Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A thought on the original subject...
op-ed pages are published public discourse. The sentiment of the people expressed in public discussion is ultimately what dictates a democracy. This democracy has been deviating from its original intent for a half century or so. Handing over power of war and nuclear deployment to the President was a major blow to the strength of the people in this nation. It is sickening what has happened.
A thought on the original subject...
op-ed pages are published public discourse. The sentiment of the people expressed in public discussion is ultimately what dictates a democracy. This democracy has been deviating from its original intent for a half century or so. Handing over power of war and nuclear deployment to the President was a major blow to the strength of the people in this nation. It is sickening what has happened.
Jillian posts:
WTF, tell me, if you can, what is accomplished by the publication of pictures of coffins?
How does that help, or hurt the war effort for EITHER side?
I await your timely reply.
Media is not supposed to either help or hurt the "war effort". The fact that you want it to help the "war effort" (meaning the admin) explains why you think anything that gives facts not to your liking is somehow treasonous.
Oh... as for my "timely reply". Sorry, I don't work for you, so you don't get to set my deadlines. :tongue1:
Dang, all this time I thought it was the people's vote that dictated a democracy (!) and, hot damn, I thought the President was allocated the power of war in the original Constitution. I guess your beef is with the Founding Fathers of this nation and not the current administration.
What is truly sickening is that you would post something like this and expect the rest of us to buy into it!
op-ed letters are not votes, they dictate nothing.
half a century ago was 1956? president was eisenhower care to link me up to the laws eisenhower passed that changed the course of history.
who would you like to have the power of war and nuclear deployment?
We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Does anyone have any proof that the media actually helps the enemy fight better ? Can someone please provide measurable statistics on this ? Otherwise thats a load of BS.....
I implied that public sentiment (which is also expressed through voting) dictates a democracy. I also stated that public sentiment is what is expressed in op-ed columns. That is what makes criticism of them so ridiculous.
Public sentiment dictates democracy through voting. Public sentiment does not dictated op-eds. Your attempting to tie one to the other is absurd. An op-ed is the opinion of an editor, who is more often than not the lackey and politicla voice of whoever signs his check.
The President has to seek authorization from Congress for war (though I love that you accuse me of posting bullshit). The Bush administration tried to avoid this for Iraq, but ultitmately had to do so. Congress betrayed the people and our system of government when they passed this little number:
those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons
As seen with Iraq, the President can make ties to al-queda and 9/11 appear out of the sky.
That quote from Congress seems perfectly reasonable in enabling the President to accomplish a mission. But then I forget, you are one of those nimrods who insist on us having to fight with our hands tied.
Actually Esienhower had foresight. He thought the Democrats belief in a military build up was dangerous (see my sig), worried about "the disastrous rise of misplaced power", and did not favor an imbalance of power. The problems started with the "Cold War-riors"...mostly democrats. Over time, the Republicans have become the proponents of international idiocy and excessive military spending.
In response to your last question: Congress and the president should share such immense powers.
Eisenhower had it all right:
Excessive military spending? GMAFB. Please DO tell how many days you have spent in the US Armed Forces? None? SHUT THE FUCK UP until you have to make do with "rigged" equipment because a Democrap President won't provide you with what you need, but willd damned sure STILL send your ass right out on the front line without it.
that is providing they aren't purposefully blinding themselves with moronic political ideology.
I have as much experience as our Vice President and Deputy Secretary of Defense combined...and I also have 6 fewer deferments! Your criticism is only directed at those who disagree with you...
Your negative experience was probably caused by a poor allocation of funds, then again sometimes it doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem. M-16's fucked up in Vietnam because of too much tinkering, radios failed for some units in the first desert storm, and it has been said that soldiers in this war were not provided with proper body armor. Of course the multi-million dollar smart bombs are still a crap shoot and we probably spend billions on experimenting with shit that does not work.
It does not matter for men like Dick Cheney though, the more money spent...the more he gets his back scratched.
You're pretty good at that.
You're pretty good at that.
My criticism is directed at one person in particular who doesn't have a damned clue what he's talking about. Attempting to deflect your lack of experience therefore firsthand knowledge by pointing out yet another with no firsthand knowledge doesn't cut it HERE, boy.
When it comes to allocations for weapons and materiel, money is EXACTLY what is called for.
And my "negative experience," you sanctimonious son of a bitch cost better men than you their lives. Get it NOW?
My point about first hand knowledge was that if men with no military experience set our budget, men with no military experience can criticize it. Lets be honest, our military is run like a business. A little knowledge about low-balling and underbidding is all that is necessary to understand how the military runs. Notice where the contractors set up their factories (everywhere) and you can see why congress works hard to keep the defense budget high. The Budget slips, and factories close causing constituents to lose their jobs. Now...did it take military experience to understand that? Google our defense budget, you can see exactly the money is spent on. So, what doesn't cut it? I haven't served my country, but has RSR ever worked at Air America? He still understands what Chapter 11 means...
You are right, it calls for money. But that money has to be allocated properly. Perhaps the Clinton administration spent too much on experimental crap, rather than fitting the front line with proper gear.
RIP to those men. I pray for peace and hope no more lives will be lost.
My point about first hand knowledge was that if men with no military experience set our budget, men with no military experience can criticize it. Lets be honest, our military is run like a business. A little knowledge about low-balling and underbidding is all that is necessary to understand how the military runs. Notice where the contractors set up their factories (everywhere) and you can see why congress works hard to keep the defense budget high. The Budget slips, and factories close causing constituents to lose their jobs. Now...did it take military experience to understand that? Google our defense budget, you can see exactly the money is spent on. So, what doesn't cut it? I haven't served my country, but has RSR ever worked at Air America? He still understands what Chapter 11 means...
You are right, it calls for money. But that money has to be allocated properly. Perhaps the Clinton administration spent too much on experimental crap, rather than fitting the front line with proper gear.
RIP to those men. I pray for peace and hope no more lives will be lost.
Understanding business has nothing to do with Congress approving and the President signing a budget that includes the US military. And when that Congress is controlled by Dems and the President is a Dem, the military gets less.
It doesn't matter what's being charged if the money isn't there to buy.
Clinton didn't spend the money on experimental anything. He sent it elsewhere.
So yeah, I'd say your lack of experience and/or education has left you in the cold on this one.
In short:
the economy--Increase taxes on the wealthier, provide more tax relief for the poor. When a rich man gets a check, it is likely going to be set aside in a trust fund...or perhaps be spent on a luxury item that does not have much trickle down. The check could help a poor man buy a car/house/tv/couch/computer.
the border--The only practical solution. Try to minimize the influx of immigrants, naturalize those who are already here.
iraq--too late to pull out. Try to minimize ethnic violence, work on training Iraqi units. Seek some way to patrol eastern Iraq to slow the flow of Iranian weapons and insurgents.
israel--recognize palestine as a state.
nk--diplomacy.
Do we just say please don't do that, Mr. Nutjob dictator?iran--diplomacy.
the price of gas--It will be disappointing to see the prices sky rocket after the elections. Seek alternative fuels. I would not tap into Alaska, though drilling off Florida may be worth a look...only as a temporary solution. We should be set on finding alternatives.
abortion--roe v wade.
no child left behind--too much emphasis on standardized tests. Reallocate taxes so that school's in poorer neighborhoods can provide better resources.
taxes--increase. I believe in the estate tax and also believe there should also be a luxury tax.
I implied that public sentiment (which is also expressed through voting) dictates a democracy. I also stated that public sentiment is what is expressed in op-ed columns. That is what makes criticism of them so ridiculous.
You did not "imply"; you stated it plainly. Op ed columns express the sentiment of the editor....period. Are you saying that they are above criticism or beneath criticism?
The President has to seek authorization from Congress for war (though I love that you accuse me of posting bullshit). Exactly where did I say you posted BS??? The Bush administration tried to avoid this for Iraq, but ultitmately had to do so. Congress betrayed the people and our system of government when they passed this little number:
those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons
Then be angry at Congress if that is what you believe!
As seen with Iraq, the President can make ties to al-queda and 9/11 appear out of the sky.
Now that is BS!
Actually Esienhower had foresight. He thought the Democrats belief in a military build up was dangerous (see my sig), worried about "the disastrous rise of misplaced power", and did not favor an imbalance of power. The problems started with the "Cold War-riors"...mostly democrats. Over time, the Republicans have become the proponents of international idiocy and excessive military spending.
"International Idiocy and excessive military spending"...no wthat is just humorous. By the way, am I to presume you are an expert on international relations and military acquisition?
In response to your last question: Congress and the president should share such immense powers.
Indeed they do! Obviously, you don't like the result.
Eisenhower had it all right:
