War

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:42 PM

Just how does grubing around in the dirt of the Persian Gulf make you an expert on military-political philosophy? Thank you for protecting me from Saddam's massive military. I feel so much better that Saddam's mammoth navy is not going to be landing on the southern california beaches any time soon. By the way, I never asked you to go grub around in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iraq. So why should I care that you did?

You don't have to ask; your freedom comes because your a citizen of the US, whether you deserve it or not. We're used to ingrates and the uninformed backseat drivers...

You still haven't answered the question, Cal. Where and when did you serve?

You're giving all this expert criticism of the military, so when and where?

[Outshined]

Well, I have to go put the kids to bed, so I'll read the rest of Cal's senseless venom tomorrow.

Maybe.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 23 2004, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 23 2004, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:34 PM

I'm not surprised that your "military" buddies didn't think Clinton was tough enough. I have no doubt that your military hawks would just love to bomb the hell out of   everybody and everything. Big surprise. I'm just glad none of you are in charge of foreign policy. It is one reason why the civilian government has control OVER the military. Allowed to run wild, the military would do what all military governments have done in the past---foment war on their neighbors every chance they get.

It's because of men like those that you are able to sit hunched over your keyboard, snarling at your spittle-flecked monitor as you hurl more invectives at me. The military pays for America's freedom, even for ingrates like yourself.

Nice and comfortable, aren't you? Thank the military.

I'll be glad to thank the military my dad served in. There is some pretty good evidence that in WW II he kept Hitler from messing with us. Since then, the military has been used for nothing very useful but stablizing the messes of other countries.

Nothing YOU have done means anything to me. I could careless whether you served in the middle east. As far as I am concerned you never should have been there, any more than my friend Chip should have died in Vietnam. It was a terrible waste, just as the Iraqi campaign is.

None of your petty insults are going to change my mind about that. So give it up.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 23 2004, 05:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 23 2004, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:42 PM

Just how does grubing around in the dirt of the Persian Gulf make you an expert on military-political philosophy? Thank you for protecting me from Saddam's massive military. I feel so much better that Saddam's mammoth navy is not going to be landing on the southern california beaches any time soon. By the way, I never asked you to go grub around in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iraq. So why should I care that you did?

You don't have to ask; your freedom comes because your a citizen of the US, whether you deserve it or not. We're used to ingrates and the uninformed backseat drivers...

You still haven't answered the question, Cal. Where and when did you serve?

You're giving all this expert criticism of the military, so when and where?

Who says I have to serve in the military in order to criticize it? And since when did criticizing become "unpatriotic". Only dunderheads like you think that freedom of speech is reserved for the "enlightened ones" like yourself. If you are so proud of the "freedoms" you are defending, then why do you so resent my exercizing my right to tell you you are full of crap?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 23 2004, 05:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 23 2004, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Sep 23 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Sep 22 2004, 05:52 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 22 2004, 06:51 AM

Best president? Let's see......under his watch....

1. Stock market crashes

I wonder just how intellectually honest Cal is in the discussion - al lright, you got me; I don't wonder. But let's see if he wants to post more honestly.

Let's start with item number 1:

Cal says that under Bush's watch the stock market crashed. For that matter there was a 7.9 earthquake in the Alaskan interior (Nov 5 2002). Cal mentions the stock market but not geological activity because he IMPLIES that President Bush has some cupability in the crash of 2000-2002.

Note: Cal calls it a crash - other's call it a downturn, still others call in a bear market while some call it a correction. Whatever it was, it doesn''t rank among the 10 worst downturns in recent history.

So please Cal, tell us all, What did Bush do to cause, promote, or sustain the stock market trend and activity you are referring to and how would, oh, say John Kerry, (or Mr Father-of-the-Internet, Al Gore) have made it better...

If I can sift through all your irrelevant verbage and find a decent question----let's see, you want to know what responsiblity Bush plays in the down turn in the stock market and subsequent economic malaise?

Let's see, the economy goes to hell on Bush's watch, but it is Clinton's fault. The economy during the Clinton years did almost nothing but improve, but when it went to hell under Bush, it was Clinton's fault?

Now, let's just say, arguendo, that the initial economic down turn WAS Clinton's fault. Bush, in all of his Republican economic wisdom, would then be expected to know how to remedy all the "damage" that Clinton had done to the economy.

So what does Bush do when it became clear that the averge Joe is going to be experiencing economic woes, and the federal surplus is going to be needed more than ever? He orchestrates a massive federal giveaway to the RICH, and squanders the federal surplus in the process, leaving Social Security in danger of bankrupsy. He gets us into a really stupid war, ignoring the real threat, Al Queda, and uses 911 to advance his own ideology of taking care of his corporate buddies.

Thank you Georgie, how can we thank you enough.

Cal,

When you are arguing idealogically you make no sense. In this case you maintain that Bush caused the stock market downturn (or correction) because... uh, sarcastically speaking, Clinton caused it and Bush failed to correct it.

One thing is for certain - you aren't an economics teacher.

Again I ask, how did Bush cause or maintain the stock market downturn - not generally, specifically, what did he do or fail to do that should have been done or not done?

Those who haven't the least clue about how the economy works, and specifically how the stock market functions, think that it is just a matter of who is president - like you are a Clinton groupie so it must of been him who caused the upturn during his presidency and then when the market corrected itself, which ALWAYS happens when it is overpriced, it wasn't a natural response to over-valuation and corruption in major corporate ethics - by golly it was George Bush and, judging by your post, the proof is that YOU THINK he got us into a stupid war.

BTW---if you read into my list the idea that I think that Bush, singlehandedly, caused the stock market down turn, then you read in too much. I simply pointed out that it happened on HIS watch. I know republicans have this knee jerk reaction that is quick to point out that it's not Bush's fault. Well, I will have to agree. He may not have had anything to do with it. But to claim that it WAS Clinton's is equally illogical, by the same reasoning. However, I DO think that the Bush adminitration did a pathetic job of dealing with it. It should have been clear that decreasing corporate profits was bound to decrease the amount of revenue coming in, that there would be lay offs, income tax revenue would decrease, and the the government would need more revenue, not less. That is elementary economics. So what does Bush do, he drains the treasury with massive tax cuts that, by the way, benefit mostly the rich.

I haven't seen any evidence that you know any more about macro economics than I do. So quit the "I'm the real expert" routine.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:12 PM

Traci--don't be intimidated by Outshined's put downs, he has very little  insight into how things really are in the world, and I think he knows it and and tries to cover it up with condescending remarks to people like you.

Thanks. I would agree with you except I don't want to run the risk of a personal attack on a fellow poster, despite their obvious immunity from such risk.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traci+Sep 24 2004, 06:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traci @ Sep 24 2004, 06:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:12 PM

Traci--don't be intimidated by Outshined's put downs, he has very little  insight into how things really are in the world, and I think he knows it and and tries to cover it up with condescending remarks to people like you.

Thanks. I would agree with you except I don't want to run the risk of a personal attack on a fellow poster, despite their obvious immunity from such risk.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaa........don't worry about it, personal attacks seem to be the modus operandi of this part of the forum. Anyway, I think most of us do it with a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't actually hold any of this stuff against anybody. Anyway, it makes things more spicy, after a humdrum day at work.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 24 2004, 08:05 AM

... personal attacks seem to be the modus operandi of this part of the forum.

True, however I've been warned/threatened, especially since I'm only just off moderated status.

[Dravin]

Traci is right, dear isn't a euphemism, did you perhaps mean figure of speech? Habit? I know several people who use terms of endearment habitually.

And what do you really mean by "kid"?

Considering that this is the Internet and a debate/argument of sorts it was probably an attempt to imply that you lack the experience that he does and thus your arguments should be taken as less valid. Either that or it's an attempt at calling your reaction childish.

[john doe]

deleted

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 23 2004, 05:17 PM

Your sarcasm may be showing, but so is your ignorance.

In point, what Clinton did in Kosovo and Bosnia turned out to be a very big success. To INFER that the bombing you mentioned was to divert attention away from his personal problems is simply to fall into the logical error of "simultaneous occurance proves causation".

By the way what is a "teariest"---and I thought my spelling was bad!

What did Clinton do in Ksovo and Bosnia? – I thought it was the military? If it was such a grand success why is the US military still there and not the UN? Why did Clinton fire the commander that got our downed pilot out – was it because of the photos of the mass grave were caused by the side the president did not back? You tell me. Ya I know the commander went in against orders and it cost him his job – but then you don’t care – do you? All you want is someone other than a liberal to blame and a idiot like Clinton in office.

Who cut the surveillance budget almost in half and cut off all the ground surveillance operatives? Why do you think the intelligence is such a mess? Who messed with it and broke it?

And the aspirin factory was not in Ksovo or Bosnia that was bombed to turn attention away from what your flawless president was doing with interns. You tell me – why bomb an aspirin factory and kill innocent non-military peoples? Do you have any idea what a war crime and a war criminal is? We were not at war, there was no non compliance to anything, there was no threat and only CIA intelligence was used. Do you know why CIA intelligence and not military intelligence was used? Of course you don’t you don’t even know or care where the aspirin factory was or you would not defend the idiot.

Pres Bush is not a good president – he does not belong in office and needs to be voted out but he is not the worse president of recent history. Not even close. If you cannot see it – what kind of an idiot would put at risk the entire nation for sex with someone he really did not even care about – the same kind of idiot that would hold up everybody for more than an hour at LAX airport over a hair cut? And you will defend this nut case?

The Traveler

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 24 2004, 11:08 AM

Traci is right, dear isn't a euphemism, did you perhaps mean figure of speech? Habit?

You are correct.

"Kid" was the same.

[Outshined]

This will be my last post here for a few weeks. I'm going to the National Training Center in California for more desert training. We all hope it doesn't mean what we think it means.

I won't waste any more of my time addressing Cal's insults and name-calling. For Cal I have an equal measure of contempt and pity, and absolutely no respect.

[john doe]

This will be my last post here for a few weeks. I'm going to the National Training Center in California for more desert training. We all hope it doesn't mean what we think it means.

Good luck to you. Thanks for your service.

I won't waste any more of my time addressing Cal's insults and name-calling. For Cal I have an equal measure of contempt and pity, and absolutely no respect.

Good decision.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Sep 24 2004, 11:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Sep 24 2004, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 23 2004, 05:17 PM

Your sarcasm may be showing, but so is your ignorance.

In point, what Clinton did in Kosovo and Bosnia turned out to be a very big success. To INFER that the bombing you mentioned was to divert attention away from his personal problems is simply to fall into the logical error of "simultaneous occurance proves causation".

By the way what the hell is a "teariest"---and I thought my spelling was bad!

What did Clinton do in Ksovo and Bosnia? – I thought it was the military? If it was such a grand success why is the US military still there and not the UN? Why did Clinton fire the commander that got our downed pilot out – was it because of the photos of the mass grave were caused by the side the president did not back? You tell me. Ya I know the commander went in against orders and it cost him his job – but then you don’t care – do you? All you want is someone other than a liberal to blame and a idiot like Clinton in office.

Who cut the surveillance budget almost in half and cut off all the ground surveillance operatives? Why do you think the intelligence is such a mess? Who messed with it and broke it?

And the aspirin factory was not in Ksovo or Bosnia that was bombed to turn attention away from what your flawless president was doing with interns. You tell me – why bomb an aspirin factory and kill innocent non-military peoples? Do you have any idea what a war crime and a war criminal is? We were not at war, there was no non compliance to anything, there was no threat and only CIA intelligence was used. Do you know why CIA intelligence and not military intelligence was used? Of course you don’t you don’t even know or care where the aspirin factory was or you would not defend the idiot.

Pres Bush is not a good president – he does not belong in office and needs to be voted out but he is not the worse president of recent history. Not even close. If you cannot see it – what kind of an idiot would put at risk the entire nation for sex with someone he really did not even care about – the same kind of idiot that would hold up everybody for more than an hour at LAX airport over a hair cut? And you will defend this nut case?

The Traveler

Just how was the entire NATION at risk? If it weren't for the Repubs dragging it all over the media, it wouldn't have been an issue at all.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 24 2004, 02:28 PM

This will be my last post here for a few weeks. I'm going to the National Training Center in California for more desert training. We all hope it doesn't mean what we think it means.

I won't waste any more of my time addressing Cal's insults and name-calling. For Cal I have an equal measure of contempt and pity, and absolutely no respect.

Coming from you, I take that as a compliment!

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:01 PM

BTW---if you read into my list the idea that I think that Bush, singlehandedly, caused the stock market down turn, then you read in too much. I simply pointed out that it happened on HIS watch.

Oh I know what you were doing. You were using innuendo with no basis in fact to denigrate the President. I just called you on it and now you're compelled to admit it. If you could have gotten away with blaming rabies on President Bush during his watch you would have tried to pin that on him to.

It should have been clear that decreasing corporate profits was bound to decrease the amount of revenue coming in, that there would be lay offs, income tax revenue would decrease, and the the government would need more revenue, not less. That is elementary economics.

That's not elementary economics. That may not even make sense from a non-economic stand-point. Wait - now that I have read it, it is just plain wrong from any point of view. The government does not require additional tax revenue as a result of declining coporate profits as you mistakenly claim. The government need revenue to pay it expenses. If it spends more, it needs more. What the lesson of history has taught us is that if the govt. has it, they will spend it. I'll tell you what is an indisputable fact of elementary economics. If you raise taxes too high, government tax revenue decreases:

You pretend to know what point is too high and what point is not high enough. I say that taxes are way too high as it is.

So what does Bush do, he drains the treasury with massive tax cuts that, by the way, benefit mostly the rich. 

Which is it going to be Senator Kerry, I mean Cal. Yesterday you claimed that it was a massive giveaway to the rich, today you say that it was just a decrease in the amount of burden the rich are required to shoulder. Playing fast and loose with the truth won't particularly help your cause. The fact of the matter is, according to the IRS, the top one percent of the nation's wealthy pay 34 percent of all income taxes and the top 5 percent pay over 50%. Essentially it is just a transfer of wealth, those that earn, transfer their wealth to those who can't or won't or don't earn (as much), either in actual monetary transfers (example welfare) or my using Government resources that they don't pay for.

I haven't seen any evidence that you know any more about macro economics than I do. So quit the "I'm the real expert" routine.

I am not expert but I can spot pure malarky when I see it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 24 2004, 05:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 24 2004, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:01 PM

BTW---if you read into my list the idea that I think that Bush, singlehandedly, caused the stock market down turn, then you read in too much. I simply pointed out that it happened on HIS watch.

Oh I know what you were doing. You were using innuendo with no basis in fact to denigrate the President. I just called you on it and now you're compelled to admit it. If you could have gotten away with blaming rabies on President Bush during his watch you would have tried to pin that on him to.

It should have been clear that decreasing corporate profits was bound to decrease the amount of revenue coming in, that there would be lay offs, income tax revenue would decrease, and the the government would need more revenue, not less. That is elementary economics.

That's not elementary economics. That may not even make sense from a non-economic stand-point. Wait - now that I have read it, it is just plain wrong from any point of view. The government does not require additional tax revenue as a result of declining coporate profits as you mistakenly claim. The government need revenue to pay it expenses. If it spends more, it needs more. What the lesson of history has taught us is that if the govt. has it, they will spend it. I'll tell you what is an indisputable fact of elementary economics. If you raise taxes too high, government tax revenue decreases:

You pretend to know what point is too high and what point is not high enough. I say that taxes are way too high as it is.

So what does Bush do, he drains the treasury with massive tax cuts that, by the way, benefit mostly the rich. 

Which is it going to be Senator Kerry, I mean Cal. Yesterday you claimed that it was a massive giveaway to the rich, today you say that it was just a decrease in the amount of burden the rich are required to shoulder. Playing fast and loose with the truth won't particularly help your cause. The fact of the matter is, according to the IRS, the top one percent of the nation's wealthy pay 34 percent of all income taxes and the top 5 percent pay over 50%. Essentially it is just a transfer of wealth, those that earn, transfer their wealth to those who can't or won't or don't earn (as much), either in actual monetary transfers (example welfare) or my using Government resources that they don't pay for.

I haven't seen any evidence that you know any more about macro economics than I do. So quit the "I'm the real expert" routine.

I am not expert but I can spot pure malarky when I see it.

I see you still love to use strawmen. Your graph seems to imply that I am advocating NO taxes. I just oppose giving the rich any more tax breaks than they already have. You seem to be saying that the more breaks we give the rich the better.

Also, I don't equate taxing the rich with taxing corporation profits. When the economy goes south corporate profits suffer, generally speaking, but not necessarily the income of the rich. When I refered to the effect of decreasing revenues from the taxation of corporate profits I was not necessarily implying that tax revenues from the rich would also follow. Even in times of recession, the revenue from the rich doesn't decrease that much. What does decrease is taxable income from the middle and lower classes as a result of unemployment and lower salary increases. Bush's massive tax give away made no sense because the bulk went to the rich. The best example of this was the raising of the Federal Estate Tax Exemption.

Secondly, I see you still subscribe to the old "trickle down" theory a la Ronald Reagan. Didn't work then, still doesn't work now, except for the rich. Even Papa George called it voodoo economics, he was right.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 25 2004, 03:54 PM

I see you still love to use strawmen. Your graph seems to imply that I am advocating NO taxes. I just oppose giving the rich any more tax breaks than they already have. You seem to be saying that the more breaks we give the rich the better.

If there is one thing I have learned on message board it is that when someone tosses out the charge of "strawman" it usually means that they have no rebuttal to what you are saying. Seldom does it actually refer to a 'strawman' argument.

I didn't say you advocate no taxes. I didn't imply it. Fact is you are advocating the opposite, more taxes for those that already carry the lion's share or taxes. I said exactly what I said, that you pretend to understand the magic point (apex) of the laffer curve.

I just oppose giving the rich any more tax breaks than they already have. You seem to be saying that the more breaks we give the rich the better.

Like I said, the top 5% of earners pay over 50% of the burden. What kind a break is that? Get rid of the best and brightest and hardest working (generally speaking) and you get rid of over half of all income taxes.

You seem to be saying that the more breaks we give the rich the better.

Let's say I go to college and work my butt off and eventually earn a salary of $160,000/year. I pay a boat load in taxes. Let's say someone else does the opposite and earns $18,000 and pays next to nothing in taxes. In what possible way is that fair. Take from the doers and give do the don'ters. It penalizes one for having iniative and talent.

Secondly, I see you still subscribe to the old "trickle down" theory a la Ronald Reagan. Didn't work then, still doesn't work now, except for the rich. Even Papa George called it voodoo economics, he was right.

First, you don't know what you are talking about. Because I understand the laffer curve does not mean I supported all Regan economic policies.

Second, Regan was president during a growth period. If we use your simpleton view, it happened on his watch, ergo Regan - good. Personally I think Fed Chief Volker had a lot to do with the improving economy, just as Greenspan and prospering tech companies were responsible for the growth during Clintons terms.

Third, what you call trickle down is part and parcel to laissez-faire, capitalistic, free-market economics which over the past 100 plus years, despite liberal government's attempts to subvert it, grew American into the world's economic powerhouse. Adam Smith sends his regards.

[john doe]

Bush's massive tax give away made no sense because the bulk went to the rich. The best example of this was the raising of the Federal Estate Tax Exemption.

I'm not up on this subject, so please enlighten me. What's so bad about raising the estate tax exemption? Why do we even punish people for dying in the first place by taxing their estates? Are we punishing their heirs for being relatives? I don't get it. It seems to me that people are bring taxed for dying when no commercial transaction has taken place, other than the burial expenses. I'm trying to figure out why the government has any business taking a dead person's stuff.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 25 2004, 03:54 PM

Bush's massive tax give away made no sense because the bulk went to the rich.

Yeah, that's another thing.

What's with the John Kerry routine? Two days ago you said it was a giveaway to the rich. Yesterday you corrected yourself and stated that it wasn't a givaway but rather a tax burden reduction. Now today you are back to giveaway.

Can you pick one position and stick with it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 25 2004, 05:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 25 2004, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 25 2004, 03:54 PM

Bush's massive tax give away made no sense because the bulk went to the rich.

Yeah, that's another thing.

What's with the John Kerry routine? Two days ago you said it was a giveaway to the rich. Yesterday you corrected yourself and stated that it wasn't a givaway but rather a tax burden reduction. Now today you are back to giveaway.

Can you pick one position and stick with it.

What, pray tell, is the difference between a giveaway and a tax burden reduction? You are simply playing semantics. However you couch it, the rich pay less taxes. You must be desperate for issues to raise.

[Cal]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 25 2004, 05:34 PM

Bush's massive tax give away made no sense because the bulk went to the rich. The best example of this was the raising of the Federal Estate Tax Exemption.

I'm not up on this subject, so please enlighten me. What's so bad about raising the estate tax exemption? Why do we even punish people for dying in the first place by taxing their estates? Are we punishing their heirs for being relatives? I don't get it. It seems to me that people are bring taxed for dying when no commercial transaction has taken place, other than the burial expenses. I'm trying to figure out why the government has any business taking a dead person's stuff.

You're right. You are not up on the subject.

Your reasoning only makes sense if you suppose that it is good economic policy to allow the bulk of the nations wealth to accumulate in the top 1% of the economy. I suppose you do. I guess you must be in that top wealth echelon, otherwise I would think that you might favor rules that distribute the wealth downward.

Snow-- what you propose is a system that allows the wealth to end up in the hands of the of the few. All I can say is, I hope you are part of it for your sake. If you are congratulations, you have clawed your way to the top and can now make sure nobody else gets to.

Adios amigos.

[Lindy]

9 pages!

I have read thru many posts and now I need to say something.

Those in the Armed Forces...Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, or the Coast Guard..... who really care about what they are doing...all need to be honored. It doesn't matter to them if the CIA based their reports on the facts as they had reported back to them, or the fact that Saddam had time to hide (which I firmly believe he did) the WMD that reports found earlier traces of. I have no doubt that there are arsenals hidden away, or transported out of country, because that is the logical way of looking at it. I am not a very analytical, military minded person, but with the little intelligence I do have and the small amount of military logic I still have- I will agree that there is good reason why we are there. I don't like it, I won't pretend I do. But I understand a lot more than I did several months ago.

I was put into the position of remembering and understanding a lot more of the attitude of the true, the loyal and the faithful. After the funeral of a friend who was killed in the war I listened to other Marines as they spoke their minds. I am rededicated with the mission of those in the military...thanks to the attitude of those who are committed to their duty, I support those service personnel who will give all they have to help those that stand in the need of help. Those who want to whine about what they are doing to help others should just get the hell out of the service. Of course this is MY opinion. (and I don't swear much, and the H word is about as good as it gets unless I really get upset....then you can use your imagination as to my colorful vocabulary)

I have several co-workers who left for Iraq, and a shirt tale-in-law who is over there too... I pray for them all to return healthy and in one piece.

God Bless those that serve....

even if you don't agree with who did what, when, how, where or why....you should all agree on one thing. Prayers for all....no matter what or why. They all deserve a little bit of your support...

[Lindy]

One of the problems that I have is finding out that Cheney was a chief executive with the Halliburton oil company for what 4 or 5 years? This was one of the thorns I have with the whole thing. I didn't understand why the job was given to Halliburton and there wasn't a chance for other companies to bid on the job.

Ok...now I'm done