Following Drudge, media outlets seize on Obama decision -- years ago -- to stop wearing flag pin
SUMMARY: Several media outlets -- following the lead of Internet gossip Matt Drudge -- have presented
Obama's comments on not wearing an American flag pin as a recent decision made
by the candidate, and not an explanation of something he chose to do several
years ago. CNN, ABC, and Fox News have reported on the "controversy," providing
a platform for several conservatives to attack Obama's patriotism. As NBC News'
Chuck Todd put it, "this was the media getting a classic case of the Drudges."
During an October 3 interview with ABC-affiliate KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was asked why he was not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. Obama responded, "[R]ight after 9-11, I had a pin," adding: "Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." Obama also said: "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism." However, several media outlets -- following the lead of Internet gossip Matt Drudge -- have presented Obama's comments as a recent decision made by the candidate, and not an explanation of something he chose to do several years ago. CNN, ABC, and Fox News have reported on the "controversy," providing a platform for several conservatives to attack Obama's patriotism. As NBC News political director Chuck Todd put it, "this was the media getting a classic case of the Drudges."
According to an October 4 entry on The New York Times' The Caucus blog, the KCRG interview "passed with little notice until ... the Associated Press moved a story that included the quotes from Mr. Obama" on October 4, adding that Obama's campaign aides, "concerned that his remarks might be portrayed as unpatriotic, chose not to let the moment pass." According to the Caucus, Obama addressed the issue during an October 4 campaign event in Iowa, saying:
OBAMA: Somebody noticed I wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin and I told folks, well you know what? I haven't probably worn that pin in a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time.
My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. And you show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who served. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and our ideals and that's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.
Drudge first highlighted the story on October 4 at 2:15 p.m. ET under the headline: "Obama Ditches American Flag Pin: Has Become a Substitute for 'True Patriotism' ..." While the AP article to which Drudge linked used the misleading headline "Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin," it made clear that Obama "said he stopped doing so [wearing the pin] shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens." At 2:33 p.m., Drudge made the story his banner headline, shortening it to: "Obama Drops American Flag Pin."
Following Drudge, other media outlets began reporting that Obama's decision not to wear the pin is a recent one, often mischaracterizing Obama's statements. On the October 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer reported:
BLITZER: Democrat Barack Obama says he stopped wearing the American flag on his lapel -- that's come to symbolize patriotism since the 9-11 attacks. Obama tells an Iowa TV station he's decided he doesn't need to wear a pin on his chest and, instead, will show his patriotism by explaining his ideas for the country.
On the October 4 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, co-host John Gibson claimed that Obama "declare[d], 'I'm not going to wear a flag pin,' " while conservative radio host Laura Ingraham added, "[I]t just shows you, once again, that he was not ready for prime time." From the October 4 edition of The Big Story with Gibson and Nauert:
GIBSON: You know, Laura, one of the things that Obama did today, and I -- you know, tell me how this works, when he's so far behind -- is he declares, "I'm not going to wear a flag pin. I'm not going to wear that thing."
INGRAHAM: Brilliant.
GIBSON: "I'm going to show my patriotism some other way."
INGRAHAM: Well --
GIBSON: How is that helpful?
INGRAHAM: Well, you know, it's -- it just shows you, once again, that he was not ready for prime time. And for all this build-up, and Oprah having the big party for him, and raising all this money, and he was really savvy on the Internet -- none of it mattered. You're going up against the most formidable Democrat [sic] couple ever, probably.
I mean, what's the last two-term Democrat [sic] president before the Clintons that you can think of? I mean, we go back a ways. So, you have to come out and you have to start swinging early on. He never did that.
On the October 4 broadcast of ABC's World News, host Charles Gibson introduced a report on Obama's remarks by saying that there is "something of a controversy that has erupted involving Democratic Senator Barack Obama, and a lapel pin." In the subsequent report, ABC News correspondent David Wright noted that Obama was responding to a KCRG reporter's question when he made the remarks, and that he wore a pin "shortly after 9-11." Wright also included a quote from Fox News host Sean Hannity attacking Obama during his ABC Radio Networks program:
WRIGHT: Today, in Iowa, some Obama supporters applauded that decision.
CARRIE HAURUM (Obama supporter): He doesn't need to wear that flag on his lapel; he wears it in his heart.
WRIGHT: But others may not like it at all.
HANNITY: Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack.
WRIGHT: And some may use it for political advantage.
Hannity continued to attack Obama during the October 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, as did Kate Obenshain, the former head of Virginia's Republican Party, identified on the show as being affiliated with the conservative Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute:
HANNITY: Let me ask Kate. Kate, this is the point: Barack Obama accused our troops of killing civilians, air-raiding villages, when there's no evidence. We've had a series of incidents: They've been compared to Nazis by leaders of the Democrats. [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] said the troops have lost the war and the surge has failed. And what's bothersome to me here is the American flag on your lapel ought not be politicized.
OBENSHAIN: It ought not to be. And regardless of how you feel politically about the war, we are at war. Our men and women are in harm's way. Somebody wants to be commander-in-chief should have pride in our country enough to wear the lapel, continue to wear the lapel pin on their jacket during this campaign.
ABC and Wright reported on the "something of a controversy" again during the October 5 broadcast of Good Morning America. And once again, Wright's report included an audio clip of Hannity attacking Obama:
WRIGHT: This week, a reporter for ABC's Cedar Rapids affiliate was the first to notice.
OBAMA: You know, the truth is that, right after 9-11, I had a pin.
WRIGHT: But Obama said he eventually decided to stop wearing the pin.
OBAMA: That became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
WRIGHT: The comments kicked up a hornets' nest.
HANNITY: Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack.
WRIGHT: The obsession with flag pins is relatively new: Ike didn't wear one; JFK either. Nixon did wear the flag.
As Media Matters for America has documented, on the October 5 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, former radio host Mark Williams claimed that Obama "took his flag pin off after 9-11, and he felt, apparently, some sort of an affinity or some sort of a connection, because at that point he felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is."
On the October 5 edition of MSNBC Live, Todd claimed that the "controversy" was "a pretty clear case" of the media taking Obama's remarks out of context, adding: "[W]hat's interesting to me is ... this was the media getting a classic case of the Drudges. You know, it was a local TV station; Drudge picked it up; it exploded."
From the October 5 edition of MSNBC Live:
ALEX WITT (co-anchor): All right, let's look at this: Were Obama's comments taken out of context? Is that what's leading to all these attacks on his patriotism?
TODD: Absolutely. I mean, I think it's a pretty clear case of it. But what's interesting to me is [inaudible]. I mean, this was the media getting a classic case of the Drudges. You know, it was a local TV station; Drudge picked it up; it exploded. But what I thought was fascinating is within two or three hours of this thing hitting, yesterday, Obama addressed the so-called controversy at a rally, and he said -- and he basically reiterated, decided he better get more video footage out there and more quotes out there of himself giving -- saying what we quoted him saying at the beginning of this segment, which is, you know, he did this at -- right after 9-11, and, you know, giving his fuller explanation.
So, I think they nipped it in the bud. I think this is one of those things, had they not addressed it and then tried to say, you know -- criticized the media for being a little too tabloid-y about something, that it would have caught fire. But, instead, they seem to have tamped it down pretty quickly.
From the October 4 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: Next, we're going to turn to presidential politics. Candidates face so much scrutiny these days, and it's not just their position papers and stump speeches that are fair game. Case in point: something of a controversy that has erupted involving Democratic Senator Barack Obama, and a lapel pin. Here's ABC's David Wright.
[begin video clip]
WRIGHT: This week, an eagle-eyed reporter at ABC's Cedar Rapids affiliate noticed something missing from Barack Obama's lapel. "You don't have the American flag pin on," the reporter observed during an interview with the candidate, "is that a fashion statement?"
Those red, white, and blue pins became standard issue for the politician's wardrobe after 9-11. The reporter pointed that out, and Obama agreed. He said he wore such a pin shortly after September 11, but later felt it had become a substitute for true patriotism.
OBAMA: I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism.
WRIGHT: Today, in Iowa, some Obama supporters applauded that decision.
HAURUM: He doesn't need to wear that flag on his lapel; he wears it in his heart.
WRIGHT: But others may not like it at all.
HANNITY: Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack.
WRIGHT: And some may use it for political advantage. To be fair, most of the presidential candidates from both parties do not wear the flag pins, even when they're all dressed up for televised debates. The only big exception: Republican Rudolph Giuliani is never without one. John Edwards doesn't wear one. [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] doesn't wear one, nor does John McCain.
And it might never have become an issue for Senator Obama had it not been for the way he answered the reporter's question. Today, he clarified his views.
OBAMA: I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart.
WRIGHT: If he had said that in the first place, he might have avoided any controversy.
From the October 5 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
CHRIS CUOMO (co-host): Yes, and let's take a look at the race to '08 and why presidential contender Barack Obama won't wear an American flag lapel pin. His answer? Obama told an ABC affiliate that they've become a substitute for true patriotism, and that's why he declined to wear one -- but the story will not end there. David Wright has more.
[begin video clip]
WRIGHT: After 9-11, the red, white, and blue lapel pin became the fashion accessory of choice for politicians, but not all of them.
KCRG REPORTER: You don't have the American flag pin on. Is this a fashion statement?
WRIGHT: This week, a reporter for ABC's Cedar Rapids affiliate was the first to notice.
OBAMA: You know, the truth is that, right after 9-11, I had a pin.
WRIGHT: But Obama said he eventually decided to stop wearing the pin.
OBAMA: That became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
WRIGHT: The comments kicked up a hornets' nest.
HANNITY: Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack.
WRIGHT: The obsession with flag pins is relatively new: Ike didn't wear one; JFK either. Nixon did wear the flag --
PRESIDENT NIXON: Well, I'm not a crook.
WRIGHT: -- as he told the American people he had nothing to do with Watergate.
Turns out, Senator Obama is in pretty good company in this campaign. Most of the other candidates for president this year don't wear the flag pin.
John Edwards always wears his late son's Outward Bound pin. Hillary Clinton often goes pinless out on the campaign trail.
CLINTON: I think there are so many ways that Americans can show their patriotism.
WRIGHT: Of all the candidates this year, only Rudolph Giuliani is rarely seen without his flag pin.
OBAMA: I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart.
WRIGHT: A fashion statement that could provoke plenty of debate -- for Good Morning America, David Wright, ABC News, Washington.
[end video clip]
CUOMO: Now joining us live with the bottom line is ABC's chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos.
George, thank you for joining us this morning as always -- tricky politics here for Barack Obama, when you're playing with the American symbol, the flag. How does this go for him?
STEPHANOPOLOUS: Well, listen, the problem is not the fact that he's not wearing a flag pin. As David Wright pointed out, a lot of candidates aren't wearing the pin. The problem for him is, in that first answer, he seemed to slam people who did wear the pin as we were moving towards war in Iraq and he was suggesting that this was a protest on his part and that was a mistake for Barack Obama.
He fixed it yesterday. I don't think this is going to be a huge problem for him going forward. In fact, it probably appeals to some in the Democratic base who are very much anti-war, but it could limit his gains further on down the road.
Anybody who believes the traditional liberal is biased towards progressive politicians is nothing but a sponge for far right propaganda.
Let's try that again:
Anybody who believes the traditional media is biased towards progressive politicians is nothing but a sponge for far right propaganda
The conditions have been upon us for some time, and the time is now ripe, to make the argument that we don't License a use of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to broadcasters, for them to hammer away day and night the political opinions (R) of those broadcasters.
They wield an extraordinary power to manipulate and influence the political opinions of the American People, all by way of our Public Property the PUBLIC AIRWAVES; a power you and I and just about everyone else (Sen. Obama included) do not have, because we don't have FCC broadcast Licenses.
And the part of that argument that enters here, under this citation of MMFA's, is that part of the Fairness Doctrine of FCC Regulations, that would require of those Licensees who broadcast personal attacks (which they don't have to do that you know), for them to allow for "reply time" on those same PUBLIC AIRWAVES which were used to broadcast the personal attack, to the person who was personally attacked.
The summary to the MMFA item has:
"CNN, ABC, and Fox News have reported on the "controversy," providing a platform for several conservatives to attack Obama's patriotism"
Who doubts that such a personal attack as this is, isn't being broadcast because Sen. Obama is a presidential candidate, and a Democratic one at that?
Under the Fair and Balanced use of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, called for by the Fairness Doctrine of FCC Regulatory policy, those same broadcasters, were they to have broadcast personal attacks against Sen. Obama (and they don't have to do that you know), would then be required to allow Sen. Obama "reply time", to give his side in the matter, and defend his name and reputation on the same PUBLIC AIRWAVES used, by those who attacked it.
Because after all, it is our Public Property the PUBLIC AIRWAVES we're talking about here.
I mean, we don't really License rupert murdoch to use our PUBLIC AIRWAVES, to broadcast his own politics (R) and personal attacks (R), do we?
The liberal media strikes again!
Muahahahahaha! Mine is an evil laugh...
I recall that Donald Rumsfeld stopped wearing his lapel pin about 2 years after the start of the war and no one questioned if he stopped being patriotic. Also, many others stopped wearing their pins about the same time, including Bill Kristol, who was one of the original promoters of he war. I wonder why their patriotism was never qustioned then.
I have't worn mine either or waved a flag. I will not wave it again until we have a president that respects our country. I agree 100% with Obama.
If you don't wear a flag pin, you hate the flag and America.
If you don't put a fish thingy on your Pontiac, you hate Jesus and God.
If you don't hang a 3 Stooges poster in your living room, you hate comedy and laughter.
If you don't wear a cheese hat, you hate football and Wisconsin.
I could go on like this all night.
Speaking of that last, you should hear the sports talk radio crowd going nucking futs over LeBron James wearing a Yankees cap at the Indians game last night.
I remember the days following 9/11, everyone was wearing a flag pin in their lapel and Americans for the first time seemed truly united in way they haven't been since...maybe World War II. And then the Bush Administration linked 9/11 to the War in Iraq and all the real patriots realized what was going on, the Compassionate Conservative wanted to use the national tragedy to drum up support for an ill-conceived, illegal war. The real patriots put away their symbols and watched in horror as their beloved country took a sharp turn to the right transforming day by day into a fascist state, patriotism was subverted into nationalism, and criticism was denounced as anti-Americanism. Obviously Barack Obama was one of the many Americans shocked and saddened by Bushco's subversion of patriotism and sympathy for his own selfish purposes.
Let Hannity and the other members of the Bush propaganda team bitch all they want, real patriots know that it takes more than wearing a flag pin to show their patriotism. Real patriots respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, know that preemptive wars can never be justified, love their country but as adults not as children realizing that the country can always be better, and are not blind followers of their government.
There's a Grand Canyon of difference, between a true and Patriotic concern for America...
...and a political manipulation of People, by way of flag-waving, and calculated public "Pledges of Allegiance", and phony dramatic renditions of "God Bless America" by a country and western recording star who has an album on the charts and just so happens to sell Chevy trucks in TV ads too...
And to have had your heart and your mind jerked from the one sincere and heartfelt extreme to the manipulative other, is something we don't forget or forgive, not quickly nor easily; and it makes us hesitant to express publicly again, our true and Patriotic concern for America, for our having been manipulated and burned, in a sense of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice..."
And everybody loses.
Everybody except those on the receiving end of billions upon billions in defense expenditures, and the agents they employ, in the elected and appointed positions of our Federal Government.
They're slamming him for being unpatriotic but everything he said could be used on a campaign poster. I think he'll actually be admired for a long time for being one of the first big figures to lay off the pandering and even the slavish obedience to these symbols and remind us that patriotism is actually a dignified pursuit.
What exactly do we think Stephen Colbert has been satirizing so perfectly for two years now? Irony must rise again.
Forcing people to wear a symbol of freedom. I mean, that would be like invading a country to force them to adopt Democracy.
MY GOD is this inane and stupid. And it would be every bit as inane and stupid if it were Giuliani not wearing a pin.
There's a word for what the Rightwing constantly engages in.
It's called "JINGOISM": Extreme and emotional nationalism, often characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, accompanied by an eagerness to wage war. Nationalism is policy and doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations, and that your national culture and interests are superior to any other.
The Rightwing Republicans over the last 15 years or so have pursued this "super-patriotic" propaganda technique to cleave a harsh divide in America, with the Republicans being the "true patriots,", and asserting that any who do not agree with Republicans and their policies are, by definition, UNpatriotic, and in fact hate this country and everything about it.
Absolutes? Absolutely! It's the "US versus THEM" simplistic tactic of attempting to scare, blackmail, or shame people into agreement, for fear of being branded traitors. This is, of course, is the polar OPPOSITE of real patriotism, in that it goes against every notion of freedom, democracy, unified goals, liberty of thought, and the good of the nation. It is specifically designed to be good only for one political party, the Repubicans, and to brand all others as ENEMIES of America.
A free people who wish to REMAIN free should be extremely vigilant and on guard for jingoistic behaviors, because those who promote such ostentateous "patriotism" have only TYRANNY in mind. They wish to bully others into submission, agreement, and blind support by wrapping themselves in the flag. Samuel Johnson warned against such tactics, stating "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Beware the scoundrels, America. They are Republicans, they are Bush and Cheney, they are rightwing pundits like Hannity and Limbaugh. They are PHONY PATRIOTS who would dominate and browbeat people into sycophantic fealty to an IDEOLOGY, and to the destruction of our country and our beloved freedoms.
Obama is quite right. A flag on the lapel is no substitute for patriotism, it may indeed signal a scoundrel. The important thing is to listen to a person's words, their thoughts, their ideas, and watch their actions. True patriots EMBRACE freedom, they do not attempt to stifle all dissent and criticism by the jingoistic "patriotism" of the scoundrel.
Hello Tex,
You keep talking about freedoms that we Conservatives want to take away from you.
I think it's the other way around, here's what I mean about differing points of view that we BOTH really believe. Your NOT wrong, but neither am I.
I think that Liberals are encroching on MY freedoms, forcing me into a more "socilized" system where ONLY the Gov has a say in my medical care, my childs school, my right to worship OR NOT, what is marriage, when does a baby become a baby, what I can eat, what size car I can drive, how much my "carbon footprint" will cost me in higher taxes...
I could go on for hours where I do not believe the founding fathers had ANY though that the Gov would do anything other then what it stated in the Bill of Rights and Consitution about "provide for common defense" ect., no where that I read does it say the Gov will PROVIDE me with all my needs at the expense of others, it makes me NO promises of health care, of employment, of ANY social program... Yet from your side the document is changable at a whim to fit your agenda. Are you the only one Tex that is a patriot or loves freedom ? I'm the one saying I do NOT want the Gov controlling all aspects of my life, your side is wanting more and more, bigger and bigger Gov. yet you say we are the ones who are the tyrents... I don't follow.
*** look I didn't say one slur or hatful comment. I just talked.
The words, "All men are created equal" were written by slave owners. Women woldn't even be able to vote for well over a century.
The Constitution is not what you seem to imagine it to be. It didn't just grant the government powers. It isn't just an instruction booklet on how to construct the government. The very brilliance of it is that it recognized that things change over time and it sought to protect the PEOPLE from the inevitable power grabs of government. It sought to protect people from the tyranny of the majority. We have been using that document now for more than 200 years to create our society. We didn't just stop at 'Black people can be owned and only male landowners can vote.'
We use the Constitution to move towards an ideal. The stuff you are repeating is a blatant lie. A spoon fed line from corrupt politicians. If you really do consider yourself such a patriot you would do well to study some Constitutional law beyond what these politicians are saying about it. It's really interesting if you actually want to start to grasp the brilliance of what the American Idea really is.
Who's ideal Sun ? Yours or mine ?
Yours seems to be one where the Gov provides for ALL of your needs, gives you a job, an education (although slanted), health care, a small welfare or SS check (just enough to keep you dependant), womb to tomb everything, 5k Bond for every kid you can produce (married or not, on food stamps or not, welfare or not), nanny state (no reason to strive to make your own way or become rich) !
So the Constitution, in YOUR way of thinking, is leading to TAHT ideal....
Scarry...
EXCEPT your freedom.
Let's be fair, clearly Obama is saying that people who wear lapel flags are phoney pariots.
ARE YOU SURPRISE? THIS IS WHERE THE SO CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA GET'S THERE INFORMATION FROM DRUDGE AND FOX NEWS. I WAS SURPRISE THAT THE PIN STORY WAS JUST A ONE DAY STORY ON MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN AND CBS UNLIKE THE AD FROM MOVEON. I ALSO LOVED HOW WHEN THE RUSH LINE ABOUT PHONY SOLIDERS CAME OUT THE SO CALLED LIBERAL MEDIA AND FOX NEWS DOWN PLAYED THAT STORY AND MATT THE RIGHTWINGER FROM THE TODAY SHOW ASK RUSSET DON'T WE HAVE BETTER THINGS IN THE MEDIA TO TALK ABOUT? NOW THIS IS THE SAME PERSON WHO WAS ALL OVER THE MOVEON AD.
Here is what is going on...
Our side will not budge... No compromises...
Your side will not budge... No compromises...
We ALL lose...
Rush, Ann, Sean and others on my side are WRONG...
Hilary, Reid, Murtha and others are WRONG on your side...
We ALL lose again...
As long as my side AND your side continue to throw insults at each other instead of hammering out VERY HARD compromises to the War (that I support & some of you don't) or the Socilized Health Care (that some of you support and I do not), then we are just ALL stuck.
Your side says that WE CONSERVATIVES are to blame for all that is WRONG with America, hey we ARE part of America too...
Our side says that YOU LIBS are to blame for all that is WRONG with America, hey you ARE Americans too...
How will this EVER end, you here at MM can not really believe that you can have it ALL your way, we Conservatives that listen to Rush can NOT think we can have everything our way...
But when I read the post here throughout all of the recent threads I only see stubborn hatered of the "OTHER" side. Hell, all of my posts up till now have been FULL OF SLURS, HATE, MY SIDE IS RIGHT, YOUR COMMIES and other stuff that I am not very proud of now. But wait, the responces to me and other Consevatives on this site have NOT been kind either, calling us NAZIS, RADICAL CHRISTIANS, POOR HATERS, RACISTS, ect.
When will both side (yes, me too) learn that we are ALL in this together, like it or not. We prove right here in these forums that America is DIVIDED, slit down the middle with BOTH sides feeling that they are the ONLY ones that have rights, feelings, thoughts and opinions.
We will we ALL stop name calling and just see IF, and I know it's a HUGE If, but if we can find ANY common ground, any place to compromise.
But just look back at these threads over the last 10 days or so. It really does not look like there is ANY uniting factor ANYWHERE other then our dislikes for each other.
I really do not know what to do anymore. I will NOT change my basic beliefs that American has far too many that want the United States to actualy LOSE a war, a poll showed that 1 in 5 Dems want the US to Lose, think it would be better for the World. Sorry, but that scares me. I can not give up my thought that calling a 25 year old in a family that makes around $80k a year is poor and needs MY money for Health Insurance.
The list could go on and on...
And from you side you would say that you will not drop your opinions that there should be Universal Health Care for all Americans, Socilized womb to tomb hand outs of all kinds, Increased taxes on "the rich", an END to the illeagle war...
See ? Where do we start to compromise ? What can we do ?
You folks of BOTH parties just watch how bad this post gets hammered... Watch the hate come out. Even here we will find NO civility, no compromises, so how do we expect to get along with each other and survive. My side is NOT going away, we are getting louder and stronger and pushing back against what we feel like is the decline of America, your side is NOT going away, it is ALSO getting STRONGER and LOUDER.
How does this end ?
Heck NEITHER side can even get over who IS and who is NOT wearing a lapel pin, for God's sake. WE ARE ALL DOOMED...
Both of our sides have completly lost it...
Please do not start with the typical "your" side started it crap like we are all kids on a playground arguing back and forth. WHO REALLY CARES, does this mke Obama a bad man, NO, not to me and I am a Conservative, does this make Sean a bad guy, Nope, it makes us ALL look childish and stupid. While we are at war with folks that want to kill US all, yes, you DEMS too would be killed by these extreamists if they could get to you. Your an Americam... they do NOT care what party. We can't agree on how to even fight a War or not to, but we have time for this crap from BOTH sides ????
We are so screwed, BOTH parties.
---"a poll showed that 1 in 5 Dems want the US to Lose"---
You, yourself, can start by showing us where, exactly, these "Dems" said, quote, "we want the US to lose".
If you want the problems you described to end, then stop being part of them.
Again you even partialy quote me, the 1 in 5 Dems said they thought the "World would be better of if the United States lost the War in Iraq..."
I did not say that You Dave felt that way. I do not take alot of stock or believe most polls anyway, I just thought it could be discussed. Heck polls are bs most of the time, this could be too, but when you look at the threads in MM, it does "seem" to back up the polls findings.
But flame someone for just stating an opinion and we are right back were we started from, calling each other liers.
I have sworn I will not resort to the hate filled garbage I was doing the other day when I posted. I want to talk to you.
"I really do not know what to do anymore. I will NOT change my basic beliefs that American has far too many that want the United States to actualy LOSE a war, a poll showed that 1 in 5 Dems want the US to Lose, think it would be better for the World. Sorry, but that scares me.
Dave didn't misquote you. I'm interested in this poll, who conducted it and how.
I can not give up my thought that calling a 25 year old in a family that makes around $80k a year is poor and needs MY money for Health Insurance."
This is not true. On two other threads this was shown to be misinformation. In order to discuss intelligently, we need to operate with accurate information.
Other thread debunked nothing. They said in NY it costs $24k a year for an apartment. That still leaves $61,000 per year in income to buy their own health insurance and not make smokers pay for it -- and most of those smoker sure as hell don't make $85k per year.
I debunked this one with W4-whatever on the first page. The 25 years old, $80,000 is some right-wing lie. I read the actual bill. I suggest you do the same. The bill expands the eligible age (if a state chooses to do so) from 19 to 21. Not 25. Also, to get to $80,000, you would be referring to a family of five at 300% of current poverty rate (the bill does not specify numbers, just percentages of the poverty line). I happen to think that $80,000 would not come close to covering private insurance for 3-4 kids.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html
President Bush gave a false description of proposed legislation to expand the 10-year-old federal program to provide health insurance for children in low-income working families.He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law.
Bush denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four, a move New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and members of Congress from the state have vigorously protested. And Bush would retain the authority to deny similar applications under the proposed legislation. An Aug. 17 letter to state health officials from the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services outlined new guidelines for states that would make it quite difficult for states to raise eligibility above 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($51,625 for a family of four). So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation "would" result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible. It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation.In fact, the vast majority of the children who stand to gain coverage under the proposed legislation are in families making half of the figure Bush gave. A study just released by the Urban Institute estimates that 70 percent of children who are projected to benefit from either the Senate or House bills are in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $41,300 for a family of four). Our several calls to the White House press office to pinpoint exactly what the president meant by the $83k remark were not returned.
Hello Mary,
Here is a line from your post: So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation "would" result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible.
So President Bush did not lie, THEY WOULD be ELIGIBLE but he could and HAS declined. So you yourself have correctly shown that they COULD be, that is what he said, not that they are.
Here is your original statement and my reply:
I can not give up my thought that calling a 25 year old in a family that makes around $80k a year is poor and needs MY money for Health Insurance."
This is not true. On two other threads this was shown to be misinformation. In order to discuss intelligently, we need to operate with accurate information.
The two posts after leatherhelmet show that the age is raised from 19 to 21, not 25.
And yes, technically it could have raised the eligibility in New York State for parents who make $80,0000 a year to buy into this program for their children but doesn't because Bush declined NYS's request.
But Bush's rhetoric is very dishonest because he emphasizes the highest figure not even granted to pretend this isn't about helping poor children have health care.
This is off topic and I won't post again about it here. Perhaps we can discuss further on another thread about children's health care.
REPUBLICANS created this program in the first place... Do not preach to us how we don't care about the POOR, we just don't want SOCILIZED MEDICINE, period, it is a FAILURE in almost every other Country were it has been tried. Claims to the contrary are a FLAT OUT LIE, that's why those citizens from EU and CANADA come HERE for medical treatments ! Our hospitals are FULL of foreign citizens who CHOOSE our healt care system for QUALITY, TECHNOLOGY, QUICKER SERVICE, BETTER DOCTORS... You guys have not seen a disaster untill the GOV starts dictation when and where and how you get cared for... Rationed services will NOT HELP POOR FAMILIES !
Fools, all of you are fools, unwilling to even look at the PROOF from the other Countries that are all going broke, rationing, poor service, huge waits, no elective surgeries...
You are a complete moron who NEVER knows what he is talking about. IF socialized medicine is a complete failure everywhere it has been tried why do about 35 countries that HAVE it have better infant mortality rates? Why is it they show up higher on comparative studies ABOUT medical service? And you are flat out LYING that there are no elective procedures in countries that have socialized medicine. Here is a clue moron. Just because Rush TOLD you to believe this doesnt mean its true
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/madhouse/
This study assessed the validity of using the date of the last service billed prior to surgery as a proxy for the beginning of the post-referral, pre-surgical waiting period. METHOD: We examined charts for 31,824 elective surgical encounters between 1992 and 1996 at an Ontario teaching hospital. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So in one four year period THIS study cited about 32,000 elective surgeries in one hospital
http://www.treatmentabroad.net/surgery-abroad/surgery-france
France is also well known for its exceptional healthcare services. Medical technologies and standards of care are among the most advanced in the world. France will always be one of the top options for anyone seeking first-class medical treatment.
You have to understand, a lot of what you consider to be your humble opinions are actually very inflammatory statements to other people.
The right has been using this language since before the war and I'll tell you, from my position, it's very infuriating. Some of us have been saying since before we invaded Iraq that it wasn't the right war and we'd be stuck fighting it forever and that there's nothing to win there by shooting people. That's our point. Don't let the country make a big mistake. The response that you seem to echo is that we just want the United States to lose.
I spend so much of my time trying to talk to people when I see my country making a mistake because of course, I love my country. Then I get people who don't seem to want to question a particular group of elected leaders no matter what, show up and call me unpatriotic. Well, that makes people angry me included.
You guys have been dead wrong on everything in this argument I've been in for five years now and you still have nothing but that we don't support our country. No one has ever said this to my face which I think is interesting. You hear if from Hannity and other clowns in the media. And on annonymous posts online. But I argue with conservatives in person too and they never resort to such a plainly stupid, untrue and inflamatory argument.
Does that help you understand why you piss people off?
----"... 1 in 5 Dems said they thought the "World would be better of if the United States lost the War in Iraq..." I do not take alot of stock or believe most polls anyway, I just thought it could be discussed."----
Then start the desired "discussion" by citing the exact poll where Dems said ---quoting your own words--- they "want the US to lose".
If there IS such a poll that says Democrats "want" to lose in Iraq, show us evidence.
If it's just YOUR opinion that "Dems want the US to lose", then say it's your opinion----don't put words into someone's mouth.
If it IS your opinion you are stating (that Dems want the US to lose), then you are an example of the very kind of person you bemoan. Because saying Dems want the US to lose is a perfect case of provocation (or "flaming"---to use the word you accuse me of)----not to mention that it's an absurdely false claim.
It was a Fox News poll (so I know you are going to instantly call it a lie) but it was released this week that "proports" to show that 1 in 5 Dems say that "It would be better for the World if America lost this war"... I'm too computer stupid to know how to link stuff, but I'm sure you can find it since your so well informed compared to us ignorant hicks. I never said nor implies that ANYONE here that I have been talking to feels that way, but, IF TRUE, is disturbing.
FOX News Poll: Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War
Thursday, October 04, 2007
By Dana Blanton
NEW YORK — Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.
The percentage of Democrats (19 percent) who believe that is nearly four times the number of Republicans (5 percent) who gave the same answer. Seven percent of independents said the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war.
Click here for results of the poll.(pdf)
Overall, 11 percent of Americans think the world would be "better off" if the U.S. lost the war, and 73 percent disagree.
Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from Sept. 25 to Sept. 26. The poll has a 3-point margin of error.
A poll is proof of nothing. A poll initiated by FOX News can't be trusted as the FOX network has virtually proven itself to be a significant element of our Administration's propaganda machine or, at least, its echo chamber. It's clear that the questions raised in this poll were designed not to guage the sentiments of the American public regarding the Bush/Cheney fiasco in Iraq but to discredit their critics and besmirch their patriotism. How else can we explain the focus of this discussion about the propriety or impropriety of wearing a pin.
I'm reminded of my first trip to San Francisco. I was approached by a young woman wearing very tight, very short shorts and a bikini bra made of red, white and blue striped fabric with stars. It was a stunningly patriotic costume. Nonetheless, she was nothing more than a entrepreneurially minded prostitute.
I knew this was coming, I said so in my post, a typical anti-war lib who will not even have the guts to say YES, I WANT THE US TO LOSE YIS WAR, SURRENDER, RETREAT, RE-DEPLOY.
never answering the question as to what he thinks folks in WWII would have thought about ANY American from ANY party that openly wanted the US to lose. They would have been shot by an angery mob of BOTH DEMOCRATES AND REPUBLICANS, because it is very ANTI-AMERICAN to want to lose at ANYTHING ! We are the greatest nation this world has ever know, we have given more to other countries then any other, we have helped to liberate more from oppresion then any other country, we have helped more starving childern then any other countery, we have twice saved the rest of the world from tyrany (WWI & WWII), we have helped poorer countries with money & technology & invensions & advancments... We are not the DEVIL country you make us out to be, we are not an evil country... have we made mistakes that have cost lives, YES, no doubt... Are we a perfect country, NO... But on balance name ONE single other country that has done more for the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick, the needy, the opressed... You can't. I DO know that "to whom much is given, much is expected"... Well for the most part, on balance, we have done that and more. WE ARE NOT PERFECT, WE HAVE DONE BAD IN THE WORLD, but America is far from the "Great Satin"...
The fact that bothers you, so you discount it by saying the poll lied, is plain... BY A LARGE MARGIN, MORE DEMOCRATES WANT SOMETHING BAD TO HAPPEN TO AMERICA (lose a war, be defeated) THEN DO ANYONE ELSE. Veterans of WWII like myself are sad atm.
You remind me of the typical warmonger who will never admit that he just wants to see as many Americans killed as possible. No administration is the country and no policy is the country. WE are the country and dissenting from any administration or policy is NOT inherently attacking the country. Blurring the distinction between what we ARE and what we DO is weak. Its an unpatriotic attack on the very nature of the PEOPLE being the top layer of government and having a say IN policy. I know the wingnuts THINK that we are all just a bewildered herd and have no business telling our betters what WE think but in fact THEY WORK FOR US. When they are wrong we are doing the most quintessentially American thing any CITIZEN. Notice, not SUMJECT, Citizen does. Redress the government. Unfortunatly morons from the right want to abdicate their obligations as citizens because they are moral cowards who think patriotism is about cheering our name and NOT about demanding each new administration uphold the values we ASSOCIATE with our country. Mores the pity.
Dave,
I posted it the only way I know how now, so here's your proof, but I'm sure since it was done by Fox you are going to flame it and say it too is a lie and distortion...
But it does say "nearly" 1 in 5 Dems want the Us to lose the war...
Wow, can you only imagine if you " NEW AGE DEMS" had been our leaders during WWII...
We'd be speaking German or Japaneese now.
Thank God there were Democrates AND Republicans that understood the need for America to WIN AT ANY AND ALL COSTS period.
Same holds true today. We MUST win this war.
If I understand the poll question correctly, it was "do you think it is more important to bring the troops home safely, or to win this war?"
I'm sorry that anyone would answer such a dishonest question. Obviously the Democrats who answered it are very concerned about the troops. Many have loved ones in the military.
The phrase "winning the war" is just plain dishonest. We are not at war in Iraq. We already overthrew the regime there (winning) now we are an occupying force in the middle of a civil war. There is no way to "win"
No Mary, click the link.
The question is very simple...
It does not imply ANYTHING.
It asked, "Do you personaly think the World would be better off if the United States lost the war in Iraq" ?
That is the EXACT question, it does not say ANYTHING about helping the troops or bringing them hoe, or anything you assumed.
It is a ABSOLUTY straight forward question.
Here again some folks try to turn EVERYTHING into a "gray" issue, GOD I HATE THAT, to me and most of us Conservatives THE VAST MAJORITY of issues are BLACK & WHITE, RIGHT AND WRONG, not grey.
This is a simple question, it was NOT a trick question, it never mention troop anything.
""Do you personaly think the World would be better off if the United States lost the war in Iraq" ?
nuf said
", to me and most of us Conservatives THE VAST MAJORITY of issues are BLACK & WHITE, RIGHT AND WRONG, not grey."
MGarnett, in that same poll, 5% of Republicans answered "yes" to the same question, and 8% answered "don't know". How do you feel about this 1 in 7 conservatiives who couldn't answer "no"?
Sorry, I can't open your link. I am stuck with dial-up and it timed out.
So I'll take your word that the poll question was framed as you say it is. It's really irrelevant to me what 19% of democrats say in answer to a poll question. The whole rhetoric of "winning" in Iraq is a phony frame and I would not have answered it.
I apologise for mischaracterizing the poll. I must leave now for some constructive gardening.
Have a great afternoon in your garden Mary, thank you for taking your time to share your opinions with me and to allow for some of mine to be seen. I wish you the best. I bet we could actual be friends, just friends with huge differences in our beliefs but still both Americans.
Thank you, now I've got 5 new blueberry bushes.
If you stick around, you'll find many thoughtful people. They will certainly challenge your statements and ask you to back them up, but I find that a good thing.
It behooves us all to ask ourselves the question: "what if everything I believe is wrong?" and have the humility to find out.
I think the question was phrased specifically to get certain results. Wanting America to lose is a thought to which most would instinctively respond, "Of course not!" At the same time, I would have answered the same way as the 19%. I would have listened to the question, remembered that "want America to lose" is FoxSpeak for "want America to withdraw", and answered accordingly.
A USA Today/Gallup poll found that 59% of Americans favor setting a specific timetable for withdrawal. I think that is a more honest representation of what Americans think than a poll that slyly phrased a question so they could declare "1 in 5 Democrats are unpatriotic, defeatist losers."
That is part of the problem your simplemindedness. Your Manichean worldview is just DUMB. MOST of the world is one big grey area. If you arent bright enough to understand nuance you are simply baying at the moon and there is no reason to take you seriously at ALL.
Do you believe in starting the draft just like FDR did in WWII? I am a Dem and I support the draft wholeheartedly (just like FDR in WWII). Do you believe in taxing corporations during a time of war (just like in WWII)? I do. Can you do so research and find one country, civilization, tribe, etc. in the history of humankind that gave tax-cuts to the wealthiest citizens during a time of war? Maybe Fox News has that info in their archives.
More then a draft I think EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN AMERICA ( 18-25 ) should be REQUIRED to server 2 years in the Armed Forces, just like Isreal. EVERYONE, no exceptions, except medical... That way we will NEVER have deferments, or those that did not serve, then ALL OF THE TOPIC and slurs like Chicken Hawk, ect would be mute.
So, we agree...
Tax cuts have STIMULATED the economy, geez, you guys DO NOT get it...
Who crates jobs ? PEOPLE, normaly "rich" or those that want ot be "rich"...
The Gov that you bow at the alter of DOES NOT crate PRIVATE SECTOR employment.
But, it CAN hinder the creation of said jobs.
I owned a small machine shop in Houston, if you continue to TAX me till it is not worth me to stay opn, then i close the doors cause I can make ( KEEP ) more of my hard earned money, then 8 POORER folks LOSE the income they had. So you LIBS just keep on taxing the "rich" at a disproportional rate, we will then have no rich, none that want to invest in new companies, none that want to open a small busniess and emply folks.
Tax cuts for the rich...
If you TAXED ME AT 10 times the high rate I pay now along with EVERY OTHER 'Rich" person, you could still NOT pay for all the GIVE AWAYS and SOCIAL PROGRAMS you libs love so... So go ahead, tax us till YOU have no work, make it where our profits are NOT worth making, let the Gov run all the bussiness, health care, everything...
OH WAIT, they did AND do that, it's called CHINA, CUBA, USSR, N.KOREA.
Commies Rule
We actually agree on the draft issue. Hurray! I could go for the mandatory service like Israel. Just curious, did you serve in the military? I do not mean that as a gotcha question. I am just curious.
As far as taxes, we disagree. I understand your logic on taxes, you believe in a trickle down philosophy where I believe in a trickle up philosophy but whatever.
You are avoiding my question in my last post. Has there ever been tax cuts to the richest citizens during a time of war in the history of our nation? Or any other nation... ever. Do you think it is patriotic to demand tax cuts during war time? I know I don't, and I am middle class. Look at it this way, who has more to lose economically if we were to be attacked or invaded? The rich or the middle-class? If you own a mansion would you think it would be fair to have a guy in the next town, who lives in a two bedroom house pay for the security system in your mansion? Of course not. The military are supported by taxes and it seems logical that if you have a lot of investment or capital that would be destroyed by an attack or invasion you would do your patriotic duty and gladly pay for your fair share (if not more during war time) and be happy about it (look at it as an investment in your financial future). I find it crazy that the people who have the most to gain and the most to lose economically think that they should not sacrifice financially to protect their short and long term investments.
You are truly of the Limborg. Do you EVER know what you think until he tells you? Do you do anything other than regurgitate his crap on this site? Your ranting is worthless. How horrible that I want people to have access to healthcare whether they are poor or not. That I care if hungry children are fed. Keep telling me how terrible it is that us liberals care about our nieghbors. We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined and you are all for it. Spend ANY money on those in REAL need and you scream like someone is siphoning your blood. You will never convince ME that selfishness is a moral imperative. One day those like you who rant and rave that the hungry are fed will be looked at with pity and it will be understood that you are soulsick. That caring ONLY about yourself was a sickness that was thrust upon you. Ebeneezer Scrooge was NOT supposed to be a role model.
This is NOT WW2. Germany was marching around Europe, invading our allies like they were on the blue plate special and THEY DECLARED WAR ON US. Iraq hadnt so much as SNEEZED in anyones direction since the first Gulf War and how did I miss them declaring war on us? Oh yeah, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Is it to complicted for you to understand that just because ONE war was justified that doesnt automatically mean ANY war at ANY time against ANYONE is justified?
Knock, knock... Hello Dave... Dave are you in there ???
What's wrong Dave, now that I showed you the poll that you said I made up ( I didn't ) you have gone silent. Maybe it's because you now see that your fellow Dems really do feel that way, THEY HATE AMERICA ENOUGH TO WANT US ALL TO LOSE A WAR ! And maybe, just maybe, you are the other 71% of Dems that DOES NOT feel that way and is ashamed of your party atm. Look I understand that 19% = / - 3% is NOT a huge number, but extrapulate that nation wide, that's a crap ton of folks... That hate American and wish it and it's Armed Forces ill... Now it points to another POSSIBLE issue, how can you support the troops and be Patriotic if you want America to lose a war ?
I bet I get no answer... Hey Dave... knock, knock !
MG , let me correct my math. More like 1 in 8 (my skull calculator is iffy) Republicans couldn't say that the world wouldn't be better off if we "lost" .
You seem to have skipped right by my question. Seems to be a trend with the conservative posters here.
7 out of 8 conservative posters will by-pass the most challenging questions.
One out of 8 will start to wonder if they have their facts right. Although I know from experience that eating crow isn't all that bad after the first bite
When will both side (yes, me too) learn that we are ALL in this together, like it or not. Mgarnett
I will NOT change my basic beliefs that American has far too many that want the United States to actualy LOSE a war, a poll showed that 1 in 5 Dems want the US to Lose, think it would be better for the World Mgarnett
Can you say conflicted? You claim on the one hand that we have to compromise and then state quite vehemently that you will not.
Not really...
I am willing to listen and work on compromises, willing to see things from a different point of view... if you sit with me and we both can talk and YOU will listen also to my concerns...
Core values are core values, but there should be plenty of areas where we can work together. We just have to find them...
Is there ANY common ground where we ALL could try to work together ?
Can anyone make a list of areas where we agree ?
It amazes me how easy I fell into the same name calling, slurs, garbage as everyone else.
Your side admits NO wrongs, you are all perfect.
My side, same crap.
One last post and I'll stfu...
MM is NOT fair nor balalnced... This is a VERY Lib leaning org.
Fox News is NOT fair nor balanced... It is a Republican spin machine.
The lists for BOTH sides is huge, propaganda from ALL sides, yet not obe single place do any of us talk together, rational, kind, understanding, civil, with a goal of compromise. Hell our Gov can't do it. I guess why should we.
Sad really for BOTH sides, we will, I guess, just continue to HATE and mislead and slander and divide even further, though I'm not sure that is possible.
I guess I will just leave these threads now and head back to Rush & Sean, while you continue to listen to Hilary, MM and MoveOn...
As we from BOTH sides watch the destruction from within without a single shot being fired.
Final words are: "We ALL as Americans are losers, we have lost to the evils of hating each other..."
Obama decided not to wear a pin after he decided to wear a pin.
I do not understand your decision to "leave these threads" just when you are posting that you want some real discussion? And why would you go back to listening to right wing propaganda instead of looking for balanced news sources? I think that NPR is striving for fairness. BBC news and the McClatchey (formerly Knight-Ridder) news wire does a very good job of accurately reporting.
You assume that all we listen to are "liberal" news sources...no. Although I must say, most of those liberal sources try to get their facts straight; whereas, drudge, hannity, limbaugh are straight propogandist who are not above distorting or outright lying.
Many of us read extensively. We want to get our facts right. We may differ about solutions, but if your side is operating with misinformation, we will have no common ground in which to talk.
Hello Tex,
Sir, with you comment about us being absoluty staunch about "Us vs Them", are you saying that if the radical muslims had a chance they would NOT kill every one of us or force aus ALL to convert ? This would be me AND YOU, not just Republican killed, but you also and you family. I really really, with all my heart believe that muslim terroists want to and will kill us all if we do not fight now. We can NOT talk to a man trying to kill our family in our home late at night... We can not bargin with a radical faction that has ABSOLUTLY stated in very very plain language that it will NOT STOP until the entir world in under muslim control. What rational mid-east leaders are you listening to ? In their very own Gov controled media these nut jobs are yelling DEATH TO AMERICA, DEATH TO ISREAL... btw, they didn't say death to just Republican Americans... It it your honest belief that if we keave Iraq, totaly stopped supporting Isreal, I mean absolutly too every last "infeidel' out of ALL muslim countries and lands, do you think we would be safe ? Do you think, even though they themselves have said they will NOT stop, you think they will if we just give them everything they want ?
Come on Tex, I remeber someone in WWII that though the same thing about Germany, he said if we just let them have a little here and there and give them this consession and this land, they will leave us alone... Oh yes, I remember, Nevil Chamberlin... Wow, look how wrong he was proven to be, his veiws cost MILLIONS of peoples lives. Compromises with evil is never a good thing and you refer to freedoms ? Have you forgotten history that fast. The folks that wanted to talk to and get along with and negotiate with Hitler, turned out to be so dreadfully wrong... Could you maybe be wrong now ? Is it possible ?
You simply cannot compare Hitler and his war machine with Islamic terrorists. The entire country of Germany was ruled by a cabal and had an army with uniforms and massive weapons.
The reason that the U.S. colonists were able to defeat a massive army in uniform (Brits) who also hired mercenaries, was that the colonists in many instances fought like guerillas, blending into the population.
The only way to defeat Islamic terrorists is through accurate intelligence operations, active diplomacy with countries that harbor terrorists, and being that "beacon on a hill" that will ultimately shine a light for freedom that others will want to emulate. Part of the beacon will be the power of the purse to drain resources that terrorists can use while building up economic opportunity for populations that are now ripe for recruitment who live in poverty and despair.
Good Morning Mary,
I feel, my opinion is that you CAN compare. Mr. Chamberlin did compromise, he did give concessions, he did withdraw... Some on the left in this country want to do the same in the Mid-East... I did not say that was YOUR view, I said some.
There ARE folks on your side that want a dialog with people who have a PUBLIC made admission that they will NOT STOP till we Americans are all dead or converted.
My question still remains Mary, do YOU believe that IF we did EVERYTHING that your side wants... Pulled every single troop out of ALL Muslem and Arab Countries, if we stopped ALL support of Isreal, would they leave America alone ? Would we be safe ?
I feel, my opinion is that you CAN compare. Mr. Chamberlin did compromise, he did give concessions, he did withdraw... Some on the left in this country want to do the same in the Mid-East... I did not say that was YOUR view, I said some.
Chamberlin was as history proves very wrong in his assessment of Hitler. There is a very real difference between apeasement and smart, strategic use of the military. This is where the discussion must move beyond silly slogans and get to the reality of how best to function.
There ARE folks on your side that want a dialog with people who have a PUBLIC made admission that they will NOT STOP till we Americans are all dead or converted.
Who are you speaking of specifically?
My question still remains Mary, do YOU believe that IF we did EVERYTHING that your side wants... Pulled every single troop out of ALL Muslem and Arab Countries, if we stopped ALL support of Isreal, would they leave America alone ? Would we be safe ?
What side? And who is calling for this policy?
The President of Iran has openly called for the death of all Americans and the death of Isreal. That is who I was refering to.
Still waiting for your answer to my post...12:03 pm...Pres of Iran...how the hell did he get in here? So what, he wants death to Israel..posters from the Loving Right want all Muslims killed...Will we denounce those good Christians Republicans? Answer my question...Can the War on Terrorism end without some form of diplomacy? You asked a question, I answered.
We did NOT use diplomacy with Tojo or Hitler until the VERY end, we beat them with our Armed Forces, We beat them till they had NO CHOICE, we did not talk, we killed them before they could kill us. As Patton said, the object of war is not to die for your Country, but to have the other guy die for his.
Until we got to the point where the enemy understands that it has lost, then we have negotiated, not now. North Korea is at the table because they "really believe" that if they continue we WILL ATTACK. Kadafi totaly changed from the killer and state sponsor of terro ONLY AFTER he knew / saw what we had done to Sadam. He did not want to be next. Negotations are NO GOOD unless your enemy believes that you are willing and able to destroy him or it... The word hostile takeover in business comes to mind as a good annalogy.
Can you please show me where ANY main stream Christian group has called for DEATH TO ALL MUSLIMS... Please, dcause i will call and denounce to the hevens that kind of crap.
I think you made that one up... at least I went and got the poll I cited...
You did NOT answer the question. Do you believe that we can WIN this "war" without some type of diplomacy? You seem to demand answers to framed questions but you cannot answer this simple question which is based in reality. Can we defeat this enemy without negotiations? If you can't answer our questions, do you expect anyone to answer yours. remember, I already answered your KEY question about SAFE.
I will try again...
We did NOT use diplomacy with Tojo or Hitler until the VERY end, we beat them with our Armed Forces, We beat them till they had NO CHOICE, we did not talk, we killed them before they could kill us. As Patton said, the object of war is not to die for your Country, but to have the other guy die for his...
So my answer is YES, we can and should win this war without diplomacy, we have no one to talk to ? Talk to Osama ? Talk to Iran ? Who do we talk to ? I would prfer NOT to negotiate with terrorists, or brutal regiems, or dictators.
Again I say, no talking...
According to Osama himself, Americans are weak, weak spirited, cause them deaths, they will run away... You can't talk to those that feel you are weak, you have no position in which to bargin.
Keep winning and killing off the radical, NOT ALL MUSLEMS, and then talk when you have something they want, to live !
We negotated all the time with the USSR a MUCH bigger threat than radical Islamists. A threat that could have ended the world and we got a lot out of it. Containment worked with a MUCH more dangerous enemy. Your simplistic take on this is laughable. No one I know wants to negotiate with Ben Laden or terrorists. Iran is a country. THEY have NOT attacked us. We needent make them an enemy as yet. Unless people like YOU make them an enemy. No one I KNOW is advocating an end to supporting Israel. The HARSH rhetoric is going both ways. It was BUSH that labelled them an evil empire. This IS a problem we can deal with through negotations, that is Iran. They are a country they have been for more than 2500 years. The entire country is NOT made up of 40 million terrorists. Nor are all their politicians. Their President is a nutbag but so what he has no power. The man with the REAL executive power is Rafsanjani. He is a moderate he is who we USED to support when HE ran for president. NOW he has been able to attain the REAL power head of the counsel of experts. Amadineajad is a nobody. He is PR, nothing more he has no power over the legislature army or courts he just makes speeches he is Irans version of Miss America. His JOB is to stir the pot and make Rafsanjanis job easier. The Iranians have a huge majority of young people who are NOT anti western who are NOT radical and who, if we stop scaring them with YOUR kind of rhetoric can be our natural ally in the region. Racial politics is HUGE in the middle east. The Iranians feel isolated because they are NOT Arabs. They are NOT semetic. Farsi is NOT a semetic language, they are raciall Aryan. They dont TRUST Saudi Arabia nor Iraq nor especially Egypt. This is a PERFECT place for diplomacy and if we ignore the ranting hysterical voices who dont even understand what diplomacy IS the potential for REAL gains here is HUGE. Remember we dont have to RENOUNCE ever using force, that is ALWAYS an option, it should be the LAST option it seems to be your ONLY option. Diplomacy ISNT weakness, only idiots would think that. The strong can always push their weight around, if they are REALLY strong, they are strong enough to be patient and NOT act the bully which is exactly what you sound like. Doing the right thing isnt always EASY, sometimes its hard and sometimes doing the HARD thing is what is right. Mindlessly blaring hostility is easy, dumb and not necessarily in ANYONES best interest.
You are of course completely wrong AGAIN. Khadaffi was trying to get CLINTON to make the same deal he made with Bush. Iraq didnt scare Khadaffi, the SANCTIONS made Libya so poor there wasnt enough left for him to steal
Ahminajad never said 'wipe Israel off the map.' That seems to be a deliberate mistranslation of his statements for propaganda purposes. What he actually said was "the regime which occupies Israel shall vanish from the pages of history." He was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini. He didn't say that Iran would do anything to Israel. He was calling for regime change in Israel.
Ahminajad is the president of a country, Iran, that has an overwhelmingly young population. Many of these young people want change; they like western culture, and want to modernize.
The U.S. MUST diplomatically engage Iran with an understanding that the younger generation will be pushing for more friendly policies towards the west (and hopefully, Israel as well)
Mary, Mary... Come on, he absolutly called for "DEATH TO AMERICA", they chant it over and over, but yet you hear not...
My opinion is that you do not want to hear the evil or face the truth that there are rogue nations and peoples that want to KII ALL AMERICANS, Libs & Cons, Jew. Gentile, Agnostic, Budist, Muslim... KILL AMERICANS, period.
You continue to want to talk to folks that do not want ot negotiate, they want you and your childern dead or under Shareia Law in burka's.
Come on, he absolutly called for "DEATH TO AMERICA", they chant it over and over, but yet you hear not...
I'm not defending him. I'm saying, let's get it straight what he says or doesn't say. By focusing on his idiotic statements, you miss the actions he has or hasn't taken. Our actions must be based on actual activity, not slogans or pandering.
My opinion is that you do not want to hear the evil or face the truth that there are rogue nations and peoples that want to KII ALL AMERICANS, Libs & Cons, Jew. Gentile, Agnostic, Budist, Muslim... KILL AMERICANS, period.
Some do. How you deal with it responsibly is the point. Iran as I said before has an overwhlemingly young population. We must look forward to them, not just demonize their current leadership. Calling Iran part of an "axis of evil" as Bush did just helped to elect him.
You continue to want to talk to folks that do not want ot negotiate, they want you and your childern dead or under Shareia Law in burka's.
Oh please. Stop fear mongering. Yes we need to keep talking to them. The U.S. is still the strongest power and by engaging the tyrants (North Korea as well) we will force concessions.
Is it really fear mogering to believe, as I really do, that if left unchecked exreamists will bring more and more death and destruction and terror to our own soil. If you feel that is wrong, then we will continue to talk politly to each other but we will agree to diagree. Unfortunaly or fortunatly one of us will be proven out some day. If you are correct we have no worries, we just talk to the folks that want us destroyed and give in to demands and surrender and they will be our friends. If i am right, more and more attacks will happen in the US and against Americans around the globe till we wipe Muslem extreamists off the planet, I di not say all Muslems or even the majority of Muslems, but the radical, extreamist elements of a great religion.
I choose to be prepared, not surprised again...
Words DO matter Mary25, that is what ALL the fighting between our groups is about, what people on both sides SAY.... WORDS...
Your group would tend to :attack" what Limbaugh and the mooron Sean say, but yet not care or believe what a Tyrant of Iran & North Korea says. I don't get it, if these wack job leaders words don't count, or matter to you Mary, then why do words from Limbaugh and Sean bother you ?
And, did you read the actual poll question ? I di not hear you responce to the ACTUAL poll question, not what you wanted it to ask / say.
I think you are mischaracterizing my comments to mean that we take no steps to counter terrorist or bad leaders of nations. This isn't my position and I don't see anything in what I said before that implies this.
Mary25? Oh, to be 25 again...
See ya later, gater...
He is a nutbag but NOT a tyrant he has no real power
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4592
The president of Iran is constitutionally weak. The real power in Iran lies in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei and other conservative Shiite clerics on the Council of Guardians. Just as they were able to stifle the reformist agenda of Ahmadinejad’s immediate predecessor Mohammed Khatami, they have similarly thwarted the radical agenda of the current president, whom they view as something of a loose cannon.
Furthermore, Ahmadinejad’s influence is waning. The new head of the Revolutionary Guard Ali Jafari is from a conservative sub-faction opposed to the more radical elements allied with Ahmadinejad. He replaced the former Guard head Yahya Rahim-Safavi, who was apparently seen as too openly sympathetic to the president. In addition, former president and Ahmadinejad rival Ayatollah Rafsanjani was recently elected to head the powerful experts’ assembly, defeating Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who was backed by Ahmadinejad supporters and other hardliners.
In reality, though, the Iranian president is not commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so Ahmadinejad would be incapable of ordering an attack on Israel even if Iran had the means to do so. Though the clerics certainly take hard-line positions on a number of policy areas, collective leadership normally mitigates impulsive actions such as launching a war of aggression. Indeed, bold and risky policies rarely come out of committees.
It should also be noted that while Ahmadinejad is certainly very anti-Israel, his views are not as extreme as they have been depicted. For example, Ahmadinejad never actually threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” nor has he demonstrated a newly hostile Iranian posture toward the Jewish state. Not only was this oft-quoted statement a mistranslation – the idiom does not exist in Farsi and the reference was to the dissolution of the regime, not the physical destruction of the nation – the Iranian president was quoting from a statement by Ayatollah Khomeini from over 20 years earlier. In addition, he explicitly told our group on September 26 that there was “no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” and that it was “not Iran’s intention to destroy Israel.”
I'll counter your question,
has all the stuff you mentioned we are doing now made us ANY SAFER? HOW does iraq factor into OUR safety here? And please, don't tell me its because we haven't had an attack since 9/11.
Making historical comparisons can be useful, but can lead to oversimplification. Claiming that a desire to explore diplomacy with other countries, even Iran, is tantamount to unleashing the SS on unsuspecting Americans is stretching things a bit far. Germany had a well-developed, modern army and a formidable military industrial complex. Iran... doesn't exactly have those things. Granted there's all those talks about nukes, and that needs to be addressed, but assuming that current problems can be solved by pretending we're dealing with Hitler is a bit naive.
As for your concern that radical Muslims want to convert and/or kill everyone else, I have to admit that doesn't concern me. Because they can't. And I would guess that even the most extreme aren't plotting a massive Koran drop in Kansas or anything like that. I think the best strategy the US could adopt to ensure a stable Middle East 10, 20, 30 years down the road is to stop selling weapons to repressive, "friendly" regimes that use them to stifle free speech, free press, and free thought among their own citizens. Do you think Muslims are so stupid they can't recognize blatant hypocrisy?
MG251924, In answer to your last paragraph, which is framed in such a manner that there is no clear answer, I answer your last question "WOULD WE BE SAFE?" with the answer of NO. Now it is your turn, do YOU believe that IF we did EVERYTHING that YOUR side wants...Increase troop levels in ALL Muslin and ARAB countries, if we INCREASED support to Israel, would they leave America alone? Or possibly make it more unsafe for America?
Neither question is answered with a definite...neither answer will solve the problem of TERRORISM. Which leads me into asking more...What other avenues could possibly be approached to end terrorism? Somewhere down the road, a FORM of diplomacy must be initiated. For example, North Korea, Kadafi in Libya etc. I think a combination of, how do you put it, OUR and YOUR ideas will work to a degree. Mary59, is discussing the correct path...Terroists have no countries, only countries which harbor them. And Iraq is not..or was not one of them. Now Pakistan...another story.
Does anyone get the feeling the DRUDGE is getting a little upset about taking a backseat to other Websites lately? He seems to have lost his "journalistic abilities" (that is a joke) and has to get back into the swing of things. I will bet that MMFA had an increase of visitors in the past few weeks while the same parrots continue to stay with Drudge but sneak a peek over here. Thus, a Flag-Pin...come on Drudgy, break some real news.
He's living up to his name!
I prefer the Sludge Report.
There once was a web guy named Drudge
Who broke stories about slime & sludge
Lots of stories are fake
He should jump in a lake
'Til he's cleaned up those "facts" he does fudge.
Since shortly 9-11 I could spot a Republican or a right leaning person in two seconds. He was the one wearing an American flag pin. I didn't believe it at first but it became more obvious and prominent as time went on that they wanted the corner on the super patriot market. I then began to read that the strong use of national icons and symbols as a propaganda tool is nothing new under the sun and arguably most effectively used in recent history by fascist regimes. Draw your own conclusions. The Republicans and their mouth pieces have the gall to act superficially shocked in denouncing Obama's decision not to play their subtle divisive propaganda game. More despicable BS to distract from the real issues. Good on you Obama. They’re not fooling me either.
fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
DAVE & MARY, you guys called me out as a lier about the poll I cited and now I have provided a link and proof.
Your responce has been ?
*** crickets ***
Hummm, Oh, Mary did write to say the question was about the troops, yada yada, no it wasn't, it was a very clear and consise question...
"Do you personaly think the World would be better off if the United States lost the war in Iraq" ?
Dave has called it quits, he has no reply when confronted with facts.
At least Mary tried... Failed, but tried...
Face it around 19% of DEMS want AMERICAN TO LOSE A WAR, FAIL, BE DEFEATED, SURRENDER, QUIT, TURN TAIL AND RUN...
I have heard the poll results. The question is based on the premise this war can be won.
Tell me what victory over the emotion terror would be. What will happen that will be 'victory'. The emotion terror shows up on the deck of the USS Mission Accomplished to sign a surrender agreement?
This is a perpetual Orwellian war and the only question is when will the people who start it, end it?
"Do you personaly think the World would be better off if the United States lost the war in Iraq" ?
We WON!!!!!! Don’t you remember Junior standing aboard an aircraft carrier under the sign “Mission Accomplished”. Don’t you remember him saying in his speech that major combat in Iraq had ended! Don’t you remember! That’s the part you seem to forget! We took down Saddam who was the evil dictator. If you think we can win a civil war where the enemy does not wear a uniforms you are really delusional.
Face it around 19% of DEMS want AMERICAN TO LOSE A WAR, FAIL, BE DEFEATED, SURRENDER, QUIT, TURN TAIL AND RUN...
You come here and sing a song and dance speech about we all have to work together and try to understand and comprise and then you rant and rant and rant, repeating the same crap that comes from Fox and Rush on a daily basis. Conservatives/Republicans have had control of this country for almost 6 years and what happened. We were attacked on 9/11, we invaded the WRONG country, we are hated more and have less allies than ever before. We have a huge deficit and although unemployment is down percentage wise most Americans are working two jobs with lower wages. All this crap while preaching "christianity". Claiming to love God but unable to show kindness, treat people with respect, do not judge, help your fellow man. You need to look at what has happened to this country in the last 6 years and realize that Dems were not in control YOU WERE!! You're unhappy, CLEAN UP YOUR OWN FREAKING HOUSE FIRST! accept responsibility for the sh*t you’ve done.
Oh that was my rant and I'm done!
Now that you feel you have won, I will continue to play. You are correct, it is a simple question for the Repubs who only feel that they can ask simple questions but they cannot understand answers. I asked a question at 12:03 pm and you did not answer directly..you went back to Tojo...let me play your game again..here's a question for you. Did we win or lose in VietNam? Did we cut and run or surrender in VietNam? Were our troops better off in VietNam or out of there? And may I ask, what where those consequences? Did the Commie Domino Theory take over SE Asia? Remember, Commies had NUCLEAR weapons. Just a few questions for you to consider?
P.S. You stated that R's think in Black and White? Well, chose a color and paint you picture.
Here's a hint...You can go to VietNam for a vacation. And yes, we left that place without winning. How can we resolve that quandry? We cut and run and won? I think I confused myself. So, Mr. Black and White...you have the floor.
We left because of folks like you that said it was no big deal.... MILLIONS of Cambodians killed, re-education camps, Fall of Sigon...
Your revisionist history is crap.
Democrates like you did not exist in WWII, when I fought in Germany beside many Dems who understood that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
You prob have only read the left's version of Vietnam, not what really happened after we tucked our tails and ran.
The precise reason we are in danger today is because of places like Vietnam, Mogidesu(sic) (black hawk down) where we again took casulities and ran... And soon, if we have it your way, we will again turn tail and run away.
Do you really think they will stop after they drive us out of Arab lands ? Pitty the fool...
Folks thought that about Germany when they took Ploand, oh, no worries, Hitler will stop now... wrong, and your wrong... ALL WE HAVE SHOWN SINCE WWII is that we as a people are not willing and able to fight anymore, we have lost our will, our perpose. We would rather be subjects then free men, rather see Arab women slaughtered under Sharia Law, rather see millions killed in Rowanda...
Do NOT begin to preach to me you little jerk... I served 8 years in 101st, I jumped on D-Day, I jumped again at the Rhein... I jumed into combat with many many people of all different faiths, colors, backgrounds, political parties. We were all Americans, doing our duty... Have you served ? I think it is moraly wrong to preach to me about your questions when you never answered mine. O have answered you. OUR enimies believe America and Americans are WEAK cowards, who can not take losses, Osama said so himself, OUR enemy knows our weekness... How can we ever beat back terro with your attitude ?
Countries didn't mess with us before, once they knew we could fight, Cuba backed down, the USSR backed Down, Kadafi backed down... Why should our enemies back down now ? We have lost the guts to fight for ANYTHING. If you had been in charge durning WWII we, using your current mindset, would have surrendered or re-deployed after Batan, or Corrigador, Or The Buldge.... Or Iwo, where we lost more men in 1 week then we have in 4 years in Iraq... You Libs never ever talk about that. Because HISTORY, the real one, not your new age revisionist history, shows how follish appeasment is, what it leads to, just ask Nevil Chamberlin, but your history book probably does not even mention that fool.
When did we leave VietNam and who which party was in the White House? And FYI, Cambodia had its OWN problems..
This is NOT WW2 and because ONE war was justified that does not immediatly mean any war anywhere at any time is justified because that ONE war was. As for Vietnam YOUR revisionist history will NOT change reality the genocide in Cambodia was stopped when NORTH VIETNAM invaded it and overthrew Pol Pot. There was NO such genocide in Vietnam. Of course there were reeducation camps. How much of the Vietnamese economy was service oriented? That is service of the half million soldiers in Vietnam who had left. How many prostitutes, black market? How many had left the farms that HAD been the backbone of the economy because of the VIETNAMIZATION which drove peasant farmers OFF the land? I dont know what was happening in those camps and neither do you I know they WERENT murdering them by the scores. You have the propaganda down pat but the bottom line is Vietnam was WRONG we shouldnt have been there just like Iraq.
I wonder why it is that more US Service men and Women are Republicans, the proof is right here in this blog.
Dems that do not want to stand up against terror...
Dems that want every Gov hand out they can get...
Cradle to grave, give me, give me, give me...
Selfish folks that give lees to charities based on red state blue state stats... Pay more and more in taxes to let Gov take from the "rich" and redistribute to those unwilling or unable to strive.
Dems that don't want to work or fight and yes even die for this great nation... I served my time in WWII, I have a right to bitch.
Dems that are rasied and told by their own leaders that to be a US Soldier means you can't do anything else... too dumb, too poor...
What a sad life it must be to hate your Country that much that we can't even fight for it anymore...
If you guys think this country sucks so bad, then get the heck out and go to Russia, or China, or Canada (free crappy health care), but DO NOT try to change the country that so many have fought and died for.
Getting a little testy there Mr. 101st...apuking chicken is what we lovingly called them in Nam. I served you phony soldier, I believe one of your mentors uses that term. One year as a grunt..do you actually know what that means? Please, I haven't berated you or questioned your patriotism. You are pissed because you unsound reasoning doesn't lead to you being correct. You still didn't answer my question after I answered yours. Once again, if we increase troops, give Israel more money and attack other Arab countries, will we be safer in America? Also, Gen. Patton, I have asked a lot of my R buddies this question which none will/can't answer. How do you send in the infantry to attack a country led by a madman who used WMD's on his own people? Do you not think he would use them to fend off an invasion? Or could it be that the Liars of the Century knew that they weren't there? I am curious. Gen. Patton, would you sacrifice them lives of thousands of your infantry to attack a madman with WMD's?
P.S. I know what a fire-fight happens to be.
PPS...I did answer your original question which was posed towards Mary. Get over it..you haven't.
I wonder why it is that more US Service men and Women are Republicans, the proof is right here in this blog. Mgarnett
You might want to tone down your rant and get a few FACTS
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve Senate Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-MI - avoided the draft, did not serve. Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-AZ - did not serve. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Ensign, R-NV - did not serve. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH - did not serve. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO - did not serve. House Republican Conerence Chair Adam Putnam, R-FL - did not serve. House Republican Policy Committee Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI - did not serve. National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-OK - did not serve. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - did not serve. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - did not serve in the military but did serve the Mormon Church on a 30-month mission to France. Former Senator Fred Thompson - did not serveFormer Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve. Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself." Former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume, but not such a friend to cats in Boston.) Rick Santorum, R-PA, formerly third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. George Felix Allen, former Republican Senator from Virginia - a supporter of Nixon and the Vietnam war, did not serve. VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service") Former Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve ; received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve. Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve , too busy being a Republican. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve
Dems that do not want to stand up against terror...Dems that want every Gov hand out they can get...Mgarnett
FACTS: Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- rifle platoon and company commander with the Fifth Marine Regiment in the An Hoa Basin west of Danang; was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. Representative Tim Walz, D-MN - Twenty-four years of service in the Army National Guard, retiring in 2005. Representative Joe Sestak, D-PA - 31 years of service in the Navy, rising to the rank of Vice Admiral. Representative Chris Carney, D-PA - Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Reserve, Carney served multiple tours overseas and was activated for Operation Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Southern Watch. Representative Patrick Murphy, D-PA - extensive career in the U.S. Army from 1993-2004; earned Bronze Star and Presidential Unit Citation. Representative Phil Hare, D-IL - Served in the United States Army Reserve for six years. Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) - distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990. Former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71. Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72. Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72. Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon. Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam. Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two. Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat. Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91. Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal. Former Representative "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor - volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat "V." Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star. Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57. Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate - 38-year career of public service in the Army, culminating as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.
Who has no problem serving their country?
Garnett, I guess through some eyes, Pearlene's post only proves that those DAMN Democrats vote for Soldiers while the Republicans vote for.......you got it , stay at home soldiers. Damn Dems never get anything RIGHT.
I thought my post made it clear that I was asking about what our CURRENT FOLKS IN THE ARMED FORCES would say if they could VOTE on wether to continue the mission or not would show. I di not imply that I was impuning the service of ANY Dem, or touting the service of Reps... What I asked was, IF, and there is NO WAY to prove it,but IF the VURRENT folks SERVING in AFG & IRAQ could take a VOTE, would they vote to stay and fight OR be re-deployed. As is typical here in MM, with the exception of Tex and Mary, you have TWISTED what I said to prove what side surrently in Congress served ? I didn't ask orr pose that, not close. I was wondering IF given the chance, how would our guys & gals in the CURRENT Military vote. I did not that the VAST majority DO VOTE Republican in elections, and as a general rule, more Conservatives volunteer to serve in the US Armed Forces.
Then I went on to ask, IF the CURRENT Militart did vote to stay and fight, WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO YOU CUT & RUN LIBS ???
Now, see if you can get the question without the typical MM spin. It's very simple, but to make a point that was not even asked, you failed to answer.
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34538&archive=true
WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.
The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.”
Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.
Mary39, How dare you cite something that is disagreement with Garrnetts' unanswerable questions. I say unaswerable because once you provide this Zogby poll, another what if question will appear. He does not wnat to discuss those results so why don't we throw them out?
I think fairer questions to those soldiers in Iraq would be....If you had a chance to leave Iraq before your fellow company members, would you want to go? 90% would not want to leave...If you ask, if you and your entire Company could go home would you want to go home? 100% YES. Most soldiers do not want to leave a "war zone" and leave their buddies behind. Whether they are Repubs or Dems. I think this a point were me and Garnett would agree.
Sorry you guys don't believe my poll, I doubt your info also...
We can't agree on fact or fiction.
I stated / linked a poll, it was called a "lie".
You cite stuff and i call it a "lie".
So we are just stuck again.
You cite stuff and i call it a "lie". Mgarnett
GOOGLE if you DARE!
Mr. Garnett, this is so dishonest of you that I am disgusted.
We accept that the Fox poll you brought up is real. We don't accept the premise of the question asked, that the U.S. can "win"
The link I provided above is from Stars and Stripes.
Whenever you have been presented with real information on here, you have responded with inflammatory rhetoric distorting what you think we believe.
My father was a World War II vet as well, and my brother is a Vietnam vet. Neither one wore a flag pin, and neither would stoop so low as to post what you just did above.
So then you are calling a poll published in STARS AND STRIPES A LIE? Hmmm. Well why not it answered your question directly and you didnt like the answer. The VAST majority want to come home. Nothing you can do about reality.
You are such a moron. Regurgitating the bilge that the Oxymoron TOLD you to believe shows how stupid you are and nothing more. The liberals in your fevered fantasy delusions do not exist in large numbers. Your hivemind stupidity is pathetic.
Proof that the End Times are here: The flag lapel pin has become the Mark of the Beast. Revelations says the Mark of the Beast appears on the AntiChrist's adherents. Without the mark, people can't engage in commerce, such as buying food. I guess you've also gotta have a flag lapel pin to run for elective office.
Gonna get me a lapel flag pin, so I can be raptured up with all the Bush-worshipping yahoos and fundamentalist Christians!
Hannity lives in a huge mansion on the long island shore thanks to his no less then perfect image. He is the quinressential catholic who can do no wrong and talks about the simple morality that guides his soul, but laughs and mocks Hillary Clinton qhen it comes to her church and how she lives her religion. Hannity is no different in the christian world then osama is in the muslim world. Oh please, lets get some audio of Sean leaving a jewish deli!
and the "flag" pin was the same as the magnetic ribbons and bumper stickers.
MGarnett has to be the most bipolar poster ever.Whatta roller coaster ride of "let's get along and solve our problems" and "I hate you jerks!".
I agree"One should never engage the weak and foolish for any length of time"!
To all concerned, my 2 cents,
The question about patriotism was lost in the discussion. My take, we are all patriots, just in different ways. Some see it as a duty, some don’t. Some want the world to know how patriotic they are, some don’t. I show my patriotism by my name on this board, don’t really need to say anything else. As I wrote on another thread, if wearing a flag on my lapel is a measure of my patriotism then I will not pass the test. I’ve been against this war from the get go. After we went into Iraq in the first Gulf War and neutralized Sadaam Hussein, why did we think that twelve years later he must have WMDs and needed to be taken out for good? Oh I forgot, for eight of those years we had a president who believed that diplomacy and judicious use of our military might accomplish more than a simple answer like Invasion.
That was a very important question that the press, the Congress, and the American people didn’t ask then but just allowed the neo-cons to answer for us. We now know that it was a lie. Its just as obvious that OBL and the attack on the Twin Towers was the spark that the POSU and the VPOUS and their chicken hawk advisors knew would be the smoke that could screen their real agenda. Take over Iraq and make it a base for American power in the Middle East.
Now my second point is that MGARNETT251924 thinks I as a Democrat want to loose this war. Wrong, we already won the war; I believe it had a catchy military name, Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now if he is talking about the Global War on Terror or the GWOT, now that is going to take a while. The lame assertion that Democrats want us to loose is just the Neo-Cons and their propagandists, Drudge, Hannity, and ET ALs way of assuring their portion of the electorate that those damn Democrats are not now and never have been patriotic. Of course a long list to the contrary was provided to counter that thought. After all didn’t Obama take his pin off, "see I told you so".
Did anyone catch Bill Moyers Journal last Friday?
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/watch.html
Now I believe the question was posed earlier in the thread, don’t the Muslims really want to see us all dead, or worse converted? If you watch the video and read the transcript it’s obvious that Iran and Ahmadinejad is the new Sadaam and WMDs. When you have two unwavering ideologies heading for a collision then we all need to be praying for cooler heads to prevail. We’ve got fanatics on both sides of the equation. Really is kinda scary, don't ya think?
I report, you decide........
Obama's Sunday sermon
Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics. Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God . . . We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Good luck with that kingdom there Obama.......does the ACLU know about your plans to combine church and state? Sounds like a Muslim to me.
Tweakie the troll is quite lazy
He thinks that his posts drive us crazy
But we'd really be happy
If he'd stop acting sappy
'Cause his points and his prose is quite hazy.
A limerick by Mary
To this little troll is quite scary
From under the bridge I opine
The words are Obama's not mine
And his water I refuse to carry
Hey Tweakie, how 'bout Google-ing IAMBIC PENTAMETER.
I am more concerned about an ISLAMIC BIGHAMMER than a IAMBIC PENTAMETER.
There is a song by John Prine that expresses my sentiments on this B.S.
Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. It's already overcrowded from your dirty little war. Now Jesus don't like killin no matter what the reason for and your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. Neither will your flag lapel pin. That was differant war but in reality they are all the same. Forever yours BING.
Holy Bleep Batman,
The Libs have gone way, way, way too far this time, and ANY American is going to see this as a HUGE invasion by our Goverment to squash Freedom of Speach. Herery Waxman is now sending his "goon hit squad" to investigate a PRIVATE US CITIZEN, actualy several of them. Rush, Sean, Mark and others are on the "hit" list of Waxman and his CONGRESSIONAL oversite commity, it says NOTHING about his PUBLIC oversite powers... In what will be seen by MANY who are NOT active in politics, on EITHER side, as a direct assult of our liberties. THANK YOU wacky Libs for pushing more and more that were on the fence to OUR side toward freedom and away from Gov involvment in the PRIVATE sector. A Congress with an 13% approval rating is now showing it's true colors and WILL cause a huge backlash against Dems. Again, I say Thank You Libs for helping us reclaim the House, Sen., and the WH in 2008 ! WTG and full speed ahead with your Commie silencing of the Media of any and all opposition when you can not compete in the open market. People WII and ARE seeing thru this farce. Republicans are about to strike back HARD. Watch the news later part of NEXT week as to our plan. We are about to blow the lid off this whole election cycle.