Are all boaters republican?

12Footer · Sep 13, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

Amen, Ralph. And they have allready been pretty vicious to date. But we have yet to see them stoop to the level of some of thier operatives, like CBS and Dan Rather just yet. But I prommise, they will. The forging of just a few more documents will leave them with much "investigation" material for the next four years, tying Bush's admin up with minutia, while letting his nominees again,sweat-out thier appointements in one long,excrutiating fillabuster.

woodrat · Sep 14, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

Ralph, yes I know that that particular speech was not the strongest claim Bush made to that effect. It was the first thing I came up with in a short time frame. Like I said, my dial up makes those kinds of searches blisteringly slow, especially when paging through a big government website. I'm certain that given the time and inclination I could find something more specific, but this week I am back to work so it will just have to wait. if you're keeping score, go ahead and give yourself an extra point or take one off of my card, assuming that you ever gave me any points to begin with...

As far as "ties" go, sure, they're all brown people from the same part of the world, who worship the same god and share a vigorous dislike of the US. If that's what is meant by "ties", I'll give you that without a whimper of protest. But no one anywhere has come up with a shred of evidence that I know of to say that Iraq atacked us on 911 or on any other day, so we still basically preemptively invaded another sovereign nation based on what we thought they might do someday. That is a whole new set of rules for making war, violates the nuremburg principles, and basically says to the rest of the world that if they want to go ahead and attack a neighbor who they dislike or distrust, hey, go for it! the US won't complain about it! And of course, when the world looks at the difference between how we dealt with iraq and n korea, what do they see? Having nukes keeps you from being invaded, so if you're in the middle of developing some, you'd better hurry up and get them finished! You don't have to tell me about the viciousness of the democratic party loyalists. I voted for nader last time (hey, who else was even talking about the big corporate scams like NAFTA and enron?) and I thought the dems were going to lynch me and anyone else who dared fly the nader flag. Whatever! No I don't think ralph would make a very good president, and I don't agree with everything, or even most of the green platform, but I and many other people felt that the dems were getting too creepy to support and needed to be sent a message that simply not being republicans did not entitle them to support. Same story this time around. kerry has nothing to offer, nothing interesting to say, except that he is not george bush and that he served in vietnam. Somehow, the dems think that that should be enough! As far as the wrong/right track question, don't be so sure. I talk to a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds, and although I think george will win, I don't think he should read it as a resounding mandate to do whatever he wants (of course, he will do exactly that). I hear a lot of people who do not really support the general direction of the neo conservative agenda at all, but do not want the country to look weak by switching presidents in the middle of a war. I think that without the war, george would not have a leg to stand on, and we would be back to whatever lame candidate the dems offered up. Just my humble opinion... hey, I still haven't heard a word about why we shouldn't enforce the UN security council resolutions concerning Israel, or why they shouldn't come clean with their WMD program. It would sure make us seem more credible and honest if we applied the same standards all the way around.

woodrat · Sep 14, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

BTW, I could care less if george's nominees have to sit out long filibusters. Not only do the republicans do exactly the same thing to dem nominees, but it is part of the checks and balance system that we have in place. Compaining about it just a few years after doing it is LAME. Its fine with me if any sitting president, repub or dem, doesn't automatically get EVERYTHING he wants.

Skinnywater · Sep 14, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

There's a huge difference between Ply2 and Woodrat. Ply is so tight with the liberal stand that he believes the liberal rhetoric and spin. He regurgitates it often in his posts. I'll add, many Republicans here do the same. Both are in the minority here. The runners up here seem to be people who call themselves sick and tired of the whole mess, i.e., misrepresentation to no representation, half truths, spin, lies, unfulfilled campaign promises, corruption, influence peddling, no bid contracts, foreign aid and subsides............... from both sides , and will begrudgingly vote for the lesser of two evils. Welcome aboard Woodrat, you're not far from the majority here. And I do feel your pain. GW we both know isn't in line with a Federalist/Constitutionalist/ Libertarian, or even a Conservative ideology. But the alternative, Kerry, wouldn't this be a step in a totally bizarre direction? To use your racing experience as my example, with GW you'd be running a race up against the rail with two flat tires and finishing in 17th place. With Kerry, the whole race would be run on ice, nobody finished the first lap and nobody won. Pacecar driver is pickin' his nose in front of the stands. Those Supreme Court appointments Ralph is talking about would be beneficial to the peoples cause. They will be judging policy long after GW is gone. Give this some of your excellent insight as well Woodrat.

Ralph 123 · Sep 15, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

But no one anywhere has come up with a shred of evidence that I know of to say that Iraq atacked us on 911 or on any other day, so we still basically preemptively invaded another sovereign nation based on what we thought they might do someday.

Well they tried to assassinate a US President (that is unchallenged). They shot at our plans almost every day for years (that is unchallenged) those two things alone are usually enough to start a war ... If you really don't know what the ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations were and would like some examples, let me know and I will post them. I am not going to make an argument for our decades long, almost unconditional support for Israel. I will say however, that the Palestinians have so damaged their own cause by horrific acts of terrorism that they are tough to support. IMHO, if the Palestinians took the Gandhi approach, they would be way ahead by now. Americans instinctively support the oppressed. When you start intentionally killing innocent civilians in the name of your cause, and dance in the streets on 911, you can't expect much support from average Americans.

SCO · Sep 15, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

That's my take too SkinnyW, that Woodrat is not PW as Woodrat makes compelling arguments AND concedes as appropriate. 2 points: 1) The left wasn't complaining when BC did an endrun around the UN and went into Kosovo with NATO. Why... because it was politically correct to side with the Muslims against the Serbian Christians. Shows how fair the left is to side with the Muslims. The Muslims were supposed to think" Wow, that USA is not as bad as I thought, they are a fair people" in the liberal mind's eye. 2) This is a continuation of the gulf war in Iraq because Saddam violated the terms of surrender. ok...3) Why should we be so stupid as to enforce a sanction against Israel just to look fair. They are on our side. If they start threatening us with those nukes, then we just might get them. I have in mind a science fiction novel as I read these arguments from the left, in the Arthur C Clarke tradition, about how when the world changed, when terrorists gained nuclear power, how some countries became extinct because they could not adjust to the new rules, and clung to the old which were geared to declared warefare between national powers. Think about it Woodrat so you'll pull the lever marked "W" in November.

lakelivin · Sep 15, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

Trying to stay neutral, but gotta back up woodrat that the administrations has tried to give the impression of close ties between Saddam & 9/11 right from the start. Can't give you specific quotes, but it's something I've been paying careful attention to it from the beginning and have noted on numerous occasions. The administration may not have said it directly, but I was amazed how often one of the 'big' boys (W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice) would make it a point to bring up Saddam or Iraq in the next sentance following references to 9/11 and terrorism. I think that's the reason so large a proportion of our population thinks there was a close tie between the two. I paid close attention early on because a strong link between the two just didn't seem to make much common sense. Although the administration often referred to Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, almost all other intelligence analysts were stating that they didn't see much linkage. From everything I've heard the Iraqi ties to Al Queda were peripheral at most. Iraqi links to Palestinian terrorists are acknowledged (subsidizing families of suicide bombers, etc.). But if you look at the basic philosophies of Saddam & Al Queda, it's clear that an extremely powerful Al Queda would actually be a threat to Sadam. Maintaining a secular government was critical to Sadam's hold on power and Al Queda's fundamental basis is religious fanaticism. It was clear to me from the beginning that ties between AQ and Iran, Syria, etc. made much more sense than Iraq. Note that: I recognize how much of a d***h bag Saddam was. Don't think it's fair to criticise the administration because we haven't found WMD (everyone thought they had 'em). Do believe it is fair to debate whether Iraq posed a real and impending threat to the US given the work of the weapons inspectors prior to the war and the consideration that any aggression linked to Iraq could be dealt with quickly and harshly (the guy was a sociopath, but not stupid). Do think it's fair to criticise the admin for implying that thre was a strong link between Iraq & Al Qeuda (terrorists) and pushing that as a reason for the war. Also believe it's fair to debate whether we would have been beter off using much more resource to pursue AQ and the terrorist networks directly rather than taking out Iraq. I know we've drawn terrorists into Iraq since the war started, but have also probably created new ones as well. Do believe that now that we're in it, we've gotta support it and do whatever is needed to ensure it doesn't become a quagmire that haunts us for the next 30 years.

f_inscreenname · Sep 15, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

I feel like this post got taken over by lobbyists. Does anyone remember the question? And yes it was a single question not a debate. I really wanted to find out if the posters here were diverse voters or not and why. I see there is a couple people on both sides and if you post is not in line you get slammed for it. This is not what I wanted. I am sure many posters didn't post because they didnt want to get slammed. Man this sh!t is worse the bayliner debate.Go ahead and beat it to death and thanks.

NOSLEEP · Sep 15, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

If you didnt want it to be debated, why would you post it.

In case you haven't yet noticed, thats what happens around here.

Who could know that would happen.

JasonJ · Sep 15, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

We have always had a nuclear contingency against North Korea. If they used chem, bio, or nuke on South Korea, we nuke them. I should know, the year I was stationed in S. Korea was spent training for N. Koreas chem and for our own nukes. The sad thing is we always knew we never stood a chance. North Korea does not need nukes to take South Korea, their military is more than sufficient. They just don't want to be nuked by us, thats all. North Korea does not have big bold global plans, they just want South Korea because of its resources. We are the only deterent, otherwise it would have been done and over with a long time ago.

Ralph 123 · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

This one's for you Lakelivin

No Terrorism in Iraq Before the War? Who does John Kerry think he's kidding? by Stephen F. Hayes 09/16/2004 12:00:00 AM "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." --Stephanie Cutter, chief spokesman, John Kerry for President Los Angeles Times, September 9, 2004 IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, John Kerry's campaign has challenged Bush administration claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The effort has been amateurish and confused. Kerry has conflated two separate issues--an Iraq-September 11 connection (which cannot be proven) and the Iraq-al Qaeda connection (which has been)--in a lame attempt to accuse the Bush administration of "misleading" America about the Iraq war. No one should be surprised at distortions coming from a presidential campaign. (Journalists, however, continue to surprise. Where are the John Kerry versions of the fact-checking articles on Bush that the Associated Press distributes on the wire and that the Washington Post, and the New York Times splash on their front pages?) On the other hand, on September 7 Kerry said that the soldiers who have died in Iraq have done so "on behalf of freedom in the war on terror." It was a moment of lucidity the Kerry campaign could not let stand. Kerry spokesman Stephanie Cutter told the Los Angeles Times that the comment should not be misinterpreted as endorsing Bush administration claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. And then she dropped the stunner at the top of the page: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war. There is now terrorism there now." Really? Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." CIA Analysis, January 2003: Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report): "Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report): "Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 315): "The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 331): "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's [chemical, biological, nuclear] CBW efforts." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66): "In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden." A few days ago the Kerry campaign eagerly "clarified" the senator's claim that soldiers in Iraq had died "on behalf of freedom in the war on terror." Any chance of a another clarification? Does John Kerry really believe that "there was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war?"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp

Ralph 123 · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

Just one more tidbit:

Putin: Iraq planned attacks against U.S. The Washington Post June 19, 2004 WASHINGTON Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Husseins regime was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country. Putin, who opposed Bushs decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into detail about the information that was forwarded , and said Russia had no evidence that Saddam was involved in any attacks. After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddams regime were preparing a terrorist attack in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests, Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian state run news agency. American president George Bush had an opportunity to personally thank the head of one of the Russian special services for this information , which he regarded as very important, the Russian president told an interviewer while in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan....

woodrat · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

2 points: 1) The left wasn't complaining when BC did an endrun around the UN and went into Kosovo with NATO. 2) This is a continuation of the gulf war in Iraq because Saddam violated the terms of surrender. ok...3) Why should we be so stupid as to enforce a sanction against Israel just to look fair. They are on our side. If they start threatening us with those nukes, then we just might get them. . [/QB][/quote] 1) maybe the "left" -whoever that is- didn't care about kosovo, but many many of us middle of the roaders were pretty dismayed. I still don't understand what that war was all about, unless it was just to expend some armament and keep in shape. We ignore similar atrocities and ethnic cleansing all the time. 2) so why didn't george just state that case and get on with it? If shooting at planes in the no fly zone constitutes an attack on the us and a threat to our national security, why didn't we just blast them back to the stone age the first time that happened? It went on for years, under bush I and clinton and bush II. 3)SCO, you normally seem a lot smarter than this. if we want our credibility to mean anything beyond our ability to kick someone's a$$, then we should BE fair, not just try to look fair. Israel has violated numerous UN sanctions involving it's treatment of the palestinians, and to be real, violated many many of our own standards concerning human rights. I agree with the other post that the palestinians would have better off to follow the ghandian tradition, but to be fair, they are living under military occupation, inside a fence, cut off from their land and treated like subumans. I think most people could relate to the urge to fight back violently in that situation. Is Israel on "our" side? well, they sure are happy to get a big check every year to spend on US weapons, but I doubt that they are really our friends. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic is not particularly useful in the real world.

Ralph 123 · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

they are living under military occupation, inside a fence, cut off from their land and treated like subumans

And acting like it..

think most people could relate to the urge to fight back violently in that situation.

There is no justification for targeting civilians through suicide bombings. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The have developed a culture of death and destruction. They were offered 98% of what they wanted under Clinton and they walked away from the table. They simply can't accept anything but the destruction of the Jews and so the violence continues.

lakelivin · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

Ralph, I don't think I said or implied that there was absolutely no terrorism within or associated with Iraq. And I wasn't considering Kerry or anything his campaign said. I just saw that woodrat was being blasted for a copule of things that I observed as well, namely: 1)I've heard members of the Bush administration mention 9/11 and Iraq closely enough in a sentence or paragraph often enough to give me the impression that they were purposely implying a direct link even if perhaps not technically stating that there was one. 2) I still believe that there were much closer ties between al Qaeda (clearly the 9/11 perpetrators) and other middle eastern nations (Iran & Syria) than between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Ralph 123 · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

1)I've heard members of the Bush administration mention 9/11 and Iraq closely enough in a sentence or paragraph often enough to give me the impression that they were purposely implying a direct link even if perhaps not technically stating that there was one. 2) I still believe that there were much closer ties between al Qaeda (clearly the 9/11 perpetrators) and other middle eastern nations (Iran & Syria) than between al Qaeda and Iraq

Proof? All I ask for is what I supply, proof. And, can you tell me why you and Woodrat weren't fooled but the rest of the country was? Are the American people so much less intelligent that the two of you? Is that your theory? Just curious...

lakelivin · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

Ralph, I got those impressions from statements on political talk shows or tv news clips, so no, unfortunately I can't give you direct examples. Maybe there are some transcripts that could be found on the web but I haven't got the time or energy to search just for the sake of a boating forums thread argument. I'm stating what I've observed, obviously take it or discount it as you will. As far as Woodrat & I being smarter than the rest of the country, lol? There was a fair portion of the country who disagreed with the Iraq invasion from the start (including a subset whose objections I viewed as irrational, by the way). Yes, I personally think our resources might have been more efficiently used fighting terrorism than by invading Iraq. I acknowledge that I could be wrong. As a matter of fact I hope that I am wrong (I try not to be one of those people who would rather be right than successful). Unfortunately I fear it's going to be a long time before we know for sure either way. I sense that the common trait Woodrat & I share is that we're both independent and trying to call things as objectively as possible in the face of extreme partisan political positions from both sides.

Ralph 123 · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

To be objective requires fact based reasoning and logical conclusions. Not simply making assertions about "secret" Saudi flights or claiming Bush blamed Iraq for 911 without a single fact to back up the claims. Well, if you ever come across any proof of the assertions:

the administrations has tried to give the impression of close ties between Saddam & 9/11 right from the start.

and

From everything I've heard the Iraqi ties to Al Queda were peripheral at most.

I'd appreciate it if you'd post it. If that is extreme partisanship, to require proof, a shred of evidence, then so be it.

lakelivin · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

Hey, I want no part of the secret Saudi flight issue. Even M. Moore admits that his movie was biased against Bush. And I didn't claim Bush blamed Iraq for 911, just that on several occasions I've personally heard his admin. talk about them in a way that might imply a link unless the listener is paying very close attention to the details and nuances of the statement. There is a difference between the two. If I run across any specifics in print I'll post a link back to them, but as I said the examples I heard were on tv so that makes it a bit tougher to do.

SCO · Sep 16, 2004

Re: Are all boaters republican?

Woodrat:" if we want our credibility to mean anything beyond our ability to kick someone's a$$, then we should BE fair, not just try to look fair." Lets not be naive here. Sanctions against Israel by the UN is the UN's problem. We're not the UN. Koffi is in charge of that group. WRT Iraq, we are the ones that had a problem with them cause everyone else was getting money from the food for oil plan, and the UN ultimately let us down, but not before we got the sanctions to finally hold Iraq accountable based on our member Nation status. We were acting in our own best interest, but the UN body did not. It is not in our best interest to enforce sanctions against Israel. The big problem with the Palastinians is they don't acknowledge Israel's right to EXIST. What is Israel to do??? Talk to Arafat and Hamas and see how much they want to change their situation. Israel would love to live in peace. What's the point of all this verbage???... It is to counter the hollow claim by "the left" that this war is unprecidented( no, BC did it in Kosovo) and purely a preemptive invasion (no, it's a continuation of the Gulf War). The pressing motivation of course was 911. Unfair??? About as unfair as getting Al Capone on tax evasion charges.

Are all boaters republican?

Fleet Admiral

Ensign

Ensign

Commander

Captain

Lieutenant

Lieutenant Junior Grade

Commander

Commander

Rear Admiral

Captain

Captain

Ensign

Captain

Lieutenant Junior Grade

Captain

Lieutenant Junior Grade

Captain

Lieutenant Junior Grade

Lieutenant