Have They No Shame? LIBERALS = AL QUADA ENABLERS ?!

[BroncoBuff]

Once again, the Prince of Darkness plays the ugly "Liberals=Al Quada Enablers" card. There seems to be no limit to their obfuscation ... even though 9/11 is the only card they have left.

Don't read this if you have a weak stomach:

Vice President Dick Cheney . . . went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage "al Qaeda types."

"It's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy," Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview with news service reporters. . . .

Mr. Cheney offered warm praise for Mr. Lieberman, who was his opponent for vice president in 2000, though he said he did not want his remarks to be construed as an endorsement of Mr. Lieberman.

He cast Mr. Lieberman's loss in ominous terms, suggesting that it would hearten American terrorist enemies. Terrorists, he said, are "betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/washington/10senate.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=db0093efe7f63a1b&hp=&ex=1155182400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin (bottom of page)

[defenseman]

Agreed. One by one, the dems are allowing themselves to be "defined" by the lamont types. And, once proven a successful method of "getting elected", since that is their only "real" goal, they'll morph into anti-war candidates. Not all, but enough to swing the party into the far left column, exactly where they belong. When hillary shifts to anti-war, and she will, the liberal debacle will be in full swing....predictable, sad and disgraceful..dman

*dems = anything for a vote. ANYTHING.

[SteveTensi13]

Agreed. One by one, the dems are allowing themselves to be "defined" by the lamont types. And, once proven a successful method of "getting elected", since that is their only "real" goal, they'll morph into anti-war candidates. Not all, but enough to swing the party into the far left column, exactly where they belong. When hillary shifts to anti-war, and she will, the liberal debacle will be in full swing....predictable, sad and disgraceful..dman

*dems = anything for a vote. ANYTHING.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Rohirrim]

Judging by the posts above, the Carl Rove line of BS and the lies of the Lizard King (Cheney) are very effective in creating delusion within the minds of some American voters. This, of course, is the goal of such obfuscation. I'm old enough to remember when Nixon used the same tactics to convince a large portion of the American people that things were going well in Vietnam and that fighting in Vietnam was crucial to America's vital interests. History has shown that to be a bald faced lie, a lie for which 58,000 Americans died, some of them my closest buddies.

Back then, Cheney was just a pup, learning at the master's knee. Spiro Agnew was the guy who came out and smeared his fellow Americans in the interests of political gain (before he went to prison, anyway). The goal then, as it is now, was to divide the American people. Back then, you had the "Silent Majority;" a mythical coalition of Americans (created by Nixon) who agreed with everything Nixon did or said. Everybody else (by process of elimination) was a traitor. This is the kind of slime we should all work to keep out of our politics, but of course, for Cheney/Bush/Rove this is their stock in trade: the smear, the attack on the honor of patriots, the attack on the honor of veterans, the late night phone call, the smirk and the grin while claiming the other side might be supporting Bin Laden, the "cut and run" crowd, etc. Of course, they don't want you to ask, "Why is Bin Laden still alive?" or "Why has Iraq turned into a complete debacle?"

What can you expect from people without honor? As long as the American people are divided and fighting against each other, they cannot look at their government and realize that their government is an abject failure. Divide and conquer. These neocons love war; just as long as they aren't the ones fighting.

The terrorists have attacked us since the 1970s. Their attacks are not conditional on anything we do, on who is in the WH, on whether we stay in Iraq or not. Cheney is simply using this lie for political gain, which is all he ever does with anything.

Someday, the American people will see that this emperor has no clothes. They will see that this administration is totally incompetent but fills the airways with lies to hide their abject failures.

They will realize that Bin Laden is still alive and well.

They will realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMDs, and had no capacity whatsover to attack the U.S.

They will see that the Rumsfeld plan in Iraq has been an abysmal failure and is now completely unsalvageable, and that to spend further American blood trying to bail out this gross incompetence would be a total waste.

They will see that Bush's massive incompetence has created more instability in the world, more danger for the U.S. and more terrorists who are committed to attacking us.

They will see that Bush has made our enemies (Iran, NK) stronger.

They will realize that Bin Laden's stated goal was to play Bush for the macho sucker that he is, to goad him into sending troops somewhere into the ME (Iraq was perfect because Saddam headed one of the regimes that Al Queda eventually wanted to overthrow) so that Al Queda could directly attack Americans and drag them down into a quagmire - just like they did with the Soviets. In Afghanistan, we had them on the run. Now, because Bush is a simpleton and played right into their hands, it is us who is on the run.

They will also realize, like Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

There's only one thing the Bush administration doesn't want the American people to do. They don't want you to look behind the curtain. They'll do everything in their power to keep you from doing that.

The duty of a patriot is to serve the best interests of his country, not the best interests of his ideology.

[SteveTensi13]

I'm old enough to remember when Nixon used the same tactics to convince a large portion of the American people that things were going well in Vietnam and that fighting in Vietnam was crucial to America's vital interests. History has shown that to be a bald faced lie, a lie for which 58,000 Americans died, some of them my closest buddies.


Read you history bubby. Vietnam was a democrat war. And the way it was prosecuted, outside of Nixon, was typical of how dems fight wars.

[Rohirrim]

Read you history bubby. Vietnam was a democrat war. And the way it was prosecuted, outside of Nixon, was typical of how dems fight wars.

You sound so much like the comedian Rush Limbaugh, that sometimes I wonder about your true identity. ;)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Read you history bubby. Vietnam was a democrat war. And the way it was prosecuted, outside of Nixon, was typical of how dems fight wars.
Actually, you need to read YOUR history. Eisenhower sent the first Americans there and Nixon boldfaced lied to Americans about it for years.

[SteveTensi13]

Actually, you need to read YOUR history. Eisenhower sent the first Americans there and Nixon boldfaced lied to Americans about it for years.

Well now your being silly. Cause if you want to get technical, FDR sent the first Americans there to fight the Japanese.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well now your being silly. Cause if you want to get technical, FDR sent the first Americans there to fight the Japanese.
No, you're ignoring history. Vietnam become a "free" state in '45 and the Indochina war began in '46. The U.S. began sending aid (money) to the French in the war in '50.
In'54 Eisenhower outlined the "Domino theory". In '56 the U.S. began military training South Vietnamese forces.

[fdf]

Terrorists, he said, are "betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Well, BroncBuff, do you think this statement is untrue? I think that's exactly what the terrorists are betting on.

If you look back at the memoirs of the North Vietnamese Commanding General in the Vietnam War, he says explicitly that the North knew they could never match America's military and that, as a result, this was the North's strategy. He also says that folks like Jane Fonda and John Kerry were a big help to the North in their war against America.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Terrorists, he said, are "betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

What are you referring to, dividing Iraq into 3 different religious controlled regions? That's the only feasible possibility at this point.

[alkemical]

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Who'd a thunk it? ;)

[alkemical]

Agreed. One by one, the dems are allowing themselves to be "defined" by the lamont types. And, once proven a successful method of "getting elected", since that is their only "real" goal, they'll morph into anti-war candidates. Not all, but enough to swing the party into the far left column, exactly where they belong. When hillary shifts to anti-war, and she will, the liberal debacle will be in full swing....predictable, sad and disgraceful..dman

*dems = anything for a vote. ANYTHING.

Oh really Dman? I see alot of those on the right saying things and never holding their promises.

When the R's switch to anti-war - just wait and watch that party crumble just like the dems did a few years ago. Wait till the nutters on the right wing base realize their Pol's are selling them out too. (actually it is starting to get there, people as a whole are losing faith in the system, and really Dman - you should know better than to keep flinging **** at one side, it does spatter).


the greatest threat to america isn't terrorism - it's the general public becoming untrusting and cynical of the gov't.

[mhgaffney]

The Jerusalem Post reported that the Bushies are actually encouraging Israel to attack Syria, and thus to widen the war. This is also the view of James Bamford. Check out this video.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14472.htm

[Traveler]

Agreed. One by one, the dems are allowing themselves to be "defined" by the lamont types. And, once proven a successful method of "getting elected", since that is their only "real" goal, they'll morph into anti-war candidates. Not all, but enough to swing the party into the far left column, exactly where they belong. When hillary shifts to anti-war, and she will, the liberal debacle will be in full swing....predictable, sad and disgraceful..dman

*dems = anything for a vote. ANYTHING.


It's always better for dems or repubs to define themselves. Letting other other party do it for you is political suicide.

Take for instance the way the republicans constantly hammer away at democrats as being soft on defense. Yet democrats do little or nothing to turn the tables back on republicans.

Take control the dialog and define yourself. Show people you stand for something righteous. There are so many things wrong in this country and the quicker the dems speak to that, the better off the country will be.

[bendog]

note to d-man.

It is possible to think Iraq'a boondoggle that ultimately will result in a partition such as the ones that created Pakistan and Bangledish, and which is really a distraction from dangers to the country without appeasing bin laden. In fact on can say Iraq has worked in bin laden's favor, and it has, and the only thing to do now is to find the way out which minimizes the future damage.

[Rohirrim]

Terrorists, he said, are "betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Well, BroncBuff, do you think this statement is untrue? I think that's exactly what the terrorists are betting on.

If you look back at the memoirs of the North Vietnamese Commanding General in the Vietnam War, he says explicitly that the North knew they could never match America's military and that, as a result, this was the North's strategy. He also says that folks like Jane Fonda and John Kerry were a big help to the North in their war against America.

Stay in the fight and complete what task? Also, perhaps you could enlighten us all and tell us, had we won in Vietnam, what would we have won? Which one of the vital interests of the United States would have been served?

It also illustrates the stupidity of the Bush administration for ignoring the lessons of Vietnam. Those lessons learned were known as the Powell Doctrine, WHICH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION COMPLETELY IGNORED! And that is why we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of another Vietnam quagmire. What this political drivel is trying to hide is the FACT that the tactics of the Bush administration are an abject failure. The tactics of Nixon in Vietnam were an abject failure. The reasons for going into Iraq were a lie, and on top of that, Rumsfeld's takeover of tactics have turned the whole thing into a debacle.

It's funny, in an absurd way. The neocons go off half-cocked, lie to the public, embroil the U.S. in a war at the urging of the oil industry that was entirely unnecessary, completely screw up the execution of that war by ignoring everything we've learned in the last fifty years(because their little fantasy world is more powerful in their minds than reality), ignore the advice of and fire the generals who have gameplanned an Iraqi invasion for years, and then, when the Left starts saying "Short of sending in 200,000 troops, there's no way to save this mess. Let's not waste any more American lives on this abject failure of yours." What do the neocons do? They say, "It's all the Left's fault because they want to cut and run." If you're dumb enough to buy into the BS, okay, but to me, it's like seeing a house starting to cave in, you see a man in the house so you shout to him that his house is caving in and he should get out and he keeps shouting back, "It's only caving in because you're saying that." Well all righty then.

[SteveTensi13]

It's always better for dems or repubs to define themselves. Letting other other party do it for you is political suicide.

Take for instance the way the republicans constantly hammer away at democrats as being soft on defense. Yet democrats do little or nothing to turn the tables back on republicans.

Take control the dialog and define yourself. Show people you stand for something righteous. There are so many things wrong in this country and the quicker the dems speak to that, the better off the country will be.

The Dems stand up for something righteous? Oh man, you're killing me smalls!

[Barry Ramey]

Yeah, the Iraq War is similar to Vietnam. Bad things can hppen if we pull our troops too soon. When we pulled our troops in Vietnam, close to a million were slaughtered in south vietnam. Pregnant women being disembowed and other sickening things I don't care to mention. Strangely those that were opposed to our troops being there and trying to prevent that from happening don't want to talk much about that though. Instead, they'd rather believe the south vietnamese celebrated our troops leaving and became one happy family with the north. Let's pretend the killings didn't happen. Just like what has happened in Iraq. Let's believe the people there were so happy, but it was the bad U.S. and Bush that interrupted their paradise.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah, the Iraq War is similar to Vietnam. Bad things can hppen if we pull our troops too soon. When we pulled our troops in Vietnam, close to a million were slaughtered in south vietnam. Pregnant women being disembowed and other sickening things I don't care to mention. Strangely those that were opposed to our troops being there and trying to prevent that from happening don't want to talk much about that though. Instead, they'd rather believe the south vietnamese celebrated our troops leaving and became one happy family with the north. Let's pretend the killings didn't happen. Just like what has happened in Iraq. Let's believe the people there were so happy, but it was the bad U.S. and Bush that interrupted their paradise.

Too soon? How about too late? Tell us what would have happened if we'd stayed in Vietnam another year? Another five years? Twenty? These are the things you think about BEFORE you start a war (part of the Powell Doctrine, interestingly enough). Iraq is going down the toilet. It's not becoming a civil war, it IS a civil war. We have two choices, IMO. We start an emergency draft, draft and train 300,000 troops (which will take about six months), and send them in, or we continue to watch the drip, drip, drip of Americans being killed for nothing. This civil war is spiraling downward. We don't have the manpower in country to stop it. And please, don't be such an insipid lap dog of talk radio that you blame the Left for this debacle. That's like showing up at the doctor's office for a blood test, he tells you you have the clap, and then you blame him for it.

You guys just can't accept the truth; Bush has completely effed up everything he's touched. Keep blaming it on the Left. That's all you've got.

[SteveTensi13]

No, you're ignoring history. Vietnam become a "free" state in '45 and the Indochina war began in '46. The U.S. began sending aid (money) to the French in the war in '50.
In'54 Eisenhower outlined the "Domino theory". In '56 the U.S. began military training South Vietnamese forces.

Ok, I grant you that Eisenhower sent US military advisers to Vietnam, but this wouldn't have been necessary had Truman simply provided aid to Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh had declared independance from France. In fact Minh sent eight letters pleading for aid. Truman ignored his pleas and Ho Chi Minh had no other recourse but to appeal to China and Russia who jumped at the opportunity to establish themselves in that area. Ho Chi Minh had no other choice but to go totally communist from that point on!

So as you can see, once again a near sighted Democrat coudn't see the "big" picture and his failed foreign policy got us into another future war further enhanced by another democrat, LBJ.

[alkemical]

Ok, I grant you that Eisenhower sent US military advisers to Vietnam, but this wouldn't have been necessary had Truman simply provided aid to Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh had declared independance from France. In fact Minh sent eight letters pleading for aid. Truman ignored his pleas and Ho Chi Minh had no other recourse but to appeal to China and Russia who jumped at the opportunity to establish themselves in that area. Ho Chi Minh had no other choice but to go totally communist from that point on!

So as you can see, once again a near sighted Democrat coudn't see the "big" picture and his failed foreign policy got us into another future war further enhanced by another democrat, LBJ.


oh please, you are full o fit.

[alkemical]

Ok, I grant you that Eisenhower sent US military advisers to Vietnam, but this wouldn't have been necessary had Truman simply provided aid to Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh had declared independance from France. In fact Minh sent eight letters pleading for aid. Truman ignored his pleas and Ho Chi Minh had no other recourse but to appeal to China and Russia who jumped at the opportunity to establish themselves in that area. Ho Chi Minh had no other choice but to go totally communist from that point on!

So as you can see, once again a near sighted Democrat coudn't see the "big" picture and his failed foreign policy got us into another future war further enhanced by another democrat, LBJ.


oh please, you are full of it.


Plenty of FP mistakes are made due to the military & corporation influence doing what's best for them and not the USA.

[SteveTensi13]

oh please, you are full of it.


Plenty of FP mistakes are made due to the military & corporation influence doing what's best for them and not the USA.

Care to dispute my facts? Or as usual, like a typical lib, you try to deflect from the issue at hand.

[bendog]

The Jerusalem Post reported that the Bushies are actually encouraging Israel to attack Syria, and thus to widen the war. This is also the view of James Bamford. Check out this video.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14472.htm
No doubt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/washington/10rice.html?ref=todayspaper

THese people are insane. The nut of it is that they know we cannot occupy Iran, so I suppose they think bombing them will make them accept neocolonial rule, and give up getting nukes.

[alkemical]

Care to dispute my facts? Or as usual, like a typical lib, you try to deflect from the issue at hand.


The bleating of the sheep is so sad...

anyway - bush & regan screwed the pooch after afgh - and removing the shah didn't help matters, did it?

Maybe you are the one to keep deflecting blame

[Spider]

Agreed. One by one, the dems are allowing themselves to be "defined" by the lamont types. And, once proven a successful method of "getting elected", since that is their only "real" goal, they'll morph into anti-war candidates. Not all, but enough to swing the party into the far left column, exactly where they belong. When hillary shifts to anti-war, and she will, the liberal debacle will be in full swing....predictable, sad and disgraceful..dman

*dems = anything for a vote. ANYTHING.
what do you know about Lamont ?
i do know Bush turned Chicksht and ran from the ANG ..... Cheney had 5 count them 5 deferements Rush had a pimple on his ass ...........
Do you realize how stupid your post looks ?
you know my Dad saw combat in nam , one thing he told me a Soldier is the last to want war , but the first to go fight ....... Try everything possible , then when all else fails , then do what you got to do .......... One thing being in the navy ( this isnt a slam ) but very little face to face combat , and the ship carries the gun for you ......... I gus it is easy being gungho from the sidelines , but when you are knee deep in the shít you have a different outlook .Probably cause you seen war first hand and you know it isnt what Hollywood shows Navy guys during Movie night on the ship

[BroncoBuff]

Care to dispute my facts? Or as usual, like a typical lib, you try to deflect from the issue at hand.
I'll give you some "facts," and steer us back to the thread topic ...

The framers of our Constitution - Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jay, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, Washington and the rest unequivocally stated and intended that there be three co-equal branches of government - with "checks and balances" upon one another.

It's no accident that Article ONE of the Constitution establishes Congress.

John Jay wrote in the federalist papers - almost regrettingly - that the executive must be given the great responsibility of interacting with other nations and states so that the United States may speak with a single voice. HOWEVER, the framers clearly fashioned checks and balances for that, too - the Senate must ratify all treaties with other nations, and only Congress had the power to declare war.

THAT is how the United States was designed. Period.

But Cheney disagrees with that design. He and the neocons OPENLY state that the executive branch should be given greater power, even unlimited power as we've seen with their justicfications for the NSA spying. That philosophy plainly runs counter to the intent of the framers, that any and all federal power be "checked" and "balanced."

So, like the chairman of Pepsico who despises carbonated beverages, or an executive at Home Depot who's never swung a hammer, Dick simply picked the wrong line of work. Like any salesman will tell you - you should only sell a product you believe in. Similarly, you should only work for a company whose goods and services you believe in.

Dick does not believe in our Constitution. That's fine, it's (still) a free country.

But if he doesn't believe in the Constitution, he should've picked a different line of work.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You guys just can't accept the truth; Bush has completely effed up everything he's touched. Keep blaming it on the Left. That's all you've got.

Exactly.

Here's the really laughable part:

A majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, yet right-wing agitprops like SteveCoulter13 and the media bozos he mimics are trying to claim that only those on the "left-wing fringe" are opposed to Dim Son's Iraq handjob, when, in fact, opposition to the war is a majority position.

Too funny! :laugh:

[fdf]

But if he doesn't believe in the Constitution, he should've picked a different line of work.

The left has systematically dismantled the Constitution, piece by piece so as to be able to perfect the nanny-state since the 1930's and the sexual-libertation-nation since the 60's. Little remains of the original structure. The Establishment clause now means the exact opposite of what it meant when the consitution was passed. And, divinely discerned emanations and penumbras dictate amazing new rights that were never there in the first place. The first amendment is trash after the decision on CFR and the court granting greater rights to child pornographers under the first amendment than folks making political arguments. The Court interprets the Geneva Convention to give rights to un-uniformed combatants, which the Geneva Convention expressly eschews (even European courts have never considered such a radical decision). And on and on.

And now the left imagines that the tatters of the Constitution that remain after its 70 year orgy of constitutional whoppee invalidate everthing that W does. You would think the Constitution contains a clause saying "and everything W does is unconstitutional", the broken record is so predictable.

[BroncoBuff]

The left has systematically dismantled the Constitution, piece by piece so as to be able to perfect the nanny-state since the 1930's and the sexual-libertation-nation since the 60's. Little remains of the original structure. The Establishment clause now means the exact opposite of what it meant when the consitution was passed. And, divinely discerned emanations and penumbras dictate amazing new rights that were never there in the first place. The first amendment is trash after the decision on CFR and the court granting greater rights to child pornographers under the first amendment than folks making political arguments. The Court interprets the Geneva Convention to give rights to un-uniformed combatants, which the Geneva Convention expressly eschews (even European courts have never considered such a radical decision). And on and on.

And now the left imagines that the tatters of the Constitution that remain after its 70 year orgy of constitutional whoppee invalidate everthing that W does. You would think the Constitution contains a clause saying "and everything W does is unconstitutional", the broken record is so predictable.
You're obviously an attorney ... so how can you peddle this "Two wrongs make a right," or "They broke the law, so we can too" line of reasoning? I'll make some concessions here, and ask for some in return. Okay: I don't believe in penumbras either - it's the worst opinion I've ever read. And if we're trying to ascertiain the intent of the framers on the establishment clause, I basically agree with you there.

Now, I should hope you would also agree that PRIVACY - though not specifically enumerated - was perhaps the foremost concern of those Revolutionary minds. You see it everywhere in the BOR - "soldiers shall not be quartered," "without a warrant," "congress shall not," "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," "The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and on and on and on .... PRIVACY was the MAIN THRUST of the BOR. But "privacy" wasn't enumerated ... so backwards-reasoning jerks like Harry Blackmun had to invent "penumbras" where there were none stated, instead of properly leaving such regulation to "the several states."

There. I've conceded two of your MAIN points. And here's another for you: Personally, I'm 100% against the death penalty .... but I concede it IS constitutional. Why? Because the idea of a capital crime is mentioned in the first line of the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital ... crime unless..." They wouldn't mention it in the Fifth if they intended to ban it in the Eighth.

So there: I've conceded THREE of your main Constitutional points.

NOW. Please consider conceding the following:

1) The Framers despised the idea of a single powerful leader. Their hatred of King George and monarchies in general was the very bud that caused the flower of this genius of a Republican Democracy to be born.
2) The Intent of the Framers was to create a government with THREE BRANCHES, and that each of those branches were responsible for "checks and balances" of one another.
3) That 'Congress' was created in Article I, and any decent biography of the founding fathers and their times shows that Congress because of its deliberative nature and sheer numbers, was intended as the primary policy-making branch domestically.
4) That the somewhat fractious divisions between the early colonies, along with the obvious need for the nation to speak with one voice abroad, caused the framers to grant the executive expanded powers abroad. However, many - especially Hamilton and Jay - were concerned about this, so they gave Congress GREAT oversight: the Senate must ratify all foreign treaties (by TWO-THIRDS vote), and only the the House may declare war (the House's power to declare war was thought to be so great, for that reason alone they made House members stand for election every two years. Any bio of the time will verify this. THAT'S how concerned they were with centralizing power.)

Our current Vice President and his Neocon friends openly disagree with this most central thrust of the Framers of the Constitution, as outlined hereinabove. They overtly and openly disagree with the Constitution's CLEARLY INTENDED power-sharing, checks-and-balances, Congress-central type of government.

So again, my belief is, that like the Pepsico chairman who can't stand carbonated beverages, or the Home Depot executive who's never swung a hammer ... Mr. Cheney simply chose the wrong line of work.

[defenseman]

what do you know about Lamont ?
i do know Bush turned Chicksht and ran from the ANG ..... Cheney had 5 count them 5 deferements Rush had a pimple on his ass ...........
Do you realize how stupid your post looks ?
you know my Dad saw combat in nam , one thing he told me a Soldier is the last to want war , but the first to go fight ....... Try everything possible , then when all else fails , then do what you got to do .......... One thing being in the navy ( this isnt a slam ) but very little face to face combat , and the ship carries the gun for you ......... I gus it is easy being gungho from the sidelines , but when you are knee deep in the shít you have a different outlook .Probably cause you seen war first hand and you know it isnt what Hollywood shows Navy guys during Movie night on the ship

While it can be understood why one would easily default to believing that naval personnel are never at risk, believing the the ground forces are the only ones ever put in harms way. Well, I can categorically tell you thats very far from the truth. Especially in submarines, however, due to the nature of submarine operations, I cannot relay to you any "war stories" and such. Why? Because, quite simply operations conducted, on so many occassions I lost count, were absolutely classified. And, to divulge this information would be in direct violation of security measures installed during conducting said ops. Ergo, take my word for it or not, no difference to me in any case. By the way, there are many types of "war" out there. Defining it can be difficult at best. Knee dip in S*&T? Been there so many times I lost count. You really have no idea, through no fault of your own...dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're obviously an attorney ... so how can you peddle this "Two wrongs make a right," or "They broke the law, so we can too" line of reasoning? I'll make some concessions here, and ask for some in return. Okay: I don't believe in penumbras either - it's the worst opinion I've ever read. And if we're trying to ascertiain the intent of the framers on the establishment clause, I basically agree with you there.

Now, I should hope you would also agree that PRIVACY - though not specifically enumerated - was perhaps the foremost concern of those Revolutionary minds. You see it everywhere in the BOR - "soldiers shall not be quartered," "without a warrant," "congress shall not," "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," "The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and on and on and on .... PRIVACY was the MAIN THRUST of the BOR. But "privacy" wasn't enumerated ... so backwards-reasoning jerks like Harry Blackmun had to invent "penumbras" where there were none stated, instead of properly leaving such regulation to "the several states."

There. I've conceded two of your MAIN points. And here's another for you: Personally, I'm 100% against the death penalty .... but I concede it IS constitutional. Why? Because the idea of a capital crime is mentioned in the first line of the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital ... crime unless..." They wouldn't mention it in the Fifth if they intended to ban it in the Eighth.

So there: I've conceded THREE of your main Constitutional points.

NOW. Please consider conceding the following:

1) The Framers despised the idea of a single powerful leader. Their hatred of King George and monarchies in general was the very bud that caused the flower of this genius of a Republican Democracy to be born.
2) The Intent of the Framers was to create a government with THREE BRANCHES, and that each of those branches were responsible for "checks and balances" of one another.
3) That 'Congress' was created in Article I, and any decent biography of the founding fathers and their times shows that Congress because of its deliberative nature and sheer numbers, was intended as the primary policy-making branch domestically.
4) That the somewhat fractious divisions between the early colonies, along with the obvious need for the nation to speak with one voice abroad, caused the framers to grant the executive expanded powers abroad. However, many - especially Hamilton and Jay - were concerned about this, so they gave Congress GREAT oversight: the Senate must ratify all foreign treaties (by TWO-THIRDS vote), and only the the House may declare war (the House's power to declare war was thought to be so great, for that reason alone they made House members stand for election every two years. Any bio of the time will verify this. THAT'S how concerned they were with centralizing power.)

Our current Vice President and his Neocon friends openly disagree with this most central thrust of the Framers of the Constitution, as outlined hereinabove. They overtly and openly disagree with the Constitution's CLEARLY INTENDED power-sharing, checks-and-balances, Congress-central type of government.

So again, my belief is, that like the Pepsico chairman who can't stand carbonated beverages, or the Home Depot executive who's never swung a hammer ... Mr. Cheney simply chose the wrong line of work.


Hole in one, Tiger Woods. :slapsilly

[Spider]

While it can be understood why one would easily default to believing that naval personnel are never at risk, believing the the ground forces are the only ones ever put in harms way. Well, I can categorically tell you thats very far from the truth. Especially in submarines, however, due to the nature of submarine operations, I cannot relay to you any "war stories" and such. Why? Because, quite simply operations conducted, on so many occassions I lost count, were absolutely classified. And, to divulge this information would be in direct violation of security measures installed during conducting said ops. Ergo, take my word for it or not, no difference to me in any case. By the way, there are many types of "war" out there. Defining it can be difficult at best. Knee dip in S*&T? Been there so many times I lost count. You really have no idea, through no fault of your own...dman
when did I say you was never at risk ? But I did say very little face to face combat , at no time did I say joining the navy was safe , but on the same hand you dont see a sailor fighting his way out of a fox hole , or thick brush , Dessert etc ....... I wasnt trying to slam the navy , but you are right 2 different types of war fare ............now on the meaning of my Post , Iraq is a meat grinder , we dropped our troops into a **** hole and no exit , we expect these troops to go door to door and search out the enemy , alot different then a ship patroling the waters ..........
So there is no real link to anything in Iraq , Bush was quick to jump to war ...why ? Bush , Cheney , Wolfowits , etc , dont have a damn clue is why .............
So why would you put Americans into a ****hole without checking and double checking everything ? I tell you why cause this is all a game to the adminstration , remeber the WMD joke Bush was making while our troops were being attacked ?
Just 1 big ole game to Bush , and the American people that voted for Bush saw war in Iraq as a big ole Game , the voters were not over there either .... Clueless leader ,loeading clueless people ................

[defenseman]

You're obviously an attorney ... so how can you peddle this "Two wrongs make a right," or "They broke the law, so we can too" line of reasoning? I'll make some concessions here, and ask for some in return. Okay: I don't believe in penumbras either - it's the worst opinion I've ever read. And if we're trying to ascertiain the intent of the framers on the establishment clause, I basically agree with you there.

Now, I should hope you would also agree that PRIVACY - though not specifically enumerated - was perhaps the foremost concern of those Revolutionary minds. You see it everywhere in the BOR - "soldiers shall not be quartered," "without a warrant," "congress shall not," "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," "The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and on and on and on .... PRIVACY was the MAIN THRUST of the BOR. But "privacy" wasn't enumerated ... so backwards-reasoning jerks like Harry Blackmun had to invent "penumbras" where there were none stated, instead of properly leaving such regulation to "the several states."

There. I've conceded two of your MAIN points. And here's another for you: Personally, I'm 100% against the death penalty .... but I concede it IS constitutional. Why? Because the idea of a capital crime is mentioned in the first line of the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital ... crime unless..." They wouldn't mention it in the Fifth if they intended to ban it in the Eighth.

So there: I've conceded THREE of your main Constitutional points.

NOW. Please consider conceding the following:

1) The Framers despised the idea of a single powerful leader. Their hatred of King George and monarchies in general was the very bud that caused the flower of this genius of a Republican Democracy to be born.
2) The Intent of the Framers was to create a government with THREE BRANCHES, and that each of those branches were responsible for "checks and balances" of one another.
3) That 'Congress' was created in Article I, and any decent biography of the founding fathers and their times shows that Congress because of its deliberative nature and sheer numbers, was intended as the primary policy-making branch domestically.
4) That the somewhat fractious divisions between the early colonies, along with the obvious need for the nation to speak with one voice abroad, caused the framers to grant the executive expanded powers abroad. However, many - especially Hamilton and Jay - were concerned about this, so they gave Congress GREAT oversight: the Senate must ratify all foreign treaties (by TWO-THIRDS vote), and only the the House may declare war (the House's power to declare war was thought to be so great, for that reason alone they made House members stand for election every two years. Any bio of the time will verify this. THAT'S how concerned they were with centralizing power.)

Our current Vice President and his Neocon friends openly disagree with this most central thrust of the Framers of the Constitution, as outlined hereinabove. They overtly and openly disagree with the Constitution's CLEARLY INTENDED power-sharing, checks-and-balances, Congress-central type of government.

So again, my belief is, that like the Pepsico chairman who can't stand carbonated beverages, or the Home Depot executive who's never swung a hammer ... Mr. Cheney simply chose the wrong line of work.

Interesting. Be sure to "wear" the blood of the future victims of terrorists in this country proudly. You'll be part of the group responsible if we are not allowed to take the actions necessary to prevent their collective deaths. I know, it's GW's policies that make the terrorists kill. The US of A is evil, I know, and you are going to save us, I know, well, if they don't like us I just can't get that upset. They've NEVER LIKED US, and their mantra is death to us , UK and Israel. Get used to it, facts are facts. Either we kill them or they kill us. You can't "lawyer" your way around an AK47, simple as that. Though feel free to fly to the ME and try to hold a good one on one with a few of them. I'd hide the dull kitchen knifes before I met with them though, they may want to give you a pretty close shave with one of them. Oh, I'd sell all my hats before you go also, you won't be needing any of them anymore.....dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Interesting. Be sure to "wear" the blood of the future victims of terrorists in this country proudly. You'll be part of the group responsible if we are not allowed to take the actions necessary to prevent their collective deaths. I know, it's GW's policies that make the terrorists kill. The US of A is evil, I know, and you are going to save us, I know, well, if they don't like us I just can't get that upset. They've NEVER LIKED US, and their mantra is death to us , UK and Israel. Get used to it, facts are facts. Either we kill them or they kill us. You can't "lawyer" your way around an AK47, simple as that. Though feel free to fly to the ME and try to hold a good one on one with a few of them. I'd hide the dull kitchen knifes before I met with them though, they may want to give you a pretty close shave with one of them. Oh, I'd sell all my hats before you go also, you won't be needing any of them anymore.....dman
Why are you retiring when you could sign up for Iraq and go kill people?

[defenseman]

Why are you retiring when you could sign up for Iraq and go kill people?

High Year tenure. Not allowed to stay past 30. Staying past thirty is pretty much verbotten these days. Besides, already went to Iraq and killed many I'm sure...dman

[BroncoBuff]

Interesting. Be sure to "wear" the blood of the future victims of terrorists in this country proudly. You'll be part of the group responsible if we are not allowed to take the actions necessary to prevent their collective deaths. I know, it's GW's policies that make the terrorists kill. The US of A is evil, I know, and you are going to save us, I know, well, if they don't like us I just can't get that upset. They've NEVER LIKED US, and their mantra is death to us , UK and Israel. Get used to it, facts are facts. Either we kill them or they kill us. You can't "lawyer" your way around an AK47, simple as that. Though feel free to fly to the ME and try to hold a good one on one with a few of them. I'd hide the dull kitchen knifes before I met with them though, they may want to give you a pretty close shave with one of them. Oh, I'd sell all my hats before you go also, you won't be needing any of them anymore.....dman
My post had nothing to do with any of this ... it was merely an argument that our Vice President is serving at odds with the basic intent of the Constitution ...

Man, do all you guys bust straight away to the TERRORISM CARD or the BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS card whenever you confront an argument that you can't squirm around? Re-read the damn thing!

[defenseman]

when did I say you was never at risk ? But I did say very little face to face combat , at no time did I say joining the navy was safe , but on the same hand you dont see a sailor fighting his way out of a fox hole , or thick brush , Dessert etc ....... I wasnt trying to slam the navy , but you are right 2 different types of war fare ............now on the meaning of my Post , Iraq is a meat grinder , we dropped our troops into a **** hole and no exit , we expect these troops to go door to door and search out the enemy , alot different then a ship patroling the waters ..........
So there is no real link to anything in Iraq , Bush was quick to jump to war ...why ? Bush , Cheney , Wolfowits , etc , dont have a damn clue is why .............
So why would you put Americans into a ****hole without checking and double checking everything ? I tell you why cause this is all a game to the adminstration , remeber the WMD joke Bush was making while our troops were being attacked ?
Just 1 big ole game to Bush , and the American people that voted for Bush saw war in Iraq as a big ole Game , the voters were not over there either .... Clueless leader ,loeading clueless people ................

I agree with you to a point. Yes, checking and double checking should be done and every possible measure should be taken. However, once the first shot is fired, the entire plan changes, it's fluid and takes on a life of it's own. You have to be able to adapt to truly win a war of this nature. Second, it is war. Unfortunately, some of americas finest die, sad but true. I would have adopted the powell doctrine upon entry and executing Iraq, and, we would have been out of there, so to speak, by now. As far as combat, been there done that, just a different enviroment is all...dman

[Spider]

I agree with you to a point. Yes, checking and double checking should be done and every possible measure should be taken. However, once the first shot is fired, the entire plan changes, it's fluid and takes on a life of it's own. You have to be able to adapt to truly win a war of this nature. Second, it is war. Unfortunately, some of americas finest die, sad but true. I would have adopted the powell doctrine upon entry and executing Iraq, and, we would have been out of there, so to speak, by now. As far as combat, been there done that, just a different enviroment is all...dman
the point is the first shot shouldnt be fired unless yo uare damn sure .......Look here is how it went down .......
Cheney =Bush these are backwards people , that accepted a dictator like Saddam for years sitting on top of a large oil field ..........
Bush= will it be easy ?
Cheney hell yes , these guys dont have enough fire power to harm us .......
Bush ok how do we get in Iraq?
Cheney= Back in 76 me and Rummy came up with a fake Russian sub , it worked great ....... We will come up with Saddam has WMD ...........

it is clear Bush and his people underestimated the Iraqis .................

[Bronco_Beerslug]

High Year tenure. Not allowed to stay past 30. Staying past thirty is pretty much verbotten these days. Besides, already went to Iraq and killed many I'm sure...dman You're sure or not sure? What's your body count, 1, 20, a 100? How many were insurgents, how many were terrorists, how many were....others?

[defenseman]

You're sure or not sure? What's your body count, 1, 20, a 100? How many were insurgents, how many were terrorists, how many were....others?

My understanding is terrorists and insurgent strongholds only. No civilian targets. I would guess well into the hundreds and hundreds. We were "shooting" for three days straight, not just your normal ordanance. Very targeted and precise, extremely effective would be a huge understatement. A very interesting three days to say the least...dman

[defenseman]

the point is the first shot shouldnt be fired unless yo uare damn sure .......Look here is how it went down .......
Cheney =Bush these are backwards people , that accepted a dictator like Saddam for years sitting on top of a large oil field ..........
Bush= will it be easy ?
Cheney hell yes , these guys dont have enough fire power to harm us .......
Bush ok how do we get in Iraq?
Cheney= Back in 76 me and Rummy came up with a fake Russian sub , it worked great ....... We will come up with Saddam has WMD ...........

it is clear Bush and his people underestimated the Iraqis .................

Rumsfeld is the issue. No need to go anywhere else. Remove him from the equation, insert powell , you have a totally different Iraq today..dman

[bendog]

Rumsfeld is the issue. No need to go anywhere else. Remove him from the equation, insert powell , you have a totally different Iraq today..dman
naw. What's he gonna do different to make the tribal bastards not hate each other? This went south when we disbanded the sunni dominated army. The only way to run Iran is the same way it's always been done - with the Sunni. It'll be civil war by Jan.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

My understanding is terrorists and insurgent strongholds only. No civilian targets. I would guess well into the hundreds and hundreds. We were "shooting" for three days straight, not just your normal ordanance. Very targeted and precise, extremely effective would be a huge understatement. A very interesting three days to say the least...dman
So you didn't actually kill anyone that you know of, your ship fired on targets and officers later told you of estimated damage done?

[alkemical]

Now also a point here:

Enabling something is not just an 'apologist' either. To enable, you also give reason or right to validate an action.

Wow, people just don't get violence breeds violence.

[defenseman]

So you didn't actually kill anyone that you know of, your ship fired on targets and officers later told you of estimated damage done?

Confirmation was recieved. I'll leave it at that...alot of folks lost their lives over those three days...dman

[SteveTensi13]

Yoy know whats funny. Say a Liberal Dem gets elected pres. The dems take control of congress. We stop the fight against terrorism. Next thing you know Muslims infiltrate the military and neighboring countries. The next thing you know we have an army of muslims marching through our streets. And there is LABF, Spider and gaffney on the sidewalk yelling, "We were always with you!" and some muslims walks up to them, slit their collective throats wide open and says ""Stupid infidel, you made it so easy for me!" Thats funny as hell!

[bendog]

Yeah, the dems will quit the war on terror. roflmao.

edit, btw my beef isn't with republicans. I'll prolly remain one. But the neocons gotta go, even if it means ..... cough, cough ... kerry or hillary.

I'd prefer Poppy and Snowcroft ... or even Hagel, but it looks like bushii will drag the gop down.

[Rohirrim]

Yoy know whats funny. Say a Liberal Dem gets elected pres. The dems take control of congress. We stop the fight against terrorism. Next thing you know Muslims infiltrate the military and neighboring countries. The next thing you know we have an army of muslims marching through our streets. And there is LABF, Spider and gaffney on the sidewalk yelling, "We were always with you!" and some muslims walks up to them, slit their collective throats wide open and says ""Stupid infidel, you made it so easy for me!" Thats funny as hell!

It disturbs me that you might actually be a police officer.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yoy know whats funny. Say a Liberal Dem gets elected pres. The dems take control of congress. We stop the fight against terrorism. Next thing you know Muslims infiltrate the military and neighboring countries. The next thing you know we have an army of muslims marching through our streets. And there is LABF, Spider and gaffney on the sidewalk yelling, "We were always with you!" and some muslims walks up to them, slit their collective throats wide open and says ""Stupid infidel, you made it so easy for me!" Thats funny as hell!
Why you would be allowed to carry a weapon and "serve the public" is quite the mystery. Do your superiors condone your views?

[alkemical]

Yoy know whats funny. Say a Liberal Dem gets elected pres. The dems take control of congress. We stop the fight against terrorism. Next thing you know Muslims infiltrate the military and neighboring countries. The next thing you know we have an army of muslims marching through our streets. And there is LABF, Spider and gaffney on the sidewalk yelling, "We were always with you!" and some muslims walks up to them, slit their collective throats wide open and says ""Stupid infidel, you made it so easy for me!" Thats funny as hell!


And i got **** for being a paranoid conspiracy nut.

This, is more scary because he actually believes it..... What scares me more is the abuses of power an individual like this has more than likley used.

[SteveTensi13]

It disturbs me that you might actually be a police officer.

It's called "forward" thinking. Try it sometime.

[defenseman]

Yeah, the dems will quit the war on terror. roflmao.

edit, btw my beef isn't with republicans. I'll prolly remain one. But the neocons gotta go, even if it means ..... cough, cough ... kerry or hillary.I'd prefer Poppy and Snowcroft ... or even Hagel, but it looks like bushii will drag the gop down.

You better be damn sure they won't quit the war on terrorism. 4 years is a long time to let them fall back and regroup. I'm thinking GW screwed up in N. Korea to a degree by not finding a way to shut down that little pencil neck before he and his nukes got out of the box. Damn the bad luck, you have no idea how close we were and I was to solving that little S*&t's problem permanently in the early nineties, damn , damn.....dman

@KERRY or HILLARY???????? Oh my god, hillary gets in, I'm arming myself. Nobody better come near me. She will get us attacked , on numerous occasions I might add.

[BroncoBuff]

Say a Liberal Dem gets elected pres. ... We stop the fight against terrorism.
You're just an idiot.

To think the Democrats "condone" or woul fail to fight terrorism is just foolish.

99% of the apparatus that fights such things - the intelligence and the military - don't much care what party controls Congress or the White House.







P.S.: The war in Iraq is NOT "fighting terrorism."

[alkemical]

It's called "forward" thinking. Try it sometime.


I wonder if your boots have white laces in them too..........

[defenseman]

No doubt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/washington/10rice.html?ref=todayspaper

THese people are insane. The nut of it is that they know we cannot occupy Iran, so I suppose they think bombing them will make them accept neocolonial rule, and give up getting nukes.

the LAST thing Bush needs is israel to attack syria. He would not want that , right now. I don't buy this one bit....dman

[alkemical]

I think we should make M&M's with an MDMA centre and drop packages all over the ME for them.

Give them a good diet of that for a few months. With the potential for heat stroke anyway, and least if a % of them die, they will be happy.

[alkemical]

Oh yeah, after they eat the special m&m's for a few weeks - start staging UFO's

[Bronco_Beerslug]

@KERRY or HILLARY???????? Oh my god, hillary gets in, I'm arming myself. Nobody better come near me. She will get us attacked , on numerous occasions I might add.
Ask Tensi where his camp for citizens against the government in the woods is located at and join him and his compadres' there, you'd fit right in.

[defenseman]

You're just an idiot.

To think the Democrats "condone" or woul fail to fight terrorism is just foolish.

99% of the apparatus that fights such things - the intelligence and the military - don't much care what party controls Congress or the White House.


P.S.: The war in Iraq is NOT "fighting terrorism."

To a degree, I would have to agree with ya. Second, what you don't know is during the "Clinton" regime, we were keeping submarines together with bubble gum and spit (NO MONEY TO SPEAK OF, NOT NEARLY WHAT WE NEEDED), averaged 10mos a year at sea(NO MONEY, and RUN INTO THE GROUND), and critical mission deployment was massive, WITHOUT the proper support, WITHOUT the normal parts residuals, WITHOUT reasonable backup...the guy DID NOT HAVE A CLUE, how to handle the submarine aspects of defense let alone offense. But, the economy was good. So, I guess it was OK ...dman

[defenseman]

Ask Tensi where his camp for citizens against the government in the woods is located at and join him and his compadres' there, you'd fit right in.

Hillary "a reed in the wind", "say and do what she must to get elected" gets in, by the end of her term you will be singing a different tune. I gaurantee it. No way I hide. And I would NEVER go against the government. I would be armed though, she'll wilt to the pressure of the EU , and the terrorists, and terrorism will be part of every day life if she gets in..rest assured...dman

[alkemical]

Hillary "a reed in the wind", "say and do what she must to get elected" gets in, by the end of her term you will be singing a different tune. I gaurantee it. No way I hide. And I would NEVER go against the government. I would be armed though, she'll wilt to the pressure of the EU , and the terrorists, and terrorism will be part of every day life if she gets in..rest assured...dman


Dman,

please tell me bush said and did everything he'd said.

[bendog]

To a degree, I would have to agree with ya. Second, what you don't know is during the "Clinton" regime, we were keeping submarines together with bubble gum and spit (NO MONEY TO SPEAK OF, NOT NEARLY WHAT WE NEEDED), averaged 10mos a year at sea(NO MONEY, and RUN INTO THE GROUND), and critical mission deployment was massive, WITHOUT the proper support, WITHOUT the normal parts residuals, WITHOUT reasonable backup...the guy DID NOT HAVE A CLUE, how to handle the submarine aspects of defense let alone offense. But, the economy was good. So, I guess it was OK ...dman
But the thing is on nearly every point, Gore's been proven right. We're retiring attack subs for boots, and with good reason.

[alkemical]

But the thing is on nearly every point, Gore's been proven right. We're retiring attack subs for boots, and with good reason.


We can get fricken sharks with lazer beams..... ya know - attatched to their heads or something

[bendog]

Well, I like D-man, but Why put money in attack subs when ships they were built to attack are rusting in Russia? Sort of a no brainer, imo. Gore was right, we need lots more light infantry and spec forces. However, now we've cut the number of the new F-22 or whatever cause we're crapping out money in Iraq. And he's still mad about WJC? LOL

[TailgateNut]

Yoy know whats funny. Say a Liberal Dem gets elected pres. The dems take control of congress. We stop the fight against terrorism. Next thing you know Muslims infiltrate the military and neighboring countries. The next thing you know we have an army of muslims marching through our streets. And there is LABF, Spider and gaffney on the sidewalk yelling, "We were always with you!" and some muslims walks up to them, slit their collective throats wide open and says ""Stupid infidel, you made it so easy for me!" Thats funny as hell!


Please return to aisle #7, someone has disturbed the rack of toilet paper. Please tell me which security agency employs you and why!

[defenseman]

Dman,

please tell me bush said and did everything he'd said.

He most assuredly did not. The border issue still has me fired up. Moral equivalency will not work here. She is a reed in the wind, by nature. You think GW fell short, wait till she hits the playing field.....a huge step backward. The repubs have some mileage with Guilianni , IF they climb down off of their high horses and get realistic view on a few key issues in this country. Not hillary though, it'll be queen hillary, not pres. hillary. A can of worms I don't intend to vote in...dman

[alkemical]

He most assuredly did not. The border issue still has me fired up. Moral equivalency will not work here. She is a reed in the wind, by nature. You think GW fell short, wait till she hits the playing field.....a huge step backward. The repubs have some mileage with Guilianni , IF they climb down off of their high horses and get realistic view on a few key issues in this country. Not hillary though, it'll be queen hillary, not pres. hillary. A can of worms I don't intend to vote in...dman


Dman,

I think the issue is really - that Americans are starting to get openly angry that these issues they ignored because we got fat, lazy and happy - are starting to bite us in the ass 20yrs later. I think people want to start to change it. How many? I don't know.

But bush, hillary - et al - same damned person IMO dman.

[defenseman]

Well, I like D-man, but Why put money in attack subs when ships they were built to attack are rusting in Russia? Sort of a no brainer, imo. Gore was right, we need lots more light infantry and spec forces. However, now we've cut the number of the new F-22 or whatever cause we're crapping out money in Iraq. And he's still mad about WJC? LOL

Agreed on cutting back the numbers. Second, the new boats (Virginia class attack boat) are multi-mission capable. VERY stealthy, very quiet, very sustainable for long deployments and spec ops. Conversion of some of the "trident" Fleet ballistic missle submarines to SSGN's is an OUTSTANDING idea. Getting rid of them all together, HUGE mistake. There are parts of the world where a sharp , well trained crew can gather intel like it's nobody's business. And they will be the ones to get in there undetected and out the door when complete. No ship, surface or ground unit can do that in certian areas, let alone the fact that parts of the world lend themselves only to the defensive/offensive capabilities of a boat. Down strength, yes. Re-tooling / remission assignment as well as multi mission capable. YES. Remember, Iran and china both are investing in fast boats as we speak...dman

*HUGE bonuses for present spec war in Navy, SEAL, SWCC and EOD. Many many many more being recruited and employed. That will eventually solve parts of the spec war issue. Also, spec war community is going to inter service community, rangers, recon, seals all working together. THe air force? I'd be surprised if they were still a viable force in 10 years...

[alkemical]

Agreed on cutting back the numbers. Second, the new boats (Virginia class attack boat) are multi-mission capable. VERY stealthy, very quiet, very sustainable for long deployments and spec ops. Conversion of some of the "trident" Fleet ballistic missle submarines to SSGN's is an OUTSTANDING idea. Getting rid of them all together, HUGE mistake. There are parts of the world where a sharp , well trained crew can gather intel like it's nobody's business. And they will be the ones to get in there undetected and out the door when complete. No ship, surface or ground unit can do that in certian areas, let alone the fact that parts of the world lend themselves only to the defensive/offensive capabilities of a boat. Down strength, yes. Re-tooling / remission assignment as well as multi mission capable. YES. Remember, Iran and china both are investing in fast boats as we speak...dman

*HUGE bonuses for present spec war in Navy, SEAL, SWCC and EOD. Many many many more being recruited and employed. That will eventually solve parts of the spec war issue. Also, spec war community is going to inter service community, rangers, recon, seals all working together. THe air force? I'd be surprised if they were still a viable force in 10 years...


the USAF is moving into data mgmt and further into space mgmt from what i've seen dman -

[errand]

Wow, people just don't get violence breeds violence.

...and yet people like you and spider have resorted to it in order to solve conflicts you've had. go figure....

[TailgateNut]

...and yet people like you and spider have resorted to it in order to solve conflicts you've had. go figure....


Was that internet voilence, or did we miss something???

[alkemical]

...and yet people like you and spider have resorted to it in order to solve conflicts you've had. go figure....


Yeah and learned how futile it is in 99% of almost all situations errand.

Also after seeing your mom and having yourself get the snot beat out of ya (granted he was really sick, schizophrenea) - changes how you look at violence and seeing the cause and effect of it upon people.

When i was a young punk i used to do repo for some 'business' men - and i made good money - but wondering why things returned to me... as the bible says "you reap what you sow" -

[defenseman]

the USAF is moving into data mgmt and further into space mgmt from what i've seen dman -

That explains a few things for me on some recent events...thanks...dman

[epicSocialism4tw]

With the recent fraud at Reuters, the NY Times nonsense, and the Dan Rather nonsense, it's easy to see how the liberal media could be distrusted.

It's been obvious for a long time that their editors have agendas that they push.

It quickly becomes dangerous when those agendas work against our military.

[alkemical]

That explains a few things for me on some recent events...thanks...dman


Dman, think of them as the new IT managers/militarized nasa -

[alkemical]

With the recent fraud at Reuters, the NY Times nonsense, and the Dan Rather nonsense, it's easy to see how the liberal media could be distrusted.

It's been obvious for a long time that their editors have agendas that they push.

It quickly becomes dangerous when those agendas work against our military.


Not just liberal - but AM airwaves are chocked full of disinformation as well - as well as some tv channels too.

There is no such thing as objective press, and probably hasn't been in a while. It's just not as transparent as it used to be.

[bendog]

With the recent fraud at Reuters, the NY Times nonsense, and the Dan Rather nonsense, it's easy to see how the liberal media could be distrusted.

It's been obvious for a long time that their editors have agendas that they push.

It quickly becomes dangerous when those agendas work against our military.
I admit that it woulda been better for our military had they told us that there was no reason to fear iraq once Blix had access to anywhere he wanted to go, and the scientists were having to talk.

[alkemical]

yeah dman, remember too USAF made that hypersonic bomber than can be anywhere in like 2-3hrs.....

[bendog]

yeah dman, remember too USAF made that hypersonic bomber than can be anywhere in like 2-3hrs.....
they still got that? I remember they built something ... after the B-58, but the bombs were inaccurate. Prolly work now with new 'puters.

btw, I can't spell your new name.

[orangenblue2]

It disturbs me that you might actually be a police officer.

Hell, it disturbs me that they let patients have internet access in the nuthouse...Somebody up Tensi's meds...

[epicSocialism4tw]

I admit that it woulda been better for our military had they told us that there was no reason to fear iraq once Blix had access to anywhere he wanted to go, and the scientists were having to talk.


No reason to divert...I dont trust our government either.

The media is certainly a propaganda machine. Whether it's CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC, or ESPN on TV...or AM radio. It's all politically motivated, and that's a fact, Jack.

[alkemical]

they still got that? I remember they built something ... after the B-58, but the bombs were inaccurate. Prolly work now with new 'puters.

btw, I can't spell your new name.


y'all can still call me 'ames' - that's fine -

nah it's new - it's going to fly up on the edge of the stratosphere or whatever it is -

[defenseman]

No reason to divert...I dont trust our government either.

The media is certainly a propaganda machine. Whether it's CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC, or ESPN on TV...or AM radio. It's all politically motivated, and that's a fact, Jack.

Fox just noted that the new resolution contained no provisions for disarming hezbollah. Tanks were blasting into lebanon and rolling like a banchi for the river. Looks like the answer lies in the action. We'll see what happens..dman

[alkemical]

oh and also - my name is

clavicula solomonis = solomon's key

just a little latin.... ;)