Just read last week that, in the current defense authorization bill,
Congress cut ~4.5billion in spending on troop and real military
stuff/support to diminish the blow of adding $9 billion in PORK (a lot
of non-defense related stuff). Yup, priorities are clear. ANd to
show how things are muzzled these days, you didn't hear much from the
press about this, now did ya?
Yup, them thar Republicans are sure pro supporting the troops (both
parties actually had a hand in the pork, but only one party is in the
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:00:18 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
Having lived through the 90's in the aerospace industry I can tell you
all about the "stats". Development funding and pocurement reduced such
that we lost between 25 and 33% of our workforce. Each new round of
layoffs had a new means of accomplishing them and new criteria -- yeah,
exciting times. The only segment of government that suffered from *real*
cuts (vs. the phony slowing the rate of growth is a cut "cuts") was the
Silly me... I wasn't aware FDR or Kennedy was weak on defense. Too bad
Clinton gutted the military - otherwise we'd have really trounced them
in Afghanistan and Bagdad. Good thing w rebuilt the shock and awe back
so quickly - or else who knows what might have happened over the last
couple years. Don't forget all those Democrats who fought and died right
alongside your boys.
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:48:24 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
Historically, FDR and Kennedy were different sorts of dems. FDR was
basically forced to rebuild in light of the threat across the Atlantic.
Kennedy was dealing with the cold war.
Subsequent dems were quite different -- LBJ had his guns and butter plan
where the military took a back seat to domestic affairs. Carter was one
who significantly neglected the military. Finally, the last dem inhabitant
did make real cuts to the defense department. That shock and awe you are
speaking of was primarily a carryover from the previous administrations'
buildups and the [sometimes] fortunate circumstance that the pentagon is a
very large machine with a huge amount of momentum that takes a long time to
change. That said, very few new weapon systems were conceived during the
prior administration's reign.
I'm not calling the dems unpatriotic or anything like that, and democrat
soldiers have nothing to do with the democrat leadership, which is what I am
talking about. Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore. His tax policy was much more conservative. Since then,
don't ask me...ask those in the military who see first hand what happens
with democrat presidents. From what I have seen, it isn't even much of an
That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.
Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)
I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.
I think you might have to go back a bit farther than 15 years to get a
really big difference, but don't try telling that to Zell Miller. Beyond
that, I don't do a lot of guessing about what dead presidents would think
In those days the Republicans were moderates and the Democrats were
liberals (sort of). Well, if you go back to the Eisenhower era the
Democrats were either liberals or Dixiecrats, who were only Democrats
because they were still pissed at the Repubicans from back in the
Civil War days and because the KKK never made it as a political party.
After the downfall of Nixon the Republicans party became conservative
(sort of) and the Democrats became moderates.
I think that GWB is a lot more like Reagan than either to GHB. Consider
how the Reagan administration botched up the deployment to Lebanon.
I think the big change to the Republican Party came between Nixon and
Reagan. John Anderson (remember him?) tried to keep the Republicans
in the middle but lost out. The Democrats have changed more slowly
in response to the Republican change.
I'll agree with that. I have never voted for a Democrat. Not that I
wouldn't, just never saw one that was worth voting for. The republicans are
starting to get unrecognizable though. This president is a serious
Yes, you're right, there are more important things. Like voting record
and attendance at meetings one is supposed to be at, for instance,
which is why I have a huge problem with Kerry.
Let's see. If you're fighting against our army, not in uniform, then
you aren't an enemy soldier, you're someone pretending to be a
civilian but you aren't. Hm, what could _possibly_ go wrong with that?
Doesn't apply; when you join the enemy, you forfeit that, don't you.
I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
I don't think so.
There's one respect in which Kerry is a significant improvement over Clinton.
Although he's just as big a liar, he's nowhere *nearly* as skillful at it, nor
as convincing. Which makes his lies much easier to spot, and therefore much
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the
War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The
problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget
what we are up against. 1000 deaths in the military including traffic
accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd
have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every
year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000.
For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just
saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose
far more than that in one battle.
They don't _forget_, they make the mistake of thinking we should
_negotiate_ with 'em. Of course, the people who are intent on killing
us see that as a sign of weakness, as evidenced by the Clinton non-actions
in this regard. But, they'll not notice that it didn't work and caused
more problems, will they.
It's not like anyone was drafted into today's army, and it's not like
one volunteers to join the army without knowing what they may be getting
into, considering the options, and deciding to do the noble thing and join.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.