4 dollars a gallon, but Bush didn't do "nothing." By time time he left office, it was back to about $2.00 again.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptApril on Apr 14, 2009 13:34:07 GMT -5
Out here, it was down to around $1.35.
Now it's starting to go back above $2.00.
Thanks, Barry.
Shmuck.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 14, 2009 15:18:32 GMT -5
im not a liberal,but i hated bush and think he destroyed the party of reagon.my 401k lost 20,000 in 2008,lets see who was president that year.gas went to 4 dollars a gallon and caused massive economic problems and what did bush do,nothing.i guess it is also a huge fluke that a oilman was president when oil companies made all time record profits.those same companies have been around for 50 or more years.wasnt part of the terrorist plot on 911 was to destroy our economy.listen to facts not political rhetoric. Destroyed the party of Reagan? Silliness. He wasn't, sadly, a Reagan clone, but those are few and far between. He could have done a lot worse. Before you blame him for the economy, remember that we had a GREAT economy under Bush until the House of Reps passed over to the liberals, headed by Nancy Pelosi. The House controls the nations' purse strings. Don't give Bush fault that Nancy worked hard earning. How ANY American, no matter the political stripe, can honestly say "I hate Bush" baffles me. The man protected your family from folks who desperately want to slit their throats, and would happily die doing so. That such a large part of the country does, in fact, hate Bush makes me wonder if everyone's rotted their brain on Spongebob Squarepants or something. Or maybe they hate their families and hope someone will cut off their heads. One or the other, I dunno which. There is one person who does, arguably, have reason to hate Bush. That's our current President. He has to protect every single one of us, no slip ups, absolute perfection, or he falls short of the bar Bush set. He lets one American die on home soil due to terrorism, just one, he's a failure. I pray for him. Seriously. Which is more than 99.99% of liberals did for Bush. JOR-EL |
|
|
|
Post by Travis2261 on Apr 14, 2009 17:29:36 GMT -5
you give more credit to bush than to our military.thats who kept us safe, not a man who spent 2 of his 8 years on vacation.saying bush was the main reason for our safety is like me saying obama took those pirates out.im a veteran and served in the 1st gulf war and have a reminder of it everytime i try to use 2 hands .the closest bush came to combat was dodging a shoe.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 14, 2009 19:32:01 GMT -5
you give more credit to bush than to our military.thats who kept us safe, not a man who spent 2 of his 8 years on vacation.saying bush was the main reason for our safety is like me saying obama took those pirates out.im a veteran and served in the 1st gulf war and have a reminder of it everytime i try to use 2 hands .the closest bush came to combat was dodging a shoe. If you really did serve our country,--and I'm not saying you didn't-- and was wounded as part of that service, then you're a hero. Everything else you said, though, is gibberish. Here's why. Does the military get the lion's share of the credit for keeping us safe since 9/11? Well, sure. I thought that went without saying. But to say "I hate Bush" when it was his policies that kept us safe for nearly eight years makes no sense. The military was able to do its job only becuase of Bush's policies. That opinion, by the way, is shared by most of our military personnel, as demonstrated by their support for Bush and the war on terror. Haven't you noticed how few, how very, very few military families and veterans supported John Kerry in 2004 as opposed to Bush? Or how so few of their number criticized Bush after their service ended? Of all the war dead we've had, why are so few of their families speaking out against Bush? I'm just echoing their pro-Bush sentiments. I won't say I hate Obama, but I will say that he's shaping up to be the worst choice we've made. At this rate, we'll have gone socialist by Christmas. But, yeah, I will say, if no one else wants to, that he DOES get credit for rescuing that American held by pirates the other day. The Navy Seals did the work, they get top honors, but they couldn't do anything if Obama didn't sign off on it. Bush kept us safe for eight years. Any American who says "I hate Bush" either really despises their family, is insane, or has been reading nothing but Michael Moore hate speeches these last few years. Obama made it possible to get that civilian American captain free. To say otherwise cheapens any legitimate criticism of the man. You want to criticize someone, fine, but stick with facts and commons sense. JOR-EL |
|
|
|
Post by CaptApril on Apr 15, 2009 13:26:36 GMT -5
Barry didn't exactly make it easy for those SEALs to do their job, with his orders to not engage unless the captain's life was in immediate danger, i.e., they couldn't take these clowns out unless and until they literally had a gun to his head and looked like they were about to pull the trigger.
Our oh-so-compassionate president was playing chicken with a man's life.
Now, maybe if the Navy had been given a freer hand, it might well have played out exactly the same way, or it may have been wrapped up three days earlier.
But make no mistake, the SEALs were operating with one arm tied behind their backs, with a presidential seal on the knot.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 15, 2009 16:28:36 GMT -5
Barry didn't exactly make it easy for those SEALs to do their job, with his orders to not engage unless the captain's life was in immediate danger, i.e., they couldn't take these clowns out unless and until they literally had a gun to his head and looked like they were about to pull the trigger. Our oh-so-compassionate president was playing chicken with a man's life. Now, maybe if the Navy had been given a freer hand, it might well have played out exactly the same way, or it may have been wrapped up three days earlier. But make no mistake, the SEALs were operating with one arm tied behind their backs, with a presidential seal on the knot. Well, fudge. The Obamanator actually went up a few notches in my book, now it seems some of those notches are unearned. Here's my question--Did Barak tell the Navy chief, expicitly, not to engage unless the captain's life was in immediate danger, or did he tell said chief to make their best guess, with the first consideration the safetly of the captain? If Barak took the advice of our military leaders, then I can't fault him, I can only give him a thumbs up for a job well done. If he decided that he understands military matters better than the US Navy, then that captain needs to get on bended knee and give thanks to God that he got out of there safely, despite a liberal making important decisions. JOR-EL |
|
|
|
Post by Travis2261 on Apr 15, 2009 17:32:55 GMT -5
you need to watch the documentary NO END IN SIGHT this movie deals with iraq before the surge.we could have had iraq in control sooner and had less men killed if the white house had listened to those who were actually there.if you watched the news at the time like i did you would have heard bush say our troop strenghth was about right.the surge was general petraius ideal and was backed by mcain.rumsfield ,and cheney both critized the retired generals who suggested we went in without a strong enough force.i mean im a news junkie i cant see how people dont recall these facts.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 15, 2009 18:26:51 GMT -5
you need to watch the documentary NO END IN SIGHT this movie deals with iraq before the surge.we could have had iraq in control sooner and had less men killed if the white house had listened to those who were actually there.if you watched the news at the time like i did you would have heard bush say our troop strenghth was about right.the surge was general petraius ideal and was backed by mcain.rumsfield ,and cheney both critized the retired generals who suggested we went in without a strong enough force.i mean im a news junkie i cant see how people dont recall these facts. Travis, if you've accurately represented 'No End In Sight' then you've been had. You're correct in that the Bush administration, during W's first term, made a serious error in not sending enough troops. General Petraus was not in charge at the time (I forget the name of the commanding general). However, very, very few people were in favor of a surge at that time. To his great credit, John McCain was one. The rest of us (yes, I'm including myself) were wrong. But we weren't the only ones who were wrong. The liberals wanted us to surrender. They wanted us to abandon Iraq to the insurgents, who wanted to kill the pro-American government that replaced Saddam's terror machine, and give a safe haven to the folks who were behind 9/11. When Rumsfeld was fired ("Don, I need you to resign") and replaced by Gates in the second term, Bush had determined the surge was needed. General Pertraus went before the Congress to advocate the surge. Hillary Clinton pretty much called him a liar (and for that should have resigned in disgrace) while left wing groups denigrated him by mocking his last name. None involved in those ads can really be considered Americans. They would probably be happier in Venezuela. About the same time the surge was proven to be working, Harry Reid, scared to death Bush might look good for about an hour, declared the war to be lost. First time in American history a politician of his high office tried to get us to surrender when we were winning. I'm still not sure if he's the stupidest politician I've seen on the national stage, or if his personal obsessive hatred of Bush overrules even love of family and country for him. Or maybe he was just angling for a job on MSNBC. Hard to tell with him. Thing is, when Bush realized damn near everyone was wrong but Pertraus and McCain, he dumped Rummy, brought in Gates, promoted the surge, and we won. Ultimately, we may still lose, as the current President seems to just barely grasp the idea that winning would be really swell, but the surge worked. Thank you, President Bush, for making the tough calls that kept us all safe, even in the face of hatred by some of those whose families you saved. JOR-EL |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Seven on Apr 15, 2009 22:54:44 GMT -5
there are now 3 less pirates in the world.there is a family and crew happy this ordeal is over.i hope the partisan crap can be put aside to acknowledge this fact.
This guy is a Joke! I can just see in my head how this situation would have been depicted in the mainstream media if Bush was the president right now and had this whole thing happened under his watch insted. The youth of the pirates would have been pointed out, again and again, and there would have been seemingly endless questioning by the so-called journalists and reporters as to whether such drastic means were really called for and necessary --I mean, after all, these kids were impoverished and starving and came from a place that no one would want to have lived or have come from. There would be the dire predictions as to how this will inflame tensions in the region and that the next time there will likely be a lot more bloodshed.
No, I don't play that game anymore. I don't play it on the terms of these left-wing scumbags and their allies in the press. No freakin' way. This guy is a blatant, transparent opportunist, and he handled this situation the same way he's handled most situations throughout his political career --vote "present" so as to not have to take a definitive stand, and when something happens and it looks advantageous to him personally and his political career, then jump up with hand raised and get the cameras focusing in that direction as the words "It was me!" are hollered by him and his cronies.
Screw these people. They all suck. And I will not forget how they destroyed a good man who held the office for eight years because their own miserable partisanship was all that mattered to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Travis2261 on Apr 16, 2009 20:45:38 GMT -5
i never said petraus was in charge when he suggested surge.he was in charge of training iraqi security forces.the surge of troops was just one part of the reason violence has gone down. we also armed sunni groups who at one time were killing our troops and promised to protect them from shite attacks.just watch the movie before you shoot it down.also the movie was made before surge and really was about the chaos after our intial victory and the blunders soon after.remember the looters and rumsfield acting like it was no big deal.i saw petraus say the stuff on surge while on nightly news.
|
|
