Comments Posted By TomT
Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments

THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE

I used to think the same way about women in combat positions in the military. I thought conservatives were just being hysterical until Abu Ghraib. At the center of the controversy were 2 women. The commander who was probably promoted because of her sex and a pregnant girl who appeared to be the ring leader of this controversy. Considering that there were probably a small percentage of women in the fire zone, it is pretty damning that 2 of them were at the center of this controversy. I am intellectual honest enough to admit when I could be wrong. I think conservatives concerns over gay marriage are legitimate and should be heeded. The people who truly have the open minds are the ones who listen to the conservative concerns and just don't blow them off as some right wing bigots. If you listen to them, most of them speak based on a concern for their country and culture and not from a hatred for gays. Gay marriage opens up allot of other issues that you might not be considering.

In the end I wouldn't mind trying some of these policies if there could be some honest evaluation of the policies and their effect on society. But the problem I have is like the example above, no matter how disasterous their policies are, liberals never admit when they are wrong. Look at most of the inner city school systems, in Detorit 60-70% of the students who start do not graduate. Where are the calls for change? When do they admit the system doesn't work and actually consider other solutions like vouchers? Would this be tolerated if it was privately run?

This is what worries me most about National Health Care. Once it is implemented, it will never go back no matter how big of a disaster it is. I think that is why Christianity has been such a successful philoshophy over the centuries. It was not as dogmatic as other religions and economic philosophhies and has adapted to better ideas.

Comment Posted By TomT On 18.04.2009 @ 23:47

"There is no stigma attached to living together in an unmarried state. Indeed, very few people care — and if you do, go to hell. To make it your business — to judge me on how I live my life is about as intrusive as anyone can get. Needless to say, the thought of government having a say in whether we can cohabitate should be as abhorrent to a conservative as any other government intervention in our private lives."

I don't care about your business as long as you don't care about mine, but you don't. Government is constantly intruding on my right to associate freely. That means I can rent, hire, or serve anybody I choose and for any reason. Sure it is your business until you shove it down my throat. That is the whole problem with the gay marriage debate. No one wants to respect the other side of the coin. The freedom to associate with whoever you wish and for any reason. This is one of our most basic of freedoms. I don't have a problem with people judging me, I just don't think they have a right to impose their judgements through the government. I am all for private judgement. I think it was good when people were ostracized from society for their actions.

On another note, did you guys see the report about people who are sexually attracted to objects. I am torn. On what principle do I make a moral judgement? Will we grant rights to a bridge? Who are we to judge.

Comment Posted By TomT On 18.04.2009 @ 22:52

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE

"Michael, here’s a way to reason your way out of it: Understand that torture really only works to elicit false confessions. Even if your family were in imminent danger, torturing somebody wouldn’t garner the info you wanted, no matter what you might have seen on “24? and in the movies. And, as Rick correctly states above, it’s important to note that none (not a one!) of the detainees described in these memos was tortured under a “ticking time-bomb scenario.” The government simply wanted information — and when they couldn’t get it legally, they resorted to torture. And, still, they didn’t get anything they could use — either to halt any terror plots in-progress, or even evidence that could be used at trial."

Let me get this straight, professional interogators just do this for the fun of it. Don't you think if they did this for a living that they would want to use the most effective methods to obtain information? Do you go to your job everyday and do things the most inefficient way? You are the one with the TV view of the world. Most of these interogators are probably consciencious and want to obtain information in the most effective way possible. They are evaluated on how much information they can obtain. You don't know the information they obtained. I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

Don't you just love liberals? They know how to do everybodies job. They know how to build cars, they know how to interogate people, they know the right amount of health care for everybody, etc....
If people just did what they said, the world would be perfect.

About all the Nazi talk, has anybody examined the treatment of POWs by the FDR administration during WWII. I think a lot worse was done by the FDR administration. So why not compare Bush to FDR? I guess it would illustrate the ignorance and lack of perspective of these comments.

I am just glad that you were not in charge. By your definition, anything could be constued as torture. Let's face it, it is just a matter of degree. I could say the same things about your techniques.

Comment Posted By TomT On 18.04.2009 @ 22:04

BEGALA: APRIL 15TH SHOULD BE 'PATRIOT'S DAY'

2 departments that can be eliminated to start.

Dept of Energy. When it was formed, 30% of our oil was from foreign countries. Today we are above 60%.

Dept of Education. When it was formed we competed internationally academically. Since its inception we have continued to slide in all areas when compared to the rest of the world.

Please tell me why we need these 2 organizations? Why can't we fire them? Don't they deserve it?

Comment Posted By TomT On 18.04.2009 @ 22:32

Remember,

No government = Afghanistan or Somalia.

What? Both of these have corrupt totalitarian government.

How about
North Korea- they have a big government.

I know it is hard to believe for you, but we could probably live quite confortably and securly without 70% of the government. That is the problem with govenrment, once they start performing the service, it is hard to think of any other way no matter how disastrous their policies. Look at the public school system in the City of Detroit. 60-70% of the kids that start don't finish. Yet nothing can be done. If this was run privately, you would be screaming about 10%. Citing private companies doesn't prove anything. There no longer around and their executives are sent to Jail. You put your criminals in the Cabinet. As far as Europe is concerned, their standard of living would have been severly decreased if it wasn't for the US. Europe is a bad model because they depend so much on the US for their defense, economies, and any inovation in Health care. Open your mind and do some analysis on the socialized health care systems.

Comment Posted By TomT On 18.04.2009 @ 22:26

BUSH VETOES CONGRESSIONAL INVITATION TO AL QAEDA TO SLAUGHTER IRAQIS

Though Reid has no use for the Bush administration's military "surge," he does propose a "surge in diplomacy," in line with the cliché that the war has no military solution. As The Washington Post's David Broder has pointed out, "Instead of reinforcing the important proposition ... that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can succeed...." In fact, the one brand of diplomacy that truly matters in Iraq--the U.S. Army's tribal diplomacy, which accounts for the recent turn-around in Anbar Province--is precisely the mission that Reid's demand for a skeleton force would shut down.

Where all this leads is clear. Piece together a string of demonstrably false "facts on the ground" from a suitably safe remove, and you're left with a scenario where we can walk away from Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. You don't need to watch terrified Iraqis pleading for American forces to stay put in their neighborhoods. You don't need to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which anticipates that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will end in catastrophe. Why, in the serene conviction that things are the other way around, you don't even need to read at all. Chances are, your congressman doesn't either.

Comment Posted By tomt On 2.05.2007 @ 07:10

LAST WORD

Rumsfeld was a true reformer. He cut crusader and comanche programs. This was uprecedented. Lets face it, Rumsfeld wanted to make the mitary more efficient. You may say cheap, but I think he thought we had enough resources to do the job and they just had to be utilized more effectively. I can't argue with that. I think we need a military that is more nimble and able to respond quickly.

Comment Posted By tomt On 2.05.2007 @ 06:23

You do not fight on the cheap, but you fight with the resources you have. If you plan on a long occupation, you maust make plans to rotate troops to keep them fresh. I do not believe you can fight suicide bombers with massive amounts of force. I think you will end up with allot more dead on your hands.

My primary premise is that people do not acknowledge that the solutions they offer may come with their own set of problems that could lead to outcomes far worse than we have currently. Personally, I do not think any of the popular solutions I have heard would have changed much on the ground today. I do not think what we have today in Iraq is that horrible. The Government is already much better than most of the Governments in that area. I think abandoning Iraq today would be a big mistake especially with the payoff being so large. People need to get some perspective.

Comment Posted By tomt On 2.05.2007 @ 06:11

"General Shinseki’s troops estimates, based on war gaming, were 100,000 higher than what we sent in, and those troops were reserves for postwar operation."

What was his numbers for Afganistan? I think you will find out that he always wanted more troop for every operation. This is why 9/11 happened. In the 90s when the Pentagon was asked about plans to get OBL, every response from the Pentagon required massive amounts of force leading to a logistics nightmare. Our Generals have enough blood on their hands. Do not make them out to be geniuses. Could you imagine maintaining a force in Iraq the size Shinseki wanted for any length of time? I'm sorry, I guess if we had that many troops in Iraq everything would have been peaches and cream and they would have been home by Christmas. And they tell me I am unrealistic!

Comment Posted By TomT On 1.05.2007 @ 15:56


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page