News-Record.com

Dubbya's statement about not wanting to destroy one life to save another life sure takes all the wiggly out of a lot of things, huh?

Very insightful James!

I think what is ironic is all the brouhaha about sending armed forces into combat. Isn't that what we have them for? I've spoken with several friends of mine who were in the armed services during peace times. They indicated on more than one occasion that they wished they had an opportunity to use their training. They said they learned all these things and never really got to use it. Well, they are getting to use them now.

I'm not pro-war, but I'm also a realist. When you throw billions or trillions of dollars into something, you must use it every once in a while or people are going to start questioning why you're spending all their money on it.

That's sort of specious, don't you think? Putting the armed forces to use doesn't necessarily justify either the massive expense, nor the loss of lives. The war in Iraq, in particular, is showing us far bigger problems than whether the guys are putting their training to use or not.

Let's not forget that we have very likely killed at least as many Iraqis as Saddam ever did, and the childhood mortality rate there now is twice what it was before the war. We have a lot to be concerned about.

"Putting the armed forces to use doesn't necessarily justify either the massive expense, nor the loss of lives"

Couldn't agree more.

Question:
What American has directed the most executions in the United States?
Answer:
George W. Bush (as Governor of Texas)
Question:
What American has sent over 1,660 soldiers to their untimely deaths?
Answer:
George W. Bush (as President)
Pro-Life? yea right!

yeah is spelled with an h

Brian,

What do you mean by 'directed the most executions'?

Question: What party by far supports abortions, the murder of innocent children.

Answer: Democrats

Here are the approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year (based on assumptions by the Alan Guttmacher Institute).

1996 - 1,365,700
1995 - 1,363,700
1994 - 1,431,000
1993 - 1,500,000
1992 - 1,528,900
1991 - 1,556,500
1990 - 1,608,600
1989 - 1,566,900
1988 - 1,590,800
1987 - 1,559,100
1986 - 1,574,000
1985 - 1,588,600
1984 - 1,577,200
1983 - 1,575,000
1982 - 1,573,900
1981 - 1,577,300
1980 - 1,553,900
1979 - 1,497,700
1978 - 1,409,600
1977 - 1,316,700
1976 - 1,179,300
1975 - 1,034,200
1974 - 898,600
1973 - 774,600

Source: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats_2.htm

Pro Life? Yeah right!!

"Let's not forget that we have very likely killed at least as many Iraqis as Saddam ever did"
Eric, do you have a source for this?
Saddam killed 182,00 people in Kurdistan alone during his genocide on that group.
Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16037
The majority of people killed by Coalition Forces have been enemy combatants who were trying to kill our guys.

It's interesting how the increased number of abortions so directly corresponds to the fall in the crime rate 18 to 20 years after Roe v. Wade.

There are many ways to reduce human suffering and death. Some are more peaceful and less expensive. Suggesting that democrats are responsible for abortions is like suggesting that Republicans are responsible for war. (We know it wasn't the Republicans, it was Bush.)

truth,
I meant Bush has signed more death warrants than any other American.
Dan,
I know many Democrats that are devoted Christians that don't support abortions at all. I stated fact, yet you state unsubstantiated blather. Oh yea(h), I also know many Republicans that do support a woman's right to have an abortion. I know you didn't mean what you wrote because your posts in the past have been fairly intelligent.
It's funny that many Republicans think that all the abortions are had by Denocrats and all the abortion supporters are Democrats. Couldn't be more wrong.

Kurt, I didn't suggest that Dems are responsible for abortions, just that Dems favor it more than Republicans, that is a fact.

"It's interesting how the increased number of abortions so directly corresponds to the fall in the crime rate 18 to 20 years after Roe v. Wade."

Are you suggesting that abortion is a good thing because it will prevent criminals coming into the world?

Dubya has never once wavered in his reverence for life - that is his life and his fellow million-billionaires' lives and the enrichment there-of.

"It's interesting how the increased number of abortions so directly corresponds to the fall in the crime rate 18 to 20 years after Roe v. Wade. "

So, do you think that reduction in crime rate equals approx 1.5 million murders a year? If not, I think the cost/benefit analysis on that one falls a little short.

Thanks, Brian Harper. I thought that is what you meant. I did not know that. Interesting.....

I think Dan's posting was factual and eye opening. I had no idea.

Brian has a point, though. I also know many Republican Christians who are pro-choice. I disagree with using abortion as a form of birth control, but I concede that there are times for the sake of the health of the mother or other circumstances where it makes some sense. It's a tough choice and my biggest wish is that people didn't have to make it.

Welcome to the forum to bash Bush! Whoo hoo! This is getting so ridiculous....

Let's ignore all the other inconsistencies and tragedies that occurred under the Clinton administration (and various other Democratic led initiatives) and only focus on the ones NOW so we can bash ONE person and not the entire series of events that led up to where we are today. Let's not look at how ineffective Clinton was at fighting Al Qaeda, how he allowed millions to die in Bosnia before he sent anyone in, and how his lovely Sandy Berger was caught stealing evidence out of the archives just so he could save their butts during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Let?s also ignore how he dishonored the office that he held by allowing a college student to perform oral sex on him while on the phone to dignitaries from around the world and later committed perjury on the stand by saying it never happened. REAL CLASS ACT HUH?!? Let?s ignore everything he did?please?.let?s do?.and only focus on ONE person and how he supposedly picked a fight with Al Qaeda and the entire Arab world after they had declared war on us for more then a decade and killed more then 3000 people on our soil.

Moving right along?.

It's pretty telling that the abortion numbers have gone up under the Democratic/ ACLU watch and now more and more women regret ever having one. The woman who started the whole law suit back in the 70's has now expressed regret and is actively trying to get it REVERSED! *gasp* Imagine that.... Heaven forbid we try to protect the unborn and do away with a barbaric practice that literally commits murder before babies actually get a fighting chance to defend themselves. I found it quite interesting that when Scott Peterson killed his wife everyone said he should be tried for a double murder since she was about to give birth, yet the same people say they support abortion. Kind of contradictory isn't it?

Now?.that whole load of trash that Mr. Harper decided to spew out of his bowels is nothing more then partisan bloviating and reflects his inability to think outside of the box. Bush signed the death warrants for all of those criminals huh? Amazing....I was under the impression that the criminals had a "jury of their peers" sentence them to death and that Bush simply complied with their wishes, agreed with the sentence they had passed down, and did not grant the criminal clemency. How is this any different then any other governor in a state that has the death penalty? Does that mean that Mike Easley is a vicious murderer and does not value life as well? I doubt it because he is a friggin' Democrat and it goes against all codes for the Democrats to break ranks and actually look at the whole picture. Mike Easley actually OPPOSED the moratorium on the death penalty in our state so what does that say about him? It shows me that he believes the same thing I do. Ruthless criminals should pay the ultimate price and be taken out of society....forever.

And now for this garbage about "Bush sent 1600 soldiers to their death"?

This has to be the most RIDICULOUS thing I have ever heard. Did Lincoln send all of his troops to their death? Did Wilson? Did Roosevelt? Did Truman? Did Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon? (and have to say yes about that last one) Did Reagan? Did Bush I? See I am having trouble understanding why people get all pissy about Bush going into Iraq to oust a brutal dictator that had threatened us for years. This guy was undoubtedly behind parts of Al Qaeda and it has been shown that reps from Iraq did have contact with members of Al Qaeda and it is common knowledge that he backs Hamas/ suicide bombers in Israel. REAL FRIENDLY HUH? I can really tell he loves America and all of our allies? Bush has given them every weapon that we have and told them not to hold back (unlike Vietnam) so I can?t say that our government is attempting to throttle the military back at all. Our motto seems to be ?Get em?, wherever they may be!?

Am I SURE we are doing the right thing? NO. I am not sure we will ever know if it?s the right thing. Heck some people think we should have stayed out of WWII!!! Do I think it's a good cause? YES. Do I think it makes us safer? YES. Do I think it?s worth losing one American life? I would have to say yes as barbaric as that sounds. I am under the impression that it?s better to fight our wars the way we do best (militarily) and not on our streets and in our air. We all see how creative the cowardly terrorist can be when it comes to flying planes so don?t think for one second they won?t be as creative with a nuclear bomb. THEREFORE, I think I would prefer that we lose soldiers while they are attempting to kick the terrorists? ass rather 3000 innocent people trying to go to work. That?s just me though?.

These young men and women in the armed forces were TRAINED for this and they knew what they were signing up for when they VOLUNTEERED. If they had any inkling that they didn?t want to shoot at someone or be shot at they should have never joined in the first place. Also, they are forewarned that their commander-in-chief is the President of the United States and they will carry out his wishes (whether they be Democrat or Republican) and whether they like it or not. It?s not optional. So for me, it?s hard to sympathize with people saying they don?t want to go fight/ conscientious objectors because they are made aware of what they are signing up for at the recruitment counter and all the way through boot camp. Comes with the territory?. Do I sympathize with them? Oh yeah. But then again I never signed up for that dangerous job for a reason.

And that?s what the Tater thinks?.

Sorry for all of the question marks but I think the format got messed up when I copied and pasted out of Word 2003.

I think ya'll will get the point though...... ;-)

Hey Tater, Clinton's gone - get used to it- your boy has to stand up and take resposibility for all his own mess.

I am merely pointing out the double standard and how you all seem to ignore previous events that put us where we are today. Most of which, you chose not to respond to or roll them into the anti-Bush rhetoric....

Clinton isn't gone, he's ready to get back in the White House in '08 as "first man". I hear Hillary plans to hire all male interns.

Tater you are an amazing person, good post. I can understand the double standard, but poor Yellowdog needs some more education.

The yellowdog been to school and he aint no fool..my boy got a BJ your boy has thrown his leg over the whole country - not to mention Iraq.

Wow....great rebuttal. I swear you are making me wanting to switch to your side now!

Now let's see if you can respond to anything else in my post other then the part about Clinton...or even better...prove me wrong or illustrate an EDUCATED point of view (if there is one)...

Tater, Could you please come to Bush's defense, basing your defense on fact, without making Clinton a strawman? If you want an intelligent discussion then you have to present an intelligent observation to discuss. You can't keep regurgitating the same old "Clinton is the cause of the world's ills" dialogue and expect anyone to take you serious.

Blaming Clinton for Bush's failures as a good leader tannamounts to blaming your parents if you turn out to be a schmuck. With adulthood comes personal responsibilty. You just can't keep acting irresponsible as an adult and keep blaming your parents. (I am speaking generally, not about you specifically).

Bush has had five years in the WH. It is time for him to stand on his own merits or accept responsibility for his failure. It is past time to quit blaming everyone else for his actions.

All I personally am asking is that those who still believe in Bush take the time to tell us what his accomplishments are, what makes him a good choice for the country. If you can do that without blaming Clinton or any past president, then we can have an intelligent discussion rather than bash anyone.

Just for fun, I looked up the population growth in the USA to contrast the abortion statistics.

INTERESTINGLY - between the years I could most closly align, 1980 and 1995, abortion was up 1.137804789 but the population was up 1.155089889.

One could argue the rate of abortions has actually GONE DOWN a couple percent.

I'm NOT pro abortion, but I do find it hypocrytical that the Conservatives that want government OUT of their lives - want to control certain aspects ...

Tater – I don’t totally disagree, but …

Did Lincoln send all of his troops to their death? – yes, for a worthwhile cause.
Did Wilson? – yes, for a worthwhile cause.
Did Roosevelt? – yes, for a worthwhile cause.
Did Truman? – yes, but NOT for a worthwhile cause.
Kennedy? – I’m not sure what you mean on this one, it was really the next guy that screwed up.
Johnson? – yes, but NOT for a worthwhile cause.
Nixon? – yes, but NOT for a worthwhile cause.
Reagan? – yes, but NOT for a worthwhile cause.
Bush I? – yes, but NOT for a worthwhile cause.
Bush II? – yes, but NOT for a worthwhile cause (there are many other ways to handle this - I for one am not convinced we're currently acting in the best long term interest of America).

“We’re having trouble understanding Bush went into Iraq to oust a brutal dictator (but he told us it was WMD’s, clearly not true, and there was never evidence to support it – there is ample evidence he just wanted to kick some ass regardless - it[s clear he epected this to be another Granada adventure - in and out) that had threatened us for years (well, I’m not sure how he was threatening us, and we supported that same brutal dictator for many years and dozens more dictators too, btw).

“This guy was (NOT) undoubtedly behind parts of Al Qaeda (you might want to look more at Saudi Arabia before you make that claim) he backed Hamas/ suicide bombers in Israel (that is true - but more to harass Israel than as an "attack" on America).

Bush has given them (then = our military?) every weapon that we have (that’s clearly not true) and told them not to hold back (that’s also not true) so I can’t say that our government is attempting to throttle the military back at all (but they are, my friend – because America cant just go killing everyone, and we can’t tell bad guys from good guys)

These young men and women in the armed forces were TRAINED for this (sort of) and they knew what they were signing up for when they VOLUNTEERED. (that is also CLEARLY not true)

HEY = speaking of VIETNAM - here's an interesting article, Hot Of The Press:

Vietnam Offers Free Health Care to Kids

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 1, 2005

Filed at 11:24 a.m. ET

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) -- Vietnam began offering free health care to all children under age 6 on Wednesday, in an effort to ensure proper care is provided during critical years of development, an official said.

More than 9 million children were given cards enabling them to receive a free health screening and treatment at state-owned health care facilities nationwide, said Nguyen Van Tan, administrative head of the National Committee for Population, Family and Children.

The government earmarked $47 million this year to cover the scheme, he said.

Tan said the National Assembly passed a law in 1991 on protection, care and education of children, including offering free health care, but it wasn't until this year that the country could afford to pay for the program.

''Our goal is to give proper care to all children, particularly the children under age 6 who need care most,'' he said.

Tan said national children's hospitals in major cities have been flooded with children suffering from minor illnesses since the free plan was announced.

The Ministry of Health has urged parents to bring only children with serious illnesses to national children's hospitals and to seek treatment for minor problems at local clinics, he said.

------

Let's see - " 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled."

I argue that the domino theroy was a crock of crap - and from proof, not that the Worlds most communism country - China - is currently using Capitilism to kick our ass. It's a flame that burns out without sending American troops - What ultimately wins is giving people a chance to make their own lives better.

And now, Communist Vietnam - the same place we wasted so much on, including the cost of a severely divided America - is kicking our ass, "offering free health care to all children under age 6 on Wednesday, in an effort to ensure proper care is provided during critical years of development".

God help America - we are in REAL trouble.

"I'm not pro-war, but I'm also a realist. When you throw billions or trillions of dollars into something, you must use it every once in a while or people are going to start questioning why you're spending all their money on it."

Hey truth: Are you advocatin using Nuclear Weapons?

Wow, James. Talk about facts! I fear, however, they will be wasted on the Bush blind. The only thing I might add is a republican president sent the first troops into Vietnam, Dwight David Eisenhour in 1959. Although the war did escalate after that, in 1964 when North Vietnam attacked US naval ships in Tonkin Bay, while LBJ was in office, Eisenhour was the one who involved us in Vietnam.

Uhm, Yvonne I see no facts....only one-line sentences in paranthesis that insert his opinion and rhetoric that is typical of the left-leaning Democrats and peace-hippies. I would LOVE for you two to walk up to a veteran of the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, and Iraq Wars and tell them to their face that they risked THEIR life for an unworthy cause.

It's the cause of our nation and our government; therefore, it becomes a worthwhile cause for them. Freedom is a wonderful thing and something that we have been promoting since we declared our independance back in the 1700's. If freedom is not a worthy cause for everyone then why in the hell did we fight to get away from England and to free the slaves from the South? HMMMM?

Just because YOU don't think it's a worthwhile cause does not mean that others in the country, the people fighting, and the people dying don't think that they are. It's the horse**** comments like this that kill the moral of our troops and help our enemies gain strength by realizing they gaining ground in breaking our will. If you have some constructive criticism that's fine and dandy. Have at it because I have a few problems with how things are going in Iraq myself, but I will NEVER give in to the terrorists wishes and "RISE UP" against our government in the ways that people (including you) are suggesting. As I have said earlier in these forums, I agreed with the decision to go into Iraq but I always wanted to see an exit strategy and a time-table. We never really got one so that is a pretty big blunder if you ask me. HOWEVER, I am not going to demand the President of the United States of America to apologize to the Iraqi people for SETTING THEM FREE and giving them the opportunity to live the lives that they choose and not the one that Saddam, Uday, and Qusay all wanted them to have. I will not demand that he apologize to us because I can gaurantee you that he knows more then us. THAT'S WHY HE GETS TO THE CIA REPORTS AND WE DON'T! So for us to lambast him and ask for his resignation is, to me, ridiculous because he is merely doing his job to protect us. Until I see hard evidence (and not opnions, half truths, and rhetoric) to the contrary I will never think otherwise...

And that's the last post on this thread for me....I can't take reading anymore of this rubbish....

P.S. Could someone PLEASE explain to me how we don't have a volunteer army? I can't recall being drafted here recently and I believe I am more then eligible to go...

Tater, I'm glad you asked for proof. I found I was wrong about the year Eisenhour sent troops into Vietnam. It was actually February 12, 1955. It was July 8, 1959 when the first American soldiers were killed in conflict.

www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam.htm

I am sure most of the vets from Vietnam will tell you, if asked, that we should never have involved ourselves in that war either.

I appreciate your passion but you have not backed up any of your opinions with facts. Just because you blindly follow Bush's lead does not mean you (or he) is right.