To the people who bash Bush here's what we had

seasalt101

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
Oh and to comment on the "there have been no more attacks on US soil" right but they are STILL attacking. Hello read the paper London and Glasgow ring a bell??? They are our allies, still attacking people! Also Condi was made WELL aware by the outgoing administration in JULY that an attack on US soil was eminent. Not to mention who Bush the 1st was watching the attacks with on TV anyone? Ok so you didn't hear! I will tell you since you missed it.
On the very morning of 9/11 George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother , Shafig Bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Carlyle ... They watched it together, wasn't that sweet!
yeah but notice the bombs are not going off and the terrorist are being caught and the terrorist are trying to get more recruits and the other factions are turning on al quada we are winning open your eyes...tobin
 

mr. guitar

Member
Originally Posted by seasalt101
i thought it was pretty funny the other day hillary said the whitehouse needed a good cleaning out i guess she needs more stationary, silverware, and china...tobin
 

seasalt101

Active Member
Originally Posted by Mr. Guitar

yeah didn't want to go long with it just makin a point i hope she don't win...tobin
 

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Mr. Guitar
You my friend are blind. You don't even understand morals. Killing babies?!

Originally Posted by 1Journeyman
Bush did not veto stem cell research...

Originally Posted by Seasalt101

their have been no more attacks on u.s. soil

Wow, with brain teasers like these, how could I think that Bush supporters are blind, naive, misinformed. I stand corrected.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
Wow, with brain teasers like these, how could I think that Bush supporters are blind, naive, misinformed. I stand corrected.

Crimzy, I could explain to you the truth about the bill the President vetoed, but you and most others who hate the President wouldn't believe me. So I simply stated the fact: The President did not veto stem cell research. Feel free to research it and we can discuss it further.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
Scooters crime was absolutely NOT the same as Clinton's. Scooter was CONVICTED of obstruction of justice, meaning he PURPOSEFULLY AND WILLFULLY impeeded the investigation of a crime. ....
Clinton and Scooter both lied under oath. It is exactly the same thing.
 

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Crimzy, I could explain to you the truth about the bill the President vetoed, but you and most others who hate the President wouldn't believe me. So I simply stated the fact: The President did not veto stem cell research. Feel free to research it and we can discuss it further.
(1)
Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush's First Veto
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A04
President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections.
(2)
Politics sponsored byPolitics HOME
FOX Polls
You Decide 2008
Eye on the Issues
Special Report
Fox News Sunday
Buzztracker
Executive Branch
U.S. Senate
House of Representatives
Supreme Court
State & Local Government
U.S. Military
NEWS ARCHIVE
HOT TOPICS
Video: FOX NEWS FLASH
FOX News Election Coverage
Celebrity Gossip
SECTION MAP
SEE MORE - The Executive Branch - House of Representatives - U.S. Senate - U.S. Military - Law Enforcement - State and Local Government - You Decide 2006 - Buzztracker
Send news tip to FOXNews.com
SUBMIT FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
E-MAIL STORY RESPOND TO EDITOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
WASHINGTON — President Bush vetoed an embryonic stem cell research funding bill Wednesday and called on Congress to put aside politics and support legislation that would advance science without crossing an ethical line.
Now tell me again that he didn't veto stem cell research...
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
.... I am not saying Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread, but he didn't cut VA funding leaving my husband in limbo. He also didn't give my husband a bullet proof vest that couldnt stop a bebe gun (My husband had to steal the plates from dead insurgents to protect himself). By the way President Bush doesn't spend that much time on Bin Laden because he is not in Afghanistan, it's a fact. Burning the opium fields and causing unemployment to run rampant through the country is what we are spending time on.
First off thank your husband for his service.
Having said that, as I understand it, the VA's budget is higher now then is was ever during Clinton's Presidency. That, despite the fact that our older veterans' numbers are decreasing dramatically. Are the figures I've read incorrect?
I cannot comment as to the quality of the body armor your husband is wearing. I can say, however, that President Bush has consistently asked for more military spending from Congress. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the former President cut the budget of our armed services and lead to a weakening of our military preparedness.
As for Bin Laden's half brother, didn't the family disown Osama and isn't he a wanted terrorist in Saudi Arabia?
It's a fact that Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan? Last time I checked there was a hefty bounty on his head. Why don't you share with us where he is and we can all cash in. The fact is, no one knows where Bin Laden is. Another fact is that his last known location was Afghanistan. Furthermore, NATO troops are fighting remnants of the Taliban (whom support Al Quaeda) even as we speak.
I respect your husband for his service and your family for the sacrifices you make. I do not, however, agree with the facts and opinions you have stated.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
Oh and to comment on the "there have been no more attacks on US soil" right but they are STILL attacking. Hello read the paper London and Glasgow ring a bell??? They are our allies, still attacking people!...
We are sharing information and aiding our allies. Would you like to compare successful terrorist attacks around the world against the US and it's allies in the 90's versus the current President? Either way, Clinton loses that game.
 

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by crimzy
..Now tell me again that he didn't veto stem cell research...
Gladly.
Re-read what you posted. "President Bush vetoed an embryonic stem cell research funding bill
Wednesday ..."
Simply put, he vetoed a bill that would have lessened restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.
 

crimzy

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Gladly.
Re-read what you posted. "President Bush vetoed an embryonic stem cell research funding bill
Wednesday ..."
Simply put, he vetoed a bill that would have lessened restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.
So your point is that he didn't veto stem cell research, he only vetoed funding for stem cell research. Huge difference, thanks for clearing that up. You should be a lawyer... "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, OJ didn't kill anyone, he simply caused an injury in their necks. The injury killed them not OJ." With this logic, I'd figure you to be a Clinton fan because, technically, he did not have --- with that woman.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
So your point is that he didn't veto stem cell research, he only vetoed funding for stem cell research. Huge difference, thanks for clearing that up. You should be a lawyer... "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, OJ didn't kill anyone, he simply caused an injury in their necks. The injury killed them not OJ." With this logic, I'd figure you to be a Clinton fan because, technically, he did not have --- with that woman.

Not quite accurate...
Veto stem cell research=No stem cell research in the USA.
Veto funding of stem cell research= No federal funding of stem cell research.
The difference is that private labs are still using FDA approved stem cell lines for research. They are privately funded.
There is a very clear difference between the two.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Not quite accurate...
Veto stem cell research=No stem cell research in the USA.
Veto funding of stem cell research= No federal funding of stem cell research.
The difference is that private labs are still using FDA approved stem cell lines for research. They are privately funded.
There is a very clear difference between the two.

Actually the ban is only against new stem cell lines. Those already in exhistance and being researched when the original ban was placed can and still are being researched with the aid of federal funding.
The people who are pushing the embryonic stem cell research have been very dishonest. There are zero benefits to date from the embryonic cells. The adult and cord cells have provided a number of breakthroughs.
All that being said I don't agree with the veto of the bill. There was specific language preventing the creation of embryos for research purposes. I would have a problem with that too. These are unused embryos from fertility clinics. As long as the embros are going to be destroyed why not put them to some good use no matter how slight the chance at success might be?
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
I love the blanket statements meant to infuriate. First it was BUSH sent our troops to battle without body armor, now it is he sent them with body armor that was inadequate. Which is it?
As for the VETO. IT was on EMBRYONIC stem cell research. NOT ALL stem cell research. TO date there has not been one single breakthrough in EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Even when it was being researched in full. However there have been tons of breakthroughs on ADULT stem cell reseach!!.....HMMMMMMM....Doesn't take a genius to figure out which one is worth funding.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
Scooters crime was absolutely NOT the same as Clinton's. Scooter was CONVICTED of obstruction of justice, meaning he PURPOSEFULLY AND WILLFULLY impeeded the investigation of a crime.

Clinton was charged with 2 counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice and one count of abuse of power.
Looks the same to me.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
Also Condi was made WELL aware by the outgoing administration in JULY that an attack on US soil was eminent.

If I give you two months notice that someone in you family will be assaulted and killed, how would you prepare your family for this not knowing how, when, or where. This was two months of notice...not exactly a whole lot of time to get things in place, especially for something as unthinkable as planes flying into buildings....
 

oceansidefish

Active Member
A response....
Congress has thankfully just drastically increased funding for the VA system. Of course it's higher than when Clinton was in office, we now have thousands more injured coming home. The problem was that the current President was redirecting VA funding to the war. That has now stopped. Congress has never and has stated that they will always support the troops and will continue to give them what they need. In fact our current congress gave MORE money to Bush than he asked for so they could increase production on things like the heavily armored cars that our troops desperately need.
Second stop using right wing Clinton talking points to counter everything I say, just because I don't agree with Bush does not mean I was a big Clinton supporter. Two wrongs don't make a right, just because another president did something does not give the current one free reign to break laws as well. Also Clinton was never convicted, so stop using that.
Thirdly, I have family members very high up in national security offices. We know where Osama is and has been for over a year. I am not against the war in Afghanistan, that was a completely justified invasion. The taliban and Afghan insurgents continue to attack our military bases their daily. It's a shame we don't focus more attention there.
Also, we are not winning the war. There are more attacks on US troops now than there have ever been. There is a proven formula for the invasion of a country that was written in the Counter Insurgency Field Handbook, which was written by one of the commanders several years ago. 1 soldier for every 40 citizens, we would need 65,000 soldiers in Baghdad alone. There are simply not enough troops in the theater to successfully drive out the insurgents.
The previous administration had been informed a short time before Bush took office of a suspected terror plot against the US. Bush had nine months not two. They were in the intelligence gathering stages at the time Bush took office on what exactly was being planned. Condi was updated everyday on the advancements of the plot. Look into what NORAD was doing on 9-11.
As far as Scooter is concerned there WAS a crime. He was convicted of it. Look I don't blame Bush for Commuting his sentance, we would all do the same for people who were covering our asses. We know exactly what went down with Valerie Plane. All I can say is that this has been a huge strain on her and her family. She has two children and did not deserve to have this happen to her. I hope they are successfull in their civil suit.
This I would like to personally point out to GROUPERGENIUS, it was BUSH and the REPUBLICAN RAN congress who didn't give my husband the armor he needed. It was before Nancy took office. As I said before, they just increased the funding specifically for things like armored vehicles.
This will be my last post in this arena as is depresses me to see people who take things they read on FOX NEWS as fact. Read the bills going through congress for yourselves and be informed. Our country was designed to have a separation between church and state, which sadly is diminishing quickly. Our founding fathers warned us more than 200 years ago of a religious sect that would disguise itself as a political party. Well they got it half right. Except we have a politcal party disguising itself as a religious sect. I am a Christian and believe in God. I also believe in everyone's right to choose their own religion and worship and praise how they choose too. Allowing religion to dictate law diminishes the things about this country which are great. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Freedom is a powerfull word, it is not always easy to make the right decisions, but choosing for freedom in the free world should be number one. Any religious extremist group is dangerous whether they be Christian or Muslim. I do not side with one party or another, I make my own choices. Their have been good and bad Presidents on both sides.
Now back to the fish.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Doubt I will get a response. However I would like to point out some inconsistencies.
You claimed Condi knew in July and was told then by the previous administration. July to September is 2 months. All they were told was an imminent threat. Not what form, whom, or how, or when. WOW a lot to go on. According to every intelligence agency in the world, Hussein was an imminent threat as well....If the previous administration was so worried about this imminent threat why did they also not do anything to combat it in their last two years in office...But, that is bringing up the past.
Blaming Bush and Congress for bad body armor is like blaming the principal of the high school for a horrible football team. How about blaming the military commanders that purchase and authorize the usage of this equipment...
We KNOW where Bin Laden is? Really? Truly? well hell, I think if this were True BUSH would have grabbed him to parade his corpse on TV and improve his ratings....Bush could prove himself correct in how he has managed this war on TERROR by this one action. Yeah, I am sure we know where he is (sarcasm).
As for the fox news comment. I watch neither fox nor CNN...both are slanted...I gather my information from other sources and double check most everything.
As for Clinton being found not guilty....well OJ was found not guilty as well...doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime....especially since Clinton did it on national television in front of millions.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
And as for what NORAD was doing, they were conducting a hijacking simulation that day...which managed to help confuse things further.
 
Top