FRB and housing market

[quote=executivejock]

Is the FRB messing up with these rate hikes?

[/quote]

No.

[quote=executivejock]

Is their a bubble? Local bubbles? 

[/quote]

Housing prices have almost tripled in some areas in the last 10 years.  If that isn't a bubble I don't know what is.

[quote=executivejock]
WOW the dems are not only skum they lie about everything.

[/quote]
You better believe it!  Democratic voters are the dumbest of the dumb.  Do you think all those parasites in the public housing projects are going to investigate anything for themselves?

(Bonus:  what ethnic group consitently votes 80%-90% for Democrats?  What is their average IQ?  Bonus #2:  why are Democrats so eager to restore voting rights to convicted felons?)

[quote=executivejock]

They could not stress how terrible the economy was until a few months ago. [/quote]
No, they still stress how bad it is.  In the local paper this week there were two letters to the editor saying how great the Clinton economy was and how bad the Bush economy is.

Clinton did NOT have surpluses--only 1 TINY one factoring out the Social Security revenue which shouldn't be included in the general budget to begin with.  The INTERNET drove the economy of the mid-to-late 1990s...NOT BILL CLINTON!!!

[quote=executivejock]
Well damn it looks pretty good. Home ownership is higher then ever.

[/quote]

Not always a good thing.  Some trash (like those that get government grants to infest the suburbs) don't belong in houses because they'll only ruin them.

Have you ever seen pictures of Detroit???

[quote=executivejock]

 No inflation, little unemployment and great corp profits. One must be a moron to listen to their leaders (Michael Moore and Howard Dean).
[/quote]
Yes, they are morons.  All of them. 

"The economy is in shambles," John Kerry said all during the 2004 campaign.

You know what's funny?  Markets all over the world rallied when it was certain that Bush was re-elected.  As Kerry's poll numbers went up, the stock market went down!

You know what else is funny?  Air America, the liberal radio network, has terrible ratings!  More liberal failure!!!

By the way, here’s one of my favorite political cartoonists.  He’s got a bit of a conservative bent…



http://www.ucomics.com/glennmccoy/



Absolutely brilliant!

The IQ correlation must be an interesting statistic. The George Bush map is interesting when 98% (counties) of the county voted for Bush.

What concerns me is this BS that educational institutions are teaching our youth! Our armed forces recruiters are being harassed by idiot professors as then enter the school.

Could you imagine that happending during WWII. People would have kicked the hell out of an idiot professor. Most have never served a day.

Could you imagine two lawyers running this country. That is what would have happend is Edwards and Kerry won. Could you imagine each day before the election these skum were cheering for troops to die the econemy to struggle so they could say I told you so.

Thank god we have someone with the knowledge to surround himself with smart people. GO BUSH!!

You have to love the amazing foreign policy Clinton had. According to all the skum he was so close in Palastine. Close what the hell does that mean? Was he an idiot thinking Saddam paying marters and Arafat stealing billions was going to work. THEY HATED ISREAL AND WOULD NEVER COME TO A DEAL!

The wonderful fake economy. As Janet Reno was flapping her gums to save slick willie the SEC and nation defense was going to hell. Where was the change to be proactive against coruption. Where was the enforcement for those executives who stole billions of dollars.

The most important duty of the president is to protect the country. At best Clinton did a pathetic job. After 30 days on the job the twin towers were attacked. What did he do nothing! After Kobar Towers what was done? After USS Cole what was done? After the embassy attacks around the world what was done? After the threats what was done? After the training camps? After 12 broken UN resolutions what was done? After Saddam was paying the marters what was done? Absolutly nothing!! President Clinton failed!

So now we have a man who says "your either with us or against us." Well in 3 years we have democracy running wild in Afganistan, IRAQ, Lebannon, Lybia, Saudi, Pakistan and Yugoslavia. On top of this our President stated "Social Security is flawed." Bush sticks his neck out for the good of the country not some pole that is conducted by the liberal times!!

You are kidding, right?

There was a guy in the office that said "there goes half of you income"
when Bill Clinton got elected, it didn’t work out that way.

Republicans don’t lie? Where are thoes WMDs? Oh yeah our partner Pakistan was selling nuke technology.

The terrorist connect to Iraq? Well there is one now.

Democracy in 3 years? Kinda like things will settle down when we get
rid of the dead enders, who have been in their last throws for how long
now?

And now we have that gem of a diplomat John Bolton.

Ones opinion is not the only view: whether you, me, or Bush.

Ask the American Indians how good is was to have democracy brought to them.

And this has to do with the Rookies and Trainees forum how??

Well the dems like to hear professional BS's.

Example Kennedy, Dean and Kerry who change their view daily.

I love how dems say one liners like WMD.. Well two DC snipers had 50 million americans freaking out. If Saddam was left his sons would have taken over. His only goal in life was to attack America.

The UN needs reform so send someone who is supported by the president not Kerry, Reid, Peluci and Kennedy. The UN is good, but corrupt.

If the dems were so great then why are they loseing every election. The house, senete and local governments are ruled by everything but democrats. So maybe you are right they are the answer, but few agree with you here.

  If you think that the economy is better off with Bush as opposed to clinton, how the heck did you ever pass the series seven. I will put it in easy terms. Surplus good and deficit bad.

Come to Illinois - Republicans are a complete joke in this state all the way up the ladder.

Alan Keyes anyone - cmon even republicans would not have voted for this guy

As for one liners - you have Arnold as governor of california and if that is not enough listen to any of Bush's speeches.  WMD, terrorists, freedom, etc.

Saddam hated America but his biggest concern was Iran - attacking the US was never really an option for Saddam but Iran was.

[quote=executivejock]

The IQ correlation must be an interesting
statistic. The George Bush map is interesting when 98%
(counties) of the county voted for Bush.

[/quote]

The people who WORK and pay taxes vote Republican. 

How many republicans do you think you'll find in the public housing projects?

[quote=executivejock]

What concerns me is this BS that educational institutions are teaching our youth! Our armed forces recruiters are being harassed by idiot professors as then enter the school.
[/quote]
What bothers me even more is when a *&^%%$# Senator says that we are Nazis because we shut off the air conditioning for a terrorist--WHO LIVES IN THE DESERT!!!  Idiots.

[quote=executivejock]
Could you imagine that happending during WWII. People would have kicked the hell out of an idiot professor. Most have never served a day.
[/quote]
During WWII people--rich, poor, famous celebrities even, VOLUNTEERED to fight.  Jimmy Stewart, remember him?  He was a bomber pilot who flew high risk missions and enlisted after he was already a famous actor.

It's like night and day now.  We have one group of people who do nothing but whine and cry about everything.

Democrats:  The military supported BUSH by a huge margin.  You do not represent the views of the military.  So stop using the soldiers to further your anti-American opposition to everything America does.

[quote=executivejock]

Could you imagine two lawyers running this country. That is what would have happend is Edwards and Kerry won. Could you imagine each day before the election these skum were cheering for troops to die the econemy to struggle so they could say I told you so.
[/quote]
John Kerry was a two-faced liar.  He lied about everything.  He played both sides of every issue thinking that we voters were too stupid to realize how full of crap he was.

John Edwards was an ambulance chaser who made MILLIONS suing good, honest, hard-working doctors with bogus claims that their incompetence caused babies to have cerebral palsy.  Oh yeah, and Edwards tried to say that he "fought for the people".  Bullsh*t.  He fights for the people by charging them 40% of the settlement???

Both were typical, yet disgusting examples of the elitist, you-need-me-to-help-you attitude that permeates the modern Democratic party.

[quote=executivejock]

Thank god we have someone with the knowledge to surround himself with smart people. GO BUSH!!

[quote=executivejock]The most important duty of the president is to
protect the country. At best Clinton did a pathetic job. After 30 days
on the job the twin towers were attacked. What did he do nothing! After
Kobar Towers what was done? After USS Cole what was done? After the
embassy attacks around the world what was done? After the threats what
was done? After the training camps? After 12 broken UN resolutions what
was done? After Saddam was paying the marters what was done? Absolutly
nothing!! President Clinton failed!

So now we have a man who says "your either with us or against us." Well in 3 years we have democracy running wild in Afganistan, IRAQ, Lebannon, Lybia, Saudi, Pakistan and Yugoslavia. On top of this our President stated "Social Security is flawed." Bush sticks his neck out for the good of the country not some pole that is conducted by the liberal times!!

[quote=justaguy]You are kidding, right?

There was a guy in the office that said "there goes half of you income"
when Bill Clinton got elected, it didn’t work out that way.

[/quote]

If you look at historical economic activity, you’ll see plenty of peaks
and valleys.  Without coincidence, these peaks tend to occur after
the advent of new technology.



The railroad, automobile, etc.  Now, what major innovation
occurred during the 1990s?  What major technical innovation–that
Clinton had NOTHING to do with–drove major investment in new equipment
and support staff creating thousands, if not millions, of new jobs?



HOW DOES RAISING TAXES HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS? 



(Honestly.  What do you Democrats say to your clients?  “I
think this is a good strategy that will help you have consistent income
with enough growth to stay ahead of inflation, but it won’t matter
because I’m supporting the candidate who plans to raise your taxes and
steal it all away from you”?)



The fact that the advent of the INTERNET offset Clinton’s tax increases
and other economic incompetence does not mean what you think it
means.  (Who fought hard against Welfare Reform?  Clinton and
the Democrats.  They need to give out free cash to buy votes,
don’t you know???)

[quote=justaguy]

Republicans don’t lie? Where are thoes WMDs?

[/quote]

Let’s ask Bill Clinton:



(remove spaces put in link by message board)



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcri pts/clinton.html



Bill Clinton:



"Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike
military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by
British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons programs and its military
capacity to threaten its neighbors."



Where are those WMDs, Bill?  Why did you lie, Bill?  Why did
you CON the Bush administration into believing Iraq had WMDs and was
working to obtain nukes???



Perhaps, just perhaps, BOTH presidents, Democrat AND Republican had probable reason to believe that Iraq had WMDs?

[quote=justaguy]

Oh yeah our partner Pakistan was selling nuke technology.

[/quote]

I thought it was just a rouge nuclear scientist and not the government itself…

[quote=justaguy]

The terrorist connect to Iraq? Well there is one now.

Democracy in 3 years? Kinda like things will settle down when we get
rid of the dead enders, who have been in their last throws for how long
now?

And now we have that gem of a diplomat John Bolton.

Ones opinion is not the only view: whether you, me, or Bush.

Ask the American Indians how good is was to have democracy brought to them.

[/quote]

John Bolton–he bullies his subordinates.  Hahahaha.  I’m
sorry.  But the UN is CORRUPT.  Kofi Annan’s own SON has been
implicating in the oil-for-food scandal.  That last thing we need
to do is send an ambassador to the UN who’s going to follow the status
quo.

[quote=Cruiser]  If you think that the economy is better off with
Bush as opposed to clinton, how the heck did you ever pass the series
seven. I will put it in easy terms. Surplus good and deficit bad.
[/quote]



Easy.  The economy today is REAL.



The economy of the 1990s was pumped up by FRAUD.  Accounting fraud
by corporations and fraud by senior executives in this very industry!



Enron–should not have had thousands of employees because they never
had the money to fund them.  Enron, Worldcom, and others made
acquisition after acquisition based on fradulent financials.



Same goes for numerous other companies.



By the way, do you really think that a company with NO profitability,
little revenue, and little probability for profitability should be
worth $5 billion?  Honestly?



Fraud by Wall Street is responsible for much of the economic activity
of the 1990s.  They pumped junk.  They encouraged clients to
invest in crap.  A lot of companies went belly up and they never
should have went public.  That’s a lot of employees losing their
jobs–jobs they never should have had in the first place.



Of the tech companies that survived the bubble (Yahoo, Amazon and others), most are still down 60-80% off their bubble highs.



Speaking of passing the S7, what happens to all the capital gains tax
revenue when the market tanks?  What happens to future tax
revenues because of all the tax loss carryforwards?



The capital gains tax cuts caused the market to rally.  Bush’s tax
cuts caused a huge jump in economic growth immediately following. 
You cannot argue that.



Also, I think you should look up the “natural rate of
unemployment”.  A 4.3% unemployment rate is not natural and
unsustainable in the long run.  Take a look at the historical
unemployment rate of the United States and you’ll find that it is
normally 5% - 6%–right where it is now.  Right where it should be.



One more thing:  Bill Clinton NEVER had surplusses!!!  This
is just more lies that the gullible believe when spoon-fed from their
Democrat leaders.



Factoring out social security revenues, Clinton had ONE surplus of $87
billion (or so).  That’s factoring in many billions of capital
gains tax revenues that disappeared after the bubble burst.  Not
surplusses like you people consistently lie about!!!



Let us not forget that all that “buy Amazon it’s going to $400” bs generated a lot of capital gains tax revenue.



You want to cut the deficit.  Easy:  cut welfare.  Watch
all those Democrat voters whine and cry because they have to get
jobs. 

[quote=Juiced6]

Come to Illinois - Republicans are a complete joke in this state all the way up the ladder.[/quote]

Yeah, let's go to Illinois.  Home of rampant corruption.  Ahhh, you've got to love those Daly fellows, don't you?

Mile after mile of public housing projects were built by the Democrats that did nothing but attract trash from out of state.  Trash that just happens to be loyally Democratic-voting.  All part of the plan, wasn't it?

Look at how the IL counties voted.  Almost the entire state leaned Republican, except for a few areas.  Look at welfare-dependent Chicago.  70% Democrat.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/P/0 0/index.html

What's the crime like in Chicago?

http://www.chicagocrime.org/

Must be nice on a pleasant summer evening to sit by an open window and listen to the sound of gunfire every night.

ah yes someone telling me how this state is who probably hasnt visited it

see unions also vote democrat and well there is a lot of manufacturing that goes on as well - probably more people employed at these jobs then on welfare

yes i have seen the map but Princton actually revised that map based on the number of voters and well most of illinois was purple not red.

Purple being the mix of democrats and republicans

Im not saying democrats are perfect here in fact they are just as bad as republicans however, it is the democrats who run this state and it is run from chicago - the rest of the state is screwed.

All a politician has to do is promise jobs for Rockford, Aurora, Naperville, and East St Louis promote corn and coal for the rest of the state, and the rest is Chicago and they will win.

And another thing - when half of the country does not vote in the first place - does that mean that Bush was elected by 25% of the people?

Now that is a sad sad case right there.

WW2 - lets see Germany, Italy, and Japan united and going to war with the world.

Japan bombs us as it plans to invade us.

US finally enters war after years of neutrality. 

Iraq and Afghanistan war - no ties to any attacks on US soil.

US goes to war on what seems to be lies right now.

In one case - we needed to defend this country.  The other is well shaded and truth is now starting to peak through.

Makes you rethink Vietnam now too.

[quote]Where are those WMDs, Bill?  Why did you lie, Bill?  Why did you CON the Bush administration into believing Iraq had WMDs and was working to obtain nukes???[/quote]

Good question both Colin Powell and Condi Rice both said Iraq did not have WMDs from July 01

Then what a year later he had them? 

So let me get this straight - Bill said he had them and he didnt - okay he lied.   Then in 01 under Bush - two of his top advisors are on the news saying Iraq did not have WMDs - they are correct.  Then magically after all this tough terror talk he has them - now Bush lied.

And in the end those weapons never did turn up.  See Bill might have lied but he never acted on it because he was going to let inpsectors do their job - Bush wanted in Iraq whether for oil, revenge whatever.

There is no two ways around that.

And no Im not a Liberal democrat either.

Okay, now you've done it.  I can't take any more of this bleeding heart liberal logic that is so freaking flawed that I can't believe that the people who repeat what they've heard on TV actually believe what they are saying.  Let's take a little walk back through history.  Remember 1990 and 1991?  The first Gulf War?  Remember that little weasel Peter Arnett from CNN giving us his live broadcasts from the rooftops of Tel Aviv?  What was he wearing, Democrats?  A MOPP suit and a gas mask!  That's what he was wearing.  And, video tape doesn't lie! Why?  Because he, along with everyone else, including all of the "Where's the WMDs, You said there were WMDs, You have never found any WMDs" in the media, believed Saddam had WMDs.  If they didn't think he had them, then why wasn't brave little Peter standing out there with a polo shirt and baseball cap?  Because he was sh*tting his pants, that's why.  Everytime Saddam launched another SCUD missile towards Israel or Saudi Arabia, the biggest fear was that it would contain a chemical or biological agent.  

Okay, now Democrats, follow the bouncing ball.  We knew Saddam had SCUDs (delivery system or mechanism).  And, we knew he had gassed the Kurds. (Chemcial Weapons for those keeping score at home.)  Delivery system + chemical weapon = Weapon of Mass Destruction.  Questions, class?  Now, once again, this was all back in 1991.  So, therefore, is it reasonable to guess or speculate that Saddam had furthered his capabilities in the ensuing 13 years as he steadfastly refused to submit to the UN inspections that he had agreed to as a condition of surrender? 

The other empty argument I can't stand is: "Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.  They were just minding their own business, and then George Bush decided to steal their oil."  Bullsh*t!  Again, most of the Democratic history buffs can't remember as far back as 1991.  Iraq was not minding their own business.  In fact, they invaded another sovereign nations solely for the purpose of stealing that country's oil and considerable wealth that was wisely invested throughtout the West (mostly in the UK and US).  For more than four months, Bush Senior cleverly assembled the largest military force possessing more firepower than had ever been known in the history of man.  Even more than on D-Day.  The request was simple.  Leave Kuwait or you will removed from Kuwait.  We even gave Hussein a final deadline or "drop dead" date.  He beat his chest and dared us and the rest of the world to take him on.  Everyone knows what happened after that.  He and his troops received a swift, thorough ass-kicking from US led forces.  (Remember how that experienced, battle-hardened Republican Guard was going to make quick work of our wet-behind-the-ears volunteer forces?  CNN analysis).  I was serving at the time, and we couldn't wait to unleash the power and technology of the US Army for all the idiots at CNN and the rest of the world to see.  Anyway, back on message.

History has remained constant in one area of warfare.  If you start a war, and then lose that war, the victor will determine the spoils of that war.  In the case of Iraq, the spoils were:  Agreeing to UN weapons inspections, and the enforcement of the "no-fly" zones.  I think it is important to point out here that only two countries provided the airmen, the aircraft, the jet fuel, and the logistical know-how to patrol the no-fly zones.  And, those two countries were the US and the UK.  Not Germany.  Not France.  Not Russia.  Not China.  Not Italy.  Not anybody else.  And what did we get for our efforts?  Shot at!  Repeatedly.  Over and over.  That, in and of itself, boys and girls, is a clear and deliberate act of war.  It is in direct defiance of the agreed spoils of the previous war when we so graciously called off the dogs and stopped short of a march to Bagdhad.  So, from my standpoint, I don't give a rat's ass if Saddam Hussein never possessed so much as a smokebomb.  His repeated engagement of our airmen and aircraft was reason enough for the US and UK to forcibly remove him from power--without asking for permission from Germany, France, Russia, China, or anybody else. 

You see, I served.  I don't measure the cost of war in the ongoing body count that the press seems to be obsessed with keeping track of.  I always view the losses as a very human cost.  Every soldier that dies is somebody's son, somebody's father, somebody's brother.  And those guys were being fired at by Iraqi forces without provocation.  Those were American airmen.  Our best and brightest who attended our military acadamies and finest colleges.  Guys who forewent the big money to serve their nation with honor.  So, don't tell me Iraq was minding their own business.  They started a war, they lost the war, they agreed to a cease fire with certain conditions, and then they repeatedly never met those conditions.  Not only did they fail to meet them, they very deliberately and brashly sabotaged and mocked those conditions.  It was time to enforce the conditions of surrender, and stand up for our airmen who were being fired at in such a cowardly way.  Think about it Democrats.  What if that was your brother, your Dad, your husband up their enforcing those no-fly zones and getting his ass shot off for it.  Would you need any more reason? 

Sooth,

Listen to yourself "we couldn't wait to unleash the power and technology of the U.S. Army ....."  Buddy I think you have a problem you seem to enjoy the thought of war way too much.  So you served, my family is full of serviceman and one is Mosul right now.  They served and they shut up about it. If you join just do your job. You serve and you want some kind of pat on the back.  Ranting for five paragraphs makes you sound like a war monger not someone who wants to deliver peace and democracy.

Just chill my friend, geez, with your attitude have you considere a career as a prison guard or in the post office.  Your FA must be shaking in her boots when you're upset.

[quote=VotedforKerry]

Sooth,

Listen to yourself "we couldn't wait to unleash the power and technology of the U.S. Army ....."  Buddy I think you have a problem you seem to enjoy the thought of war way too much.  So you served, my family is full of serviceman and one is Mosul right now.  They served and they shut up about it. If you join just do your job. You serve and you want some kind of pat on the back.  Ranting for five paragraphs makes you sound like a war monger not someone who wants to deliver peace and democracy.

Just chill my friend, geez, with your attitude have you considere a career as a prison guard or in the post office.  Your FA must be shaking in her boots when you're upset.

You're an idiot.  That doesn't even dignify a response.  Go ahead and feel free to refute any of the logical case I laid out. 

[quote]

You're an idiot.  That doesn't even dignify a response.  Go ahead and feel free to refute any of the logical case I laid out.  [/quote]

Which was?

What is funny about the first Iraq war - Kuwait flooded the world with cheap oil.  Didn' Saddam ask the UN to do something.  In fact I am quite sure he even threatened war with Kuwait and nothing so Saddam loaded up his army and invaded.

Then daddy Bush got the world all in a hissy fit and invaded.  Atleast daddy Bush waited until he had an excuse.

Also quick history lesson - wasn't World War 2 started because of the victors of World War 1?

History is funny especially for those who actually know it.

[quote=Juiced6]

Iraq and Afghanistan war - no ties to any attacks on US soil.

[/quote]

Wow, I am still shaking my head!!! Afghanistan??? No ties to attacks on U.S. soil???

Where the hell do you think the Taliban were from???  Please stop making up facts as you go, you are embarassing yourself!!!!

"Also quick history lesson - wasn't World War 2 started because of the victors of World War 1?

History is funny especially for those who actually know it."

History isn't funny...ignorant people who claim to know history are funny.  WW II was started because of the victors of WW I?  Try this: Google the words "Pearl Harbor".

Let me see if I have some of this right.  Iraq had every reason and justification necessary to invade and literally loot Kuwait because they were engaging in unfair trade practices? 

Voted for Kerry implies that his family member's service is higher and better than mine because he went to Mosul and then shut up about it.  I'm not bragging or asking for a "pat on the back", I'm just expressing how it feels from the standpoint of someone who served in Gulf War I.  Why is it that so many in the press can't remember what happened a decade ago?  Did they sleep through it.  Oh, and I'm also a war monger, and a peace hater (name calling).  I'm all for peace on fair and reasonable terms.  Not, peace at all costs.  As far as unleashing the power of US forces, do you have any idea how frustrating it is to be the guy whos ass is on the line, and Judy Woodruff from CNN is putting on "military expert" talking head after talking head who is predicting that you are about to get carved up like a fat ham on a Christmas buffet by that battle hardened Republican Guard.  These idiots had no idea of the true firepower of our arsenal, and were openly disrespectful of the most professional, well-equipped, and well-trained army in our country's history. 

Juiced6 wants to know what some of the "facts" were.  Did Peter Arnett wear a gas mask back in 1991?  Did Iraq invade Kuwait?  Was the only condition of averting war to simply leave?  Start with those 3.

For the most part, Germany started WWI.  They lost.  France and Britain dictated monetary reparations as punishment against the wishes of the United States.  Those reparations literally bankrupted Germany causing widespread abject poverty and human misery, and set the stage for a country being highjacked by a mad dictator.  Then, Germany (along with their Axis partners) started WWII.  The victors divided their country into four parts which became two parts.  Remember East and West Germany?  I know it preceded the first Gulf War.  Clearly an outcome that exemplified the spoils of war.

I'm with BlahBlahBlah on the whole Afghanistan thing.  You know, Ann Coulter always says that liberals don't know how to argue.  You lay out facts and logic, they bring back name-calling and diversion of the argument.  Come on, guys and gals.  Bring back some real argument.  Don't make your most hated and despised conservative icon right again.

Who was from afghanistan?  I thought they were Saudis?

In 91 yes Saddam did have SCUDs I did not deny that but I obviously did so sorry.  Hell he may even had them all through the Clinton years I even said that However, over 3 years ago two of Bush's top aids said he did not have them and they had proof then!  So how did this poor country go about getting them after?  That is all I want to know.

Answer to my history question - Germany had to pay reperations - Japan and Italy also helped the Allies in WW1 and they were screwed over and got little if anything - this planted the seeds for them to align with Hitler!

Im not making up facts - I just read the back pages of the newspapers with the little font - you know where the article was about Iraq had no weapons and the search was being called off.

What is funny now is that more Americans are starting to think like me now - have you seen a latest approval rating of Bush - lowest he has ever had and it is all because of this war.

and Ann Coulter is the biggest moron to ever get into media - hell she even wanted to cut off relations to Canada because they did not back this war.  Yeah to quote Ann Coulter - wow talk about embarassing yourself.

[quote]Did Peter Arnett wear a gas mask back in 1991?  Did Iraq invade Kuwait?  Was the only condition of averting war to simply leave?[/quote]

all three are correct - i never challenged that

[quote]Let me see if I have some of this right.  Iraq had every reason and justification necessary to invade and literally loot Kuwait because they were engaging in unfair trade practices?[/quote]

So what was the reason Iraq invaded?  You never really do hear about it.  Or lets spin it this way - Lets say the US has only one export and it is cars.  We can make more cars than anyone however, if another country comes in and undercuts us we will be hurting for money.

Mexico decides to do that.  Now what do we do as country - stand by and go hungry, plead to the world for help, or go in and teach them a lesson.

I think Ann Coulter is kinda hot, but not as hawt as Becky Quick from CNBC. 

Note: Part of this post was copied from a post in one of the previous

incarnations of this site.







After the end of the Cold War, the Dems (and some Reps) forgot about

history and human nature and decided there would be no more major

wars (kinda like Rumsfeld and Bush are doing as of this week by claiming

there is no need foor heavy divsions in the Army). See, they politizied the

PEACE DIVIDEND and the media failed to let the public know what it really

meant.(Cutting the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines in HALF

from 1980’s levels)



Then Clinton (folowing Mrs. Albrights, bright advice) decide to deploy the

military to more small Peacekeeping, advisory and just plain police

actions than ever before. Meanwhile the American public slept (The

downside of a good economy, nobody cares).



Then 9-11 happened and the American public thought the military of the

’80s, and Desert Storm would respond. (it could’nt, it’s HALF AS BIG)

Our professional figthers are the BEST in the world, but there’s HALF as

many as most people think.



Why my fixation on the size of the military? It was the Clinton

administrations bright idea that the National Guard and Reserves could

do what the Professional Army can (forgetting that these people signed

on to pull through in case of a National Emergency, NOT as PERMANENT

SOLDIERS)



During the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s you could sign up for the National Guard

and or Reserves, get great benefits, honorably serve your country in a

limited capacity (a few weekends a year) and not reasonably expect to go

to WAR.



CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?



709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.



EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.



20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.



232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.



19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114

NUCLEAR*************WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.



500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.



FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND

SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL

ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.



IS THIS COUNTRY:



RUSSIA? NO



CHINA? NO



GREAT BRITAIN? NO



FRANCE? WRONG AGAIN (What a Laugh!)



MUST BE THE USA? STILL WRONG (Sort of.)



GIVE UP?



THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED

DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE. AND

THEIR ELIMINATION WAS SUPPORTED 100% BY JOHN KERRY! (THESE HE

DID VOTE ON!)



SLEEP WELL!This is not a new message, but a reminder of why we now

have over-deployment of our National Guard and Reserve Units!







BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DONT KNOW THIS.





Dont get me wrong, Democrats, Republicans and the Media could’ve

brought this up before 9-11. They didn’t. Kerry even voted repeatedly for

less and less resources for the military and Intelligence services.



But now nobody talks about this, everyone conveniently says: LET’S GET

ON WITH IT. Same as during the 20’s, same as during the 90’s.



I really see us loosing in Irak and Afganistan. NOT because of our military,

but because of lack of effective leadership from both parties and lack of

interest and knowledge from a population fat on McDonalds and Oprah



I hate to say this, but without an effective leader, only a nuke going off in

a major city will wake people up in this country.







Thought you’d find this interesting.



At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in

the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The

University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian

Republic” some 2,000 years prior.



“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a

permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up

until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous

gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always

votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public

treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to

loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”



"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning

of history, has been about 200 years. During those

200 years, these nations always progressed through the following

sequence:



From Bondage to spiritual faith;



From spiritual faith to great courage;



From courage to liberty;



From liberty to abundance;



From abundance to complacency;



From complacency to apathy;



From apathy to dependence;



From dependence back into bondage.“



Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,

Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent



Presidential election:



Population of counties won by:



Gore=127 million



Bush=143 million



Square miles of land won by:



Gore=580,000



Bush=2,2427,000



States won by:



Gore=19



Bush=29



Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties

won by:



Gore=13.2



Bush=2.1



Professor Olson adds:



“In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land

owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.

Gore’s territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned

tenements and living off government welfare…” Olson believes the U.S. is

now somewhere between the “apathy” and “complacency” phase of

Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the

nation’s population already having reached the “governmental

dependency” phase.



This country (Dems and Republicans) needs a wake up call, 9-11

apparently was not enough.   

  Visigoth

I hope you build your own roads. use only your own form of transportation. and homeschool your children. After all you would not want to be a hypocrite and become part of that  40 percent of the
nation's population that has entered the "governmental
dependency" phase.

For the most part though I do agree with Visigoths post

Half of the country does not care - compare that to what was it Russia or one of those countries over there earlier this year they had election fraud and the whole country basically came out in protest.

That would not happen in America - like he said a wake up call is needed.

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=VotedforKerry]

Sooth,

Listen to yourself "we couldn't wait to unleash the power and technology of the U.S. Army ....."  Buddy I think you have a problem you seem to enjoy the thought of war way too much.  So you served, my family is full of serviceman and one is Mosul right now.  They served and they shut up about it. If you join just do your job. You serve and you want some kind of pat on the back.  Ranting for five paragraphs makes you sound like a war monger not someone who wants to deliver peace and democracy.

Just chill my friend, geez, with your attitude have you considere a career as a prison guard or in the post office.  Your FA must be shaking in her boots when you're upset.

You're an idiot.  That doesn't even dignify a response.  Go ahead and feel free to refute any of the logical case I laid out. 

Sooth, I must apologize, I just realized that you must be still suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  You must still have nightmares of all the latrines your Capt. made you clean during the Gulf War while the real soldiers were chasing the Republican Guard while they were dropping their rifles and running away.  Lighten the f*&* up.  One more word "Prozac."  Have a good one.

I'm curious, VfK.

Why would you think that cleaning latrines (or "heads" in the Navy and Marine Corps) is somehow a dishonorable duty?  (On that subject, those duties are assigned by NCOs, not officers.)  Why is pride in one's service a negative in your eyes?  Why is it perfectly acceptable to vote for the candidate of your choice, yet citizens voting for other candidates are not worthy of the same right, yet seem to be fair game for personal, ad hominem attacks?  Is there no room in your political philosophy for dissent?  Doesn't that seem narrow-minded and smack of totalitarianism to you?

If you want to make a case for your point of view, fine!  I'll listen.  Respectfully, so far your case doesn't hold water.

[quote=Juiced6]

And another thing - when half of the country does
not vote in the first place - does that mean that Bush was elected by
25% of the people?

Now that is a sad sad case right there.

[quote=Juiced6]

WW2 - lets see Germany, Italy, and Japan united and going to war with the world.

[/quote]

You are wrong.  Japan was at war long before they allied with Germany.  See China for details.

[quote=Juiced6]
Japan bombs us as it plans to invade us.

US finally enters war after years of neutrality.

[/quote]
There was no alliance of support between Japan and Germany.  Their only commonality was their desire for power.

Germany NEVER attacked the United States.  Or did anything else against the United States.  In fact, one thing Germany didn't want in the first place was a war on two fronts.  They didn't want Britain entering the war, and they certainly didn't want the US to enter the war.

Further, Japan was a weak enemy from the start.  90% (from what I've read) of our war effort in WWII was focused on the European theater--against an enemy that didn't do a thing to us. 
[quote=Juiced6]

Iraq and Afghanistan war - no ties to any attacks on US soil.
[/quote]
Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban.  A group that was harboring Bin Laden.

Iraq...didn't you READ those Clinton quotes I provided?  Sorry.  I know how you left-wingers like to revise history for your benefit.  But Saddam was not a nice guy.  Further, everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.  Everyone.

[quote=Juiced6]

US goes to war on what seems to be lies right now.
[/quote]
READ THE CLINTON QUOTES!!!

You (*&^% ^%$$$#!  Sorry.  I hate to resort to name calling but some people are so damn stupid they need a ratchet against the side of the head!!!

[quote=Juiced6]

In one case - we needed to defend this country.  The other is well shaded and truth is now starting to peak through.
[/quote]
READ THE CLINTON QUOTES!  You can read, right?  What does Clinton say?  What does Clinton say that Bush didn't repeat?

[quote=Juiced6]

Makes you rethink Vietnam now too.

College too.

[quote=Juiced6]

[quote]Where are those WMDs, Bill?  Why did
you lie, Bill?  Why did you CON the Bush administration into
believing Iraq had WMDs and was working to obtain nukes???[/quote]

Good question both Colin Powell and Condi Rice both said Iraq did not have WMDs from July 01

[/quote]

LIAR!  Neither of them said that.  Some idiot around here provided video of some quotes OUT OF CONTEXT.  You don't know what they said because only a few seconds of it was provided by your liberal idiots.

[quote=Juiced6]
Then what a year later he had them?
[/quote]

You have no clue (as with everything) about what they said.  BECAUSE YOUR LEFTIST HEROES DID NOT PROVIDE THE ENTIRE QUOTES TO YOU!!!

[quote=Juiced6]

So let me get this straight - Bill said he had them and he didnt - okay he lied.  

[/quote]

What in the heck is wrong with you?  "Duh, I can't argue my way out of this one...so instead of back-tracking and admitting that Bush didn't lie and relied on the best information he had at the time--information he believed to be accurate and true, I'll just say Clinton, a well-known liar, must have lied, too."

Guess what...if we wanted the OIL we could have just gotten rid of the embargo and bought it a LOT CHEAPER THAN IT WOULD COST TO INVADE THE F*CKING COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE!  GET A BRAIN!

[quote=Juiced6]

Then in 01 under Bush - two of his top advisors are on the news saying Iraq did not have WMDs - they are correct. 

[/quote]
They NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!  The only thing you've seen is a few seconds of quotes TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

[quote=Juiced6]

Then magically after all this tough terror talk he has them - now Bush lied.
[/quote]
The Democratic party is chock full of the ignorant and stupid...

[quote=Juiced6]

And in the end those weapons never did turn up. 

[/quote]

Since those weapons never turned up, the Kurds must have gassed themselves, right?  I suppose the Kuwaitis invaded themselves, too, huh?

[quote=Juiced6]

See Bill might have lied but he never acted on it because he was going to let inpsectors do their job

[/quote]
No, Clinton never acted on it--wait, he did bomb an aspirin factory...Clinton didn't act on ANYTHING.  All Clinton did was talk bullsh*t because some chumps believe bullsh*t and lies. 

What did Clinton do about the 1993 WTC attack?  Nothing.  Clinton did nothing about everything.

[quote=Juiced6]

- Bush wanted in Iraq whether for oil, revenge whatever.
[/quote]
So clueless...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,"

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

[quote=Juiced6]

There is no two ways around that.
[/quote]
See the above.

[quote=Juiced6]

And no Im not a Liberal democrat either.

Well your dead on about WW2 - but you twisted it to make it look like I am the idiot.  Japan and Germany were never allied?  Hmm then why did they share?  Why did Germany declare war on the US after the US declared on Japan?  But yeah they did not ally.

So 50% of this country is either on welfare or in prison?  I didnt know half this country was that poor and pathetic.  Or is because even honest working class folks, wealthy folks, and poor just do not care about politics?

I know what Clinton said however, I never brought up Clinton - once again you are rehashing typical republican nonsense - it is fun to mess with you guys because it is the same answer out of all of your mouths - you have yet to deny any of what I said but are quick to point out my faults of history that I never mentioned.

[quote=Juiced6]Also quick history lesson - wasn’t World War 2 started because of the victors of World War 1?

[/quote]

No.  WWII got started because of a power-mad dictator who did not
hesitate to send MILLIONS of his own people to their deaths so he could
enslave the Slavs (that the Nazis considered inferior) and have more
land for the expansion of the “fatherland”.



What we should learn from WWII is what can happen when you FAIL TO TAKE ACTION to a potential threat.



Britain and France knew Germany was rebuilding its military during the
1930s–in clear violation of Versailles.  Britain and France did
nothing.  They appeased Germany.  Germany took the
Rhineland.  Annexed Austria…Britain and France did nothing but
watch.  Then Prussia, Poland…by the time France and Britain
decided to actually do something it WAS TOO LATE.  Germany had
achieved critical mass and could not be stopped.



In the early days of WWII 1939 - 1940, even after declaring war,
Britain and France did little more than drop propaganda leaflets on
Germany.



In fact, French soldiers used to watch the Germans on the other side of the river amassing troops and did NOTHING.



France fell quickly.  Why?  Because they failed to act when they had the chance.



With each little victory Hitler grew more brazen because he saw how
easy it was to take what he wanted.  That emboldened him. 
Much like how the liberal cowards embolden the Terrorists by giving in
to their demands.

[quote=Juiced6]

History is funny especially for those who actually know it.

[quote=Juiced6]I know what Clinton said however, I never brought up
Clinton - once again you are rehashing typical republican nonsense - it
is fun to mess with you guys because it is the same answer out of all
of your mouths - you have yet to deny any of what I said but are quick
to point out my faults of history that I never mentioned.[/quote]



What did you say?  Ah yes:  BUSH LIED.  The same old, tired, worn-out tripe.



It is not non-sense in the least.  What it is is a shared view
held by two different presidents from two different political parties.



You lie by saying that Bush lied.  Then, to cover up YOUR lies,
you say “well Clinton must have lied, too.”  The odds of two
presidents from opposing parties conspiring together to spread the same
lie–for whatever reason your delusional mind wishes to invent–is
highly unlikely.



Could it be that YOU are the liar?  Could it be that both Clinton
and Bush Jr. relied on intelligence gathered by the US, UN, and other
international intelligence agenicies and formulated opinions on Iraq’s
WMDs based on that intelligence?



Bush did not lie.  Bush took the view–an appropriate view–that was held by his predecessor.



EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.  I suggest you read the ENTIRE
text of UN Resolution 1441.  You act as if the United States acted
alone with respect to Iraq.  Nothing could be further from the
truth.  Just ask Britain, Australia, Japan, and plenty of others
if they believed Iraq had WMDs.



The ball is in your court.

[quote=Juiced6]

[quote]Did Peter Arnett wear a gas mask back in
1991?  Did Iraq invade Kuwait?  Was the only condition of
averting war to simply leave?[/quote]

all three are correct - i never challenged that
[/quote]
Ahhhhhhhh, Peter Arnett lied, TOO.  Ahhh, I see.  So Bush Jr, Clinton, and Peter Arnet all got together and said, "let's make up some lies about Iraq having WMDs just for the hell of it.  Then well place trade restrictions on Iraq's oil and instead of lowering those trade restrictions to get that oil, we'll invade instead.  Because we don't buy oil cheaply on the world market when we can spend billions and billions and risk lives to take it."

What color is the sky in your world?

[quote=Juiced6]

Who was from afghanistan?  I thought they were Saudis?
[/quote]
Were they?  Hmmm.  And Al-Zarqawi, the terrorist ring-leader in Iraq, is Jordanian...Hmmm.  Let's see, foreign fighters entering a land without being invited and they must then represent the official views of that land?

[quote=Juiced6]

In 91 yes Saddam did have SCUDs I did not deny that but I obviously did so sorry.  Hell he may even had them all through the Clinton years I even said that However, over 3 years ago two of Bush's top aids said he did not have them

[/quote]
Nope.  They never said any such thing.  And besided, advisors are advisors and not the president. 

[quote=Juiced6]

and they had proof then!  So how did this poor country go about getting them after?  That is all I want to know.
[/quote]
I think you already know:  Peter Arnett, George Bush, and Bill Clinton made up LIES about Iraq having WMDs so they could erect oil embargos and, instead of buying the oil cheaply on the world market, invade to steal that oil.  BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!  Them evil presidents!

Don't forget the Kurds were in on it to:  They gassed themselves in the 1980s and framed innocent Saddam for it.  Kuwaitis invaded themselves, too.

[quote=Juiced6]

Answer to my history question - Germany had to pay reperations -

[/quote]
Because they caused much harm and loss of life.

[quote=Juiced6]

 Japan and Italy also helped the Allies in WW1 and they were screwed over and got little if anything - this planted the seeds for them to align with Hitler!
[/quote]
Nope.  The only thing those nations shared was a desire for power.  That and they were run by ruthless dictators.  You know, dictators...like Saddam.  Or your buddy Kim Jong Ill (or whatever his name is) in North Korea that Clinton GAVE a nuclear reactor to.

[quote=Juiced6]

Im not making up facts - I just read the back pages of the newspapers with the little font - you know where the article was about Iraq had no weapons and the search was being called off.
[/quote]
You are very selective in your reading of world events.

[quote=Juiced6]

What is funny now is that more Americans are starting to think like me now - have you seen a latest approval rating of Bush - lowest he has ever had and it is all because of this war.
[/quote]
Uh huh.  And Bush's approval went up after the elections, too.  You know why?  Because the media feeds mind-numbed robots like you with lies and you go out and parrot those lies word for word.

A smear campaign, and nothing more.

Oh, by the way, Dan Rather STILL insists that the fake military records story CBS News did was legitimate.  And he still holds the view that those forged documents have not been conclusively proven to be forgeries!  Hahahaha.

[quote=Juiced6]

and Ann Coulter is the biggest moron to ever get into media - hell she even wanted to cut off relations to Canada because they did not back this war. 

[/quote]

Good.   Canada sucks.

[quote=Juiced6] 

Yeah to quote Ann Coulter - wow talk about embarassing yourself.

You must still have nightmares of all the latrines your Capt. made you clean during the Gulf War while the real soldiers were chasing the Republican Guard while they were dropping their rifles and running away.

Served in a line infantry unit.  Please don't mock my service, or anyone else's for that matter.  I was there, you weren't, enough said.

Germany NEVER attacked the United States.  Or did anything else against the United States. 

Germans U-Boats were attacking US merchant ships off the Atlantic coast as early as 1940.  Their attacks were passive, must like the radical Arab world's attacks against the US that started with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1982. 

 90% (from what I've read) of our war effort in WWII was focused on the European theater

With all due respect, go read something else.  Check out the dead and wounded numbers from the Pacific and European theaters.  Also, there is a reason two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and not Germany.  The Germans were developing V-2 rockets near the end of the war that were reaching Great Britain and were working on their own atomic bomb.  The United States wanted nothing to do with invading the Japanese homeland.  The bombs were meant as a way of escalating the level of destruction and human cruelty to the Japanese masses to get them to surrender--on our terms. 

[quote=Visigoth]
“In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land

owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.

Gore’s territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned

tenements and living off government welfare…” [/quote]



Nothing could be more true!



Looking at the election map:



http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/



One can clearly see that in most of the states won by Kerry, Kerry won
the welfare-dependent, crime-ridden inner cities and Bush won most of
the rest of the counties.



Kerry got 90% of the Washington DC vote.  Do you know how high the crime rate is in DC?

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=Visigoth]
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land
owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned
tenements and living off government welfare..." [/quote]

Nothing could be more true!

Looking at the election map:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/

One can clearly see that in most of the states won by Kerry, Kerry won the welfare-dependent, crime-ridden inner cities and Bush won most of the rest of the counties.

Kerry got 90% of the Washington DC vote.  Do you know how high the crime rate is in DC?
[/quote]

Exactly! 

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

there is a more accurate voter turnout - purple.

When only 5% of this country in unemployed that means 95% must be working.

So how is 50% of this lands population in jail and on welfare if they are working - your voter theory just died.

I get my media from all sorts of places - from CNN and Fox to Internet and indy news sources - say what you want about any of them but it goes from far right to far left and I make my own decisions.

Also the French put all their faith in the Maginot Line - however, Germany had scouts and bombers to easily get by it.  France never cared because they thought this defense system would keep the Germans at bay - must be that your history reading is selective.

Bush did lie -

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

so what did we go to war for?

Also I never did mention Dan Rather - so where did that come from?

What is funny is have you cornered so you are throwing out typical Right wing responses to make me look like some die hard liberal.

The truth is I vote for more republicans than democrats however, I do not agree with Bush. 

You on the other hand cannot even comprehend what I am saying just tossing up your own drivel so you feel smarter or better?  So does it?  Do you feel much smarter or a better class person because I have looked into this and have made my own independent conclusions? Well if it does -

Well whatever - I had fun but this is not a political page - lets just bury this right now and get back to talking about our careers.

[quote]Canada sucks.
[/quote]

Yeah but Hockey is always fun and its a great place to snowmobile and fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Powers

[quote=Starka]

I'm curious, VfK.

Why would you think that cleaning latrines (or "heads" in the Navy and Marine Corps) is somehow a dishonorable duty?  (On that subject, those duties are assigned by NCOs, not officers.)  Why is pride in one's service a negative in your eyes?  Why is it perfectly acceptable to vote for the candidate of your choice, yet citizens voting for other candidates are not worthy of the same right, yet seem to be fair game for personal, ad hominem attacks?  Is there no room in your political philosophy for dissent?  Doesn't that seem narrow-minded and smack of totalitarianism to you?

If you want to make a case for your point of view, fine!  I'll listen.  Respectfully, so far your case doesn't hold water.

Shame on you Sooth, having your sister, Starka, write that post.  But I will once again apologize, cleaning latrines is not dishonorable, God forbid the battlefield should smell like crap it's bad enough with decomposing bodies littered about.  But this will be my last post on this subject.  Your post has convinced me how narrow minded I really am.  I will leave the Democratic Party and become the Pro Iraq War, Evangelical Christian, Pro-Life, Republican that I should be.  Whoa. I feel great now.  You've changed my life.  GO BUSH!!! Thanks again Sooth and Starka. 

VfK, the earmark of ignorance is intolerance of other points of view.

“When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.”
- George Bernard Shaw
Caesar and Cleopatra

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool to his folly."

                                                   --God

“A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side.”
- Joseph Addison (1672-1719)
English writer, statesman, publisher, essayist & poet

“The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing.”
- Gamel Abdel Nasser

“Stupidity is not a handicap in politics.”
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
French statesman and soldier

“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969)
Soldier, statesman, President

[quote=Starka]

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool to his folly."

                                                   --God

[/quote]

[quote=VotedforKerry][quote=Starka]

I'm curious, VfK.

Why would you think that cleaning latrines (or "heads" in the Navy and Marine Corps) is somehow a dishonorable duty?  (On that subject, those duties are assigned by NCOs, not officers.)  Why is pride in one's service a negative in your eyes?  Why is it perfectly acceptable to vote for the candidate of your choice, yet citizens voting for other candidates are not worthy of the same right, yet seem to be fair game for personal, ad hominem attacks?  Is there no room in your political philosophy for dissent?  Doesn't that seem narrow-minded and smack of totalitarianism to you?

If you want to make a case for your point of view, fine!  I'll listen.  Respectfully, so far your case doesn't hold water.

Shame on you Sooth, having your sister, Starka, write that post.  But I will once again apologize, cleaning latrines is not dishonorable, God forbid the battlefield should smell like crap it's bad enough with decomposing bodies littered about.  But this will be my last post on this subject.  Your post has convinced me how narrow minded I really am.  I will leave the Democratic Party and become the Pro Iraq War, Evangelical Christian, Pro-Life, Republican that I should be.  Whoa. I feel great now.  You've changed my life.  GO BUSH!!! Thanks again Sooth and Starka. 

[/quote]

Just like a liberal to paint everyone to the right of him as being radical, one dimensional, and subscribing to a fundamental interpretation of the Bible.  That's right bud.....you Dems are al sooooo inclusive and diverse, but us Republicans are all the same....just a bunch of intolerant clones.

No...we just believe in personal responsibility, and you don't.....you expect the government to fix all your problems.   That is the biggest difference between the two parties and their adherents!

[quote]

No...we just believe in personal responsibility, and you don't.....you expect the government to fix all your problems.   That is the biggest difference between the two parties and their adherents![/quote]

Welfare needs retooling or even abolishing.  Hell cant we get a president like FDR who takes this money and atleast makes people work - who cares if it is to plant trees or make highways or even work in a daycare - free food for being lazy needs to go away in a hurry.

Not sure what other states are but in IL it is a joke how easy it can be misused and people can stay on it for years if they know the loopholes.

[quote=joedabrkr][quote=VotedforKerry][quote=Starka]

I'm curious, VfK.

Why would you think that cleaning latrines (or "heads" in the Navy and Marine Corps) is somehow a dishonorable duty?  (On that subject, those duties are assigned by NCOs, not officers.)  Why is pride in one's service a negative in your eyes?  Why is it perfectly acceptable to vote for the candidate of your choice, yet citizens voting for other candidates are not worthy of the same right, yet seem to be fair game for personal, ad hominem attacks?  Is there no room in your political philosophy for dissent?  Doesn't that seem narrow-minded and smack of totalitarianism to you?

If you want to make a case for your point of view, fine!  I'll listen.  Respectfully, so far your case doesn't hold water.

Shame on you Sooth, having your sister, Starka, write that post.  But I will once again apologize, cleaning latrines is not dishonorable, God forbid the battlefield should smell like crap it's bad enough with decomposing bodies littered about.  But this will be my last post on this subject.  Your post has convinced me how narrow minded I really am.  I will leave the Democratic Party and become the Pro Iraq War, Evangelical Christian, Pro-Life, Republican that I should be.  Whoa. I feel great now.  You've changed my life.  GO BUSH!!! Thanks again Sooth and Starka. 

[/quote]

Just like a liberal to paint everyone to the right of him as being radical, one dimensional, and subscribing to a fundamental interpretation of the Bible.  That's right bud.....you Dems are al sooooo inclusive and diverse, but us Republicans are all the same....just a bunch of intolerant clones.

No...we just believe in personal responsibility, and you don't.....you expect the government to fix all your problems.   That is the biggest difference between the two parties and their adherents!

[/quote]

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Philosopher, economist

[quote=Juiced6][quote]

No...we just believe in personal responsibility, and you don't.....you expect the government to fix all your problems.   That is the biggest difference between the two parties and their adherents![/quote]

Welfare needs retooling or even abolishing.  Hell cant we get a president like FDR who takes this money and atleast makes people work - who cares if it is to plant trees or make highways or even work in a daycare - free food for being lazy needs to go away in a hurry.
[/quote]
NO!  You can't.  EVERY time a work requirement passes the state legisltatures (you know--the representatives elected by the PEOPLE) a LIBERAL lawyer seeks out a LIBERAL judge who says that it is not constitutional to make people work for their welfare.

Every time a legislature tries to cut welfare, a LIBERAL lawyer goes before a LIBERAL judge who rules that welfare can't be cut.

To the liberal, welfare is good, work is bad.  The very core of liberalism, and the modern democratic party, is wealth redistribution.  You know, taking money from hard-working people like you and your clients and giving it to those who don't want to work in this EVIL (sarcasm) capitalist system.

[quote=Juiced6]

Not sure what other states are but in IL it is a joke how easy it can be misused and people can stay on it for years if they know the loopholes.

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=menotellname]

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Philosopher, economist

[/quote]

And that is why the group with the lowest IQs, lowest school performance, lowest incomes, and highest unemployment, highest crime and prison incarceration rates consistently votes 90% for Democrats, huh?

Pick any Democratic-voting stronghold.  Oh, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Cinci, and you'll find shootings every night.  Decay and destruction is all you'll find.  Once strong, vibrant cities totally and completely destroyed by Democratic-voting scum.

I guess in menotellname's world drive-by shootings are the hallmark of intelligence.  I guess 1 out of every 3 of your male core voting base spending time in state or federal prison during his lifetime is a sign of intelligence.
[/quote]

“Curiosity is one of the lowest of the human faculties. You will have noticed in daily life that when people are inquisitive they nearly always have bad memories and are usually stupid at bottom.”
- E.M. Forster (1879-1970)
English novelist
from Aspects of the Novel, ch. 5, "The Plot," 1927.

[quote=inquisitive][quote=menotellname]“The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing.”
- Gamel Abdel Nasser [/quote]

Hence we see yet another example of the anti-American sentiment of the liberal.

Say, menotellname, why don't you head on off to Africa and live your life if America is so bad.  Then you can starve to death with your bruthas.

There is no place on earth where you'd live a better life than in this country.  Thank your lucky stars you are here.
[/quote]

“The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois.”
- Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880)

[quote=Juiced6]

Bush did lie -

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

so what did we go to war for?

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=inquisitive][quote=menotellname]“The
genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves,
only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility
that there may be something to them we are missing.”
- Gamel Abdel Nasser [/quote]

Hence we see yet another example of the anti-American sentiment of the liberal.

Say,
menotellname, why don’t you head on off to Africa and live your life if
America is so bad.  Then you can starve to death with your bruthas.

There is no place on earth where you’d live a better life than in this country.  Thank your lucky stars you are here.
[/quote]

“The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois.”
- Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880)

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=menotellname]

[quote=inquisitive][quote=menotellname]“The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing.”
- Gamel Abdel Nasser [/quote]

Hence we see yet another example of the anti-American sentiment of the liberal.

Say, menotellname, why don't you head on off to Africa and live your life if America is so bad.  Then you can starve to death with your bruthas.

There is no place on earth where you'd live a better life than in this country.  Thank your lucky stars you are here.
[/quote]

“The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois.”
- Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880)

[/quote]

Your quotes are so fitting...for yourself.

The fact is that neither you nor I would have a better life anywhere else but America.

Why can't you put aside your anti-Americanism for one second and admit that?
[/quote]

I just googled some info about countries with the highest standard of living and found this list of the top ten. (However, this is for the years 2003-2004). Thought it would be interesting to share it with you.

World Top 10 - Countries with Highest
Standard of Living

Country

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland

For you Mr. Stupid/Inquisitive

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quali ty-of-life-map.html

"World Top 10 - Countries with Highest
Standard of Living "

By what criteria?

Menotellname, can you think for yourself or do you simply read a book of quotes from deservedly obscure 19th century writers for your political philosophy?

[quote=Starka]Menotellname, can you think for yourself or do you simply read a book of quotes from deservedly obscure 19th century writers for your political philosophy?[/quote]

Starka,

Thank you for your reply.  I think rather well.  I am glad that you asked.

[quote=NeverShort]"World Top 10 - Countries with Highest
Standard of Living "

By what criteria?
[/quote]

I think the hottest chicks.

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]Menotellname, can you think for yourself or do you simply read a book of quotes from deservedly obscure 19th century writers for your political philosophy?[/quote]

Starka,

Thank you for your reply.  I think rather well.  I am glad that you asked.

[/quote]

Menotellname,

You hide it extraordinarily well.

[quote=Starka][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]Menotellname, can you think for yourself or do you simply read a book of quotes from deservedly obscure 19th century writers for your political philosophy?[/quote]

Starka,

Thank you for your reply.  I think rather well.  I am glad that you asked.

[/quote]

Menotellname,

You hide it extraordinarily well.

[/quote]

The feeling is mutual (feel the love).

[quote=NeverShort]"World Top 10 - Countries with Highest
Standard of Living "

By what criteria?
[/quote]

Human Development Index

...take a look...we're losing ground...down to #8 in 2004

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/pdf/presskit/HDR04_P KE_HDI.pdf

Data by indicators:

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/index_alpha_indicators.c fm

[quote=menotellname][quote=Starka][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]Menotellname, can you think for yourself or do you simply read a book of quotes from deservedly obscure 19th century writers for your political philosophy?[/quote]

Starka,

Thank you for your reply.  I think rather well.  I am glad that you asked.

[/quote]

Menotellname,

You hide it extraordinarily well.

[/quote]

The feeling is mutual (feel the love).

[/quote]

Truly a snappy comeback!  About what we'd expect from a dynamic intellect such as yours!

Congratulations! You've outdone yourself!

[quote=Starka][quote=menotellname][quote=Starka][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]Menotellname, can you think for yourself or do you simply read a book of quotes from deservedly obscure 19th century writers for your political philosophy?[/quote]

Starka,

Thank you for your reply.  I think rather well.  I am glad that you asked.

[/quote]

Menotellname,

You hide it extraordinarily well.

[/quote]

The feeling is mutual (feel the love).

[/quote]

Truly a snappy comeback!  About what we'd expect from a dynamic intellect such as yours!

Congratulations! You've outdone yourself!

[/quote]

I didn't want to confuse you.  I tend to take it easy on those that are less mentally gifted (like you and inquisitive).

Here...they sent this to my email box today.  Don't strain yourself.

Truncated as not to abuse your intellect...

**************************************************

Greetings, fellow Mensan.

You are receiving this email because you are a current member of Mensa born between 1961 and 1981.

The GenX SIG has produced its second quarterly newsletter, "XcoMunication", and it is now available at http://genx.us.mensa.org/newsletter/XcoM_V1_I2.pdf .

Luckily for me, I don’t need an organization’s e-mail to remind me that I’m a genius.

[quote=Starka]Luckily for me, I don't need an organization's e-mail to remind me that I'm a genius.[/quote]

Lucky for you, you're not a genius.

Ah, the snappy comebacks just fly from your fingertips!  (Small wonder your Mensa Chapter doesn’t know your name!)

[quote=Starka]Ah, the snappy comebacks just fly from your fingertips!  (Small wonder your Mensa Chapter doesn't know your name!)
[/quote]

If you say so...

Amazing that you and inquisitive like to try and insult somebody's intelligence and then you two try to claim that you actually have intelligence when you can't pass the MENSA muster.

Jealousy is an awful character flaw to have.

[quote=menotellname]

Data by indicators:

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/index_alpha_indicators.c fm

[/quote]

So a UN group, using nebulous and subjective criteria, has determined that aome nations with far higher unemployment, slower growth and lower per capita income are higher on their "human development" scale.

I doubt know about the rest of you, but I'm deeply hurt....

That should read; "So a UN group, using nebulous and subjective criteria, has determined that some nations with far higher unemployment, slower growth and lower per capita income are higher on their "human development" scale.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm deeply hurt...."

Always amazed how educated people think like I do.

As for WMD that is a democratic wildcard. Who cares if Saddam complied in 1991. He broke 13 UN resolutions and shot SAMS at our aircraft monthly. On top of this he was an ecoterrorist when he lit all the oil wells on fire and drained the marsh lands. During the last 20 years he put thousands of children in prison and murdered, raped and killed over a million muslims. What idiot would need WMD as a reason to remove him.

Now at best if we let Saddam stay in power he may have been a good dictator/terrorist. We would have expected him to continue his mission to pay terrorists/marters 25k to blow themselves up, attract extremest teachers to breed hate against the west and continued to bond with terrorists (Zaquari went to IRAQ when he was injured not China, North Korea or IRAN). Another possiblility is Uday and Kusay would have killed their father and those crazy bastards would have ensured hell rises in the middle east.

Now Saddam, Taliban and Arafat are gone Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebannon, Spain, Syria, Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq, Turkey and some African nations are being reformed. The world is aligned against one enemy who are known as TERRORISTS. Now a terrorist is someone who supports or acts to harm innocent civilians. As Bush stated "You are either with us or against us!".

Well ladies and gents as I hammer Democrats I think most importantly we are all Americans! Politics makes people say and do stupid things, but to continually say and do these actions is wrong. Democrat leaders including Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, Reid, Hollywood and Pelosi do this often so I dont respect them! In fact as a member of our armed forces I am disgusted by their comments and actions.

Someone posted 25% voted for the president??

Actually it was about 60% voted for the presidency. Bush was the first president since Reagen to get over 50% of the vote. The rest of America who sat on their lazy butts decided to talk about the election instead of voting.

I am amazed that the Democrat party is so screwed up. They have completly different positions and everyone has a different position. Their leadership is flawed at best. From Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Clinton, Kennedy and Pelosi they are the party of negativity and pessamism. It seem they are more inline with moveon.org, ACLU and Hollywood then the rest of America.

Many who vote Democratic think of great leaders like JFK. If I was poor and uninformed I would listen to my dad who says "JFK was a democrat and a great man, so vote democrat. They are for the unions and the poor." Now JFK stated "its not what your country does for you, but what you do for your country."

These organizations that the democratic leadership are supporting are promoting everything but what one does for their country. They focus more on how to be against everything your country does and blocking anything productive.

Now among other things democrats are against recruiters in our schools, power and money to the people (local governments), Supreme Court Justices who follow the constitution (not set from bench) and US finally taking a position on anything from Social Security to terrorism. What the hell are they for??

It seems many democrats say one thing to impress a certain party then change their view shortly after for another party. Example: Dean sending a letter to Clinton in 98 supporting us going after Saddam and everything he says now. Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton signing a bill in 2002 promoting action in IRAQ (showing strong response of democrats) then saying more BS then ever when the election was coming (Iraq leader is a liar with constitution, forming government and we will lose 10,000+ marching to IRAQ).

Wyatt- If less than 50% of eligible voters voted and 53% voted for Bush what is the percentage of voters that put him in office? (Hint it is not 60% like you said…)

Final answer. Bush is the president. He has a great core of leaders and makes the best decision based on information at hand.

He does not give a damn about liberal polls conducted by a liberal media. This media loves to promote anti US and Bush BS. Even educated liberals agree with this. Now there is a shift. Started with Rush then Fox and now PBS. I guess telling the full story and the truth is catching on.

It seems to me the Dems love to focus on the past. 2000 Bush put in office by brother and supreme court (vote verified about 10 times by different organizations). Another vietnam. Iraq war is a "quagmire"? 

Deep down I really am equal I think Frisk was an idiot to analyze the brain dead lady from the senate. I mean he and others used that lady. She was dead 10 years ago. Both parties use people and events for political gain, but the leaders make the party. 

Now Bush is the Republican leader and he sticks to his guns. He puts his neck out on important issues and does not follow polls. He structured his government around solid leaders including Powell, Cheney, Rumsfelt and both democrats and republicans. He has values, morels and vision. He talks the talk and walks the walk. Some people like slick willie. Actually I like slick willie, but he failed.

From corporate fraud to our national security during the Clinton years nothing was done, but an oval office "hummer from an intern". Now some people say well no big deal. It set the standard for integrity (when he lied to the country) values and morels. On top of that he showed the worlds attack us and we will be more sensative to your cause (US Cole, Kobar Towers, Embassies and the Twin Towers I). Also as Saddam defied the world with BS, marters and propganda we had 30,000+ troops rotating in the middle east. What about that BS and that cost?

Thank god for BUSH. If time will tell if he did right I think we are on a good track. Look at all the reform and now there are 100 million people in the world who are free. On top of that when we tell IRAN, Syria or North Korea to cut the sh*t. They know they better listen. Before our words were a broken record from slick willie.

Now for those who say well North Korea is not listening. They have 15 years of talking this bs. They push things to the edge in their eyes they give in. Their leader is a nut who kidnaped the two most famous South Korean actors for 8 years to be in movies with them. As millions struggle to find food he wants weapons?

The dems leaders say we need to talk directly to them.. We did and they signed a treaty with Albright. Then they broke it. So Republican leadership says open talks with Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and US. What makes sense?

The leadership of each party sets the standard. Right now the dems are so screwed up its pathetic.

Visigoth wow that was a damn good post.

Our military is amazing. Interesting fact on Sept 11th. Kuwait airbase Al Jaber was completly maned by guardsman for the first time. I know since I was there.

Another fact before Bush was president he stated we need to beef up homeland security.

As for the downsizing of the military this is an extreme situation. The problem with the 90's was crushing our inteligence divisions. Infact the patriot act was brought up before the Bush years and denied by Clinton. He stated it would infringe on peoples rights. It would have prevented the Trade Center attack. They did have the Air Force total force concept which intergraded guard and reserves units into a 12 rotational forces. 

No matter what event in history there will always be people who said I told you so. Bush let his military leaders run the war and this is good. WWII we lost 400k, vietnam 70k and Korea 80k. Now one troop lost now is too many, but our troops really do support the war and they are educated. As a leader of a few thousand I do hear both sides but it is at least 4 - 1 infavor.

I recommend FahrenHYPE 9/11.

Erp,

Do you have a top secret security clearance?

Does he need one to read a book of obscure quotes?

[quote=Starka]Does he need one to read a book of obscure quotes?[/quote]

Nope.  But as a "leader of a few thousand" I would hope that he actually knows something other than what he is told.

He’s probably a Colonel, and from what he’s said really doesn’t need any clearances.

[quote=Starka]He's probably a Colonel, and from what he's said really doesn't need any clearances.[/quote]

As a Colonel he WOULD need security clearance to receive access to certain privileged information.  Just because he may be an officer doesn't mean his is privy to certain classes of information.

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]He's probably a Colonel, and from what he's said really doesn't need any clearances.[/quote]

As a Colonel he WOULD need security clearance to receive access to certain privileged information.  Just because he may be an officer doesn't mean his is privy to certain classes of information.

[/quote]

You military experience is clearly either limited or non-existent.  Just because one is a senior officer does not necessitate access to "priveledged" [sic] information, particularly if he's a field officer.  You only get a clearance if you need a clearance, and in the case of a field officer (or more appropriately particularly if one is a field officer), sensitive information is not a desireable think. 

[quote=Starka][quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]He's probably a Colonel, and from what he's said really doesn't need any clearances.[/quote]

As a Colonel he WOULD need security clearance to receive access to certain privileged information.  Just because he may be an officer doesn't mean his is privy to certain classes of information.

[/quote]

You military experience is clearly either limited or non-existent.  Just because one is a senior officer does not necessitate access to "priveledged" [sic] information, particularly if he's a field officer.  You only get a clearance if you need a clearance, and in the case of a field officer (or more appropriately particularly if one is a field officer), sensitive information is not a desireable think. 

[/quote]

Spoken like somebody that never had a security clearance.  If you think that some field officer is privy to all classes of information based on rank you are certainly mistaken.  Just because you were a grunt and you believed everything you were told is no reason to be ignorant of the truth.

[quote=noggin]Wyatt- If less than 50% of eligible voters voted and 53% voted for Bush what is the percentage of voters that put him in office? (Hint it is not 60% like you said....)[/quote]

1) Don't assume that those who didn't vote didn't support Bush.

2) I don't recall this sort of whimpering about the percentage of the population that didn't vote when Clinton took office with only 43% of the popular vote in 1992.

I’m a retired Navy Captain (O-6).  A fair part of my Naval service was in submarines.  It’s fair to say that I’ve forgotten more about security (among other things) than you’ll ever know.

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]He's probably a Colonel, and from what he's said really doesn't need any clearances.[/quote]

As a Colonel he WOULD need security clearance to receive access to certain privileged information.  Just because he may be an officer doesn't mean his is privy to certain classes of information.

[/quote]

This metellno sounds like a disgruntled former enlisted man who doesn't know that you have to qualify for a top secret level clearance to be commissioned and that by the time you've made field grade status you've had assignments that require an even higher level. That’s doesn’t mean you’re granted access to all classified information that your clearance qualifies you to see, because the vast majority of it is granted only if your assignment requires you to be familiar with it. OTOH, by then you’ve had enough experience and you’ve held positions and attended service schools that have brought you in contact with a great deal of classified information.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 I’m betting metellno never even had a clearance higher than that required to have a daily code book for the radio he carried for his boss.

[quote=Starka]I'm a retired Navy Captain (O-6).  A fair part of my Naval service was in submarines.  It's fair to say that I've forgotten more about security (among other things) than you'll ever know.[/quote]

Congratulations.  A Navy Captain...unfortunately you are ignorant of the fact the most CTs and ISs have access to at least as much information as you.  Call up NSG and have a chat.

Submarines?  That explains a lot.  Send 90 men out...45 couples come back.

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]I'm a retired Navy Captain (O-6).  A fair part of my Naval service was in submarines.  It's fair to say that I've forgotten more about security (among other things) than you'll ever know.[/quote]

Congratulations.  A Navy Captain...unfortunately you are ignorant of the fact the most CTs and ISs have access to at least as much information as you.  Call up NSG and have a chat.

Submarines?  That explains a lot.  Send 90 men out...45 couples come back.

[/quote]

Wow, when I started reading this thread I came to think little of this metellno person. Now, after this latest post, I've found my opinion of him was STILL too high.

Still one more subject to include in your “Portfolio of Ignorance”!  (Couldn’t qualify for the boats, huh?  Well, we only accepted the top 25%.)

[quote=Starka]Still one more subject to include in your "Portfolio of Ignorance"!  (Couldn't qualify for the boats, huh?  Well, we only accepted the top 25%.)[/quote]

And to think I was the top 1% and they said "Oh my God...we've got a Nuke!"  And I said "No thanks."

Aye, Aye, shipmate.

Ah…you’re not quite good enough to be MY shipmate.

[quote=Starka]Ah.....you're not quite good enough to be MY shipmate.[/quote]

I know.  You already have a boyfriend.  I assume you did your full 20...most of it on a submarine...no females...quality time with your yeoman...LMAO

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=Starka]Ah.....you're not quite good enough to be MY shipmate.[/quote]

I know.  You already have a boyfriend.  I assume you did your full 20...most of it on a submarine...no females...quality time with your yeoman...LMAO

[/quote]

Sounds like menotell should drop the obvious denial and embrace his true desires.

Wow, this is a popular topic.

If one has or is currently serving as an officer or enlisted they deserve respect. If a person supports the military and our country they deserve respect. As for clearance there are many factors on who would have access to more knowledge. Often someone with a top secret clearance studies charts, maps and secret data or documents. Now another person who is intelligent and spends time researching a topic could know 10 times more relevent information then a top secret guy.

Hey ladies and gents I am amazed the intelligent people often state the facts, while others attack the person stating the facts. This is why more and more of the dems believe their party left them. Can anyone tell me what the Democrats position is on any issues? As a party they are all over the place.

"Can anyone tell me what the Democrats position is on any issues?"

Sure, this one's easy;

Should I continue?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 The purpose of our government is not to force one persons beleifs on other people. Republicans seem to love to do this in the name of "Morality"

Democrats may seem to be all over the place to closed minded individuals, that care about only themselves. But this is America, There are all kinds of different people that make up this land. Not everybody is a Nascar driving, gun toting jesus freak.

[quote=Cruiser]

 The purpose of our government is not to force one persons beleifs on other people. Republicans seem to love to do this in the name of "Morality"

Democrats may seem to be all over the place to closed minded individuals, that care about only themselves. But this is America, There are all kinds of different people that make up this land. Not everybody is a Nascar driving, gun toting jesus freak.

[/quote]

It takes a special kind of person to, in the same post, to pat one's self on the back for not being "closed minded" and then to label others as "Nascar driving, gun toting jesus freak[s]".

Nevershort that is classic.

As much as welfare was an issue the current social security system is even worse. Daily more benefits are added.

The idiots who question the personal spending accouts are complete morons. EXAMPLE: Unions who fight this idea are investing their money in the stock market. Government employees have used the TSP for 20+ years with an annual average return over 6% compared to 1.6 in Social Security.

Recently I heard this guy state social security pays 0%. What he was saying was if a taxpayer makes 50k and pays 6% to Social Security after 40 years that would be 120,000 invested. Well if they collect 1200 a month it would take at least 10 years to get principal back. Now if one was to die before 10 years their family would not get the money so in turn you were never paid a dime in interest.

I thought that was an interesting point.

I used to work in an auto customizing shop in college - and we had the big (well big back then) 22-24" chrome wheels for SUVs.

Every single person who asked about them either paid cash (some wheels over $8000 to go on an 80s Caprice that was worth about $10) or was waiting to save up their Social Security disability checks or welfare. 

Now when kids are at home with parents who dont work (atleast they had a lot of free time to look at wheel books everyday) I dont think it is a wise investment to use welfare cash to buy wheels for the family car.

And really I dont care if its a democrat or republican - I am voting for the next candidate who will reform this nonsense

Good Luck with that Juiced.  As far as I can see it has hit critical mass in this country and the "blame-society-what-can-I get-for-free" crowd has taken over.   Any politician who told it like it really is will never get elected now. 

Just look at Bush allowing an open boarder.  If he were to cut it off like he should the left would scream bloody murder.  I also totally agree with execjock.  Who with any ounce of thought could agrue against ss reform.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

I have employees from below the border and they are good people.

We need immigrants to plant trees and pick crops. Now Bush said lets keep tabs on them and charge them taxes. There is no way to completly remove aliens from our society when they make one dollar a day in their country and a few hundred in America. So we need to track them and make them pay taxes.

Part of the whole problem with welfare/social services is the American attitude towards debt and money. Americans in general are fat and happy. In general they dont remember when times were tough. You have a society saying wow teachers have it rough.

Teacher unions were ready to say no to homework when Gov Schwarzenegger only gave them a 3 billion dollar increase instead of 5 billion. If only the working class had the issues of a yearly 5% raise, guarenteed job and 3 months off in the summer. WOW teachers have it rough!

This is why foreign people come here they save and buy a business and make it work. They work 100 hour weeks in the gas station or on the phone to make it work. They live in subpar housing and dont go a couple of hundred thousand in debt with a brand new house, three new cars and all the goodies.

Now this is not to say I am going to work 100 hours a week, but I am frugal. I think outside the box since I have a lot of friends who are from East Europe, Russia and Mexico.

Its amazing to think only 10 years ago many from East Europe and Russia stood in line for bread and meat. On top of that they were able to get fruit one day a year.. That day was New Years.