pope zimli Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 interesting pov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 interesting pov 414048[/snapback] It's the op-ed page of the NYT, so it must be God's Honest Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 There would be one way to defuse Cindy Sheehan. Send out Laura Bush. Everyone loves Laura. One sympathetic mother to another. What a heartwarming photo-op. I wonder why that hasn't happened? Maybe even the Bushistas realize that it doesn't look good that their kids don't support the war (they're not serving are they?) and that Laura wouldn't be able to defend that position. Maybe they asked and Laura said now. It wouldn't be the first time she didn't agree with her husband's policies, If Bush didn't insist on 5-week vacations at Crawford it wouldn't be a big deal. He'll leave and then she'll go do DC where she'll get lost amongst the myriad other protest groups outside the WH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 There would be one way to defuse Cindy Sheehan. Send out Laura Bush. Everyone loves Laura. One sympathetic mother to another. What a heartwarming photo-op. I wonder why that hasn't happened? Maybe even the Bushistas realize that it doesn't look good that their kids don't support the war (they're not serving are they?) and that Laura wouldn't be able to defend that position. Maybe they asked and Laura said now. It wouldn't be the first time she didn't agree with her husband's policies, If Bush didn't insist on 5-week vacations at Crawford it wouldn't be a big deal. He'll leave and then she'll go do DC where she'll get lost amongst the myriad other protest groups outside the WH. 414366[/snapback] They won't let Bush even answer a non scripted question, or Dems into any of his appreances, or protesters within 2 miles of him... so what makes anyone think that George would meet with this woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 They should send Laura out and have her tell Cindy if and how hard they're trying to get the Bush daughters to sign up for the military since George and Laura believe the Iraq invasion was the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 They should send Laura out and have her tell Cindy if and how hard they're trying to get the Bush daughters to sign up for the military since George and Laura believe the Iraq invasion was the right thing to do. 414401[/snapback] It's amazing how many people are still to stupid too understand the concept of the 'volunteer' military. See, legal adults are allowed to make their own decisions, regardless of what their parents might think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 It's amazing how many people are still to stupid too understand the concept of the 'volunteer' military. See, legal adults are allowed to make their own decisions, regardless of what their parents might think. 414414[/snapback] Not too amazing actually. There are a lot of people that are willing to conveniently forget the definitions of simple words if by doing so it allows them an opportunity to scream "BUSH BAD!" for the zillionth time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 There would be one way to defuse Cindy Sheehan. Send out Laura Bush. Everyone loves Laura. One sympathetic mother to another. What a heartwarming photo-op. I wonder why that hasn't happened? 414366[/snapback] Interesting idea. But now, any reaction by Bush to this protest will be interpreted as weakness and a lack of resolve. First Ladies are usually popular because they rarely act and in this case it is better for her not to because it is likely to be interpreted most cynically. The best move Bush could make at this point is simply recognize their right to their opinions and send them vegetarian pizzas, and when asked about it say, "Well, pizza is one thing I think most Americans can agree upon." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 It's amazing how many people are still to stupid too understand the concept of the 'volunteer' military. See, legal adults are allowed to make their own decisions, regardless of what their parents might think. 414414[/snapback] At a family party yesterday, my brother in the Guard asked me if I was getting calls from recruiters in the past few months and laughing about it like a practical joke. The soldiers are being required (and they are chewed out big time if they don't) to give recruiters a certain quota of people they can then call and deliver their pitch to. I got a few calls on my answering machine along the lines of "Hey, we talked to you and we've got your information all set to go. Come down and sign the papers." And I'm like, " Do I know you?" This was shortly after their "stand down" day that didn't change anything. The things they're doing just to be able to call it an all volunteer military (as if 'Hey, they signed up for it' is an excuse for when ordering them into the depths of Hell) get pretty skeevy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 The best move Bush could make at this point is simply recognize their right to their opinions and send them vegetarian pizzas, and when asked about it say, "Well, pizza is one thing I think most Americans can agree upon." 414434[/snapback] Deep dish or thin crust? Extra cheese or double toppings? Lots of disagreement, even in pizza. Maybe he should go the route of LabattBlue's(?) sig line and sign an executive order for Free Blow Job Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 At a family party yesterday, my brother in the Guard asked me if I was getting calls from recruiters in the past few months and laughing about it like a practical joke. The soldiers are being required (and they are chewed out big time if they don't) to give recruiters a certain quota of people they can then call and deliver their pitch to. I got a few calls on my answering machine along the lines of "Hey, we talked to you and we've got your information all set to go. Come down and sign the papers." And I'm like, " Do I know you?" This was shortly after their "stand down" day that didn't change anything. The things they're doing just to be able to call it an all volunteer military (as if 'Hey, they signed up for it' is an excuse for when ordering them into the depths of Hell) get pretty skeevy. 414463[/snapback] Geez....God forbid someone actually try to talk someone else into doing what they want them to do. Next thing you know we'll have cops pressuring murder suspects into confessions and guys lying to girls just to get them into bed!! Unless someone is mentally retarded, every adult is more than capable of making up their own mind about entering the military, even if their recruiter is trying to get them to sign up or their mother is trying to get to stay home. And as far as where they get sent after they sign up, they don't get to vote on that. It's part of the deal. After all, why did we send all those Americans to their deaths on the battlefields of Europe? Did Germany attack us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Not too amazing actually. There are a lot of people that are willing to conveniently forget the definitions of simple words if by doing so it allows them an opportunity to scream "BUSH BAD!" for the zillionth time. 414422[/snapback] The same people who can't understand the concept of volunteer army are the ones who think President Bush is a "war criminal" who "murdered" Casey Sheehan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 At a family party yesterday, my brother in the Guard asked me if I was getting calls from recruiters in the past few months and laughing about it like a practical joke. The soldiers are being required (and they are chewed out big time if they don't) to give recruiters a certain quota of people they can then call and deliver their pitch to. I got a few calls on my answering machine along the lines of "Hey, we talked to you and we've got your information all set to go. Come down and sign the papers." And I'm like, " Do I know you?" This was shortly after their "stand down" day that didn't change anything. The things they're doing just to be able to call it an all volunteer military (as if 'Hey, they signed up for it' is an excuse for when ordering them into the depths of Hell) get pretty skeevy. 414463[/snapback] Is that like the "family calling circles" that MCI stared years ago? Maybe they can call and say they know your credit score and your employment value... I am sure they would catch a lot of fish by grounding them with that reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 And as far as where they get sent after they sign up, they don't get to vote on that. It's part of the deal. After all, why did we send all those Americans to their deaths on the battlefields of Europe? Did Germany attack us? 414491[/snapback] Come to think about it, the 18-20 year olds DRAFTED during that era COULDN'T vote on anything... It was part of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Come to think about it, the 18-20 year olds DRAFTED during that era COULDN'T vote on anything... It was part of the deal. 414578[/snapback] Exactly. And yet people here are whining about volunteers being asked to live up to their promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Exactly. And yet people here are whining about volunteers being asked to live up to their promises. 414647[/snapback] And sometimes a little extra with the stop-loss program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I'll repeat again, the stop-loss happens in every war. My father was in the Navy during the Korean War. He enlisted for 2 years. Truman then enacted a stop-loss and he had to serve an additional year. Nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I'll repeat again, the stop-loss happens in every war. My father was in the Navy during the Korean War. He enlisted for 2 years. Truman then enacted a stop-loss and he had to serve an additional year. Nothing new. 414848[/snapback] WRONG. Stop-Loss IS new. A sitting President with close ties to the Saudis....NEW. Halliburton.......NEW. Presidents taking vacations.....NEW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 WRONG. Stop-Loss IS new. A sitting President with close ties to the Saudis....NEW. Halliburton.......NEW. Presidents taking vacations.....NEW. 414870[/snapback] Exactly. Stop loss for an all volunteer armed forces, not conscripted. Saudis, can't argue with that. Halliburton, same... Name change to protect the innocent. Presidents taking month long vactions in their first year, 11 days before the deadliest attack on American soil since the Civil War... Not that is TRULY new! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Presidents taking month long vactions in their first year, 11 days before the deadliest attack on American soil since the Civil War... Not that is TRULY new! 415015[/snapback] Exactly. Because obviously he should have know what was going to happen 11 days later. BUSH BAD! But never mind Clinton vetoing the CIA mission to capture bin Ladin three years earlier because they didn't want to kill any civilians in the terrorist training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Exactly. Because obviously he should have know what was going to happen 11 days later. BUSH BAD! But never mind Clinton vetoing the CIA mission to capture bin Ladin three years earlier because they didn't want to kill any civilians in the terrorist training camp. 415020[/snapback] Point taken. There is enough irresponsibility to spoon around on everyone, be it kitty footing around terrorists or being beligerant with the transition team. I know how you all like qustions. The pressing one is: Where do you get a job with a 4 week vacation after 6 months on the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Point taken. There is enough irresponsibility to spoon around on everyone, be it kitty footing around terrorists or being beligerant with the transition team. LOL...no doubt there. It's amazing how much stuff was missed by everyone over the 20+ years prior to 9-11. I know how you all like qustions. The pressing one is: Where do you get a job with a 4 week vacation after 6 months on the job? 415027[/snapback] Easy. Join a union! Free healthcare too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 LOL...no doubt there. It's amazing how much stuff was missed by everyone over the 20+ years prior to 9-11.Easy. Join a union! Free healthcare too! 415037[/snapback] Wait, I am a union worker and have to pay 20% (100 bucks every two weeks) of my healthcare? When I started, after 6 months on the job I only earned a total of 52 hours of leave... And GWB is my boss... We are both get paid by the federal government, presumably out of the general fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Wait, I am a union worker and have to pay 20% (100 bucks every two weeks) of my healthcare? When I started, after 6 months on the job I only earned a total of 52 hours of leave... And GWB is my boss... We are both get paid by the federal government, presumably out of the general fund. 415046[/snapback] Bush got extra vacation because his base is below market value and he doesn't get a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Bush got extra vacation because his base is below market value and he doesn't get a bonus. 415047[/snapback] Should the prez get anything at all? They are all rich men entering the the office? Back to NH... Maybe the prez should get paid like the state reps there? They haven't had a raise in over 200 years. [Art.] 15. [Compensation of the Legislature.] The presiding officers of both houses of the legislature, shall severally receive out of the state treasury as compensation in full for their services for the term elected the sum of $2 50, and all other members thereof, seasonably attending and not departing without license, the sum of $200 and each member shall receive mileage for actual daily attendance on legislative days, but not after the legislature shall have been in session for 45 legislative days or after the first day of July following the annual assembly of the legislature, whichever occurs first; provided, however, that, when a special session shall be called by the governor or by a 2/3 vote of the then qualified members of each branch of the general court, such officers and members shall receive for attendance an additional compensation of $3 per day for a period not exceeding 15 days and the usual mileage. Nothing herein shall prevent the payment of additional mileage to m embers attending committee meetings or on other legislative business on nonlegislative days. June 2, 1784 Amended 1792 requiring state to pay wages instead of town. Amended 1889 setting salary for members at $200 and for officers at $250 with $3 per day for special sessions. Amended 1960 limiting mileage to 90 legislative days. Amended 1984 limiting mileage to 45 legislative days in each annual session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Should the prez get anything at all? They are all rich men entering the the office? Back to NH... Maybe the prez should get paid like the state reps there? They haven't had a raise in over 200 years. [Art.] 15. [Compensation of the Legislature.] The presiding officers of both houses of the legislature, shall severally receive out of the state treasury as compensation in full for their services for the term elected the sum of $2 50, and all other members thereof, seasonably attending and not departing without license, the sum of $200 and each member shall receive mileage for actual daily attendance on legislative days, but not after the legislature shall have been in session for 45 legislative days or after the first day of July following the annual assembly of the legislature, whichever occurs first; provided, however, that, when a special session shall be called by the governor or by a 2/3 vote of the then qualified members of each branch of the general court, such officers and members shall receive for attendance an additional compensation of $3 per day for a period not exceeding 15 days and the usual mileage. Nothing herein shall prevent the payment of additional mileage to m embers attending committee meetings or on other legislative business on nonlegislative days. June 2, 1784 Amended 1792 requiring state to pay wages instead of town. Amended 1889 setting salary for members at $200 and for officers at $250 with $3 per day for special sessions. Amended 1960 limiting mileage to 90 legislative days. Amended 1984 limiting mileage to 45 legislative days in each annual session. 415056[/snapback] They have the right idea. Here in PA, the legislature just voted themselves a massive pay raise. They tried to justify it by saying "well, I am working 60-80 hours per week at this job. I need to be compensated for my time." My response, "well, maybe we need to cut back the hours you are spending on the job. Being a legislator should be a part-time job." Less government - Good. More government - Bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Exactly. Stop loss for an all volunteer armed forces, not conscripted. Saudis, can't argue with that. Halliburton, same... Name change to protect the innocent. Presidents taking month long vactions in their first year, 11 days before the deadliest attack on American soil since the Civil War... Not that is TRULY new! 415015[/snapback] You Twit. These men signed up for 8 YEARS! They are being asked to honor that commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Wait, I am a union worker and have to pay 20% (100 bucks every two weeks) of my healthcare? When I started, after 6 months on the job I only earned a total of 52 hours of leave... And GWB is my boss... We are both get paid by the federal government, presumably out of the general fund. 415046[/snapback] Of course, when you take your 52 hours vacation, your job doesn't get packed into a couple of C-5s and follow you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Of course, when you take your 52 hours vacation, your job doesn't get packed into a couple of C-5s and follow you. 415127[/snapback] Someone I know who's in the Air Force SF & Ravens escorted the white pick-up and other stuff in a C-5 down to Crawford a couple of years ago. They had to wait for two hours while Laura, at the last minute, decided to send over another shoebox. Maybe she really, really, really, really, really, really needed those green pumps to go with one of her summer dresses. Oh well. That's the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Someone I know who's in the Air Force SF & Ravens escorted the white pick-up and other stuff in a C-5 down to Crawford a couple of years ago. They had to wait for two hours while Laura, at the last minute, decided to send over another shoebox. Maybe she really, really, really, really, really, really needed those green pumps to go with one of her summer dresses. Oh well. That's the job. 415179[/snapback] I believe the ability to make dozens of people wait for you shoes at a cost of thousands of dollars a minute is known as a "perk". Every administration has stupid nonsense like that going on. I used to know a guy in White House Signals under Clinton; Chelsea's slumber parties were apparently a royal pain in the ass for the Secret Service... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I believe the ability to make dozens of people wait for you shoes at a cost of thousands of dollars a minute is known as a "perk". Every administration has stupid nonsense like that going on. I used to know a guy in White House Signals under Clinton; Chelsea's slumber parties were apparently a royal pain in the ass for the Secret Service... 415267[/snapback] Well, it's the cost of keeping the inmates safe at the American prison system's crown jewel, as one president called it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Every administration has stupid nonsense like that going on. 415267[/snapback] No. No administration until the current one had anything CLOSE to this going on. They were all perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I believe the ability to make dozens of people wait for you shoes at a cost of thousands of dollars a minute is known as a "perk". Every administration has stupid nonsense like that going on. I used to know a guy in White House Signals under Clinton; Chelsea's slumber parties were apparently a royal pain in the ass for the Secret Service... 415267[/snapback] As were the frat parties the under age Chelsea got hammered at when she was at Stanford. Gi that info directly from a member of the frat (the Dekes-DKE) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 As were the frat parties the under age Chelsea got hammered at when she was at Stanford. Gi that info directly from a member of the frat (the Dekes-DKE) 415387[/snapback] Underage drinking at a college? Why, that NEVER happens...those Clintons are rotten, I tell you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Underage drinking at a college? Why, that NEVER happens...those Clintons are rotten, I tell you... 415393[/snapback] Anyone who ever drank before they were 21 probably had really bad parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 You Twit. These men signed up for 8 YEARS! They are being asked to honor that commitment. 415124[/snapback] Why the name calling? These men signed up for 8 YEARS! They are being asked to honor that commitment. Would have sufficed. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Why the name calling? These men signed up for 8 YEARS! They are being asked to honor that commitment. Would have sufficed. ??? 415587[/snapback] You should know by now, when they can't effectively counter the message they attack the messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 You should know by now, when they can't effectively counter the message they attack the messenger. 415618[/snapback] I think the meat of my post countered his poorly-conceived argument quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I think the meat of my post countered his poorly-conceived argument quite well. 415623[/snapback] Of course you would think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 No. No administration until the current one had anything CLOSE to this going on. They were all perfect. 415301[/snapback] Except for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts