scribo

Not even if a woman spoke very rudely to a man? I read the thread you referenced, and I am wondering how you justify your comments there. Just so I am clear, you are saying you made the crude comments as a joke because you knew this woman's story was bogus? And because it is OK to joke about violence against women because a highly-respectable senator did so similarly once? Am I correct in what I think I read? And you asked if I were the 12-year-old, yet you are the one now resorting to name calling in consecutive posts?

Offen, is it true you believe a man could be justified in beating a woman? It is a simple question that no longer has anything to do with a con artist.

Thank you very much for the clarification! I will be sure to keep that straight in the future. Offen, is it true you believe a man could be justified in beating a woman?

Like I said, you are boring. When you have something new to say, I might listen.

You are correct, Obama is not yet president, and he certainly is not responsible for the job losses, bank failures, foreclosures, etc. Well, he was a member of the U.S. Senate, so he has some responsibility, but no where near as much as Bush's administration does. But much of the damage being done right now can be minimized by reassuring the top decision makers on both Wall Street and Main St. that the new president will do what's needed and put the right people in place to get our nation's economy back on the right track as soon as possible. Again, it is Rush's job to further the far right's agenda, which is to place as much blame on the left as possible. That's what he is doing! You guys just want something to complain about and have decided you'll do that here even if it means ignoring the source.

I appreciate your comments. The op-ed is outstanding, which I have come to expect from the former senator. I wish it was a little longer, as I am interested in more specifics pertaining to his views on health care. I agree that the Bush Administration was too set in its ways and too unwilling to seriously listen to opposing views. It will be interesting to see how the Obama Administration learns from that.

There are many reasons, but I would say the perceived failures of the current administration, a better run campaign that vastly outspent McCain's, and a generational shift in voters. Not at all because Obama has a clean past. No, I just think the fact you support wife beaters is serious enough that I can adopt it, too. The fact I have yet to see you deny that also helped me decided to bring it up. I am proud of what I do, or I would do it. Again, I am not bothered by your laughter. It seems just about everyone here is laughing at you on a regular basis. If I am wrong, let those you agree with your views and tactics speak here in your defense.

First, Obama is not doing anything right now to help the economy. I know the "lists" of who he is looking to chair the Federal Reserve and Treasury are likely just educated speculation, but it seems to me Obama isn't going to institute real "change" if he picks people off those lists. It seems the only real difference between his economic and trade policies from what we have now is an insistence on taxing the hell out of the rich. As far as Rush goes, and I want to point out first that I don't like him, he is just doing what he is suppose to be doing, preparing the never-ending political battlefield. This is nothing new and doesn't really rate a new thread.

Well, if the truth hurts, as he has hung "around with terrorists," so be it. I think this is ridiculous. Back to the comments about the rally I am working on? You're boring. And I would rather be mocked for standing up for what I believe than be accused of advocating violence against women.

Yeah, because white supremacists would really need encouraging...the election of Obama is the top concern for these terrible, lowest of the low people. Offen, you're not concerned about this any trash way, as you realize such threats were coming one way or another. You just know you'll never get a chance to punch this woman, so you'll take any shots you can here.

This is the same thing as starting off by blowing out the Cowboys on Monday Night Football just to lose it with one second left. Only, instead of one night of misery, this is turning into a couple of months of misery.

I apparently have a problem with reading comprehension, as I am not sure what you're saying here. Would you please help me understand? Are you saying the only people enlisted now are young, poor Americans? Or are you saying those are the only type of people who are enlisting I know? Since you don't know me and I don't know you, I won't argue about who might know more enlistees. But I will say the stats back me up, and you should know that you're not as "young" as you seem to think. The average enlistee is about not quite 20, and the typical age range is 18-24, so you are about to fall our of the range, and you weren't even in high school with today's average enlistee. Now, to the real meat of this post. If you are saying today's enlistees are all poor, uneducated people, you are grossly misinformed. Check out this study: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...ty/cda06-09.cfm The linked report is from the Heritage Foundation on who is enlisting in the military. It uses census and other data to identify the origins of recruits in addition to statistics the military provides. Overall, the wartime recruits are more similar than dissimilar to their civilian counterparts. The all-volunteer force displays near proportional representation of income backgrounds. With regard to income, education, race, and regional background, the all-volunteer force is representative of our nation and meets standards set by Congress and the Department of Defense. In contrast to the patronizing slanders of antiwar critics, recruit quality is increasing as the war in Iraq continues. Although recruiting goals were difficult to meet for about a year and a held after the war in Iraq started, re-enlistment remained strong and recruit quality remained high. "The slight dif­ferences are that wartime U.S. mil­itary enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on aver­age than their civilian peers." -- The Heritage Foundation

I am not backing anything blindly. I strive to be well informed, and I am not close minded, just convinced.

I suspect you are right. Of course, I believe this war was not wrong and was needed and is already resulting in a safer world.

You have officially lost me. But the Japanese did bomb us. Are you saying neither of the World Wars saved America? What do you suppose Hilter would have done if he successfully took over and held all of Europe? How do you know your second paragraph is accurate? You do not know me. I happen to be around recruiters and those they are recruiting on a regular basis.

Good post. Of course the president needs to take in the big picture and make his decisions based on that. So maybe the big difference between Obama's view and my view is that Obama doesn't see an Iraq vulnerable to take over by Iran and/or al-Qaeda as much as threat to our national security as I do.

Total speculation on your part. You are refusing to take what he said at face value, but you give Obama that courtesy?

First, I am not talking about just enlisting. Most presidents were commissioned officers. I say confidently that the reason people join the military these days are no different than they joined generations ago. To serve their country, to be part of something larger than themselves, to get life experience, for a career, family tradition, etc. None of those things have changed. We still have very bright people enlisting and becoming officers. It seems our country isn't what it use to be We take our freedoms for granted. We take the vast opportunities we have for granted. We forget that blood was shed to win those rights. I don't feel like the average American understands how good we have it and how vulnerable the American way of life is.

How do you justify saying that? Because there is no way to prove or disprove your statement since McCain lost, you think you can just make any statement you want about what he would have really done?

The hysterical thing is when you break it down, that rhetoric means just what even Bush has been saying. The difference is what he deems responsible versus what McCain deems responsible. In the end, it should be up the generals, and the White House should support the commanders.

Clinton. And before you say he was a great president, let me say he was a terrible commander in chief and did a great deal of damage to the military that has been very expensive to fix. So what was military service that is "aint" now? I am not worried about a reduction to the pool. I think it would actually serve as very good screening process I feel we badly need.

There is a stark difference between what Obama has said he will do and what the Iraqis say they want. Yes, both are looking to set a timetable, but Iraqis think they will need us though 2011, double the amount of time Obama wants to keep troops there.

Who said we'd be there indefinitely? Not Sen. McCain. He said he would keep U.S. troops there as long as it takes, but he also said he would bring them home when the mission is accomplished. I think that's what needs to be said. Showing the enemy we have a breaking point is a terrible move.

Much more. She asks her students who they want to be the next president. When one says McCain, she asks why. The girl answers, saying it is because her parents support McCain. The teacher then asks the same question to kids in favor of Obama. One black boy says it is because he wants a black president. Another girl says because Obama is making good changes for the country. The teacher asks what kind of changes. The girl says Obama is going to stop the war. Then the teacher turns to the original girl that McCain supports the war, pointing out that the girl's father is in the military. The teacher then says the war is "senseless." The teacher then says McCain wants to keep the girl's father in Iraq for the next 100 years. And asks her is that's what she wants? The girl, who I am guessing is about 9, looks humiliated and terrified.

How so? I am saying to be a good commander in chief, you need to understand what it is like to be in the military. Keep in mind Obama will only be the second U.S. president to have not served at all in uniform. And yes, I know GWB barely served, but I am not saying he is a good CIC.