Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The point I am trying to make about Obama is that he is nothing but empty platitudes. How is the most liberal Senator in the United States going to "bring us all together"?
He says he wants a "united" America, and you know what, I do to! Sure, if Obama and everyone else in this country would subscribe to the principles of pro-free market, libertarian ethics, then I think that would be great! But this is a pipe dream. For this country to truly be "united," that necessitates that someone has to give up their principles and viewpoints and subscribe to another's. Is Obama willing to do that for the sake of unity? I doubt it.
There will always be political disagreements on every level of government. There are just certain things that you will never be able to bring people together on.
What is so bad about America right now that requires drastic change?
My dear KoB, I bear the scars from having criticised friends' love-objects in the past. If she seems perfect to you, who am I to put in my twopenn'orth?
I know, too, that I am also living in a glass house!
My dear KoB, I bear the scars from having criticised friends' love-objects in the past. If she seems perfect to you, who am I to put in my twopenn'orth?
I know, too, that I am also living in a glass house!
I should make it clear that I don't believe America is some type of divine nation or perfect by any means. But for one reason or another, people in politics like to say just how bad America is right now without ever being specific. It is the one thing that I find most intolerable about politicians actually; vagueness.
If I could, there would be many things in America that I would do away with if I had the power, so I don't think it's perfect. But I don't see what is so terrible about this country (domestically at least) that warrants drastic changes.
While watching Februrary 24's Meet the Press, I saw Ralph Nader announce his candidacy for president. I know that most people do not take him seriously, but I believe that I understand why he is doing what he is doing, and I admire the man for all that he has done for this country. The list of his accomplishments are staggering, e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the EPA, the Freedom of Information Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, OSHA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Wholesome Meat Act, et cetera. While I have been leaning towards Obama, I am seriously considering voting for Nader.
I think that people not only underestimate his intelligence, but his dedication to democracy as well. I happened to watch An Unreasonable Man recently, which is a documentary about Nader's career, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in Nader. I learned a lot about Nader and the electorial process that I did not know before. One thing I learned is that the Commission on Presidential Debates currently decides who does and does not particpate in these debates, and that commission was established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties. In fact, the commission itself is run by former chairmen of both parties.
I am extremely unhappy with the current electorial system, especially how easily constituencies can be marginalized, and I applaud anyone who attempts to change the system, or at the very least, point out the need for reform. It is very dificult to try and get people that are so used to a two-party dominated format to understand why it is important for people like Nader to voice their opinions, and more than that, to take action. People often talk about change, but then do very little about it. Nader, for all of his faults, is at least trying to be actively involved in our political system in order to get others involved instead of just complaining about it.
Well, Obama finally came out and openly denied being a Muslim. While I have nothing against someone for being of that religion, I did fear that he might be hiding the fact, and such a person who would do so isn't trustworthy of the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth. The idea of him being president just became tolerable. His POV on international trade is dead on, at least.
Well, Obama finally came out and openly denied being a Muslim. While I have nothing against someone for being of that religion, I did fear that he might be hiding the fact, and such a person who would do so isn't trustworthy of the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth. The idea of him being president just became tolerable. His POV on international trade is dead on, at least.
“Obama finally came out and openly denied being a Muslim?” I recommend you turn fox news off and try other resources for your news. By doing so you would have known along time ago about his Muslim affiliation. Look at the latest stories on Fox or CNN about Obama’s middle name, it is a prime example of narrow-mindedness.
Davids, I know his father is a practicing Muslim, and that Obama spent a few years attending one of the Muslim schools in Malaysia, but to openly deny or acknowledge, either way, and not just give an answer like "I attend the Church of Christ" sets a lot of things at ease. I still think he's too liberal, but the only thing scary about him now is what would happen if he were shot while in office. That I can handle, because the US can pull through that, and the nation would be a lot stronger for it. I may even vote for him. Better to have a Democrat in truth than a Republican in name only. He's even spot on for trade issues. He's no longer the X factor, because he did make a statement he has to deal with during the election.
Bush, I guess this is how I see it (yes to me it is black and white) I have father and a mother who are strongly practicing Christians and I grew up practicing, studying and strongly believing in the Christian ways, but I now strongly practice, live and study daily the Buddhist ways and have personally taken refuge, does this make me bad since it makes me different?
The point I am trying to make here is, I believe too many Americans have there priorities mixed up and views tainted by deception (I was one of them.) I am beyond furious with the way things have been happening for the past 8 years. I was a strong straight ticket republican who thought one should never question there leaders; but now, how can a person not?
Regardless who wins the nomination McCain, Clinton, or Obama the US will be just fine, not one of them could even come close to destroy it. With my conflicts I have with the Iraq war and Afghanistan I, (unfortunately) set that issue to the side and consecrate on the other issues. Mainly the economy, geared towards education and jobs. I believe without a shadow of a doubt if are leaders would do this, not only will it help with families incomes’ but it is proven that education makes people healthier and happier.
For the safety of are county, I think are “commander guy” should listen to the advisers in the field who have the first hand (and most of them the years of) knowledge. Yes for immediate threats it is the president’s job to respond correctly and swiftly. But for any war abroad it is the senate’s responsibility to make that dissection along with the president.
One of my biggest beefs I have with Sen. McCain is; why hasn’t he signed and moving along the new (much, much needed) GI bill?
Also why isn’t he (knowing its needed) advocating that more money needs to be pumped into the VA for the care of are veterans?
No he is too busy trying to save face in Iraq rather then getting the job done in Afghanistan.
Davids, that's why I like Hilary. She talks openly about changing current Iraq doctrine to something that would establish Iraqi independence and stability as quick as possible, which would be a victory for the US. I also think she would give every plan an honest chance, but would change a failing plan when it became obvious, not four years of "stay the course". There is just no way I could vote for McCain. As a soldier, I know that "stay the course" with the occasional surge when things get too bad is the wrong strategy. However, things like putting more money and emphasis on psy-ops, medical aid, and basic necessities is a good start.
And that's bad, someone like me saying that Hilary would make a better president than a Vet, and former POW at that. Three people I went to basic with didn't come home from Iraq (two of them in the last couple of months, I just heard about it). It might have been different if our government changed strategy every couple of years to deal with the continuing threats to US forces, and if it included ways to get the young men of Iraq working, so they didn't have to kill for money, but since strategy hasn't changed much since OIF 2, it feels wasted. I hate politicians who play games with war.
As an outside observer, I find it heartwarming that, as Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA". Political debate seems to be returning after a period of cant and deception. The world is a better - and a safer - place for it.
As an outside observer, I find it heartwarming that, as Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA". Political debate seems to be returning after a period of cant and deception. The world is a better - and a safer - place for it.
"From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away"
Davids, that's why I like Hilary. She talks openly about changing current Iraq doctrine to something that would establish Iraqi independence and stability as quick as possible, which would be a victory for the US. I also think she would give every plan an honest chance, but would change a failing plan when it became obvious, not four years of "stay the course". There is just no way I could vote for McCain. As a soldier, I know that "stay the course" with the occasional surge when things get too bad is the wrong strategy. However, things like putting more money and emphasis on psy-ops, medical aid, and basic necessities is a good start.
And that's bad, someone like me saying that Hilary would make a better president than a Vet, and former POW at that. Three people I went to basic with didn't come home from Iraq (two of them in the last couple of months, I just heard about it). It might have been different if our government changed strategy every couple of years to deal with the continuing threats to US forces, and if it included ways to get the young men of Iraq working, so they didn't have to kill for money, but since strategy hasn't changed much since OIF 2, it feels wasted. I hate politicians who play games with war.
Bush, Very nicely said. The only problem with it is, now I have to conduct more research; you have me thinking more about Hilary.
Edwards was my candidate from the beginning, but once he backed out I was moved by the change idea.
Just today as I was gearing up for work, my fellow officers decided to voice there opinions about politics and there hidden bigotry towards Muslims or anyone from the Middle East. It started by one of them informing me about the returns and Hilary bouncing back and McCain winning the nomination. Laughing I said it doesn’t really matter that he won the nomination, because who ever wins the democratic nomination will be are next president. The officer came back by saying “I can’t afford (money) a democrat to be in office” I told him that was one hell of a self center way of thinking of ones self. He said well taxes will go up and up. Not wanting to get into a deep discussion at 0545 and while arming up I lightly said well maybe we shouldn’t be spending billions of dollars in a war. He said well that’s ok because that’s for my better interest. Not knowing what he meant, I asked him. He said we had to attack them “Rag heads” first before they attack us in my back yard. Floored that a fellow Officer would say such a disrespectful term, I informed him Iraq never attacked us, and it has clearly came out as such by all parties. He again shocked me by coming back saying “well we should just kill all the rag heads and level them all”. I told him we should include all African Americans and anyone who doesn’t look like us or believe like us. (I didn’t use the African American term though) by doing so he stated it’s not the same and I didn’t say that. I smiled and ended the conversation and knew by stepping down to his level and speaking in his terms, I made my point.
It’s funny how narrow mindedness flows though the typical American. I believe if we don’t have a change in attitudes with today’s politics my example or fox news listener’s minds, hatred will continue to blossom.
I share this story because, well I checked this website before going on patrol and needed to vent.:grumble:
Peace to you all
Also Bushi, I’ll get back to you with thoughts on Hilary once I research it more. Again thanks for motivating me to do so.
I agree that your fellow officer was quite misinformed and racist, but I do agree with him when he talks about the higher taxes. It's not "selfish" to say that the government shouldn't steal more of my money. It's such a silly, Robin Hood mentality to say, "Tax the rich, give it to the poor!"
Essentially what you are saying then is "Punish everyone that actually strives to be something life. Punish people who are successful and make a bigger, more monstrous bureaucratic government with this stolen money!"
I don't like the idea of a government having to "take care" of everyone. Every speech I hear by either Democratic candidate is all about promising this and that from the government. "I'll give you this. I'll give you that. I'll bring the country together!"
Sorry, no thanks. I want the government to be as weak as possible and to have as little involvement in any aspect of daily life as possible.
I agree that your fellow officer was quite misinformed and racist, but I do agree with him when he talks about the higher taxes. It's not "selfish" to say that the government shouldn't steal more of my money. It's such a silly, Robin Hood mentality to say, "Tax the rich, give it to the poor!"
Essentially what you are saying then is "Punish everyone that actually strives to be something life. Punish people who are successful and make a bigger, more monstrous bureaucratic government with this stolen money!"
I don't like the idea of a government having to "take care" of everyone. Every speech I hear by either Democratic candidate is all about promising this and that from the government. "I'll give you this. I'll give you that. I'll bring the country together!"
Sorry, no thanks. I want the government to be as weak as possible and to have as little involvement in any aspect of daily life as possible.
For my self I am going to vote democratically since there is no better choice and when I say “taxes” I want the “taxes” to be even across the board regardless of ones income level. The tax break will only benefit the rich and when I say rich I mean filthy rich. By cutting the taxes for the uppers it will drive the taxes up for the middle and that is where I fall and my fellow selfish officer falls.
It floors me that people think if a democrat gets in office the taxes will go up. Why don’t people pay attention to the tax breaks to certain % of companies and people? With business tax break I under stand small business for the reason of survival, but to give a multi million or to some billion dollar companies tax breaks so we will keep them in are county we loose all away around. Company stays with tax breaks people have jobs but taxes go up to pay for things or debt. Company leaves people don’t have jobs and taxes go up to pay for things or debt.
Survival of the fittest is a great way of life for some but what about the others? If the government is not there to protect the ones who need protection who will?
I do agree with you though less government is better, just think if we didn’t have government we could still have slaves, run are country by the bible and prosecute rapped women for getting abortions. (There are many examples one could use why the government can be good and how it has already helped all of us, but I think you know)
Peace to you,
Dave
What do you think about a Knight and David for president ticket
I agree that your fellow officer was quite misinformed and racist, but I do agree with him when he talks about the higher taxes. It's not "selfish" to say that the government shouldn't steal more of my money. It's such a silly, Robin Hood mentality to say, "Tax the rich, give it to the poor!"
Essentially what you are saying then is "Punish everyone that actually strives to be something life. Punish people who are successful and make a bigger, more monstrous bureaucratic government with this stolen money!"
I don't like the idea of a government having to "take care" of everyone. Every speech I hear by either Democratic candidate is all about promising this and that from the government. "I'll give you this. I'll give you that. I'll bring the country together!"
Sorry, no thanks. I want the government to be as weak as possible and to have as little involvement in any aspect of daily life as possible.
That`s interesting because that is the way it was in the old days. (18th & 19th century America) It`s also interesting how the government became more & more involved in our lives incrementally. I bet someone from 1850 would be appalled at the level of intrusion in our lives today. In that respect, it`s a shame Ron Paul isn`t doing as well as he should. He had a large grassroots base at the start of his campaign. Personally, I would like to see Hillary win. My dream team would be Hillary with Obama as her running mate.
Bush, Very nicely said. The only problem with it is, now I have to conduct more research; you have me thinking more about Hilary.
Edwards was my candidate from the beginning, but once he backed out I was moved by the change idea.
Just today as I was gearing up for work, my fellow officers decided to voice there opinions about politics and there hidden bigotry towards Muslims or anyone from the Middle East. It started by one of them informing me about the returns and Hilary bouncing back and McCain winning the nomination. Laughing I said it doesn’t really matter that he won the nomination, because who ever wins the democratic nomination will be are next president. The officer came back by saying “I can’t afford (money) a democrat to be in office” I told him that was one hell of a self center way of thinking of ones self. He said well taxes will go up and up. Not wanting to get into a deep discussion at 0545 and while arming up I lightly said well maybe we shouldn’t be spending billions of dollars in a war. He said well that’s ok because that’s for my better interest. Not knowing what he meant, I asked him. He said we had to attack them “Rag heads” first before they attack us in my back yard. Floored that a fellow Officer would say such a disrespectful term, I informed him Iraq never attacked us, and it has clearly came out as such by all parties. He again shocked me by coming back saying “well we should just kill all the rag heads and level them all”. I told him we should include all African Americans and anyone who doesn’t look like us or believe like us. (I didn’t use the African American term though) by doing so he stated it’s not the same and I didn’t say that. I smiled and ended the conversation and knew by stepping down to his level and speaking in his terms, I made my point.
It’s funny how narrow mindedness flows though the typical American. I believe if we don’t have a change in attitudes with today’s politics my example or fox news listener’s minds, hatred will continue to blossom.
I share this story because, well I checked this website before going on patrol and needed to vent.:grumble:
Peace to you all
Also Bushi, I’ll get back to you with thoughts on Hilary once I research it more. Again thanks for motivating me to do so.
"A soldier without respect for the enemy is a poor soldier."
Field Marshal Montgomery of El Alamein.
No, Simon, I just don't think he was a good soldier. More puff and pomposity than actual talent. I'm sure you've seen the movie "Patton"? As for Ike, he was by necessity more of a politician than a soldier, having to do his best to make all the Allies happy while still winning the war against Germany. Not a job any of us would envy, methinks...
very true pally. My dream rank would be Chief Warrant Officer 5, 352P MOS, meaning a linguist, and one who sits in on some of the most important meetings in modern history. A peacemaker, not a true warfighter. As for Ike, his campaign credits did include some action in WWI, although which campaigns he participated in, I don't remember.
Gen. Petraeus sounds like a modern day Ike to me, one who is trying to win a war and pacify an unstable region. We could use another Ike or Truman as president, that's who we need. Too bad Gen Petraeus has indicated no interest in retiring and running in the next election.
Yep, that was me, a linguist (Air Force though). It was my way of avoiding Vietnam while also avoiding going to jail. Worked out pretty well since it was while stationed in Japan that I got interested in Buddhism. Karma is exacting...
I love working as an interpreter. It is amazing how supposedly "intelligent" people can forget that the translator is able to understand their "private" conversations during negotiations.
I once turned to a group of British businessmen and said in very rapid Cockney "Wouldn't touch this one with a bargepole mate, they've doctored their books to the tune of a pony of grands. You're getting a pig in a poke"
I love working as an interpreter. It is amazing how supposedly "intelligent" people can forget that the translator is able to understand their "private" conversations during negotiations.
I once turned to a group of British businessmen and said in very rapid Cockney "Wouldn't touch this one with a bargepole mate, they've doctored their books to the tune of a pony of grands. You're getting a pig in a poke"
Being an interpreter was great fun. I learned a lot about things I knew nothing about before, like the days I spent at the Motorcycle Exhibition with a Belgian manufacturer. I actually began to find motor-cycling of some interest - and met three world champions!
My best experience, and the one that still makes me smile, was the time I worked for our Ambassador in Paris. The British Minister of Agriculture was due to have private conversations with his French counterpart. The Brit was a typical old-style Conservative, courteous and irredeemably male-chauvinist. The French Minister was Edith Cresson - socialist, feminist and activist (at that time). Even with their interpreters, it was a dialogue of the deaf.
No, Simon, I just don't think he was a good soldier. More puff and pomposity than actual talent. I'm sure you've seen the movie "Patton"? As for Ike, he was by necessity more of a politician than a soldier, having to do his best to make all the Allies happy while still winning the war against Germany. Not a job any of us would envy, methinks...
Just my opinion.
Palzang
I find it fascinating how quickly we are to leap to the defence of our 'national heroes', particularly when they are criticised by 'outsiders'. To the radical pacifist in me, both Monty and Ike can be considered war criminals on a par with Raeder or Jodl. They were lucky enough to be on the winning side and so were never tried. To that atavistic part of me which was brought up in admiration of British heroes, the memory of seeing Monty at the Royal Tournament and hearing the crowd cheering is inexplicably moving.
The effects and influence of national context are insidious. I recognise that my feelings about Ike are coloured by Suez and by my English dislike of professional soldiers as heads of state in the modern era. We tried it back in the 17th century and it was a disaster. The US tried it in the 18th and it seems to have worked far better, on the whole.
On the subject of the US elections, I should like to share that, having survived so many of your elections, each time they come round, they make me re-examine what I think a head of state should be. This is particularly relevant over here as our own H. of S. is getting older - and older! Perhaps a Buddhist board may seem an odd place to consider such a topic but it does resonate with one Buddhist nation, Tibet-in-exile. Like the British monarch, the Dalai Lama, particularly the Great 13th and 14th, in his national role, is above party politics. Both arose organically from pre-democratic systems. Both are now asking how accident of birth or rebirth fits into the democratic ideal.
I believe that both actually challenge the democratic ideal to prove its worth.
Interesting you should bring up that point, Simon.
Yesterday I heard someone citing Alan Bennet (a British writer) who said that coming across a military band beating the retreat he felt his face wrinkling into a sneer while at the same time tears coursed down his cheeks. Inexplicable dichotomy of patriotism and pacifism.
Simon, I suppose it's true that the difference between a war hero and a war criminal is being on the winning side. Yet, considering that all the great heroes of WWII were fighting a Nazi Germany bent on conquest and genocide, it's hard to impugn them for being human, and making human mistakes while fighting a terrible evil. And, we didn't have the pinpoint accuracy of bombing back then that we have today, so collateral damage and casualties is someone excusable. To me, the fault for all the deaths in such wars lies with those who started them. Every act of aggressive warfare, every murder committed in an attempt at genocide, is the fault of the leader who orders it, and the soldiers who obey that order.
Simon, I suppose it's true that the difference between a war hero and a war criminal is being on the winning side. Yet, considering that all the great heroes of WWII were fighting a Nazi Germany bent on conquest and genocide, it's hard to impugn them for being human, and making human mistakes while fighting a terrible evil. And, we didn't have the pinpoint accuracy of bombing back then that we have today, so collateral damage and casualties is someone excusable. To me, the fault for all the deaths in such wars lies with those who started them. Every act of aggressive warfare, every murder committed in an attempt at genocide, is the fault of the leader who orders it, and the soldiers who obey that order.
So what is the reality, for you, of being part of an armed attack on a country which, however unpleasant, had not attacked any of its current invaders?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
My comments regarding Monty and Ike were strictly from a military standpoint. I think Monty was a disaster as a general and cost the lives of many, many British soldiers with his blundering mediocrity. He was very much like MacArthur, all about building up his ego and very little about taking care of the business at hand. Eisenhower, on the other hand, I think did a commendable job in a very difficult position as a general. Whatever you might say about him, he was never a glory hound. However, I think as a President he was a disaster. Though he did mirror the country in the '50s!
Pally, I will never shoot an innocent civilian while in theater, and if ordered to do so, I will refuse. I will also make sure there is a journalist around when I do, so I don't get into trouble for my actions (bad pun, as the troops who get into trouble for misjudgment are in the presence of a journalist, or they wouldn't get into trouble for what they did). I'm out to make a difference. If I incur the karma of killing another person, it's because they were more than likely a terrorist out to kill others. I will never take another life lightly.
As for Iraq, they never attacked us, but there are things I'm not allowed to talk about. It's not a black and white picture, I can say that much.
Comments
He says he wants a "united" America, and you know what, I do to! Sure, if Obama and everyone else in this country would subscribe to the principles of pro-free market, libertarian ethics, then I think that would be great! But this is a pipe dream. For this country to truly be "united," that necessitates that someone has to give up their principles and viewpoints and subscribe to another's. Is Obama willing to do that for the sake of unity? I doubt it.
There will always be political disagreements on every level of government. There are just certain things that you will never be able to bring people together on.
What is so bad about America right now that requires drastic change?
Where would you like to start?
http://blip.tv/file/520347
You tell me. Just be specific.
My dear KoB, I bear the scars from having criticised friends' love-objects in the past. If she seems perfect to you, who am I to put in my twopenn'orth?
I know, too, that I am also living in a glass house!
I should make it clear that I don't believe America is some type of divine nation or perfect by any means. But for one reason or another, people in politics like to say just how bad America is right now without ever being specific. It is the one thing that I find most intolerable about politicians actually; vagueness.
If I could, there would be many things in America that I would do away with if I had the power, so I don't think it's perfect. But I don't see what is so terrible about this country (domestically at least) that warrants drastic changes.
Let's start with all this unseasonable weather: It warrants very drastic changes, IMNSHO.
As for politics, I'll be wanting to keep that rank poison out of my soul.
While watching Februrary 24's Meet the Press, I saw Ralph Nader announce his candidacy for president. I know that most people do not take him seriously, but I believe that I understand why he is doing what he is doing, and I admire the man for all that he has done for this country. The list of his accomplishments are staggering, e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the EPA, the Freedom of Information Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, OSHA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Wholesome Meat Act, et cetera. While I have been leaning towards Obama, I am seriously considering voting for Nader.
I think that people not only underestimate his intelligence, but his dedication to democracy as well. I happened to watch An Unreasonable Man recently, which is a documentary about Nader's career, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in Nader. I learned a lot about Nader and the electorial process that I did not know before. One thing I learned is that the Commission on Presidential Debates currently decides who does and does not particpate in these debates, and that commission was established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties. In fact, the commission itself is run by former chairmen of both parties.
I am extremely unhappy with the current electorial system, especially how easily constituencies can be marginalized, and I applaud anyone who attempts to change the system, or at the very least, point out the need for reform. It is very dificult to try and get people that are so used to a two-party dominated format to understand why it is important for people like Nader to voice their opinions, and more than that, to take action. People often talk about change, but then do very little about it. Nader, for all of his faults, is at least trying to be actively involved in our political system in order to get others involved instead of just complaining about it.
Sincerely,
Jason
“Obama finally came out and openly denied being a Muslim?” I recommend you turn fox news off and try other resources for your news. By doing so you would have known along time ago about his Muslim affiliation. Look at the latest stories on Fox or CNN about Obama’s middle name, it is a prime example of narrow-mindedness.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/tennessee.gop/index.html
his church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ
Palzang
Or as Keith Olbermann calls it, Fox Noise!
Not a bad choice. For myself I prefer Stephen Colbert for factual news.
http://stephencolbertisgod.com/
The point I am trying to make here is, I believe too many Americans have there priorities mixed up and views tainted by deception (I was one of them.) I am beyond furious with the way things have been happening for the past 8 years. I was a strong straight ticket republican who thought one should never question there leaders; but now, how can a person not?
Regardless who wins the nomination McCain, Clinton, or Obama the US will be just fine, not one of them could even come close to destroy it. With my conflicts I have with the Iraq war and Afghanistan I, (unfortunately) set that issue to the side and consecrate on the other issues. Mainly the economy, geared towards education and jobs. I believe without a shadow of a doubt if are leaders would do this, not only will it help with families incomes’ but it is proven that education makes people healthier and happier.
For the safety of are county, I think are “commander guy” should listen to the advisers in the field who have the first hand (and most of them the years of) knowledge. Yes for immediate threats it is the president’s job to respond correctly and swiftly. But for any war abroad it is the senate’s responsibility to make that dissection along with the president.
One of my biggest beefs I have with Sen. McCain is; why hasn’t he signed and moving along the new (much, much needed) GI bill?
Also why isn’t he (knowing its needed) advocating that more money needs to be pumped into the VA for the care of are veterans?
No he is too busy trying to save face in Iraq rather then getting the job done in Afghanistan.
Peace,
And that's bad, someone like me saying that Hilary would make a better president than a Vet, and former POW at that. Three people I went to basic with didn't come home from Iraq (two of them in the last couple of months, I just heard about it). It might have been different if our government changed strategy every couple of years to deal with the continuing threats to US forces, and if it included ways to get the young men of Iraq working, so they didn't have to kill for money, but since strategy hasn't changed much since OIF 2, it feels wasted. I hate politicians who play games with war.
"From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away"
Bush, Very nicely said. The only problem with it is, now I have to conduct more research; you have me thinking more about Hilary.
Edwards was my candidate from the beginning, but once he backed out I was moved by the change idea.
Just today as I was gearing up for work, my fellow officers decided to voice there opinions about politics and there hidden bigotry towards Muslims or anyone from the Middle East. It started by one of them informing me about the returns and Hilary bouncing back and McCain winning the nomination. Laughing I said it doesn’t really matter that he won the nomination, because who ever wins the democratic nomination will be are next president. The officer came back by saying “I can’t afford (money) a democrat to be in office” I told him that was one hell of a self center way of thinking of ones self. He said well taxes will go up and up. Not wanting to get into a deep discussion at 0545 and while arming up I lightly said well maybe we shouldn’t be spending billions of dollars in a war. He said well that’s ok because that’s for my better interest. Not knowing what he meant, I asked him. He said we had to attack them “Rag heads” first before they attack us in my back yard. Floored that a fellow Officer would say such a disrespectful term, I informed him Iraq never attacked us, and it has clearly came out as such by all parties. He again shocked me by coming back saying “well we should just kill all the rag heads and level them all”. I told him we should include all African Americans and anyone who doesn’t look like us or believe like us. (I didn’t use the African American term though) by doing so he stated it’s not the same and I didn’t say that. I smiled and ended the conversation and knew by stepping down to his level and speaking in his terms, I made my point.
It’s funny how narrow mindedness flows though the typical American. I believe if we don’t have a change in attitudes with today’s politics my example or fox news listener’s minds, hatred will continue to blossom.
I share this story because, well I checked this website before going on patrol and needed to vent.:grumble:
Peace to you all
Also Bushi, I’ll get back to you with thoughts on Hilary once I research it more. Again thanks for motivating me to do so.
Essentially what you are saying then is "Punish everyone that actually strives to be something life. Punish people who are successful and make a bigger, more monstrous bureaucratic government with this stolen money!"
I don't like the idea of a government having to "take care" of everyone. Every speech I hear by either Democratic candidate is all about promising this and that from the government. "I'll give you this. I'll give you that. I'll bring the country together!"
Sorry, no thanks. I want the government to be as weak as possible and to have as little involvement in any aspect of daily life as possible.
For my self I am going to vote democratically since there is no better choice and when I say “taxes” I want the “taxes” to be even across the board regardless of ones income level. The tax break will only benefit the rich and when I say rich I mean filthy rich. By cutting the taxes for the uppers it will drive the taxes up for the middle and that is where I fall and my fellow selfish officer falls.
It floors me that people think if a democrat gets in office the taxes will go up. Why don’t people pay attention to the tax breaks to certain % of companies and people? With business tax break I under stand small business for the reason of survival, but to give a multi million or to some billion dollar companies tax breaks so we will keep them in are county we loose all away around. Company stays with tax breaks people have jobs but taxes go up to pay for things or debt. Company leaves people don’t have jobs and taxes go up to pay for things or debt.
Survival of the fittest is a great way of life for some but what about the others? If the government is not there to protect the ones who need protection who will?
I do agree with you though less government is better, just think if we didn’t have government we could still have slaves, run are country by the bible and prosecute rapped women for getting abortions. (There are many examples one could use why the government can be good and how it has already helped all of us, but I think you know)
Peace to you,
Dave
What do you think about a Knight and David for president ticket
That`s interesting because that is the way it was in the old days. (18th & 19th century America) It`s also interesting how the government became more & more involved in our lives incrementally. I bet someone from 1850 would be appalled at the level of intrusion in our lives today. In that respect, it`s a shame Ron Paul isn`t doing as well as he should. He had a large grassroots base at the start of his campaign. Personally, I would like to see Hillary win. My dream team would be Hillary with Obama as her running mate.
"A soldier without respect for the enemy is a poor soldier."
Field Marshal Montgomery of El Alamein.
Palzang
Is this because he was forced to work with Ike?
Bushi,
Take no notice of Palzang and me when we snipe at each other. These are only love-pats (I think!)
Just my opinion.
Palzang
Gen. Petraeus sounds like a modern day Ike to me, one who is trying to win a war and pacify an unstable region. We could use another Ike or Truman as president, that's who we need. Too bad Gen Petraeus has indicated no interest in retiring and running in the next election.
Palzang
I once turned to a group of British businessmen and said in very rapid Cockney "Wouldn't touch this one with a bargepole mate, they've doctored their books to the tune of a pony of grands. You're getting a pig in a poke"
Being an interpreter was great fun. I learned a lot about things I knew nothing about before, like the days I spent at the Motorcycle Exhibition with a Belgian manufacturer. I actually began to find motor-cycling of some interest - and met three world champions!
My best experience, and the one that still makes me smile, was the time I worked for our Ambassador in Paris. The British Minister of Agriculture was due to have private conversations with his French counterpart. The Brit was a typical old-style Conservative, courteous and irredeemably male-chauvinist. The French Minister was Edith Cresson - socialist, feminist and activist (at that time). Even with their interpreters, it was a dialogue of the deaf.
I find it fascinating how quickly we are to leap to the defence of our 'national heroes', particularly when they are criticised by 'outsiders'. To the radical pacifist in me, both Monty and Ike can be considered war criminals on a par with Raeder or Jodl. They were lucky enough to be on the winning side and so were never tried. To that atavistic part of me which was brought up in admiration of British heroes, the memory of seeing Monty at the Royal Tournament and hearing the crowd cheering is inexplicably moving.
The effects and influence of national context are insidious. I recognise that my feelings about Ike are coloured by Suez and by my English dislike of professional soldiers as heads of state in the modern era. We tried it back in the 17th century and it was a disaster. The US tried it in the 18th and it seems to have worked far better, on the whole.
On the subject of the US elections, I should like to share that, having survived so many of your elections, each time they come round, they make me re-examine what I think a head of state should be. This is particularly relevant over here as our own H. of S. is getting older - and older! Perhaps a Buddhist board may seem an odd place to consider such a topic but it does resonate with one Buddhist nation, Tibet-in-exile. Like the British monarch, the Dalai Lama, particularly the Great 13th and 14th, in his national role, is above party politics. Both arose organically from pre-democratic systems. Both are now asking how accident of birth or rebirth fits into the democratic ideal.
I believe that both actually challenge the democratic ideal to prove its worth.
Yesterday I heard someone citing Alan Bennet (a British writer) who said that coming across a military band beating the retreat he felt his face wrinkling into a sneer while at the same time tears coursed down his cheeks. Inexplicable dichotomy of patriotism and pacifism.
So what is the reality, for you, of being part of an armed attack on a country which, however unpleasant, had not attacked any of its current invaders?
Haven't we just!
Call it a quasi-rhetorical question....:D
My comments regarding Monty and Ike were strictly from a military standpoint. I think Monty was a disaster as a general and cost the lives of many, many British soldiers with his blundering mediocrity. He was very much like MacArthur, all about building up his ego and very little about taking care of the business at hand. Eisenhower, on the other hand, I think did a commendable job in a very difficult position as a general. Whatever you might say about him, he was never a glory hound. However, I think as a President he was a disaster. Though he did mirror the country in the '50s!
Palzang
As for Iraq, they never attacked us, but there are things I'm not allowed to talk about. It's not a black and white picture, I can say that much.