The Army is getting it right, finally!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scrutiny means you might want to know why your society is going down the toilet bowl...

Or, farther from home, why sheiks sitting on piles of dead saurians, have to import just about everything they use.
 
Remember how long it took the Southern states in this country to recognize other races and let go of their hate and resentment after the Civil War?

Funny, not the way the South remembers it. Seems that the laws and black codes that caused the civil rights issues didn't start until about 20 years after the civil war had ended.

Aside from the fact that for generations, blacks and whites cohabitated. Generally in the same house. There were also free back men living in the south, college educated, who were never slaves.

And a number of interesting looking children running around. Hard to say, but when the man's been away for years... a lot of things happen in war. The biggest reason why a lot of men simply shut up and took the blame is that a woman could get killed for that sort of thing in the old days. But I am sure it happened nonetheless.

Oh well. The Emancipation Proclamation. Good thing, huh? Except in places like Maryland, who didn't have one until 1864, a full 4 years after the war had started. But it didn't apply to them, only to the states named in it.

It would almost be like HR 1022, but only for (insert specifics here). Might ruffle a few feathers, to say the least. But then, losers never were much good at writing history. My .02 - YMMV
 
Scrutiny means you might want to know why your society is going down the toilet bowl...

So our society is going down the toilet bowl because some people inherit wealth? Or because people like me (mortgage banker) broker transactions between willing buyers and sellers, who apparently view our services as worth the expense?

Yeah, passing on your wealth to your kids and/or making deals possible for folks, that's flat evil alright... :rolleyes:
 
Or because people like me (mortgage banker) broker transactions between willing buyers and sellers, who apparently view our services as worth the expense?

Yeah, passing on your wealth to your kids and/or making deals possible for folks, that's flat evil alright...

It would be nice if Americans were actually planning on passing on their
"wealth" to their kids. Instead they take out loans for 125% of appraised
value on too much house in the first place, park leased vehicles encrusted
with the latest useless bling in the three car garage, and then proceed to
fill the house up with cr@p of little real value while paying 23+% extra for it
on a maxed out credit card.

Yes, there are people who do better financial planning than that and live on
more modest means, but we have a negative savings rate as a country. When
my grandparents owned their home and vehicle (notice that's not plural)
after WWII it was paid off, ie, really owned by them --not owned by a
bank that had sold it to another bank which in turn sold it to another bank
somewhere across the country. No one from their generation showed up
at a bank and said "I want a house and a car, but I have little or no down
payment for either." They would have been laughed out of the lobby. Nowadays,
they'd get a loan, a credit card, and would be on their way out the door for
the plasma screen TV.

Speaking of loans and mortgages: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/24/cnusecon24.xml

Panic has begun to sweep the sub-prime mortgage sector in the United States after the bankruptcy of 22 lenders over the past two months, setting off mass liquidation of housing loans packaged as securities.
....
Peter Schiff, head of Euro Pacific Capital, said the sector was in an unstoppable meltdown. "It's a self-perpetuating spiral: as sub-prime companies tighten lending they create even more defaults," he said.

The greatest generation of my grandparents went through a depression,
fought a war, and built the world's best economy --which was meant to
last past them. The boomers and the gen-Xers have sold it off since then
piece by piece. It hasn't been about evil. Just short-sighted stupidity.

So how does this bode for our national defense? How about our liberty? How
about the very social fabric of our country? Again, all we have to do is look
at history from Rome to Weimar to see where we are headed right now. Every
one of us who took an oath past and present do not want to see it come to
that. Where will the Army fall in on that? Hard to tell. I hope the fiasco at
Walter Reed isn't indicative of our continued health under future leadership.

It is still preventable, but only with some pain.
 
TBL & carebear:

Middlemen & especially middlemen minorities (Jews in Europe, overseas Chinese in Asia, etc.) have always been resented by the economically ignorant. Lotsa pogroms were just exercises in killing the guys who you owed money.

There is a reason why middlemen exist: the manufacturer/originator or end-seller/retailer does not want to get into the business for some reason. Most times, it is a good reason. Such as, the manufacturer wants to focus on his core strengths: making widgets or sime such. Setting up distribution channels would be a money-loser for the manufacturer.

OTOH, middlemen distributors can distribute product & make $$$. Distribution IS one of their core competencies.

In many cases, the product would not be available without middlemen. Or, it might be available in a highly inconvenient format.
 
To answer a previous poster's question as to why America has folks who want to stab the troops in the back and can not find any reason to support America over the head-choppers from the religion of peace...

Like the poor, they are always with us. Sometimes, they can be motivated to pull for America. WWII, being the greatest example, since the leftist darling Josef Stalin & the USSR was at risk getting the uSA in to the war was an imperitive after June, 1941.

In the case of Iraq and the threat of militant Islam in general, only America's and Western Civ's interests are at risk. Nothing they love is on the line.
 
I have nothing against middlemen or against debt. Both are tools for a stronger, more resilient, and more prosperous economy. Personal debt and national debt can both be used to solve short-term problems of liquidity and make things happen that otherwise wouldn't. Keynsian economics works, if it's done right.

The problem is that we have become a nation in which almost no one actually produces real goods from natural resources. The balance has been completely lost, so that the healthy percentage of middlemen that once aided the economy has now become a burden. The few producers are having a harder and harder time supporting the vast middle that siphons off so much of the wealth. No one wants to get their hands dirty.

Bankers, likewise, don't perform their valued function anymore, as much as enabling overconsumption and brokering packages to be bundled into investment vehicles for hedge funds. It's a scam.

To answer a previous poster's question as to why America has folks who want to stab the troops in the back and can not find any reason to support America over the head-choppers from the religion of peace...
Nice bogeyman. Now, find an example of anyone who fits that description.
 
ML said:
jfruser said:
To answer a previous poster's question as to why America has folks who want to stab the troops in the back and can not find any reason to support America over the head-choppers from the religion of peace...
Nice bogeyman. Now, find an example of anyone who fits that description.

First, a few hoary old America-haters from wayback...

Noam Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

Howard Zinn
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...sPrager&dt=09/12/2006&page=full&comments=true
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...sPrager&dt=09/19/2006&page=full&comments=true


How 'bout some recently imported Ameirca-haters?

CAIR & the Irving Mosque
http://www.cair-net.org/
http://www.irvingmasjid.org/


Maybe even government-funded America-haters...

Middle East Studies Association (MESA)
http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/414

Ward Churchill
http://wardchurchill.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200503240801.asp


--------------

There are plenty of fifth columnists to be found. The above are only a small sampling.
 
So if I think

that the war in Iraq is bad for America, and that George Bush is totally incompetent to the position he holds, and that his Presidency is harming America, then I hate America?

That's very interesting.

When did the President become the country?

--Shannon

"If I did not love my country, I would not hate George W. Bush" - some guy on the internets
 
So if I think
that the war in Iraq is bad for America, and that George Bush is totally incompetent to the position he holds, and that his Presidency is harming America, then I hate America?

That's very interesting.

When did the President become the country?

That's one way to misstate the case against what the Left is up to these days.

If one thought the Iraq War was bad for America, the time to make that case came and went in 2002 and very early in 2003.

In for a penny, in for a pound. One is hard pressed to find a Democratic "leader" around today who didn't make a "mistake" back then.

The duty is clear. If one thinks the effort is salvagable, one offers constructive criticism, but one doesn't publically break ranks.

If one thinks the effort already "lost," then marshall up one's domestic allies, grab hold of the levers of power at hand, and make the case to end it by attempting to ACTUALLY end it.

Instead, what have we seen coming out of the Left's "leaders" since 2004?

John Kerry "had a plan."

Hillary is playing a charisma-less Fonzie. . .can't say she was ". . .wwuuuhhrrnnggg."

Barack Obama didn't have to have a position regarding the vote to go, unfortunately for him, he has no greater strategy than sticking his foot into his own formerly "wasted" ass.

Edwards continues to show the mettle that has earned him the nickname "The Breck Girl" by owning up to his "mistake." Again no plan for the future or sense of the larger stakes.

Speaking only for myself, no candidate is going to be allowed to get away with a symbolic and meaningless vote or position regarding a resolution as some sort of proxy for having an actual position on our national security interests.

The Left openly brays about trying to create another Vietnam, atmospherically at least. They promulgate a resolution that does nothing but provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

They tacitly endorse the “surge” or “escalation” as it is put by those who have no respect for what a real “escalation” of force would entail, by voting in Gen. Petraeus with a mandate to try to win the peace. . .

. . .and simultaneously set about loudly stabbing that same General in the back with “no confidence declarations” regarding the president, who chose him to carry out a strategy he was confirmed to by Congress in order to accomplish.

If the Left is serious in its anti-war sentiment, the Left needs new leadership that is going to walk the talk.
 
The problem is that we have become a nation in which almost no one actually produces real goods from natural resources. The balance has been completely lost, so that the healthy percentage of middlemen that once aided the economy has now become a burden. The few producers are having a harder and harder time supporting the vast middle that siphons off so much of the wealth. No one wants to get their hands dirty.

Excellent post, greed is a killer of all great societies.
 
That's about the most un-American thing I've read on this site.

A concept of patriotism or love of country as expressed via a far-reaching contempt for, and unceasing loathing of, one's own country, is a a pretty tough sell.;)
 
A concept of patriotism or love of country as expressed via a far-reaching contempt for, and unceasing loathing of, one's own country, is a a pretty tough sell.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have bought into it -- along with the odd concept that the way to "support the troops" is to encourage the enemy to kill more of them, with the assurance they can win in the streets of the US what they cannot win on the battlefields of the Middle East.
 
Quote:
A concept of patriotism or love of country as expressed via a far-reaching contempt for, and unceasing loathing of, one's own country, is a a pretty tough sell.
Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have bought into it -- along with the odd concept that the way to "support the troops" is to encourage the enemy to kill more of them, with the assurance they can win in the streets of the US what they cannot win on the battlefields of the Middle East.

And a lot of people (actually very few these days, but a lot around here) have bought into the concept that the way to "support the troops" is to encourage venal, incompetent political leaders who continue to mis-lead them deeper into a quagmire.
 
ML said:
jfruser said:
First, a few hoary old America-haters from wayback...
That's about the most un-American thing I've read on this site.

Riiiiiight...

Being apologists for a genocidal asiatic regime & attempting to pin the blame on the USA...that's lovin' America, bay-beee! And its what made this country great!

Calling them to account for their vile writings...un-American & low (What could I have ben thinking!?! :confused: ) :rolleyes:

-------------

tube-ee said:
So if I think that the war in Iraq is bad for America, and that George Bush is totally incompetent to the position he holds, and that his Presidency is harming America, then I hate America?
I don't know. Do you? Perhaps you could give us more to work with if you desire an evaluation? I would warn you however, that correlation is not causation.

The folks & groups I listed have voluminous records that allow such a diagnosis.

tube-ee said:
That's very interesting.
Not really. America-hating has been around for a while and is quite common.

tube-ee said:
When did the President become the country?
You're going to have to answer this question yourself, I am afraid, since you are the fellow misstating the arguments of your opponents.

I am sure you'll find many a straw man to flail at and claim VICTORY!
 
And a lot of people (actually very few these days, but a lot around here) have bought into the concept that the way to "support the troops" is to encourage venal, incompetent political leaders who continue to mis-lead them deeper into a quagmire.

I take it you have never served in combat?
 
Here's my take on Iraq

The POTUS swears to uphold the COTUS. The COTUS says we can go to war only when there is a Clear And Present Danger to the US. If the POTUS believed there was a CAPD to the US he had every right to invade Iraq and is in fact required to invade Iraq and destroy that danger. Whether or not he actually believed there was CAPD is another topic but for the sake of this argument I will assume he did. Had he not invaded Iraq he would have failed in his duties as POTUS. So he did invade Iraq. We were looking for WMD or the facilities and/or materials to create/build WMDs. We invaded, destroyed their military infrastructure, found a grand total of one artillery shell with sarin on it, and declared on Jan 12 2005 that we were no longer looking for WMD in Iraq. That was the last day that this war was Constitutional. We should have packed our stuff and got out.

If a CAPD appears in the form of Iran or South Korea the COTUS only allows for the elimination of that danger. We seek and destroy until we are satisfied that the danger no longer exists then we get the heck out.

I believe that the COTUS is written this way because our founding fathers were wise enough men to see that occupation by a foreign army will fail. Afterall they had just defeated an occupying army themselves.
 
Oh and the attitude that "the debate is over because our glorious leaders have made a decision" is worthy of a slave.

No one said the debate is over. Problem is, no one on the Left is "debating" anything. The use of the word "debate" implies a seriousness and sense of purpose the jackass party has yet to demonstrate.
 
The problem is that we have become a nation in which almost no one actually produces real goods from natural resources. The balance has been completely lost, so that the healthy percentage of middlemen that once aided the economy has now become a burden. The few producers are having a harder and harder time supporting the vast middle that siphons off so much of the wealth. No one wants to get their hands dirty.

Bankers, likewise, don't perform their valued function anymore, as much as enabling overconsumption and brokering packages to be bundled into investment vehicles for hedge funds. It's a scam.

That was my point, thanks.

I was thinking of the increasing disconnect between creative, productive labor and the manipulative class, not the useful work of conscientious middlemen.

Yeah, I have a problem with the George Soros type who plays games with currencies and makes more money in one day than Edison, Browning, and so many others made, combined, in a lifetime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top