Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-2004   #71
mvhyde's Avatar
Technology Partner, Littleton, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 642
Send a message via AIM to mvhyde

Well, I got to say I'm a kayaking gun-toting Republican who will probably vote for GW instead of Kerry. Sometimes it's better the devil you know than the one you don't. But that being said...Kerry talks in circular rhetoric with no clearly defined ideas on how he would fix things. GW isn't the best President we've had, but he is decisive. He makes a decision and sticks to it come Hell or high-water.

I guess you can ask yourself one question before you decide to vote... Who would Al-Qaida vote for?

Remember, freedom has a price, and those of you lame-azzes who never served in the military will ever understand that.

mvhyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #72
Charc in = charc out
ToddG's Avatar
Seattle, Washington
Paddling Since: 1992
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 475
Just a guess here, but Al Qaida would probably vote for W. seeing as it was his administration's massive security failure that allowed the 9/11 tragedy. And since his administration has successfully diverted global attention away from Al Qaida & Bin Laden in lieu of their complete failure to actually do something positive to capture them "dead or alive" ... Right on, Tex ...

I gotta know why you, as a vet, would back a Commander whose a silver spoon baby, who never saw a day of combat, who's a failed CEO that drove every enterprise he's ever been affiliated with into the ground, who's been under fraud investigation by the SEC, & who's had a history of drug & alcohol abuse ... that's comedy .. I mean "security" ...

PS, I likes guns too ...

ToddG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #73
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 855

You are probably just trolling but here it goes anyway..........

Do you really think we are fighting "terrorism" in Iraq? Do you really think that Osama and the Al Qaida(sp?) are afraid of GW? Can you truely say that the U.S. invading Iraq was a matter of are freedom being taken away from the U.S. people?

Now I know that I am just a lame ass (according to you) but I just can't seem to grasp the real reason as to why U.S. soldiers are getting killed in Iraq. Is it really to protect our freedom or is it a great way for GW and company to make some more money on oil? Before you answer this, MVHYDE, try to think for yourself.

BTW- Before you insult everybody you should make sure to back up what you say with a little bit of intelligence. Just because some of us haven't been in the military doesn't mean that we don't respect everything the military people are doing and have done for the U.S.

The last statement you made came from somewhere deep inside of you where it is obviously very painful...I forgive you and I'm sorry for you. Just remember that most people really do appreciate what you have done for this country. When people are protesting a war they aren't protesting YOUR actions...they are protesting the actions of the people who command YOU to do what THEY want.

Nobody once in this forum topic ever insulted the actual U.S. men and women fighting in the Mid East. We didn't insult you so why do you insult us?
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #74
mvhyde's Avatar
Technology Partner, Littleton, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 642
Send a message via AIM to mvhyde

Trolling wasn't what I was doing per se...however. one thing I do notice in society in general (not just in here) is this seemingly inherent trait of people to want to fix blame on one individual for the woes of the country and the world at large.

More than once I have seen in here that GW is to blame for the economy, loss of jobs, terrorism, wars, dictators, failed banks and businesses, etc. I really wish someone would enlighten me as to how one man can be so responsible for all of this? I would think him to be a very busy president indeed.

I have seen and heard everything in the way of every deep dark conspiracy theory when it comes to our current CinC. Most of it is laughable, a lot of it is sad. Sad in the fact that it shows the ignorance of those who purport it to be true. But then that is something the rest of the world has come to expect of Americans, their ignorance.

The world will never be wired into some kind of Utopian dreamland. There are not men/women running around constantly in the shadows plotting to undermine your rights, steal your money, stealing elections, etc. You're never going to have a perfect environmental policy. Big businesses are not suddenly going to become these big generous benefactors, they're in business for one make money.

A President may have some weight when it comes to influencing sectors of society, but not that much weight to influence a complete outcome. If you really believe John Kerry can fix it, then vote for him. Personally, I think all politicians are worthless trash who should receive their retroactive abortions ex post facto. Most are lawyers. Have you ever noticed how closely similar Lawyer & Liar are?

I am a vet and damned proud of it. I feel for those serving right now in indian country. It sucks, but one thing has to be remembered: They took an oath, they gave up their freedom to defend our freedom in whatever manner the President deems fit. War sucks, it truly does. But the type of evil the people we are fighting would endeavor to bring upon us is something you cannot imagine. 9/11 was a wake-up call. This world is different now. It reaches for a new polarization. Last time it was Capitalism -vs- Communism/Socialism, now we're back to our good old standby, religion, Christianity -vs- Islam with Israel thrown into the mix. We both view each other as fanatics. So it will be interesting whomever gets elected this year. They will have their hands full.

GW served, maybe not in combat, but he served. Even if he did have a few strings pulled to move around, it's nothing no serviceman/woman hasn't tried or done before. One hand washes the other so to speak.

And to now address Iraq/terrorism. Yes we are there to fight terrorism. We went to get WMD and depose an evil tyrant. We got half right. Usama is scared, you're damned right he's scared. He may still issue a few orders and make a few plans, but what has he really succeeded at lately?

Marko, I hate to say this, but you're totally clueless. I'd suggest you go there and get some experience before opening your mouth about something you have no clue about, but then I'd feel really bad if you went and got your head cut off. My TO was the middle east for 16 years, primarily Lebanon (Beka Valley), Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I'm not saying this administration has or had a good understanding of it pre or post 9/11 either. You cannot grasp the situation until you are on the ground and in the shit.

We have a mess over there right now. But the other edge of the sword is the potential mess that would have happened sooner or later given the individual and his crew of pyschopaths. There are bad things out there you do not want to experience.
mvhyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #75
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 177

You have interesting views and I thank you for your service in the military as I believe all people do on this site, but you are mistaken in many ways.

First off,
More than once I have seen in here that GW is to blame for the economy, loss of jobs, terrorism, wars, dictators, failed banks and businesses, etc. I really wish someone would enlighten me as to how one man can be so responsible for all of this?
You are right, sort of, that the President is not the sole reason for our problems right now, but he is a major influence on all of those. Senators and representatives have a say in what is done in government and we should place our votes to influence what is done in congress, but that takes hundreds of votes to change all the congress men and women and by voting for President we as the people of this land are able to directly influence what is said, done in government with one election.

Actually a quick review of basic civics will answer your question: Someone proposes a bill or a law, a senator sponsors that law and it is placed on the floor. After debate and ratification on the floor, the senate votes on the bill, if the bill passes it then goes to the House of Representatives and they do the same thing. Eventually, if the bill makes it through both houses and is agreed upon by both houses it goes to the big man on the hill, your president. Mr. GW then has the daunting task of either signing the bill, thus making it law or he can veto that bill. Now, just for fun, lets say he vetos the bill, Congress then has the opportunity to overturn the veto by a 2/3rds vote. That isn't just a 2/3 vote in the house or in the senate, but a vote of 2/3 in the entire congressional branch, both the house and the senate have to vote 2/3 in favor of the bill. Due to the nature of our congressional system this is very, very difficult to do. The result is that our President has a disproportionate amount of power in our system of checks and balances; thus one vote, by you, can change the way our government acts.

Now that was just one part of your question, as for the rest, the President, your Commander in Chief, is the man who sends you to war, decides where you are going to die in the name of some cause that you probably don't care about. I support our troops, but I don't support the reason our troops, my friends, your peers, are dying in Iraq. We are fighting a war for a man who is selfish, ignorant, and trying to make Daddy proud of him by winning a war that his father couldn't win.

Now, as to one of your previous statements:
Kerry talks in circular rhetoric with no clearly defined ideas on how he would fix things. GW isn't the best President we've had, but he is decisive. He makes a decision and sticks to it come Hell or high-water.
This circular rhetoric you speak of is called Presidential campaign rhetoric, it is what needs to be said to win the election. Because of our wonderful diverse nation, it is impossible to be elected by saying what exactly you would do in office and win an election. Too many people would disagree and no one would win a majority of the electoral college votes. Campaign rhetoric wins elections, it won Bush the election in 2000, sort of, and it will be the reason either Bush or Kerry win this year. The only reason you can say Bush makes decisions and sticks to them is because he has had a term in office and is able to apply his campaign rhetoric to the Presidency. Circular rhetoric is the way of the campaign and the winning way. [/quote]

Just my thoughts, hope I was able to answer your questions - Vote 2004

Whiskey's for drinkin' and waters for fightin'
- Mark Twain
wycoloboater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #76
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 97
What is your great unbiased news source. you got to share the goods on that man. great stuff.
jeffro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #77
mvhyde's Avatar
Technology Partner, Littleton, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 642
Send a message via AIM to mvhyde
I don't know about all that.....

I don't believe the President is trying to make 'Daddy' proud. I honestly believe suppositions like that are pure fantasy by the disenfranchised left. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do in any case. It sucks we're still in there trying to play policeman, but staying the course is the only option now.

The only alternative engaging the world (peacefully or otherwise) is isolationism, a failed policy pre-WWII that proved just how dangerous it is to follow. The lesson we learned from that is that you have to follow through. The constraints the Allied governments placed upon Germany and other nations post-WWI, followed by isolationist policies, sowed the seeds of facisim, which in turn set-up the conflagration of WWII.

By not getting rid of Saddam the first time and following through with the popular support we had in the Shia areas of Iraq, we enabled him to continue a brutal course and threw away all credibility we had gained with the native Iraqis. Hence our major pains in gaining control in what was once friendly territory. I remember being on the ground somewhere in indian country when news of the ceasefire and withdrawl hit. There were a lot of angry and scared Iraqis, and rightfully so. Why did we stop then? because France, Germany, etc etc. didn't think it was a good idea.

Lesson in facts for you. During the gap between conflicts in Iraq, France & Germany were the biggest suppliers of weapons and ammunition and material for manufacturing WMD components. Germany and France had the largest oil contracts out of any nations with the Iraqi government (wonder why they opposed the war so much?). France was covertly helping Saddam's nuclear power program to bring it back online. The mobile chemical weapons labs found in Tikrit and Mosel were in fact made with Germany's support and technology, nevermind the fact that Germany has signed a treaty to 'never' manufacture such equipment, let alone make it and export it.

Intelligence is dubious at best at times. Based on what intel we did have pre-war (which was deemed reliable at the time) we were more than justified to go in. But the better question is, even if there are no WMD (though small amouts have been found in the form of artillery shells), do we morally have an obligation to remove a brutal dictatorship? I think yes, and I think that with that yes, comes a cost. Sometimes that cost is paid in lives of those we love. A decision to send troops into harm's way is never an easy moment for any commander, from the President on down to the lowliest field commander. It's not easy. It's not without great consideration, remorse, or regret. The consequences of having to write that letter to some troop's parents about what a brave and good soldier they were is one of the harest things I personally know of to do. You live the remainder of your life wondering how you might have done things differently on the battlefield. If you think for one moment that the President is getting a little older and a little grayer each day because of this, I think you must be blind and gravely delusional.

Insofar as the President's influence on the Senate and Congress, yes he has a bit there, they are mostly Republicans. But they're their own creatures and highly unpredictable. Kerry will do one thing for sure, he'll raise taxes. Outside of that, I think he'll be a lot like Clinton, talk a good game, but basically do little (except maybe keep his pecker in his pants). Our current President isn't all that bad when you really look at the big picture. He's made good and bad decisions. His daddy now was a whole different can of worms. I'd vote for Fidel Castro before I'd vote for Geo. Senior. George senior was one evil mutha, going way back before most of the people who will read this were born.

syotr.... yea! we got big flows in Durangoworld
mvhyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #78
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 89
The issue seems to come down to your view of the role of the government.

From my experience, growing up poor right next to Harlem in NYC, working my ass off for 30 years, now being successful and rich, and having seen much along the way, I think that the free market economic system is not very fair. We are moving in the direction of a class society--one with less incentive.

I don't think you can say one approach is more right or fair. The free market is as arbitrary as anything else. Choose an approach that works best. We want a society where there is opportunity for all and where there is incentive.

The main reason I was successful is good public schools. Now, with taxes so low, public schools are awful. When we changed our child to a private school, I was amazed at the improvement in teaching quality. Not a good sign.

If we increase our total spending on schools from 1.5% of our economy to 3%, the investment will more than pay off with a stronger economy in 20 years and a more knowledgeable society. It seems like a no brainer to me. I don't get it.

I am bothered that the Republicans seem to be run by people who haven't seen all of America, and that they look for simple solutions, and seem to be running based on fear.

I'm amazed that people believe so much of what the Republicans are saying. Why don't people see all the distortions?
stiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #79
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 388
Hey stiff,

While I tend to agree with your view of the right wing, I'm surprised by what you say about opportunity and incentive.

Can you explain why you think the current system has limited opportunity and incentive when you went from poor to rich as a result of hard work?

cstork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #80
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 157
I personally find this election as most presidentail elections very difficult. As a young entrepreneur I have business beliefs that can be supported by the Right. As a young young outdoor enthusiast/open minded human being I have personal moral beliefs that can be supported by the left. I can't even begin to believe what I hear or read in the media.
I always try to remeber there are Facts, Theories and Opionions. Which can be brought into and out of every argument/discussion. Deciphering which is which is the hard part.
I want to reitereate a point made earlier, we need to really support our local governments to help make the most changes.
Did everyone on this post who is so upset about GW, vote in the recent local elections? Voting in the Presidential election is very important, but I feel locally is more important. Why aren't people more fired up about our senators and local councils?
Attached are some good local websites to get your own information to gain your own opionions, as we all have our own agendas. Wether it is the bling-bling, secuirty, education, enviornment, revenge for lost ones,

if you are a moderate Republican, an unaffiliated voter or a Democrat you might learn something and be able to support our local governement to make a change that you want. and

JJH is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dangerous conditions in the BC backcountry ToddG Winter Buzz 1 03-07-2007 10:40 AM
Dangerous wood in Foxton! soylent green Whitewater Kayaking 3 07-23-2006 06:56 PM
Dangerous Encounter at the Mystery Canal RiverWrangler Whitewater Kayaking 5 03-29-2006 06:57 PM
A Real dangerous Question erdvm1 Whitewater Kayaking 9 09-23-2004 07:52 PM
How dangerous is Frog's Rock Rapid on Ark/Fractions? cstork Whitewater Kayaking 2 09-07-2004 02:16 PM

» Classified Ads
WaveSport Evo with Werner...

posted by dmar

I am trying to find a good home for my kayak, which I can...

Jackson SuperStar

posted by bodhizafa

Jackson Superstar kayak, black color. In ok condition. ...

Jackson Karma Small...

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.