d16842

They were progressive? I am not sure what you mean, but it must somehow explain to you why they included prayer in their meetings while writing our Constitution, with no objection to this taking place. And it must explain why when they formed our government, they opened each daily session of Congress with prayer. As for God being omitted by our founding fathers, perhaps you might take quick look at our Declaration of Independence, which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights..." Which part of creator and self evident is not clear to you? And exactly how does the "free will of man" make any statement whatsoever about religion, pro or con, since the western religions of Christianity, Judism, and Islam, all clearly state that men have free will? Does the Constitution speak volumes, or do you just hear it? For it only directs two things about religion. Our government is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of a religion, and we are all guaranteed the freedom to choose one, or choose none. Could it be that they simply wanted you to have a free choice, and avoid another Spanish inquisition or the imposition of Islamic law, and nothing deeper than that? Why does the most simple explanation of their writing evade you? If you are one of the anti-religion zealots, please don't pretend or project that our nation's founders promised you freedom from the slightest hint of religion in your life. It would help us all if the most radical and vocal segment of the whopping 8% of Americans who don't believe in God would take a chill pill, and stop their bitching whining and lawsuits every time the subject comes up. Will it really hurt you to drive quietly past that nativity scene on your way to a seasonal shopping extravaganza? So long as the 92% of us who believe in God don't attempt to force you to do so, will it hurt to just ignore a politician's stated belief in God, or his seeking advice from a church body? Exactly how does their doing so detract from your existence, so long as they don't ram it down your throat? I seem to be able to survive living with a President and congressional leaders who have a moral and civic view the polar opposite of mine, and suspect I will survive their imposing their views by force. Can't you peacefully coexist with those having a religious belief and expressing it? Is a bit of tolerance too much to ask all of us? Tom B

Pray tell us, where on this planet do you go to avoid it? You must really really hate election season. And have you ever been in a big way? Nobody goes low, nobody misses their slot, and we all break off at the assigned altitude and track magnificently, of course flying the perfect safe landing pattern. Tom B

I am not sure exactly what you are asking, but to a great extent we created the mess. First immediately after the initial war we "won", we disbanded their entire military, sending them home with literally no way to feed themselves. Then we were surprised when armed angry people, probably still carrying their issued AK47's attacked us, although they were the only ones. Regardless, we didn't have a force in place nearly large enough to maintain order, and sat by as it decayed into hell. When they formed the groups and that too became a mess, we paid them. I leave it to the reader to determine if we paid them to do a service for us, or we just paid them off, or both. Either way, I think hell is going to break loose the day they are not paid. Which must come sooner or later. I recomend that we keep paying them till the last American is out. It is a real mess in the making. I don't know of an equivilent there, at least in the same maner, but we have all kinds of people on the payroll in Afghanistan, and I think the outcome is predictable when we stop the payroll. And, unlike Iraq, I think that Afghanistan will never achieve a real economy of their own. Opium is their largest export. They have no significant oil. And Iraq makes them look like the Mecca of educated societies. Tom B

The Legion of Merit was diluted from day one, with it being intended as a political award to so many. But to affirm both our points about medal dilution, just look at the chests of our senior military today, and compare them to those of the WWII era. My God, they are starting to look like they are in the French or Mexican Army. George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army in WWII wore a bare two. You don't have to tell me anything about what happens at Ft Hood or military training. I am a 100% disabled vet from an unbelievable system screw-up while working an incident in the impact area there. The entire time I was in the Army, solid peace-time no less, many soldiers died in training at Ft Hood, every single year. My EOD team responded to many of the worse ones. People just don't understand how dangerous some aspects of military training really are. Hardly. She and her partner will no doubt receive the highest police awards available, commendations from a host of Texas and US government offices. She is already a national hero. We recognize her picture, do we the other victims? I do understand your view. Mine is that we are in a kind of war we have never experienced. Muslim extremists are making war, not just on the US, or even western society, but progressive civilization across the entire earth. We literally have a global insurgent war that will force the re-writing of every aspect of how we confront armed conflict. It is NOT a police action, and it knows no borders. We are going to have to adjust to it, including how we award medals. Tom B

You seem to presume more knowledge than the leaders who have spent an entire career being a soldier. How many generals, or ex-generals argue that more troops are not needed? I don't suppose you bothered to pick up that the change in Iraq strategy REQUIRED a troop increase to implement? Specifically it required a combat troop increase, even as we maintained the largely existing defensive support structure existing there. It was not "moving" troops to a different box. It needed more combat arms soldiers. It was far from a new Army invention. It was proposed before, and rejected so many times the Army quit trying, because Rumsfield always refused the troop increase to make it happen. About as soon as he was gone, shazam they got the troop increase, and the "new" strategy worked. Want an example? The military hasn't been able to duplicate it in Afghanistan. And they damn sure don't want to have to deploy more there. Our soldiers and our equipment is very worn and depleted. The fact is that running combat operations via that strategy simply require more troops in the field than the largely defensive ones we now employ in Afghanistan, BECAUSE you have to defend all the ground you have today, AND take the offensive at the same time. And recall two weeks ago, when an undermanned post was overwhelmed, with great loss of life. I agree the situation is more difficult in Afghanistan than Iraq. In fact, as illustrated in my post above, I don't think we can win there at all. But if our political leaders demand we stay, give the military the force it requested. Tom B

You're not ADDING anyone into the system. Those people you mentioned are in the system already, and already using those services - they just do it the most expensive way by going to ER and not paying for it. Two points. First, those who go to the ER for general care don't make nearly as many trips to the ER as is suggested. Why? Because they will bill you, and when you don't pay, harass you. For many it hits their credit rating. It is not the free pass that many think. For those at rock bottom it become that though. Second I don't pay for it via taxes. Instead it is billed through overhead to my insurance, aka my company. My deductible won't change if this happens, and my taxes most assuredly will go up if this is passed. The most positive supporters are saying it is revenue neutral. What they don't say is that is based on 10 years of revenue, and 6 or 7 years of costs, because of its implementation delay. Generally most believe it will be a huge cost for the government, aka me. In the end, we will have to accept care rationing, just as every other nation with national health care has done, through delays or restrictions in service. I don't want that any sooner than we must. This is a terrible bill. I don't oppose the concept. Tom B

Serious question: where do you place the role of the Awakening Councils and Sons of Iraq? Alternatively, what does that suggest w/r/t operational needs in Afghanistan? Serious answer... Be prepared, as I am a conservative and this really hurts me... but I don't think we can ultimately prevail in Afghanistan, no matter what we do there, and to a lesser extent I feel this true for Iraq too. That is not based on our ability to project military power and thus enforce our will at any time, but instead on how long the US will put up with us being at war before we pull out. The Taliban is driven by their very religion, and is thus far more motivated to persist long term than we are. They will emerge whenever we get weaker or pull out. Obama's and others' argument that Afghanistan was the "important" war, was false. It was based on the premise that it was necessary to keep Al-Qaeda from reforming, when the reality was they had then re-located their efforts to Iraq. Further, if we win both wars, that does not stop Al-Qaeda. This is because attacks like the WTC can be planned and ordered in a single hotel room in Dayton, OH. They can get their agents here on legal visa's, as was proven. Why they hell do they need a nation? Besides, they have MANY others they can use for that, and we can't invade all of them. Afghanistan is a tribal population. While it's President is being condemned with charges of corruption, the fact is that this is endemic to all aspects of the nation. A example of that? They are an Islamic nation, yet their number one crop is opium. They are narcotics traffickers. Go figure. They live primitive lives there, and thus are far more prone to accept the dictates of extreme religious zealous, just as Europe did in the middle ages. I don't think we can win there. But if we pull out of Afghanistan, the world can't laugh at us for doing so, because so many other leading nations are invested there with us. Iraq's is a comparatively very literate and worldly population. Thus what we see as logical and worldly argument had some weight there. If we lost that war, we were the laughing stock of the world, and for that reason all by itself, it was important to win. Sadam was evil to be sure, a real hazard to our oil supply, and despite claims from the left, Iraq was found to have WMD materials, the 550 tons of enriched uranium found there. And despite Iraq or Iran's claims, an oil rich nation making such great efforts to get such large amounts of uranium can have only one purpose. All of these were solid reasons to take Sadam out. But Sadam is dead, we are in a winning position now, and in my view we should get the hell out of Iraq while we are. I don't pretend to have total knowledge of all things military and political, and I could be wrong on all of this, I admit. But one thing is sure: If we can't win long term in either war, even if because we choose not to long term, we should get the hell out tomorrow. Tom B

But will it be less expensive? Afterall, the name of the bill talks about affordability. It will be more expensive than it is now, whether the HC bill is enacted or not. If there is no health care bill enacted with a public option included, the rate of increase will be maximized to benefit the insurance industry. Has it occurred to you that our health care is more expensive because we demand and received more medical services, by far, than any other nation? Tom B

Since it is a FACT, you can document it with credible references, right? It is simple math? Then you are a stark example of why our nation is trailing in math. If it weren't so tragic, I would laugh. The frightening part is that it is likely that Obama agrees with you. Guess what... He was dead wrong on it last time, you know the surge? And the left's other hero, Senate Majority Leader Reide even claimed it had failed, and the war was lost. Were they your FACT source? You know, the SURGE? Adding 30K soldiers to the war, the action that drastically reduced losses, because it killed the bad guys before they could kill us, and convinced the population that to support them was very very bad? Were it not for the surge, Obama would have inheirited a losing war, with horrible troop losses, and having to pull out of Iraq like we did Vietnam, where we were the laughing stock of the world, being pushed around by a third world country. The main thing I fault Bush for is not doing it years sooner. McCain was about the only politician right on that one. Far from Bush II. Someone else tried to say that police call backups, to even the odds. Sorry, but not even close. Police and Military try very hard to fight uneven battles, because numbers help win, in both places. Only in a stupid defensive battle, one our good military leaders know better than to fight, unless they are constrained by stupid political leaders, like Rumsfield, Senator Reid, and and then Senator Obama. Our entire force is designed to win in the attack mode. Tom B

Nice sarcasm. So, how would it hurt them? If you really have to ask that question then there is no reason to make the effort to answer but, In a war zone, would more man power or support increase or lower the deaths? Go from there my friend...... All thing being equal, more men = more deaths. Oh yes. For we all know that was the results of the Iraq Surge, as Obama predicted, and Reid declared, it failed and resulted in increased American deaths.... NOT Have you ever heard of an undermaned outpost being overrun.... say as recently as last week? Tom B

The education example fails examination on several levels. First how do you measure "better". Are the private schools better, or is much of their success due to their incoming students being better? It is certainly a self fulfilling prophecy. Once a school gets a superior reputation, it gets better candidates. The measure of a school should also be the degree of growth and improvement they create in students, and that is not measured. The assertion that private schools yield better results fails on deeper examination. Check out their graduates' earnings twenty years later, where the outcome is purely performance driven. As long as colleges are the best measure of things, John, do they pay professors with doctorates from private schools more money? Private schools only succeed if they provide a superior product in some form. And even then, the public schools get students in overwhelming numbers. To the poster's earlier assertion that US private colleges offer the best education, leaving us to presume that our private medical insurance will too, I counter that private insurance policies in Canada and Britain offer by far the best medical services, but like our like our private colleges, with their public option, few choose to purchase them. In comparison to college, the US public medical option only equals the private one, so why would one go with a private one that cost YOU more, if you don't have to? I have several friends with thriving private businesses. Without exception the ones that provide medical coverage expect business pressures to force them to drop it, if a public option is put forward. One describes it as a domino stack. Once one in the industry does, all will have to, or go out of business. My friends who pay for their own insurance look forward to this passing, as sooner or later they will be eligible. And as long as the taxpayer subsidizes it, why not? Make no mistake. Once this starts, like nearly all other nations that go down this path, in a generation, the public option will be the only one still on the table. For example, how many private option policies are still purchased in Canada or Britain? Tom B

I don't know if you have ever had a REALLY stressful job, but it can age one a hell of a lot faster than 11 months. Hint - Never take a job where they have showers and cots there at the workplace, unless you are a fireman. Not to mention Obama's facing that he can't keep even half of the campaign promises he made. That must age him, asuming he meant them when it made them. Tom B

So you're a supporter of the tyrrany of the majority. Why should 50.1% of a country be able to overrule the rights of the other 49.9%? We do it all the time in the US. We just politely call it zoning when we ban things. And those in control damn sure inflict their rule on others for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court recently gave them the the power of eminent domain for just that reason, ridding themselves of the long practices of it being for public good. Don't forget the Swiss definitely have a big turism industry, based almost completely on their historical image. This is NOT a freedom of relgion issue per say, but one of appearance of the community. But I suspect it is deeper. My guess is that they don't really want to inflict their power over the Muslums there today, so much as placing those considering moving there on notice that they plan to maintain the apparance of the community, and by implication their current practices and laws. Given Muslums' penchant to demand the application of Islamic law when they reach a majority, that is understandable, if sad. Other "Christian" European nations will become ones of Muslum majority in the not to distant future, so they Swiss may have a real concern. Their style of life is at stake. Would you want a quickly growing Islamic Majority imposing Islamic law in your home. Note the British have aleady taken the first step to that. Tom B

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that that (highlighted text) occurred anywhere but in the tormented recesses of his delusional mind. You mean these kind of comments? Fellow Army Psychiatrist Colonel Terry Lee stated that Hasan had made comments at a conference that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor" in Iraq. According to Lee, Hasan made similar comments several other times, including repeatedly saying "we should not be over there." He also said Hasan seemed "almost sort of happy" about the shooting at a Little Rock recruiting office. He also stated that Hasan seemed otherwise normal. He calmly prepared for his Islamic warrior death, giving away all his possesions to his civilian neighbors, got a nice clean haircut, and prepared his financial affairs. That kind of delusional? Then it seems you must find ALL Islamic terrorist delusional. Like all of the suicide bombers for example. And the the ones who inflicted the 9/11 WTC attacks, and all those who entered Iraq from a host of other nations, in the virtual certainty that if they engaged US troops, that they would die. And all the Islamic Mullahs who call for the above. There seems no end to the delusional people in this cause. And I generally agree, they are. But we are at war with exactly that. Your positions seems to make both wars really just dealing with the insane, and nobody should get a Purple Heart for that. Right? Tom B

Quote I think his administratioons response was criminal and half assed compared to the help that the REPUBLICAN state right next door got.. He and his ilk played politics with the lives of the people of NO and a hell of a lot of them died.. but in Halley Barbours C of CC land and George Bush's world that is ok... most of them were just dumb negros who were unfortunate enough to live in a democratic state and a democratic district. In your world I guess they deserved to be punished for that. Do you have any proof of that? Other than the outcome I mean? Because if not, I got news for you. Correlation does NOT equal causation! Here are the facts the public knows. The adjacent states did better, but they didn't have the degree of problem that New Orleans did. They weren't 12 to 20 ft below sea level, and they didn't have the population density, both huge drivers of the outcome. So we are left with determining which is more likely. That everybody in the entire Bush administration, all they way down through the FEMA local office, were guilty of negligent homicide, or even more unlikely, that they weren't obvious to the political hit they were taking and thus took no action Even when slapped in the face with a TV reality from hell, it didn't improve. Or that state officials in LA, who are historically among the most corrupt and ineffective in the US, going back well past Reconstruction, and the city administration in New Orleans which has the same problem in double spades, that they simply could not deal with the magnitude of things thrust upon them? I don't think that Bush was among the brightest or most effective Presidents. But believing he intentionally killed all those people, or that he just ignored that kind of political pressure, including that by two US Senators who would see that he burned in hell if he did, is just nuts. That or you and all the others that claim it don't actually believe it, but just use it for political gain. That seems more likely to me. Tom B

Isn't your repeatedly postings about others' watching Fox just as parinoid, pathological, and even as whiny bitching as their watching it? Nope... I would hope they could broaden the scope of where they get their information from.. But most of you guys stop at FAUX News.. or Lush Rimjob, and I am sure from some of the posts a quick look on the C of CC website just to make sure of the purity factor You just proved your paranoia, as I certainly don't get my news from either souce. And I am definitely conservative. Fox news is no more crazy than MSNBC. Personally I read, and listen to the BBC and NPR. Tom B

No sadly. He didn't act as a Army soldier, but instead bailed on the US Army, and became a "soldier" of the body of Islamic terrorists, who's "orders" he was following. Do they have a swear in ceremony different than the one he took with our blood? We are at war with that body. In two nations. Hardly. The Legion of Merit is largely a political award, one normally granted officers of flag or senior staff rank, or a RARE enlisted person, like the Sergeant of the Army. I have never heard ot it being awarded anywhere near the hail of bullets. Hell we even gave it to Russian generals! The VAST majority of Americans seem to believe as I do, that those falen in Texas were just as much casualties of our war on Islamic Extremists and Terrorists, just as if they happened in Iraq. So except for perhaps with purists, the honor of the Purple Heart is safe. Personally, I think Americans will be offended if it is NOT awarded. My wife was twice deployed, and met as many Purple Heart recipients as I know, for she he spent two deployments talking to them, serving as Chief Nurse of an evacuation hospital. She is sure that they will support the award in overwhelming numbers. And that is all the referral I need. Nobody else matters! Horse shit. I am a 100% disabled vet, and I don't think I deserve a Purple Heart. These soldiers were shot and killed by an Islamic Extremists, holding the same views as those are at war with. Now THAT feeling I do give weight to. But my Islamic friend here tells me that nothing we here about is justified as jahad, so I use it in a political context. But in total, I don't think we should hold that against those shot in Texas. And it is the same motives, for the asshole in Texas, Iraq or Afghanistan. The award of the Purple Heart literally defines the degree of service they are entitled to at the VA. For those killed, it is the only award their kids will be able to hold in very dark days. Tom B

Bill, Do you really believe Cap and Trade is a market based control? Was it created by the market? Or is it FORCED upon the market by the government, with its trade being the only possible way to actually proceed with the cap? One need to only to look at the impact of Cap and Trade in Europe. The reality is that to meet their CAP, nations and businesses there TRADED a lot of their manufacturing base to China and India, resulting in limited net gain for the planet, and a massive shift for China's and India's economy and a loss for Europe. Bill, I am all for the environment, but until all nations are included in the CAPS, the policy is a US national disaster in the making. Tom B

Isn't your repeatedly postings about others' watching Fox just as parinoid, pathological, and even as whiny bitching as their watching it? Tom B

Well, you should know John. :) But following are issues that are quite difficult to refute. Today's US health care IS already the most expensive in the world, and is already constrained by capacity. And we already have delays here in many areas of the US. You simply can't add 30,000,000 to our health care system without exceeding the system's capacity to provide health care as those covered today know it. Ultimately, those with insurnce today must get less care. Defenders of the bill say that our system will not have the delays or limits chronic to other national systems. Yet no national health care system in the world has avoided it. Do you really think American's are smarter than the rest of the world John? Based on your post's, I don't think so. For example, my wife is an OR nurse. One of the doctors she works with is from Belgium. His father just had bypass surgery in that country. The doctor was greatly relieved, as his father was 64 and seven months of age. Had he been 65 he would not have been eligible for it. Limits like that, or delays like those in the Canadian or British systems, are purposely engineered to their limit national cost, and are required, lest they bankrupt the nation. I don't argue that our system is good today. Nor is it fair to the poor. But informed people saying we all can get the level of care today provided to the insured is a lie. When I started my career of engineering work on hospital imaging systems, one thing was clear. At that time, there were more CT and MRI machines in Cincinnati in ALL of Canada, hence their delays. That is how they limited their costs. It is how nearly all national health care systems limit their costs. We already demand far more health care than we are willing to pay for. And even today's system will bankrupt our kids. Somehow we must learn to say no to more care. This bill will greatly delay this process, and put the federal government, or kids, in massive debt, even more than we are headed for today. Tom B

Given that many veterans, myself included, view the Legion of Nerit as an award given to officers for a sustained period of not catching the clap, pardon me for not fully appreciating that award. I don't believe it possible to distinguish the Ft Hood injured and dead from those occurring in Iraq and Afghaniston. Per the Geneva Convention, their attackers are both unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatant/belligerents, i.e. a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law, who may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Despite, the earlier claim, the award of the Purple Heart DOES move one forward in the priority for vetrans care. Specifically, if they are less than 50 disabled, they will be authorized lesser VA care an a non-disabled veteran who shot in Afthanistan or Iraq. Also it bothers me greatly that those who "died", i.e wee not officially not killed, in to the period of service between Vietnam and Desert Storm, were not eligle for it the Purple Heart despite the conditions. For example, many air crews were lost penetrating what the Soviet's viewed as their air defense zone, or many other very dangerous assignments. Somehow I don't think they were frightened, less injured, or less dead. Tom B

Do you have a link? I had dinner last night with a group of friends from my church that included a surgeon who very recently returned from a deployment to Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center. One of the comments he made, when he brought up the Ft Hood shooting (I left it to him to speak about it if he wanted to/initiated) was the shortage of folks with medical capabilities across all fields in the Army. /Marg Hire more Contract empoyee's to make up for shortages. Next problem Not so fast. Not nearly so fact. The military, AND the VA, face profound shortages of medical, including mental health, professionals. They have tried to hire contract employees, but precious few of them seem willing to deploy to a war zone. And large stateside shortages exist as well. As a 100% disabled veteran, who also enjoys the privilage of dealing with PTSD, I guarantee such shortages exist. Tom B

On what information do you base your very definitive statements? The Army has a tight lid on this for obvious reasons, so few of those on active duty can freely comment. But one of the shooter's former co-workers is retired, and thus not subject to the constraints the Army put in place. He spoke out on the first day of the shooting. He was VERY explicit in describing the Major Hasan's comments of Jihad against America. Like Major Hassan, he is also a psychiatrist, so he is a witness AND a trained medical health professional. I can't imagine a more credible witness in this case. And despite the Army's attempts to silence their staff, there were many others who have spoke out as well, verified by members of Congress. What better definition can one make? Tom B

In the VERY short run, maybe. But that is only a band-aid. The simple fact is they can't live with just cutting discretionary spending. If you look at the trends, uncontrolled growth of entitlement programs has eaten its way through every other aspect of government spending. And they do some real hocus pocus on the numbers that any CEO and CFO would go to jail for. They report the debt as what... $12T. But that does NOT include the obligation in social security and medicare for those about to age out, who have paid into those programs their whole lives. When you include that, as every company with retirement and medical programs would be required to do, it is closer to $60T. Military spending is a minor bump on top of that. The bottom line is that en masse, we expect more from life than we are willing to pay for. In our housing, medical care, retirement, cars, credit card debt, everywhere. The music is about to stop, and we are going to find all the chairs gone, not just one. Tom B

More importantly, which shipyards are you going to lay everyone off, How many Boeing plants and GM plants will be shut down. How many bases will close and how many soldiers will be mustered out. In the big picture, those are not the problem. The military has been funded and de-funded in every election cycle. But debt interest and entitlement programs comprise the majority of federal spending. NOBODY knows how to constrain, or cut entitlement programs. And debt interest must be paid. Unless you want to monitize the debt... overnight, while so many foriegners own dollars. Tom B