Soldiers Voting With Their $

[kamiller42]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1633331' date='Aug 21 2008, 01:01 AM']The same can be said. [b]President Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction[/b], and therefore there was no way for Iraq to attack America, and yet lied to the American Public saying they had to attack Iraq before they used such weapons. So, essentially, he wasn't sending American troops to defend America at all, he knew America didn't need to be defended in such a way, and yet, he sent troops to Iraq anyways. That's a concerned President, sending people to die telling them they were going for a reason that he knew as a lie! Wow, he's such a great guy, sending people to their death's for no reason at all, and he knew it. That's criminal, and every soldier that dies in Iraq pisses me off because they went there because people lied to us. Or do you think it's okay for President Bush to lie to us all the time. Are you so dead in the holy spirit not to hate people who lie? The fear of the Lord is to [b]hate evil[/b], proverbs 8:12, Ye that love the LORD, [b]hate evil[/b]: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.Psalm 97:10[/quote]
What evidence do you have that he "knew" there were no WMDs? (There were chemical weapons and nuclear material in Iraq and the #1 WMD, Saddam, but that's another thread.) There was a belief, internationally, that Saddam was not being forthright about the WMD HE claimed to have and was obligated to prove do not exist or are destroyed. Even the UN has its suspicions. The disagreement with Bush and the UN was enforcement Gulf War I resolution. So again, what evidence do you have he "knew" the expected WMDs were not there?

You should go back and read his speeches, like the State of the Union addresses, the first couple of years following 9/11. WMD was only one reason.

[quote]How can any Christian accept any person lying to them, period! President Bush lied to us, and he is guilty for every single death of every single American Soldier in Iraq, and needs to be brought up on war crimes charges!

First, he ordered the illegal war against a nation that didn't have any means to threaten it. He then ordered deaths of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people, and destablized the country where infighting continues to kill more and more innocent American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, and he has killed innocent soldiers who were only obeying the order of their superiors![/quote]
Do you think Bush has many political enemies? Yes. If there were actual war crimes, don't you think an impeachment would easily pass through a democrat Congress? Why hasn't happened? Probably because there is no legal grounds for such a charge. You have not cited any clause in the Constitution or law the president has violated.

The war is not illegal. It was simply carried out without UN support. I followed the lead up to the war closely, and I don't remember Bush ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He has ordered the military to be extremely careful about injuring civilians. The military has done that very well, certainly better than how Saddam and family handled innocent civilians.

[quote]Those are the crimes he must pay for![/quote]
Then stop talking and do it. When are filing your charges? I would like to read them and the evidence.

[Justin86]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1633342' date='Aug 21 2008, 02:19 PM']Are you saying Catherine is lying[/quote]
I never accused anyone of lying. So what if she was told to ignore the other intelligence reports? The President had already made up his mind, and his opinion is ultimately the only one that matters for those of us that work for the executive branch.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Justin86

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1633343' date='Aug 21 2008, 01:19 AM']What evidence do you have that he "knew" there were no WMDs? (There were chemical weapons and nuclear material in Iraq and the #1 WMD, Saddam, but that's another thread.) There was a belief, internationally, that Saddam was not being forthright about the WMD HE claimed to have and was obligated to prove do not exist or are destroyed. Even the UN has its suspicions. The disagreement with Bush and the UN was enforcement Gulf War I resolution. So again, what evidence do you have he "knew" the expected WMDs were not there?

You should go back and read his speeches, like the State of the Union addresses, the first couple of years following 9/11. WMD was only one reason.


Do you think Bush has many political enemies? Yes. If there were actual war crimes, don't you think an impeachment would easily pass through a democrat Congress? Why hasn't happened? Probably because there is no legal grounds for such a charge. You have not cited any clause in the Constitution or law the president has violated.

The war is not illegal. It was simply carried out without UN support. I followed the lead up to the war closely, and I don't remember Bush ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He has ordered the military to be extremely careful about injuring civilians. The military has done that very well, certainly better than how Saddam and family handled innocent civilians.


Then stop talking and do it. When are filing your charges? I would like to read them and the evidence.[/quote]

I thought you were learning to think for yourself. Who cares what I think, right. And after you eat your cookie, you'll just remember I'm just another one of those spineless idiots who doesn't pick up a rifle to defend his country. . .

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1633325' date='Aug 21 2008, 12:52 AM'][b]Gallup: Veterans Solidly Back McCain[/b]

[img]http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080819Veteran1_ju87hd.gif[/img]

[url="http://www.gallup.com/poll/109654/Veterans-Solidly-Back-McCain.aspx"]Source[/url][/quote]
What's interesting, however, is that [i]active service personnel[/i] are voting with their dollars by contributing in greater numbers to Obama. One possible interpretation of this poll versus the contribution data is that a bunch of old white guys support another old white guy, while active service personnel who aren't all a bunch of old white guys have a preference for Obama.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1633480' date='Aug 21 2008, 11:00 PM']What's interesting, however, is that [i]active service personnel[/i] are voting with their dollars by contributing in greater numbers to Obama. One possible interpretation of this poll versus the contribution data is that a bunch of old white guys support another old white guy, while active service personnel who aren't all a bunch of old white guys have a preference for Obama.[/quote]
You know, money hardly means you're going to be getting votes. Ron Paul could make tens of millions of dollars in a single day, and he got what, maybe about 2 votes on primary day?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1633480' date='Aug 21 2008, 10:00 AM']What's interesting, however, is that [i]active service personnel[/i] are voting with their dollars by contributing in greater numbers to Obama. One possible interpretation of this poll versus the contribution data is that a bunch of old white guys support another old white guy, while active service personnel who aren't all a bunch of old white guys have a preference for Obama.[/quote]
The Gallup survey included active veterans. Not sure what you have against senior citizens or white people, but you should probably read the report. It states that veterans have clearly voted for the Republican candidate more than the Democrat, now and in the past. Dollars means nothing in the voting booth. One vote per person, not per dollar.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1633489' date='Aug 21 2008, 10:36 AM']You know, money hardly means you're going to be getting votes. Ron Paul could make tens of millions of dollars in a single day, and he got what, maybe about 2 votes on primary day? [/quote]
There's nothing scientific about my speculation. But "where your treasure is, there will you heart be also."

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1633526' date='Aug 21 2008, 11:28 AM']It states that veterans have clearly voted for the Republican candidate more than the Democrat, now and in the past. Dollars means nothing in the voting booth. One vote per person, not per dollar.[/quote]
Précisément. So the fact that soldiers are donating more to Obama than McSame is an interesting development, given usual trends. (BTW, I have nothing against senior citizens or white people. However, McSame represents the status quo, i.e. old white guys, [i]par excellence[/i].) As for the effect of money on electoral politics, that's a discussion for another day.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1633554' date='Aug 22 2008, 01:01 AM']There's nothing scientific about my speculation. But "where your treasure is, there will you heart be also."[/quote]
What on earth is met by that? You know, if I wanted to here that poetic, make-your-own-interpretation c[i][/i]rap all day I would have joined the freggin Air Force, shipmate. Bah, I'm too grouchy for this. I'm going to bed.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1633556' date='Aug 21 2008, 12:06 PM']What on earth is met by that? You know, if I wanted to here that poetic, make-your-own-interpretation c[i][/i]rap all day I would have joined the freggin Air Force, shipmate. Bah, I'm too grouchy for this. I'm going to bed.[/quote]
Put up or shut up. You're not going to give money to something unless you care about it.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1633561' date='Aug 22 2008, 01:11 AM']Put up or shut up. You're not going to give money to something unless you care about it.[/quote]
Just like all those people who gave money to Ron Paul and showed up on primary day?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1634214' date='Aug 22 2008, 12:04 AM']Just like all those people who gave money to Ron Paul and showed up on primary day?[/quote]
I don't expect this to result in significant electoral advantage [i]per se[/i]. I simply thought that it was an interesting indicator. If *soldiers* are donating more to Obama than McSame, and McSame is supposed to be the "military guy" and the "foreign experience guy," then what might that indicate about the views of non-soldiers?

[Justin86]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1634503' date='Aug 22 2008, 11:36 PM']I don't expect this to result in significant electoral advantage [i]per se[/i]. I simply thought that it was an interesting indicator. If *soldiers* are donating more to Obama than McSame, and McSame is supposed to be the "military guy" and the "foreign experience guy," then what might that indicate about the views of non-soldiers?[/quote]
It also could just indicate the views/beliefs of those few in the military that actually have money.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1633554' date='Aug 21 2008, 12:01 PM']Précisément. So the fact that soldiers are donating more to Obama than McSame is an interesting development, given usual trends.[/quote]
I did not see in the Gallup report any mention of what the usual trend is for military donations to the democrat party. The report covered the military voting trend.

[kamiller42]

[url="http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/"]This report[/url] makes the survey that is the topic of this thread seem silly. I think it's closer to reality, but hey, maybe all the Obama supporters in uniform were too busy to take the survey.

[Hassan]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1671060' date='Oct 5 2008, 07:35 PM'][url="http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/"]This report[/url] makes the survey that is the topic of this thread seem silly. I think it's closer to reality, but hey, maybe all the Obama supporters in uniform were too busy to take the survey. [/quote]


Do you understand the flaw in your methodology?