What do you think of our current President?

[ToughOmbre]

Amsel, you've proved one thing and one thing only.

That you know how to cut and paste drivel from the far-left hate websites.

Other than that, you are as clueless as a box of dirt!

TO

[Amsel]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Amsel, you've proved one thing and one thing only.

That you know how to cut and paste drivel from the far-left hate websites.

Other than that, you are as clueless as a box of dirt!

TO

Far left and far right.....I do not buy into that two party gridlocked way of thinking. Besides most would consider me extreme far right.

I am clueless because I hate people trampling on the constitution? Or because I do not like the Bush administration? What good has Bush done for you I should ask? What is so great about the patriot act?


The funniest thing about your post is that 20 years ago the patriotic act would be considered FAR LEFT communist crap.

I am not here to prove anything. Only lies need to be told repeatedly. Bush is not even in the same league as Teddy Roosevelt,Ronald Reagan,George Washington,Richard Nixon, or Andrew Jackson.

[Amsel]

3) Ten Key Dangers of The Patriot Act That Every American Should Know

No. 1: The government can conduct "sneak and peek" searches in which agents enter your home or business and search your belongings without informing you until long after.

No. 2: Government agents can force libraries and bookstores to hand over the titles of books that you've purchased or borrowed and can demand the identity of anyone who has purchased or borrowed certain books. The government can also prosecute libraries and bookstores for informing you that the search occurred or even for informing you that an inquiry was made. According to ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer, such "searches could extend to doctors offices, banks and other institutions which, like libraries, were previously off-limits under the law." Chris Finan, President of the American Booksellers group adds: "The refusal of the Justice Department to tell Congress how many times it has used its powers is even more unsettling because it naturally leads to the suspicion that it is using them a lot."

No. 3: Federal agents are authorized to use hidden devices to trace the telephone calls or emails of people who are not even suspected of a crime. The FBI is also permitted to use its Magic Lantern technology to monitor everything you do on your computer--recording not just the websites you visit but EVERY SINGLE KEYSTROKE as well.

No. 4: Government agents are permitted to arrest and detain individuals "suspected" of terrorist activities and to hold them INDEFINITELY, WITHOUT CHARGE, and WITHOUT an ATTORNEY. (That could be you or me for sending or receiving this Email, by the way)

No. 5: Federal agents are permitted to conduct full investigations of American citizens and permanent legal residents simply because they have participated in activities protected by the First Amendment, such as writing a letter to the editor or attending a peaceful rally.

No. 6: Law enforcement agents are permitted to listen in on discussions between prisoners and their attorneys, thus denying them their Constitutional right to confidential legal counsel.

No. 7: Terrorism suspects may be tried in secret military tribunals where defendants have no right to a public trial, no right to trial by jury, no right to confront the evidence, and no right to appeal to an independent court. In short, the Constitution does not apply.

No. 8: The CIA is granted authority to spy on American citizens, a power that has previously been denied to this international espionage organization.

No. 9: In addition to the Patriot Act, the Bush administration has given us Operations TIPS, a government program that encourages citizens to spy on each other and to report their neighbors activities to the authorities. It's EXACTLY the kind of thing for which we used to fault East Germany and the Soviet Union, and for which we currently fault Red China and North Korea. Fortunately, Operation TIPS (or AmeriSnitch, as it's known to its many detractors) seems to have been recalled to the factory--at least for now. (Incidentally, in a clever variation of "two-can-play-at-that-game”, Brad Templeton has set up a website at www.all-the-other-names-were-taken.com/tipstips. Operation TIPS-TIPS: Report TIPS informants where you can report people you suspect of being informants for Operation TIPS. It's an interesting and amusing site, well worth a look.)

No. 10: In the wake of Operation TIPS came something even worse: Total Information Awareness. TIA is a program of the Defense Department that when fully operational will link commercial and government databases so that the DOD can immediately put its finger on any piece of information about you that it wants. New York Times columnist William Safire writes: "Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a virtual, centralized grand database." And that's not all. Who did our president appoint to head the TIA? Who gets to be Big Brother himself? Why it's none other than John Poindexter, a man convicted in 1990 on five counts of lying to Congress, destroying official documents, and obstructing congressional inquiries into the Iran-contra affair. Another Hermann Goering, if there ever was one.

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by Amsel

I am clueless because I hate people trampling on the constitution? Or because I do not like the Bush administration? What good has Bush done for you I should ask? What is so great about the patriot act?

You said the Patriot Act suspends habeas corpus. I asked you to name the American citizens who were denied the writ of habeas corpus.

That's right, still no answer.

And more nonsense from one of your previous posts.....

"Today, according to John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act of 2001, a patriot is someone who kneels down in fear, and hands over his or her rights to the government in the name of fighting terrorism."

And I guess you have a source that proves that statement?

Today? If you're gonna cut and paste garbage, at least cut and paste CURRENT garbage.

TO

[Amsel]

Roger that.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Amsel

If you like how the country has turned out then tune me out. This does not apply to you. It shouldn't matter if you personally have not had your rights tested. But this line of reasoning seems to escape you. Our goverment needs to be transparent,period. We as Americans should shun secrecy in our goverment and it's organizations.

This is truly not what the founding fathers had in mind for us. But some people and it could be you,have sold us out. If you give up your rights to the goverment for safety then you will eventually have neither rights nor safety.If you think that we should have new legislation that can have dire consequences in the future for our liberty then I would say that you are not a real American,but also a traitor.

Next you will be telling me that Obama is a good guy and can be trusted with such new powers that Bush and his cabinet have gave themselves.

Well that didn't take long to be called a traitor after coming back

I'm still waiting on the "gutting" of the Third Amendment... Nice semi-quote of Franklin. In reality, the organization of peoples into states inherently has a sacrifice of personal freedoms for safety. So do I follow that no state on the Earth has safety or rights?

Franklin's point was that some personal liberties are essential to maintaining a free society and shot not be given up. Quite frankly - I don't see any of these in the Patriot Act. According to you that makes me not a real American, and then you accuse me of treason... which makes me laugh. By the way - were not "sneak and peak" searches struck down once?

Slinging mud hurts your credibility bud.

[Amsel]

While I like to have friends and be "credible" I was just posting my opinion. My opinion does not make me many friends in the court of popular opinions these days.

While I do not mean to sling mud at fellow forum members I do stand by my assessment of treason to the American people. I swear no allegiance to the goverment,only the people and the rule of law under the original constitution.

Other then that I have no credibility. I would suggest researching the matter if it interests you. I am sure you can find a "spin" to any topic concerning his majesty.

While most Americans are comfortable with a massive goverment making laws that could have an horrible affect on the people if abused,there are some like myself who want to limit the goverment and its socialistic tendencies to what the goverment is intended for.

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am going to read about warbirds now. The only reason I am on this awesome forum.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I am going to have to disagree with you there. Our military is weakened right now. It is not at the breaking point, but it is getting there. Soldiers are being deployed for too long, too many times.

Example: My unit was deployed 10 months.

Came home and spent 4 months in garrison.

Deployed again for 14 months.

That is 24 months deployed out of 28 months.

Most units are on a cycle like this. Most units do not recieve eneogh down time after a deployment. This is dangerous for many reasons:

1. Stress level is to high on the soldiers.
2. Equipment is not being replaced or repaired quick eneogh.

To make matters worse, many many soldiers return from a deployment to Iraq and PCS to another unit that is going directly back to the desert. A friend of mine was with a MEDVAC unit in Iraq in 2003. 11 months into the deployment (about a month left before he would have gone home), the sent him back stateside so that he could PCS and move his house hold goods to Germany. 3 months later he was in Iraq with us for 14 months.

It is a fact:

1. Deployments are too long.
2. Equipment is no longer to standard.

You can have a military of 1.4 million soldiers but how many of them are not combat soldiers? How many of them are non-deployable soldiers?

That 1.4 million is a total for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Navy ships are going to do you know good in the sand. The Air Force is not going to win this war, because they are not occuyping the land. The ones who are bearing the majority of this conflict are the Army and the Marines and they toegether make up maybe 40 percent of the 1.4 millions soldiers you talk about above.

Not eneogh, doing too much.

Again our military is not about to break. Not yet, but if we do not do something quick it will get to that. I have serioius doubts about us being able to respond 100% to another conflict at the moment.

The Reserves are in just as bad of shape if not worse than the active duty.

I did not mean to imply that the military is not stressed. I was saying it is stressed because the American public and politicians insist on “arm chair” wars where normal life is unaffected by conflict. On 9/11, America was attacked more viciously than at Pearl Harbor, certainly in life, most likely in treasure, and worst of all, against civilians. After Pearl Harbor, America was mobilized against a formidable known enemy. After 9/11, America went to war with, an enemy while nebulous, is every bit as formidable. Instead of dedication to war, it is a sideshow to normal life. As a result, resources are limited and a minimum of effort is expended, thus stressing the forces we have. With making only a small commitment, necessary forces and materiel can easily be provided, alleviating the stress, and a bit more would be required to face a new threat. However, it would stress our forces even more before it could be alleviated. What was the tour of duty in WWII? I suspect quite stressful. Is it right, no, should adequate forces have been provided, yes. Effort can be made, just not in our comfort area and should not be shouldered by our military alone.

As for stopping another aggressive act, I think we have more than sufficient forces to prevent aggression, even with soldiers in Iraq. Remember, preventing aggression does not require forces on the ground, only the elimination of aggression forces. Those Air Force and Naval personnel not on the ground in Iraq has more than enough firepower to turn the offensive force of any two, maybe three, nations into smoldering hulks within a few days. One night strike by eight B-2s (about half of the force) will eliminate up to 640 SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) targets. Air bases will be erased, command structured destroyed, deep bunkers penetrated, and fixed radar and missile sites eliminated. That, followed up by wild weasels on pop-up targets, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, and others would eliminate any strike forces. Of course, don’t forget the Navy, (we probably have about six carriers that could be deployed) helping out with air strikes and cruise missiles strikes from ships and submarines. No, I don’t think we are particularly weak.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by freebird

Great points, Dave, a good debate.


Yes but it only works if you are RIGHT

So, stubborn that can be good or bad (good stubbornness is call tenaciousness) is a variable depending on the outcome. Bush may indeed be correct in Iraq. The jury is still out. Bush may still be stubborn (bad) or tenacious (good).

I wouldn't call it a "failure", but the plunging dollar, loss of manufacturing jobs, huge trade defecit, massive government debt {held by the Chinese!} are significant problems that have only exacerbated in the last 7 years.

Still an outstanding performance for an economy under such (probably historical) pressure.

But less likely in wartime. {Republican} Grant followed Lincoln, Truman followed Roosevelt. The Republicans SHOULD have been well ahead at this point, due to voters unease with Democrats defence abilities.

Not since ’45.

I would far rather have seen him deal with Iraq quickly and get out, leaving the "nation building" experiment for another day. Then in the quick aftermath of a successful Iraq, Iran would have been much easier to deal with.

Very dangerous. An unstable Iraq would have pitted Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds against each other drawing the attention of Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria, all sitting in an area vital to the primary energy source of the West (approx. 50-60% of easy oil). A disruption here could have easily thrown the world into a depression, or a much larger war or, more likely, both.

Huh? Roosevelt was not in charge at Kassarine, an inexperienced and weak officer {Fredandall} dropped the ball, Eisenhower got rid of him quickly.

If Bush is responsible for Iraq military failures, then Roosevelt was also.

I think you mean Gallipoli actually, the Dieppe fiasco was mainly Mountbatten's poor planning.

Again, if Bush is responsible for Iraq military failures, then Churchill was also. Gallipoli will work, too.

Poor intelligence allowed the buildup to be undetected. The Germans were bound to counterattack, and the Allies dealt with it. I don't consider the bulge to be their "failings"

With the deaths of 19,000 soldiers in slightly more than one month, or 30% of the deaths in Vietnam in 10+ years, I definitely would call this a failure of the leadership!

General Custer was also considered stubborn. It really depends on the outcome....

So, the wisdom of stubbornness depends on the outcome.

Actually I think it was more balanced than that. The real fool in this seems to be the "chocolate" Mayor Nagin

Yes, he was the worst. But their were enough blame to go around.

Ah, John McCain is a name that comes to mind. {Or Ronald Reagan}

Certainly acceptable to me.

I can't agree with this, the fact that a terrorist attack did or did not take place cannot be totally the effect of the President

Well, just like bad things are blamed on the President, good things should be given credit to him and I am sure history will record it that way.

Seven years before 9/11 there were a lot of attacks against the US, after 9/11, almost none. Inescapable statistics, something changed.

I think he has had a lot to do with it. He instigated many improvements in security that apparently has panned out (some controversial). In addition, the attack on Afghanistan put training in a hole and eliminated top Al Qaeda leaders and basically put them on the run in Afghanistan. Following that, the invasion of Iraq changed their focus to Iraq, a place they had determined was vital to be free of US influence (according to Osama himself). In my opinion, the attack on Iraq was strategically masterful, probably unintentionally so. Basically, it was an attack on the opposing king, always a strategy of defense worthy of consideration. Immediately, Al Qaeda focused on Iraq, first they recognized that they needed to defend the middle of the Middle East, then they thought it would unite Arab opposition to the US and draw in more volunteers (which it did), and would be killing field of the US (which it did not). Al Qaeda operatives came in droves to Iraq and initially caused lots of problems. Many, probably most, died there. There was no exporting of terror from Iraq. Now there is a belief that they are fleeing Iraq for Afghanistan, a good thing since, while they are harder to track down, it is easier to keep them from causing trouble, being a long way from the oil aorta of the West. I think all of these attacks have kept them on their heels.

I am sure some luck had something to do with it.

[Njaco]

If you give up your rights to the goverment for safety then you will eventually have neither rights nor safety.

Didn't the Supreme Court just rule on this for the dimocrats in Wash DC? At least the Conservatives are more open about it than the sneaky way the liberals want to take away freedoms.

Let them tap my phones and email with guidelines. Won't stop my life. And I'm not afraid of anything I do. Just stop intruding in my life with nonsense, failing programs.

[Amsel]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Didn't the Supreme Court just rule on this for the dimocrats in Wash DC? At least the Conservatives are more open about it than the sneaky way the liberals want to take away freedoms.

Let them tap my phones and email with guidelines. Won't stop my life. And I'm not afraid of anything I do. Just stop intruding in my life with nonsense, failing programs.

Liberals as well as neocon politicians want to take away rights.

Liberals with their international marxism

And neocons with their perpetual war for peace which is economically devastating, and perpetual.

The new laws of the world are insane and damaging to the western world. The church of PC is communism manifested.

When was the last time you agreed with congress?

Did you vote for NAFTA? Does congress enforce immigration laws? Does congress make laws limiting speculation on energy?

[toiditm]

What I wrote before of course misrepresents it as the fault of the executive. The Congress has turned itself into an organ of the executive. It supports secrecy, supports the negotiation of policy in the public interest behind closed doors, has no apprehensions about signing away the rights of citizens, and is unashamed to vote against the rights amended in the Constitution. The politics of personal destruction has led to widespread adoption of the cult of personality. Politicians believe that if they side with the president on every issue, this gives them a low profile and puts them in line with the majority because the president won the big election. Only Stalinists preparing for a purge think like this; reasonable men and women realize that campaigning and polling as a career does not automatically result in good laws and that their viewpoints should stand on their own merits, not waving in the wind for the chance of re-election. Judicial reviews have struck down several gross abuses of the Constitution, but when it comes down to it Americans are more interested in the personal life of the president than the legislation that is being passed with his approval. The only piece of legislation worth a damn in the last ten years was passed in the Senate by John McCain and Russ Feingold to reign in campaign finances and was then gutted and rubber stamped by the House.

Cult of personality and name (even brand) recognition is the only credential worth anything in DC now because the federal government is more concerned with keeping Americans content than addressing the consequences of energy addiction and overconsumption.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Amsel

While I like to have friends and be "credible" I was just posting my opinion. My opinion does not make me many friends in the court of popular opinions these days.

While I do not mean to sling mud at fellow forum members I do stand by my assessment of treason to the American people. I swear no allegiance to the goverment,only the people and the rule of law under the original constitution.

Other then that I have no credibility. I would suggest researching the matter if it interests you. I am sure you can find a "spin" to any topic concerning his majesty.

While most Americans are comfortable with a massive goverment making laws that could have an horrible affect on the people if abused,there are some like myself who want to limit the goverment and its socialistic tendencies to what the goverment is intended for.

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am going to read about warbirds now. The only reason I am on this awesome forum.

Well Mr. Amsel - I just want to throw out there, in case you're interested, that YOUR opinionated version of treason is not supported by the US Constitution that you claim to hold so dearly. If you believe the Act is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down by the courts across the board, but this has not happened. They took an oath, just as I have, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Do you believe we are all just running around committing "treason?"

I have asked twice regarding how the Patriot Act violates the Third Amendment and been ignored... I am only asking you to back up your claim.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by davparlr

So, stubborn that can be good or bad (good stubbornness is call tenaciousness) is a variable depending on the outcome. Bush may indeed be correct in Iraq. The jury is still out. Bush may still be stubborn (bad) or tenacious (good).

So, the wisdom of stubbornness depends on the outcome.

Pretty much it does.

Consider the case in 1940:
In 1940 Hitler over-ruled his Generals, who were nervous about attacking France. Germany had less tanks, less guns & 93 divisions in the north {army group A, B, C} facing 134 French, British, Dutch & Belgian divisions. Many Generals thought it was suicide. Hitler took a gamble, and the British/French defence folded up like a cheap tent. Hitler looked like a genius.

HOWEVER - if the Allies had properly posititioned their reserves, they could have defeated Germany, and Hitler would have looked like a reckless fool.

So yes, it does depend on whether you are RIGHT!

Originally Posted by davparlr

If Bush is responsible for Iraq military failures, then Roosevelt was also.

Again, if Bush is responsible for Iraq military failures, then Churchill was also. Gallipoli will work, too.

With the deaths of 19,000 soldiers in slightly more than one month, or 30% of the deaths in Vietnam in 10+ years, I definitely would call this a failure of the leadership!

Kassarine: The difference is this - Eisenhower sacked Fredandall after Kassarine, if there was a problem with leadership he dealt with it - otherwise his head is on the line. If had not corrected the problems , Marshall and Roosevelt would have had to replace him - or be accused of weak leadership.

The problem with Iraq was the Bush White House was that they took a couple of years to recognize or admit there was a problem.

Churchill responsible for many British failures in WWII? Sorry but I would have to agree with this conclusion. His flawed strategies for Greece, Singapore, North Africa cost the British dearly. There were many disasterous Churchill plans that thankfully were not carried out - because the Chief of the British army was a stubborn Irishman and blocked the more foolish plans! {He was stubborn and RIGHT!}

As for the Bulge - heavy casualties yes, but so was Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Anzio, Cassino and many others. I don't think you can put too much blame on Ike for the Bulge.