I don't really understand the civilian force...
Posted By: Kendra on 2008-11-14
In Reply to: Pretty scary stuff - anonny
why not just beef up the military we already have? But, I don't actually think that it will ever happen, at least not to the extent that people are thinking and during Barrack's presidency. Americans will not allow that to come to fruition. It would take a very long gradual change for something like this to be implemented and accepted.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Civilian National Security Force...
These are Obama's words...
"We cannot rely only on our military for our national security, we need to have a Civilian National Security force that is just as strong, just as well funded."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Civilian National Security Force
From FactCheck.org (Complete analysis at link below.)
Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
U.S. and past civilian deaths
U.S. and British forces bombed Dresden, Germany with the death of approximately 225,000 civilians, and it was intended as a purely civilian bombing.
From a history publication (with references to LeMay also made by Robert McNamara in The Fog of War):
When news concerning the bombing of Dresden got out, it led to an uproar that had to be quieted by cynical denials that this was U.S. or British policy. But it was, and it continued, now against Japan. In March 1945, more than 100,000 Japanese were killed in a firebombing raid on Tokyo as “canals boiled, metal melted, and buildings and human beings burst spontaneously into flames” (John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War [Pantheon Books, 1986]). By August 1945, 58 Japanese cities had been firebombed and the bomber commander, General Curtis LeMay, had to curtail his raids because he had run out of incendiary bombs. After the war, Le May remarked “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.” Instead he was promoted, eventually heading the Strategic Air Command, where he advocated a pre-emptive nuclear “first strike” against the Soviets. During the Vietnam War, Le May notoriously called to “bomb them [the North Vietnamese] back into the Stone Age.”
Trigger-happy-civilian-aid-worker-journalist-slaughtering Israel
with a little help from their (only) US allies. As long as that is the case, any other country in the region who chooses to level the playing field by arming themselves in self defense with nuclear weapons has a much more plausible case than "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do."
OP said not to force beliefs on others...
if you don't want to read religious toned posts, don't open them.
O says that he will force insurance
companies to insure preexisting conditions. That sounds like something that will put them out of business to me. No need to buy insurance until you need it. Think of all the lost jobs.
PS, NOT ENCOURAGE, FORCE!!
XX
Require = force
xx
I don't believe I force people
to convert to my religion. I don't kill in the name of my God. I am nothing like the Jihad extremists and for you to say that is just absolute BS and you know it. What you people seem to forget is that we are at war here. A war were people want me and you dead. I don't want to torture them for revenge but if we can get other names of people or any plot information to save American lives.....I'm all for it....including saving your atheist behind in the process. Doesn't quite sound like I'm a Jihad extremists or I'd say something like blow your butt up too since you won't convert to my religion but I don't see me saying that. So don't you EVER compare me to a terrorist.
I see all the dems are out in force...keep it up ladies...sm
.....having a good ol' time ganging up on me....I have come to expect no less from the left on this site.
She's dynamite and will get rave reviews....wait and see....wait and see.....
Once again, a "civilian military force" that is
ENDORSED BY BUSH.
That little tidbit was conveniently deleted from the link that was provided.
Keep believing all the hype and the lies. That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.
There is no force involved whatsoever. I do it
because I "choose" to do what the Bible commands. I love the Lord and want to do what His Word says. There is nothing forced about. If you don't think it's a sin, that is your perogative. I, however, feel that it is and that is my perogative, too. 
Does this help. Homeland security force.
KNOWN AS HOMELAND SECURITY FORCE, CIVIL DEFENSE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y&feature=related
This is about freedom of speech being taken away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn_llXvTx5g
This is about section 899A (3), developing home grown terrorists in our own land (civil defense).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQ68jBGK8o&feature=related
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
From a founding member of Delta Force
http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3641046
'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush
By David Kronke, TV Critic
U-Entertainment
Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for Inside Delta Force (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for The Unit, CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against American Idol, The Unit shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.
Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.
We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of The Unit.
Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?
A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.
We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.
Q: What is the cost to our country?
A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say we, because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.
Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.
The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed � which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.
Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...
A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.
I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, Well, they do it to us. Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.
Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...
A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.
THE UNIT
What: Action-adventure about special-ops unit.
Where: CBS (Channel 2).
When: 9 p.m. Tuesdays.
---
David Kronke (818) 713-3638 david.kronke@dailynews.com
It's a beautiful thing to see dems out in force
nm
I see the Witches of Leftwick are out in force today....sm
just posting under different names.
Halloween must be around the corner.
wait for it......
.......the pig comments are about to be unleashed.....lol.....again.....
Israel air force is ready to attack Iran
capable of making nuclear bomb. I have been reading about Israel and Iran every day and looks like one of these days we are going to hear a special report that Israel is attacking Iran. My question is if the US is going to help? I read Iran would attack the US if US tries to help Israel. I also read Iran has missels pointed in our direction to hit our oil refineries and power plants in the gulf coast states.
The first 2 links are about Israel ready to attack Iran.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75885§ionid=351020104
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455005,00.html
This is about Iran nuclear capibility as of today from Fox news.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455024,00.html
They are also a viable grass roots political force
in the region, just like Hezbollah. How successful was Israel in trying to eradicate Hezbollah by bombing them off the face of the earth just 2 short years ago in Lebanon? The harder they try to suppress with violence, starvation, dehumanization, occupation and genocidal wars, the stronger those movements become. Israel is the consummate poster child for Einstein's definition of insanity.
Until the US and Israel have the guts to come to terms with the root causes of WHY these Islamic movements are gaining such traction across the board in the region, we are doomed to stay mired in the same atrocious tit-for-tat cycles of wholesale slaughter and human suffering. There seems to be an endless supply of that on both sides of the fence. The question is why and what can e do to effect a different outcome? Here's a clue for you. End the occupation.
SINCE WHEN DOES THE KORAN FORCE PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO ISLAM?..
Are you still living in the stone ages?
Big Brother is I believe a covert force infiltrating each and every one's personal lives without
their knowledge. That is hardly the same thing as a poster on an MT board noticing that 4 different names post the same thing. I think that is creepy. I have been on this board for a long time and I recognize patterns, phrases that are repeated verbatim from far in the past, things people remember about me and say something like ***weren't you the one who ....*** and it is posted under a name different from the original. I leave Big Brother to our shadow government, wherever they are.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on US citizens before using on enemies.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation, said Wynne. (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.
Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.
On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.
The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).
Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.
Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.
He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.
We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts, said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to take some appetite suppressant pills. He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.
The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent. |
|
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html |
Like that'll happen. Trying to bomb a grassroots political force
into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy.
Thanks to their last fiasco when they tried this in Lebanon, Hezbollah has an 80+% approval rating among Lebanese factions (13 points higher than O) and its support among Lebanese Sunni Sunni, Christians and Druze soared in 2006. Their demonstrations attracted hundreds of thousands of protestors, especially in the aftermath of Israel's failed massacre, when protests against PM Siniora sent his approval ratings into a deep-6.
Hezbollah was given veto power in the parliment via the Doha Agreement in 2008 and under its newly formed National Unity Government, Hezbollah gained the Labor Minister's appointment and holds 11 out of 30 seats, or slightly over one-third alongside Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Maronites, Armenians, Shia, Sunni and Druz.
So you see, instead of giving Hezbollah the boot, Israel legitimized their standing the Lebanese government.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0609/0609_6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932008_Lebanese_political_protests
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/UnityGovernmentEN.htm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/hezbollah.html?breadcrumb=%2F
Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out' sm-long article
Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out'
· Defence Secretary confident withdrawal will start in May
· Plan follows pressure for exit strategy
Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday September 25, 2005
The Observer
British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.
The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.
Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.
The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.
Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.
'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.
'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'
The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.
Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.
For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.
Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.
Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.
According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.
In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.
The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.
Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.
'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'
It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.
The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.
The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.
Also can understand...
I was also accused of being the notorious gt also. Not sure what their obsession is with this, perhaps they are hoping that all the posters who do not agree with are one in the same.
What I understand you to be saying....
What I hear you saying is that this board's posts need to reflect your personal ideology and that it is your role to call our attention to posts that you consider too liberal.
In looking back at your protests on this board, particularly a post where you have repeated the word hate over and over, combined with your delusions of grandeur that this board should operate according to your political agenda, I think you are mentally unbalanced. As a result of mental illness I doubt you will be able to comprehend any reasonable explanation of why what you are doing is misguided.
I suggest that if you want full control of a political board and the ability to censor each post that you create your own website.
Also, I am not sure why you have been allowed to run amuck on this particular board.
You know what I don't understand?
If we are so wacko, why do they keep coming here to read *liberal* posts and then slither back to insult us on their board?
PK,you're very welcome. Have yourself a lovely afternoon/evening wherever you are.
I don't understand....
How does one person's possibly tactless comments excuse another person's comments? This line of thinking doesn't make sense. So you're saying it's okay for Ann Coulter to be a brutal witch with her comments because if you look hard enough you can find comments from the opposing side that were also of questionable moral character? So what? LIke I always told my kids when they were little, just because other people are doing it doesn't make it right.
Besides, Ann quibbles that the widows are using their grief to promote their political agenda, well, my thought is that every time some family member of a war casualty goes on the local news saying how proud they are of what the military is doing in Iraq, etc., isn't that ALSO promoting a political agenda?
I do not understand why anyone would believe there were WMD....sm
IF there were any thread of truth this administration would have announced it at first notice to redeem themselves from the *unjust war* criticism. Unless they are holding on to this tad bit of information until closer to electoins, which I doubt. I would not be so quick to jump on board with Santorum with his *classified document.*
What I think I do understand.
After much research, I feel I can comment on this. Embryonic stem cell research has more than one goal. There is the harvesting of aborted babies stem cells, but there is also the stipulation in small writing that embryos can be cloned in the lab and those stem cells used for research. There is also this article, not released for general knowledge. I am sure that Michael Fox, as young as he is, and being the father of small children, would like to believe that embryonic stell research is going to be the be all and end all for Parkinson disease. I would want the same thing. But it just isn't and there are sinister forces at work just waiting for this bill to pass and for all heck to break loose. If it sounds dramatic, I don't think it is dire enough warning. An informed public is a forewarned and armed public. Here is the article I mentioned above.
Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds
Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.
Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.
Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.
Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.
This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.
The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.
Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.
Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.
Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.
But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.
The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.
Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells.
*****
Finally, I will close with President Bush's words about embryonic cell research because I agree with him 400%. I suppose the division lies between conservative and liberal in defining the meaning of life.
(quote) believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. (Applause.) In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.(unquote)
Amen, President Bush, Amen.
Okay....although I still do not understand...
but as you said, I don't have to. It seemed a very simple observation that if you found fault with Bush showing up at VA Tech and not at a soldier's funeral...I could not attribute that to anything but a strong dislike (I will not use word hate) of Bush. And no, I do not hate any of the people you mentioned. And had any one of them shown up at VA Tech, I would not have criticized them for being there because they had not gone somewhere else I might have felt they should have gone. I would have been glad they showed up to try to help those kids heal. I suppose you might call me naive, but I took it at face value, just like I did when Bill Clinton came to OKC after the Murrah bombing. As I said, he is not a person I like, respect or admire, but he was the President and he did come and I was very, very glad to see him there, he seemed sincere and I took it at face value. And, as I have said many times, there are a lot of things I do not like about this administration, I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, on that same note, I was appalled at the pork the Dems wanted to hang on the troop funding bill, so I am not a big fan of the Democratically controlled Congress either. Nancy Pelosi broke the law by her Lone Ranger visit to Syria, and Harry Reid...I think he is a coward, I think to publically announce the war is lost when men are still on the ground fighting is at the last ill-advised, at the most tantamount to treason, emboldens the enemy and was from a personal standpoint hateful and very, very mean-spirited. I think when I see him, please do not tell me you support the troops and in the same breath tell them the war is lost. I think that is supremely arrogant, like he had a clue whether or not the war was lost. I am ashamed of him, and I have not been that ashamed of a politician since Bill Clinton's shenanigans. All that being said, as a person, I still like George Bush. I believe he is sincere and I believe his heart is in the right place. I think he is genuinely a good person, and that is probably why he is not a good politician, because there are very FEW who, in my estimation, are both. But that is just me. I think this war has taken a toll on him, and I think people who say he couldn't care less about the soldiers dying do not know what they are talking about. I have seen him shed tears on numerous occasions talking to families and talking to soldiers in the hospitals. The last President I remember shedding a real tear was Ronald Reagan. I think it is a sign of strength when a man shows his emotion like that. Again, you may perceive that as naive.
Basically I am looking for a hero this round. A man (or woman) with the courage of their convictions who will administer not to get rel-elected, but for what is good for the country. If such a person exists, now would be the time. I frankly have not seen that person in the running right now.
Yikes! Too much information.
God bless!
I really don't understand that, either....
I have been coming to these boards for a very long time and I have never seen a conservative post that liberals should stick to their own board. But they are really quick on this board to say things like "neocons need not apply" and "this board is for liberals." All that says to me is that they don't want to debate, they want only one viewpoint, theirs, and want validation from everyone for their viewpoint. The moderator has said that we could post on either board as long as we kept it respectful. This is America for Pete's sake. Each is entitled to his opinion and to support it. Sigh.
I understand
That is a whole lot more than I make, too! I live in an area where I have to pay $1,000 a month to rent a studio apartment. I thought this was outrageous! Then, my mother started a traveling job and has been telling me how much it costs to live in D.C. and some places in California. Even Vermont (sorry, don't remember what town) was more expensive! In these cases, a lot of that 88,000 would be eaten up by rent/mortage payments alone. Don't get me wrong, I do NOT think that someone living in a 3,000 sq foot house with a huge mortgage should get assistance - obviously their priorities would be out of whack. But for those in areas when it costs way more to live, that may not be unreasonable. Anyway, that was just my thought. On the site that I found, it does not mention that cap, it only says that states would set their own cap. If I recall, the 88,000 was mentioned by New York, who wanted that as their cap. I would imagine living in NY would be insanely expensive (anyone know #s?). I'm not sure how they would work out a maximum allowable cap - that doesn't seem to be written into the proposal.
I was just curious for reasons. Thank you for sharing!! :)
I understand what you are saying...
my experience totally different. My husband served in Somalia fighting AL Qaeda there..before 9-11...when Clinton was President. We have been in the military for many years. So, of course, we know soldiers...my husband was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. He was retired by the time Iraq came around (he still works for the Army in civilian capacity), but the 10th Mountain was instrumental in Afghanistan...he knew many of those who were deployed and he knows many who have ben to Iraq...needless to say our roots in the service run deep. And all the young/older servicemen we have come in contact with hold the opposite view...they understand the need to fight the enemy there so we don't have to fight them here. They believe, as do I, that keeping Al Qaeda busy in Iraq is one reason we have not been hit here again in a big way. The surge is working; casualties are down dramatically for both civilians and soldiers...the data is there if you look. Still, we will not get into a war debate but I will say this...no one WANTS war. I would like to have them home today too, but what I don't want is for America to become like Israel with car bombs and human bombs in malls, schools...I don't want to hear about something like that every day. I believe our being in Iraq helps keep that kind of thing at bay, and if we can leave a free Iraq we will be one step closer to keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
I saw a man on TV a few nights ago...a man who has interviewed several jihadists, including Al Qaeda...I wish I could remember his name. Will have to Google for that too. He said that most Americans really did not understand the threat. He said that there was a common thread in interviewing all of them, whether it be Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad...they said themselves that we did not understand. They are in this for the long haul. They intend that the world be converted to Islam, and those who do not convert will die. They will not stop until it is done. They intend to start in Europe and extend it to the US. When asked why could we not have a dialogue, they all said in essence: "There is no dialogue. There is nothing to discuss."
That should tell us what we are up against. And it should chill us all.
Have a good night!
I understand what you are saying but..
It seems that over time the majority of politicians who are supposed to be looking out for the people of this country have decided it is more profitable to concentrate on a certain constituency - those who have wealth and connections, no matter which party they represent. I'm just kinda tired of always seeing Obama slammed - if he blinks wrong, does not say the 'right' thing, carry himself in a certain way - people are all over him negatively. He cannot be any worse than what we have had in office the past eight years, and I am willing to see what he does without maliciously tearing him apart.
I understand everything you said
There is no way to deal with these people. Everything we do is a catch-22. We go to war - we are intolerant murderers. We don't go to war - we are weak. My personal opinion on this is that we need to bring as many troops back as we can and do everything humanly possible to keep this country safe. I am afraid that with so many troops in Iraq, we are not safe. Other countries recognize this. Look at Iran. What would we do if we HAD (and I say had because I would hope that we would exhaust every other option) to invade Iran? Our poor troops are exhausted and weary. Who would fight any other threats? I think it is important to gain strength here at home. Secure our borders. Thoroughly investigate anyone coming into our country. I think that is the best we can do because fighting really doesn't get us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
what I can;t understand
If repubs are the minority being attacked by the all-powerful liberal media, why can't we have a liberal talk radio network? You got yer Hanninity, Limbaug, shrieking harpie Laura whats her name, Michael Savage, etc. You can't be a minority and still have all the radio programs . ... don't make no sense.
Understand what exactly?
Are you looking for justification for leaning toward conservatism? Your prose is rhetorical and exhausting. Can we get some fair liberals, aka, fellow Democrats who would like to discuss issues, candidates, etc, on this site?
I understand what you are saying...
I am just not sure universal health care is the answer. In every country I can find who have it, the cost is catching up and they are contemplating cutting services or raising taxes out of sight...many Canadians now pay 50-55% of their paycheck in taxes. I do not want to see this country go down that road. That will only force more and more people onto assistance, and that is going backward, in my opinion. Bottom line is, we need to figure out a way to get health care costs down, or it does not matter what kind of plan whether private or government-provided...we will not be able to afford it. Gotta get costs in control and keep them down. That is what I want to hear a candidate talk about...now throwing more money and raising taxes for yet another entitlement. Look at the money coming in now and prioritize. If free health care for everyone is what is most important, fund that first. It might mean cutting some other services or entitlements, but sometimes choices have to be made. What is most important? Do we really need to drive up everyone's taxes yet again? And how come no one is stating what universal health care will cost? Because the figure would scare us to death is my guess.
I understand what you are saying....
but what is the worst that could happen? Some of them go back to being jihadists. But if we can turn one heart, one life...who then might turn another...isn't that worth it?
We cannot change anything that has been done in the past. We can, however, learn from it, and hopefully give these kids hope. That is what they need desperately...hope for a better time, a better life. And if we can help with that...we should.
I don't understand........
if you are currently living in the United States, George W. Bush is YOUR President. You may not like him, you may enjoy calling him names, but he is my President and yours.
George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded.
Thank you.
I understand what you mean
I think voting because its your right and if you feel really strongly about voting because its our right as a citizen then that's kind of different, for me though because I know my vote doesn't count, I feel like I'm not giving up my rights, I'm "exercising" my right to not vote. Sounds a little quirky I guess, but it beats joining a bunch of protestors. Besides I've got so much more stuff to do than go stand in a crowd, punch a ticket or whatever the means of voting and then watch whoever I don't vote for get picked. Our next president has already been chosen, so I figured why waste my time.
I understand that but I still don't think its right
I don't think its right for someone who wins over another to ask their supporters to help pay off the debts of the person they were voting against. These politicians bring in enough money that their debt would be paid off within a few months. What they want (and its not just Hillary, its others too), but they want everything and they don't want to pay for anything. If I'm donating money (which I didn't) but if I'm donating money to Barack's campaign because I want him to win, why in the world would I give any money to his competitor (wether it be Clinton, Edwards or anyone else who ran against him). So that they can keep all of their money free and clear. Heck, all Clinton has to do is give a couple speaches, write another book and their debt will be paid off. They're just greedy and want it all. So just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. Also, I don't remember hearing about this in past elections. I can't ever remember hearing the winning candidate openly campaign for funds to pay off the debts of the people who tried to knock them out of the race. Maybe it was done, but I never did hear anything about it.
I understand everything you are saying...
and I did not mean that 5 years in a POW camp alone qualifies him...but it does build the character, integrity, selflessness, and patriotism that I think are essential. We know this about McCain. I don't know that about Barack Obama. There is nothing in his history or his resume that gives me that feeling about him. McCain also commanded men in war time. McCain has been a senator many more years than Obama has. If you put there experience side by side...absolute evidence of integrity, patriotism, selflessness, the willingness to buck the "party" if they feel the party is not correct...all those things make me feel that McCain is better qualified for the job, and the 5 years in a POW camp, the fact that he never caved and endured horrible torture because of it...is definitely part of that qualification.
I don't agree that McCain is 4 more years of Bush. The two are nothing alike. Bush has caved to the Repub hierarchy when I think he should not have. Anyway...that's just my take on it.
I do understand yours, and you SHOULD vote for who you believe will be the President. That is what America is all about. I know I AM! :)
I understand what you are saying....
but choice does have a lot to do with debt. No all, but in the majority of cases. Part of the reform McCain/Palin will be looking at is predatory lending. A main reason Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapsed is the so-called "reform bill" the democrats wrote and passed this year...forcing them to offer mortgages to low income and middle income people whether they were creditworthy or not...using those adjustable interest rates. When the bottom started falling out, interest rates went up, the people were in over their heads and defaulted. Who is picking up the tab? You and me, for people taking on a mortgage they could not afford, ignoring the fact that if the interest rate went up (and they almost always do in adjustable rate mortgages) they could not pay the mortgage. That is what I am talking about. Yes, I know the American dream is own your own home. I had to wait until I was middle-aged to be able to afford it.
Same way with those high-rate credit cards to people with less than stellar credit. I don't think most credit cards are maxed because of using them to live on. I do not say that none of them are...but I would venture a guess that they are not.
Respectfully, if we want jobs to stop going offshore we need to stop taxing our businesses at an astronomical rate. Our business taxes are at least 10% higher than anywhere else in the world. That makes it very difficult for our businesses to compete, and it sometimes forces businesses to go offshore to get out from under the huge tax burden. That is economics 101. Now Obama wants to hit small business owners not only by keeping the business taxes at all-time high, but taxing the business owners' personal income even more, taxing capital gains even more, and raising the death tax even more (which forces the closure of many businesses when the principal owner passes away). In my opinion, the death tax should be stopped, period. All the money in the business has already been taxed, and the government wants to tax it AGAIN when the owner dies. Talk about piling on.
The government needs to learn to live within its means. Find out what programs are not working and stop them. Monitor spending programs better...the waste is astronomical. Attach a job to a welfare check. Make the objective getting the people back to work, not dependent on the government and taxpayers to support. That being said, those truly disabled physically or mentally, we should take care of. But someone physically and mentally able to work should have a job or job training attached to that check, and it should not be open-ended. JMO.
I understand....however....
while I think Bush is great on the war on terror, and I think he is a good man and his heart is in the right place....I don't agree with some decisions he has made...being realistic. Same with any President. He was President in 2005 and I think he should have listened a little closer to McCain at that point. I stop short of saying, tho, that it is all his fault. It's not. It's the Dems in COngress who blocked what McCain wanted to do.
Obama is up to his eyeballs in the Fannie/Freddie thing...as is CHris Dodd... and Biden has gotten all kinds of failures from MBNA.
And isn't it funny about Charlie Rangel and Pelosi refusing to remove him from chairman of ways and means committee while he is under investigation for improprieties? If he was a Republican they would be calling for his head on a platter. LOL. Amazing.
Well I can understand they want to win, so do we
But we don't chew up Obama and Biden like they do Gov. Palin. Just all worthless.
Thanks for the post. I have to read it when I get back later. Just was checking to see if anyone answered. It's been up all day and I see lots of people read it but none that will admit that absolutely hate her - and for no good reason.
Here is what I understand
I will try to find links to validate what I say, but this is what I have read and heard.
Palin did not fired people to give their jobs to her friends. I believe that was proved incorrect (again I will try and find the link). That's about as accurate as the story about her banning books from the library. Everyone seems to think she banned books from the library (because it was put out by the liberal media) and Harry Potter was one of the books listed. The problem with that story was Harry Potter hadn't even been written yet when they claimed she banned it.
If your talking about people firing and hiring people I would look directly at the Clintons. When Bill was President and Hillary was first lady I'm sure you remember what they called Travelgate. They fired people who worked in the White House Travel Office (for no reason) so they could hire on their friends.
I will try and find the links later (won't be back on til tomorrow), but I would just say if your reading a story and it comes from the liberals I would definitely research it more and read both sides (liberal and conservative) with an open mind and a grain of salt because 99% of the garbage the liberals have been putting out there is just that, garbage (i.e. - Palins daughter is the real mother of Sarah's baby, Todd Palin had sex with his daughter, and the list of lies goes on and on).
They should also understand....
he was not convicted of anything and his involvement was minimal. But you did not post that. It is also not a felony, which our friend Bill Clinton committed. And Bill CLinton continued as President anyway, and on most Democtats' estimation, he did just fine. I would hope anyone reviewing this issue would take both into account.
Sure I understand it. sm
Bush may be a soft dictator, but he is a dictator. McCain is no different. Are you telling me we do not have those things in the US?
14 points of fascism.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
I understand that
that's why I am making a point of trying to study different versions and in questionable areas I look up the Hebrew words and what not. I do know that humans make mistakes (duh, lol) but I honestly believe that God has control over the Bible, and he wouldn't let it get as widespread as it is in the condition it is if it wasn't acceptable. Kind of like if someone wrote a book about everything you said and then changed it, you would get rid of that changed version real quick. I'm without a doubt that God has the power to do that.
So do you believe that you still go to Heaven when you die? Or do you still go to Paradise because the Messiah hasn't come yet? (I'm not sure if that is a Christian or Jewish teaching, I'm pretty sure it's old testament but if our OT and Jewish OT are different, then that might be too)
I am firm in my beliefs, but I still want to learn about others. I think it's closed minded not to. Just because you know what you believe doesn't mean you shouldn't learn what others believe, right?
I think that is where tolerance gets misconstrued. People say tolerance is believing that everyone's beliefs are correct. But tolerance is accepting that other people have other beliefs, not accepting that they are just as correct as you (that was to anyone in general, not you.)
Thanks for clearing it up though, I have been curious about it but I don't know many (or any really) Jews here in our little town. Everyone is pretty much Baptist or Methodist. But doctrine is a whole 'nother thing. I always tell everyone I'm only Southern Baptist by marriage! (My father-in-law is a preacher, yes, I married "the son of a preacher man")and they are every bit as bad as everyone jokes. Fortunately God reeled him back in and me along with him! :)
|
