ExiledInIllinois
-
Posts
48,410 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ExiledInIllinois
-
-
People these were (or at least are going to be) Cheney's words to discribe how the job in Iraq has been going.
Any comment?
Sure seems like a set of "choice" words?
Can you call the Bill's 4 SB loses "Catastrophic Success"?
Maybe if the Bills win the AFC title and take a trip to the SB and lose it again this year... Yet, get 11 of their starting 22 hurt during the conference championship, would that be "Catastrophic Success?"...
What does it actually mean? Any help out there? It sure sounds bad for somebody, hope it is not us?
WhoTF picks these words?
-
That IS true! Hoover also had a lot of experience with economic planning for the recovery effort after World War I.
Boy THAT experience sure did help us get out of the Great Depression.
His stubbornness almost gave us our first and only revolution against the government(non civil war)... we were VERY close, and that's no exaggeration.
What year was it when they almost mowed down the protesting WWI vets because they demanded benefits?
Was that Hoover or Roosevelt? Any help?
-
-
-
What do you think? Are they trying to tell us something?
We effed the place, yet we kissed 'em?
I guess it matters how you define Catastrophic?:
1 : the final event of the dramatic action especially of a tragedy
2 : a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin
3 a : a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth b : a violent usually destructive natural event (as a supernova)
4 : utter failure : FIASCO
- cat·a·stroph·ic /"ka-t&-'strä-fik/ adjective
None of them (meanings) seem rosy... Go figure...
I guess you can have it both ways, take both sides of the aisle and have the people fall all over it.
John Kerry, you got a lot to learn...
-
Advocate running down innocent people in the street? No, I do not. But, I think you understand my point. If you run out onto the field at a sporting event, you might get hurt when the police tackle you.
Your next question: Does running on the field make it okay for 10 policemen to knock you down and beat you with nightsticks? No.
I think running down a person with a van constitutes greater force needed, as explained in your example of the 10 policemen.
I think all the protestors realize the danger and accept it.
The bottom line, is the law is obligated to not break the law. People on the other hand have to suffer the ramifications of breaking the law. It is a one way street.
-
Would that be the first time that a #1 and #2 draft choices played together? Has it ever happened?
Like a poster said earlier... The universe would surely implode...
-
I know what'll help....
Re-electing GWB, and going to war with more countries. THAT'LL get the funds you need! But we have to make sure to tear down enough so that you guys will have enough to do. It has to be a weak oil producing country though, so the price of oil doesn't go up any more so driving our SUV's won't take any more hits.
Oil is going up...
Ya, right?...
Most will go to the country we invade instead of helping our civilian infrastructure.I can go to Iraq tommorrow (okay, not exactly tommorrow... Takes a little longer to get briefed, and do the paper work). They would love to pay me for that mission and then some. Instead long overdue rehabs get put off... 30 years and pushing...
Gotta protect the "marsh people first"...
America first?
-
I am getting ready to go to church and they are showing pieces of an interview with GWB that will air tomorrow. They ask who's military service was greater, his or Kerry's. GWB flat out says Kerrys was greater, he put himself in harms way by going to Vietnam. GWB said all he did was fly jets. SAid if his unit had been called to go he would have. But Kerrys service was a lot greater and he had a lot of respect for the man.
He also mentioned that the election isn't based on what happened 30 years ago, but what happens in the future.
Straight from the mouth. Again, a lot of you don't like him, for whatever reason, but this humbleness that I believe he got from his father is one of the reasons I do like him. I wish he would get rid of some of the idiots in his cabinent.
I heard that on a radio last night... I thought I was dreaming... I guess not.
Good for the man.
They should put this sillyness away.
I still believe that GWB has a snow balls chance in hell in uniting this country... It is just not gonna happen. He will never gain the respect of the world and half this nation. Too bad he burned his bridges with this silly war. Like I said before, he could have had his cake and eat it to... He just choosed to play it wrong. No matter how hard he tries to be "Mr. Humility"... The rest aren't going to capitulate. It is kinda of like "Battered Wife Syndrome", instead it is "Battered Prez. Syndrome"... After all the damage, now he's bringing the roses?
Dump the creep husband... Errr, Prez.... Give it to a fresh horse. We got nothing to lose, all to gain.
-
YES, I do.. this is a great website to see the effects of fiscal mismanagement:
MAYBE that Mars money could be applied to other areas? Every little bit helps. Just because it pales in comparison to the inflated DOD budget doesn't mean that it is insignificant.
Did anybody notice that the "Executive Office of the President" grew almost double to a few billion in FY04?
And what gives with the Army Corps budget being so small?...
At least it grew by a few billion...
-
My wound is bigger than yours! You didn't fight in a "real war"! I am a bigger Vet than you! How would you know?, you didn't serve. Did you ever spend anytime in the military, no?, then shut your pie-hole. Nahnahnahnahnahnahnah...
And now you wonder why the Army hands out ASVAB scores?
-
A wheatfield would be fitting given the divide between blue and red states.
You really think that is true?
Boston is a Democrat town? What is a big Republican town?
The RNC is taking a page out of Boy Genius Rove's book... Go up against your enemies strength... This doesn't mean that it is a bad strategy, in fact it is a rather effective one.
-
-
I see a few questions, but correct me if I'm wrong, you have limited the breath of the response, though I'll give it a try.
Yes, Kerry did indeed make honorable service a big issue at the DNC and so far there is no HARD evidence he did not serve honorably. Take all the so called testimony by those who want to destroy John Kerry. Isn't it fair to examine the accusers motives and take a critical look at this so-called damning stories?
Fact: He could have exercised any number of options if he did not want to go to Vietnam. Listen to all the "yeah, buts" -- but he did go. Honorable service.
Fact: He did indeed take what was considered a very dangerous assignment. Again, listen to all the "yeah, buts" -- but did take the job. Again, isn't that honorable service?
Fact: His OWN crew believed he was a great leader and Captain. Smart, good instincts, fearless and did his duty. Listen to all the "yeah buts" from "other" soliders who DID NOT serve on his boat and often say him only a day or two (30 years ago) -- but those who knew him best said he served honorably.
Fact: The very men on his boat recount the story of the Rassman rescue, they have never changed their story, however, there is an incredible amount of evidence that his detractors are not nearly so accurate and have demonstrated clear POLITICAL motives to smear Kerry. Again, his mates and those who were closest to Kerry's actions that day say he served honorably.
FACT: the soldiers and officers supported the crew's version of events that day AND recommended a commondation at the time have now changed their story. It's not hard to see they did it for POLITICAL reasons and they have little or no credibility. They had very little reason to lie and give Kerry kudos for bravery and recommend a medal then but have ample reason to change their story now. Again, the men who served by him then say he served honorably.
FACT: he WAS wounded. It makes no difference in the severity. You get one for a scratch and you get one for losing three limbs. Kerry didn't make the rules and he got the PH like everyone else. One of four in a boat of twelve? It's that 33%casualties on one boat? Sounds like a nice little skirmish. There is no doubt he honorably conducted himself in the first action. Oh, and he was wounded twice more. That's at least TWO more firefights. The PH and the wounds are no less honorable because they weren't severe.
FACT: the scratch is NOT indispute by those who served closest to him. Why so quick to believe his political detractors? For God sakes the guy has scrapnel in his leg and he can't say it? How is this a bad thing? Should you ask yourself why this bothers you so much? May you're the one with the issues?
FACT: there is zip, zero credible evidence that John Kerry in any way dishonorably requested special treatment that allowed him to leave the field after 4 months. It makes no difference if the tour was 12-13 months, if he had the option to leave Vietnam there is no reason why he should not take it. The only people who suggest this wasn't honorable are those who do not want him president for ideological and partisan reasons.
One point that is missed is that to call Kerry a liar is to call his crewmates liars. To call Rassman and those who served with him day after day embellishers, stooges and dishonorable soldiers. It's a question of who you believe: the men who served with him or people with a clear political agenda? If the commanders and fellow officers who recommended him conduct, gave him PHs and offered him a chance to leave Vietnam thought he was a fine soldier and served honorably then NOW say they lied why should we believe them NOW? What is THEIR motivation for changing their story (hint, hint there's a presidential election maybe?)
Do you REALLY want to debate PROBABLE facts? Seems like a pretty loaded accusation for not having evidence at the ready. There is nothing approaching "possible" when it comes to his detractors and those who did not serve on his boat yet you so easily believe them.
As for the suggestion he manuevered his way out of Vietnam to run office: there is none. If anyone wants to believe such a lie then there is no stopping his enemies but their is nothing in the record or even someone credibily familiar with his life 30 years ago to back it up. Did he want to run for office: sure he did and no matter what you want to believe that is not akin to planning a crime, it's a career choice.
Moreover, his anti-war actions are another issue altogether. If you want to discuss it separately we can but it's even more steep in political agendas and motivations.
The only agenda lies with Kerry's political enemies and those who don't want to see a Democratic president. There is still no hard evidence to say that Kerry did not serve honorably in Vietnam.
Try as you might to find a reason to hate him you have to ask yourself why you won't give a man who served the benefit of the doubt while so eager to essentially call his crewmates liars.
Well said.
It is VETERANS bickering over VETERANS that is all.
My father would see it all the time at the VA. Except during his time it was the WWII vets bitching about how they fought in the "Big War", "Real War".
Pure bullcrap!
-
I NEVER said unions were a bad idea... there is no way in HELL that I'd ever want to go back to the robber baron days of old, the 'call out the troops to fight workers' days. I am merely saying that when you demand MUCH more than you should be entitled to as an American worker and it really hurts the company you work for, then you have done a disservice to your fellow employees.
I blame them for HALF the problem... the other half is of course the greedy companies that I spoke of earlier (bad conditions, jobs overseas, etc..)
You can't change the system by re-electing the same politicians; that's why the two-party system is in itself bad for America.
I see both of the arguments here. There has been way too much blaming the unions. Yes, they are not immune to any blame, should they shoulder most of the blame? No. Why do we do it? Is it because the union guy is put more in the public spotlight, is seen everyday?
For some reason, as Americans, we have this warped sense of "attainment". We rationalize that the guy on top must have somehow worked his butt off to attain what he has, now they are entitled to coast and reap what they apparently sowed. Do we know how they attained it? No. We can't even begin to imagine what the story was. Good or bad we give them the benefit of the doubt.
Yet, somehow the guy on the bottom takes all the flak because he is appeared as being a slacker/lazy, wants something for nothing?
-
"I think I knew that BIB was a veteran."
Then why did you attack me? Do I need to post my resume to have an opinion?
as to the answers to your questions:
I was 19 at the end of the Viet Nam "Conflict".
Yes, I have worn the uniform. As an Army cavalry scout, a tank commander and as a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare specialist. I've worn it on every continent of the planet, except for Antarctica. I continue to work in defense as a civilian contractor. I feel, my opinion, that I have served honorably.
Yes, I have considered the rights and wrongs and morality of the VN war. Where is this any issue with my question?
Yes, I have "put myself in Kerry's shoes" Why do you think I started the thread?
I don't appreciate you calling me a lemming because I have questions. The lemmings are the ones who don't ask any.
I like to ask questions. Does that not make me a lemming? Yes, I am voting for Kerry. All this stuff you bring to light is noted. Of course he was a man of influence, which politician isn't?
I am also a realist. There is only going to be one winner, Bush or Kerry.
I can see that you would want Bush, you are a defense contractor. You want defense contracts, it keeps you working.
You can see that I want Kerry, I am a DoD employee that doesn't want my job done by a contractor.
I guess that leaves the things open for another debate.
-
MY problem is when businesses whine and cry to the government to help bail them out. I say screw them, because if they want us to understand about their profit margins, and their outsourcing, and their wages, then they should live like the free enterprise system they love so much, and go under or file for bankruptcy. HOWEVER, the problem is that these same companies who do this to cut costs expect us to help them out when they mismanage their companies. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If Chrysler goes out of business, so WHAT. They'll be another company who will fill the gap in the market.
That's what I love so much about Southwest and JetBlue... they are FORCING these companies who have gotten fat off of high airline tickets to compete, and we ALL win. It's just beautiful. NOW THAT is free enterprise at work, not begging to kep a dinosaur airline operating.
I agree!
Then they blame everybody and their brother for the mismanagement. What gets me is the disproportionate amount between upper tier jobs and lower tier jobs. The working stiff hasn't made any headway, while the others have outpaced them ten fold. We are becoming a 2 class society. It is just a matter of time before it blows up in our face.
-
Like you said before... Some need food stamps... So the burden becomes the government's as the company lowers the "bottom line".
Why should taxpayers help the corporate "bottom line"?
It may be indirect, yet it is there.
-
Well good for your mom. Mine was making about 5k in 1979. We lived on foodstamps, on and off welfare, and even with that, she needed serious help from friends and family to make it.
But 20K is decent money. Granted you can't go out to eat every night, you can't go to hawaii on vacation, but it is enough to pay rent in North Carolina, put food on the table, still get basic cable to watch TV, and buy a decent car.
He was getting family medical and dental from the company, and to me this was his worst mistake. Walking away from a job and giving that up was stupidity, IMHO.
Yes he is lazy, IMHO, because he had the opportunity to go better himself, learn a higher level skill, and he needed to consider that part of his job. He was happier to come back and watch his TV and drink a few at night instead. Maybe he did a good job during his 40 hours per, but he also needed to spend an extra 5 per learning.
If he was getting full medical and dental... Then I don't know? That is pretty good to get 100% of that.
My mom was an accountant... So I guess she had skills.
Up here building engineers earn about 35 bucks an hour.
-
Disregard all the attacks. Read the original post, and the ones following that actually address it. to simplify:
FACT. A tour of Viet Nam was 12-13 months.
FACT. JK completed one third of his assigned tour.
FACT. None of the injuries resulting in a purple heart were severe enough to miss any work.
FACT. Kerry was the only guy out of four in a twelve foot boat to get wounded on his FIRST MISSION. He received a scratch on his arm. Not disputed by anyone. how he got the scratch is in dispoute. Fact is, it was a scratch. I've been hurt worse mowing the lawn. At least it needed stitches.
Probable FACT (have not been able to fully research yet) JK was likely the only Naval Officer in VN to pull the three PH thing, leaving in an upright position.
FACT. Kerry returned from VN and went into high profile anti-war mode, while making a bid for a House seat from a very democratic Mass. What timing. Would he have been in a position to run for Congress had he finished his tour?
FACT (Deny it all you want) Kerry made this honorable service (he actually uses the phrase) a big issue at the DNC. "Reporting for Duty" He continues to do so. I was listening to excerpts from one of his speeches on NPR (that bastion of right wing reporting) and the subject was the economy. Before his statement was over he managed to work in "still carrying the shrapnel in his leg from VN." Well, stevestojan...you and about a hundred thousand other people.
I'm asking if anyone can see a possible agenda here. And if not, why? There's obviously something wrong here. This is about as non-typical a tour of duty that can be imagined.
Your responses come back as "But Bush" or "If he were a Republican". I want you, to tell me...why none of what I'm pointing out matters. We're talking about John Kerry. Not GW Bush, not Max Cleland, not John McCain. Kerry.
Because God ordained him to be prez. someday. Why would he run the risk of killing him off earlier in his life. He had bigger plans for him.
-
I can just see it now... The "Sky Rage".
-
Exactly, that was my point... I was being sarcastic. People today couldn't handle it back then.
What was that... 58,000 (dead or wounded) in one day at the Somme (WWI)? 400,000 by evening's end lay dead on the battlefield at Passcendaele [sP] (WWI)?
1,000 is nothing!
-
You guys are trying. I still honestly don;t understand what the government is going to do for this guy. His unemployment is probably only going to be 1/3 of his normal pay. Would you expect the govenment to fully pay him for the rest of his life?
As far as your Bush is evil remark, that makes no sense to this specific situation. How is it Bush's fault, that this guy has been this same way for 30 years, but now it's Bush's fault.
20K is a very high salary for a janitor, and in most places in North Carolina, it would not qualify someone for food stamps. In fact 20K is double minimum wage, and is very close to the average salary of a person in this country as a whole.
You know what I think. Joe needs to go back to his company and ask for his job back at 20K. Say he is sorry and understands that over the year, he was overpaid, and tha he will work on learning some new skills by taking advantage of the free education benefit. If Joe needs more money, then he should go get a second job so he can maintain his families lifestyle, or he should make some serious cuts in lifestyle, until he is reeducated and doing a higher level skill, making more money.
He still has almost 20 years until he could even consider retiring on Social Security and he will be in for a shock there when he realizes how little the government will give him based on his salary.
I think the company should force him to sit down with a financial planner, and I think that the company did everything correct here, except maybe not pay attention over the years to how much he really was making.
You are right. The governement needs not to take care of him forever. He definitly DOES NOT need to go back to his old job. Most likely, it won't be there at all in the future.
What is the situation on his benefits?
He is still young. He needs to get off the "schnide" and leave, start new somewhere else. The problem is, he doesn't seem like that kinda guy. What's happening down there is what happened up here (the Rust belt). The problem is he doesn't even have a college degree. Where do you start?
Learn to drive a truck Joe, go over the road for a while until you get your experience. Maybe then you can settle into one place with a higher paying local job.
Start a landscaping business.
Etc... Etc...
Don't glorify 20k... It is sad... For crying out loud, my mother made 28k back in 1979...
-
I'd say lazy, because he didn't bother to look for a better job and a better position. He had no ambition to further himself, and he paid for it with his job.
Companies will PAY MORE for people that are an asset to them, believe me. They don't make money off of janitors or telephone people(non-sales) or delivery drivers, they make money off of people who help them provide their service. It's up to the person who WANTS more out of their working life to go out there and BE THAT ASSET.
Fair enough.
IMO, how you treat your support staff looks favorably on your company. More times than not, this is how you are judged.
What if Bush wins the popular vote, but
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Not going to happen. The likelyhood of the opposite is a very, very real.
The continuing "unstableness" of these politics, IMHO, is the real problem. We really need to "right this ship" politically one way or another IN A SENSIBLE MANNER.
Whoever gets in office, needs to make this their top priority... Everything else falls into place.
Terrorists will feed off this instability.