The document does not state that vets

• I guess they are going after the - liberals as well.
  • Just as the other NEVER mentioned conservatives, this one doesn't mention liberals... at all. nm - Whatever happened to reading comprehension?
    • Your time may be better spent - sm
    • You need to reread the title....... - 'Conservative extremists' is the title.... g
      • Wrong. Rightwing Extremists, not conservatives. - nm
        • What hate group do you suppose you - should be in..... I can think of one! nm
          • Which one is that? - nm
            • You're so "bright", you figure it out.... - nm
        • Hmmmm, I didn't realize war veterans fell into - those categories, as stated in the document!
          • The document does not state that vets - are terrorists.
            • Oh but your "interpretation" is correct no doubt? It is - obvious what is meant............sm
      • Provide a link to the document with that title. None of the official copies I've seen use the wor - nm
        • "Official copies"? Try the copies your PD - have received... nm
          • In other words, you can't. Thanks for trying. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. - nm
            • You are one of those lazy people who just doesn't - want to look! I found it!!!
              • And, once again, where? Lies. nm - put up or shut up time
                • Why do you continue to ask "where" when you have - been given an answer..... slow perhaps? NM
                • have you bothered to go to your local PD? - Doubt it............. I have! duh!
                  • Nonsense. - nm
                    • Stop. Don't waste your energy. - They are so entrenched in their

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

right-wing extremists, KKK, skinheads, etc. would try to target returning veterans because of their knowledge of and possible access to weapons. (Remember Timothy McVeigh, a decorated Army veteran and American terrorist who killed 168 people and injuring hundreds?)  No doubt that thousands of returning vets are suffering from PTSD or other emotional/mental problems caused when GW Bush forced them to remain in combat for repeated tours without even giving them the break that they were supposed to get. 

But telling the truth makes Obama look better so I guess we'll go with your inaccurate story instead, right?

Here's one of them, Daniel Goetz.  There are others there, as well.  I'm sure most of you know this site exists.  I've added it to my Favorites.  I'd also recommend reading Daniel Goetz' blog, as well.

Seven months ago, my service in the army was to have terminated. Instead, I am in Iraq for the second time. I sit next to a DOD contractor whose job is identical to mine. Except he makes $120,000 more, works four hours less, and visits home four times more often than I do. Daniel Goetz is currently serving in Samarra, Iraq.  Read his blog here. I am not alone in my anger and humiliation. When we were here in 2003, there was anger, but there is a difference between anger and bitter hatred. The atmosphere of discontent is thick and contagious. Even soldiers not stop-lossed feel The Betrayal. They know it might be them next time. Dissent will not change anything for us now because our voices are muted. Still, there is hope. It is that in twenty years, it will be these men and women in office. Perhaps, that alone should make me feel better. I don't think it is enough, though, for our wounded and fallen. I can't speak for them, of course. Not yet, at least.   I joined the army soon after I finished college; the decision was an amalgamation of desire to serve, to belong, and to repay student loans. I wanted the challenge to see if I really could be all I could be. Our country was a vastly different place then; one in which policemen, firemen, and servicemembers were no different than any other American. I had almost completed my two years of training to become an Arabic linguist when September Eleventh dramatically changed the nation's climate. I knew my own role would be pivotal, and was eager to see our country avenged on the battlefield. Until then, I had a rather dim view of the army. Their promise to repay my college loans turned out to be false, and I was left to shoulder the massive burden of debt alone. My dismay melted away in the patriotic euphoria that enveloped the country in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq. Like the rest of the America, I clung fervently to the justifications for it. The underlying righteousness was my source of motivation when we crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border in March of 2003. In the months that were to follow, those justifications collapsed - and with them, my confidence in a nation. In those days, my colleagues and I would often patrol the streets of Baghdad with the infantry in a bid to quell boredom. We were also looking for hope among the Iraqi people; we could live vicariously through their optimism, and perhaps therein find meaning for our occupation. But hope betrayed us as the insurgency swelled. It was when the fighting began again in earnest that we left Iraq. By the end of August, I was back in The United States, free to pretend Iraq never happened. But it had. And nothing could wrench the darkest memories from repression like the knowledge that we were to return. Worse, our year in America was wasted. Almost every week, CSPAN would feature one committee or another complaining that our armed forces hadn't enough servicemembers in critical jobs like intelligence and military police. I wanted them to know how poorly we were thought of in our own units, and how little job-specific training we received before we left. At one point, we were told to study Arabic only on our own time. That was hardly possible when we were kept late every night, sometimes doing only menial tasks like weapons-cleaning until three in the morning.   The last straw was stop loss. My enlistment contract ended in March of this year. It is seven months hence, and I am still in Iraq. I propose that, in order for me to respect my commitment, the army ought to respect the contract we agreed upon. It was for five years, not six. Proponents of this form of conscription argue that I signed it nonetheless, fully aware of possible outcomes. True, I ought to have prepared myself better. But to remain bound to an expired commitment - exposed to prolonged peril in support of an unjustifiable cause - was beyond my expectations. Today, I find the greatest challenge of the army is to find honor in service. I don't ever regret having joined because I've learned so much about myself and about America. I have faith in both, but yearn for hope to become reality. I want to go home as badly as I want to be proud of my country again.

Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency

SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK HERE!

THANK YOU!

WASHINGTON - Lawyer Patrick Murphy and five other veterans of the Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions. Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.

This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.

On Monday, with support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other party leaders, Hackett decided to seek a higher office, the Senate seat now held by two-term Republican Mike DeWine, said spokesman David Woodruff.

Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country, said Murphy, 31, who fought with the 82nd Airborne Division. We need to have an exit strategy now.

While fighting in Iraq, a private asked then-Capt. Murphy why U.S. forces were in the Persian Gulf nation and was told it didn't matter; there was a job to do and just try to return home safely.

That wasn't the time to question our government, Murphy recalled.

Murphy is challenging first-term Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican in the northern Philadelphia suburbs of the 8th District.

Another Iraq war veteran, Texas Republican Van Taylor, is also running for a House seat, but he backs President Bush.

In 1974, public outrage over the Watergate scandal and Republican President Richard M. Nixon's administration swept a class of reform-minded Democrats into office. It's too soon to measure the impact of the war on the 2006 elections, but the handful of veterans pursuing seats in the House is an early indicator.

The Democratic veterans walk a fine line as they reach out to voters who may question Bush's handling of the conflict. The task is to challenge the administration while still being seen as patriotic.

David Ashe, who spent most of 2003 working as a Marine judge advocate general in Iraq, chooses his words carefully when asked whether the United States should have invaded.

There's no reason to Monday morning quarterback the decision, said Ashe, 36, who is trying to unseat first-term Republican Rep. Thelma Drake in Virginia's 2nd District. I would say we're in the right position to succeed. Whether or not we're going to get that success remains to be seen.

Although they often talk tough about the Bush administration, some of the candidates don't fit the typical anti-war image, said Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

They really want to help the Iraqi people and see the mission through, and they think we're losing because of stupid mistakes made at the senior leadership level, Sheehan-Miles said.

Historically, war experience has added to a candidate's credibility. As many as 70 percent of lawmakers in the 1950s were war veterans, but only about 40 percent of the members of Congress today have military experience.

During the Vietnam War, there was such a collective funk that veterans felt free to criticize, said John Johannes, a political science professor at Villanova University. A few, like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., got their political start as anti-war activists.

Veterans today have an advantage because Americans have a positive feeling about soldiers, said John Allen Williams, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago.

Unlike Vietnam, people who do not like the war are not blaming the veterans, Williams said.

But that will not guarantee success, contends Ed Patru, deputy communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Democratic war veterans who are seen as liberal on other issues aren't going to be popular with voters, he said.

I think a lot of Democrats are looking at what happened in Ohio and trying to duplicate that around the country, Patru said.

Taylor, 33, a Republican businessman from West Texas, supports Bush's policies. He is a major in the Marines reserves, and, like the Democrats, cites his war experience.

The war on terror is going to be with us for a long time and Congress is going to grapple with the war on terror, Taylor said. We need policy-makers who know what it means to make war.

Bryan Lentz, 41, an attorney from Swarthmore, Pa., volunteered to go to Iraq at age 39 with a civil affairs unit. The Army reserves major was so disillusioned by the lack of a plan in Iraq that he decided while he was in Iraq to run for Congress.

He is trying to unseat 10-term GOP Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-failure, Lentz said. We need to define what victory is and we need to set a plan to get there. You cannot stay the course if you do not set a course.

Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.

CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL


In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.

Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.

It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.

In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.

Written last Thanksgiving:  "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.

Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.

So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.

Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.

But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.

Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?

Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.

The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.

they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.

I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.

Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.  

So very very sad.

 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0704-04.htm

go off on your own fantasy with nothing to support it!!!  DailyKos is merely a website where people go to express liberal opinions.  The AIP is a radical group that is involved with weapons.  There leader was MURDERED or he would be on the govt terrorist list.  Research, research, research.  Or else clearly label your posts "my fantasy about what ...... probably. said or did or thought  ......"