| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
It is odd that the DOJ site would be in stark black and white. It is odd that the DOJ site would have intentionally removed the red, white, and blue. It is odd that the DOJ site would have a questionable quote in the header page that is attributable to no one. It is odd that Eric Holder is the Attorney General. It is way past time to get even. | ||
| Aesquire |
Watch the "Power and Danger of Iconography" clip, Reindog, you might find it interesting. http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56 I would also add that "get even" isn't an ideal goal in life or politics. Total domination, that's a good one. Proving that the way of my opponent is wrong so well that no one will ever vote for such bad promises again, even better. It's not odd at all that red, white and blue are gone from the DOJ site. Shades of grey are the preferred colors of the world to some people. | ||
| Aesquire |
Actually this admin has always told us what they want and stand for. Or rather they have told their followers and minions. It's on record, it's just that except for the alt media of radio and on rare occasion, Fox, no one like Chris Mathews will ever mention what they really want, since the truth is the enemy of Progressives. Certainly by now you know that the President of The United States thinks you are bitter, that you cling to outmoded concepts of God, that you hate all that do not look like you, and that you can't possibly be as smart as he is, since he has a degree from Harvard.....even though we have no Idea what his grades actually were. Understand this, Barack Hussein Obama IS the first post racial president. At last, more than a century after the civil war that tore our great nation, race is no longer a problem in American society. In a way I never saw coming, in a brilliant ploy that will forever change the nature of our land, Obama has ended racial discrimination. How? By changing the actual daily use meaning of the term "racist". No longer does racism have anything at all to do with the color of ones skin, or the lands your ancestors come from. Now it has only one meaning. A racist is one who disagree's with the actions of the Democratic Party, it's operatives, or any cause they promote. No matter if it's tax paid school breakfasts, or a desire to preserve the Constitution, those who object are now racist. (Message edited by aesquire on September 04, 2010) | ||
| Reindog |
Even Yahoo and AP are stating the obvious. You better be getting an education for your children and yourselves or very soon...you will be doing the jobs that the Illegals used to do before they returned to their home country. You know, "the jobs that Americans refuse to do". Get an education and get a job....or else! Aesquire, thanks for the PJTV link. I am going to join as it a breath of fresh air to hear that Conservative journalists and commentators can have a sense of humor as they expose the Cancer that the Left has brought to America over the past forty years. It was funny to hear Chris Matthew complain about Obama's teleprompter. All Chris had to do was ask us in 2008 when we pointed out the obvious. | ||
| Aesquire |
I very much enjoy Bill Whittle's work, both now and before pjtv, On pjtv, I like Alphonzo Rachel & Andrew Klaven for humor, and Joe Hicks for an ex-leftist viewpoint. It's not all prime thoughts, but some stuff, like Poliwood, gives a fresh perspective. If I wanted to only hear from people that agree with me...I'd have to be alone. Rush, Beck, Brokaw, all people I disagree with on one subject or another. You have to stick with core principals, and vote accordingly. I had one of "those moments" while teaching Historical martial arts stuff..& chivalry to some college guys. A personal problem one guy had with getting teased. I explained that any high pressure group of police, firefighters, any "elite" group in society, has a habit of constantly pushing one another for many reasons. To test each others readiness, and fitness to do the job. An exercise in pressure control, etc... Also that he's gained points by not being notably upset. He can take it, so he's ok kind of thing. The advice I ended up giving was "give as good as you get, with respect" Now with little respect for the so called mainstream media, and the malpractice they do.. this is edited with sarcastic captions, but is still interesting as to the "media"'s handling of politics....in some cases. | ||
| Reindog |
Was a stink bomb removed from the Anonymous posting? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
An illegal anonymous posting from a banned poster was removed. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV1PMExj7w Interesting point of view I think...... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Dale, I didn't get a chance to respond to your email. Thanks for the link, and I agree completely! This is what happens when we read into the Constitution what we think it should say instead of abiding by the limited scope powers granted to the Federal Government. One way or another, the spending will stop. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
Jeremy, No worries, I just found his point of view on Social Security and spending unique calling it a ponzi scheme. I think, if you look up the definition, he may be on to something there. If it doesn't meet the requirements of a Ponzi scheme, then I think it is a close cousin. This is the same type of feeling I get about single payer systems and the budget in general considering our politicians have no restraint because we as voters are not forcing them to be restrained. Something has got to give...... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Absolutely. Social Security is one of the largest ponzi schemes in the history of man. Madoff was a rounding error compared to the magnitude. As bad as Social Security is, Medicare is the single LARGEST ponzi scheme. Social Security is $15T underfunded. Medicare is $75T underfunded. Obama Care will dwarf Medicare. | ||
| M2me |
The Ground Zero Mosque Imam is going to be on CNN tonight. On Larry King live although Soledad O'Brien is filling in. Don't miss it! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Could be interesting. I wouldn't mind him making an appearance for a "real" interview. Larry King isn't exactly hard hitting. | ||
| Strokizator |
As someone who can see retirement on the horizon and has paid the maximum into social security since 1976, I wonder what sort of proposed "fixes" they might have in mind. My money was coerced from me under the threat of imprisonment with the assurance that I'd get it back at a later date. I'll have to add it all up one day but I'm on vacation right now and don't need to pop a blood vessel. The new gov't slogan for the bankrupt SS system and medicare may well be "Work until you die and don't get sick". If they were smart, they'd start giving everyone free cigarettes. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The new slogan is "Die Early, It's Your Patriotic Duty".  | ||
| Reindog |
Our work or your guns. You are free to choose either but you can't choose both. -John Galt. Social Security is an example of the implied threat of violence by the government. It is theft when the music stops but it never had to be that way. | ||
| Blake |
From one who knows first hand what islamism means... Undoubtedly there are different reasons for why 70% of Americans oppose the building of the mosque. But whether the motivation is concern for the 9/11 victims or concern about the advance of sharia law that Imam Rauf advocates, the American people are saying “enough is enough.” | ||
| Aesquire |
Anyone have an idea how to get Iran to not nuke someone? ( just returning to the original thread subject )  Looks like a few crappy choices. 1. attack Iran. Either hitting the multiple Nuke sites or full scale invasion. 2. let Israel do it, and either back them up or let them hang in the war that kicks off. 3. let iran nuke Israel, then, again war. With nukes. 4. decapitate Iran, and let UN run place. 5. Decapitate Iran and try to get a coalition to run things? 6. decapitate Iran, and let them sort it out. 7. your idea here. IMHO....  1. sucks. 2. sucks more. 3. sucks worse ( and is my opinion most likely based on current affairs ) 4. probably won't work. 5. would suck as much as Iraq. 6.Just might work. Iffy. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The only option at this point is a strategic strike prior to completion if that is even possible at this point. I believe a strike from Israel is inevitable. | ||
| Aesquire |
I have misgivings on a "Strategic" strike on the nuke facilities. They deliberately put them in cities with civilians as human shields, and at holy sites. They also dug them fairly deep, so the weapons choices are limited. If we knocked back the air defenses, the latest Russian & Chinese stuff, btw, and used WW2 Earthquake bombs ( or the modern version ) in a arclight style strike by B1's and B52's we might, but only might, take out the facilities. But only the ones we know about. There would be casualties, on both sides, but the Iranian ones would mostly be innocent civilians. After, the Revolutionary guard & the Member's Only guy would have a field day blaming us for every evil in the world. Unless we also took them out, by blowing up their homes, and offices. Then what? I'd say the only hope would be to have the local opposition take over, and have fresh elections, but without an occupying force, how? No more nation building half wars with the bad guys going across the border to rearm and recoup. No more sensitive to their feelings wars. Please. | ||
| 46champ |
Unfortunately what may happen is someone may have to eat a nuke before Iran is taken care of. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'm sure the nuke we eat will be our own fault. | ||
| Aptbldr |
Now Ft, I keep saying to the kids, a tidy argument placing blame on others for your misfortune is NOT the same as "taking responsibility". : ) Government services include protection of its citizens. If we eat a nuke, our government (we) fails. So, its our own fault. | ||
| Sifo |
If we eat a nuke, our government (we) fails. So, its our own fault. So if the US were to vaporize Toronto for example, the fault would lie with whom? | ||
| Aptbldr |
Who failed to protect? In your imagination, Sifo, USA (we) successfully vaporizes Toronto. That's success, not fault. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Aptbldr, how, based upon your statement about government responsibility, am I to take the President's most recent comments that we "absorbed 9/11 and are stronger as a result" and by extension that we could absorb another if we needed to? Is not part of the governments responsibility to defend us? Is part of that defense not proactive rather than just reactive? Was this proactive defense not the driving force behind the cold war? Cuban missile crisis? Does the government's role end at our shores? NATO a mistake? | ||
| Aptbldr |
I don't know, Ft. You may receive like when Vice President Dick Cheney said something similar in same context: "We have to assume there will be more attacks. And for the first time in our history, we will probably suffer more casualties here at home in America than will our troops overseas." 9171,1001074,00.html#ixzz10IfeFDYZ,http://www.time .com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001074,00.html# ixzz10IfeFDYZ | ||
| Sifo |
In your imagination, Sifo, USA (we) successfully vaporizes Toronto. That's success, not fault. Don't avoid the question. Who's at fault. In your scenario where we eat a nuke, it's a successful attack too, but you assign fault. Just want to see you think this through. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Here is the complete quote: It is certain also that the enemy is resourceful and ruthless. We must have no illusions about dangers still present. The enemy has shown a capacity to inflict great damage on the United States, and we have to assume there will be more attacks. That is the only safe way to proceed. And I want to assure each of you that in the face of these dangers, we are doing everything we know how to do. For the first time ever, the country has a strategy of homeland security and a Cabinet officer to carry it out. We're greatly increasing our readiness to respond to the threat of bioterrorism and the kinds of incidents we've seen in recent days. We are enhancing protection at vulnerable points, beginning with airports and aircraft. Equally important, we must continue working to anticipate potential threats and prepare accordingly with changes in how we collect intelligence, investigate suspected criminals and screen immigrants and foreign visitors. These weeks have brought some changes into people's lives and a good deal of uncertainty for all of us. Americans reasonably wonder, "How long will it last?" The answer is that many of these changes we've made are permanent, at least in the lifetime of most of us. Vigilance against the new threat is not just a temporary precaution; it is a responsibility that we all share. President Bush understands, as future presidents must also understand, that with this new century have come new necessities to guarantee our security. In the experience of the 20th century, war for Americans was something that happened overseas. There was the theater of battle and then there was the home front. And in our own lifetimes, the only grave threat to America came from a rival superpower. This we handled with summit meetings, arms control treaties and a policy of deterrence by which an act of aggression would put the aggressor's own nation at risk. In the terrorists, however, we have enemies with nothing to defend. A group like Al Qaeda cannot be deterred or placated or reasoned with at a conference table. Former Vice President Gore has put it well. "The terrorists," he said, "are nihilists, and they are trying to kill as many Americans as they can and terrorize the rest." And for the first time in our history, we will probably suffer more casualties here at home in America than will our troops overseas. We cannot deal with terror. It will not end in a treaty. There will be no peaceful coexistence, no negotiations, no summit, no joint communique with the terrorists. The struggle can only end with their complete and permanent destruction... ...and in victory for the United States and the cause of freedom. I don't think you can draw any equivalence between Obama's "we can take a hit" to the "the struggle can only end with their complete and permanent destruction...". Are we seeing a President in Obama who believes in peaceful coexistence or in victory for the United States and the cause of freedom? http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/vicepre sident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011018.html | ||
| Aesquire |
Are we seeing a President in Obama who believes in peaceful coexistence or in victory for the United States and the cause of freedom? 2 questions there, answers are, yes ( Barack believes in peaceful coexistence... ) and no. ( Barack does not like the word victory, or ever anticipate victory for the United States and the cause of freedom. ) It's pretty apparent that the current Prez in the U.S. doesn't like the military, understand it, or care for it to win. His agenda is strictly domestic politics, from the "Iraq, bad war, Afghanistan, good war," mantra, to the promise to abandon Afghanistan even as he sends in troops in a belated attempt to not seem like a total cretin for ignoring his Generals. ( he failed, to all who did not already worship him. ) He also absolutely refuses to either see, or admit, ( can't tell which ) that Iraq, Afghanistan, NYC, and Iran are all part of the same war. Islamic fascism vs. western civilization. There will not be a tie. How many people have to die before our politicians learn that war is to be fought to win, that the winning ends the conflict, that the faster and more decisive the defeat of the enemy, the less people die, both our troops, and their civilians? ( I could give a damn how many of their troops die. ) When are the "news" guys and the planet's civilians going to realize that when you fight cowards who hide behind the civilian population, wear no uniform, and respect no laws, that when the enemy's propaganda arms reports that WE murdered innocent civilians, that THEY murdered them, and that some, if not all of the bodies found the next morning are bad guys who are claimed to be innocent, but really are not photographed with guns in their hands? ( why I don't give a damn how many of their troops die ) I watch the footage from gaza where "ambulances" are used as white cross apc's, with removable roof vents/shooting hatches. I note the dictator of Iran parrots the fringe "9/11 truther" mantra, ( with anti semitic spin ) and wonder, did he learn it from the democrat party, or they him? I'm inclined to believe the "truther" mania is homegrown. After all, Obama has hired communists who spout that insanity, and not condemned their views, so I suppose it's the baseline assumption in the White House today. makes you miss the days when Hillary wandered the White House talking to FDR's ghost, doesn't it? But, that ignores the point that Iran will get the Bomb, will use it, and may give it to it's minions to use, both on us and Israel. The current admin's policy will not stop this. ( nor did Bush's ) I'm more and more inclined to go for solution # 6 above. |
