[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.