Comments Posted By retire05
Displaying 131 To 140 Of 231 Comments
ONLY A REPUBLICAN COULD BE SO STUPID...
Mary (#31) glad to see you at least acknowledge that President Bush has been called "boy, that boy" by those on the left. Wonder where the outrage was then. Hiding like a tiny criminal? Nevermind you saw fit to include what I, as a Southerner considers an insult by calling someone from Kentucy a "redneck". Maybe you should take a course on the history of words to learn how offensive the term "redneck" is. But don't let that slow you down in your endeavor to insult a Southerner.
It seems the outrage is only because Obama is "black". So are you saying that there would be no outrage (as historically proven) by calling a "white" man "boy"?
I am sick to death of all the subliminal meaning attached to everything everyone says. This damn stupid practice of requiring everything to be politically correct for fear someone somewhere just might be insulted is spliting our nation into greater divides than necessary. But there seems to be no outrage when southern men who like NASCAR are referred to as hicks, rubes, crackers, gun wielding, Bible toting inbreds who marry their cousins, not to mention "rednecks" as has been said by those on the PC left.
So now, Mary, since I have informed you that I find your use of the term "redneck" offensive, can I expect your written apology?
Comment Posted By retire05 On 15.04.2008 @ 10:36
Call a contractor in the North and you will set up an appointment for when his "guys" are going to show up. Does that mean that all Northerners are misogynostic rubes who insult the women that work for them? So to equate a Southernern's use of the word "boy" when referring to another man is really reaching for something to complain about. When a man askes a woman [in the South] how her husband is, chances are the guy will say "How's your boy"? no matter the color of his skin.
So now Rick wants to institute "thought" rules for political correct use of terms. It could not have possibly been that Davis was using a term that is a colloquialism used frequently in the South. Perhaps Rick would like to send me a check for $100 for every time that Bob Beckel has called George W. "that boy"?Was this really such a PC gaffe on Davis's part or just another reason for northern elite to bash a Southerner?
Comment Posted By retire05 On 15.04.2008 @ 08:46
Did I find Obama's remarks "elitist"? Nope. I found them arrogant. A man, who would be POTUS, and who has "confessed" that he has never made a political decision without the council of his race mongering minister, derides middle America because we hold our faith important to our lives, not just in bad times, but in good times, as well. He derides us because we hold the Second Amendment to be part and parcel of rights given by God, and not by man. A right, when removed by government, ceases to be a right but become a priviledge doled out to a select few chosen by the government. Odd, I was under the impression the document title was the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Priviledges. He derides us because we turn to our faith in hard times, yet he assured us he is strong in his religion. He derides us because we think that il-legal immigration has created more problems than it has resolved, including losing jobs to those who are willing to work for less without benefits. He derides us because we may be anti-trade, yet he recently came out strongly against the Colombian Free Trade agreement that would have helped create jobs so it seems to me that in his arrogance, he is slamming Pennslyvanians for feelings that he has himself.
This is, in fact, the real Obama. The Obama who feels that nothing should take precedence in your life but the government. That the government, not your faith, not your belief in the Constitution, should be the end all to beat all in our lives, from cradle to grave.
The arrogance in Obama comes from his belief that only his form of socialism is the answer to all our national ills. And that anyone who doesn't understand that his socialist ways are the only answer is nothing more than a rube with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 13.04.2008 @ 12:30
One other thing; this whole thread is based on an article written by reporters who seemingly have derived their information from those ever famous "unnamed sources". If the very principals engaged in those meetings are not talking, who is?
Comment Posted By retire05 On 10.04.2008 @ 14:05
Could it be that we are, once again, dealing with rogue CIA types who have repeatedly had their clocks cleaned for their lack of production by the current administration? But instead of giving this report the small "grain of salt" it deserves, there are those who will accept the report as gospel since surely the MSM would never pad a report.
"I am guessing by your blogger name that you feed at the public trough as a retiree - probably from the navy or army. You have to defend the indefensibel because your bread and butter is provided by the very same machine which tortures innocent people. If you ever had a real job - outside of the robotic routines of a soldier, youi would be more sensitive to human suffering. You are alone and lonely. Probably poor, and probably arngy about your lot in life. Your poor choices put you were you are. You shouldn't turn your disappointment in your own life into a vendetta against other people."
WoW! What a genius you must be to be able to determine a person's entire life by an internet moniker. Can we assume you are some college professor who is upset that you can't shove your socialist/Marxist views down the throats of all your student charges? Or is it just that you subscribe to the belief that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a loser? Not to mention your apparant disdain for the military. BTW, it is Navy and Army. Capital letters for those who don't have the intellect to know any different.
Believe me, Jumbo, my moniker has nothing to do with my life style or sucking from the public teat. If you must know, it reflects a personal goal I set for myself years ago. One that I acheived, no thanks to any government agency. And believe me when I tell you that I could probably buy and sell you ten times over because what I have learned is that those of your ilk who spew such vitriol are usually the losers they accuse others of being.
Now, I do find it interesting that Rick would say that if waterboarding is accepted voluntarily, it is not torture. It seems that his take on torture depends on whether the person being "tortured" has given consent. So the act itself is not considered torture unless it is against one's consent. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Waterboarding either IS torture or IT IS NOT. A person's approval has nothing to do with the act. And you either think that it IS an illegal activity and ALL people who engage in waterboarding should be prosecuted, willingly or not, or no one should be prosecuted. You can't have it both ways for the sake of convenience of your beliefs.
While I can respect someone's view that the U.S. needs to take the high moral road, not one of you can offer any proof that doing so has prevented the deaths of any Americans, or much less the torture of anyone captured by the terrorists. I would refer to the recent event where American captives had their fingers cut off and sent to officals before they were found beheaded.
I think I should also point out that there are some who are blind to the type of enemy we are fighting. They care not if we torture, nay, they view our humanity as a weakness. And they will not become more humane due to our own humanity. When one believes that removing the enemies head prevents that enemy from entering Heaven, our reluctance to do what is necessary (and I don't include the treatment John McCain and Sam Johnson received at the hands of the North Vietnames as necessary) will not prevent the removal of any more heads. It only enables the terrorists to believe that we are morally weak.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 10.04.2008 @ 13:40
"Torture" is a vague claim. Do you, Rick, consider waterboarding "torture"? If so, then do you also think that every CodePinko that waterboards fellow CodePinkos in the public square during their protest marches should be found and prosecuted?
If you want to be specific about what contitutes "torture", and it a) inflicts physical pain and b) creates permanent damage to the person receiving the torture that fits (a), I am willing to listen. But to generalize sleep depravation as torture, or the playing of loud music, waterboarding (which leaves no permanent damage and is not painful) as torture when there are thousands, perhaps millions, of American lives at stake, goes beyond the realm.Hey, rethugican, can we waterboard the Democratic congressman that has been negotiating with FARC against our own policy of not dealing with terrorist organizations? Or do you only have sympathy for the terrorists?
Yes waterboarding is torture. The definition:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This was later amended to include "cruel and inhumane treatment" which the rest of the world agrees that waterboarding falls under.
Code pinkos are not trying to get info thus are not torturing anyone.
ed.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 10.04.2008 @ 10:45
PROGRESS IN IRAQ A TOUGH SELL FOR PETREAUS
So what now? Pull out? Give Iraq a time table that the NYTs will leak so that the Islamofascists know when we will be leaving?
I watched the dog and pony show today. I was sickened by the Democrats, and yes, some Republicans, crying over the cost of the most important war in this nation's history. Perhaps if the Democrats have had some change in heart about their careless spending and treating taxpayer dollars like Monopoly money they could have agreed to a one year moratorium on pork spending. But nooooooo, that is too damn easy. And yes, I realize that $17 billion (for this year) is a small drop in the bucket, but it would have been a start.So we pull out? What then? Which of the Democrats have the answer to that? Will AQ follow us back home with our open border policies? Will we see a repeat of 9-11 only this time Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles or Milwaukee? Will there be a repeat of the disaster that we left called Vietnam? How many boat people will we see then? How many have to be killed in Iraq by Muslim fundamentalist before we can then claim another genocide?
Barbara Boxer went on and on and on about how Imjustajollyjihad from Iran kissed Maliki on both cheeks. Five years after fighting in the Middle East and she still doesn't have a clue about Middle Eastern culture. All she knows is how to make political points by trying to make General Petraeus look bad.
So we pull out. Then what? Will all the jihadists just go back to their carts, goat farms, shops? Will they decide that since we have left, there is no more need to try to kill us?
Prior to entering the war in Iraq, Joe Biden said that we would be there at least ten years, maybe longer. Now he is demanding to know when we will leave. I guess no one told Joe that this war is not going to end anytime soon since it has been in the works since September 11, 1683.
This war is not going to end anytime soon. The terrorist possess one thing the North Vietnamese possessed, patience, something our American politicians seen to have little knowledge of. We will fight the terrorists for the rest of our lives and our children will probably have to pick it up when we are gone.
Maybe Carl Levin can get AQ to come to Washington to testify. Maybe he can ask them how long they intend to try to kill Americans, both in Iraq and here at home. Maybe he should demand to know how much they spend so that he can make sure that they are not outspending us. Or maybe he could go to Iran and ask that nation how long it intends to train and arm the terrorists our military is trying to eliminate.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 8.04.2008 @ 18:49
#11, Michael Renyolds, so while you did not answer the question with a straight forward reply, we can only assume that your moral authority and respect for the law is greater than your love would be for a daughter who was going to die if you did not get to her in time. Please, do the world a favor. Do not reproduce. Germany was a nation of law, lots of them. And under the excuse for adhering to the rule of law, Germans sat by while six million people were exterminated. Sometime thwarting the rule of law is the right thing to do.
Since I do not consider waterboarding torture, although we have had the left wing pundits proclaim it as such, I have to wonder if those like you think that the CodePinkos should be arrested for crimes against humanity since it is standard practice for them to waterboard each other during their protest marches. If waterboarding is against American law, then why are they allowed to continue that practice and are not held accountable for it?
You, and many like you, seem to think that we are fighting a enemy that will respect our reluctance to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. They do not. They consider it a weakness on our part that they can count on in their battle to make the world Islamic.
Read the Geneva Convention, for God's sake. The terrorists, in the second convention, are not considered legal emeny combatants and the rule is they can be shot on site. We do not do that. Instead, we ship them to GITMO where they get Korans, arrows painted in their cells pointing to Mecca and honey glazed chicken. If making them stand for 12 hours will force them to give up information that saves the lives of our military, so be it.
Read the defination of torture in any dictionary. Waterboarding leaves no permanant damage and creates no pain. But even with the most hardened terrorist, it is effective.
This whole "moral authority" argument makes me sick everything I see a film of those Twin Towers falling. We are at war with a non-traditional enemy, for God's sake, and if you don't have the stomach to defeat them, at least get out of the way and thank God that there are those who are willing to put their "moral authority" aside for the safety and security of our nation and our military who are trying to remove this scum from the face of the earth.
#16, Transplanted lawyer
If you can provide one case where our refusal to use coercive methods such as waterboarding has saved even one American life, I am willing to listen to your argument against such methods. We stopped waterboarding years ago, but recently we received the fingers of captured American contractors before we found their bodies. So how did our "moral authority" change the mindset of 7th century radicals? You say that if we "torture" a captive, he will never against trust us. What the hell kind of rationale is that? If we can't get them to talk to us, are we to assume that given time, he will? And in that time, how many American lives have been lost.
You seem to think that using 21st century morality standards will prevent them from using their 7th century battle tactics. You seem to be totally unaware of the enemy we are fighting. Do you really think that their belief that if they remove the head of their enemy it will prevent the enemy from being a "martyr" is going to change because we are the nice guys?
Who are we seeking approval from? The Useless UN? We are in a fight for the preservation of western civilization and until the nation realizes that this is just an extention of a very old war, and not a new one, we are on the losing side. Osama bin Laden chose September 11th for a reason. Once you realize what importance that date holds for the radical Islamists, then you will understand what we are up against. Until then, you, and the rest of the moral authorities, don't have a clue.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 3.04.2008 @ 11:20
Senario:
Your name is Mark Lundsford. You know John Couey has your tiny daughter but Couey is not telling where he has her. He says she is still alive, but since Couey has already kidnapped and raped your daughter repeatedly, Couey knows that he has nothing to lose if she dies.
Are you willing to pour some water over Couey's face to try to make him tell you where she is and possibly save her life?What if we had taken into custody one of the 19 9-11 hijackers? Is our moral authority worth nearly 3,000 lives? I wonder what the 9-11 families would say about that, when they will never have anything of their loved ones that they can put in the ground.
But we are better than the enemy you say? Fine. Tell me how many American lives that has saved. Did it save Matt Maupin? Daniel Pearl? Nick Berg?
I'm not saying to beat them with bamboo rods until all their bones are broken or starve them to death. But sorry, when it comes to waterboarding, if my name is Mark Lundsford, I am going to ask why you didn't waterboard Couey yesterday.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 2.04.2008 @ 15:56
ANOTHER ANTI-WAR FILM TANKS AT THE BOX OFFICE
butter, had you asked, I would have contributed to your plane fare. Canada is freer that the U.S.? Think so? Ask Mark Steyn just how free Canada is when it comes to speech that the Human Rights Commission doesn't agree with. Say something that a committee of non-elected people don't agree with and you will wind up in court.
So glad you now live in England. Now the next step is to give up your American citizenship. Go all the way. Make a statement.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 30.03.2008 @ 18:17
