WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-17 20:35:46 +0000

Nice! no edit button d'oh! [img:827db85c79]http://allianceforsecurity.org/files/draftcard-small-rtv.png[/img:827db85c79]

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-18 02:22:52 +0000

I don't want to be drafted....

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-18 13:22:20 +0000

Too bad no one 18-25 actually votes.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-18 16:04:48 +0000

"The best way to avoid the draft is to vote for me" -GWBush http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/10/17/draft/index_np.html

Posted by uncle on 2004-10-18 16:31:11 +0000

I get it, the best way to avoid the draft is to re-elect someone who has 1) clearly botched this thing 2) stretched the military so thin that its ready to snap 3) refuses to do the work to recruit more soldiers 4)repetitively underestimates the cost and tasks 5) has done a most remarkable job of alienating everyone just about every other country who could help 6) refuses to admit or even see his mistakes 7) who's family and friends are making and stand to make a lot more money the longer this drags on 8) and who continues to stretch this thing on a make it worse through his complete ignorance, incompetence and probable political/monetary corruption.

Posted by G lib on 2004-10-19 13:03:32 +0000

Kerry's talk of Bush's 'back door' recruitment policy is true. Hot Rod's brother-in-law is a former marine. He served in the gulf war, was a radioperson. Marines' officer called him up 6 months ago and tried to pressure him into re-joining to serve in Iraq. They tried patriotism, they tried pressure, and then they tried to say that he had no choice in the matter. Then they wouldn't let him hang up the phone to take 24 hours to think about it. He called a few friends of his and they all said that they had the same thing happen to them. Point is, the military that is there don't want to be there. They really are recruiting those that have finished with their duty years ago. The military ARE stretched too thin. Good thing you guys are all too old.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-19 21:02:35 +0000

[quote:0e994a66be]2) stretched the military so thin that its ready to snap [/quote:0e994a66be] Part of the reason Clinton was able to have a surplus was his underfunding of the military in his term. I could be mistaken, but Im pretty sure Bush has given a lot more to the military than Clinton has. If the argument is that Bush is not a conservative's conservative based on the balooning deficit due to unwise tariffs on steel, farm subsidies, and an inability to not veto a single (not one in his whole 4 years!) bill I certainly agree and share my concern. If the argument is that Kerry will bring this back in control I beg to differ. I can only repeat what I keep on saying: the mess Bush will leave after four more years will be easier to clean up than if we have four years of Kerry. From the WSJ: [url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005456[/url] according to the "National Taxpayers Union, Senator Kerry is promising to increase net spending by $226 billion in the first year, or $6,066 per taxpayer over four years. And that's a lowball figure. The calculation used the lowest cost estimate of each spending proposal. And it took at face value proposed spending cuts, such as ending subsidies to corporate farmers and reducing federal energy usage by 20%, which may be impossible to implement."

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-19 21:17:05 +0000

"Part of the reason Clinton was able to have a surplus was his underfunding of the military in his term." Not true. My brother in-law had health insurance during Clinton, not during the last three years with Bush. Clinton practically re-invented the Airforce with the Predator which drastically reduced US casualties and increased target rates from 20% to over 95% (reducing civilian casualties), and starting in '97, Clinton issued Kevlar vests for all combat and near combat infantry. Something Bush has also taken away. Bush has spent more than Clinton, sure, but his no-bid military contracts and missle defense program, have left the US soldiers underfunded.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-19 21:25:28 +0000

The subtitle of the Opinion piece you posted is: "Clinton balanced the budget by cutting the military. That's not an option now." How about we cut the 400 billion for a missle defense system, we don't need, won't work, and protects us from a threat that isn't even out there. Remember how they got us on Sept. 11th? There Kerry would save 174 billion over Bush even after a 226 billion increase. The opinion article makes no mention of this. Hack journalism...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-19 21:45:30 +0000

Correction: the missile defense budget, it was 400 billion over 10 years, not per year. I stand corrected, but that is still 40 billion a year.

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-19 21:52:02 +0000

It's not that I think Kerry will fair any better then Bush. It's just my sense that America works best as a meritocracy, and Bush has not shown any merit in practically every consideration to keep his job. Clinton benefited from a peace dividend, I agree with that. I don't know about the scale of Kerry's proposed spending increases. I do know that under the plans he's published, spending increases are matched with revenue increases (that tax repeal on people above $200k per year (which would effect small businesses employing a total of 71,000 people)) . Bush must have spending increases as well. If we going the B.F. Skinner route, then it's a lock that he doesn't have a plan for increasing revenue other than "praying the economy will recover". Before I swallow those numbers from the NTU, I'm going to figure out whether or not they can be trusted, let's start here. A couple benefits if Kerry wins: 1) we get Republicans and Democrats compromising on legislature again 2) we get the neocons at the DoD out of power, these people don't belive in nation building, so we shouldn't expect them to be any good at it 3) we get an Attorney General that might actually get some convictions against terrorists found within our borders (Ashcroft had something like 5,000 detainees after Sept. 11, zero convictions) 4) the Republican Party might moderate is position about social issues, instead of pandering to the fundamentalist wings My brain sort of short circuits when I consider the type of mess we could be in after another four years of Bush. Assuming Bush continues at a pace he's already set (Skinner again), that means additional debt of $1.4 trillion, nearly 2 million people living in poverty, over a quarter of the nation without healthcare. A war in Iran. Another 4,000 dead soldiers, 28,000 wounded, tens of thousands of civilians killed... Bush can't handle this. He hasn't shown the ability to handle anything else. We need a new devil.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-19 22:06:04 +0000

"we get an Attorney General that might actually get some convictions against terrorists found within our borders (Ashcroft had something like 5,000 detainees after Sept. 11, zero convictions." WSJ already said Ashcorft is out. Privately Powell has said he's out. Ridge is out, as is Mineta. And it would be hard to imagine Rumsfeld holding any sort of position after this past year's disasters, as many of us thought he should of stepped down already. "Just 9% of all voters want any Bush II to be 'a lot like' Bush I." http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/09/24/shakeup_predicted_for_second_bush_term.html