Photos
Blog
NewslettersIF JOHN MCCAIN ANSWERS THAT PHONE @ 3 AM
Submitted by lostinsc on Fri, 2008-05-16 15:07.
- lostinsc's blog
- Login to post comments
- 1393 reads
Beaufort, South Carolina
Recent blog posts
- I love a parade
- Smoke-free policies really help!
- Food or ethanol?
- Happy Birthday
- Just a Little Less Ice Cream this 4th of July
- American Legion Ospreys Junior Team
- More on John McCain-The USS Forrestall Fire
- Off Duty Police As Security
- The Proverb of the Bright & Shiny Penny!
- Sheriff Tanner says "couple of people that have popped up during this investigation and they are interesting."
This was made by some disgruntled Youtube person that still blames Bush for the Iraqi War and thinks that McCain will follow suit. Sorry, but the historical facts don't support this twisted interpretation of history.
If anyone knows about the pains of war, it is McCain. He has respect for the military and was raised in a military family. It was his life until he retired. SO tell me about the Obama and Hilliary. Do they have any experience serving in the military? Have they seen their comrades die in battle? Were any of them beaten and tortured as a prisoner of war? Tell me again how either of them could have more respect for our military. How could either understand the pain of sending troops to war. Would they have the same nightmares as McCain?
And the military respects McCain for his sacrifices and contributions while he was serving. Having him as a Commander and Chief would bring duty and honor to the position.
Having an Commander in Chief that has no experience would make each soldier and military commander wonder, "Is this person going to issue orders that are made in ignorance and naivety due to a lack of experience"? Like asking a cheerleader to be the head coach of a great football team or the English professor to captain the basket ball team. Experience does count.
I was in the military as an officer during Vietnam. We wondered then how those goons, President Johnson and Robert McNamara could be issuing those orders with no experience and obviously making calls that were killing our own guys. Experience does count.
McCain is the man for the job, no question about it.
I'll never forget the image of McCain running down the nose of that jet and literally diving into the flames when the USS Forrestal nearly burned to the waterline off Viet Nam...
LBJ served in WW2, mostly in non-combat roles although he did win the Army Silver Star as a Naval Officer for a recon flight. Compared to our current Prez, this makes LBJ look like Chesty Puller.
One thing you're absolutely right about, was that LBJ and McNamara wrote the book on micromanaging combat operations. They were dismal failures.
Apparently LBJ didn't learn something any military officer knows. You send troops in with strength, not in weakness. The politics was not to inflame China and Korea, but it cost American lives by not having a superior number of troops and fighting power. It was a complicated time.
However another problem was that the defense budget had been cut after WWII and our defense readiness was minimal. Not the best time to escalate military actions.
If we don't learn any thing else from history, cutting the defense budget and sacrificing readiness is asking for world tyrants to act. As long as we have a strong and ready military, we have a big stick which they know we can use.
However, liberals, when in power, will cut the defense budget and our readiness for domestic programs. And Obama and Hilliary are liberals. A dangerous situation for the world and the US.
Spot on, Egret. One of our best POTUS', T. Roosevelt, foreign policy, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," was and still is the most sound foreign policy.
How can you say we didn't go in with force? We had absolute air supremacy, unmatched supporting arms, superior numbers, and superior support while half a world away. What we didn't have was a sound strategy. Too many WW2 era officers as Generals and too many Field grades who believed you could run a war from a bunker with a PRC-10 and a field phone. Same pattern in Iraq. We had a good plan for the invasion but somebody forgot to plan for the second day of the war. I have said from day one that this war was predicated on bs intel and hype. But now that we're there perhaps we can get constructive and attack to the south and to the west.
Ad,
The sad truth is that the vastly superior United States military could have dessimated the opposing forces in Viet Nam in a month or less at any given moment. But, their hands were tied and they were never allowed to prosecute the war that should have been! It was all a game played by bigwigs who had nothing to lose and everything to gain. All at the cost to us of 58000 plus courageous Americans!
Ad,
The sad truth is that the vastly superior United States military could have dessimated the opposing forces in Viet Nam in a month or less at any given moment. But, their hands were tied and they were never allowed to prosecute the war that should have been! It was all a game played by bigwigs who had nothing to lose and everything to gain. All at the cost to us of 58000 plus courageous Americans!
Sure. After a couple years, we at home realized what was going on, that we were not trying to win that war, just as we are now manipulating the Iraq, Iran, and Israel situations. We, the people of the United States, ARE the United States, and our culture has never recovered from the Vietnam War.
Our present military budget is now running at about 40% of our total US budget - that is way too much! We have a military empire. Do we really need so many generals, and quite young ones at that?
We need to have a Democrat take over as our US President. Obama it is.
we lost the VN war because we had a bunch of pansies in the White House, wanna bet who our enemies want in the WH next? It ain't McCain...Osama's prob a card carrying democrat..how 'bout a bumper sticker OSAMA for OBAMA.
Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were far from being pansies. In fact LBJ's strong arm tactics included actual strong arms and fists. Our lack of success in VN can be attributed to a number of things most notably an unsettled civil/social environment here at home, challenges to our cultural and moral standards, a military strategy that was insane and driven by Generals desiring to fight broad arrow-long line battles. And if by chance you're a veteran of that war then you know that we also had an enemy. In our typical rewrite of history we fail to even consider that we had an actual enemy in that war. The NVA were pretty well equipped and determined. The insurgent guerrilla forces were as fanatical as any we encounter today. I personally believe that by wars end we had pretty much destroyed/neutralized the guerrilla effort which had split our forces for much of the war.
No I take exception with your "pansies in the White House" and I especially take exception with your comment that Democrats are somehow the enemy. To believe such a thing would truly make you a classidiot or worse....as dumb as W.
Walter Cronkite could possibly be the single most influencing factor for the reason we lost in VN. You simply cannot bring a war into the living rooms of America and expect to execute that war with any effectiveness. That is why it was called "unpopular". (Please list just one "popular" war.)
There was at least one case I know of where a mother watched her son get fatally wounded as she watched the 6 o'clock news. He had been killed just a few hours before that tape was broadcast. She had not even been officially notified, thanks to the wonderful Mr. Cronkite. That kind of stuff is wrong all day long.
So Congress, under pressure from constituents, made it impossible to bring that war to a successful end through micro-management. Anytime you go into a combat situation and have to have specific permission to fire on someone who is trying to kill you, just plan on losing that battle.
Kennedy, I agree, but he never got to finish his term...Johnson inherited the war and didn't have the ***** to commit the full resources of the military, he waffled between the "heavy handed" B-52 arc light raids and the rolling thunder campaign with restricting targets on the micro-managing advice of McNamara that cost the lives of many American soldiers (before he died McNamara actually apologized for the way he ran the war). All this to do whatever had to be done to get the NV to the negotiating table. The war and the civil unrest at home, both the racial issues and the protests about the war finally defeated LBJ and he refused re-election.
Nixon inherited the same issues and was caught in a no-win situation, just as President Bush is, along with the WG scandal, he resigned...real STRONG president there..... One thing you can say about Bush is he never backed down.
The TET Offensive broke the back of the NV and the American media's coverage of that event (Cronkite)finished off the effort to win, with no support at home and no intent to win, the VN war was lost as the US pulled out an left those people to the horrors of the NV occupation, that became one of the lowest points in America's history. You bring up the names of the democratic presidents, but all said and done - that war was lost under their watch. And I never said the demo's were the enemy - just that i can assure you Al Quaida would rather have Obama or Hillary in the WH than McCain.
Kennedy inherited Viet Nam from Eisenhouer. US "advisory forces" were placed in Viet Nam under Eisenhouer's watch. Kennedy had signed directives before he was killed that would have begun removing US troops from Viet Nam in 1964. Johnson rescinded those directives within a week of taking office and began commiting even more troops. It was during Johnson's administration that our troops transitioned from advsors to active combatants. It was also early in Johnson's administration that Brown and Root Construction out of Houston (Johnson's largest political contributor and backer) was hired to dredge Cam Rhan Bay for a phenomenal sum of money. Johnsons's wife Lady Bird owned cattle ranches that were contracted to the US military to provide beef, and she had income from holdings in munitions companies all through the Viet Nam war. There is no doubt that Johnson had much to gain by prolonging that war.
There is no doubt that Johnson had much to gain by prolonging that war.
Conspiracy theorists sure believe some dumb stuff!
Nothing conspiratorial about it at all, it's well known history. All you have to do is study it. I don't suppose you would do that though, you seem to read headlines and book titles and figure you know everything about the subject, when in fact you know absolutely nothing.
Nothing conspiratorial about it at all, it's well known history. All you have to do is study it. I don't suppose you would do that though, you seem to read headlines and book titles and figure you know everything about the subject, when in fact you know absolutely nothing.
scooter, one of your problems is that you apparently believe most of what you read on the internet. You either have a twisted and active imagination or have been deceived by reading revisionist history. It is irresponsible to come on here and regurgitate the garbage.
BTW, this idea you seem to have that you are exceedingly knowledgable on every subject under the sun has worn very thin here. You've gone from being laughable to pitiful.
Where did you get 40% of the national budget for defense? The defense budget for 2007 was 22%, with 21% for social security and 21% for Medicare and Medicaid. The defense budget also includes Homeland security, which has all of those employees keeping our borders safe and terrorists out. It is not just the military. And Homeland security supposedly has the relief efforts like Katrina and other national disasters like floods and earthquakes. See this link: http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-08tax.htm
You want Obama or a liberal? They will reduce the defense budget and spend the money on domestic issues. You may have the controversial government health care. You might even have more people getting tax payer checks every month.
But remember that those terrorists are waiting to attack. Those people in the Twin Towers weren't concerned about government checks. The survivors after the Oklahoma bombing wish there had been better security for their loved ones. Those people on the air liners that the terrorists crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon wish they had better security.
That defense budget has kept Americans safe after 9/11 and many people have become complacent, forgetting that we have people working for our safety being paid out of the 22% defense money.
Let's don't get naive and think we can now relax. We all lock our doors at night, we remove the keys from our cars, we rely on our law enforcement for local safety. The defense budget is our national safety and to remain safe, we have to pay those people to work.
And remember, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam were started during a Democratic congress and presidency. The Gulf War was the first war started by Republicans. Do you really believe having a Democrat will keep us out of war? Let's learn from history.
Our present military budget is now running at about 40% of our total US budget - that is way too much!
And you know VERY LITTLE of the Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. The military should be about 90% of a MUCH SMALLER budget. The Feds have NO business in education, welfare, health, or housing...either domestic or foreign.
And that smaller budget would mean much lower taxes. If you think charitable organizations do not do enough, you could take that extra income that you would have with lower taxes and "adopt" a bunch of people. I know I would. Matter of fact, I have...so forget about telling me to "put your money where your mouth is". And I could help a lot more if my fed taxes were decreased by 75%.
The Feds have NO business in education, welfare, health, or housing...either domestic or foreign.
And just what do you consider the federal government's responsibilities to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, ..., promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty."? There are other responsibilities besides "provide for the common defense".
Some people think that a lot of stuff should be either done by the states or by the individual citizens as it used to be. We are relying more and more on centralized, inefficient and expensive services from the feds.
Well, buck, ol' buddy, anybody with common sense will tell you truthfully that none of those Constitutional issues require the Feds running health, education, or welfare of the nation. These are personal issues I'm talking about...not unification of the States.
When did we stop being THESE United States and become THE United States? Major diff there, Buck. Our Forefathers would not have approved of the change. Otherwise they would have included personal health, education, and welfare as part of the Constitution.
I hope you sleep well at night because you have no clue about Military life. I dare you to name a time and place and I will buy us lunch and I will give you all of my military documents (pay, deployments, benefits etc...) and hopefully you can finally make an informed decision on us. Yes we volunteered for the service but you also chose your own path in life? Fair Enough....?
Respectfully Submitted (RET MSgt) Thomas Karambelas
Thanks for all you do and have done MSgt Karambelas. Are you the same Tom Karambelas from Wichita? Just curious. If you are give me a shout at 515.991.3934 or an email at
.
Sincerely,
Frank Miller
I was there. I know.
How can you say we didn't go in with force? We had absolute air supremacy, unmatched supporting arms, superior numbers, and superior support while half a world away. What we didn't have was a sound strategy. Too many WW2 era officers as Generals and too many Field grades who believed you could run a war from a bunker with a PRC-10 and a field phone. Same pattern in Iraq. We had a good plan for the invasion but somebody forgot to plan for the second day of the war. I have said from day one that this war was predicated on bs intel and hype. But now that we're there perhaps we can get constructive and attack to the south and to the west.
Wait a minute. I thought we were supposed to trust the military leaders! Make up your mind.
In VN, it wasn't the military who caused us to screw the pooch. It was DC. Yeah, we went in, heavily armed, ready for battle. But we spoke too softly for too long. We never used the big stick (No, I'm not talking nuclear, here). VN was not run from Saigon, Oahu, or even the Pentagon. It was run from the Halls of Congress as directed by the living rooms of America.
And in the ME, the intel was indeed flawed, thanks to the CIA and its sources having just been dismantled by the Clinton gang. You don't gather intel necessary to wage a swiftly victorious war without a long and deep series of threads of trustworthy intel. And THAT is also how 3 aircraft succeeded in driving through 3 of our buildings.
There was no trustworthy intel. Our guard was down.
you say there was no trustworthy intel. And every thing wrong is the fault of democrats. Your boy W sure believed the intel. In fact he molded the intel to fit his scheme. No my friend, stop your revisionist idealism and for God's sake stop rewriting the VN war. YOU WERE THERE. I've said before that Washington was micromanaging the war but not in the way you describe.
Please recall that it was your boy W that chose to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of WMDs. Some of us knew before he was elected he was full of bs and when he started his rants about Iraq and WMDs I knew it was more bs. And the entire world knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. If it was our mission to curtail future terrorist attacks then we would have been better served by invading Saudi Arabia.
W woirked with what he had and he likley had no idea how badly tattered the intel network was till it was too late.
I was indeed there. And in order to fire at someone who was firing at us, we had to have specific permission to fire on that site, thanks to the micro-management by Congress and Cabinet members who were more concerned with keeping Mom quiet (Thank you, Walter.) than saving lives and bringing the war to an end.
Iraq violated UN resolution after UN resolution. You forget that? THAT was the reaseon we went to Iraq. That and the fact Saddam said he had WMD's, the fact Saddam had slaughtered hundreds, possibly thousands, with very few weapons (sounds like WMD's to me) and the fact he would not allow a full inspection by US or UN inspectors. Now I'm sure by the time the war started in Iraq, those WMD's had been moved or buried if indeed they did indeed exist. In any case, I would not be willing to take a chance on Saddam continuing to make a mockery of UN policy (Lord knows the UN does enough of that on its own) or threaten the US or its allies.
Hindsight tells me we should've turn the place into a glass parking lot.
This was made by some disgruntled Youtube person that still blames Bush for the Iraqi War and thinks that McCain will follow suit.
And just who DID start the Iraqi War? Unless you want to blame Cheney and Rumsfeld, but the buck stops in the Oval Office.
SO tell me about the Obama and Hilliary. Do they have any experience serving in the military? Have they seen their comrades die in battle? Were any of them beaten and tortured as a prisoner of war? Tell me again how either of them could have more respect for our military. How could either understand the pain of sending troops to war. Would they have the same nightmares as McCain?
I can ask the same questions about Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Truman, FDR, Lincoln, and probably a dozen other Presidents. What makes military experience, or being a POW, a criterion or necessary experience for the Presidency?
Having him as a Commander and Chief would bring duty and honor to the position.
This I would agree with. But that does not mean that Obama would not do the same.
Having an Commander in Chief that has no experience would make each soldier and military commander wonder, "Is this person going to issue orders that are made in ignorance and naivety due to a lack of experience"?
You mean like we have now?
Some place the blame on the Iraqi War on Saddam when he kept threatening us. Who gets the blame when a robber is killed breaking in to a bank? A lot of other people including Teddy, Kerry and both Clintons thought he was a genuine threat. But Bush as president has the constitutional duty to push the button.
Having military experience doesn't guarantee a good president as evidenced by L Johnson. But McCain's credentials are superb, so why not get the best? And he does have the respect of the military. Why choose inexperience over experience? Who would you want flying the airliner you are on, a newbie or one with many hours of flying in all kinds of weather?
Yes, Bush and Rumsfeld did make some mistakes in strategy after Saddam was defeated. Some of the generals wanted more troops to counteract the increasing insurgent strength. Wars and battles are won with superior numbers. It is not a sports event to test skills with equal numbers. But Bush was getting flak from home and the congress, just like Vietnam.
It wasn't until General Petraeus went in with greater strength did the tide turn. That's also why law enforcement will respond in herds to a crime scene.
One of the lessons we should learn is that war should be a last resort. However after a war is started, we have leave it to the generals to win the war. A president has to delegate that authority and let the pros do it. Rumsfeld and McNamara were examples where the Defense Secretary should rely more on the professional military leaders on how to win. The president should make sure they do that.
I can ask the same questions about Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Truman, FDR, Lincoln, and probably a dozen other Presidents. What makes military experience, or being a POW, a criterion or necessary experience for the Presidency?
It's bleeding heart libs like yourself who have scream you don't have to have military experience to have respect for the military. I happen to agree with that to a degree. But lack of military experience means just that...no experience in the military. And no experience in the military means a probable lack of military understanding. And neither is this necessarily a prerequisite to be POTUS.
But one thing we do know...from observation and experience...the Clintons not only have no respect for the military, they have DISrespect for them.
That leaves only Obama. That poor kid has NO experience in anything that would prepare him to be POTUS.
I can ask the same questions about Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Truman, FDR, Lincoln, and probably a dozen other Presidents. What makes military experience, or being a POW, a criterion or necessary experience for the Presidency?
But lack of military experience means just that...no experience in the military. And no experience in the military means a probable lack of military understanding.
Seriously, has McCain EVER had any experience as being just a civilian? I doubt it. He was born into a military family with father and grandfather as military men. McCain went to West Point, then joined the military service. When he retired from active duty he was classified as "retired military" and has served as a US Senator for many years as a "government employee".
His second wife is extremely wealthy.
This background gives him little understaning of the life and struggles of the average low to middle class American in all walks of life. We need a US President and his Cabinet who has empathy for the all Americans. Obama has the required experience to understand their needs.
We need a US President and his Cabinet who has empathy for the all Americans.
Yep, that's the ticket. We need more empathy......and more government checks...bigger ones. It will be great to have a president who can solve this terrorism thing by just sitting down and talking with terrorist leaders. Yessiree, that will be great!
The followers of Obama and Clinton would do well do listen to John F Kennedy's Inaugural speech, where he said, "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what can I do for my country." In fact, both Democratic candidates could learn from him. He was a moderate Democrat when the party had conservatives and moderates. The speech is at this site:
http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm
He borrowed the thought from an early French philosopher, Jean Rosenneau.
However, many of Obama and Clinton’s supporters are asking for more government services. In a liberal’s fashion, they are asking for more socialism and both candidates have that record..
However, McCain's public life has followed the maxim about giving to the benefit of our nation, and he could choose to live now on the family fortune, but he again is offering his life and talents to our country.
I don't see him as a conservative, even though he has stated he is. My view is that he behaves like a moderate with some conservative leaning on some issues. He has worked with liberals in congress and found compromises to solve social problems. He also has the international experience and working with other nations.
But he doesn’t want more socialism. Obama or Clinton will bring more socialism. Those that want more socialism ought to move to Cuba, a socialist's dream.
At any rate, he has my vote and admiration.
The followers of Obama and Clinton would do well do listen to John F Kennedy's Inaugural speech, where he said, "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what can I do for my country." In fact, both Democratic candidates could learn from him. He was a moderate Democrat when the party had conservatives and moderates. The speech is at this site:
http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm
He borrowed the thought from an early French philosopher, Jean Rosenneau.
I don't dislike the military. I DO recognize that they are a part of our Federal Government and their employees have chosen to select that line of work. Our draft is long gone. In today's world the idea that we all should bow down to our military as God's greatest gift to us should not be the expected and accepted policy. We US citizenry have many lines of work that are extremely important and without their jobs we as a nation would not function.
I'd like to see our state national guard units get back home from overseas, have them begin to protect our borders, and have their main focus as fulfilling the job as their units were intended to do. I was in favor of the Iraq war when we sent our US miltary over there years ago, but no more.
When I know people, decent, well-dressed, struggling to pay rent, or with owned older homes they can no longer afford to repair, having worked all their lives, and now going hungry for days until their SS checks arrive, splitting perscription pills in half to stretch them, relying on friends to provide transportation to groceries, needing perscription eyeglasses, struggling to help their grandchildren with everyday expenses - yes, I wonder if we as a nation can continue to afford to sacrifice the welfare of many of our citizens. Military work family benefits and Federal work family benefits far exceed civilian family benefits in 2008. Their days of being behind the pay curve are long gone.
I think if we get another Republican in the White House, especially one who is so military oriented as McCain, we as a nation will continue our slide downhill as to the quality of our life in America.
I don't like Hillary Clinton, since she left us down so badly on the national health care plan proposed by her husband in 1992, but she was on TV yesterday speaking of Brazil with their use of sugar to produce ethanol, and comparing that to our country's use of corn for the same purpose. Maybe she is wising up. Regardless either Obama or Clinton will get my vote over McCain - but I only have one vote.
......struggling to pay rent, or with owned older homes they can no longer afford to repair, having worked all their lives, and now going hungry for days until their SS checks arrive, splitting perscription pills in half to stretch them, relying on friends to provide transportation to groceries, needing perscription eyeglasses, struggling to help their grandchildren with everyday expenses......
Without a strong military, all those problems won't matter. Whiney, spoiled liberals like you won't "wise up" until the bad guys are knocking on YOUR door, then you'll be crying about not enough being done to protect you.
In the immortal words of Col. Nathan Jessup:
"We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
You know what they say about opinions. And you're entitled to them. However, I have little patience with those who claim to know all about the life styles of a military family when they've never experienced it for themselves. And the pay really isn't all that great. Promotions result in a $30 pay raise. You move all over God's creation. My husband is currently in Afghanistan. Do you think I have it good? Home by myself with 3 small children. When I don't get an email from him I try not to think about the worse. We have a unique life style that those in the civilian world can't fathom. Here's a little poem I got for Military Spouse Appreciation Day....
For the times you've stodd and watched a ship sail from the harbor, an aircraft disappear into the clouds, or a truck convoy pull out of sight, not sure when they'd return, we thank you.
For the countless household moves you've made from a place you know to one that's strange and different- often by yourself- we thank you
For the families you've held together, for the anniversaries, birthdays, and holidays you've celebrated alone, we thank you.
For the hand you've extended to another military spouse when the need was there, truly creating a military family, we thank you.
For the spirit and strength you've shown when your service member has gone into harm's way, we thank you.
For the pride you've displayed while serving as an ambassador of the military spouse to the rest of the world, we thank you.
You are wasting your words on the like of elida. She is only interested in what the government can do for the non-productive. Libs take their security for granted.
I know. I had to vent a little though. The ignorant remarks about the military irk me!
You're right there Taylor. There is a saying in the Marines. I goes like this. "Freedom is something that the protected few will never understand." We are proud of our Military wherever they are now, and we are proud of those spouses who wait for them while taking on additional tasks. Not just because of Memorial Day coming up, but each and every day for their unselfish duties to preserve Freedom. Down there and up here. Bless you Mrs. Kandk and others. We are with you.
Heck yeah elida, I agree with everything you said! After all, it's all right there black and white in the constitution. If you don't have something, the government should provide for you. If you need glasses, or medicine, or groceries, but why stop there? If you need a car to get to work, or a better job, or a bigger house, nicer clothes, or a warmer jacket, or an air conditioner for the summer, a new energy efficient refrigerator so you can save electricity. What about a flat screen plasma tv because your kid's friends make fun of him because he's the only one in his class with an old tube tv? He might become a serial killer if he gets picked on enough. Where doe the insanity stop?
Do you know what people who can't pay rent need to do? The get a second job so they can, or they get a cheaper place. Do you know what people who own a home they can't afford to fix do? They sell it and get a smaller home they can afford to repair. That has got to be one of the most asinine statemnts I've ever heard. Government providing for people who own a home. I don't know if I should laugh at how ridiculous that is or if I should be scared that there are more people out there who think like you.
Do you know what my grandparents did when they NEEDED something? Nothing, because my parents provided for them. Do you know what I'm going to do when my parents need something? I am going to provide for them, because that is my obligation to them. I am being smart and planning so I will not need my children's help when I'm old, but should I ever need something when I'm old, I think my children will have me covered. Before you go on and tell me that not everyone can save, I have heard of single mothers who worked all their lives ironing clothes or as maids who leave hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to their kids, but to charities. I will do the research and find the articles if you don't believe me. Everybody can save and should because it is not the job of the government to provide for everyone, unless you live in Cuba where it works so well, and you see how people are making rafts and risking their lives to get from Miami to Cuba.
I grant you there are people with real need, but that's the exception rather than the norm.
I work hard for my money, but if I see that someone really needs my help, I will be happy to help, but when the government wants to force me to be charitable and wants to confiscate more of my money under the threat of imprisionment (i.e. tax me more) I get my feathers ruffled, but that's just me.
I liked the comment about helping the grandchildren with everyday expenses...WHERE are the parents? are these grandchildren old enought to GET A JOB? I got grandchildren that I pour money into but it ain't for everyday expenses...it's for clothing (not the everyday stuff) candy and toys and the piggy bank...bought my grand-daughter a brand new Jeep, one of them electric kind, got Dora the Explorer plastered all over it - little red wagon, tricycles, more stuffed toys than she can carry...
and far as my kids they have GREAT jobs, making $'s hand over fist because they were raised to be responsible and independent - and if my parents ever need something - doubt they do - hardworking as they've always been - I'll be there - just like my kids (gawd forbid) would help me...I'm not counting on any gov hand-outs.
What continues to amaze me is how people like her are so naive as to think that Obie or Hil are gonna pull a magic wand out of their butts and make all our lives a happily ever after fairy tale....
In the same speech Kennedy also stated:
"So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms - and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."
And let's not forget that Kennedy also chided us not to allow a "Pax Americana", and Eisenhouer warned us of the dangers of a "Military Industrial Complex". What we need in the White House is balance and good judgement. We should also remember that no President has the power to enact Socialist laws or any other laws for that matter, that is left to Congress.
Seriously, has McCain EVER had any experience as being just a civilian? I doubt it. He was born into a military family with father and grandfather as military men. McCain went to West Point, then joined the military service. When he retired from active duty he was classified as "retired military" and has served as a US Senator for many years as a "government employee".
His second wife is extremely wealthy.
This background gives him little understaning of the life and struggles of the average low to middle class American in all walks of life. We need a US President and his Cabinet who has empathy for the all Americans. Obama has the required experience to understand their needs.
McCain has been a civilian for more than 30 years. You only have to be 35 years old to be POTUS. What else ya got, Elida? (You seldom have anything.)
Obama has been wealthy all his life. He knows nothing of the things about which you are ranting.
Ignorance abounds, indeed.
That leaves only Obama. That poor kid has NO experience in anything that would prepare him to be POTUS.
And I would say the same about McCain. That poor geezer has no experience either.
The truth be told, who EVER had experience that prepares him/her to be President? (Except perhaps a sitting VP, and we don't have one of them running this time, thank goodness). Regardless of the candidate, we're looking at someone who will be doing a lot of on-the-job training.
You are so right, nobody could truly be totally prepared for the Presidency. I doubt even that a sitting VP would be, they usually aren't kept that close in the loop. This particular election for me is the most difficult that I have ever had to sort out. I've been a lifelong Republican, and have never voted across party lines, but this time I must consider doing so. Clinton is out of the question in my mind for too many reasons to mention. I have all the respect in the world for John McCain in many ways, but his age concerns me and his political stance is to similar to that of Bush The Second to make me comfortable. I voted for GW twice, and at this point I would totally regret it but for the fact that it kept Gore and Kerry out of the White House. Bush's administration and policies have been a dismal failure to say the least. His tenure in the White House has produced more national debt than any other in our history. And, the death toll in Iraq is rapidly creeping up on the losses we suffered in Viet Nam, and there is no end in sight. I support our military 150%, but I don't support their lives being minimized to nothing more than political cannon fodder. It doesn't appear to me that McCain's policies will differ much from what we have now. That leaves Obama! A bright young man with lots of energy and proven success. His message brings hope for a brighter future, and he does not appear to me to be the sort who will be intimidated by anything. His lack of military service does not preclude him from having leadership skills or the ability to utilize his advisors as all Presidents do when miltiary action becomes a possibility. I think he would make the right decisions. Even Slick Willie Clinton called our forces into action, and he was a proven draft dodger. GW isn't much different than Clinton in that his reserve military service was highly in question, yet look how quickly he took our forces to war. FDR was handicapped and still led our country through WWII. Truman was a haberdasher but found the will to be the only human in history to order the use of nukes. Obama is intelligent, energetic, fair minded, and is better in tune with the 21st century than the other candidates. I don't think he will hesitate to drop the hammer if necessary. I'm not going to convert to the Democratic Party, but I'm afraid Obama has my vote, I think he deserves the opportunity. I could be wrong though, after all, I did vote for GW twice!
.....I could be wrong....
Amen! Sure wouldn't be the first time!
Feeling pretty secure with our alias are we?
Feeling pretty secure with our alias are we?
Well the do call me "Good Lookin'" in public.
Your friend
enginuity
That leaves only Obama. That poor kid has NO experience in anything that would prepare him to be POTUS.
And I would say the same about McCain. That poor geezer has no experience either.
The truth be told, who EVER had experience that prepares him/her to be President? (Except perhaps a sitting VP, and we don't have one of them running this time, thank goodness). Regardless of the candidate, we're looking at someone who will be doing a lot of on-the-job training.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Pastor Wright has prepared him well enough, I suppose. Wright along with all his other cronies...Louis and those other guys. Yeah. He's ready to be POTUS.
Yeah, and Hagee, Parsley, and Falwell (posthumously) are doing all the prep work for McCain, too. He's no more ready to be POTUS than Obama. But we're going to have to choose one of them, aren't we?
I doubt McCain has met any of those you mentioned. He certainly has not sat under any of them for 20 years or had his weddding presided over by them or had his kids baptised by any of them.
And he certainly has not called any of them his spiritual advisor or mentor.
What else ya got, Buck?
Someone like Barrack who would be asleep at the wheel simply does not understand that once a nuke is detonated in a U.S. city a bandaid will not make it better. There has to be a constant vigil for these things as they can't be fixed after the fact. Experience in todays world is a must!
This experience argument is rather worn out and pointless. The system we have was designed so that a civilian runs the military. It doesn't require that the civilian has first been in the military and then retired from it.
I don't think we need a person with military experience running our military because we have a whole defense establishment who's job it is to think this stuff up for the President. All we need is a literate, well reasoned, balanced individual to judge situations on their merits and prosecute a strategy to overcome them. McCain would do this. Obama would do this. Clinton would do this. To say otherwise is folly on the highest order.
What we don't need is another Bush- who possesses none of those qualities it seems. We can all be thankful no one like him is running.
By the way- has anyone noticed this whole 3 a.m. thing is eerily similar to an episode of The West Wing where the president is awoken at 3 a.m. because of a nuclear explosion over the Indian Ocean? Someone should tell Clinton not to copy the West Wing script because in that show the person who would be analogous to Obama won the race.
.....All we need is a literate, well reasoned, balanced individual to judge situations on their merits and prosecute a strategy to overcome them......
If we accept your premise, it totally eliminates Hussein & Hitlery from the process.
Does anyone think any of these candidates is really one of us?
Is Hillary really one of the girls and the reason women should be excited that a woman finally has a chance to be president? Does her paying cash for her Chapiqua home or her riding in limos for the last 30 years makes it representative of every day Americans? Not likely.
What about Obama? Is he a product of hard work that got him out of the ghetto and the reason black people should be excited that finally a black person has a legitimate chance of becoming president? Does his Indonesian private school education os his Ivy League law degree make him like the rest of us? Not hardly.
Even McCain isn't one of us. Even in the military, he was the elite of the elite. He was a pilot, the best of the best, and after that he's been a politician. His connection to the rest of us was lost so long ago, it's like he never had one.
My point, most people will vote on those basis. A lot of women behind Hillary simply like her because she's a woman, and a lot of black people like Obama because he looks like them, and a lot of people like McCain because he once wore a uniform. As much as all of us who read and post these blogs like to believe the American public is informed, the majority of voters have zero idea about the issues their candidate supports. That's why these candidates never say anything in their speeches. They find catchy phrases and slogans that the masses will swallow. Obama says change, but never says change what. Hillary says free this and free that but never explains how much it will cost us. All she says is that she's more experienced than Obama, and McCain just basically says he's been around longer than any of the other two so he is more experienced.
American presidents these days rarely get elected on the issues. For the most part, welfare recipients will vote democrats regardless because they don't want their benefits cut, and wealthy Americans will more likely vote republican because they want to keep more of their money. Black people will vote democrat because republicans are considered racists. Women will vote on image, old white men will vote on security, and illegal aliens will vote illegally for democrats so that someone will finally let them become citizens.
Voting is a right, but, long ago, it ceased to also carry the responsibility that comes with that right. Most people who will vote in November are not paying attention now and are clueless and will voting not ever taking into account the best interests of our country.
You need a certain knowledge of the road rules to drive, own firearms, be a doctor or a teacher, etc., but any moron has a voice when electing the most powerfull leader in the world, the persong who will shape our country for years beyond his presidency. As much reasearch as any individual can do to become an informed voter, there are thousands morons out there who will cancel his vote.
We forgot that we don't vote for the one who will give us the most, but for the one who will stay out of our way in our pursuit of happiness. We forget that both parties have been promising the same things election after election, and have yet to deliver, so those of us who pay attention are left to vote for the lesser of two (or three) evils
.....All we need is a literate, well reasoned, balanced individual to judge situations on their merits and prosecute a strategy to overcome them......
If we accept your premise, it totally eliminates Hussein & Hitlery from the process.
the old guy... Have you ever been in the car with a 75 year old man? I wouldn't want him behind the wheeel much less the red button! Not all old people have lost their witts, but who's going to tell him if he has? No one ded it when our last president went retarded....
but he never was nor ever will be retarded.
People need to stop with the bigotry and slurs!! It renders your arguments null and void and your opinions become of no value.
Your use of the word retard is like the "N" word, and as an educated adult you should know better.
Zoo referred to our "last' president, and that would not be Reagan.
Zoo referred to our "last' president, and that would not be Reagan.
bush if anyone's still wondering
and everybody who voted for them if a "retarded" man beat them both
Not much!!!!!!