Any Americans want to sign this? (1 Viewer)

[Rabbie]

The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. If the government starts an illegitmate war based on lies, it is our duty to question their motives. It is unpatriotic to blindly follow leaders that do not have our best interests at heart.

You still have not answered my original question. What exactly did Iraq do to deserve our occupation?

The worrying thing is that nearly all politicians believe that they are acting in the best interests of the people even when it is obvious to observers that they have got it wrong

 

[Alisa]

Truest things posted on this thread so far.

The unions - the CAW in particular - are huge in the area I'm currently living and the ways they abuse their power is frightening.

I spent a wile working for the HR department in one of the local car plants and just from the stuff I saw, it was forced to

• Hire unqualified people who were related to one of the union leaders
• Allow people to keep their jobs after they repeatedly turned up for work drunk
• Allow people to keep their jobs after stealing from the plant
• Promote incompetent people, due to 'seniority'
• Lay off decent, hardworking people who didn't have the seniority

In each of the above cases, the plant was told that if they didn't do as told, there would be a strike. They called one at least twice. They also call one every time contract negotiations are due, just to remind the plant who's in charge.

Back when they started, unions were useful and did a lot of good. Anyone who thinks they're now not open to abuse and don't spend much of their time working out ways for members to 'milk' the system is living in a dream world.

Unions definitely have their problems, especially the teachers union. But that doesn't mean that workers don't need a way to protect their rights.

 

[dkinley]

It is unpatriotic to blindly follow leaders that do not have our best interests at heart.

I will answer this one in the interim. Throughout history, it is this very thought that creates winners. On the battlefield, if a lower-ranked person stops to question the orders of someone in charge, the delay could cause people to die. Scale up a few ranks on the rung. Orders are given, they are obeyed - blindly. This is so the higher ups can plan the next move knowing their orders are being followed and you need to be in the position they expect you to be in so that the overall strategy can be carried out. This is why there is a criminal charge in the UCMJ titled 'Disobeying a Direct Order'.

Now, it is blindly followed also because a particular person doesn't know of the entire scope of the operation (besides the effect it is a team effort). That's not a soldiers role to know.

When I served in the Marine Corps I followed the Presidents orders even though I did not like him. You don't have to respect the person, but you have to respect the position because you don't know the whole scope, you don't question orders, you do your job and you do it hoping the office has the country's best interest at heart.

Since you have never soldiered before and have obvious disdain for those that are soldiering and have soldiered, let me present it to you in a manner you can understand.

Think of that lowly variable that is at the bottom of some sub-procedure. Do you care that it needs to know the whole scope of the application? Does it need to know the whole scope of the operation to do it's job? What if you had to code every lowly variable with the scope of the operation, let it know what all the other variables were doing, how they were doing it, and why they were doing it. The application wouldn't run and your competitor, who is more efficient, sells your client their solution because it works and responds to the command of the user (aka President) expediently and without question.

And no, I don't disrepect you or your opinion, I actually like you and have respect for you, I just disagree with some of your ideas. =]

-dK

 

[Banana]

The worrying thing is that nearly all politicians believe that they are acting in the best interests of the people even when it is obvious to observers that they have got it wrong

I beg to differ.

They've been acting in their own interests all along; "doing it for everybody's goods" is just a pretense. They've gotten much more sophisticated since Soviet-style tactics of putting only their own people on the list; they now put two of their people on the list and let people choose between either!

Herge knew about it.

Comrades, there are three lists present! One of those list is that of Communist Party!

Those who oppose the list raise the hands! Who is against this list?

Nobody?! I hereby proclaim that the list of Communist Party passed unanimously!

 

[Joe8915]

The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. If the government starts an illegitmate war based on lies, it is our duty to question their motives. It is unpatriotic to blindly follow leaders that do not have our best interests at heart.

You still have not answered my original question. What exactly did Iraq do to deserve our occupation?

Remember Saddam Hussein,

The people there wanted their freedom. The people there are enjoying freedoms never before experienced.

If we leave now, we will be responsible for the millions that die. We made them vulnerable, now we must do what is right and finish the job.


If the government starts an illegitmate war based on lies, it is our duty to question their motives............maybe its your duty to question their motives, sorry Alsia, but not mine.

It is unpatriotic to blindly follow leaders that do not have our best interests at heart............... So why don't you just say it, you don't like Bush and everything he stands for.

At least I can say, I will support any Commander in chief, if its Obama or McCain.

It sounds like to me if your boy does not get in, you will not support McCain.

Now you talk about unpatriotic!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alisa]

Remember Saddam Hussein,

The people there wanted their freedom. The people there are enjoying freedoms never before experienced.

If we leave now, we will be responsible for the millions that die. We made them vulnerable, now we must do what is right and finish the job.


If the government starts an illegitmate war based on lies, it is our duty to question their motives............maybe its your duty to question their motives, sorry Alsia, but not mine.

It is unpatriotic to blindly follow leaders that do not have our best interests at heart............... So why don't you just say it, you don't like Bush and everything he stands for.

At least I can say, I will support any Commander in chief, if its Obama or McCain.

It sounds like to me if your boy does not get in, you will not support McCain.

Now you talk about unpatriotic!!!!!!!!!!!

So the Iraqi people deserved to be invaded because they had an evil dicatator? They WANTED us to invade them? Is that your answer?

We are ALREADY responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. Whether we stay or go, whether we leave now or in 100 years, their blood is still on our hands.

It is the duty of every patriotic American to keep their leaders in line, to question their motives, and to hold them accountable to us, we the people who elected them.

"I love my country and fear my government." For me, it never has been and never will be about blindly supporting the person who is the commander in chief, and you can bet that I will promptly begin criticizing the actions of whoever takes office on January 20, 2009.

And dk, I beg to differ with you, I have never ever expressed disdain for those who serve. I challenge you to find one single thing I have ever said against soldiers. Do you really think I don't understand the chain of command? Of course I do, but I am a civilian, not a soldier. It is a soldier's job to follow commands. It is a citizen's job to question their goverment. It is the attitude of many in this country of blind obedience that has allowed our government to go so far astray, and it is up to us to reign them back in.

 

[Rabbie]

I beg to differ.

They've been acting in their own interests all along; "doing it for everybody's goods" is just a pretense. They've gotten much more sophisticated since Soviet-style tactics of putting only their own people on the list; they now put two of their people on the list and let people choose between either!

You may be right but I think many of them have a talent for self deception and definiitely think they know what is good for the rest of us even if we don't.

 

[Fifty2One]

So if you were an Iraqi and in the army you would have blindly followed the orders of Saddam Hussein?

The people in Iraq do not want the freedom they are currently enjoying they want people to stop shooting and bombing so they can get on with their lives. They really do not give a crap about who is firing and bombing...

I support Canadas troops AND also support troops of other countries, these people are up front with risking everything, but I do not neccessarily support the reasons they are pressed into service.
It is treason against humanity and absolutely deplorable for leaders to place these men, women, their loved ones and the colateral casualties in to the line of fire for unjust causes and selfish reasons.

Perhaps there are other world leaders who need to have a noose around their necks for the crimes they have mandated against humanity

Remember Saddam Hussein,

The people there wanted their freedom. The people there are enjoying freedoms never before experienced.

If we leave now, we will be responsible for the millions that die. We made them vulnerable, now we must do what is right and finish the job.


If the government starts an illegitmate war based on lies, it is our duty to question their motives............maybe its your duty to question their motives, sorry Alsia, but not mine.

It is unpatriotic to blindly follow leaders that do not have our best interests at heart............... So why don't you just say it, you don't like Bush and everything he stands for.

At least I can say, I will support any Commander in chief, if its Obama or McCain.

It sounds like to me if your boy does not get in, you will not support McCain.

Now you talk about unpatriotic!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dkinley]

Okay, I rescind what I said. It irks me that you shrug off the military so much because it benefits your argument. Case is when you praise John Kerry for his but discounts McCain's military experience.

What you might forget are there are 19 and 20 year olds out there making life and death decisions not only for themself but for a group of people at any given moment. Lowly platoon leaders also have to provision their troops in regards to food/shelter, etc. Is that not executive experience?

To go a step further even though you have already stopped reading, Palin was in charge of the Alaskan National Guard. I would have to say that as such, she received even more executive experience as the State Commander-In-Chief as opposed to running Alaska in general.

Of course, this is just my opinion and the aforementioned dialogue has no obvious meaning unless it applied to a Democrat.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

Okay, I rescind what I said. It irks me that you shrug off the military so much because it benefits your argument. Case is when you praise John Kerry for his but discounts McCain's military experience.

What you might forget are there are 19 and 20 year olds out there making life and death decisions not only for themself but for a group of people at any given moment. Lowly platoon leaders also have to provision their troops in regards to food/shelter, etc. Is that not executive experience?

To go a step further even though you have already stopped reading, McCain was in charge of the Alaskan National Guard. I would have to say that as such, she received even more executive experience as the State Commander-In-Chief as opposed to running Alaska in general.

Of course, this is just my opinion and the aforementioned dialogue has no obvious meaning unless it applied to a Democrat.

-dK

I did no such thing. All I did was point out that McCain is running on his military experience, whereas the the swiftboaters tore apart Kerry's.

I never forget that there are young men and women risking their very lives - they sacrifice so very much, don't we owe it to them to make sure we don't ask for that sacrifice unnecessarily? Don't we owe it to their mothers?

I think you meant that Sarah was in charge of the Alaska National Guard. Can you answer Campbell's question? Tucker couldn't. What is one single decision she made as the commander?

 

[Joe8915]

So the Iraqi people deserved to be invaded because they had an evil dicatator? They WANTED us to invade them? Is that your answer?

We are ALREADY responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. Whether we stay or go, whether we leave now or in 100 years, their blood is still on our hands.

It is the duty of every patriotic American to keep their leaders in line, to question their motives, and to hold them accountable to us, we the people who elected them.

"I love my country and fear my government." For me, it never has been and never will be about blindly supporting the person who is the commander in chief, and you can bet that I will promptly begin criticizing the actions of whoever takes office on January 20, 2009.

And dk, I beg to differ with you, I have never ever expressed disdain for those who serve. I challenge you to find one single thing I have ever said against soldiers. Do you really think I don't understand the chain of command? Of course I do, but I am a civilian, not a soldier. It is a soldier's job to follow commands. It is a citizen's job to question their goverment. It is the attitude of many in this country of blind obedience that has allowed our government to go so far astray, and it is up to us to reign them back in.

Alsia, since you fear our government. Will you fear it when Obama when and if he is elected? Or will you sit aside.

Alsia, it looks like you live in Colorado. So when was the last time you been to a Veterans Hosiptal?

Go down to Fort Carson's 10th Combat Support Hospital, and tell them that you fear our government. Let me know what kind of responce you get.
Even better read word for word what you just said here to those women and men that is siting there.

 

[Alisa]

Alsia, since you fear our government. Will you fear it when Obama when and if he is elected? Or will you sit aside.

Alsia, it looks like you live in Colorado. So when was the last time you been to a Veterans Hosiptal?

Go down to Fort Carson's 10th Combat Support Hospital, and tell them that you fear our government. Let me know what kind of responce you get.
Even better read word for word what you just said here to those women and men that is siting there.

Yes, I will repeat myself since I guess I wasn't clear. I will ALWAYS fear my government and I will ALWAYS criticize whoever is in charge. I feel that it is my duty as a citizen to pay attention to what my leaders are doing, and complain when they get off track.

I'm not sure what relevance visiting a veteran's hospital has. I have spoken to many veterans, although none in the hospital, and I have also spoken to many veterans who share my concern that this war should never have been started. What is your point?

 

[dkinley]

Under direct authority, the National Guard plays a state role in emergencies, wild fires, etc. It is the job of the Govenor and the National Guard Commander to ensure the guard is ready to do whatever is asked. She delegated the appropriate authority just as a President would to respond to a crisis or authority. In this sense she also had to manage the Guard just as one would a project from mobilization to demobilization. I also am pretty sure there were a few wildfires and such she responded with the Guard.

No President commands the day-to-day operation as if to say you go here and you do that just like a CEO of a company doesn't do. A President or Govenor takes their general's opinion and recommendation and gives orders for delegation just like a CEO does.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

Under direct authority, the National Guard plays a state role in emergencies, wild fires, etc. It is the job of the Govenor and the National Guard Commander to ensure the guard is ready to do whatever is asked. She delegated the appropriate authority just as a President would to respond to a crisis or authority. In this sense she also had to manage the Guard just as one would a project from mobilization to demobilization. I also am pretty sure there were a few wildfires and such she responded with the Guard.

No President commands the day-to-day operation as if to say you go here and you do that just like a CEO of a company doesn't do. A President or Govenor takes their general's opinion and recommendation and gives orders for delegation just like a CEO does.

-dK

I would just feel so much more comfortable accepting your argument that Sarah gained some sort of executive experience as the commander of the Alaska National Guard if there were even one single example of a situation in which she made an actual decision in her capacity as the commander. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[redneckgeek]

Yes, I will repeat myself since I guess I wasn't clear. I will ALWAYS fear my government and I will ALWAYS criticize whoever is in charge. I feel that it is my duty as a citizen to pay attention to what my leaders are doing, and complain when they get off track.

I'm with you there! I fear my government - and it's time the government starts to fear the people again! I think that's what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

[Banana]

You may be right but I think many of them have a talent for self deception and definiitely think they know what is good for the rest of us even if we don't.

Ooo, good point. It's quite possible they're deluded as well. Still, doesn't make it any better. :/

 

[Rich]

Remember Saddam Hussein,

The people there wanted their freedom.

Who asked the Iraqis first?

What freedom do Saudis have by the way

The people there are enjoying freedoms never before experienced.

Yes the freedom to blast each other to bits during the civil war that Bliar and Bush unleashed on them

 

[Rich]

Under direct authority, the National Guard plays a state role in emergencies, wild fires, etc. It is the job of the Govenor and the National Guard Commander to ensure the guard is ready to do whatever is asked.
-dK

I thought the National Guard was to protect the US from invasion, since the Canadians aren't interested, then the guard is failing in regard to Mexicans, maybe it was time it was scrapped

 

[Alisa]

I'm with you there! I fear my government - and it's time the government starts to fear the people again! I think that's what the founding fathers had in mind.

And they never WILL fear us if we just do whatever they tell us to do like a bunch of sheep. We have to start by voicing our dissent.

 

[dkinley]

"The only times Palin has commanded the Alaska National Guard was on operations inside her state, which have included fighting wildfires and providing standby security for a meeting of the International Whaling Commission in May 2007, according to reports."

From a leftist thing because they use the phrase "was on operations inside her state." DUH. After the Guard crosses state borders (any state, any governor) the authority shifts to the President as the Gov passes the baton.

If you want to put proper scope on this or even if nothing, what has Obama or Biden done for anything in this regard to ensuring mobilization/demobilization and management on a state scale?

-dK