kallend 1,623
Recommended Posts
QuoteDo you think Clinton came up with that plan? Or possibly the military convinced him they could do it with an elite strke team.
If Clinton didn't want to do it, why did he give it his approval?
You don't always have to stand tall, but you do have to stand up.
It is too bad that Clinton couldn't stand up to the UN where the safety of US soldiers was at risk. He was supposed to be the President of the US, not the cabana boy of the UN.
Can you name one administration that has taken away more rights of US citizens than this one has with the Patriot Act?
Congress voted on the Patriot Act. It wasn't his decision alone nor was it all Republicans.
never pull low......unless you are
kallend 1,623
Quote
Can you name one administration that has taken away more rights of US citizens than this one has with the Patriot Act?
Congress voted on the Patriot Act. It wasn't his decision alone nor was it all Republicans.
That's a lame excuse. It came out of Ashcroft's DOJ.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuote
Can you name one administration that has taken away more rights of US citizens than this one has with the Patriot Act?
Congress voted on the Patriot Act. It wasn't his decision alone nor was it all Republicans.
That's a lame excuse. It came out of Ashcroft's DOJ.
It's isn't an excuse, it's a fact. Democrats voted for it too.
never pull low......unless you are
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Bush went and did something.
Agreed; indeed, he had been warned that something had to be done, lest a major terrorist attack occur in the US. It's unfortunate that he waited until 9/12/01 to take action on the Clinton study that recommended creation of a Department of Homeland Security (among other things) but at least he did take action eventually.
>There are terrorists and those who support them.
Like we do on occasion. In general, we support any terrorist that kills people we don't like. I hope that, after 9/11, we can learn to stop doing that.
Agreed; indeed, he had been warned that something had to be done, lest a major terrorist attack occur in the US. It's unfortunate that he waited until 9/12/01 to take action on the Clinton study that recommended creation of a Department of Homeland Security (among other things) but at least he did take action eventually.
>There are terrorists and those who support them.
Like we do on occasion. In general, we support any terrorist that kills people we don't like. I hope that, after 9/11, we can learn to stop doing that.
QuoteQuoteI rather back up the actual administration than siding with people bend on camparing this administration to Nazis. IE Kallend.
So you think the Jose Padilla case, where a US citizen was arrested in Chicago and held incommunicado without trial in a military prison for 18 months, is acceptable behavior for a US administration?
Can you name one person who has signed more death warrants than George W. Bush?
Can you name one administration that has taken away more rights of US citizens than this one has with the Patriot Act?
Dude. We are talking foriegn policy here. Domestic policy is down the hall, first door on the right.
But I will address your points.
Jose Padilla. Arrested and held under terms of the Patriot Act as interpreted by the DOJ.
Court rules against his detention as enemy combatant. System worked.
GW Bush, as governor, signs death warrants as sent to him by the court system who have tried the accused by a jury of their peers and found them guilty and sentenced them to death in accordance with law.
So the courts send him a lot of murderers sentenced to death. What would you like him to do? Go on vacation?
Patriot Act. Ahem, cough, cough. I think it was signed off on by every single Rep and Sen save one or two. Most of them never read it. See point one.
billvon 2,400
>You seem to forget that the US president is actually elected to protect The US.
No, he is elected to protect the constitution; the constitution protects the people of the US. Perhaps you've heard Bush say these words when he was sworn in:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
As for wars? Congress is given the right to declare war by the constitution.
>On a later post, you tell us that we, the right wingers, do not care as
>to how many US lives have been killed in Iraq.
OK, although I didn't put you in that category; I don't know you that well.
>Have you ever cared to ask all those people that are actually serving
>what the real consensus is?
Yep. I worked with a lot of them when I was working for the Air Force in Sacramento. Nowadays I still work with a lot of Navy and Marine folks. They seem about 75% pro-war, which makes sense to me. Public opinion is running about 60% in favor, and the military has the added benefit that wars mean more jobs for them.
> If you are not part of the brotherhood, I can compare you to a
> whuffo in our sport.
Well, OK. I'd compare me more to someone like Sandy Reid, who jumps very rarely but designs some of the gear used by skydivers. Perhaps you'd consider him a whuffo too, which is fine.
> You should direct your energy somewhere else
> more productive (such as advice in Skydiving or engineering feats)
> and let us, those who are willing to back up with actions what we
> preach, take care of things for you.
Unfortunately, since our country is a democracy instead of dictatorship, voices other than those of the military have a say in who we elect, what laws we pass and how the country is run. Surely you would not prefer a military dictatorship, in which people outside the ruling military class are silenced?
No, he is elected to protect the constitution; the constitution protects the people of the US. Perhaps you've heard Bush say these words when he was sworn in:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
As for wars? Congress is given the right to declare war by the constitution.
>On a later post, you tell us that we, the right wingers, do not care as
>to how many US lives have been killed in Iraq.
OK, although I didn't put you in that category; I don't know you that well.
>Have you ever cared to ask all those people that are actually serving
>what the real consensus is?
Yep. I worked with a lot of them when I was working for the Air Force in Sacramento. Nowadays I still work with a lot of Navy and Marine folks. They seem about 75% pro-war, which makes sense to me. Public opinion is running about 60% in favor, and the military has the added benefit that wars mean more jobs for them.
> If you are not part of the brotherhood, I can compare you to a
> whuffo in our sport.
Well, OK. I'd compare me more to someone like Sandy Reid, who jumps very rarely but designs some of the gear used by skydivers. Perhaps you'd consider him a whuffo too, which is fine.
> You should direct your energy somewhere else
> more productive (such as advice in Skydiving or engineering feats)
> and let us, those who are willing to back up with actions what we
> preach, take care of things for you.
Unfortunately, since our country is a democracy instead of dictatorship, voices other than those of the military have a say in who we elect, what laws we pass and how the country is run. Surely you would not prefer a military dictatorship, in which people outside the ruling military class are silenced?
"Unfortunately, since our country is a democracy instead of dictatorship, voices other than those of the military have a say in who we elect, what laws we pass and how the country is run. Surely you would not prefer a military dictatorship, in which people outside the ruling military class are silenced?"
Its not a democracy.
This is a constitutional republic.
There IS a difference.
In a democracy the majority rules. In a CR, the constitution is supposed to protect the people from a majority of dorks trying to strip away God given rights from a minority of people just because they outnumber them.
Hence, the BOR and Constitution and electoral college, tricameral gov etc..
Sorry, its a Constitutional Republic, based on democratic principals where people are allowed to vote and choose their leaders who govern at the pleasure of the people.
Its not a democracy.
This is a constitutional republic.
There IS a difference.
In a democracy the majority rules. In a CR, the constitution is supposed to protect the people from a majority of dorks trying to strip away God given rights from a minority of people just because they outnumber them.
Hence, the BOR and Constitution and electoral college, tricameral gov etc..
Sorry, its a Constitutional Republic, based on democratic principals where people are allowed to vote and choose their leaders who govern at the pleasure of the people.
juanesky 0
QuoteNo, he is elected to protect the constitution; the constitution protects the people of the US. Perhaps you've heard Bush say these words when he was sworn in:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
You are correct, I did make a mistake by not including constitution. According to the excerpt of section 8 of article I (which you made reference):
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"
Which part of 9/11 do not belong to a clear threat to this constitution? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but weren't the facts of that day sufficient proof that some hard to be defined threat intent on bringing down someplaces in Washington DC and this nation?, or is it safe to give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists?
I did not see GWB sending the troops, or funding the operations without consent and approval of congress, or am I missing something.
Quote
As for wars? Congress is given the right to declare war by the constitution.
Agreed.
Quote
>On a later post, you tell us that we, the right wingers, do not care as
>to how many US lives have been killed in Iraq.
OK, although I didn't put you in that category; I don't know you that well.
Well, maybe into the conservative, but what does OK means, they don't care, or do?
Quote
>Have you ever cared to ask all those people that are actually serving
>what the real consensus is?
Yep. I worked with a lot of them when I was working for the Air Force in Sacramento. Nowadays I still work with a lot of Navy and Marine folks. They seem about 75% pro-war, which makes sense to me. Public opinion is running about 60% in favor, and the military has the added benefit that wars mean more jobs for them.
You seem to be unaware that reserves have been called up on active duty, so far 128K just on the Army and National guard alone, and considering there are about 150K Allied troops in Iraq.
I am on the reserves, currently on active duty waiting just for my "tour". Don't tell me or anyone in the forces that we as reservists see the benefit of more "jobs". Almost (and 75% is a high number here) all of the reserves are actually taking a SUBSTANTIAL pay cut from the civilian workforce. Don't patronize us, nor the reasons as to why we joined.
Quote> If you are not part of the brotherhood, I can compare you to a
> whuffo in our sport.
Well, OK. I'd compare me more to someone like Sandy Reid, who jumps very rarely but designs some of the gear used by skydivers. Perhaps you'd consider him a whuffo too, which is fine.
Well, you don't seem to be eager to make the same sacrifices as the people on the reserves are making, thus I consider this void your input. This is not intended to point any fingers, but to give appropiate validity to your statments. According to many of your posts, you see no point of military intervention, yet you are willing to make a living selling services and working with us, I don't doubt you make a very decent living, but your comments about our brotherhood annoy me.
Quote
> You should direct your energy somewhere else
> more productive (such as advice in Skydiving or engineering feats)
> and let us, those who are willing to back up with actions what we
> preach, take care of things for you.
Unfortunately, since our country is a democracy instead of dictatorship, voices other than those of the military have a say in who we elect, what laws we pass and how the country is run. Surely you would not prefer a military dictatorship, in which people outside the ruling military class are silenced?
Is it unfortunately for you? damn, it sounds like you would prefer one. Again, I have not earned the priviledge to vote yet, but rather the honor to defend and support the constitution.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
QuoteWhat's this?! A net meeting for the Hitler Youth?!
Hey that's totally OUT OF ORDER!!!
.....you know you are to wear your BROWN SHIRT or you are out of uniform young man!
.now goose step home and change out of yourleaderhosen. Mach shnell!
(&sungalsses at night)_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/
billvon 2,400
>In a democracy the majority rules.
In our elections the majority DOES rule, subject to the rules of each state and the electoral college. Often people vote on ballot measures directly, which is pure democracy.
Our country is a hybrid of many forms of government. 99% of the people in the world refer to it as a democracy, because people hold the power over the government rather than the other way around. We are also a republic, since we elect leaders for a given term. We are also socialist, since the state controls the means of transportation/distribution (highways, airspace, the waterways) and many services (education, water, police.) Lately we also seem to be picking up some aspects of a monarcy, where one person holds ultimate power to create and enforce laws, wage war, set policy and restructure government.
Seems to work pretty well, for the most part.
In our elections the majority DOES rule, subject to the rules of each state and the electoral college. Often people vote on ballot measures directly, which is pure democracy.
Our country is a hybrid of many forms of government. 99% of the people in the world refer to it as a democracy, because people hold the power over the government rather than the other way around. We are also a republic, since we elect leaders for a given term. We are also socialist, since the state controls the means of transportation/distribution (highways, airspace, the waterways) and many services (education, water, police.) Lately we also seem to be picking up some aspects of a monarcy, where one person holds ultimate power to create and enforce laws, wage war, set policy and restructure government.
Seems to work pretty well, for the most part.
turtlespeed 212
Yes as well as socialism, communism, fascism, marxism, just to name a few.
But that is just a minute part of the Gov't.
The rest is a Democrat Republic.
But that is just a minute part of the Gov't.
The rest is a Democrat Republic.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 2,400
>Which part of 9/11 do not belong to a clear threat to this
>constitution?
9/11 was certainly a threat to the US. I am all for going after Bin Laden and his organization with whatever force is neccessary to capture or kill him.
Note that Bin Laden was not running Iraq.
>Well, maybe into the conservative, but what does OK means, they
>don't care, or do?
Let me put it this way - there are certainly right wingers who find dead US soldiers acceptable; they defend that we haven't lost that many, that this is a really good war, and the soldiers themselves would be disappointed if "they got all dressed up and the party was canceled." (Direct quote.)
>You seem to be unaware that reserves have been called up on active
> duty, so far 128K just on the Army and National guard alone, and
> considering there are about 150K Allied troops in Iraq.
Nope; have several friends who have had to leave their jobs after being recalled.
>I am on the reserves, currently on active duty waiting just for
> my "tour". Don't tell me or anyone in the forces that we as reservists
> see the benefit of more "jobs".
Quote from a Navy guy yelling at us a while back at a peace rally - "Yeah, so are you gonna pay me when I lose my job?" Apparently he thought the war had some employment benefits for him.
>Don't patronize us, nor the reasons as to why we joined.
Not patronizing you. You asked me a question; I answered. If you didn't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.
>Well, you don't seem to be eager to make the same sacrifices as
> the people on the reserves are making, thus I consider this void
> your input.
I doubt that, as you seem to consider my input worthy of lengthy answers.
>According to many of your posts, you see no point of military
>intervention . . .
I didn't say that. There is often a good case for military intervention.
>yet you are willing to make a living selling services and working with
> us, I don't doubt you make a very decent living, but your comments
> about our brotherhood annoy me.
Unless you are going to call the military folks I work with liars, I can't see how you take offense at things they told me.
>Is it unfortunately for you? damn, it sounds like you would prefer
> one. Again, I have not earned the priviledge to vote yet, but rather
> the honor to defend and support the constitution.
That's great. And if you maintain F-14's, you probably use a piece of test gear I designed. If you fly EF-111's, and you have to call for support, you'll use radio controls I helped design. If you target smart munitions, the commands might just be relayed via a modem I designed. That's my contribution; everyone contributes what they can, and my chosen way is to design military hardware. If you think this excludes me from the brotherhood of real americans, so be it. Feel free to disregard what I say.
>constitution?
9/11 was certainly a threat to the US. I am all for going after Bin Laden and his organization with whatever force is neccessary to capture or kill him.
Note that Bin Laden was not running Iraq.
>Well, maybe into the conservative, but what does OK means, they
>don't care, or do?
Let me put it this way - there are certainly right wingers who find dead US soldiers acceptable; they defend that we haven't lost that many, that this is a really good war, and the soldiers themselves would be disappointed if "they got all dressed up and the party was canceled." (Direct quote.)
>You seem to be unaware that reserves have been called up on active
> duty, so far 128K just on the Army and National guard alone, and
> considering there are about 150K Allied troops in Iraq.
Nope; have several friends who have had to leave their jobs after being recalled.
>I am on the reserves, currently on active duty waiting just for
> my "tour". Don't tell me or anyone in the forces that we as reservists
> see the benefit of more "jobs".
Quote from a Navy guy yelling at us a while back at a peace rally - "Yeah, so are you gonna pay me when I lose my job?" Apparently he thought the war had some employment benefits for him.
>Don't patronize us, nor the reasons as to why we joined.
Not patronizing you. You asked me a question; I answered. If you didn't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.
>Well, you don't seem to be eager to make the same sacrifices as
> the people on the reserves are making, thus I consider this void
> your input.
I doubt that, as you seem to consider my input worthy of lengthy answers.
>According to many of your posts, you see no point of military
>intervention . . .
I didn't say that. There is often a good case for military intervention.
>yet you are willing to make a living selling services and working with
> us, I don't doubt you make a very decent living, but your comments
> about our brotherhood annoy me.
Unless you are going to call the military folks I work with liars, I can't see how you take offense at things they told me.
>Is it unfortunately for you? damn, it sounds like you would prefer
> one. Again, I have not earned the priviledge to vote yet, but rather
> the honor to defend and support the constitution.
That's great. And if you maintain F-14's, you probably use a piece of test gear I designed. If you fly EF-111's, and you have to call for support, you'll use radio controls I helped design. If you target smart munitions, the commands might just be relayed via a modem I designed. That's my contribution; everyone contributes what they can, and my chosen way is to design military hardware. If you think this excludes me from the brotherhood of real americans, so be it. Feel free to disregard what I say.
Michele 1
Every once in a while, Bill, you just floor me.
As you didn't identify who you were quoting, I ran a really quick search....the statement that you used above comes from this paragraph...
~~~"Our armed forces, the professionals, are going to learn that they can do it. They've wondered too. They are also going to learn how to do their jobs better, because they're really going to have to do the job. They are not going to feel when they return that they got all dressed up and the party was canceled. They're going to know they put on 50 pounds of gear and then slogged through a sandstorm to take town after town. And no one is going to wonder if there was grade inflation in the medal giving.~~~"
from this link....Here, said article you selectively excerpted from doesn't sound like your "byte bite" above at all...did you even read the whole article that you were quoting?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
QuoteLet me put it this way - there are certainly right wingers who find dead US soldiers acceptable; they defend that we haven't lost that many, that this is a really good war, and the soldiers themselves would be disappointed if "they got all dressed up and the party was canceled." (Direct quote.)
As you didn't identify who you were quoting, I ran a really quick search....the statement that you used above comes from this paragraph...
~~~"Our armed forces, the professionals, are going to learn that they can do it. They've wondered too. They are also going to learn how to do their jobs better, because they're really going to have to do the job. They are not going to feel when they return that they got all dressed up and the party was canceled. They're going to know they put on 50 pounds of gear and then slogged through a sandstorm to take town after town. And no one is going to wonder if there was grade inflation in the medal giving.~~~"
from this link....Here, said article you selectively excerpted from doesn't sound like your "byte bite" above at all...did you even read the whole article that you were quoting?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
vonSanta 0
Michele, if the war was indeed cancelled and they did not trot around with 50 pounds of gear "taking town after town", what would they feel like?
I certainly agree that the quote was taken out of context, but on the other hand logic dictates that if there wasn't a war, they'd not feel the effects of going around with gear on their backs taking town after town.
However, even that is really beside the point, since the author talks about a long haul war and is basically expressing sentiments that this will not be over soon, and we can deal with it. In other words, (s)he is saying "the war will be a long tough thing" and (s)he isn't really talking about a cancellation of the war, right? (S)he is talking about the soldiers (and the US civilians populations) ability to deal with a long term conflict with a good deal of casualties, no? And that the military will learn to deal with it.
It's still true though, that had the war been cancelled, the discussion would have been academic at best. And I disagree with the author's assertion that the US population is tolerant of US casualties. They've never been. Hell, more Polish soldiers were killed in the initial stages of WWII than US soldiers in total. The US military machine has been created to be a very effective machine that through overwhelming technological superiority (and training) win wars with few casualties - because of the very fact that Americans are very intolerant of friendly casualties. As they should be.
Oh now I am debating that article. Bleh, the woes of insomnia. 09:07 and not a minutes worth of sleep yet.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
I certainly agree that the quote was taken out of context, but on the other hand logic dictates that if there wasn't a war, they'd not feel the effects of going around with gear on their backs taking town after town.
However, even that is really beside the point, since the author talks about a long haul war and is basically expressing sentiments that this will not be over soon, and we can deal with it. In other words, (s)he is saying "the war will be a long tough thing" and (s)he isn't really talking about a cancellation of the war, right? (S)he is talking about the soldiers (and the US civilians populations) ability to deal with a long term conflict with a good deal of casualties, no? And that the military will learn to deal with it.
It's still true though, that had the war been cancelled, the discussion would have been academic at best. And I disagree with the author's assertion that the US population is tolerant of US casualties. They've never been. Hell, more Polish soldiers were killed in the initial stages of WWII than US soldiers in total. The US military machine has been created to be a very effective machine that through overwhelming technological superiority (and training) win wars with few casualties - because of the very fact that Americans are very intolerant of friendly casualties. As they should be.
Oh now I am debating that article. Bleh, the woes of insomnia. 09:07 and not a minutes worth of sleep yet.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
Amazon 7
QuoteIs that supposed to be a legitimate source. I can put a page up on angelfire saying that Bush eats babies....doesn't make it true
This is a far more legitimate source.. that shows it MAY NOT be all good news in Iraq. One good thing though is at least they will get some of the leaks taken care of now and maybe a few less of our guys will get killed. Somehow though I think it will be an ongoing problem for a long time to come.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/Iraq_infiltrators_031218.html
So you think the Jose Padilla case, where a US citizen was arrested in Chicago and held incommunicado without trial in a military prison for 18 months, is acceptable behavior for a US administration?
Can you name one person who has signed more death warrants than George W. Bush?
Can you name one administration that has taken away more rights of US citizens than this one has with the Patriot Act?
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites