Recently you stated that in your opinion the military could fight on
three fronts and not lose any capability. I thought you might be
interested in what the Pentagon had to say about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
Recently you stated that in your opinion the military
could fight on three fronts and not lose any capability.
I thought you might be interested in what the Pentagon
had to say about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

The name of the game in the military is called "appropriations". Their
stated capabilities are therefore politically and economically significant.
What they'd do if they *had to* might be something else.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently you stated that in your opinion the military could fight on
three fronts and not lose any capability. I thought you might be
interested in what the Pentagon had to say about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

The story related the findings of a study commissioned by the Pentagon, it
is not the position of the Pentagon.

The obvious solution is to do something to help encourage enlistment,
something that likely would be opposed by the Democrats since it would
lessen their ability to buy votes with giveaway programs. We can generally
count on the Leftists to be opposed to anything that strengthens our ability
to defend ourselves.

From:
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:46:02 GMT

The obvious solution is to do something to help encourage enlistment,
something that likely would be opposed by the Democrats since it would
lessen their ability to buy votes with giveaway programs. We can generally
count on the Leftists to be opposed to anything that strengthens our ability
to defend ourselves.

Hm. Presidential election of last year. Kerry advocates creating two
more army divisions, one each in special operations and support.

Bush: "We're winning this thing and don't need any more help."

Since when is Bush a leftist?

There are recruiting bonuses already in place in the tens of thousands
of dollars. If they offer, say, $500,000 I might even join. Of course,
then you replace a professional military with mercenaries.

The report isn't going to be the official position of the Pentagon. It
was a third-party unbiased look. In fact, one might expect a former
army officer to write how great everything is.

What is Rumsfeld's position? Let's look at what he said in response:

Duck #1

"This armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld told reporters
at a Pentagon briefing. "In addition, it's battle hardened. It's
not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons."

Translation: the military has lots of cool weapons. We're not afraid to
use them. They've been all over the world using them recently.

"Do we still need more rebalancing? You bet," Rumsfeld said.

Rebalancing? LOL! IOW, the report is essentially correct. This isn't
about 'fine-tuning.'

"Rumsfeld said that "retention is up" and that recruitment levels
must meet higher goals, ones raised because of the operations on the
ground."

Retention is only up because of up to $50,000 or more tax-free dollars
given to young soldiers who stay in. The interesting thing to me is how
many still walk away from the money. Hey, Rummy, you are missing your
lower recruiting goals. How will you meet higher ones? Typical Rumsfeld
doublespeak.

"There is no question if a country is in a conflict and we are in the
global war on terror, it requires our forces to do something other than
what they do in peacetime."

Translation: The sky is over our heads, and it rains sometimes. When it
rains, it tends to get cloudy first. Stating the obvious, not at all
related to what the report said.

"The world saw the United States military go halfway around the world
in a matter of weeks, throw the al-Qaida and Taliban out of
Afghanistan, in a landlocked country thousands and thousands of miles
away. They saw what the United States military did in Iraq.

"And the message from that is not that this armed force is broken,
but that this armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld said.

Transalation: In World War II we kicked butt. In Korea we kicked butt.
That was a long time ago. The world saw us go halfway around the world
and kick butt in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Who could possibly say there
are any issues in the military, given that we kicked butt as recently
as three years ago?

Soldiers vote with their feet. Recruiting missed its goal last year by
over 8%. That is a very significant number when one considers the
thousands of dollars offered in enlistment bonuses. While recruiting
apparently is meeting its goals this year, the goals were revised
significantly downward.

Retention goals are always a loss. You never keep 100%. So you have a
goal of, say retaining 30 or 50 percent.

Therefore, you have dwindling numbers. You aren't recruiting enough to
make up losses, and you aren't retaining enough to stop the flow. Given
the tempo of world-wide operations (read deployments) it isn't too hard
to see that the point of the report is true: the military could soon
reach a breaking point.

Political bull**** aside, there are large issues facing the readiness
of our military. That the leadership of the country seems oblivious to
that is alarming to me. Rummy didn't even address equipment issues.
There's no point in addressing those, since you have to have people to
operate the equipment in the first place.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:46:02 GMT

The obvious solution is to do something to help encourage enlistment,
something that likely would be opposed by the Democrats since it would
lessen their ability to buy votes with giveaway programs. We can
generally
count on the Leftists to be opposed to anything that strengthens our
ability
to defend ourselves.

Hm. Presidential election of last year. Kerry advocates creating two
more army divisions, one each in special operations and support.

Bush: "We're winning this thing and don't need any more help."

Since when is Bush a leftist?

He's not, he's just reacting to the politics of that moment, where the Dems
were trying to make it seem like we didn't have enough people in uniform.


There are recruiting bonuses already in place in the tens of thousands
of dollars. If they offer, say, $500,000 I might even join. Of course,
then you replace a professional military with mercenaries.

The report isn't going to be the official position of the Pentagon. It
was a third-party unbiased look. In fact, one might expect a former
army officer to write how great everything is.

I don't think there is such a thing as an unbiased third party when it comes
to the military, or almost anything else that has anything to do with
politics. YMMV

What is Rumsfeld's position? Let's look at what he said in response:

Duck #1

"This armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld told reporters
at a Pentagon briefing. "In addition, it's battle hardened. It's
not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons."

Translation: the military has lots of cool weapons. We're not afraid to
use them. They've been all over the world using them recently.

Sure, Clinton had them all over the place.


"Do we still need more rebalancing? You bet," Rumsfeld said.

Rebalancing? LOL! IOW, the report is essentially correct. This isn't
about 'fine-tuning.'

An opinion you get to have.

"Rumsfeld said that "retention is up" and that recruitment levels
must meet higher goals, ones raised because of the operations on the
ground."

Retention is only up because of up to $50,000 or more tax-free dollars
given to young soldiers who stay in. The interesting thing to me is how
many still walk away from the money. Hey, Rummy, you are missing your
lower recruiting goals. How will you meet higher ones? Typical Rumsfeld
doublespeak.

An opinion you get to have.

"There is no question if a country is in a conflict and we are in the
global war on terror, it requires our forces to do something other than
what they do in peacetime."

Translation: The sky is over our heads, and it rains sometimes. When it
rains, it tends to get cloudy first. Stating the obvious, not at all
related to what the report said.


"The world saw the United States military go halfway around the world
in a matter of weeks, throw the al-Qaida and Taliban out of
Afghanistan, in a landlocked country thousands and thousands of miles
away. They saw what the United States military did in Iraq.

"And the message from that is not that this armed force is broken,
but that this armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld said.

Transalation: In World War II we kicked butt. In Korea we kicked butt.
That was a long time ago. The world saw us go halfway around the world
and kick butt in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Who could possibly say there
are any issues in the military, given that we kicked butt as recently
as three years ago?

Soldiers vote with their feet. Recruiting missed its goal last year by
over 8%. That is a very significant number when one considers the
thousands of dollars offered in enlistment bonuses. While recruiting
apparently is meeting its goals this year, the goals were revised
significantly downward.

Retention goals are always a loss. You never keep 100%. So you have a
goal of, say retaining 30 or 50 percent.

Therefore, you have dwindling numbers. You aren't recruiting enough to
make up losses, and you aren't retaining enough to stop the flow. Given
the tempo of world-wide operations (read deployments) it isn't too hard
to see that the point of the report is true: the military could soon
reach a breaking point.

Maybe, maybe not. The people I keep hearing from who are staioned in Iraq
are very dedicated to the goals there and don't want to quit. Even if they
did the only way to make up for what you seem to think is a crisis, would be
to institute a draft, which would be one of the worst things that could be
done becuase of the lack of dedication of the draftees.


Political bull**** aside, there are large issues facing the readiness
of our military. That the leadership of the country seems oblivious to
that is alarming to me. Rummy didn't even address equipment issues.
There's no point in addressing those, since you have to have people to
operate the equipment in the first place.

An opinion you get to have. Perhaps if the Dems hadn't been systematically
trying to dismantle so many of the things that help us gather information,
things would be drastically different.

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

That Democrats are screaming the sky is falling about the military strikes
me as just another bit of politics played for the purpose of trying to make
Bush look bad.

They always have a double standard and pretend that they have good reasons
for their actions, case in point Judge Alito. When he was last up for
confirmation he was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the Senate. The Dems seem to
think that they have to fight extra hard because he would be replacing a
swing vote on the Supreme Court. They blank out the fact that Justices are
appointed by the President and if they are qualified they should be
confirmed, just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg(sp?) was. It seems very apparent to
me that she's more to the left than Alito is to the right, but that doesn't
seem to register with the Dems, they simply want to distort the character of
any GOP nominated judge.

The most laughable thing about this is that nobody ever knows what the hell
a Justice will do when they get to the bench. Earl Warren was a major
surprise and perhaps one of the worst people ever to be on the high court,
so it is always a crap shoot.

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the Constitution.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

Same could be said tor President Bush, even though one had the
experience of 9/11 and the other didn't.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

How 'bout that Fourth Amendment?

Stephen

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:38:35 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

How 'bout that Fourth Amendment?

It all depends on your definition of the word "unreasonable" as well
as the definition of "public use", I suppose.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

Same could be said tor President Bush, even though one had the
experience of 9/11 and the other didn't.

The platter was more like a drippy diaper.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...




......for public purposes (not that Mikey agrees with that, either)



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:38:35 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

How 'bout that Fourth Amendment?

It all depends on your definition of the word "unreasonable" as well
as the definition of "public use", I suppose.


also, whether one considers the phone call the domain of the person in the
US,
or the domain of person outside the US. If they are monitoring calls
to/from a particular Al-Queda terrorist overseas, and he happens
to call or take a call form the US, we should NOT stop listening to
that call.

The Pres should keep doing it,
until and if the Supreme Court tells him to stop.Its not
a violation till the Supreme Court says it is




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.
Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Virgil wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
oups.com:

Recently you stated that in your opinion the military could fight on
three fronts and not lose any capability. I thought you might be
interested in what the Pentagon had to say about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

I'm not sure I agree with this outside review of the Army. I returned from
Iraq after a year there and what I see now is an Army running on all
cylinders but not yet stretched to the breaking point. What I do see are
issues with the National Guard and Reserves, often less well-trained with
less esprit and with soldiers not as willing to put up with more than one
deployment. In one sense the Army's skills are probably now honed as well
as I've ever seen them in the fifteen years I've been in the active-duty
and Reserves, combat zones tend to do that.

Still this isn't exactly war... fighting on fronts means an organized
enemy you can go out and destroy. Obviously a task the Army is much
better suited for than securing the peace.
I have no doubt our combined military could take out 3 Iraqs but they
couldn't conduct 3 secure the peace/nation building excercises
simultaneously.

On a different note... I find it really amusing that people are crying
that Iraq is a mistake while Iran is the real enemy with their nuke
program. Strategically, I think taking on Iran militarily is much
more viable after having eliminated Husseins armies and opened 2 of
Irans borders to ground operations. I doubt it will come to that..
but if Hussein was still in place there'd be a danger he would throw
his armies into the fight.

ScottW

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..


It figures that you will try and put a spin of your own on anything I say.

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that
will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

No, good Constitution, it allows for changes, because they knew it wasn't
perfect, it was a compromise in some cases, but a damn sight better than the
Articles of Confederation.

That it has stood the test of so much time with so few changes is testament
to how good it is, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Of course for
Liberals it hardly counts at all, since they continually refer to it as, "a
living breathing document." Forgetting of course that the way to change it
is not through stupid court decisions, but through the ammendment process.

Sorry that you think it's OK to force people off their property for any
governmental whim, and even worse now that they have decided that it's IK to
do it for things like a new strip mall or whatever the **** they think is
better than a persons home.

From:
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT

Nob, you should start all your political posts with a disclaimer: "The
following is a paid political advertisement of the GOP. I am Nob, and I
approve of this message."

You state several times that what I said is "An opinion (I) get to
have."

All opinions are not equal. I don't think your opinion in this case is
as valid as my opinion. What years exactly did you serve in uniform?
What grade did you hold when you left? You mention that you've talked
with soldiers in Iraq. Are these on the news, friends of friends, or
people you personally know?

I get to have opinions based on 21 years in uniform, from 1984 to 2005.
I commanded three units in that time. I entered service as a PV2. I
retired as a major last October. I have been deployed. I have earned
imminent danger/hostile fire pay. The people I talk to in Iraq and
Afghanistan are friends of mine. Some hold high rank. Some are
enlisted. Some are commanding units on the ground. Some are fliers.
They are there right now. I hear the opinions they get to have without
the media or White House filter.

I would suggest that my opinion could be qualified as an 'expert'
opinion. Can you say the same?

On to your propaganda:

Since when is Bush a leftist?

He's not, he's just reacting to the politics of that moment, where the Dems
were trying to make it seem like we didn't have enough people in uniform.

"In uniform" includes the Air Force and the Navy. We probably have
enough there. The Army and Marines are doing the bulk of the taskings
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Further, over 50% of those currently deployed
are reservists. Here's another factoid for you: not only is recruiting
down, but the pipeline of people leaving active duty and going into the
reserves is basically dry. People are getting out and staying out.
These are numbers, not opinions. As these reservists go into their
second and third deployments, they come back and their jobs are gone.
Divorce rates are up. They face all kinds of problems when they get
back. I have also started hearing about firms passing on reservists as
employees because of the fear that they will be deployed. And yes, I
know very well about the legal protections offered to soldiers that get
deployed. As with anything else, there are ways aound those laws.

We do not have enough people in uniform. It's getting worse, not
better. It's not political or opinion. It's a fact I get to have. And
we still have not talked about equipment readiness.

Translation: the military has lots of cool weapons. We're not afraid to
use them. They've been all over the world using them recently.

Sure, Clinton had them all over the place.

LOL! The old 'blame Clinton' conservative saw. Are you seriously trying
to compare military deployments during the Clinton years to now? You
lose.

An opinion you get to have.
An opinion you get to have.
An opinion you get to have.

See above. So are you a chickenhawk, or did you actually serve? If you
served, was it for more than two years, and were you higher than a
corporal when you got out?

Maybe, maybe not. The people I keep hearing from who are staioned in Iraq
are very dedicated to the goals there and don't want to quit. Even if they
did the only way to make up for what you seem to think is a crisis, would be
to institute a draft, which would be one of the worst things that could be
done becuase of the lack of dedication of the draftees.

Nice, but irrelevant. Nobody is saying, or to my knowledge has *ever*
said, that those serving are not dedicated. They are. And now that
we're in a quagmire, I think it would be irresponsible to pull out
immediately. That does not equal support for Bushie's policies.

Now ask the reservists and soldiers what their job prospects are when
they get back, whether they'll stay in or get out when their rotation
is over, or whether they want to get deployed again to Iraq or
Afghanistan. Think the answers will be the same? I can tell you what
*I* hear: "I'm gone." That's another fact I get to have.

Political bull**** aside, there are large issues facing the readiness
of our military. That the leadership of the country seems oblivious to
that is alarming to me. Rummy didn't even address equipment issues.
There's no point in addressing those, since you have to have people to
operate the equipment in the first place.

An opinion you get to have. Perhaps if the Dems hadn't been systematically
trying to dismantle so many of the things that help us gather information,
things would be drastically different.

"It's Clinton's fault!"

Um, when did the republicans take over the house? 1994? In case you
didn't know how it works, the House appropriates and funds those kind
of things. So how did the Democrats exactly pull this off, given they
were in the minority? That Clinton was one powerful fella.;-)

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

What was the report that Bushie had on September 10th? Something like,
"Osama bin Laden is Going to Hijack Several Planes and Use Them as
Weapons Against Buildings." I think that was it. What did your hero do?
He went on vacation. So let's not go there, OK?

That Democrats are screaming the sky is falling about the military strikes
me as just another bit of politics played for the purpose of trying to make
Bush look bad.

They don't need to. Bushie manages to do it all by himself.

So the reports just released about the current state of the military
are just Democrats posturing. Can I visit you in your world sometime?
It just seems so simple there.

rant about Alito snipped due to being entirely irrelvant to this
discussion, and factually wrong.

I'll address this one though:

When he was last up for confirmation he was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the Senate. The Dems seem to
think that they have to fight extra hard because he would be replacing a
swing vote on the Supreme Court.

So in your mind a judge in District Court or a Court of Appeals is
equal to a Supreme Court Justice. Can I visit your world sometime? And
all you have to be is 'qualified?' Then what was the problem with
Miers? Or in your opinion should she have been confirmed?

Ninny.

As for being a 'strict follower' of the Constitution: I want to own a
couple of nuclear weapons. According to the Bill of Rights, I have a
right to bear arms. The Constitution does not specify which arms those
strictly might be. Come to think of it, I want an aircraft carrier too,
and a squadron of F-16s. And an Ohio -class nuclear ballistic missile
submarine. Strictly speaking, why should I not have them?

Nob, you have an interesting perspective. Historically incorrect,
illogical, dense, extremely biased, but interesting. I suggest you go
review what the republican congress did to Clinton before you whine
about what the Democrats are doing to Bush. Back then, the republicans
referred to themselves as 'the loyal opposition.' Now that the shoe is
on the other foot, the republicans call the Democrats anti-American and
treasonous.

I'm sure you didn't really mean to say that. Nobody could knowingly be
that hypocritical.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT

Nob, you should start all your political posts with a disclaimer: "The
following is a paid political advertisement of the GOP. I am Nob, and I
approve of this message."


First off, I'm not a member of the GOP and have only voted for one GOP
candidate. Secondly, who the **** is Nob?

You state several times that what I said is "An opinion (I) get to
have."

That's true. Just like I get to have one that's different.

All opinions are not equal. I don't think your opinion in this case is
as valid as my opinion.

An opinion you get to have.

What years exactly did you serve in uniform?

1967-1970

What grade did you hold when you left?
E-4.

You mention that you've talked
with soldiers in Iraq. Are these on the news, friends of friends, or
people you personally know?

All of the above.

I get to have opinions based on 21 years in uniform, from 1984 to 2005.
I commanded three units in that time. I entered service as a PV2. I
retired as a major last October. I have been deployed. I have earned
imminent danger/hostile fire pay.

We just called it hazardous duty pay when we were in RVN.

The people I talk to in Iraq and
Afghanistan are friends of mine. Some hold high rank. Some are
enlisted. Some are commanding units on the ground. Some are fliers.
They are there right now. I hear the opinions they get to have without
the media or White House filter.

As do I.

I would suggest that my opinion could be qualified as an 'expert'
opinion. Can you say the same?


I would suggest that your opinion is no more valid than mine since it is
based on hearsay, just like mine is, plus your political bias, which I have
as well but it is not from a right wing point of view as you keep inferring.

On to your propaganda:

Since when is Bush a leftist?

He's not, he's just reacting to the politics of that moment, where the
Dems
were trying to make it seem like we didn't have enough people in uniform.

"In uniform" includes the Air Force and the Navy. We probably have
enough there. The Army and Marines are doing the bulk of the taskings
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Further, over 50% of those currently deployed
are reservists.

Yes and they tend to be less motivated in my experience. Whe I was in Basic
training in 1967, the National Gaurdsmen used to joke about the fact that NG
stood for Not Going. The ER's had essentially the same mindset.

Here's another factoid for you: not only is recruiting
down, but the pipeline of people leaving active duty and going into the
reserves is basically dry.

Not surprised, since they probably had not envisoned ever having to serve in
combat.

People are getting out and staying out.
These are numbers, not opinions. As these reservists go into their
second and third deployments, they come back and their jobs are gone.
Divorce rates are up. They face all kinds of problems when they get
back. I have also started hearing about firms passing on reservists as
employees because of the fear that they will be deployed.
And yes, I
know very well about the legal protections offered to soldiers that get
deployed. As with anything else, there are ways aound those laws.

We do not have enough people in uniform. It's getting worse, not
better. It's not political or opinion. It's a fact I get to have. And
we still have not talked about equipment readiness.

You'd think your buddies the Liberals would have been more generous with the
money they want the taxpayers tof ork overa had make sure we had enough to
keep up.

Translation: the military has lots of cool weapons. We're not afraid to
use them. They've been all over the world using them recently.

Sure, Clinton had them all over the place.

LOL! The old 'blame Clinton' conservative saw.

That's not blaming Clinton, it's just a fact I get to have.

Are you seriously trying
to compare military deployments during the Clinton years to now? You
lose.

**** no, that silly ******* was as incompetent at that as he was with
evrything else except getting blowjobs and feeling our pain.


An opinion you get to have.
An opinion you get to have.
An opinion you get to have.

See above. So are you a chickenhawk, or did you actually serve?

The use of the term Chickenhawk is asinine. People c an support an idea
about going to war and it doesn't reflect negatively on them simply because
tehy have not served. Yes I did serve in RVN. I was there in 1968. You
may recall that was a very busy year there.

If you
served, was it for more than two years, and were you higher than a
corporal when you got out?

Maybe, maybe not. The people I keep hearing from who are staioned in Iraq
are very dedicated to the goals there and don't want to quit. Even if
they
did the only way to make up for what you seem to think is a crisis, would
be
to institute a draft, which would be one of the worst things that could be
done becuase of the lack of dedication of the draftees.

Nice, but irrelevant. Nobody is saying, or to my knowledge has *ever*
said, that those serving are not dedicated. They are. And now that
we're in a quagmire,

We're not in a quagmire, we're in a situation that turned out to be
different than expected, but is completely winnable.

I think it would be irresponsible to pull out
immediately. That does not equal support for Bushie's policies.


It would be irresponible to pull out before the Iraqi's can defend
themselves.

Now ask the reservists and soldiers what their job prospects are when
they get back, whether they'll stay in or get out when their rotation
is over, or whether they want to get deployed again to Iraq or
Afghanistan. Think the answers will be the same? I can tell you what
*I* hear: "I'm gone." That's another fact I get to have.

Same as it was in RVN.


Political bull**** aside, there are large issues facing the readiness
of our military.

Whic the Democrats have a history of rying to subvert, since it doesn't buy
them votes.

That the leadership of the country seems oblivious to
that is alarming to me. Rummy didn't even address equipment issues.
There's no point in addressing those, since you have to have people to
operate the equipment in the first place.

An opinion you get to have. Perhaps if the Dems hadn't been
systematically
trying to dismantle so many of the things that help us gather information,
things would be drastically different.

"It's Clinton's fault!"

Partly, he's on record as "despisng" the miltiary. There's a book out by
the guy who carried the "briefcase" for which Bubba was supposed to have
launch codes, and he states that twice he lost the ****ing codes. As for
the miltiary and the Dems they have a history of not voting for the military
since it takes money away from giveaway programs.

Um, when did the republicans take over the house? 1994? In case you
didn't know how it works, the House appropriates and funds those kind
of things. So how did the Democrats exactly pull this off, given they
were in the minority? That Clinton was one powerful fella.;-)


Same way they were blocking judical appointments when there's not enough
votes to block filibuster.

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

What was the report that Bushie had on September 10th? Something like,
"Osama bin Laden is Going to Hijack Several Planes and Use Them as
Weapons Against Buildings." I think that was it. What did your hero do?
He went on vacation. So let's not go there, OK?

Thazt's been hashed out numerous times and I'm not going over it again
except to say you should have another glass of the Democrat Kool-Aid.


That Democrats are screaming the sky is falling about the military strikes
me as just another bit of politics played for the purpose of trying to
make
Bush look bad.

They don't need to. Bushie manages to do it all by himself.

So the reports just released about the current state of the military
are just Democrats posturing.

That's not what I said. Thanks for proving your dishonesty again.

Can I visit you in your world sometime?
It just seems so simple there.

rant about Alito snipped due to being entirely irrelvant to this
discussion, and factually wrong.

I'll address this one though:

When he was last up for confirmation he was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the
Senate. The Dems seem to
think that they have to fight extra hard because he would be replacing a
swing vote on the Supreme Court.

So in your mind a judge in District Court or a Court of Appeals is
equal to a Supreme Court Justice.

No, but if was qualified then, there's nothing to indicate he's not
qualified now. And you completely ignore the Ruth Bader Ginsburg issue.
All that's required is the nominee be qualified, not that he be a Liberal or
a conservative. The Democrats keepmoving the goal posts. It sued to be
they wanted someone who was considered well qualified by the American Bar,
now they want more, and if they can figure out a way to get still more
they'll go for that as well. The President gets to nominate who he wants
and as long as that person is qualified the Senate should vote to confirm.
That's the way teh GOP does it, or else Ginsburg would not be on the bench.

Can I visit your world sometime? And
all you have to be is 'qualified?' Then what was the problem with
Miers?
The GOP didn't think she was qualified, nor did most other people.

Or in your opinion should she have been confirmed?

Ninny.

Pinko.

As for being a 'strict follower' of the Constitution: I want to own a
couple of nuclear weapons. According to the Bill of Rights, I have a
right to bear arms. The Constitution does not specify which arms those
strictly might be. Come to think of it, I want an aircraft carrier too,
and a squadron of F-16s. And an Ohio -class nuclear ballistic missile
submarine. Strictly speaking, why should I not have them?

So you're for gun control? Why is it you leftists always take things to the
most absurd extremes?
Of course the evidence that gun control doiesn't work has never stoped you
guys from wanting more of it. How about we try enforcing the 300 or so laws
concerning gus we already have on the books?


Nob, you have an interesting perspective. Historically incorrect,
illogical, dense, extremely biased, but interesting.

So we have that in common.

I suggest you go
review what the republican congress did to Clinton before you whine
about what the Democrats are doing to Bush.

I suggest yo pull you head out of your ass and look at what Clinton did to
himself and the country. Why the **** do the N. Koreans have the ****ing
bomb? Bubba gave them the stuff to make it.

Back then, the republicans
referred to themselves as 'the loyal opposition.' Now that the shoe is
on the other foot, the republicans call the Democrats anti-American and
treasonous.

And now you get one of the reasons why I don't vote for them.

I'm sure you didn't really mean to say that. Nobody could knowingly be
that hypocritical.

You haven't heard of Howard Dean or Teddy Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer?
The Dems have more than their share of whack jobs.

From:
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:04:45 GMT

That's the way teh GOP does it, or else Ginsburg would not be on the bench.

Let's look at how the Democrats handled Ginsgurg an Breyer. Do you know
who President Clinton called to ask about potential nominees? That
great pinko commie left-wing liberal Orrin Hatch. Read on, dear Nob,
and see how government *should* work (as opposed to how the GOP does
it):

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/...treated-hatch/

Don't worry, I nkow you'll miss the point. That's why you're 'Nob.'

Same as it was in RVN.

Difference being there were over a million soldiers just in the army
then, and a draft to fill the pipeline...

And before you go off on your patented "the Democrats did that to the
military!" let's look at a couple of things: If, as you say, the army
is perfect the way it is, just remember that it was Clinton who made it
the way it is right now. Bush has not done a thing to it since taking
office. No new weapons systems, no increase in manpower, nothing.

Does that shoot my arguments in the foot (Clinton reduced the size of
the military, etc.)? Not at all. He took over just after the Cold War
ended. We faced a different situation then. Reducing the military was
the right thing to do at that time. We were not at war.

Now we are supposedly at war. The military is being used quite a bit in
this 'war.' Historically, when we are at war we beef up the military
and draw it down when the war is over. Bushie and Rummy apparently feel
that the military offers them the best avenue for imposing their
foreign policy, and that we are at war, and that they will use the
military quite a bit, yet they are not doing anything to increase its
manpower. They are nincompoops.

As for being a 'strict follower' of the Constitution: I want to own a
couple of nuclear weapons. According to the Bill of Rights, I have a
right to bear arms. The Constitution does not specify which arms those
strictly might be. Come to think of it, I want an aircraft carrier too,
and a squadron of F-16s. And an Ohio -class nuclear ballistic missile
submarine. Strictly speaking, why should I not have them?

So you're for gun control? Why is it you leftists always take things to the
most absurd extremes?
Of course the evidence that gun control doiesn't work has never stoped you
guys from wanting more of it. How about we try enforcing the 300 or so laws
concerning gus we already have on the books?

Another straw man from the Beacon of the Right, Nobber. Where did I say
anything about gun control? Take your meds, Nob.

My point is that if you have a strict interpretation of the
Constitution (which is what we were talking about), I am not limited by
it to small-caliber arms. It simply says 'arms.' So, with a strict
interpretation of the Constitution, why shouldn't I be allowed to own
whatever kind of arms that I want? I want an aircraft carrier, some
F-16s, and a few nukes. And a submarine. According to a strict
interpretation of the Constitution, I should be able to buy them.

I do not know what laws concerning gus are on the books.

Concerning gun control: if you strictly interpret the Constitution,
remember the whole article: "*In order to form a well-trained militia*,
the people shall have the right to have and bear arms."

The National Guard is the nation's well-trained militia. You no longer
have farmers rushing from their fields to battle with their musket,
which was the point of that article. I am not philosophically opposed
to people having guns. They should, however, be 'well-trained.' I think
a strict reading of the Constitution bears this out. I also do not
believe that any ninny should be able to get a gun. They should be
trained in gun safety, gun laws, gun operation and maintenance, how to
clear a weapon, and so on. You, for example, may be found to be
mentally incompetent and therefore not eligible for gun ownership,
especially if you keep forgetting to take your meds. The VA can help
you with your mental problems, by the way. They're there to help.

You haven't heard of Howard Dean or Teddy Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer?
The Dems have more than their share of whack jobs.

Hm. Do I choose liberal 'whack jobs' that want me to keep the rights I
am supposed to have, or do I choose fascist whack jobs that want to
*take away* rights that I already have?

Tough choice. After much deliberation, I choose the non-fascists.

I have to go now. I think my email is being read by the NSA.

By the way, where is your degree from, Nob? I'm curious where you
learned to analyze problems.

"Ssshhh! I'm Listening to Bull****!" wrote in
message oups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:04:45 GMT

That's the way the GOP does it, or else Ginsburg would not be on the
bench.

Let's look at how the Democrats handled Ginsgurg an Breyer. Do you know
who President Clinton called to ask about potential nominees? That
great pinko commie left-wing liberal Orrin Hatch. Read on, dear Nob,
and see how government *should* work (as opposed to how the GOP does
it):

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/...treated-hatch/

Don't worry, I nkow you'll miss the point. That's why you're 'Nob.'

Irrelevant. Ginsburg is who Clinton nominated and there was a straight vote
in the Senate.
What was the vote results in the Senate? Oh yeah, 96-3. When was the last
time any GOP nominated Supreme Court Justice got that kind of support from
the Dems?

Same as it was in RVN.

Difference being there were over a million soldiers just in the army
then, and a draft to fill the pipeline...

No ****?

And before you go off on your patented "the Democrats did that to the
military!" let's look at a couple of things: If, as you say, the army
is perfect the way it is, just remember that it was Clinton who made it
the way it is right now. Bush has not done a thing to it since taking
office. No new weapons systems, no increase in manpower, nothing.

I think it had more to with Reagan than with Clinton.


Does that shoot my arguments in the foot (Clinton reduced the size of
the military, etc.)? Not at all. He took over just after the Cold War
ended. We faced a different situation then. Reducing the military was
the right thing to do at that time. We were not at war.

No argument from me on that.
There's still the bull**** you tried on teh Bin Ladin memo and how the
Clinton administration warned Bush about him, Problem is, the memo should
have told where Bin Ladin was being held and what steps to help secure the
airports had been done by the Clinton administration.
Instead Bush got a vague daily memo about a guy who was going to do
something but wsa not arrested when the Sudanese offered him up. Bubba
couldn't be bothered even though there were plenty of reasons.

Now we are supposedly at war. The military is being used quite a bit in
this 'war.' Historically, when we are at war we beef up the military
and draw it down when the war is over. Bushie and Rummy apparently feel
that the military offers them the best avenue for imposing their
foreign policy, and that we are at war, and that they will use the
military quite a bit, yet they are not doing anything to increase its
manpower. They are nincompoops.

What would you have them do, you just got through saying how hugethe
incentives were now. make up your mind.


As for being a 'strict follower' of the Constitution: I want to own a
couple of nuclear weapons. According to the Bill of Rights, I have a
right to bear arms. The Constitution does not specify which arms those
strictly might be. Come to think of it, I want an aircraft carrier too,
and a squadron of F-16s. And an Ohio -class nuclear ballistic missile
submarine. Strictly speaking, why should I not have them?

So you're for gun control? Why is it you leftists always take things to
the
most absurd extremes?
Of course the evidence that gun control doiesn't work has never stoped you
guys from wanting more of it. How about we try enforcing the 300 or so
laws
concerning gus we already have on the books?

Another straw man from the Beacon of the Right, Nobber. Where did I say
anything about gun control? Take your meds, Nob.

You seemed to hinting at it.

My point is that if you have a strict interpretation of the
Constitution (which is what we were talking about), I am not limited by
it to small-caliber arms. It simply says 'arms.' So, with a strict
interpretation of the Constitution, why shouldn't I be allowed to own
whatever kind of arms that I want? I want an aircraft carrier, some
F-16s, and a few nukes. And a submarine. According to a strict
interpretation of the Constitution, I should be able to buy them.

I do not know what laws concerning gus are on the books.

Concerning gun control: if you strictly interpret the Constitution,
remember the whole article: "*In order to form a well-trained militia*,
the people shall have the right to have and bear arms."

The National Guard is the nation's well-trained militia. You no longer
have farmers rushing from their fields to battle with their musket,
which was the point of that article. I am not philosophically opposed
to people having guns. They should, however, be 'well-trained.' I think
a strict reading of the Constitution bears this out.


Sorry but that bull**** has been debunked already.

I also do not
believe that any ninny should be able to get a gun. They should be
trained in gun safety, gun laws, gun operation and maintenance, how to
clear a weapon, and so on.

So do I, so do most legal gun owners. It the criminals who don't, and the
more of them who are afraid of robbing someone because they think the victim
might be armed the better.

You, for example, may be found to be
mentally incompetent and therefore not eligible for gun ownership,
especially if you keep forgetting to take your meds.

Sorry, but I don't take that kind of medication.

The VA can help
you with your mental problems, by the way. They're there to help.


Voice of experience no doubt, seems it didn't take. Your still nuts.

You haven't heard of Howard Dean or Teddy Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer?
The Dems have more than their share of whack jobs.

Hm. Do I choose liberal 'whack jobs' that want me to keep the rights I
am supposed to have, or do I choose fascist whack jobs that want to
*take away* rights that I already have?

Clinton is gone, and when the Barret report comes out we'll get to see how
he palyed fast and loose with IRS files.

The fascist crap doesn't wash with Bush, every step he's taken has been
either approved by a judge or clearly in the interest of national security.


Tough choice. After much deliberation, I choose the non-fascists.

I have to go now. I think my email is being read by the NSA.

By the way, where is your degree from, Nob? I'm curious where you
learned to analyze problems.

Not for the Democrat talking points like you do.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:02 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..


It figures that you will try and put a spin of your own on anything I say.

Spin? I don't know how you can call this spin. You hope that a member
of the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution, a document that
explictily allows a principle that you are vehemently opposed to.

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that
will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

No, good Constitution, it allows for changes, because they knew it wasn't
perfect, it was a compromise in some cases, but a damn sight better than the
Articles of Confederation.

Well, they haven't changed it, have they? In fact, wasn't it you
raving recently about the fact that the Supreme court just reaffirmed
the 5th Amendment's approval of eminent domain. I suppose that Judge
Alito would do the same, if he's a strict constructionist.

That it has stood the test of so much time with so few changes is testament
to how good it is, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Of course for
Liberals it hardly counts at all, since they continually refer to it as, "a
living breathing document." Forgetting of course that the way to change it
is not through stupid court decisions, but through the ammendment process.

Apparently, you don't think that court decisions are the way to affirm
it either. What in the heck do we even NEED those stupid courts for
anyway?

Sorry that you think it's OK to force people off their property for any
governmental whim, and even worse now that they have decided that it's IK to
do it for things like a new strip mall or whatever the **** they think is
better than a persons home.

Unlike you, apparently I believe in the Constitution and the
principles that it enumerates.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:02 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..


It figures that you will try and put a spin of your own on anything I say.

Spin? I don't know how you can call this spin. You hope that a member
of the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution, a document that
explictily allows a principle that you are vehemently opposed to.


Which allows for changes. I would hope at some point, that Eminent Domain
would be abolished or at least severly restricted.

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that
will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

No, good Constitution, it allows for changes, because they knew it wasn't
perfect, it was a compromise in some cases, but a damn sight better than
the
Articles of Confederation.

Well, they haven't changed it, have they?

What do you call the Amendments? Seems to me they used to think that it was
possible for their to be 3/5 of a person. That's still there?

In fact, wasn't it you
raving recently about the fact that the Supreme court just reaffirmed
the 5th Amendment's approval of eminent domain. I suppose that Judge
Alito would do the same, if he's a strict constructionist.

Probably. Obviously I wasn't referring to something you already knew I was
opposed to.

That it has stood the test of so much time with so few changes is
testament
to how good it is, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Of course for
Liberals it hardly counts at all, since they continually refer to it as,
"a
living breathing document." Forgetting of course that the way to change it
is not through stupid court decisions, but through the ammendment process.

Apparently, you don't think that court decisions are the way to affirm
it either.

That depends on the case, but of course you knew that.

What in the heck do we even NEED those stupid courts for
anyway?

I could have guessed you wouldn't know.

Sorry that you think it's OK to force people off their property for any
governmental whim, and even worse now that they have decided that it's IK
to
do it for things like a new strip mall or whatever the **** they think is
better than a persons home.

Unlike you, apparently I believe in the Constitution and the
principles that it enumerates.

As do I. I just don't beleive every single thing in it is perfect.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:08:07 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:02 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..


It figures that you will try and put a spin of your own on anything I say.

Spin? I don't know how you can call this spin. You hope that a member
of the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution, a document that
explictily allows a principle that you are vehemently opposed to.


Which allows for changes. I would hope at some point, that Eminent Domain
would be abolished or at least severly restricted.

Well, that's going to take one of two things - an amendment to the
Constitution (and that's unlikely, since it's specifically enumberated
in the Bill of Rights, *or* your second option, which requires action
by The Supreme Court. And it's ironic that you don't want judges
"tampering" with that very document. I assume that you only want them
to tamper with it when it suits your wishes, since they just recently
reaffirmed the doctrine of eminent domain.

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that
will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

No, good Constitution, it allows for changes, because they knew it wasn't
perfect, it was a compromise in some cases, but a damn sight better than
the
Articles of Confederation.

Well, they haven't changed it, have they?

What do you call the Amendments?

I meant in regard to eminent domain.

Seems to me they used to think that it was
possible for their to be 3/5 of a person. That's still there?

See above.

In fact, wasn't it you
raving recently about the fact that the Supreme court just reaffirmed
the 5th Amendment's approval of eminent domain. I suppose that Judge
Alito would do the same, if he's a strict constructionist.

Probably. Obviously I wasn't referring to something you already knew I was
opposed to.

You were referring to how he interprets the Constitution. The
constitutionality of minent domain was a very recent court decision.
Why shouldn't I bring it up?

That it has stood the test of so much time with so few changes is
testament
to how good it is, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Of course for
Liberals it hardly counts at all, since they continually refer to it as,
"a
living breathing document." Forgetting of course that the way to change it
is not through stupid court decisions, but through the ammendment process.

Apparently, you don't think that court decisions are the way to affirm
it either.

That depends on the case, but of course you knew that.

Apparetnly it means that it dependson which side of the issue YOU come
down on. If it's something that you disagree with, they should play
with the constitution. If it's something that you agree with, the
document is sancrosanct.

What in the heck do we even NEED those stupid courts for
anyway?

I could have guessed you wouldn't know.

I could have guessed that you wouldn't be able to detect a rhetorical
question when it's posed.

Sorry that you think it's OK to force people off their property for any
governmental whim, and even worse now that they have decided that it's IK
to
do it for things like a new strip mall or whatever the **** they think is
better than a persons home.

Unlike you, apparently I believe in the Constitution and the
principles that it enumerates.

As do I. I just don't beleive every single thing in it is perfect.

Well then, shouldn't a justice like Alito not be a "strict follower of
the Constitution" if it's not a "perfect document"?

From: Virgil
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:31:06 -0600

It's not a conventional war but it's what's we call OOTW (Operations Other
Than War) something units like the 82d ABN, 10th Mountain, 101st, Rangers
and SF have been training to operate in since I was in the active Army. In
terms of patrolling, convoys, security sweeps, setting up ambushes in areas
where insurgents set up IEDs, MOUNT (urban combat), etc., the Army's
developed some good skills.

Which is exactly why I think we need more SF, more Rangers, more
engineers, more MPs, and more support units. A straightforward infantry
division like the 1st, 3rd, or 4th are not as well-suited to OOTW.

That's a good point about the differences between conventional and
peacekeeping/nation building. I agree we couldn't conduct three concurrent
operations like that today.

I think in some respects combat is easier than peacekeeping. There are
many more dynamics to consider in peacekeeping operations like
political, religious, economic, social and so on that are not prime
considerations during combat operations. I personally think that we
suck at peacekeeping. We could learn a lot from the Brits, Canadians,
and others who have much more experience at it than we do.

And I totally agree that we couldn't handle another peacekeeping
operation. Nob, on the other hand, thinks we can handle three or more.

From: Virgil
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:41:58 -0600

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

I'm not sure I agree with this outside review of the Army. I returned from
Iraq after a year there and what I see now is an Army running on all
cylinders but not yet stretched to the breaking point. What I do see are
issues with the National Guard and Reserves, often less well-trained with
less esprit and with soldiers not as willing to put up with more than one
deployment. In one sense the Army's skills are probably now honed as well
as I've ever seen them in the fifteen years I've been in the active-duty
and Reserves, combat zones tend to do that.

Don't get me wrong: I think that the US Army is the deadliest fighting
force that the planet has ever seen. I think the soldiers are the best
trained and best equipped combat force that the planet has ever seen.
And I know first-hand how professional and motivated the majority of
soldiers are.

I finished my career in the reserves. The National Guard has a
different mission than the active force. They also have state and local
missions, not just a federal one. They are not designed to be in a
regular rotation for active deployments.

They have been, however, increasingly used in this role. I'm not sure
what the current percentage of reservists in Iraq currently is, but I
think it's been as high as 60%, and normally around 50%. There are the
equivalent of eight infantry divisions, plus scattered seperate
brigades in the Guard. The divisions are transforming into brigade
combat teams that are self-contained and easily deployable as packages
with intrinsic engineer, chemical, artillery, MP, aviation, and other
assets that used to be attached. I think that overall makes sense, but
what it also shows is the intent to put reserves in as a regular part
of deployment packages.

When you consider what a typical reservist has to do (train for their
military mission in addition to maintaining a seperate career in the
civilian sector) they do an outstanding job. The things that active
component soldiers receive naturally as compensation are paid for by
the reservist either through a civilian job or out-of-pocket. There's
no housing allowance or health and dental coverage, for example. When a
reservist is activated those things come into play, but within a few
weeks after they are REFRAD, they go away. Many reservists take a
significant pay cut to go on active duty. Their military pay often does
not cover their living expenses in those cases.

Constant deployments will make reserve readiness suffer. It already is.
When you also consider that reservists are hit twice for retirement,
why the hell should they stick around? (You receive less points during
your career AND you don't begin to collect it until age 60, not
immediately upon retiring as with an AD retirement.) They didn't sign
up to be deployed on active duty every other year. So I think it's
understandable. Attrition is up, recruiting is down, just like on the
active side.

Finally, most deployed reserve units are actually a mish-mash of units,
which I believe effects esprit-de-corps. If a reserve Brigade Combat
Team gets deployed and is understrength in whatever MOS's are on the
DMD, they get 'passed back' to the Pentagon to be filled from whatever
unit, in whatever state, that has them. So while the Texas (for
example) National Guard is deploying, they'll likely have have soldiers
from a dozen or more states, filling very critical positions in some
cases. It's hard to trust people you don't know. Like every other
aspect of life, there are good and bad leaders and soldiers.

So if the reserve system begins to break down (and I think that's
started), and it's 50% of our total force (and you can check the
numbers, but I think that I'm close) then I agree with the report.
Usually in combat, an enemy unit is considered 'destroyed' when it's
reached something like 30% casualties. A broken 50% would likely mean
the same this as far as our 'total force' goes.

So I don't mean to dishonor those serving by saying the military is
stretched too thin right now, or to question their professionalism or
motivation. I'm just looking at trends and numbers and considering them
long-term. I believe that's all the report did too.

From:
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:27:25 GMT

Let's look at how the Democrats handled Ginsgurg an Breyer. Do you know
who President Clinton called to ask about potential nominees? That
great pinko commie left-wing liberal Orrin Hatch. Read on, dear Nob,
and see how government *should* work (as opposed to how the GOP does
it):

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/
Don't worry, I know you'll miss the point. That's why you're 'Nob.'

(Hee hee. Did I call that one or what?)

Irrelevant. Ginsburg is who Clinton nominated and there was a straight vote
in the Senate.
What was the vote results in the Senate? Oh yeah, 96-3. When was the last
time any GOP nominated Supreme Court Justice got that kind of support from
the Dems?

You are perhaps the dumbest person I've ever run in to.

It's entirely relevant, idiot.

When facing a choice for the Supreme Court, Clinton was wise enough to
consider the opinions of the (then) minority to raise consensus. That's
why the vote was 96-3 without much debate, you ****ing moron. Hatch was
the one that referred Ginsburg to Clinton.

Christ. Do you have to think to breath? Where else can your limited
brainpower go?

Compare and contrast with your beloved GOP. Rather than confer with the
minority, they try to bulldoze a selection through with no attempt at
consensus building. Now they get heated debate.

The president does not just 'get what he wants.' That's not how it
works.

I told you that you were too dumb to get the point.

They'll get Alito. That doesn't change the fact that they're a group of
fascists.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

Well then, shouldn't a justice like Alito not be a "strict follower of
the Constitution" if it's not a "perfect document"?


good question.
he should follow the Constition as it is.
It is not up to him to change it or fix it.
It is up to the Senate, and the legislative
bodies of all 50 states to do that
I am sick and tired of both sides whining about what the
Constitution says about the right to abortion.
It doesn't say a damn thing about it.
Senators like Kennedy should do their own jobs and ammend
the Constitution, if they want it to make it a Constitutiional right.
My God, he's been in there long enough and he
hasn't done a damn thing other than to expect
Supreme Court justices to do the very thing
he has failed to so, Failed??? He hasn't even tried.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: dave weil
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:01:10 -0600

As do I. I just don't beleive every single thing in it is perfect.

Well then, shouldn't a justice like Alito not be a "strict follower of
the Constitution" if it's not a "perfect document"?

I have come to the conclusion that a container of lard has more brain
cells than Nob does.

From: "ScottW"
Date: 26 Jan 2006 10:44:36 -0800

Strategically, I think taking on Iran militarily is much
more viable after having eliminated Husseins armies and opened 2 of
Irans borders to ground operations.

While tactically, fighting anywhere while the enemy is capable of
mobility in your rear area is generally a very bad idea.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:08:07 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:02 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news:mv5gt1pf0c090tgubvj7rj88orlb1q1g3a@4ax. com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent
domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..


It figures that you will try and put a spin of your own on anything I
say.

Spin? I don't know how you can call this spin. You hope that a member
of the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution, a document that
explictily allows a principle that you are vehemently opposed to.


Which allows for changes. I would hope at some point, that Eminent
Domain
would be abolished or at least severly restricted.

Well, that's going to take one of two things - an amendment to the
Constitution (and that's unlikely, since it's specifically enumberated
in the Bill of Rights, *or* your second option, which requires action
by The Supreme Court. And it's ironic that you don't want judges
"tampering" with that very document. I assume that you only want them
to tamper with it when it suits your wishes, since they just recently
reaffirmed the doctrine of eminent domain.

I want it tampered with when it is to help protect individual liberty,
something ED does not do.

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that
will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

No, good Constitution, it allows for changes, because they knew it
wasn't
perfect, it was a compromise in some cases, but a damn sight better than
the
Articles of Confederation.

Well, they haven't changed it, have they?

What do you call the Amendments?

I meant in regard to eminent domain.

Actually, they made it worse.

Seems to me they used to think that it was
possible for their to be 3/5 of a person. That's still there?

See above.

In fact, wasn't it you
raving recently about the fact that the Supreme court just reaffirmed
the 5th Amendment's approval of eminent domain. I suppose that Judge
Alito would do the same, if he's a strict constructionist.

Probably. Obviously I wasn't referring to something you already knew I
was
opposed to.

You were referring to how he interprets the Constitution. The
constitutionality of minent domain was a very recent court decision.
Why shouldn't I bring it up?


Since, you appear to hav a couple of active brain cells and know that I was
speaking in a different context, or am I giving yo too much credit?

That it has stood the test of so much time with so few changes is
testament
to how good it is, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Of course for
Liberals it hardly counts at all, since they continually refer to it as,
"a
living breathing document." Forgetting of course that the way to change
it
is not through stupid court decisions, but through the ammendment
process.

Apparently, you don't think that court decisions are the way to affirm
it either.

That depends on the case, but of course you knew that.

Apparetnly it means that it dependson which side of the issue YOU come
down on.

I come down on the side of individual liberty.

If it's something that you disagree with, they should play
with the constitution. If it's something that you agree with, the
document is sancrosanct.

See above.

What in the heck do we even NEED those stupid courts for
anyway?

I could have guessed you wouldn't know.

I could have guessed that you wouldn't be able to detect a rhetorical
question when it's posed.

Sorry that you think it's OK to force people off their property for any
governmental whim, and even worse now that they have decided that it's
IK
to
do it for things like a new strip mall or whatever the **** they think
is
better than a persons home.

Unlike you, apparently I believe in the Constitution and the
principles that it enumerates.

As do I. I just don't beleive every single thing in it is perfect.

Well then, shouldn't a justice like Alito not be a "strict follower of
the Constitution" if it's not a "perfect document"?

Yes, the changes are up to the Legislative bodies.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:27:25 GMT

Let's look at how the Democrats handled Ginsgurg an Breyer. Do you know
who President Clinton called to ask about potential nominees? That
great pinko commie left-wing liberal Orrin Hatch. Read on, dear Nob,
and see how government *should* work (as opposed to how the GOP does
it):

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/
Don't worry, I know you'll miss the point. That's why you're 'Nob.'

(Hee hee. Did I call that one or what?)

Irrelevant. Ginsburg is who Clinton nominated and there was a straight
vote
in the Senate.
What was the vote results in the Senate? Oh yeah, 96-3. When was the
last
time any GOP nominated Supreme Court Justice got that kind of support from
the Dems?

You are perhaps the dumbest person I've ever run in to.

It's entirely relevant, idiot.

When facing a choice for the Supreme Court, Clinton was wise enough to
consider the opinions of the (then) minority to raise consensus. That's
why the vote was 96-3 without much debate, you ****ing moron. Hatch was
the one that referred Ginsburg to Clinton.

Christ. Do you have to think to breath? Where else can your limited
brainpower go?

Compare and contrast with your beloved GOP.

Try and graps this idea, I am not a member of the GOP and don't support them
on a host of issues. I do defend them when I think they left, which has a
history of not doing what is in the best interest of the citizens of the
U.S. misrepresent and obstruct, which is what they do most.

Rather than confer with the
minority, they try to bulldoze a selection through with no attempt at
consensus building. Now they get heated debate.


Becuase Bubba didn't have the balls to pick his own person or because he
chose to play politics, is not my concern.

The president does not just 'get what he wants.' That's not how it
works.

I told you that you were too dumb to get the point.

They'll get Alito. That doesn't change the fact that they're a group of
fascists.

Spoken like the Kool Aid drinker you are.

Face it, no matter how much you want to try and pretend Clinton was some
sort of wunderkind, he still is responsible for two of the biggest **** ups
in history, letting Bin Ladin go and selling the material to the N. Koreans
to make nukes.

Poor Mikey makes a confession.

I am not a member of the GOP and don't support them

Wow. I never realized anybody could be too stupid for the Republican party.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:56:47 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:08:07 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:02 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news:mv5gt1pf0c090tgubvj7rj88orlb1q1g3a@4ax .com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent
domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..


It figures that you will try and put a spin of your own on anything I
say.

Spin? I don't know how you can call this spin. You hope that a member
of the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution, a document that
explictily allows a principle that you are vehemently opposed to.


Which allows for changes. I would hope at some point, that Eminent
Domain
would be abolished or at least severly restricted.

Well, that's going to take one of two things - an amendment to the
Constitution (and that's unlikely, since it's specifically enumberated
in the Bill of Rights, *or* your second option, which requires action
by The Supreme Court. And it's ironic that you don't want judges
"tampering" with that very document. I assume that you only want them
to tamper with it when it suits your wishes, since they just recently
reaffirmed the doctrine of eminent domain.

I want it tampered with when it is to help protect individual liberty,
something ED does not do.

So it *is* OK for a Justice to "play with" the Constitution. But only
when *you* think it's necessary.

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that
will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

No, good Constitution, it allows for changes, because they knew it
wasn't
perfect, it was a compromise in some cases, but a damn sight better than
the
Articles of Confederation.

Well, they haven't changed it, have they?

What do you call the Amendments?

I meant in regard to eminent domain.

Actually, they made it worse.

Well, still, I meant since 1800. The people can change this whenever
they want, but apparently they don't really want to. They'd rather
have highways and National Parks, i guess.

Seems to me they used to think that it was
possible for their to be 3/5 of a person. That's still there?

See above.

In fact, wasn't it you
raving recently about the fact that the Supreme court just reaffirmed
the 5th Amendment's approval of eminent domain. I suppose that Judge
Alito would do the same, if he's a strict constructionist.

Probably. Obviously I wasn't referring to something you already knew I
was
opposed to.

You were referring to how he interprets the Constitution. The
constitutionality of minent domain was a very recent court decision.
Why shouldn't I bring it up?


Since, you appear to hav a couple of active brain cells and know that I was
speaking in a different context, or am I giving yo too much credit?

Isn't the context a Justice being a "strict constructionist"? When the
Supreme Court acted that way in terms of eminent domain recently, you
just about blew a fuse.

That it has stood the test of so much time with so few changes is
testament
to how good it is, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Of course for
Liberals it hardly counts at all, since they continually refer to it as,
"a
living breathing document." Forgetting of course that the way to change
it
is not through stupid court decisions, but through the ammendment
process.

Apparently, you don't think that court decisions are the way to affirm
it either.

That depends on the case, but of course you knew that.

Apparetnly it means that it dependson which side of the issue YOU come
down on.

I come down on the side of individual liberty.

Don't need government at all. We can all just fight it out amongst
ourselves. The strongest will survive. You should be a little worried
in this context.

If it's something that you disagree with, they should play
with the constitution. If it's something that you agree with, the
document is sancrosanct.

See above.

Yes, no common societal goals whatsoever. Every "man" for himself.

What in the heck do we even NEED those stupid courts for
anyway?

I could have guessed you wouldn't know.

I could have guessed that you wouldn't be able to detect a rhetorical
question when it's posed.

Sorry that you think it's OK to force people off their property for any
governmental whim, and even worse now that they have decided that it's
IK
to
do it for things like a new strip mall or whatever the **** they think
is
better than a persons home.

Unlike you, apparently I believe in the Constitution and the
principles that it enumerates.

As do I. I just don't beleive every single thing in it is perfect.

Well then, shouldn't a justice like Alito not be a "strict follower of
the Constitution" if it's not a "perfect document"?

Yes, the changes are up to the Legislative bodies.

Then, when you said, "Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict
follower of the Constitution", you really weren't serious, were you?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:56:47 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:08:07 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:02 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news:j58it1557kc64jmul77inadc50ocs3aeoa@4ax. com...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news:mv5gt1pf0c090tgubvj7rj88orlb1q1g3a@4a x.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent
domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of
the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..


It figures that you will try and put a spin of your own on anything I
say.

Spin? I don't know how you can call this spin. You hope that a member
of the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution, a document that
explictily allows a principle that you are vehemently opposed to.


Which allows for changes. I would hope at some point, that Eminent
Domain
would be abolished or at least severly restricted.

Well, that's going to take one of two things - an amendment to the
Constitution (and that's unlikely, since it's specifically enumberated
in the Bill of Rights, *or* your second option, which requires action
by The Supreme Court. And it's ironic that you don't want judges
"tampering" with that very document. I assume that you only want them
to tamper with it when it suits your wishes, since they just recently
reaffirmed the doctrine of eminent domain.

I want it tampered with when it is to help protect individual liberty,
something ED does not do.

So it *is* OK for a Justice to "play with" the Constitution. But only
when *you* think it's necessary.

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something
that
will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea
is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

No, good Constitution, it allows for changes, because they knew it
wasn't
perfect, it was a compromise in some cases, but a damn sight better
than
the
Articles of Confederation.

Well, they haven't changed it, have they?

What do you call the Amendments?

I meant in regard to eminent domain.

Actually, they made it worse.

Well, still, I meant since 1800. The people can change this whenever
they want, but apparently they don't really want to. They'd rather
have highways and National Parks, i guess.

Seems to me they used to think that it was
possible for their to be 3/5 of a person. That's still there?

See above.

In fact, wasn't it you
raving recently about the fact that the Supreme court just reaffirmed
the 5th Amendment's approval of eminent domain. I suppose that Judge
Alito would do the same, if he's a strict constructionist.

Probably. Obviously I wasn't referring to something you already knew I
was
opposed to.

You were referring to how he interprets the Constitution. The
constitutionality of minent domain was a very recent court decision.
Why shouldn't I bring it up?


Since, you appear to hav a couple of active brain cells and know that I
was
speaking in a different context, or am I giving yo too much credit?

Isn't the context a Justice being a "strict constructionist"? When the
Supreme Court acted that way in terms of eminent domain recently, you
just about blew a fuse.


I'm sorry, you really are stupid.

I have repeatedly stated that Eminent Domain is not in line with protecting
indivdiual liberty and so I would like it abolished or severly restricted.

That it has stood the test of so much time with so few changes is
testament
to how good it is, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Of course for
Liberals it hardly counts at all, since they continually refer to it
as,
"a
living breathing document." Forgetting of course that the way to
change
it
is not through stupid court decisions, but through the ammendment
process.

Apparently, you don't think that court decisions are the way to affirm
it either.

That depends on the case, but of course you knew that.

Apparetnly it means that it dependson which side of the issue YOU come
down on.

I come down on the side of individual liberty.

Don't need government at all. We can all just fight it out amongst
ourselves. The strongest will survive. You should be a little worried
in this context.


Stupidity again. I have always maintained that government is necessary, but
that it only has one logical function and that is protection of individual
libertty.

If it's something that you disagree with, they should play
with the constitution. If it's something that you agree with, the
document is sancrosanct.

See above.

Yes, no common societal goals whatsoever. Every "man" for himself.


Free to make his own choices, yes.

What in the heck do we even NEED those stupid courts for
anyway?

I could have guessed you wouldn't know.

I could have guessed that you wouldn't be able to detect a rhetorical
question when it's posed.

Sorry that you think it's OK to force people off their property for
any
governmental whim, and even worse now that they have decided that it's
IK
to
do it for things like a new strip mall or whatever the **** they think
is
better than a persons home.

Unlike you, apparently I believe in the Constitution and the
principles that it enumerates.

As do I. I just don't beleive every single thing in it is perfect.

Well then, shouldn't a justice like Alito not be a "strict follower of
the Constitution" if it's not a "perfect document"?

Yes, the changes are up to the Legislative bodies.

Then, when you said, "Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict
follower of the Constitution", you really weren't serious, were you?

And the winner of the context dropping prize for the umteenth time goes to
Dave DUM DUM Weil.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...



Poor Mikey makes a confession.

I am not a member of the GOP and don't support them

Wow. I never realized anybody could be too stupid for the Republican
party.

You've not heard of the Democrats?

From:
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:03:17 GMT

Try and graps this idea, I am not a member of the GOP and don't support them
on a host of issues. I do defend them when I think they left, which has a
history of not doing what is in the best interest of the citizens of the
U.S. misrepresent and obstruct, which is what they do most.

Ah, Mexico was so relaxing. I saw some boneheads like you there, too.
They were mostly tourists from Texas.

I have never seen you disagree with the republicans. Where do you?
Let's see:

How do you feel about gay marriage?

How do you feel about affirmative action?

How do you feel about abortion?

How do you feel about legislation with a goal toward oil conservation?

Do you feel the current group of republicans are generally honest and
forthright?

Hee hee hee. Now we'll see how you disagree with the neofacists.

Spoken like the Kool Aid drinker you are.

Sure beats the crack you apparently smoke. What an idiot.

From:
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:58:02 GMT

Wow. I never realized anybody could be too stupid for the Republican
party.

You've not heard of the Democrats?

Hm. All the data I've seen suggests that a greater percentage of
educated people vote Democrat.

I suppose you have some data to back up your bull****?

From:
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:03:17 GMT

Rather than confer with the
minority, they try to bulldoze a selection through (Alito) with no attempt at
consensus building. Now they get heated debate.

Becuase Bubba didn't have the balls to pick his own person or because he
chose to play politics, is not my concern.

Of course not. You're clearly not bright enough to get it anyway.

Compromise between extremes is what has kept this country great for so
long.

Selfish and uncompromising extremists like you will eventually tear it
apart.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

How do you feel about gay marriage?


There is no such thing.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...


Hm. All the data I've seen suggests that a greater percentage of
educated people vote Democrat.



Thank God there's not a lot of them!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access