If you're not proud of our Country RIGHT NOW

[DC Tom]

Damn, do any of you realize how stupid you are?

 

Yes, you are stupid.

225658[/snapback]

 

Of course they don't. Hell, they still think the US created both Saddam and al Qaeda...

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I object when it's done behind our back and we wake up one day reading about our dead somewhere in the world we had no idea we "had a fight with" and who haven't attacked us plus the balance of the governments been locked out of any participation. Youmight go back and study the Democrats way of waging war in this manner, it's called Vietnam. You can also note that it took a Republican to have the quijones get us out.

 

The Iraq War was the opposite:

 

We have a battle with Middle East radicals who attacked us. Failure to recognize this in previous White Houses allowed the attacks to take place in the first place.

 

We had a healthy public debate on taking action, followed by congressional voting that overwhelmingly approved of the decision to go forward.

 

If you've got a problem with this war I suggest you contact your Democratic representatives who almost certainly voted to proceed against Iraq. In H.J. 114 and S.J. 45 Congress didn't merely agree with action against , they URGED the White House to take action. Signed by 77% of Senators and the House by over 70%.

 

What is it about Democracy that you libs hate so much?

225469[/snapback]

 

First of all, I'm NOT a 'lib', as I have stated numerous times.

 

Now that that is straight, I DON'T HAVE to contact my representatives... ALL THREE (since Vermont has 2 Senators/1 Representative) VOTED AGAINST it!!!

That pretty much says to me they know what is going on! I'm proud to have reps like them who KNOW when the snake oil salesmen are trying to sell them something. Stand and be PROUD, Vermont!!

 

Don't try and make the Vietnam was a Democrat/Republican issue; Nixon actually EXPANDED the war into Cambodia, so he didn't automatically say in 1968, "Gee, we should pull our men out because it is right." No... he did in 1973, when it was obvious we could not win.

 

So as long as we know that our men are going anywhere beforehand, it's ok? That's your opinion, but defending Kuwait versus attacking under misleading pretenses is sure a huge difference in mine...

 

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." --- you cannot BEGIN to understand the foresight it takes to come up with that kind of wisdom... too bad we didn't follow it!!!!!

[AKC]

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." --- you cannot BEGIN to understand the foresight it takes to come up with that kind of wisdom... too bad we didn't follow it!!!!!

225791[/snapback]

 

You may as well cite Big Bird as Senator Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Klansman who is warmly accepted by Democrats as a family elder. Byrd's brains today at his advanced age of 142 fall somewhere between a liquid and solid as a state of mass. Some refer to that as Jello.

 

But hey, you're welcome to bring the brain dead into the conversation! Just make sure to bib him up when you have him over for dinner ;-)

[/dev/null]

You may as well cite Big Bird as Senator Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Klansman who is warmly accepted by Democrats as a family elder. Byrd's brains today at his advanced age of 142 fall somewhere between a liquid and solid as a state of mass. Some refer to that as Jello.

 

But hey, you're welcome to bring the brain dead into the conversation! Just make sure to bib him up when you have him over for dinner ;-)

225951[/snapback]

 

awww, c'mon

 

there's always room for Jello

[GG]

Topical nugget in today's WSJ Opinion page:

 

Subscription Required

 

So it's a disgrace that some of the nation's law schools, objecting to the Pentagon's "discrimination policies," refuse to permit military recruiters to make their pitch on campus, relegating them instead to unofficial off-campus venues. Law students pondering their first career move can be wined and dined by fancy firms that set up recruitment tables at campus job fairs, but they have to stroll over to the local Day's Inn to seek out the lonely military recruiter.

 

To put it another way, the same liberals who object that the military includes too many lower-class kids won't let military recruiters near the schools that contain students who will soon join the upper-class elite. It's almost enough to make us contemplate restoring the draft, starting with law school students.

[Alaska Darin]

Topical nugget in today's WSJ Opinion page:

 

Subscription Required

226048[/snapback]

I was waiting for someone to bring that up to counter Mickey's argument - I thought AKC would. I'm not surprised it was you, though. Good job.

[Alaska Darin]

Unfortunately, in a constitutional democracy, civilians control the military, not the other way around so yeah, I get to have an opinion on wars too.

225660[/snapback]

Which (unlike most other topics) are increasingly based on media soundbytes.

[John Adams]

Topical nugget in today's WSJ Opinion page:

 

Subscription Required

226048[/snapback]

 

That's funny about schools not allowing the military to recruit because of discrimination policies, but allowing the big firms to recruit. Ever look at the average makeup of the partnership as a big WASPy firm? They make a Klan rally look multicultural.

[AKC]

I was waiting for someone to bring that up to counter Mickey's argument - I thought AKC would.  I'm not surprised it was you, though.  Good job.

226077[/snapback]

 

 

I didn't realize Mickey had an argument ;-)

 

His M.O. in my experience appears to be to continue typing unsupported allegations and innuendo while completely ignoring irrefutable facts that are offered in contradiction of his positions. Here again he's doing the same- he's unwilling to concede the simple (yet undeniable) fact that Red States produce more military volunteers per capita than New York City.

 

Rational discussion requires willing participants, he's unwilling to explore the facts which makes him far more a belligerent than participant.

[Mickey]

I didn't realize Mickey had an argument ;-)

 

His M.O. in my experience appears to be to continue typing unsupported allegations and innuendo while completely ignoring irrefutable facts that are offered in contradiction of his positions. Here again he's doing the same- he's unwilling to concede the simple (yet undeniable) fact that Red States produce more military volunteers per capita than New York City.

 

Rational discussion requires willing participants, he's unwilling to explore the facts which makes him far more a belligerent than participant.

226189[/snapback]

Unsupported?

Why don't you list how many sources and links you provided in this thread with the ones I provided. Maybe you consider declaring your own opinion to be irrefutable to be a proper sourcing but the rest of the world does not.

 

As for you point about per capita stats, I haven't denied them, I have just asked for you to provide sources besides you own opinions and you still haven't done so. What I have said over and over is that such stats do not justify labeling an entire state as elitist and cowardly which is what you did. Especially since plenty have died from NY in the war on terrorism. Your point apparently is that not enough have died to boost the per capita stats enough for you to withdraw your blanket accusation of cowardice. I have asked you how many have to die from NY for you to stop calling the whole state a bunch of cowards and I am still waiting for a response. Of course, I have asked for sources and you still haven't provided those either. You also haven't been willing to acknowledge that New York state and the NYC area have suffered approx. 60% of all the casualties in the war on terrorism.

 

I would also ask you to demonstrate that there are no other factors explaining variations in per capita recruitment besides cowardice which you have assumed must be the only factor. Without that assumption, your entire argument that diffences in per capita stats justifies a blanket accusation of cowardice leveled at around 19 million people falls apart. But then again, there is no need to let the truth get in the way of your real goal, spewing hate.

[Mickey]

I was waiting for someone to bring that up to counter Mickey's argument - I thought AKC would.  I'm not surprised it was you, though.  Good job.

226077[/snapback]

I don't have a subscription but the language quoted refers to only "some" law schools which narrows it down to between 2 and several thousand. It also doesn't mention what discrimination is the problem, I assume it is homosexuals.

 

I don't recall arguing that there were no law schools, private institutions mostly, who have decided not to let recruiters on campus from any group, military or otherwise, who discriminate against homosexuals.

 

Maybe you could show me where it was that I made that argument to which this article is a counterpoint?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

You may as well cite Big Bird as Senator Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Klansman who is warmly accepted by Democrats as a family elder. Byrd's brains today at his advanced age of 142 fall somewhere between a liquid and solid as a state of mass. Some refer to that as Jello.

 

But hey, you're welcome to bring the brain dead into the conversation! Just make sure to bib him up when you have him over for dinner ;-)

225951[/snapback]

 

Remember Trent Lott's friend, former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond?

 

He made jello look like a brick.... so we ALL have skeletons

[AKC]

Unsupported?

Why don't you list how many sources and links you provided in this thread with the ones I provided.  Maybe you consider declaring your own opinion to be irrefutable to be a proper sourcing but the rest of the world does not. 

 

As for you point about per capita stats, I haven't denied them, I have just asked for you to provide sources besides you own opinions and you still haven't done so. 

226380[/snapback]

 

You'll need to grab some utensils. A whole bunch of them.

 

The truth about American Heroes and the States that produce them in by far the highest percentages

 

Can I assume you'll continue your game of refusing to acknowledge the facts laid out in the article regarding our foot soldiers, facts that coincide exactly with those I introduced into the conversation many posts ago?

 

And you might want to cease your adolescent mumbling on about me denigrating New York Vets (a group to which you may want to note I belong) in your drowning attempts to hide your utter lack of any basis to carry on your unsupported side of this discussion. No matter how many times you type it, it remains as much of a lie as the first time you threw it out there.

[AKC]

Remember Trent Lott's friend, former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond?

 

He made jello look like a brick.... so we ALL have skeletons 

226442[/snapback]

 

I'll have to check to see how many times I've ever quoted Strom Thurmond................

 

Uh, that would be never.

[GG]

I don't have a subscription but the language quoted refers to only "some" law schools which narrows it down to between 2 and several thousand.  It also doesn't mention what discrimination is the problem, I assume it is homosexuals.

 

I don't recall arguing that there were no law schools, private institutions mostly, who have decided not to let recruiters on campus from any group, military or otherwise, who discriminate against homosexuals.

 

Maybe you could show me where it was that I made that argument to which this article is a counterpoint?

226386[/snapback]

 

The point of the op-ed is that the law schools - 24 anonymous (why?), plus NYU & Georgetown - have gone to court to challenge a law passed by Congress that requires universities to allow military recruiters on campus if they receive federal funding. The law schools' assertion is that it violates their Right of Free Speech to determine who is allowed to recruit on campus.

 

Of course, the law schools haven't fought other violations of their Right of Free Speech imposed on them by Congress as to who may attend their hallowed grounds.

[SactoBillFan]

Iraq was NOT a "unarmed country".  Saddam Hussein had already masacred hundreds of thousands in his own country.  The Libs from Clinton to Kennedy in the 1990s claimed he had WMDs and should be dealt with.  The weapons inspectors were already hindered by Saddam and kicked out.  The US is NOT "occupying" a sovereign nation.  But, you are right, they are not a viable thread (anymore).  How much do you think the Global War on Terror should cost?  How much is too much?

Welcome to the 2000's. Can you prove that Iraq had WMD's in the year 2002 (no). Neither Clinton nor Kennedy (?) ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The weapons inspectors left in 2003 because hell was coming. Iraq IS currently being occupied primarily by the US. "Global War on Terror" is a great catch phrase. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, how about a War on Mickey D's, that'll keep people from getting fat. Don't know what the cost should be but it should be spent in the right place.

There were WMDs.  I'd be more worried about where they are now.  If there are no Al-queda ties, what is their stake in being there now?

There were WMDs when? Can you prove they were there when we mobilized? Can you prove real Al-queda ties when we mobilized? Had them on the run and then created a reason to increase their size.

The "war on Communism" is worth it.  It is not over.  Thank God for Reagan; we were able to win one of the battles of the Cold War with the break up of the USSR.

Again, what cost is too high to win the Global War on Terror?

I don't remember us invading and occupying Russia. Last I checked, correct me if I'm wrong, Viet Nam was still a Communist country.

Yes, we're just in it to make money.  Like Reagan before him, GWB said we'll be happy to fight terror along side our friends but we'll go it alone if we have to.  You can hardly look to Spain as proof they were right to "pull out".  The "exit strategy" is to win the Global War on Terror.

Please remind me where Reagan said anything like that. You could be right there. I'm not sure. So when we win such a war, then we'll exit Iraq? Well time will tell.

If you think this war is about us gettin oil, you are an idiot.  If you want to blame someone for that, look no further than the "Oil for Food" scandal in the UN.  In the first War in Iraq, the mission was to force them out of Kuwait.  Nothing more.  The resolutions were put in to place and agreed to by Saddam which also allowed us to go no further at the time.  And Israel does not need our protection.  We should take some cues from them.  How can you bash the only current democracy in that region?

Sure your right, first I am an idiot. Also, the neo-conservative movement has no interest in controlling the worlds resources. And wars are never about money. Further, Isreal neither needs our aid nor protection. Brilliant. I have no clue what the "Oil for Food" scandal in the UN has to do with us invading and occupying Iraq.

GWB only lied if you also believe that Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Albright, etc. ALL lied before him in the 1990s.

So what was true in the 90's is still true today? Our administration lied.

Yes, more DNC talking points - "this war is about oil"; "this war is revenge for assassination plot against Bush 41".  Do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you don't think about outcomes for yourself?  The alternative to "peace through strength" is more appeasement that got us Pearl Harbor in 1941, WTC in 1993, USS Cole in 2000, WTC & Pentagon in 2001, etc.

You're the one buying the "lies" hook, line, & sinker...

Whatever, someone once said trust those who seek the truth not those who profess to know it.

(As to the "reasons" for the wars - go read my other posts and the posts of so many others who see the bigger picture in the long term).

224835[/snapback]

Oooh that sounds like fun.

[Boatdrinks]

It's a disappointing phenomenon in this country- liberal elitists in the major population centers convince the residents of those same centers to keep themselves and their kids out of the military while small town America always supports our Armed Forces. In the current conflict it's our major population centers EXCLUSIVELY at threat- Middle Eastern Terrorists couldn't care about Bonesteel South Dakota while elite New York City is target #1- yet elite New York City sends the nationwide lowest percentage of Americans to the fight, instead allowing the kids from Bonesteel and other small towns to die protecting their elite centers. It's one of the great American hypocrisies- the disgusting cowardice of the loud-mouthed elite.

 

I offer this opinion as a former enlisted member of our armed forces, an experience that offers me a first-hand perspective of who actually serves in our volunteer forces.

222904[/snapback]

I commend you on your service, and our troops in Iraq, but I still don't agree with this war or Bush.I don't believ Saddam was a threat to us. If that makes me a liberal elitist than so be it. It seems these days "liberal" has evolved into the ultimate insult. Like being called dogcrap. I'm not sure why. And I never got the "elitist" thing either. I'm not aligned with either party as I despise things about both and politics in general. But I've always thought America was great for its freedoms. And Bush and his gang seem intent on taking away as many freedoms as possible. That type of thinking strikes me as "elitist" not allowing anyone to dare disagreeing with YOUR values. When did elitist become the word to describe realising others don't always agre with what you think is right. I always thought it was the other way around.

[AKC]

It seems these days "liberal" has evolved into the ultimate insult. Like being called dogcrap. I'm not sure why.

226920[/snapback]

 

It appears to me to be based in large part upon pride- in the 80s Reagan convinced a segment of voters that the previously dirty political label "conservative" was nothing to be ashamed of- beginning the "outing" of many who might have otherwise kept their true beliefs under the radar. Providing a perfect example of Newton's 3rd Law, liberals began their shrinking act at about the same time, reaching the nadir today where they refuse to even mention the label.

 

America since its founding has been a country that has rewarded courage versus cowardice, and the reward for the crowd on the right standing tall and proud with their conservatism has garnered tremendous political gain for them while their counterparts on the left are arguably being punished for denying their own colors. The critical thing though is that it's no one's fault but the left for allowing this to happen. Maybe the Pelosi/Dean wing of the Dems will treat the bleeding by standing up and saying "I'm liberal and I'm proud of it, and here's why....". Until then I believe the public will continue to view today's liberals as disingenuous and as a result an undesirable faction to be allied with.

 

On elitism the libs lose big for this reason- the Democratic Party is run by elite wealthy whites whose lives are segregated from the people who they claim to represent. If the libs truly cared one bit about the little guy- the middle class family and their kids, we would see them throw away their unholy protection of the Teacher's Unions and embrace the voucher programs that are heavily favored by lower middle class minorities and anyone who wants every kid to get the best shot at a good education. The Democratic Party has become the New Plantation, with wealthy white stiffs like Kerry being put up as somehow representative of inner city minorities and Average Joe. The blind and the foolish are the only ones who don't see right through that facade. It's the same white guys holding the keys to the Plantation as it was in the slave days with the House N*****s like Jesse Jackson greeting everyone at the door. Polling though suggests that the slave revolt may very well be underway, inviting "traditional" Democrats to throw away the shackles of entitlement promoted by the New Plantation for the far greater promise of an environment friendly to self-reliance.