AUBURNTIGERFAN 0 Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 Things you have to believe to be a Republican today: Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's cocaine conviction is none of our business. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Things you have to believe to be a Democrat today: Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him (he did have a Dem Congress), Bad guy when Clinton was in office, and a good guy when GWB is in office - AND has ignored UN resolutions - AND was making money on the oil-for food program. It’s honorable to vote for military action in another country then to vote against the funding of it. GWB was lying even though multiple reports including the "non-partisan" 9/11 Commission Report supports him. The Iraq War WAS for oil, regardless of how silly that arguement seems. A person can in cold blood kill another person and not be put to death, but a defenseless child in the womb is a woman’s choice. You can pick and choose what you want to follow in the Bible. We should be tolerant of all views except those that disagree with our own. Military Service is only important for one to be President when the Democratic candidate served and/or the Republican candidate didn’t. Teaching sex to students in school will make them more educated therefore less likely to have it before they are ready. Health care to all Americans is a right. HMOs and insurance companies are the spawn of Satan and Trial lawyers only have the public’s best interest at heart. A president lying to a Grand Jury is ok if the topic at hand was none of anyone’s business and should have been kept in The Oval Office…err…his bedroom. People don’t kill people, Guns kill people. Though there are countless examples of how it doesn’t work, Socialism is still a good thing for America. Hollywood’s HS drop outs and Community College failures know way more about foreign affairs than the rest of America and are the "intellectual authority" - so we should really listen to what they have to say. The Electoral College is great so that the little people have a voice, too…until it leads to a Republican President. If you hear something negative about the right, repeat it as many times as you can to as many people as possible, regardless of how true it is. There is no such thing as being biased towards the left. Terrorists understand sensitivity. Sorry, Tigermike. I had to steal it for this one post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Neither of those parties have solutions to our problems. Congressman Ron Paul On "NOW" with Bill Moyers "Real Player" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion. And Carter's Kissing up to the Shah and Samoza really was sound Foreign Policies? Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony. Every Cuban Expatriate wants no trade with Cuba. Castro has become the wealthy Camrade with a net worth north of $500M. He is so rich Kerry would even consider going queer... A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation. Killing a child for the sake of nothing more but convenience, because the couple are too lazy and selfish to take actions on their own is okay? Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton. Jesus tells me to love the Sinner and hate the sin. I cannot fathom why I should be forced to endorse and applaud anyones' sin, even my own. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay. Please site one credible source that says GWB cut military pay and I will gladly give you two that will say exactly the opposite. Under Clinton, the E-4s and below had gone back to being on welfare again just like when I enlisted under that other great Dem brainfart, Jimmah Cahtah. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex. Giving out Condoms in Chicago Schools had the birth rate increase over 50%. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart. Yes, and my socialist coverage, VA is so good it is the shame of the free world. Face it, the Feds could not manage a wet dream. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. We were told for years about the coming global Ice Age, Was that junk science in Dem world? A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy. We have beat this to death. GWB and the entire Congress and the UN were all saying the same thing. Funny, it is only GWBs fault tho. Hell, Even Kerry still supports the war in IRAQ!!! Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet. And Abortion was in the Constitution? I dont want cesorship anywhere. Some stoopid SPUAT fan would me shut down... The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's cocaine conviction is none of our business. Prove it or shut up! Again, free speech is only foreign to a Liberal. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery. I dont listen to Rush anymore either. I dont know many that hold him in too high a regard right now either. A penatent heart does go a long ways whether the individual is Liberal or Conservative. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt. WTF? What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant. WJC made it an issue by claiming he didnt inhale. He wrote letters that were unbelieveably stoopid as well. He made most of it an issue btw. in his campaigning. Your selected misquotes and errors are very exemplary of narrowminded Liberalism. Your Mom must be so proud...NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 It’s honorable to vote for military action in another country then to vote against the funding of it. Bush supporters believe it is honorable to threaten to veto the same funding over adding a relatively small portion for veterans, or for making a portion of the rebuilding funds loans instead of giveaways. BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION SUPPLEMENTAL OVER ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR RESERVISTS AND VETERANS. As part of the $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations for security and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, the Senate passed an amendment that provided an additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Foxnews.com, 10/21/03, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html; BVA legislative bulletin, http://www.bva.org/aut03bulletin/l_update.html; CQ, 10/20/03]BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION PACKAGE ON ISSUE OF ALLOCATING GRANTS OR LOANS TO IRAQIS. "Key senators reversed course yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money." [Wash Post, 10/30/03] Vetoing funds over a disputed policy point good, voting against a bill that is passing anyway over a disputed policy point, unamerican and unfit to serve. More BS, more double standards, more hypocrisy in the extreme-- and more utter blindness to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 It’s honorable to vote for military action in another country then to vote against the funding of it. Bush supporters believe it is honorable to threaten to veto the same funding over adding a relatively small portion for veterans, or for making a portion of the rebuilding funds loans instead of giveaways. BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION SUPPLEMENTAL OVER ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR RESERVISTS AND VETERANS. As part of the $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations for security and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, the Senate passed an amendment that provided an additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Foxnews.com, 10/21/03, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html; BVA legislative bulletin, http://www.bva.org/aut03bulletin/l_update.html; CQ, 10/20/03]BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION PACKAGE ON ISSUE OF ALLOCATING GRANTS OR LOANS TO IRAQIS. "Key senators reversed course yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money." [Wash Post, 10/30/03] Vetoing funds over a disputed policy point good, voting against a bill that is passing anyway over a disputed policy point, unamerican and unfit to serve. More BS, more double standards, more hypocrisy in the extreme-- and more utter blindness to it. That same money was added as an ON-Budget Item under the Bush Admin. The veto threat emerged over allocating the expense as an off budget item. I cannot understand why the Iraq War is an Off-Budget Item, but it is. The money came, just under another place in the true budget, under the DOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 It’s honorable to vote for military action in another country then to vote against the funding of it. Bush supporters believe it is honorable to threaten to veto the same funding over adding a relatively small portion for veterans, or for making a portion of the rebuilding funds loans instead of giveaways. BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION SUPPLEMENTAL OVER ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR RESERVISTS AND VETERANS. As part of the $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations for security and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, the Senate passed an amendment that provided an additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Foxnews.com, 10/21/03, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html; BVA legislative bulletin, http://www.bva.org/aut03bulletin/l_update.html; CQ, 10/20/03]BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION PACKAGE ON ISSUE OF ALLOCATING GRANTS OR LOANS TO IRAQIS. "Key senators reversed course yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money." [Wash Post, 10/30/03] Vetoing funds over a disputed policy point good, voting against a bill that is passing anyway over a disputed policy point, unamerican and unfit to serve. More BS, more double standards, more hypocrisy in the extreme-- and more utter blindness to it. Tghat same money was added as an ON-Budget Item under the Bush Admin. The veto threat emerged over allocating the expense as an off budget item. I cannot understand why the Iraq War is an Off-Budget Item, but it is. The money came, just under another place in the true budget, under the DOD. If correct, that explains the 1.3 billion, but does not address Bush's refusal to have Iraq pay back the rebuilding expenditures even though Wolfowitz promised that pre-war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.