|
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040423/D824LUNO3.html
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) - Despite the shrapnel wounds Staff Sgt. William Pinkley suffered during his tour in Iraq, the 26-year-old is joining other soldiers who are re-enlisting at rates that exceed the retention goals set by the Pentagon.
As of March 31 - halfway through the Army's fiscal year - 28,406 soldiers had signed on for another tour of duty, topping the six-month goal of 28,377. The Army's goal is to re-enlist 56,100 soldiers by the end of September.
Pinkley re-enlisted for three more years, citing the camaraderie and the challenge of a new assignment.
"To come out and work with you guys every day, it's a good feeling," Pinkley, 26, told his 101st Airborne Division buddies during the ceremony earlier this month. His wife, Kimberly, watched with a smile, their toddler in her arms.
"It's a very positive retention picture at this point," said Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, an Army public affairs officer. The Army had nearly a half-million active-duty soldiers.
However, Childress cautioned that factors such as an improved economy and the Pentagon's decision to keep about 20,000 troops in Iraq for longer than a year to help quell the violence could change the picture.
Some contend a poor job market and re-enlistment bonuses worth thousands of dollars are keeping soldiers in the Army. Col. Joseph Anderson, commander of the 101st's 2nd Brigade, said it is more about camaraderie, patriotism and duty.
"They've had a personally rewarding and professionally developing experience," Anderson said. "I think they've formed some bonds that are going to last a lifetime. It tends to make them want to stay."
The only Army division to not meet its goal in the six-month period was the 82nd Airborne Division, whose members have been sent to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 attacks. The division wanted to re-enlist 1,221 soldiers, but got only 1,136.
At Fort Campbell, soldiers from the 101st spent seven months in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. The entire division of about 20,000 soldiers was sent to Iraq last year for major combat, and the last planeload returned home in March. A grueling year in Iraq claimed the lives of 61 Fort Campbell soldiers, and hundreds more were wounded.
In the six-month period ending March 31, the 101st topped its goal of re-enlisting 1,591. It got 1,737 to sign up for another tour of duty.
Fort Campbell leaders said their numbers debunk the theory that yearlong combat-zone assignments - not typically used since Vietnam - and the casualties in Iraq would discourage soldiers from re-enlisting.
Shelley MacDermid, co-director of the Military Family Research Institute at Purdue University, said it is too early to know what effect the war in Iraq will have long-term on recruitment and retention.
"If the war were to end tomorrow, the impact on re-enlistments likely would be very different than three years from now," MacDermid said.
Some soldiers, of course, are getting out, for themselves or for their families. ("There's a saying in the Army - 'You enlist a soldier, but you re-enlist a family' - and that's true," said Command Sgt. Maj. James Plemons, who oversees retention for the 101st.)
Staff Sgt. Bobby Miller, 31, has spent more than 10 years in the Army said he is getting out when his term ends in less than a year. The 101st soldier has served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and said he has barely seen his wife and two children in the past few years.
"It's not that we don't want to deploy; I'd like a little more stabilization," Miller said.
Pinkley was riding in a Humvee the day after Thanksgiving when it was rocked by a bomb. He suffered internal injuries and is still healing from the shrapnel wounds. He said he and his wife discussed for more than a year whether he should re-enlist.
In the end, despite his pain and his wife's fear for his life, they decided it was best for both of them, she said. His next position will be as a drill sergeant at Fort Benning, Ga.
"I'm excited about it," his wife said. "It's something he wanted to do. We told him we'd be supportive of him whatever he wanted." As for the possibility of her husband being sent off to a combat zone again, she said: "We would definitely do it again if we had to."
|
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/
|
On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/
Words of wisdom. Read Rich Clarke's book if you haven't, really opened my eyes o_o.
|
|
|
United States12237 Posts
On April 24 2004 14:20 GooDGaMe[cF] wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/ Words of wisdom. Read Rich Clarke's book if you haven't, really opened my eyes o_o.
That book was such trash. Most of his insinuations were falsified not only by this administration and the previous administration, but by his own contradicting words. We've been over Clarke's lies that were created just to sell his book, so I won't continue to go over that, but suffice it so say the man is a lying conniving opportunist capitalizing on the politicization of 9/11 by the Democrats and the media.
|
United States12237 Posts
And another thing - I just wanted to point out the terrible bias on this forum on the part of the moderators. This is mainly Rekrul but there may be others so I apologize if I cast blame at one where multiple people are at fault. The bias is very simple - any news that benefits America, or its foreign or domestic policy, any proven points that benefit the Presidential administration, are always ALWAYS taken down swiftly. However on the flip side, anti-American threads routinely get above 100 replies and are almost never closed. Why is this so? Is equality really such a stretch here that pro-America news must be censored?
|
On April 24 2004 14:31 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 14:20 GooDGaMe[cF] wrote: On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/ Words of wisdom. Read Rich Clarke's book if you haven't, really opened my eyes o_o. That book was such trash. Most of his insinuations were falsified not only by this administration and the previous administration, but by his own contradicting words. We've been over Clarke's lies that were created just to sell his book, so I won't continue to go over that, but suffice it so say the man is a lying conniving opportunist capitalizing on the politicization of 9/11 by the Democrats and the media.
Same with ex major giovanni, and many other politician out there. Everything is fueled by money, and what is it that every single man wants? Power. As Scarface once said, "first you get the money, then you get the power." It was no different in colonial times, and it isnt different now.
|
Russian Federation722 Posts
stop with the political threads, hasnt rekrul closed enough of yours already?
|
On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/
The U.S. Army is still in Afghanistan too. That is part of the war on terror.
Iraq is very much part of the war on terror. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. And we are currently fighting Terrorists in Iraq.
|
Russian Federation722 Posts
On April 24 2004 14:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:
And another thing - I just wanted to point out the terrible bias on this forum on the part of the moderators. This is mainly Rekrul but there may be others so I apologize if I cast blame at one where multiple people are at fault. The bias is very simple - any news that benefits America, or its foreign or domestic policy, any proven points that benefit the Presidential administration, are always ALWAYS taken down swiftly. However on the flip side, anti-American threads routinely get above 100 replies and are almost never closed. Why is this so? Is equality really such a stretch here that pro-America news must be censored?
uh wrong, the ones bashing america always get little annoying know it alls who jump on and assemble 20 pages worth of crap in 2 minutes and the admins can no longer close it cuz theres a huge "debate" in progression. the ones pro-america never get any replies and are usually just as worthless so they are closed..
|
What's the point of closing them if they don't get any replies anyway? Are you annoying as hell AND stupid? Yes.
|
On April 24 2004 15:31 x[ReaPeR]x wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/ There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. And we are currently fighting Terrorists in Iraq.
No, there weren't those camps. There is no proof of a connection between El Quaida and Saddam. Terrorists came after Iraq was invaded because of those weapons that weren't there.
|
On April 24 2004 15:48 Wirthi wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 15:31 x[ReaPeR]x wrote: On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/ There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. And we are currently fighting Terrorists in Iraq. No, there weren't those camps. There is no proof of a connection between El Quaida and Saddam. Terrorists came after Iraq was invaded because of those weapons that weren't there.
They weren't Al Qaida camps I'm pretty sure, but they were camps.
The terrorists are there, war are fighting them, therefore we are fighting terror.
How do you know the weapons weren't there.
|
Political threads are so boring and redundant, same thing over and over. People use the same arguments, only recycled and worded in the most extravagant way possible, in hopes of convincing others of their virtual intelligence. Please, one thread is enough, not 3 or 4 talking about war in iraq, or japanese attacks. Also, instead of bashing each other, please concentrate on constructive discussions, rather than continuing the endless bullshit.
This should be common sense, but many of you seem to lack in that department.
|
I wouldn't consider the Iraqis that we are fighting as terrorists, but that is just me.
|
On April 24 2004 16:07 x[ReaPeR]x wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 15:48 Wirthi wrote: On April 24 2004 15:31 x[ReaPeR]x wrote: On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/ There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. And we are currently fighting Terrorists in Iraq. No, there weren't those camps. There is no proof of a connection between El Quaida and Saddam. Terrorists came after Iraq was invaded because of those weapons that weren't there. They weren't Al Qaida camps I'm pretty sure, but they were camps. The terrorists are there, war are fighting them, therefore we are fighting terror. How do you know the weapons weren't there.
sigh
|
On April 24 2004 16:23 taeWook wrote:
Political threads are so boring and redundant, same thing over and over. People use the same arguments, only recycled and worded in the most extravagant way possible, in hopes of convincing others of their virtual intelligence. Please, one thread is enough, not 3 or 4 talking about war in iraq, or japanese attacks. Also, instead of bashing each other, please concentrate on constructive discussions, rather than continuing the endless bullshit.
This should be common sense, but many of you seem to lack in that department.
I love you taewook.
EDIT: You could've thrown in a nice yawn. 
|
|
|
On April 24 2004 16:23 taeWook wrote:
Also, instead of bashing each other, please concentrate on constructive discussions, rather than continuing the endless bullshit.
This should be common sense, but many of you seem to lack in that department.
Why do people Say shit like "Dont flame" and then Follow it up with an insult.
Thats fucking ignorant.
|
On April 24 2004 17:07 RG20SaTuRNiNe wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 16:23 taeWook wrote:
Also, instead of bashing each other, please concentrate on constructive discussions, rather than continuing the endless bullshit.
This should be common sense, but many of you seem to lack in that department. Why do people Say shit like "Dont flame" and then Follow it up with an insult. Thats fucking ignorant.
lol
|
Articles that rely on anecdotal evidence are garbage. Finding 5 guys who love Bush in the military is not that hard. The fact that a few people are willing to give such quotes does not constitute evidence.
The only piece of information in the entire article is that retention rates have exceeded pentagon goals. This in itsself can be misleading though, especially if the Pentagon factored a large dip in recruiting into its goals.
I honestly have no clue what the mood of our armed forces are, but this article is clearly propagandistic.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On April 24 2004 14:31 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 14:20 GooDGaMe[cF] wrote: On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/ Words of wisdom. Read Rich Clarke's book if you haven't, really opened my eyes o_o. That book was such trash. Most of his insinuations were falsified not only by this administration and the previous administration, but by his own contradicting words. We've been over Clarke's lies that were created just to sell his book, so I won't continue to go over that, but suffice it so say the man is a lying conniving opportunist capitalizing on the politicization of 9/11 by the Democrats and the media.
Don't they teach you in school not to talk about books you haven't actually read?
|
Austin10831 Posts
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
|
United States3552 Posts
The problem with these threads, is that they are usually started by people who do not follow through with there apparent desire to prove a point. Maybe there is no point? The general habit of such threads is that a rather generic conservative claim will be made with no information, or even intelligence, to back it up. Then various forum members will begin to point out the fallacies in the givin claim, only to be followed by more generalized unbacked statements that usually follow along some unrational ideoligical nonsense that looks like it could be copy/pasted off of a transcript of a Hannity and Colmes episode. This will continue until the resident zealots are overwhelmed with information that they can not dispute, then they will stop responding until the thread disappears into the back pages of our little community. Of course, 3 weeks later the same thing will happen again. I don't think I have ever come across such hard headed, stubborn, ignorant, gullible, and foolish people than I have in "debates" on this forum. This of course does not apply to everybody, but seems to be a pretty accurate description of what happens here.
|
United States3552 Posts
I wonder how these guys feel about re-enlisting:
Soldiers
|
On April 24 2004 20:59 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I wonder how these guys feel about re-enlisting: Soldiers
One story that hasn't seen much press are the 2,000 suicides by US military personel and the 600 troops who went AWOL - both at rates ~double the normal for the military. Whatever the mood of the troops, war takes a horrible psychological toll, and the reality on the ground is far more horrific than any of the news coverage I've seen here in the US.
|
United States3552 Posts
One story that hasn't seen much press are the 2,000 suicides by US military personel and the 600 troops who went AWOL - both at rates ~double the normal for the military. Whatever the mood of the troops, war takes a horrible psychological toll, and the reality on the ground is far more horrific than any of the news coverage I've seen here in the US.
Plus, the news about the effect DU has had on our soldiers. Plus, the several incidents of soldiers coming home and mudering there wives. Plus, ...... What are we doing to these kids?
|
On April 24 2004 14:31 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 14:20 GooDGaMe[cF] wrote: On April 24 2004 14:17 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
war on iraq is war on terror? misleading propaganda. :/ Words of wisdom. Read Rich Clarke's book if you haven't, really opened my eyes o_o. That book was such trash. Most of his insinuations were falsified not only by this administration and the previous administration, but by his own contradicting words. We've been over Clarke's lies that were created just to sell his book, so I won't continue to go over that, but suffice it so say the man is a lying conniving opportunist capitalizing on the politicization of 9/11 by the Democrats and the media.
Oh man. The democrats politicized 9/11?
Is that why republican candidates are using it to get them re-elected?
Is that why republicans used it to pass laws that never would have passed otherwise?
Is that why republicans are using it in politics? Because only democrats are doing it?
|
United States3552 Posts
Its like shooting a lazor into a black hole.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On April 24 2004 14:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:
And another thing - I just wanted to point out the terrible bias on this forum on the part of the moderators. This is mainly Rekrul but there may be others so I apologize if I cast blame at one where multiple people are at fault. The bias is very simple - any news that benefits America, or its foreign or domestic policy, any proven points that benefit the Presidential administration, are always ALWAYS taken down swiftly. However on the flip side, anti-American threads routinely get above 100 replies and are almost never closed. Why is this so? Is equality really such a stretch here that pro-America news must be censored?
Don't be retarded. I don't close Pro-America threads because they are Pro-America. I close them because they are threads poorly opened with no real purpose.
The fact that I am American should show you that I'm closing them for non-biased reasons.
Please dig up and show me some threads that "should" have stayed open in your opinion, and I will respond in turn to rape you verbally!
|
United States12237 Posts
No that says nothing. In the past you have proclaimed your anti-American sentiment on these forums. So you have demonstrated a bias against America - it doesn't matter if you are American or not because there are plenty of people that live here that hate this country, the bias is still evident.
As a matter of fact this most recent statement of yours proves this: "I close them because they are threads poorly opened with no real purpose." Yeah, in your opinion =[
|
it's such a huge coincidence that pro-bush-policies (dont deserve to call them pro-american, more like pro-pseudo-patriotism-neo-facism) are generally too inept to do anything in an argument other than get the thread closed
and only retards end their posts w insults and ad homonems
|
On April 24 2004 20:19 BroOd wrote:
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
john travolta is the mother of all fuckups.
|
On April 25 2004 00:16 TranCe wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 20:19 BroOd wrote:
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups. john travolta is the mother of all fuckups.
Unless you've watched Scarface, and The Punisher - be quiet.
Trance come back to my loving arms.
|
Braavos36379 Posts
On April 24 2004 20:28 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
The problem with these threads, is that they are usually started by people who do not follow through with there apparent desire to prove a point. Maybe there is no point? The general habit of such threads is that a rather generic conservative claim will be made with no information, or even intelligence, to back it up. Then various forum members will begin to point out the fallacies in the givin claim, only to be followed by more generalized unbacked statements that usually follow along some unrational ideoligical nonsense that looks like it could be copy/pasted off of a transcript of a Hannity and Colmes episode. This will continue until the resident zealots are overwhelmed with information that they can not dispute, then they will stop responding until the thread disappears into the back pages of our little community. Of course, 3 weeks later the same thing will happen again. I don't think I have ever come across such hard headed, stubborn, ignorant, gullible, and foolish people than I have in "debates" on this forum. This of course does not apply to everybody, but seems to be a pretty accurate description of what happens here.
never has something i thought been put down in words so well.
when will people learn that anti-bush/anti-bush policies does not equal anti-american.
|
"it doesn't matter if you are American or not because there are plenty of people that live here that hate this country"
People who don't support Bush don't necessarily hate their country. I assume that is what you must mean because there are very few Americans in America who hate America.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On April 24 2004 23:00 Excalibur_Z wrote:
No that says nothing. In the past you have proclaimed your anti-American sentiment on these forums. So you have demonstrated a bias against America - it doesn't matter if you are American or not because there are plenty of people that live here that hate this country, the bias is still evident.
As a matter of fact this most recent statement of yours proves this: "I close them because they are threads poorly opened with no real purpose." Yeah, in your opinion =[
Come on Excal lets see some examples! Maybe it's just in YOUR opinion that they were closed poorly! Ever think of that buddy?
Gogog links to topics plz ! ! !
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 24 2004 20:19 BroOd wrote:
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
'-Don't you know assumption is the brother of all fuckups?
-Mother, not brother.
-What?
-You said brother of all fuckups
-So what, brother, mother any other fuckah
God I love lock stock and two smoking barrels ;(
|
On April 24 2004 14:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:
And another thing - I just wanted to point out the terrible bias on this forum on the part of the moderators. This is mainly Rekrul but there may be others so I apologize if I cast blame at one where multiple people are at fault. The bias is very simple - any news that benefits America, or its foreign or domestic policy, any proven points that benefit the Presidential administration, are always ALWAYS taken down swiftly. However on the flip side, anti-American threads routinely get above 100 replies and are almost never closed. Why is this so? Is equality really such a stretch here that pro-America news must be censored?
Not for nothing, but most people I talk to who are actively questioning the war on terror and the motivations of the current Administration strike me as very "pro-America". I think one of the most patriotic things you can do is to constantly analyze the issues by gathering information and discussing the ins and outs with others. Knee-jerk acceptance of anything without soul-searching, and a refusal to listen to reasoned debate based on facts, would be pretty close to my definition of "unpatriotic".
I'd be interested to hear which chapter(s) of Clarke's book Excal had the biggest problems with. I have a copy of it but haven't had a chance to read it yet.
|
"To come out and work with you guys every day, it's a good feeling," Pinkley, 26, told his 101st Airborne Division buddies during the ceremony earlier this month. His wife, Kimberly, watched with a smile, their toddler in her arms.
yea right.
Escalibur, who is the real patriot? The one who points the wrong doings of its government or the one who mindlessly agree just to be loyal(to the government;not loyal in general ofc). Seems to me you belong in the latter group; I leave it to you to decide what is better. Go Rekrul!
Ps. patriotism is just bs anyway. Its utterly stupid imo to love your country because its your country. If you are intent on loving a country you love it for its actions and doings.
PPs. To me, loving a country seems more superficial than loving Backstreet boys.
|
United States3552 Posts
I have several freinds either in Iraq or in the reserves. Generally speaking, they disagree with the war, and are not fond of Bush. Yet, they want to be in Iraq. It is not because they are "hawks", or beleive in the so called "cause", it is becuase 1)they are trained to do a job, and wish to do it 2) they have friends in Iraq that they want to go support. Large numbers of people re-enlisting in Iraq is not necessarily a sign of a large scale support of Bush's policy. It is more likely the reflection of military culture. When you make a living off the military, when your friends and family are in the military, when your lifestyle revolves around the military, re-enlisting has more to do with maintaining the direction of your life, rather than support for some warmonger. To make the connection between the two, is a rather desperate attempt to create the impression that there is support for a war that we are losing.
|
for sure u all know the truth, no?!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
"To come out and work with you guys every day, it's a good feeling," Pinkley, 26, told his 101st Airborne Division buddies during the ceremony earlier this month. His wife, Kimberly, watched with a smile, their toddler in her arms.
.....
|
United States3552 Posts
Hah, there isn't a hint of propaganda there.
|
military culture is like........ u not supposed to have a political opinion, not judge the president at all. try not to think about it, because u have to back him no matter what. its harder to do this with bush than other presidents i think. afghanistan make sense.. iraq.. um. not horrible idea but the reasonings/policiess were insulting to anyone who was listening. im surprised some ppl are so inspired by bush reading a teleprompter now and then that they will believe anything he says years after 9/11. i didnt realize usa had so many ppl like that. i suppose fox news is helping them
|
United States3552 Posts
i suppose fox news is helping them
Karen Hughes is on CNN right now. She just made a blatant connection between Iraq and terrorism, implied Saddam had WMD, and said the terrorist hate us because of our freedoms. She then says Kerry is misleading americans about the facts, and that he should apologize. No wonder.....
|
On April 24 2004 20:28 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
The problem with these threads, is that they are usually started by people who do not follow through with there apparent desire to prove a point. Maybe there is no point? The general habit of such threads is that a rather generic conservative claim will be made with no information, or even intelligence, to back it up. Then various forum members will begin to point out the fallacies in the givin claim, only to be followed by more generalized unbacked statements that usually follow along some unrational ideoligical nonsense that looks like it could be copy/pasted off of a transcript of a Hannity and Colmes episode. This will continue until the resident zealots are overwhelmed with information that they can not dispute, then they will stop responding until the thread disappears into the back pages of our little community. Of course, 3 weeks later the same thing will happen again. I don't think I have ever come across such hard headed, stubborn, ignorant, gullible, and foolish people than I have in "debates" on this forum. This of course does not apply to everybody, but seems to be a pretty accurate description of what happens here.
well, thats internet discussions for you. arguing over something face to face with another individual in real life seldom ends this way ( I am not counting politicians here ).
but on the other hand, if we were to back up every opinion we have with a vast and foolproof amount of evidence nothing would be said. and no, I dont think the members of this fine forum is any more "hard headed, stubborn, ignorant, gullible, and foolish people" compared to other forums. people obviously have a need to vent their opinions on these matters, I dont think anyone here seriously wants or thinks that they can convert readers of their posts to their belief. but hey, who cares, I find it fascinating that people have strong views on topics as divergent as the "iraqi war" to "how to save the dolphins".
well, my long rant was supposed to end with a nice finish containing messages of love and pink teddybears.. nah, I'll just go play some bw
|
On April 24 2004 17:28 MrIncognito wrote:
Finding 5 guys who love Bush in the military is not that hard. The fact that a few people are willing to give such quotes does not constitute evidence.
A large majority of the military votes Republican. Their absentee ballots are what gave Bush the official margin of 500+ votes in Florida.
|
On April 25 2004 09:58 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
military culture is like........ u not supposed to have a political opinion, not judge the president at all. try not to think about it, because u have to back him no matter what. its harder to do this with bush than other presidents i think. afghanistan make sense.. iraq.. um. not horrible idea but the reasonings/policiess were insulting to anyone who was listening. im surprised some ppl are so inspired by bush reading a teleprompter now and then that they will believe anything he says years after 9/11. i didnt realize usa had so many ppl like that. i suppose fox news is helping them
Kerry support the war on Iraq as well as Bush. Maybe if you watched a little Fox News you wouldn't have forgotten that.
|
Braavos36379 Posts
On April 25 2004 11:23 Countdown wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 17:28 MrIncognito wrote:
Finding 5 guys who love Bush in the military is not that hard. The fact that a few people are willing to give such quotes does not constitute evidence.
A large majority of the military votes Republican. Their absentee ballots are what gave Bush the official margin of 500+ votes in Florida.
along with florida not recognizing thousands of black voters due to illegal requirements
|
On April 25 2004 11:31 Hot_Bid wrote: Show nested quote +On April 25 2004 11:23 Countdown wrote: On April 24 2004 17:28 MrIncognito wrote:
Finding 5 guys who love Bush in the military is not that hard. The fact that a few people are willing to give such quotes does not constitute evidence.
A large majority of the military votes Republican. Their absentee ballots are what gave Bush the official margin of 500+ votes in Florida. along with florida not recognizing thousands of black voters due to illegal requirements
hehe. you watched that documentary to? I just saw it last friday. Did you do any research or just buy into everything they said?
|
United States3552 Posts
Did you do any research
Did you?
|
On April 25 2004 11:40 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Did you?
yes, did you?
|
On April 25 2004 10:17 karelen wrote: Show nested quote +On April 24 2004 20:28 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
The problem with these threads, is that they are usually started by people who do not follow through with there apparent desire to prove a point. Maybe there is no point? The general habit of such threads is that a rather generic conservative claim will be made with no information, or even intelligence, to back it up. Then various forum members will begin to point out the fallacies in the givin claim, only to be followed by more generalized unbacked statements that usually follow along some unrational ideoligical nonsense that looks like it could be copy/pasted off of a transcript of a Hannity and Colmes episode. This will continue until the resident zealots are overwhelmed with information that they can not dispute, then they will stop responding until the thread disappears into the back pages of our little community. Of course, 3 weeks later the same thing will happen again. I don't think I have ever come across such hard headed, stubborn, ignorant, gullible, and foolish people than I have in "debates" on this forum. This of course does not apply to everybody, but seems to be a pretty accurate description of what happens here. well, thats internet discussions for you. arguing over something face to face with another individual in real life seldom ends this way ( I am not counting politicians here ). but on the other hand, if we were to back up every opinion we have with a vast and foolproof amount of evidence nothing would be said. and no, I dont think the members of this fine forum is any more "hard headed, stubborn, ignorant, gullible, and foolish people" compared to other forums. people obviously have a need to vent their opinions on these matters, I dont think anyone here seriously wants or thinks that they can convert readers of their posts to their belief. but hey, who cares, I find it fascinating that people have strong views on topics as divergent as the "iraqi war" to "how to save the dolphins". well, my long rant was supposed to end with a nice finish containing messages of love and pink teddybears.. nah, I'll just go play some bw
I personally find that internet discussions have the potential to be more productive than face to face discussions, especially when complicated issues are involved. It's just easier when stuff is written out and you can refer to a person's long argument without having first to try to understand what he's saying (most people I know write better than they speak) and then keep all of it in your head at once. That said, "discussions" with idiots are unproductive regardless of the medium.
|
United States3552 Posts
I read about the issue fairly extensively before I say the documentary(I assume we are talking about Unprecedent: the 2000 elections). The documentary was a good summary of much of what I had already read. You insuniate that the documentary was misleading, what have you read that shows this?
|
4492 Posts
On April 24 2004 11:21 x[ReaPeR]x wrote:"To come out and work with you guys every day, it's a good feeling," Pinkley, 26, told his 101st Airborne Division buddies during the ceremony earlier this month. His wife, Kimberly, watched with a smile, their toddler in her arms."
I have a hangover kinda... I almost defiled my keyboard reading this.
-Mynock
|
supporting bush before his first term will be a bit different than supporting him after all of his actions and such. bush promised to give military the benefits and pay they deserve sorta.. i think theyve been disappointed mostly. sory i dont know the details but it has to do with pensions and disability and salaries and shit like that
|
United States3552 Posts
|
On April 25 2004 12:52 TeCh)PsylO wrote: the detailsedit: *warning* Truth may anger some.
I'm not suprised, considering our government lies to us about everything, especially about 9/11.
|
i know they want to close a base near where i live so they are closing the hospital first because it costs too much to keep open. kind of fucked up if u ask me.
as for that link ive seen more infos than that really, i expected more. i suppose some veterans organization probably has a good list of gripes against bush's policies.
|
On April 25 2004 11:48 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
I read about the issue fairly extensively before I say the documentary(I assume we are talking about Unprecedent: the 2000 elections). The documentary was a good summary of much of what I had already read. You insuniate that the documentary was misleading, what have you read that shows this?
Well I think it was misleading in many cases. First of all, they claim there was some sort of race factor. "Ex-Felons are not allowed to vote" is racist, right? A couple black people's name was on the voter's list and all of a sudden that makes Jeb Bush a racist that is going after black people to keep them from voting? I don't know any of those people on that documentary who claimed they weren't allowed to vote and I am not going to believe everything they say. If they never receieved their voter's registration card, do they wait to the day of the election to complain about it and say they weren't allowed to vote? There is a thing called a contested ballot. If there is a problem you can fill out that ballot and it will be taken care of later. The documentary didn't even mention this. All they talked about was Republicans not wanting black people to vote.
|
United States3552 Posts
First of all, they claim there was some sort of race factor. "Ex-Felons are not allowed to vote" is racist, right
I think you missed alot of the information presented to you. Whether or not felons should vote is a seperate issue. The issue is that people who were not felons were on a "can not vote" list, becuase they were simply just labeled as felons. A companny called Choicepoint, was hired to create such a list. The criteria to put names on the list, was nothing short of laughable. In one county, they hunted down everyone on the list. Around 5% were felons. That means 95% of the people on the list were disinfranchised by Choicepoint. 95% is a big number, when we are talking about thousands and thousands of people on the list. In the documentary, they even talk to some of these people that were disinfranchised. Racist connection? I suppose that is a strong accusation. But considering that most African-Americans vote dem, and most of those that were disinfranchised were African-American, I don't think that it is to out of line to make such an accusation. Lets not forget, this was only one of many things that happened in the 2000 elections that made it completely illegitimate. A completely stolen election...
|
to be fair, other elections might have been just as fucked up (i dont know), but they werent close enough for it to change the outcome? i doubt all these kinds of ways to cheat were invented just for the 2000 election, it's likely ppl figured it out sooner? and probably some anti-republicans cheating 2 its possible. really would cheating to get bush out of office be so immoral?
|
really would lying about wmd to get saddam out of iraq be so immoral?
that's what happens when you raise hypotheticals like that.
|
United States3552 Posts
really would cheating to get bush out of office be so immoral?
It is not a question of morality, but of legitimacy. If democrats can not do it legitematly, then they should not do it at all. Until the framework of the democratic system has completely deteriorated, then everything should be done within it. That is extremely important in the long term stability of a government.
|
On April 25 2004 13:56 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +First of all, they claim there was some sort of race factor. "Ex-Felons are not allowed to vote" is racist, right I think you missed alot of the information presented to you. Whether or not felons should vote is a seperate issue. The issue is that people who were not felons were on a "can not vote" list, becuase they were simply just labeled as felons. A companny called Choicepoint, was hired to create such a list. The criteria to put names on the list, was nothing short of laughable. In one county, they hunted down everyone on the list. Around 5% were felons. That means 95% of the people on the list were disinfranchised by Choicepoint. 95% is a big number, when we are talking about thousands and thousands of people on the list. In the documentary, they even talk to some of these people that were disinfranchised. Racist connection? I suppose that is a strong accusation. But considering that most African-Americans vote dem, and most of those that were disinfranchised were African-American, I don't think that it is to out of line to make such an accusation. Lets not forget, this was only one of many things that happened in the 2000 elections that made it completely illegitimate. A completely stolen election...
I'm aware that the computers might have generated lists that were inaccurate, which should be fixed. But where is the proof that this was done intentionally, by the Governor, in order to rig the election? I also find it hard to believe that there was some sort of "list" of all the ex-felons which told the people at the polls to not allow them to vote, not even a contested ballot. In all honesty, I don't think anyone was "robbed" of their right to vote, I think that a lot of people were too stupid or lazy to go through the proper procedures to get their vote counted. I was taking notes from the documentary as I was watching it, the total number of law-abiding citizens on the ex-felons list was 15%.
|
United States3552 Posts
|
|
|
United States3552 Posts
I have it on my comp. Got it off off of DC++. You can find it as a Bittorent file as well.
|
ok. i dont know what that means.
|
United States3552 Posts
hmm, You can download off the net.
|
The evidence shows that Governor Jeb Bush, Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, and other Republican state officials ordered the manipulation of a list of former felons to include thousands of legitimate voters who had no criminal history.
I consider it misleading because of statemtns like that. "The evidence shows." What evidence? I can just as easily say, The evidence shows that John F. Kennedy stole the 1960 election. Or the Evidence shows that Bill Clinton ordered his cronies to steal FBI files on leading Republicans. Sure there is evidence but to word it like that is completely misleading.
Here is one more to your liking:
"The Evidence shows that Iraq has WMD"
|
On April 25 2004 14:51 TeCh)PsylO wrote: It is not a question of morality, but of legitimacy. If democrats can not do it legitematly, then they should not do it at all. Until the framework of the democratic system has completely deteriorated, then everything should be done within it. That is extremely important in the long term stability of a government.
if democrats cannot beat bush (with his cheating) legitimately, they should let bush win? :| how do you know it's extremely important? its possible every election has been just as fucked up, no? only the illusion of legitimacy is what has been constant
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
