What's Ron calling himself today? Libertarian? Republican? Or has he moved on to something else

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

principles, they just get too weird on others. You really can't bring all the troops home from everywhere, all at once. Much as you'd like to, you really can't shut down the IRS on Monday, the FBI on Tuesday, the CIA on Wednesday, etc. What has taken a century to evolve cannot just be abolished with the stroke of a pen. And phasing-out does not seem to be in the Libertarian lexicon. (cool alliteration??)

Having said that, I will add that I like the concept of everyone taking responsibility for themselves. I like the idea of government doing only what government constitutionally must do and leaving us the H alone otherwise.

We really have such a strange way of going about things. You may not shoot up drugs; here's a nice free clean needle. Marijuana is a gateway drug; pass the bourbon. You may not learn about abstinence in school. Instead, we will teach contraception (yeah, that's working out great) here's a free condom, or an abortion, or we'll pay for you to raise your kids - forever. Firearms should be banned; think the criminals will obey? Does the government REALLY want everyone to stop smoking, considering all the taxes it reaps on cigarettes?

Am I the only one that thinks government sticks its nose way too far into our personal business? And that with all these mixed messages it is creating really schizzy generations who have no clue what is expected of them?

Most likely, as McCain said about Obama, he is a "good man, a family man." I think he has run a campaign that could be described as win at any cost, no matter what lie or deceit has to be used. The black fellow who stood up and said, "please sir, I'm begging you" right before the little old lady, is anyone so dumb that they didn't recognize that man was planted? Many, many people can't see past the end of their nose.

I'm voting for LOU DOBBS for president. Seems he's about the only one these days who tells it like it is and fries both candidates.

it important to do so, so please move the link for this to the top too so we may see where the rebuttal '"facts" are verified. Though, it is obvious that most of this is editorian/rhetoric/whatever you want to call it.

To that end, I am so tired of the he said this, she said that. They ALL say one thing but mean another. They and their teams are all spinners. It is always a mystery because you never know what you are going to get when they get in there, especially since they are not the ones calling all the shots - there is congress too.

Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.

He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.

He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.

He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.

McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.

But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican

(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.

Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.

I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.

Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.

Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.

Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.

Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.

For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors � already in most American airports � to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.

A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.

A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.

Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.

Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.

There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.

It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.

The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.

Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.

___

Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.

Over the last 3 or 4 days I have gotten 6 or 7 calls (they call twice a day and always when I am sitting down to eat). They are the democrats calling telling me all the wonderful things about Obama and I have to show my support and vote for him). I keep telling them I am a registered democrat so they know who I am voting for and after they've gone on about him they then say "well you should vote your concious", but they always say it quite softly and one person I asked him to repeat what he said because I couldn't hear it. The last one I told them if I'm voting my conscious why are you propping up Obama?

I don't understand if I'm a registered democrat why are the democrats calling me, shouldn't the republicans be calling me? I have not received one call from anyone on the republicans side (and I haven't left my house since last Saturday when I went grocery shopping so know I haven't missed any calls).

This is just so frustrating. I'd turn off my phone but I have friends and family that call me too. Boy I cannot wait for the election to be over.

What are you a child with your name calling? How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you act like a 5-year-old calling names?

As far as me singling people out to torment -- it would only be you and it would be singular. Plus, I didn't "single" you out, just saw your posts on a PUBLIC forum and as I said, they looked kind of mean and cruddy. However, I would say you are the PLURAL stalker. Come one, come all you will take them on and condemn and mock all that folks say on the liberal board!! And then accuse them of all being the same person. Lots of paranoia goin' on in that ole brain of yours, doesn't sound very healthy at all!!! No, sir!!!

on your party as I am a registered democrat -- got my "Are you supporting Obama?" call just last week. I told her then that I was undecided, but over the last few days, I have finally come to a decision. I'm voting McCain.

I don't know which side of the bed or as I tend to think you crawled out UNDER, but to call people names on top of your irrational delusional rants about who said what here - you are truly asking to bet your feelings hurt here. As far as your comment about 'what are you going to say when you stand in front of God' to "M/SM"; I am sure they will say that they are glad they are NOT YOU. Don't go away mad - just go away..