Bush pisses off 9/11 victims trying to get re-elected...

Quote from ARogueTrader:

It was the wrong time to cut taxes for the WEALTHY!!!! They should have been the ones who took up the slack to support the crunch...they can afford it.
More...

Truly one of the most shameful acts of this shameful administration. Bush's wealthy donors: "Weapons of Mass Corruption".

m
 
To ,

waggie945

I can see that oasis hasn't figured out how to post messages so it is clear who he is replying to . Above the break he was quoting
AAAintheBeltway . It is he who you should be replying to . I gather that Oasis is in harmony with you .


Slim
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I have criticized Bush plenty here, so no one jump in and say I am just a do or die Republican fanatic. Having said that, I can't think of a more important symbol for this election than 9/11. What could be more important?

While 9/11 technically happened on Bush's watch, he had been in office all of 9 months. The groundwork for it had been laid during the previous administration, an administration that conducted its own terrorism, eg Waco, but did nothing after the first WTC attack or any of the many successive attacks on Americans around the globe, such as Khobar Towers, US Cole, etc.

As a country we face two starkly different aprroaches to our security, approaches that are embodied in the two candidates. Bush stands for a strong domestic security apparatus, one that will not agonize over marginal civil rights issues. He represents an aggressive interantional defense policy that will not hesitate to strike preemptorily at nations that threaten us or that pose an unacceptable risk to our way of life.
More...

That's all well and good, but let's face facts -- 9/11 is now a part of American History. A lot of good people died on that day and millions more had to suffer from anxiety attacks, depression and a host of other problems while learning to cope with the magnitude of the event.

Now today, in 2004, we have the same old song and dance that we've had since day one -- and that is the simple fact that this administration has perpetually painted a "doom and gloom" picture for our country.

When I wake up in the morning, I want to look out my window and get excited about the day and what I'm going to do. I don't want to get constantly jerked around by changing color codes, constant erosion of my rights, finger-printing Brazilians, reactionary tactics from Ashcroft, more wars, etc.

Frankly, I'm sick of this bullshit. I'm ready to move on with my life. Let's rebuild the towers and get on with our life. Let's scrap the stupid color codes, because when on God's green Earth are we ever going to use the two colors below yellow? Give me a break.

This administration treats everyone like a bunch of kids who are stupid, naive and easily led like sheep. I'm not going to turn this into a republican vs. democratic debate, but I'm sure I'm not the only REGISTERED REPUBLICAN who feels that this administration has done enough and it is time for a change.

I wouldn't be surprised if they jerked with the color codes just before election to inject yet more fear into the populace and milk more votes.

This entire administration is based on FEAR. How can a country move forward when our own government is more interested in keeping people scared, anxious and bewildered?
 
Quote from waggie945:

But can you please show me where President George Bush and his administration have done more than just run off at the mouth regarding being, as you say, "strong on domestic security"?

Last time I checked, our Port Security was a joke.

Our Ports are so vulnerable, it isn't even funny and the Bush Administration still has yet to fund anything close to realistic in order to help our Nation's Ports get their security up to a sufficient level of security. Thus far, all we have gotten out of the Bush Administration and Homeland Defense is a lot of "tough" talk, and that is all that it has been . . . TALK!

We have 361 Ports to protect, 95,000 miles of navigable waterways to defend and 20,000 oceangoing vessels to keep an eye on. The Coast Guard is focusing on what it considers the nation's 11,700 most likely maritime targets of a terrorist attack.

About 3,200 of these targets are on shore: Oil refineries, nuclear power plants, liquid natural gas facilities and hundreds of other hazmat type sites.

The 8,500 others are on the water: Public ferries from Seattle to New York, barges and cargo ships that crisscross U.S. harbors and inland waterways, oceangoing tankers and freighters, etc.

Nevertheless, the federal government has been spending about seven to 10 times more on aviation security than maritime security. For 2004, Congress has authorized the federal Transportation Security Administration to spend $3.8 billion on airport security and less than a half-billion for port security.

The disparity is obviously because cargo containers on a ship do not vote, but this difference just doesn't seem to equate the risk. Besides, a nuclear device is not going to get into this country via an airplane. It's gonna come in via ship.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...BUGMD4R6M91.DTL
More...


OK ...with that said....Tell me Democrats plan to protect all the sites you just listed...
 
i say revive 'duct tape and plastic' - nothing says vote republican more than wrap your head in plastic, put duct tape around your neck and kiss your ass goodbye.
 
Quote from fxtrading:

i say revive 'duct tape and plastic' - nothing says vote republican more than wrap your head in plastic, put duct tape around your neck and kiss your ass goodbye.
More...


That doesn;t answer the question: What is the Dem. plan for National security??? What does their plan consist of and how much will their plan cost?
 
The plan is to work with countries that don't sponsor terrorism, and make is a global effort rather than just a US effort....you know, our NATO allies that Bush thumbed his nose at to wage his own personal war with Saddam.

Oh, and by the way, now Bush wants to find Osama.

Why is it that we gave up on finding Osama with 100% of our efforts and resources, and had to blow our wad on Iraq?

Quote from TM_Direct:

That doesn;t answer the question: What is the Dem. plan for National security??? What does their plan consist of and how much will their plan cost?
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

The plan is to work with countries that don't sponsor terrorism, and make is a global effort rather than just a US effort....you know, our NATO allies that Bush thumbed his nose at to wage his own personal war with Saddam.

Oh, and by the way, now Bush wants to find Osama.

Why is it that we gave up on finding Osama with 100% of our efforts and resources, and had to blow our wad on Iraq?
More...

That is a "Hannityism"....explain how working with NATO ( which we are already doing) has anything to do with the cost of our borders and ports and nuke plants......and could you give me a specific plan from any of the Prominent Dems???

Im just curious what the other alternatives are thats all...
 
Quote from aphexcoil:

This entire administration is based on FEAR. How can a country move forward when our own government is more interested in keeping people scared, anxious and bewildered?
More...

....fear AND secrecy; a bad combination. Read Suskind's book about Paul O'Neill. Cabinet meetings that are scripted to support the pre-arranged conclusion that the idealogues have already decided on. No open and free discussion. Real decisions made in secrecy behind closed doors...probably mostly by Cheney. Bush is a weak little man, propped up by others.

m
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top