PDA

View Full Version : Who should you vote for?



PhinPhan1227
02-06-2004, 09:59 AM
Interesting little site matches your answers to the candidates. Just so you know, I scored 100% for Bush AND Kerry...tell me I'm not a Moderate!!

Who to vote for (http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2)

MrClean
02-06-2004, 10:27 PM
Since you scored the same on both, may I suggest to break the tie, you ask yourself if you'd rather vote for a Vietnam combat veteran with multiple medals for valor or a draft dodging, deserter, chickenhawk.

The choice seems rather cut and dried to me.

PhinPhan1227
02-07-2004, 01:37 AM
Well...if I thought that serving in the military was more important than a persons views on the issues I might agree. But I served in the military and while I can attest to the fact that serving speaks to a persons character, it says nothing about ability, intelligence, or strtategic outlook. Further, Kerry's service is diminished by his actions on returning to the US. If his medals are suppossed to mean anything to me, maybe it would have been nice if the medals he threw over the fence at the White House meant something to him.

Kamikaze
02-07-2004, 06:56 AM
100% Kucinich
86% Kerry
81% Dean
75% Edwards

MrClean
02-07-2004, 11:06 PM
100% Kucinich
92% Kerry
88% Dean
85% Sharpton
82% Clark
81% Edwards
18% Bush

ohall
02-08-2004, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by MrClean
Since you scored the same on both, may I suggest to break the tie, you ask yourself if you'd rather vote for a Vietnam combat veteran with multiple medals for valor or a draft dodging, deserter, chickenhawk.

The choice seems rather cut and dried to me.

You mean the guy that threw all those awards away when he returned home, because it was the popular thing do, not the right thing to do?

Yeah that's a real good example for a President to set.

No one is perfect, it's best to stop with all these lil personal beefs.

Oliver...

MrClean
02-08-2004, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by ohall


You mean the guy that threw all those awards away when he returned home, because it was the popular thing do, not the right thing to do?

Yeah that's a real good example for a President to set.

No one is perfect, it's best to stop with all these lil personal beefs.

Oliver...

I really doubt that Kerry threw away his ribbons to be popular.
In fact it was not popular among most observers at that time. More so because he was disenchanted with the no-win situation he had just witnessed in SEA. I for one admire him for having the guts to fight, then having the guts to protest the way our administration at the time was f#cking things up. And that goes for LBJ as much or more than Nixon. I may be a Democrat, but LBJ was a scum sucking piece of sh!t and I hope he is burning in hell right now, if there is such a place.

As for real good examples for Presidents to set, how about Bush joining the Texas Air National Guard to avoid going to Viet Nam, then going AWOL from that organization? Yeah he really did all he could to be sure that the bullets wouldn't be flying toward his azz, but he is more than willing and anxious to put the lives of others in harms way. That is the definition of a chickenhawk.
Afraid to fight when it was their turn, but..... Ready, willing and hellbent for war just so long as someone else besides them are going to be shot at and do the dirty work

DolphinDevil28
02-08-2004, 11:37 PM
Bush 100%
Edwards 52%
Kerry 44%
Dean 37%
Kucinich 18%

DeDolfan
02-09-2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by ohall


You mean the guy that threw all those awards away when he returned home, because it was the popular thing do, not the right thing to do?

Yeah that's a real good example for a President to set.

No one is perfect, it's best to stop with all these lil personal beefs.

Oliver...

yeah, he and I was a couple of those baby killers that got spit on when returning home for just folloeing the orders we were given. Bush had no such orders tho did he ??? ;) one thing i can say for Bush tho, regardless of his dubious" military career that he "proudly served", at least he didn't spend the whole war somewhere in Canada !! But then again, maybe that's where he was that year he was to be in Alabama??? :lol: :lol:

DeDolfan
02-09-2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Interesting little site matches your answers to the candidates. Just so you know, I scored 100% for Bush AND Kerry...tell me I'm not a Moderate!!

Who to vote for (http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2)

100 % Kerry
77% Bush

more moderate than not, I reckon !! :lol:

Section126
02-17-2004, 09:33 AM
BTW, Ketchup boy threw somebody elses medals over the fence......Mr. Heinz is a fraud.

LIDOLFAN
02-17-2004, 09:50 AM
bush 100 %
edwards 80%
kerry 74%

Section126
02-17-2004, 10:05 AM
1 Bush Score: 100%
2 Edwards Score: 70%
3 Kerry Score: 69%
4 Dean Score: 56%
5 Sharpton Score: 40%
6 Kucinich Score: 34%


Uh oh......I think this makes me an evil Right Winger...........

Well got to go.........I gotta go beat up old people and eat young children............

FFiB
02-17-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Interesting little site matches your answers to the candidates. Just so you know, I scored 100% for Bush AND Kerry...tell me I'm not a Moderate!!

Who to vote for (http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2)

I guess I can't go wrong with any of the Democrats..and I am not even a democrat per say:

Kuc 100
Kerry 97
Edwards 93
Dean 92

As expected "the worst president the US ever had": 28

PhinPhan1227
02-17-2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by FFiB


I guess I can't go wrong with any of the Democrats..and I am not even a democrat per say:

Kuc 100
Kerry 97
Edwards 93
Dean 92

As expected "the worst president the US ever had": 28

Lol...the worst Pres ever? At least he inspires passion...one way or the other.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Lol...the worst Pres ever? At least he inspires passion...one way or the other.

I can inspire passion...but I sure would make a horrible president.

:lol:

My question though is: do you prefer a president who can inspire passion or one who has the interest of the american people at heart and in mind.

PhinPhan1227
02-17-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


I can inspire passion...but I sure would make a horrible president.

:lol:

My question though is: do you prefer a president who can inspire passion or one who has the interest of the american people at heart and in mind.


I firmly believe that Bush has the best interests of the American people at heart. I don't think he would have attacked Iraq if all he was intersted in was personal gain, since he had to know it would be a huge risk to his reelection. He took the tough road rather than just sending some cruise missiles. He has followed his convictions rather than just waiting for polling data to tell him what to do. That's why some people hate him and some love him...he follows his convictions.

DeDolfan
02-17-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Section126
BTW, Ketchup boy threw somebody elses medals over the fence......Mr. Heinz is a fraud.

A fraud?? Now who are you REALLY referring to ?? :lol: :lol:

Section126
02-17-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


I guess I can't go wrong with any of the Democrats..and I am not even a democrat per say:

Kuc 100
Kerry 97
Edwards 93
Dean 92

As expected "the worst president the US ever had": 28

You don't consider yourself a democrat with those scores?:confused:

I would say that with those scores and especially with Kucinich at 100%.....I would say that you are closer to a socialist than a democrat.............

Are those scores even possible?

I am a Republican but I even scored a 100% for Bush but 70% for Edwards........:confused:

Section126
02-17-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


A fraud?? Now who are you REALLY referring to ??

John "I marry into money but I cheat with young interns and then send them to other countries and serve 4 months in Nam instead of the more common 12 month tour and than come back to the united states and bad mouth all vietnam veterans lilly white elitist northeastern liberal puke" Kerry.

PhinPhan1227
02-17-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


I guess I can't go wrong with any of the Democrats..and I am not even a democrat per say:

Kuc 100
Kerry 97
Edwards 93
Dean 92

As expected "the worst president the US ever had": 28

Lol...you're right, you're not a Democrat. Here's a link to the Party that would probably suit you better...Your Party (http://sp-usa.org/)

DeDolfan
02-17-2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Section126


John "I marry into money but I cheat with young interns and then send them to other countries and serve 4 months in Nam instead of the more common 12 month tour and than come back to the united states and bad mouth all vietnam veterans lilly white elitist northeastern liberal puke" Kerry.

And your point is?? :lol: :lol:

FFiB
02-17-2004, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Lol...you're right, you're not a Democrat. Here's a link to the Party that would probably suit you better...Your Party (http://sp-usa.org/)

wrong again......

I find it extremly funny when those diehard Bush fans always revert to "oh those dam liberals"...now we are at "oh those dam socialists".

One thing is clear: beginning last year, this country is neither ready nor able to have a democratic conversation. Different opinions are being labeled as "liberal" or "socialist" which in either case is not an insult.

It surely is not as bad as the right wing faschistic tendencies coming to surface these days. (just for you 1227..since you like labeling people).

FFiB
02-17-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



I firmly believe that Bush has the best interests of the American people at heart. I don't think he would have attacked Iraq if all he was intersted in was personal gain, since he had to know it would be a huge risk to his reelection. He took the tough road rather than just sending some cruise missiles. He has followed his convictions rather than just waiting for polling data to tell him what to do. That's why some people hate him and some love him...he follows his convictions.

his conviction eh?
So he waited for the right moment (after 9/11) to go after Saddam. Eventhough it was on his agenda since the very first NSC meeting?
If he was so convinced why wait. Why not come out and say from the beginning "we will go after Saddam Hussein".

What was his motive? A little bit of revenge because the guy threatened his daddy, definitly oil and a strategic location in the middle east. Power shift.....special interests....

Sure he might have the "best" interest for the american people in mind....what he thinks is in their best interest. The problem though is he thinks that special interest is representing the american people...just as he just shot down a ban on the gasoline additive MTBE (which contaminates drinking water) because that organization (who represents MTBE manufacturers) gave a total of 1,000,000 dollars to his campaign.

Is it a big deal? Go ask Santa Monica, CA.

Section126
02-17-2004, 04:27 PM
1 million to a campaign??????????

Hate to break it to you....but there is this little thing called the McCain Feingold Bill that prevents that from happening.........so you either lied in your post or you got bad information.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Section126
1 million to a campaign??????????

Hate to break it to you....but there is this little thing called the McCain Feingold Bill that prevents that from happening.........so you either lied in your post or you got bad information.

it was a organized effort in which the members have totaled 1 million Dollars.

Not one source...

maybe I should have made that clearer.

PhinPhan1227
02-17-2004, 06:59 PM
Check the post I'm about to make before you label Bush as the puppet for the Special Interests.

Pigskin Pimp
02-18-2004, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by FFiB


I guess I can't go wrong with any of the Democrats..and I am not even a democrat per say:

Kuc 100
Kerry 97
Edwards 93
Dean 92

As expected "the worst president the US ever had": 28

Yes you are, you're dripping with Democrat"ism" :lol:

Bush - 100%.

That is all.......

Marino1983
02-22-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by FFiB


wrong again......

I find it extremly funny when those diehard Bush fans always revert to "oh those dam liberals"...now we are at "oh those dam socialists".

One thing is clear: beginning last year, this country is neither ready nor able to have a democratic conversation. Different opinions are being labeled as "liberal" or "socialist" which in either case is not an insult.

It surely is not as bad as the right wing faschistic tendencies coming to surface these days. (just for you 1227..since you like labeling people).


Yeah that has always been the "right wings" battle cry ... :rolleyes2

Funny but the hypocrisy (media coverage) of W's where-abouts during his (((sparkling))) military career proves that the right wings assertion of a "liberal media" is complete utter B-S !!!!!!!!!!!!

If the media is so liberally BIASED as fox and ALL the right wing radio talk shows assert then why has it taken almost 4 years for SOME OF W's military records to be released ??

:spit:

:shakeno:

Marino1983

PhinPhan1227
02-22-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983



Yeah that has always been the "right wings" battle cry ... :rolleyes2

Funny but the hypocrisy (media coverage) of W's where-abouts during his (((sparkling))) military career proves that the right wings assertion of a "liberal media" is complete utter B-S !!!!!!!!!!!!

If the media is so liberally BIASED as fox and ALL the right wing radio talk shows assert then why has it taken almost 4 years for SOME OF W's military records to be released ??

:spit:

:shakeno:


Perhaps because the media knows how the Guard works while the Democrats don't. You can't really be AWOL from the Guard. As long as you're there a certain number of days they don't really care if you're there on specific drill dates or not. I missed several drill's during my Guard tenure, and so long as I made them up, nobody cared.

Marino1983

DeDolfan
02-23-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


But that has been the whole point.
As long as you can "make them up"?? Surely you jest, during wartime?? Sorry, but he doesn't get off with that. The thing is that the whole Reps can't deal with or even know how to is to face up to it. Bush literally "whimped out" during VN. [don't EVEN mention Clinton cuz this ain't about him] byt havinf preferential treatment to get into the NG anyway. back then, the only way for regular folks to get into the guard was simply by completing their enlistment. In other words, we had a draft then [something alot of these punks today could make use of]. If you were drafted, you had little but mostly no say at all where you went but had only a 2 yr hitch. Enlistees by contrast had a 6 yr hitch, total, of which usually consisted of 4 yrs active and the other 2 often served in the reserves or nat'l guard. depending on where one lived, he may have been excused for logisitics reasons, etc.
Anyway, "Chicken george" (LOL, mr Clean) had no business entering the guard anyway other than via a congressional father and THEN had the audacity to be assigned to another state's guard unit for the sole purpose of serving his OWN personal agenda. Those far to the right may call it whatever they want, I don't care cuz it's only rhetorical spin anyway. But i simply call it a chicken schidt cop-out ! And then he has the balls to fly on board a carrier like he's some bad-assed mofo darin' the whole world to just screw with him. But did ya notice how nice and new looking that flight suit was that he was wearing? I'll bet it was the same one that he used while he was in the guard. Still brand spnaking new and unesed as always !! so how long has it been since he's been trying to "defend" his proudly served record anyway? Well, long enough to show evidence to the contrary. when this first broke, i didn't think much of it since I felt all the records and/or evidence will be presented in short order, but the longer it goes on only proves that there is none.
But i have been trying to figure out just what [kind of} guard unit you're speaking of that "doesn't care if you show up or not as long as you make up the time" ? i can picture this way back in 68. The phantoms just got done excorting the A6s over NVN on a bombing run and there are safely back over water when the grunts call in for air support. The pilot says, roger that, but we'll get there when we get there. So i guess they don't "have to show up" then, when needed and as long as they eventually get there, they are exceused? Makes no sense to me....................

PhinPhan1227
02-23-2004, 09:54 AM
I'm not kidding at all. I was in the Guard during the tail end of the first Gulf War. Unless that unit is activated, it just isn't the same thing as a regular unit. That's the way it works. Now, with the Guard being used MUCH more extensively as a viable arm of the regular military, that may no longer be the case. But during my service, as well as during the Vietnam war, that's the way the Guard works. As for Clinton...what you're saying is that none of the comments of the DNC Chariman or John Kerry from that time have any relevance? It was ok for them to say one thing then and take an ENTIRELY different path now?

DeDolfan
02-23-2004, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I'm not kidding at all. I was in the Guard during the tail end of the first Gulf War. Unless that unit is activated, it just isn't the same thing as a regular unit. That's the way it works. Now, with the Guard being used MUCH more extensively as a viable arm of the regular military, that may no longer be the case. But during my service, as well as during the Vietnam war, that's the way the Guard works. As for Clinton...what you're saying is that none of the comments of the DNC Chariman or John Kerry from that time have any relevance? It was ok for them to say one thing then and take an ENTIRELY different path now?

Like i said, this is about Bush only. Clinton and Kerry is another story all together.

PhinPhan1227
02-23-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Like i said, this is about Bush only. Clinton and Kerry is another story all together.

So the things a politician say one year have no bearing in other years? It's ok if a politician says I'm Pro-Choice in 1999, and I'm Pro-Life in 2004? You realize that in effect that's the position you're taking right?

DeDolfan
02-23-2004, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


So the things a politician say one year have no bearing in other years? It's ok if a politician says I'm Pro-Choice in 1999, and I'm Pro-Life in 2004? You realize that in effect that's the position you're taking right?

no, but who are you talking about??

PhinPhan1227
02-23-2004, 10:46 AM
Both Kerry and McCaulif are on record as stating that Clintons trips out of the country to avoid service in Vietnam were not germaine to his ability to be President of the US. They hammered that fact during BOTH of Clintons elections. Now they've reversed themselves and declared that what a person did during the Vietnam war IS a viable topic to address over and over? That's in no way different from doing a 180 on any other declaration of policy.

DeDolfan
02-23-2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Both Kerry and McCaulif are on record as stating that Clintons trips out of the country to avoid service in Vietnam were not germaine to his ability to be President of the US. They hammered that fact during BOTH of Clintons elections. Now they've reversed themselves and declared that what a person did during the Vietnam war IS a viable topic to address over and over? That's in no way different from doing a 180 on any other declaration of policy.

Why do you have a problem just discussing the Bush issue about this? I don't give a F what Clinton did, btw, HIS trip out of the country was for a Rhodes scholarship. I'm not discussing him or anybody else but Bush here, so please, don't even spin it around by trying to discuss what someone else did. as it THAT excuses Bush.

PhinPhan1227
02-23-2004, 05:44 PM
You're avoiding the issue. Why is it that Kerry and McCaulliff could declare this a in TWO elections, and then completely change course for THIS election? You're attacking the integrity of GW Bush, but you refuse to address UTTER lack of integrity of the Chairman of the DNC and the upcoming Democratic nominee? Nice. As for Bush's war record, I already HAVE addressed it. He wasn't AWOL, and any assertion that he was ignore the facts. As for a military record, he doesn't really have one of any note, but neither have several other Presidents(Lincoln stands out), who have had to send troops to war. Now, back to the two faced liars you're backing....

DeDolfan
02-23-2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You're avoiding the issue. Why is it that Kerry and McCaulliff could declare this a in TWO elections, and then completely change course for THIS election? You're attacking the integrity of GW Bush, but you refuse to address UTTER lack of integrity of the Chairman of the DNC and the upcoming Democratic nominee? Nice. As for Bush's war record, I already HAVE addressed it. He wasn't AWOL, and any assertion that he was ignore the facts. As for a military record, he doesn't really have one of any note, but neither have several other Presidents(Lincoln stands out), who have had to send troops to war. Now, back to the two faced liars you're backing....

Don't even try it. I am not avoiding anything. I was talking oNLY about Bush and you brought the others into it. Please keep it to Bush only. But of course, if the wH can't properly defend his NG record, I guess i shouldn't expect you or anybody else to either.

mf52dolphin
02-23-2004, 09:07 PM
My scores:
Bush 100%
Edwards 44%
Kerry 39%
Dean 34%
Sharpton 24%
Kucinich 18%

PhinPhan1227
02-23-2004, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Don't even try it. I am not avoiding anything. I was talking oNLY about Bush and you brought the others into it. Please keep it to Bush only. But of course, if the wH can't properly defend his NG record, I guess i shouldn't expect you or anybody else to either.

As I said...I DID address it. If you served in the Guard, or can talk to someone who did, feel free to debate my answer. And now that we've settled that issue, kindly tell me why you support a two faced liar?

DeDolfan
02-24-2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


As I said...I DID address it. If you served in the Guard, or can talk to someone who did, feel free to debate my answer. And now that we've settled that issue, kindly tell me why you support a two faced liar?

I did debate it. I told how I thought "your" idea of how the guard "operates" is simply hogwash.
Why do you call "Bush a two faced liar" anyway ? He is the only one I'm debating here. You constantly are bringing others into the fray. Apparently, you must think by cracking on the Dems, you are defending bush !! I know, "Kerry can't "make up his mind". First he supports the war [ via the same false intel Bush used] and now he is crucified for changing his stance AFTER the reasons for going to war were proven to be false. At least common sense took over ans alot of folx rightfully changed their opinions. Even so, Bush refuses to see it any other way. Why? Cuz he's already there and he is going to do whatever it is he really set out to do! it's hard for me to comprehend why some ppl still blindly follow someone who is not even man enough to admit he was wrong in the first place. :rolleyes:

But, FYI, I never once said that I was a kerry supporter. If you must really know, I prefer Edwards over any of them.

PhinPhan1227
02-24-2004, 12:13 PM
Hogwash? Care to elaborate? Can you refute the point, or are you limited to "hogwash"? I was in the Guard...and I know how it works. I had to take two months off to travel overseas, and the only action taken was that I did two extra drills two make up the time. It's just not the same set-up as the Regular Army, where two months away would be imossible unless you were on extended leave. I also find it hysterical that they keep asking his CO's if they recall seeing him. I was in the Guard for 6 years, and I would defy you to find a single officer above the squad level who could ID me. Again, if you want to debate Guard service, go ahead, but please bring something more than "hogwash".

LIDOLFAN
02-24-2004, 12:42 PM
to dedolfan
not to start any problems with you but all you keep sayiny is "i'm only talking about Bush"this thread is about who to vote for not i'm only talking about Bush besides you have nothing good to say about any of the dems so you only want to talk about Bush is you are not willing to talk about anything else then maybe you should only post your results and leave it at that

DeDolfan
02-24-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Hogwash? Care to elaborate? Can you refute the point, or are you limited to "hogwash"? I was in the Guard...and I know how it works. I had to take two months off to travel overseas, and the only action taken was that I did two extra drills two make up the time. It's just not the same set-up as the Regular Army, where two months away would be imossible unless you were on extended leave. I also find it hysterical that they keep asking his CO's if they recall seeing him. I was in the Guard for 6 years, and I would defy you to find a single officer above the squad level who could ID me. Again, if you want to debate Guard service, go ahead, but please bring something more than "hogwash".

Thank you, I finally "got" you to say something that actually supports what I originally was saying about bush and his "proof", etc. the only "proof" he has shown thus far is some paystubs and a dental visit [which actually proves nothing]. He has no body at the "squad level" that has been able to come forward and say "Yes, i remember serving with him". It just ain't happened and like i say before that there is just too much gray area to prove his total duty performance/s. But I do have to apologize for the "hogwash" remark as it was a bit rash. Anyway, it you were able to take "time off", so to speak, but you say you had to make it up. Fine, but adding to my whole point about Bush is that it's quite obvious that he had [alot of] time off and apparently he has not made the time back up either. but i think we've hashed it enough already as it appears that we're going no where else with it.

PhinPhan1227
02-24-2004, 01:58 PM
Actually, according to his pay stubs, he DID make the time up. Bear in mind, the Guard wasn't concerned with actual dates I showed up for Drill....but they TRIPLE checked that I was there SOME time before they paid me. Maybe the pay records have been doctored, maybe not. But if they are legit, than I would bet money he WAS there. Again, as for people remembering him being there...it was 30 years ago, and he was apparently never an integral part of the unit. Bottom line, this is a non-issue. Now, back to the two faced liars that are currently running the Democratic Party....

DeDolfan
02-25-2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Actually, according to his pay stubs, he DID make the time up. Bear in mind, the Guard wasn't concerned with actual dates I showed up for Drill....but they TRIPLE checked that I was there SOME time before they paid me. Maybe the pay records have been doctored, maybe not. But if they are legit, than I would bet money he WAS there. Again, as for people remembering him being there...it was 30 years ago, and he was apparently never an integral part of the unit. Bottom line, this is a non-issue. Now, back to the two faced liars that are currently running the Democratic Party....

Over 30 yrs ago? Com'on................ I was discharged over 30 yrs ago myself. I can remember most folx that I served with. Of the ones I've "forgotten" about, all it would take is for someone/anything to recall a certain person, etc. and i am sure i would remember then. This is beginning to sound like the ronnie Reagan thing, "I don't remember" !! :lol: :lol:
btw: there are alot of things i do like about Bush. This just happens to be one of the things i don't.

DeDolfan
02-25-2004, 09:59 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

:D :D :D

DeDolfan
02-25-2004, 10:11 AM
i became curious about this "who to vote for" site. i went back and "played" around on it and reanswered all the questions that would be AGAINST how most working Americans probably would answer or another way of putting it, what would "obviously" benefit most working Americans. I admit that i was even surprised who the new "100%" guy now is............................... Try it for yourself and see who you come up with. But then again, some of you won't have to since you've already named your "100% guy" !! :lol :lol:

PhinPhan1227
02-25-2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Over 30 yrs ago? Com'on................ I was discharged over 30 yrs ago myself. I can remember most folx that I served with. Of the ones I've "forgotten" about, all it would take is for someone/anything to recall a certain person, etc. and i am sure i would remember then. This is beginning to sound like the ronnie Reagan thing, "I don't remember" !! :lol: :lol:
btw: there are alot of things i do like about Bush. This just happens to be one of the things i don't.

The guys I served with in the regular Army I could rattle off by name with no problem. I spent more time over 3 years with those guys than I have with my wife over 5 years. But of the guys I served with in the Guard, I could only name 3-4, and I could probably identify another 10 by face. Now, those are the guys the I served with over YEARS, not just months. And we're only talking 5-6 years ago for me. In the Guard, you're only seeing those faces once a month AT BEST!! Honestly, I couldn't name a single officer from my service in the Guard, and I'd be hard pressed to ID one from a picture. So I would be SHOCKED if a single officer beyond my squad leader could ID me. That's just the way the Guard it...people come and go and unless it's a buddy who you socialized with, you aren't going to remember them. If you put a gun to my head I doubt I'd remember some guy who was in and out of the unit over a 3-4 month period. If I had even seen someone like that it would have been just pure dumb luck.