View Full Version : Being Commander In Cheif does not qualify you to be Commander In Cheif...
OK Right Wingers, your turn.
Questioning authority, and asking whats right and wrong is what makes this question great. Blindly following is a bad mistake any time.
KB in another thread asked Lefties what JFK did to warrant leading the country.
Now I ask you this. What has president Bush done to stay there?
Part two of the question: Why have so many people turned "anti Bush"?
.....ding...
rickster
08-10-04, 08:24 PM
I just like him!
Bold, I know. But isn't that what it all comes down to. If you agree with their ideals, core values and such, you probably like them. That transfers to trust. Hence a vote.
I think the anti Bush movement is driven by some of the same raw emotions that had so many hating Clinton, just a different crowd. His ideals and core values were 180 degrees from mine. Call me a prude, but they were.
This probably won't make a lot of friends, but I think Bush draws a lot of the anger from his bold up front position on Christ!
Somehow, in our society it become improper for a man to be driven by, and speak of, a deep conviction and belief in Christ. I know everyone doesn't hate him for it, heck some probably hate him cause he's a man, some cause he's a Texan, some cause he was born rich.....some cause in their heart they believe he's wrong.
Anyway just my .02 worth.
In his grip,
rickster
GUTHOOKED
08-11-04, 12:35 AM
Not much, IMO. The tax cuts were a step in the right direction, but fall far short of sufficient. Signing the Campaign Finance Reform bill (AKA Incumbent Protection Act) showed a total disregard for the constitution, IMO. His prescription drug plan was nothing more than an attempt at beating dems at their own game (vote buying). His environmental policy leaves a bit to be desired, to say the least. However, all of these issues mean absolutely nothing if we lose the war on terror. I feel like Bush has acted boldly and decisively, although not recklessly, in the pursuit of terrorists, and this policy needs to continue until there is no longer anywhere for these people to hide. IMO, Bush is the best man to continue this war. All the other stuff can be fixed later.
On second thought, I may just vote none of the above. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/frown.gif
mmarkey
08-11-04, 08:13 AM
I totally agree with Rickster. Plus I believe what the guy is telling me. In other words if he says he is going to do something he does it. He doesn't lie intentionally to decieve. He has a strong moral character and personal direction. I don't want to ever see a president that is a flounder and flip flops or one that lies at you while biting his lip and smiling. that just gets under my skin.
Most of the major decisions that a president makes are made in conjuncton with a cadre of very smart individualls in their respective fields. That is where the strength of the presidency is. The man himself is entrusted with making the final decision but it must be able to make a DECISION and not committee rule. I think Bush has it in that respect. Just as Ronald Regan had it the same way.
My 2¢
------------------
Mike Markey
Windknot
08-11-04, 10:01 AM
Ok, I’ll play along.
What has President Bush done to stay there?
1. Recognized that there are evil, implacable people in the world who wish us ill.
2. Recognized that the UN is a failed experiment offering very little to the world but enrichment of its minions.
3. Destroyed the fundamentalist rulers of Afghanistan.
4. Taken the fight to Islamic terrorists around the world.
5. Removed the Iraqi dictator and dismantled his political apparatus.
6. Embarked upon a premise of installing personal freedom and some version of democracy in newly-freed Iraq.
7. Cut my taxes.
8. Teased us about major income tax revision.
Why have so many people turned "anti Bush"?
1. Genuine differences of opinion on policies.
2. Misguided idealism.
3. Watching/listening to broadcast “news” exclusively.
4. Emulating their hero’s’ opinions.
Don
rickster
08-11-04, 10:06 AM
Good job Windknot!
r
Well, I was gonna answer the question but Windknot hit the nail on the head.
There is really nothing else to say.
Does Bush really do what he says?
Don't think so. This is probably the biggest say one thing, do another administration in modern times.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=137673
finless brown
08-11-04, 10:23 AM
"Part two of the question: Why have so many people turned "anti Bush"?"
IMHO they were mostly anti-Bush to begin with.
Ole W is most likely a better fisherman than Kerry http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif , but I'm voting for him because he is a man of principle, where it seems his opponent will say anything and everything to get votes, regardless of the evidence of his record or the true wishes of his constituancy. Basically to me he seems to be full of ####. Would that be FOS in web speak?
finless brown
08-11-04, 10:24 AM
"OK Right Wingers, your turn."
Grady, since when did you become a right winger? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
JOHNKIES
08-11-04, 11:33 AM
(1) The real enemy who attacked the US is still on the loose and no end in sight while the threat of terrorist attacks on US turf remains.
(2) Iraq is a quagmire with no end in sight.
(3) Huge deficits and spending at record rates without a clue how to actually pay for any of it while coupled to an economy that continues to stumble.
(4) Continued attempts to cut back on industrial pollution laws, restrictions and standards which are particularly beneficial to the power industries.
(5) 'Patriot' Act is the biggest single threat to individual liberties in the history of this country. For example, gun owners are being tracked based upon weapon purchases, ammunition purchases and related activities.
On the plus side old Dubya does seem to enjoy a little fishing on occasion and his daughter shows a disdane for the press comparable to Mrs. Kerry!
Good answers.
I prefaced the thread with the comment about following blindly.
"I just like him!
Bold, I know. But isn't that what it all comes down to. If you agree with their ideals, core values and such, you probably like them. That transfers to trust. Hence a vote."
No offense rickster (and mmarkey), but this is what I'm talking about. In your defense, I hear this out of most Bush supporters. To me IMHO, he uses Jesus as a smoke screen to cover his deceit, and it caters PERFECTLY to the party. I can't help but look at a mans actions and believe them, more than his words. The reasons you mentioned were the exact reasons I voted for him last election. His actions since, has convinced me otherwise.
Windknot, good answers... but what about our borders, our country? Also, could we have not had a better plan in Iraq? A plan to "win the peace" before we went in with our guns blazing? National security is a MAJOR deciding factor to me. Other than one of the worlds mad men being secured, there has been NOTHING else to prove to me that we are any safer than we were on 9-11. It makes me wonder if a more efficient plan would have left the USA that money being spent on Iraq. Money to improve our borders, ports, airports, military etc... of course hind sight is 20/20.
Danny, I agree that things need to continue with the war on terror... I just feel like we need a better plan. It can't keep going the way it is. We need international help, we are fooling ourselves to think that the we can do it all ourselves.
Great points Johnkies, and thank you for bringing up the patriot act...its flat scary. How far will it go? Give an inch now......
Maybe Bush is a better fisherman... how many fisherman have ever stretched the truth, or flat out lied after a day being outwitted? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
Staying with Bush at this point is like staying with that girlfriend you know you should break up with... its comfortable now, but it always ends up worse in the end http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
Hope I didn't offend you Rickster, I didn't mean to..
Brian
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 08-11-2004).]
fishmonger
08-11-04, 02:11 PM
Bpal,
I feel your pain (a favorite Dem vote getter http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif). It really is too bad that the Dems front-loaded the Primary election process and ended up with Senator Horseface. He is not a good candidate for this job. He has too much baggage and record to hide from. Neither was Al a good candidate, but he was a shoe-in as the incumbent VP. Maybe someone that middle-of-the-road Dems can actually support will run in '08. How do you like Hillary? Now we're talking REALLY scary. Oh, well, maybe somebody in '12...
"Anybody but Bush" is a sorry platform. It has left Kerry supporters having to hope for bad things for America (terror, Iraq, economy, jobs, yada, yada, yada) just to make the Pres look bad. How could have it come to that?
FM
streamKAT
08-11-04, 02:19 PM
I have to agree .... the 'anybody bit Bush' platform is pretty juvenile & weak. But if we have become a nation of fools then it's only appro we are lead by a fool like Kerry.
Actually, in a warped way,I secretly hope that Kerry gets elected, it's going to get worse before it gets better ..... and then we can blame HIM !
Folks that support Kerry sport the same political view as Sarandon & Robins etal.
I personally would be ashamed to have Susan Sarandon or Tim 'girley man' Robbins in agreement with me on a political matter.
;)
Flame away !
streamKAT
08-11-04, 02:25 PM
And we all know that John Kerry would never LIE !!
LOL!!!!!!!
Trying to rid a flailing country of a very scary leader is anything but "juvenile and weak". Not seeing the place W has lead us because we have a preconcived notion of what a party is, and should represent, is a bit juvenile, and VERY weak. To not see through the smoke of an administration, and stay hypnotized by the threat of terror...and the only way to protect ourselves is to ivade nations, is weak as well. There are better ways, and we need to give someone else a chance to clean up a wicked mess.
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 08-11-2004).]
FM.. as anyone but bush person and it is not a sorry platform. It is a platform of protest agains the current administration. I dont look for scary things .. they are already readily appearent, and that to me IS what is scary.
I trully do not think our country is safer. And the new "deporation at the border" announced by Hutchinson just proves we dont have a clue... I mean deporting anyone within 100 miles of the border that has been here a handful of days that is not mexican or canadian does nothing to secure our border ( and those pesky Cannucks just keep coming in dont they..hahah)
HOw easy would it to be for a well financed terrorist organization to hire illegal aliens of mexican origin to carry something for them inot this country?? Thnk of all the drugs coming across the border and imagine instead of a kilo of coke a kilo of (name your chem/bio agent) coming across.. I know we cant have a 100% secure border, but darn this new rule doesnt really close the gaps.
But if we cannot take the security of our borders seriously and approach that topic with an iron fist, how are we to use an iron fist on the the trully evil people that have attacked us?
When is the admin finally going to say to Saudi that hey love your oil, but your teachings are killing our soldiers and our citizens?
When will we as a nation have the balls to tell Mushareff that hey, we want free reign to hunt and kill terrorists in your country.. and oh btw, the scientist that sold us N. Korea, Iran, Sudan, and a myserious 4th country ( read Saudi) nuke technology thatg we wish to question him
Until we secure the nukes and material in russia we are no safer
When will Afghanistan trully be out of the hands of the warlords, and we stop the illegal opium/herion trade that is supplying money to the taliban and others than wish us ill?
To me, this admin is too busy trying to keep me scared to actually act on making me feel safe.
oh, and i am sure that everyone voted for Dole because of the man and his platform and not because it was a vote against Clinton.. touche' eh.. ahhaha .
finless brown
08-11-04, 02:58 PM
"Other than one of the worlds mad men being secured, there has been NOTHING else to prove to me that we are any safer than we were on 9-11"
How about no additional terrorist attacks on US soil?
"3) Huge deficits and spending at record rates without a clue how to actually pay for any of it while coupled to an economy that continues to stumble."
An economy that continues to stumble- come on, who do you think you are kidding? As much as the sissy liberal media tries to hide it, the economy is actually growing at a healthy rate.
What really makes me ill is the notion that what is good for America right now is bad for the Dems- they are actually hoping for more terrorist attacks, failure in Iraq and economic hardships at home. If you don't believe me try the Democratic Underground website. I wish those pansies would move to France; I'm sure they would fit in nicely seeing as how they hate America as much as the Frogs.
chuckwagon
08-11-04, 03:00 PM
Please, everyone. Go get the book "the connection" by stephen hayes.
Trey Niolon
"How about no additional terrorist attacks on US soil? "
Sorry man- can't sell me on that. How many terrorist attacks had been on US soil the three years prior to 9-11? Were we safe then?
"What really makes me ill is the notion that what is good for America right now is bad for the Dems- they are actually hoping for more terrorist attacks, failure in Iraq and economic hardships at home. If you don't believe me try the Democratic Underground website. I wish those pansies would move to France; I'm sure they would fit in nicely seeing as how they hate America as much as the Frogs."
If you could look past party lines and see what is really wrong.... Do you think the anti-bush movement is party based? Why are so many bi-partisans anti-bush. Why is there such activation in voters this year with non voters to out Bush? Its not the party. Its who the party just happens to have in charge right now.
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 08-11-2004).]
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 08-11-2004).]
chuckwagon
08-11-04, 03:25 PM
It boils down to this. Someone has to be the bad guy. The butcher behind the meat counter is the bad guy to some. If it where not for the butcher than how would we get the chick,beef,or pork in those nice celafain packages? His job is nasty, it requires doing the job that nobody(NOT many) wants to do! Thank goodness (for most) that they don't have to ring a chickens neck for sunday fried chicken!
Now, I don't see our administration far from the butcher. Its a nasty job, noone wants or has the backbone to do it. If it wasnt for our efforts now, we may never have the freedom to have chicken wrapped in plastic for sunday dinner?
We can speculate all we want. I want to be able to drive my car to fish when i want. i want to be able to watch what tv i want and when i want. I also like buying my steaks from the mean old butcher when i want.
I am afraid we are kidding ourselves if we falsly believe that we are safe ever! We are in a new era that terror will always reign untill it is eliminated. I am not sure it will ever be eliminated?
Who is to blame is a blend of administrations starting back to how long ?
As i see it "dang if you do,dang if you don't"
Clinton gets railed for not doing enough, Bush gets blasted for doing too much?
We all talk a big game that we know whats better for each other. Well i can assure you we do not know anything about whats best. There is only one that knows whats gonna happen on my way home.
So, boasting all this nonsense is really wastin our time. don't ya think?
It sure would sadden me to go through life thinkin everyone and all the opposing parties are trying to screw me over?!
Trey Niolon
streamKAT
08-11-04, 03:34 PM
Nice try guys , but I am hearing nothing but rhetoric, this 'wicked mess' you refer to.... you honestly think Gore would have deftly avoided this situation ? So he would have avoided Iraq, that makes it dramatically better ? That Sadaam would still be murdering and thumbing his nose at us would make it a less dangerous situation ?
Sorry... to disagree on policy is one thing but to paint as bleak a picture as possible and blame it on the current administration is weak & juvenuile. It's a tough situation and WHOEVER is president is gonna have to deal with it.... and it won't all go well no matter who you are....
'Anybody but Bush' is weak and you haven't shown any differently here .... but some of you are quite eloquent. ;)
fishmonger
08-11-04, 03:35 PM
Jeff,
"oh, and i am sure that everyone voted for Dole because of the man and his platform and not because it was a vote against Clinton.. touche' eh.. ahhaha ."
No, that is EXACTLY why we voted for him. And he got trounced in the election, which means that it was a crappy reason to vote for him. And we are now in the same situation, only with the party's reversed.
Thanks for bolstering my point!
FM
To me, if it was Gore in office right now, and the same situation was at hand, then I would be Anybody but Gore.
Weakness is not standing up for what you believe. I believe Bush is not the right leader and I am standing up for that.
When did it become a weakness to stand for what you believe?
Fm.. touche back.. haha
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 08-11-2004).]
If the butcher behind the meat counter is cutting the right meat, and packaging it the right way, I would go to that butcher... no matter how bloody he looked.
If the butcher starting cutting up cats and dogs, after telling me he's gonna cut me a hunk of filet mignon, I'm gonna be ticked and go somewhere else. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
Very good point about us being safe. I don't know that we will ever be 100% safe. There are safeguards we can implement to lessen our odds however.
You don't know if you are gonna get in a car wreck, so you wear a seatbelt, and have an airbag. right?
Also, if you want to watch what you want, when you want.. you better look at who's in charge. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif Seems censorship is another issue with this administration.
StreamKitty,
The argument for Bush would be stronger on this thread without you. If there is one person blowing smoke, and not making a single point its you. Blasting
opinion, as opposed to showing another side of it, is mindless. I am done with you.
good point Jeff. Well said.
streamKAT
08-11-04, 03:44 PM
Clinton looks pretty good compared to Kerry...
While I disagreed with Clintons philosophy, he is extremely intelligent and had the savvy to deal with world affairs without actually beleiveing some of the rhetoric he stood behind (i.e. Arab Israeli Peace deal.....he knew Arafat would dork it up right from the beginning)
Bush has at least had the private 'dirty dealing' experience of a capitalist.
Kerry hasen't shown any savvy other than commanding a swift boat for 4 months LOL!!!
And marrying rich women of course.
I find it ironic that TH Kerry spends all that money that her CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN husband made. A first lady of real integrity !!
streamKAT
08-11-04, 03:45 PM
chill bpal .... my argument says something or it wouldn't frustrate you so !
chuckwagon
08-11-04, 03:48 PM
Hey,hey hey, Somefolks do eat those pets!
Censorship I do have a problem with. There is a fine line that cannot be crossed. Has it been crossed? thats another debate. Its darn close. But hey we are republicans. trust us its ok. (Smilly face with glasses here).
Alright, could someone show this ignorant conservative how to make the message icons work.
Trey Niolon
streamKAT
08-11-04, 04:01 PM
Hey bpal !
Meow Meow Meow Meow !
stardaddy
08-11-04, 04:03 PM
What this presidential election boils down to are people making a decision about Bush. They are either for Bush or against him. People are not talking about voting for Kerry, but only talking about voting for or against Bush. Bush is the name you hear one way or the other, and when this happens usually the person who’s name is heard the most wins.
What is causing this? Where does the Anti-Bush movement start? I find those voting against Bush are doing so because of his declarations on Christianity, and how God wanted him in, and is leading him in the White House. There are large groups of people whom greatly despise anything vaguely Christian, and although they are not making it a public issue, they are voting against Bush fearing his Christianity and belief that “God wants him to do stuff” makes him unstable to lead the country. Of course, you have what I call the “one issue voter” who, depending on their views on issues like abortion, gun control, environment, etc. are going to vote for whomever supports their issue never minding anything else about the candidate. But in this case, the “silent issue” of Bush’s Christianity, is driving voters not to vote for Kerry, but to vote against Bush.
LMAO...Thats why I like you Trey. I'd wet a line with you any time.
Unfortunately I don't know anything but the basic smileys... http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif = ; ) http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif = : )
Reading through this post is interesting. It seems that people are standing for an idea as opposed to looking at whats going on. Kerry hasn't proven to me he can't lead. Bush has. Another four years, you might be reading bpals posts about getting that worthless liberal punk Kerry out of office. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif Thats the beauty of the system. You can change things when they are messed up. Not voting for someone because you don't know if they can lead is like not going to the prom because you don't know if you'll get some at nights end... you have to take the chance to be rewarded. I took the chance with Bush, and he screwed me allright!
Stardaddy- I like your post. I think that has something to do with it as well. I like that he is outwardly christian, but there comes a point when the President of the United States needs to not look like such a Zealot. It reminds me of the passion some Islamic leaders posses.
~B
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 08-11-2004).]
finless brown
08-11-04, 05:02 PM
"Get over yourself. If you think that people who want a change in America because they don't like what they see WANT TERRORIST ATTACKS your absolutely gone off the deep end, and should seek help. You have serious problems. I take that personally."
Dang, son. Thems some seroius words. Please don't take my sentiments personally, they certainly weren't meant to be personal attacks. I didn't say that YOU feel that way, only that I have read postings on the Democratic Underground website that say exactly that.
lone wolf
08-11-04, 05:20 PM
OK! You all have convinced me...
I'm voting straight "natural law party"! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
Sorry Finless.. that felt like you were targeting us '04 Dems. I feel very close to 9-11 having lost a friend (as a lot of us have), and the fact that I had been on the tower on the afternoon of 9-10. I don't care who is in power as long as we keep our turf protected. I am only wondering if we are going about doing that the right way.
~B
Hey sorry to break from the thread, but keep in your minds and hearts our troops that are poised yet again on Najaf. In a lot of ways, this battle ( or lack there of) could change the political landscape in Iraq and change the perception of the US again..
GUTHOOKED
08-11-04, 06:33 PM
Some of you liberal weenies http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif make some good points. However, I just can't believe that Kerry can lead us in war better than Bush. Bush has made mistakes, I'm sure, but I just find it hard to believe in a man who promises to wage a "more sensitive" war. Yeah, he actually said that. Kerry's concern with international support and UN cooperation worries me. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the whole world's support, but its not going to happen. Other countries are going to do what's right for them, and we need to do what's right for us. Sometimes that's not going to be the same thing. Besides, let's not forget, there are thirty-some other countries contributing to the Iraq effort to some degree or another. Do we really need France, Germany, and Russia that badly?
Danny-
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 9/23/2003 Quote/Claim: “Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” - UN speech [White House Web site] Fact: Knight-Ridder reported that experts now say the "Iraq war is diverting resources from war on terror." Specifically, "a growing number of counter-terrorism experts are questioning whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq has hurt rather than helped the global battle against al Qaeda." Republican and Democratic experts "are increasingly suggesting that the Iraq war has diverted momentum, troops and intelligence resources from the worldwide campaign to destroy the remnants of al Qaeda." Similarly, the U.S. Army War College reported that the Iraq war "diverted attention and resources away from the security of the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda." - Knight-Ridder, 11/26/03; BBC, 1/13/04 Reference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030923-4.html>
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 9/23/2003 Quote/Claim: “All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization.” - UN Speech [Source: White House Web site] Fact: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis despite the findings of a bipartisan commission investigating 9/11. The commission found the Saudi government “not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.” - LA Times, 8/2/03 Reference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030826-5.html> Reference <http://www.earthchangestv.com/secure/2003_articles/0803_articles/0803_1articles/08classified.htm>
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 9/10/2003 Quote/Claim: “We have made clear the doctrine which says, if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you hide a terrorist you're just as guilty as the terrorist. We're holding regimes accountable for harboring and supporting terror.” [Source: White House Web site] Fact: "That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that 'rogue regime' for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention." - LA Times, 5/22/01 Reference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030910-6.html> Reference <http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm>
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 5/1/2003 Quote/Claim: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda." [Source: White House Web site] Fact: "The occupation of Iraq has helped al-Qaeda recruit more members, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies." - BBC, 5/25/04 Reference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html> Reference <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3746205.stm> Reference <http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=83010>
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 6/2/2004 Quote/Claim: "We are using all elements of our national power to deny terrorists the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek." [Source: White House Web site] Fact: "In his fiscal year 2005 budget request to Congress, Bush did not substantially increase funding for [nonproliferation] programs and actually proposed cuts to the Department of Defense component" of a program to safeguard or destroy nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons abroad. - Arms Control Association, 3/04 Reference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html> Reference <http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/NunnLugarFunding.asp>
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 1/24/2002 Quote/Claim: "I have no ambition whatsoever to use [the war on terror or 9/11] as a political issue." [Source: BBC] Fact: "An internal White House document outlining President Bush's re-election agenda starts with "War on terrorism (Con't)" and homeland security." - AP, 12/29/02 "President Bush's top political adviser said today that Republicans will make the president's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections. 'We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America,' Karl Rove said at the Republican National Committee meeting." - Washington Post, 1/19/02 "Using unusually pointed language, President Bush's chief political adviser Karl Rove suggested Republicans should run on the message that they are the party who can be trusted to successfully fight the war against terrorism." - ABC News, 1/18/02 "A White House aide told [Pakistani Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq] last spring that 'it would be best if the arrest of killing of [any] HVT [High Value Target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July' – the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston." - The New Republic, 7/7/04 Reference <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1778681.stm> Reference <http://www.sltrib.com/2002/Dec/12292002/nation_w/15621.asp> Reference <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4512-2002Jan18>
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 2/23/2004 Quote/Claim: "I view the hunt for al Qaeda as part of the war on terror. And it requires all assets, intelligence assets and military assets, to chase them down and bring them to justice." [Source: White House Web site] Fact: Knight-Ridder reported that experts now say the "Iraq war is diverting resources from war on terror." Specifically, "a growing number of counter-terrorism experts are questioning whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq has hurt rather than helped the global battle against al Qaeda." Republican and Democratic experts "are increasingly suggesting that the Iraq war has diverted momentum, troops and intelligence resources from the worldwide campaign to destroy the remnants of al Qaeda." Similarly, the U.S. Army War College reported that the Iraq war "diverted attention and resources away from the security of the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda." - Knight-Ridder, 11/26/03; BBC, 1/13/04 "The Bush administration has scuttled a plan to increase by 50% the number of criminal financial investigators working to disrupt the finances of Al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations to save $12 million...The IRS had asked for 80 more criminal investigators beginning in October to join the 160 it has already assigned to penetrate the shadowy networks that terrorist groups use to finance plots like the Sept. 11 attacks and the recent train bombings in Madrid." - NY Times, 3/31/04 Reference <http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7357863.htm> Reference <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3391583.stm> Reference <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/business/31irs.html>
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 8/14/2003 Quote/Claim: "Our nation is waging a broad and unrelenting campaign against the global terror network – and we’re winning." [Source: White House Web site] Fact: "The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week." - USA Today, 10/22/03 Reference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030814-2.html> Reference <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-22-defense-memo-usat_x.htm>
Topic: War On Terror Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 4/26/2003 Quote/Claim: "America continues to fight and win the war on terror." [Source: White House Web site] Fact: "Al-Qaeda remains a viable and effective 'network of networks' and has been galvanized by the war in Iraq...the group is present in more than 60 countries and has '18,000 potential terrorists at large.'" - International Institute for Strategic Studies, 5/25/04 Reference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030426.html> Reference <http://www.iiss.org/home.php>
Apparently many terror experts and intelligence types here and in foreign countries are pissed at the Bushies latest outing of an undercover type and all the publicity given to recent arrests. Are ya'll aware of the Kahn guy that was a double agent spying on Al Qeada that Bush outed? Condi Rice admitted on TV the other day that the administration revealed his name to the NY Times. The leak came as Bush tried to justify the latest terror warnings which were based on info three years old. The only possible explanations the experts can come up with are politics or staggering incompetence. Whatever, we finally had a mole inside Al Qeada and Bush blew his cover.
Also, many are upset about all the publicity the US is giving all the recent arrests because the enemy learns too much from it. If these people are correct, it's hard to see how Bush is making us safer.
This link requires free registration.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-terror11aug11.story
duluthgator
08-12-04, 08:24 AM
Sorry but I agree with the president. We should never allow foreign countries like France dictate how we protect the US.
As far as Kerry, he would get his wife to tell the bad guys to "shove it". He has problems of his own right now. Seems Teresa has cut him off.
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc92.htm
Finally, can someone correct the title of this thread where CHIEF is misspelled.
[This message has been edited by duluthgator (edited 08-12-2004).]
fishmonger
08-12-04, 08:25 AM
I can't vouch for the veracity of the claim that Bush outed a CIA mole, yet. However, don't you think that if folks like yourself quit demanding immediate and constant proof of the administration's effectiveness in the war on terror, that there would be less pressure to crow about successes (and possibly expose sources and methods) when they do come?
You can't have it both ways...
FM
JOHNKIES
08-12-04, 09:40 AM
"Anybody but Bush" is a tactic cooked up by the shadow right - Lush Windbag and Bill O'Really for example - to distract from the message the Democrats are bringing to the race. The issues stand on their own and there are clear differences between how the two candidates approach the issues affecting us. "Anybody but Bush" implies a movement based on the concept that anybody is better, but that is not the case. Somebody on this board has bought into this so deeply as to suggest there is an "anti-Christian" movement to unseat Bush. The right must be really digging deeply in a desperate attempt to keep the public focus off the real issues of national security, economics, health care and our stature in the world.
Think I'm wrong? Go back and read the string of notes in this post. All kinds of deflections by Republicans including talking about where we would be today if Gore had taken office. Pointless. What really matters is who leads the next four years and what that leader will do about the real issues affecting us.
streamKAT
08-12-04, 12:17 PM
Ah the differences from liberalism...
I don't worry about what my 'leaders' are going to do to address issues relevant to me. I worry about the freedom(economic, personal,legal) they will let me have to deal with these issues myself.
I don't need 'leaders' to take care of me directly.
fishmonger
08-12-04, 12:22 PM
"Anybody but Bush" is NOT anything cooked up by anybody, much less the "shadow right". I can't believe that you're falling back to Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" nonsense. Can't Dems take reponsibility for ANYTHING? Now you blame Repubs for Kerry's lack of a message?
Tell me, is Jeff part of that conspiracy, since he admitted that he is for Anybody but Bush?
FM
I am part of the consiracy ever since I got my card from Ashcroft. I am here to make sure my country is safer by insuring there is no dissent, except for the dissent we are creating ourselves...
But just cuz I aint for bush, do you dare say it is because of religion, that arugement dont hunt.
And when bush and cheney dress up as the Blues Brothers and state that " we are on a mission from God".. then we have an issue! Oh wait, that may have already happened ( not dressing up though)..
I think it was Bin laden that started the "anybody but Bush campain".
[This message has been edited by newfly (edited 08-12-2004).]
FM-
Kerry's LACK of message?
"As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House"
"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States."
"As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system – so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."
"I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home."
"We will add 40,000 active duty troops – not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives – and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists"
" And the front lines of this battle are not just far away – they're right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America."
"As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. And together, we will make sure that senior citizens never have to cut their pills in half because they can't afford life-saving medicine."
"So here is our economic plan to build a stronger America:
First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing.
Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future.
Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong – in the good old U.S.A.
We value an America that exports products, not jobs – and we believe American workers should never have to subsidize the loss of their own job.
Next, we will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field – because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's nobody in the world the American worker can't compete against."
" let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education."
" Our education plan for a stronger America sets high standards and demands accountability from parents, teachers, and schools. It provides for smaller class sizes and treats teachers like the professionals they are. And it gives a tax credit to families for each and every year of college."
"Our health care plan for a stronger America cracks down on the waste, greed, and abuse in our health care system and will save families up to $1,000 a year on their premiums. You'll get to pick your own doctor – and patients and doctors, not insurance company bureaucrats, will make medical decisions. Under our plan, Medicare will negotiate lower drug prices for seniors. And all Americans will be able to buy less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada"
"We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil. What does it mean for our economy and our national security when we only have three percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we rely on foreign countries for fifty-three percent of what we consume?
I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family."
"What if we find a breakthrough to cure Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and AIDS? What if we have a president who believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives?"
Looks like a message to me.
fishmonger
08-12-04, 01:35 PM
Yeah, it looks like a CRAPPY message! I could easily pick it apart line by line, but what would be the point?
Ok, one line. The one about "never privatizing Social Security". Why not? I believe that this one action (privitizing SS) would have profound POSITIVE repercussions for America. Like, just maybe, you and I could actually afford to retire someday. He is pandering to the blue hairs, as Dems do every 4 years with the "Repubs are going to take your Social Security" scare tactic. There it is, an easy example of his "message" being crappy.
Bpal, please don't tell me that you actually believe half of that acceptance speech bilge that he spouted at the convention?
Jeff,
I did not say it, imply it, or think it. That would be foolish of me.
FM
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 08-12-2004).]
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 08-12-2004).]
I'm interested to know what you see as "crappy" about that? I really would like to see the opposite view of what I think looks fantastic....
Duluth Gator- I hear you about the title.. I was pretty embarrassed when I hit submit then read the title.... unfortunately I can't edit it!!! lol
fishmonger
08-12-04, 01:47 PM
See my edit above.
FM.. hey man, not pointing fingers at you, I just dont like people saying that since I am not for bush makes me an atheist.
but one thing though, and I know the Repub Convention show stopper hasnt happened yet.. but where is bush's vision for his second term? What is the platform other than the war on terrorism? What firm stands/promises are there?
In all honesty, other than terrorism, i havent seen/heard much else. Granted the war is the topic, but their are other conerns.. such as healthcare, taxes, economy, jobs, science, etc..
I hear/read the reason not to vote for kerry, and bush's stump speech, but where's the beef? Is Rove waiting for NYC??
Remember that Poppy waited a bit too long to do state his platform against Clinton...
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 08-12-2004).]
fishmonger
08-12-04, 02:06 PM
Jeff,
I know that you weren't, I just wanted to make sure that I'm not lumped into a group that does say, or imply, that.
FYI, W's, and certainly Ashcroft's, expression of religious belief, reasoning, etc while ON DUTY is something that I'm not comfortable with from the present administration. But it does not in any way make me want Kerry as a replacement.
FM
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 08-12-2004).]
Silly ME! Trust someone who has not lied to me yet??? Why would I take that option, when I have a straight faced liar to choose? hmmmm???
I understand that there is a lot of fluff in ALL speeches. However key points like environment, stem cell research, bolstering our troops, re introducing early education
programs that Bush terminated, weaning the nation from the Saudi Royal Families nipple, and having a man in charge who will obviously THINKS of circumstances resulting from his decisions. Those are REAL!!! screw social security, I'll worry about that later.
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 08-12-2004).]
JOHNKIES
08-12-04, 02:27 PM
FishMonger: The Democratic Party has nominated their candidate who has a very clear message - see the other message posted today - and it is NOT the "anybody but Bush" but very clearly WHY John Kerry should be elected. The ABB gambit is intended to blunt and deflect the message the Democratics are bringing forward. Observe the current crop of political ads: Kerry/Edwards' ads are all about what they are going to do: Bush's are all about why Kerry is wrong. Also note the distinct lack of Cheney in those ads - - they save the Old **** for strictly friendly audiences. So far, Bush has not told us what he is going to do, and that incumbent classic "Four More Years!" is a very unlikely slogan for the Republicans this time around.
fishmonger
08-12-04, 02:38 PM
Bpal,
Kerry has lied, about his Vietnam service (deja vu all over again http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif). Again, if he is not lying, why doesn't he release his service records and shut down the Swifties?
What EXACTLY did Bush lie about?
FM
It is well documented that the Swift boat veterans agains JFK, are the ones lying. Pull your head out of your Coservative propoganda websites, and start seeing the truth. About bush lying... for starters see the bottom of the first page of this thread. If you need more, I'll be happy to oblige.
I will leave you with this to put to rest the Kerry war record. From a truly bi-partisan site http://factcheck.org
A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen. One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."
Seriously FM-
If I was pro-Bush, I would stay as far away from the Integrity/moral character card as possible.
~B
Four more years!
Four more years!
Four more years!
fishmonger
08-12-04, 03:29 PM
It is NOT well documented, but it could be if JFK (right!) would release his service records. What reason would he have to not release them? There is only one answer...
Tell me a specific, concrete lie from W. Not spin, links, innuendo, or any other such stuff. Cmon...
FM
Convicted of Drunk Driving, and Lied to Cover It Up...
Bush now admits that he was convicted of drunk driving. On September 4, 1976...The Bush camp spin that he was driving too slowly is simply a lie. Bush failed a road sobriety test and blew a .10 blood alcohol, plead guilty
Times he lied about the convictions:
1. Bush Lied at his Press Conference, 11/3/2000
2. Bush Lied in Court, 1978
3. Bush Lied To "The Dallas Morning News", 1998
4. Bush Lied On 'Meet The Press', 11/21/99
5. Bush Lied to CBS, 1999.
Bush is now the first person to be elected president after being convicted of a crime.
In fact, Bush' running mate **** Cheney now admits he had two drunk driving offenses in 1962 and 1963, giving the Bush -- Cheney ticket a new world record of 3 DUI's on one ticket.
Lets not forget people, here is a coke head, alchoholic moron we are talking about.
Drunk driving sources: http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#DUIsources
Need more?
I'll be glad when this election is all over!!!
slicktop
08-12-04, 03:55 PM
What I wish for is to harken back to the good old days, the days when this was a trout fishing board, when things like brookies, and browns, and green trout were discussed, and flys. The only flys going around here now are the ones circling around the pile, if you know what I mean. Well, I better head for my hole and hide out for a while. I do not mind an exchange of ideas here and there, but this thing is dominating this board. I have not changed my mind about my political beliefs and neither has anyone else. However, you could probably change my mind on what color hackle to use on a particular pattern. Well, my helmet is on and I am diving in my hole. Anyone care to join me and talk about the good old days?
?
fishmonger
08-12-04, 04:12 PM
...spin and innuendo...
jtysone
08-12-04, 04:17 PM
Im with you slick and skibum.
Does anybody fish anymore? Every time i get on the board the only yellow lightbulb i have is the offtopic forum!
SPIN AND INNUENDO??? LMAO.. please man, you crack me up. Are you telling me you don't believe he was convicted of drunk driving? I am really starting to feel kinda sorry for you.
BTW.. I still want to hear you pick apart Kerry's plan.
JFK FOR PRESIDENT!
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 08-12-2004).]
Don't fret! There are other topics and other threads to scan. Actually, I appreciate many of these political posts...especially those that are well researched and offer some reference as to the origin. And that applies equally to the right and left. When you realize that there is no unbiased opinion, you can weigh all this stuff for yourself and be ready to pull the right (no inference intended) lever in November.
I went fishing last night http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif With all the rain coming, was this not a proper choice on my part??? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif Firewalker even helped a newbie here (ROOKIE5) hook, fight, and land his first trout on a fly rod.. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif Sorry to change the subject http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
fishmonger
08-12-04, 05:06 PM
No, thank you. This political season sucks. Hopefully the fall Brown spawn is a hell of a lot better!!
And Bpal, don't worry about me. I'm just happy to be able entertain you! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
FM
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 08-12-2004).]
Hey at least we are still in a country where you can voice an opinion, as long as its outside certain perimeters, sign a party loyalty oath, in a cage, behind a barrier, or not at a convention...
Freedom of speech...may _______
IF people are never heard, how would you know if anyone listens??
fishmonger
08-13-04, 09:19 AM
Bpal,
Regarding the drunk driving charge, is this the same charge that was brought up by Dems on the Friday before the last election? Talk about your dirty tricks! Anyway, this is a traffic violation, not a crime. In 1978 a 0.10 was the minimum level for a citation, so he wasn't exactly hammered. I'm sure that we have both been there (.10 and behind the wheel, thats ~2 beers in 2 hours). I'm also sure that some of our friends here have a DUI, it's not exactly bank robbery. And, no, I'm not making light of drunk driving. Now, regarding the "lies" surrounding this incident, your source is not exactly impartial, so this fails my requirement for a lack of spin. Even putting that aside, and assuming that he was less than truthful as your slam-site says, he was not lying while developing his credentials to be president, unlike Kerry (IMO). Now that I think about it, I would be ashamed about a DUI if I had one, and would probably be less than forthcoming about details. Kerry has no shame, as he calls his (Swiftie) detractors liars, when he can prove that he is being truthful simply by releasing his service records. So, again for the umpteenth time, why won't he release those records?!? Could he be LYING?
Also, since this DUI stuff is old info, as in pre-2000 election, and since it did not disuade you from voting for W in that election, why is it now a deal breaker?
Regarding "The Plan" hahahhhahaha
1. Pres Bush has restored the trust and credibility that Clinton flushed out of the White House. That is how he was elected the first time, with your help, apparently.
2. His premise that Bush misled us into war is faulty. What is Kerry's position on this today? It's hard to keep up with him on this subject, he is always nuancing. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif The rest is just a slam.
3. He will reform the intelligence system that he voted to systematically gut in the 90s. LMAO
4. He will beg appeasing nations to handle our national security?
5. He will buildup the military that he consistantly voted to defund throughout his illustrious senate career. ROTFLMAO!!
6. He cheers the Department of Homeland Security, a Bush accomplishment.
7. He will not privitize Social Security. Wouldn't want to lose that slush fund, and it's vote buying power, now, would he. Next.
8. His economic plan. I guess that he skipped out on Economics classes. He touts gov't subsidies, gov't investment in high tech (NASA, not a chance, too many lazy losers here to take care of, so what high tech?), raise taxes on corporations (which they don't pay, they pass them on to us in the form of higher prices), and will initiate American trade and competition in the world (don't we already trade and compete? duh...). A very confused puppy on the economic front.
9. Raise income taxes on individuals. You would vote for THAT? WHY?
10. Pablum, and a new entitlement.
11. He will make healthcare more affordable, undoubtedly with the expertise of his trial lawyer VP who made millions on the backs of victims, and thus personally drove up the cost of healthcare. LMAO
12. Energy self-sufficiency? Didn't he vote for no drilling in ANWAR? Drat , that pesky senate voting record again. ROTHFLMAO http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
13. Stem cell research. Promising, but in its infancy http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif.
So, like I said, a crappy plan.
FM
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 08-13-2004).]
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 08-13-2004).]
JOHNKIES
08-13-04, 12:12 PM
Fishmonger: So tell us, in your opinion, when Old Dubya goes fishing, does he use a boat or does he just walk on the water?
finless brown
08-13-04, 12:31 PM
I'm pretty sure he uses a boat, Johnkies. Didn't you see him fishing with Roland Martin?
chuckwagon
08-13-04, 12:48 PM
I am pretty disapointed with his hook setting abilities. He sets the hook like a sissy! There i said it, I like him as a pres. I think he is doing the right things for my small business. and given 4 more it will only get better. But, he sets the hook like a sissy! Whats up with that. Spoiled rich kid syndrom! He's got a ranch with a loaded pond. He gets Roland to come fish with him and he didn't get any pointers from ol Roland on how to properly set the darn hook before he aired the show? It must of been the Liberal media airing that one. Made him look like an idiot again. Whats up?
Trey Niolon
Saying he sets the hook like a sissy.. Ok.. do you all watch " King of the Hill" when hank shook hands with the then candidate GW.. and he walked away saying he had a limp handshake.. then was watching the tape ( like a who shot jfk conspiracy) over and over of such a limp handshake and he didnt know if he could vote for a man who couldnt shake hands... regardless of political bent,that is a funny episode
Some quick thoughts...
1. Credibility in the white house restored... the latest FOX news polls shows Bush with a 44% approval rating. Hmmmm
2. About his war stance... he has never waffled once. Read his speech in the senate regarding this. Here is an excerpt-
"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fill the commitments he has made to the American people in the recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Suddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."
And there is more.. its quite good...
Source: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
3. Look at all the parameters to the vote. All think tanks said that post cold war intelligence cuts should be made at the time. Its a new world now.
4. We are not relying on other countries for OUR national security. Building international allies will help find terrorist and organizations. A means to an end. Let me know if you need me to explain how allies can help on the international front.
5. Of course he will. He doesn't like the backdoor draft of reservists.
6. He will implement all 9-11 commission safeguards using Homeland security. BTW that was a good political move by bush to start after the Democratic Ntl. convention.
7. Please
8. His economic plan:
1. Cut middle class taxes
2. Restore PAYGO: Roll back Bush tax breaks for the rich, to pay for Health and education
3. Restrain directory spending
4. Cut corporate welfare to reduce Bush's deficit.
Also, he is an advocate for scientific research. Finding alternative fuel sources. This would be a GIGANTIC economic boost should we find one.And where did you come up with NASA??? lol
9. Raise taxes??? Huh.. Kerry will cut middle class taxes.. what this means....he will not raise taxes on families making less than 200,000 a year, and 250 billion in new middle class tax cuts for health and education (more than twice that Bush proposes) Please let me know if you'd like me to explain his plan in more detail.
10. His education program is one of the best around. Talk to teachers... see what they have to say. Also, ask them what they think about No Child Left Behind.
11. So your telling me they know the system, and the loop holes to make Americans happy... good!
12. ALTERNATIVE fuel plans. USA doesn't have enough crude to cut off the Saudi Royal family. try again.
13. Stem Cell Research is in its infancy... why? Its not going anywhere with Bush at the helm.
And by the way... of course he'd set the hook like a sissy. HE IS A SISSY! didn't he run from Vietnam, and hasn't he been bailed out of every tough situation, both business and personally his entire life? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
[This message has been edited by bpal (edited 08-13-2004).]
By the Way Fishmonger....
Read the first post on this thread, and every post since. You have not given a single reason Bush should stay in office. I have a feeling you don't even know. Kerry had a great quote in his National convention speach that really pertains to you. It is for the people so blinded by their party lines that they fail to even challenge their own leader, and to look at other options.
" Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives. Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself."
~B
finless brown
08-13-04, 02:22 PM
"2. Restore PAYGO: Roll back Bush tax breaks for the rich, to pay for Health and education"
From each according to his ability........
That's why I won't even consider voting Democrat.
fishmonger
08-13-04, 02:23 PM
I'm a Libertarian. Nice try. And for the record, how will he reclaim democracy, when we never were one.
Windknot posted a very succinct answer, so I saw no point in repeating it.
FM
[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 08-13-2004).]
finless brown
08-13-04, 02:29 PM
"Stem Cell Research is in its infancy... why? Its not going anywhere with Bush at the helm."
Are you implying that it is the responsibility of the federal government to fund medical and technological research?!! Again, if that is the Democratic platform, then I want no part of it.
Could one imagine breakthrough in Cancer research if the govt sponsored research with as much money they give farmers NOT to grow food??
And think of they things you use in a daily basis that were direct results of the government sponsored program that place Armstrong on the moon.
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 08-13-2004).]
slicktop
08-13-04, 03:47 PM
Bush said this....no he did'nt...yes he did....no he did'nt....yes he did. Well Kerry will do this...no he won't....yes he will....no he won't...yes he will. This sounds just like bart simpson and his sister in the back seat of their car while they ride down the road.
DONT MAKE ME STOP THE CAR!!!!! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
fishmonger
08-13-04, 04:59 PM
No its not... http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
Hey, Fishmonger is on my side of the car! Tell him to move!
Fishmonger, StreamKat, and all the Right wingers... thanks for the debate. I love a good thread like this, its a lot of fun. JeffG, Johnkies, and all of us southpaws, thanks for the backup. Good thread guys. I'm out.
~B
fishmonger
08-14-04, 07:16 PM
A classy way to finish it, thanks B.
Maybe you guys influenced me a little http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
FM
SuperFly
08-20-04, 02:13 PM
From my perspective it's two fold.
The one thing that President Bush has done is that he has "LED". Meaning, either way, he took a stand and guided our nation.
The second thing is the "other" candidate is basing his entire campaign on something that occurred 35 years ago. He's been representing his state for 20 years and obviously believes that none of that is worthy.
He has not done anything worthy in 20 years. Hmmmm. what makes you think that he will do anything in the next four, if he were to be elected (GOD help us all)?
SF
------------------
Trout fisherman are a race apart: they are a dedicated crew - indolent, improvident, and quietly mad.
- Robert Traver
As a Senator, Kerry was fighting terrorism long before it was on the radar screen as the threat we see today. Vision and leadership.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html
streamKAT
08-20-04, 04:59 PM
My pleasure bpal !
Basically, today I'm stuck at work and the only politics on my mind are how to get outta here and fish !!
lone_angler
08-20-04, 05:54 PM
Hey Grady, you mean the way he didn't show up for a single public senate intelligence committe meeting after the first world trade center bombing. Someone please explain to me how a senator can miss every public meeting of the committe he's on, and yet he's still maintained his position as a senator. And please spare me the, "he was in the private meetings" speech. As long as the roll calls for those meetings are classified, they don't matter.
Thats exactly what I'm thinking StreamKat... The politics of the office... don't they SUCK!
I am going into the Okanogan Highlands to fish for Summer Run Steel on the Methow. First Summer Run trip of '04, so of course I have a 15 Steelhead day going through my mind.... now how do I get outta here early?...
~B
He showed up in Vietnam, LA.
MickeyFinn
08-21-04, 11:36 AM
"Kerry has been fighting terrorism for years in the Senate.." LOLOLOLOLOL You gotta be joking! He and Clinton did NOTHING and Kerry missed every Senate intelligence meeting after 9/11. How uninformed can you get?
And on the issue of swift boat veterans telling lies and you want them to at least prove what they say... well, obviously you havent read the book. Everything they say is documented, except for their overall opinion that Kerry is a **** poor leader ( which they say is their opinion.) Lotta guys who knew him are saying the same thing. Makes ya wonder. Naw, brain dead people dont wonder.
Not sure who you are quoting, Mickey. Also, I have to wonder, based on your knee-jerk Clinton reference, if you even bothered to read the piece I provided that details Kerry's investigation into a rouge international bank that was a favorite of terroist groups for laundering money.
And actually, if you are referring to the Swift Boat group with your "lots of guys who knew him" line, the vast majority of them don't know and have never met John Kerry. And several who do know him spoke of him in glowing terms and gave him superior evaluations for his performance in Vietnam, not only at the time, but also during his Senate campaign in 1996.
You are correct that there are a lot of misinformed people out there.
[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 08-21-2004).]
fishmonger
08-21-04, 12:47 PM
"I have to wonder...if you even read the piece that I provided?" Grady, do you EVER listen? Most of us do not read the "pieces that you provide". Links are not discussion.
FM
Excuse me, FM. I thought we were trying to inform ourselves so as to, perhaps, raise the level of discussion.
[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 08-21-2004).]
fishmonger
08-22-04, 12:56 AM
...rrriiggghhtttt....
Grady --- I haven't paid much attention to all the bantering between the two parties regarding Kerry's record in Vietnam. Too many conflicting stories, so I sent that data to the wastebasket. However, a focus appears to be emerging which, to me, is more of interest. Apparently the Silver Star and Bronze Star incidents ("he pulled me from the water...etc") are not at the core of the debate. Rather, the accusation is that Kerry deliberately injured himself (or allowed himself to sustain minor injury) in order to meet the Three Purple Hearts & You're Out Of 'Nam rule. Have you read-up on that, and if so...what is your conclusion and your sources? (I haven't researched it further as yet).
soddy
lone wolf
08-22-04, 12:00 PM
For me, I'm still waiting for Bush & Chenny's combact record? I sure they made some great leadership decisions in the early 70's when Kerry was in Nam.
Soddy, I think it's reasonable that for many people the core issue seems different from day to day. When one aspect of the smear is disproven or discredited, the SBVets just move on to the next.
There is no evidence that any of Kerry's medals/awards are based on self inflicted wounds. The SBVets floated the idea that one of his medals/awards was based on a wound he received accidentally when he blew up a VC rice cache. Although that did happen, his medal wasn't given for that wound, but rather for wounds received later the same day when the man whose life he saved was blown off the boat.
Even more despicable, if you can imagine, is that now the allegation is that Kerry had some "plan" to get three purple hearts so he could get an early out, and part of this plan, it is implied (no one that I have seen has had the guts to state this directly), involved Kerry intentionally wounding himself. Chris Matthews really pressed conservative writer Michelle Malkin on this point on Hardball the other night. She raised the issue of the self-inflicted wound, and Matthews immediately asked her to clarify whether she meant intentional as opposed to accidental. She then began to dodge, using the old "well, some folks are saying" gambit, and refused to answer, yes or no, whether SHE believed Kerry hurt himself on purpose. Which is really chickencrap if you think about it. She put the smear out there and then refused to say, yes or no, whether she herself believes it. This segment ended with Matthews booting her off the program for making what he thought were irresponsible claims.
Anyway, no, this self-inflicted wound smear is just one more aspect of the larger smear.
Here is some info on the rice cache incident.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?pg=3
You know, another aspect of this that needs to be examined is what it says about Bush's character. He has a life long history of hiding in the shadows while others do his fighting for him, and this episode fits the pattern. On the one hand, he claims to have never disparaged Kerry's service, calling it noble. But, asked to denounce this ad that directly contradicts him, Bush refuses. The only possbile reason is because he knows he is benefitting from it. So he hides behind the Swift Boat Vets and refuses to come out and answer like a man. Very telling, I think. He also tries to hide behind his "all 527 ads are bad" red herring, but the issue in not 527 groups. It is the Swift Boat Vets ads.
Soddy, I think it's reasonable that for many people the core issue seems different from day to day. When one aspect of the smear is disproven or discredited, the SBVets just move on to the next.
There is no evidence that any of Kerry's medals/awards are based on self inflicted wounds. The SBVets floated the idea that one of his medals/awards was based on a wound he received accidentally when he blew up a VC rice cache. Although that did happen, his medal wasn't given for that wound, but rather for wounds received later the same day when the man whose life he saved was blown off the boat.
Even more despicable, if you can imagine, is that now the allegation is that Kerry had some "plan" to get three purple hearts so he could get an early out, and part of this plan, it is implied (no one that I have seen has had the guts to state this directly), involved Kerry intentionally wounding himself. Chris Matthews really pressed conservative writer Michelle Malkin on this point on Hardball the other night. She raised the issue of the self-inflicted wound, and Matthews immediately asked her to clarify whether she meant intentional as opposed to accidental. She then began to dodge, using the old "well, some folks are saying" gambit, and refused to answer, yes or no, whether SHE believed Kerry hurt himself on purpose. Which is really chickencrap if you think about it. She put the smear out there and then refused to say, yes or no, whether she herself believes it. This segment ended with Matthews booting her off the program for making what he thought were irresponsible claims.
Anyway, no, this self-inflicted wound smear is just one more aspect of the larger smear.
Here is some info on the rice cache incident.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?pg=3
You know, another aspect of this that needs to be examined is what it says about Bush's character. He has a life long history of hiding in the shadows while others do his fighting for him, and this episode fits the pattern. On the one hand, he claims to have never disparaged Kerry's service, calling it noble. But, asked to denounce this ad that directly contradicts him, Bush refuses. The only possbile reason is because he knows he is benefitting from it. So he hides behind the Swift Boat Vets and refuses to come out and answer like a man. Very telling, I think. He also tries to hide behind his "all 527 ads are bad" red herring, but the issue in not 527 groups. It is the Swift Boat Vets ads.
GUTHOOKED
08-22-04, 04:49 PM
It is my understanding that it is illegal for 527 groups to coordinate in any way with a political party or candidate. Therefore, it is illegal for Bush to ask the swiftvets to stop running their ads. As for simply denouncing the ads (essentially calling the swiftvets liars), he stands the chance of ticking off a large group of vets who support him right now. By not denouncing the ads, the only ones he is angering are people who won't vote for him anyway. Besides, at this point in time, we really don't know which side is telling the truth. Politically and morally, I think Bush has made the right decision concerning these ads by not denouncing either side until more facts are made clear.
fishmonger
08-22-04, 05:08 PM
Questions:
Why is any criticism of Kerry considered a smear (by Kerry supporters), whereas any criticism of Bush is AOK?
Why is Bush expected to denounce anything that a group does to question Kerry, and yet the same is not expected of Kerry?
Why are so many so focused on what these men did 20 to 30 years ago, and so unconcerned about what they have done in the last 10 years or so?
Some consistancy in these matters would sure be refreshing!
To me, a man's recent actions and record are MUCH more pertinent in indicating how they may act in the near (next 4 years) future.
As I've said before: Vote your concience, and expect others to do the same. Everything else is just hyperventilating (guilty as charged). Reasonable mind can, and do, disagree in matters of politics.
I'm going fishing... http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
FM
"Besides, at this point in time, we really don't know which side is telling the truth. Politically and morally, I think Bush has made the right decision concerning these ads by not denouncing either side until more facts are made clear."
You point out why this smear is so effective. The facts can NEVER be made clear, and the SBV know this and are using it to their advantage and to perpetuate the smear. O'Nell is now on TV shouting "oh yeah, so sue me if it's not true." But how does Kerry prove it's not true.? As for waiting for more facts, the fact that John McCain did not father a black child out of wedlock did not stop the Republicans from using that smear in the 2000 primary campaign in S.C. And Bush refused to denounce that one too. When will ther be enough facts made clear for Bush to do so?
This comment by Josh Marshall sums up my feelings on this matter very well. All the credible evidence in the matter supports Kerry, yet somehow that fact is not getting heard in the din.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_22.php#003311
I don't understand one of the recurring 'for' reasons for Bush. Specifically that he "stands up for Christ". I understand that it can be a good thing for someone to live a moral life guided by Christian principals, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Islamic, or Hindu, for that mater.
What I don't understand is why it's good to have a 'Christian' government in the US, or a Jewish government in Israel, or a Moslem government in Afghanistan. Isn't this just sowing seeds for another Crusade, Jihad, or whatever? Can't the religions stand on their own merits? Are they so weak that they need the apparatus of government? Is it necessary for different believing citizenry to bow down to the ruling church, as was necessary under a 'godless Communist' rule?
I'm struggling with this one.
lone wolf
08-23-04, 04:06 PM
Oh my goodness!! Now we're mixing politics and religion!! This could really get out of hand.
rickster
08-23-04, 04:20 PM
Grady, what about this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5797164/?GT1=4529
See, we can cut and past links also.
Bob, I mentioned in my original response that I shared his same ideals, core values and such.
I also said "This probably won't make a lot of friends, but I think Bush draws a lot of the anger from his bold up front position on Christ!" I personally have never read anything other than his personal statements about his faith. I'm sure there's a web page somewhere with all sorts of "facts" otherwise. (I probably shouldn't have said that)
I don't think it's possible to live your life apart from the things you hold to be true and dear to you. And, I think there is always a sense of trying to persuade those around you to agree with you. Whether it is your faith in God, your love of fly fishing, or whatever.
It's the level of persuasion that can be offensive. Hopefully we are no where near launching another crusade, but I'm not so sure about demanding a person silence their opinion just because of the job they have.
rickster
[This message has been edited by rickster (edited 08-23-2004).]
Not even close, Rickster.
And who is this "we" you speak of"?
SlckTrck
08-23-04, 04:36 PM
Ok guys. There is an article on FoxNews today about Bush coming out today and denouncing the Swift Boat ads but he follows it with "That means that ad and every other ad. I don't believe we ought to have 527s. I think they're bad for the system," Bush said on Monday in Crawford, Texas. "I frankly thought we'd gotten rid of it when I signed McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform.
Will this make the Dems happy or will they find something worng with it too?
Someone posted it earlier but I agree. Why is it only a foul when it is pointed at the Dems? I mean heck, MoveOnPak comes right out and lies in their televised ad that the swift boats are supported directly by Bush.
This is what makes politics a nightmanre. I say to heck with all the adds. Let's see some more televised debates about the real issues. Not all this Cry baby BS and ads that do nothing more than try to persuede people on emotion and not real issues.
As far who supports whats> Of course republicans are going to donate money to orgs that support a replublican candidate, just like Democrats are going to donate money to support orgs that support Dems. DUH!
My .02's
and Grady... You could make big bucks by publishing your database of all known leftist sites in the known world. Good luck with that. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
(Not meant to offend)
------------------
SlckTrck
I sure hope Heaven has a trout stream and no politicians.
[This message has been edited by SlckTrck (edited 08-23-2004).]
Lone Wolf, I don't think this will get out of hand. It was an honest question, not meant to offend, and everyone is behaving very well. Also, it was pointed out that Bush uses religion in politics so we can't have one without the other.
Rickster, thank you. I suppose that the point where we differ has a paradoxicly similar underlying reasoning. I tend to be a bit independent in nature, and as such, I tend to dislike government intrusion in areas that are not government business. It's the old "Do on to others...." appreoach. If I want to be free to practice my religion, then it is necessary for everyone to be free of government involment in the practice of their religion.
SlickTrick, it was foul when Bush pulled this same stunt on McCain in the last election. He pulled the same underhanded, plausibly denied stunt attacking McCain's military career. I'm glad Bush was cajoled into saying a little something this time. Bush is well known for this kind of dirty politics and he has a long record of it. He was caught this time, but still got a lot of benefit, so we'll see more of his stunts like this. I'd call him a 'liar' but others would refer to him as a 'tough campaigner'.
I don't think that one can rent their integrity and then get it back.
SlckTrck
08-23-04, 05:05 PM
I don't get it. Caught doing what? If your saying he was caught meaning he was responsible for the swift boat ads, I have not seen proof to support that. I have seen the Dems and Kerry himself say that Bush supported the swift boat vets. Wouldn't this be a foul on Kerry if it is not true?
I have never been much into politics until I hit 28 and started to care about the process. As far as who is doing dirty campaigning I see it on both sides ( menaing I have issues with both party's actual ads and not the 527 ads) (all the 527 ads are meaningless to me) and it turns me away from politics. This type of thing does nothing but stirs emotion driven votes and not educated votes about the real issues.
Thank you for your response and your opinion.
Tight lines.
------------------
SlckTrck
I sure hope Heaven has a trout stream.
SlickTrick
I believe it's called circumstantial evidence, which is often more reliable than eyewitness accounts.
I've seen that same dog, with the same stink, rolling with the same dogs, over and over again. It's hard to believe that they aren't a pack.
Occum's Razor would indicate that they are.
I certainly agree that this type of "controversy" distracts the voters from more important issues. American service people continue to die in Iraq almost daily, and I have yet to hear Bsuh discusss a plan for ending the violence there.
However, I don't buy the "both sides do it" thing, especially in relation to the Swfit Boat ads. So, here is a challenge. Find what you consider the dirtiest, low-downest, most mean-spirited ad attacking Bush that has been put out this year, and let's compare. One thing, it must be an ad that has been aired by or in the main stream media, as have the SBV ads. There was an ad that comapred Bush to Hitler that was on the Move On site for a brief period that I would agree that was over the top. However, it was not produced by Move On but rather was submitted by a contestant in an ad contest, and was removed from the site in short order.
And Bob, you must know that one man's leftist site is another's main stream news outlet. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 08-23-2004).]
GUTHOOKED
08-23-04, 06:37 PM
"The facts can NEVER be made clear"....
How then, can you be so sure that the SBV's claims are not true?
I think we know which way the truth is swinging on this one. President Bush did the right thing by saying what he said. He is politically safe, and at the same time is pretty much admitting that the SWV are wrong.
I can read between the lines. I know whats right. Gov'mt can blow a lot of smoke.. but eventually it always clears.
~B
Fishing for dirty campaigning? That might be fun!
By the way, there is an established political technique that politicians use when they are caught with their hand in the till, their pants down, passed out in an opium den, or generally lying like a drunken sailor. What they do is release a new 'explanation' every couple of days. It doesn't matter that they contradict one another. Ultimatly they might even admit the truth, but by that time folks have been so deluged with conflicting 'explanations' they might not see it amidst the all the smoke-blowing. Politicians hook a few more with every new yarn, more than they lose. Once hooked, folks generally stay hooked and refrain from further careful consideration, despite subsequent conflicting explanation. eh Guthooked? :)
Watch Bush this time and watch every caught politician hereafter. It's a standard technique and, like dirty campaigning, it works.
The headline on the article is misleading. Bush did not repudiate the charges made by the SBV, and that is the issue. The issue is not 527 groups generally or how or who is funding them. The issue is THIS group, the question put to Bush is do you agree with the charges made by the SBV. He continues his weasely, slick politician dodging by personally praising Kerry's service while refusing to answer a simple, direct question.
This ain't rocket science folks.
A related question. Does anyone remember Bush being a hand wringer over these 527 ads before the SBV attacked?
Just in: looks like John Kerry was more responsible than Bush's pick to head CIA when it came to intelligence cuts in the 90s.
Goss wanted to cut intelligence by 20%, specifically targeting human intelligence, which has been found so severely lacking in the aftermath of 9-11. Whew, boy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27092-2004Aug23?language=printer
[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 08-24-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 08-24-2004).]
slicktop
08-24-04, 07:31 AM
Well, they are back. Last week for just a few minutes, the few people who love to politically banter back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, saying the same things over and over and over and over again, for just a few days, put it aside and the board was about trout fishing. I can read political crap in the newspaper and hear everyones spin on it on the evening news. It sure would be nice to not have to scroll thru so many of the posts to get to one dealing with trout fishing. I will be glad when this election is over. But then, you all will probably continue on with, he said it, no he did'nt, yes he did, no he did'nt, yes he did. And I still have not changed my mind over who to vote for and I still have my helmet on and am crawling back into my hole. Later.
fishmonger
08-24-04, 09:14 AM
Slick,
I get your point, but wonder: Why do you cruise this particular forum? The whole reason for the "Off-topic" forum is to not pollute the fishing forums, which is working. Just wondering...
FM
slicktop
08-24-04, 10:15 AM
FM, I get all posts automatically every day. I come to work and they are there, fresh from yesterday. I do not read all the posts, mainly the fishing posts, but just get amused at all the bantering back and forth between the same people on their differences politically. I have been in NGTO for many years and have seen many a good trout fisherman leave due to politics run amuck. Like it or not, these debates usually lead to name calling or incinuations, that achieve nothing. Just expressing my viewpoint. I do scroll past many of these posts, as do many others. However, many times, they dominate the board, people quit posting because they are tired of seeing the same old lines spouted back and forth. This is a trout fishing board and I think that most people want that and not political opinions, that along with $2-$3 will buy you a cup of coffee. Again, my .02. Do not misinterpret my musings, I am in no way angry or bent out of shape over this. Actually I usually chuckle over how wired these politicos get over their viewpoints. Well, back into my foxhole I go.
fishmonger
08-24-04, 11:08 AM
No problem, like I said, just wondering. This is why I have never opted for the auto-update of new posts. Too much stuff that doesn't interest me.
BTW, I caught about 20 trout last Sunday after I posted on this thread (I had said I'm going fishing). Got 'em on a black WB, Flashback Hares Ear, and a Lightning Bug.
There, now we're back to fishing. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
FM
The smallmouth fishing ain't bad, either. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
slicktop
08-24-04, 11:36 AM
FM, Sounds like a good day. Where did you go? I haven't been in a few weeks, missing it, need to feed the habit. I am planning on going next week to the mtns. I have a son in Piedmont College in Demorest and we are going to hit somewhere up there, either go on up to Clayton, or go over to the WMA above Helen.
We got back Sunday morning from the biannual raft trip in AK. We float the Alagnak River in Bristol Bay.
The fishing was unreal. Pinks were stacked up all along the lake shore. Bill (The EG) caught half a dozen 4-6 pound pinks at the lake shore while waiting for supper to cook.
The water level was down so there was only one big holding pool across that tricky wade at Rumor Bear (a campsite). Bill stopped counting kings in it when he reached 110. They were cooperative. We could wade to the island across from Tie-On (a campsite) to a big gravel flat that we fished with the bears in 1998. Lots of big trout there.
We spent a lot of time trout fishing, mostly with eggs although Frank (Fishmiester) got a bunch on a mouse. Pinks stayed too easy and kings were too much work. 20+ inch trout were pretty common. Only one silver and no reds on the float. A ton of trout, grayling, pinks, and kings. A bunch of chum and some dolly's.
We camped two days at the lake, three at Rumor Bear, and two at Tie-On. We spent a lot more time fishing in the braids than on prior trips. Good trout water.
It was pretty darn hot for most of the trip. Not too many bear, a caribou wandered by very close at Tie-On, and Marty spotted a porcupine when we were fishing 'around town'.
Fishing this river is like technology advancement. It doubles every 18 months.
fishmonger
08-24-04, 01:40 PM
Fished my usual haunt, the Hooch in Duluth. Water was clear and low. I fished from 4:45 - 7:15. Pretty much nonstop action. 4 or 5 fish were chunky 12"ers. My first outing in about 5 weeks.
C'mon fall!!
FM
JOHNKIES
08-24-04, 01:54 PM
SlickTop: You are right; far too often these politically oriented threads drift way off track. But in our country, we are dependent upon public lands and public waters for our sport. This is especially true for trout fishing with most trout water in the southeast being on, or coming from, National Forest lands. The management of those National Forests, plus the National Parks and similar areas, is a function of who sits in the White House, and the Congress. For state lands, it's the State's Legislatures and the State's Governors offices. Left to their own devices, many elected officials would ignore, or worse give away, the resource. I do not know how many people actually participate on this board, but I would be willing to bet there are enough that if each wrote a letter to their elected Georgia and US legislators and the Governor, the effect would be immediate.
If you want public water and public access then you have to be willing to fight for it and part of that fight is here. That said, I for one would like to see our political debates focus on issues directly affecting trout anglers. Who was in the war and who wasn't does not affect trout fishing so much as issues of preservation of public lands, management of public lands, and the quality of our water and air. ---JCK---
[This message has been edited by JOHNKIES (edited 08-24-2004).]
[This message has been edited by JOHNKIES (edited 08-24-2004).]
GUTHOOKED
08-24-04, 06:20 PM
Personally, I enjoy these debates, and I'm glad NGTO has given us a forum where we can have them without polluting the fishing forums. Its pretty rare to find a board where you can discuss these things with so many people with so many different points of view. As long as folks keep it civil, which they usually do, I enjoy the debate.
As for nobody's mind being changed, that's not necessarily true. These debates motivate me to dig deeper and learn as much as I can about the issues. Now I'm more against both candidates and both parties than ever. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
Grady, you're a smallie fisherman, huh? You might not be so bad after all. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
lone wolf
08-24-04, 06:25 PM
Guthooked, I'm with you! I'm not happy with the choices in this election either.
wolf
lone wolf
08-24-04, 06:26 PM
Guthooked, I'm with you! I'm not happy with the choices in this election either.
wolf
Well said Danny... these threads only make this great community better... its a lot like sitting with the family around the dinner table.... arguments may ensue, but you'll be fishing together in the end...
~B
hmmm...if this is the Off Topic Discussion forum...and this forum is on a fishing message board, then....lemme see here...YEP! The logic checks out---The topic of fishing is, technically speaking, the only inappropriate topic for this forum.
soddy
I'm heading to the dam tomorrow to get back to 'home waters'. Will anyone else be there?
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.