Comments Posted By retire05
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 231 Comments
El, no, the Souix are not required to live there any more than those who live in the ghettos that Jesse Jackson is always harping about are required to live in those ghettos.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand the plight of the most persecuted segment of our society. After all, affirmative action rules do not apply to Native Americans or Asians.
The cost of this Obamamaniagala would have provided everyone of those Souix with $4,600. But I guess the left have their priorities.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 20.01.2009 @ 15:30
Funny how some can equate this with the culmination of the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. when so many voted for a man BECAUSE of the color of his skin, not inspite of it. The culmination of Dr. King's dream would be that the color of a man's skin would never come up, ever, in any discussion. But it did "Oh, and did I say he is black?"
And while Dr. King saw equality among all races in our nation, the American Indian is still living in squalor, forced to remain on reservations where their hope for the American dream is dashed at birth.
And as we watch ever increasing black on Hispanic and Hispanic on black crime rise on our major cities, where are the leaders of those groups taking to the streets to end the bigotry there? Somehow, that kind of bigotry never seems to make the news, but a national network said a few days ago that security had been increased in D.C. because the government was worried about "white" supremacists. If we think that electing the first bi-racial president will end the "white guilt" pandering of left leaning media, that has already been dashed on the rocks of reality.
Is this a historic day? Yes, but only in the fact that, once again, our nation has acheived the peaceful transference of power without the aid of force.
And those who try to apply this to the goals of Dr. King, which were clearly that race would NEVER be an issue, only prove that the nation has not yet reached those goals.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 20.01.2009 @ 11:20
RIGHT OR WRONG, BUSH MADE AN IMPACT
Sure, the "Obama '12 - It is STILL Bush's fault" t-shirts will be out in full bloom in the summer and fall of '11. But Jackson is right; when jobs are still being out sourced due to the Democrat thinking that you can tax companies into poverty and still create jobs, when the Bush tax cuts have been allowed to expire and EVERYONE is paying higher taxes, except those who don't pay taxes to begin with, when the stock market is still under 10,000 and the national deficit is double what it is now, Nancy Pelosi is taking ANOTHER stimulus package and Obama has not fullfilled the far left's wet dreams of a free ride for those who voted for him, and troops are still in Iraq working with the Iraqi government (remember, The One promised TOTAL withdrawal on Jan. 21st) there will be fewer to think that all he has to do is smile down on them and they will be healed.
And when we are attacked again (is there any doubt we will be?) will the left still apply the 7 month, 22 day rule as they did with Bush or will they blame Obama?
Comment Posted By retire05 On 15.01.2009 @ 19:22
Please note that Rick encourages comments why President Bush will NOT be remembered as a great president.
Is that to discourage any comments from readers who disagree with him?
My guess is that if Rick had lost a number of friends to a terrorist attack in St. Louis, he would be saying the same liberal drivel he is now presenting us.
And it is sooooo nice to know that there is at least one blogger who has the ability to determine what future historians will have to say about President Bush.
Perhaps I should ask Rick to handle my stocks.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 15.01.2009 @ 14:17
INVESTIGATING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION A PARTISAN MINEFIELD
Chuck Tucson,
I asked you for one example of your lost of civil rights and you quote the Constitution. How is that an answer except in your damaged brain? Let's see if I can make it so clear that even you can understand it:
what civil rights have you PERSONALLY lost under Bush? Name one. Are you not secure in your home and papers? Have the police entered your home without a warrent and searched it? When the ACLU was busting it's balls trying to prove that American citizens had their civil/Constitutional rights violated, why were they not able to come up with even one person?
You offer me only the standard "hate Bush" left wing fare. Sorry, I don't eat B/S. Nor do I chose to deal with those who try to serve it up.
You don't answer questions, you offer spin. No instance of where your civil rights have been violated and you refuse to answer the "rule of law" question when it comes to illegals in our midst.
And then, to affirm how lame your logic is, you determine that because being waterboarded by a fellow peace protester was voluntary, it was not a crime. By that stardard, if you volunteer to have me shoot you in the head, creating your death, I am not guilty of murder because you volunteered to be shot.
Thanks, you continue to show just how dimwitted you really are.
Take your crap to you next CPA meeting. We now have a PEBO that says tough times requires tough methods. Seems you accept that from him but not President Bush.
I am sure you will be more than happy with the socialist government that Obama is going to give you.
Oh, and while you are on the Geneva Convention rant, please, do you care to tell me when Al Qaeda signed the Geneva Convention or post the clause in the Geneva Convention that deals with terrorists who hide behind civilians?
You don't accept the Constitution for what it says; you accept the Constitution for what you want it to say.
You are bane on American socieity.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 15.01.2009 @ 13:33
yoda, you claim Bush broke the law. Perhaps you would like to provide documentation for that. Or are you, and your bleating heart buddies, just going by information that was provided to you by those defenders of America, the New York Times?
Chuck Tuscon; my God, how do people like you manage to funtion.
Perhaps you can answer why Jamie Gorelick built her wall under the Clinton Administration? Maybe it would have been helpful that the CIA could communicate with the FBI? Perhaps when the World Trade Center was hit the first time, those in power at the time should have connected the dots?
You consider my logic a farse for one reason only; it doesn't agree with yours. How "liberal" of you. Perhaps in all the planning by AQ we were taking the high "moral" ground, treating terrorism as a criminal, not a war, act. I am sure that is great consolation to those families who lost loved ones on 9-11.
You say that our intelligence agencies might be flawed, but their warnings were ignored. Do you mean warnings like this:
"Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villians in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists group. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
NONE OF THESE BELIEFS ARE BASED IN FACT."
The op-ed goes on:
"I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world were thousands of nucler warheads are still aimed across the continents, TERRORISM IS NOT THE BIGGEST SECRITY CHALLENGE CONFRONTING THE UNITED STATES, and it should not be portrayed that way."
That was written by Valerie Plame Wilson's good friend, former CIA agent, and someone who remained inside the CIA loop with active agents (claiming he still does today) Larry Johnson on JULY 10, 2001. Johnson was, at the time, quite clear that his opinion was the same as those still inside the CIA.
So while you cry over what you perceive to be the lost civil rights of non-American citizens being subjected to nothing more than an intensive fraternity hazing, and demand the rule of law be upheld, I will worry about more Americans lying under millions of tons of rubble.
While you cry over the loss of your civil rights, I would ask you to name ONE civil right you have lost. Or perhaps you resent the fact that if you get a call from a terrorist nation, you call is going to be monitored?
Complain to me about your civil rights when you are no longer allowed to travel from one state to another unfettered.Since you are so fixated on the "rule of law" in order to exercise your BDS, then can it be assumed that under that "rule of law" you are willing to see ICE locate, and deport, every illegal immigrant in this nation who have violated the "rule of law"? Or is it just certain "rules of law" that you want to pick and choose to suit your BDS agenda?
Those who violated American standards at Abu Ghraib have been prosecuted, sentenced and are not serving prison terms without possiblity of parole. Those who cut the head off Daniel Pearle are still very much alive. Those who captured three American soldiers, an mutilated their bodies beyond recognition, requiring DNA to identify them, are still very much alive.
Those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11 were willing to die for Allah and the glory of jihad. They are willing to strap bombs on themselves, or on young boys and dimwitted women, and blow innocents to hell. Yet, when it comes time for them to endure water flowing up their nasal passages, giving them what they perceive to be a chance to follow through on their beliefs of "death for Allah", they suddenly want to live and are willing to share their secrets in order to secure that life.
I noticed that you are guilty of "picking and choosing" the parts of my post that suit you but I would ask you again; do you think the peace protesters who waterboarded each other on the streets of Washington, D. C. should be located and prosecuted for crimes against humanity? Or do you only apply your standards to an administration that, inspite of all the odds and all the opinions of the pundits who said that another attack on American soil would surely follow in short time, did what it took to prevent the deaths of more Americans on American soil?
Comment Posted By retire05 On 15.01.2009 @ 09:53
What went on in the White House for the last 8 years? Are you that blind in your BDS that you don't know? How about doing whatever it takes to prevent another 3,000 Americans from being murdered by terrorist thugs who don't share you philosophy of the higher "moral" ground.
Perhaps time would be better served by investigating who leaked sensitive national secrets to the New York Times instead of worrying if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had some water run up his nose. But that would be too easy.
Then there is the whole matter of those who consider sleep deprivation and loud music as torture (although if I had to listen to Madonna I would considered myself tortured). Since Janet Reno, with the permission of President William Clinton, did the same thing to American citizens in a compound in Waco, Texas, do we indict Clinton along with Bush?
We had a 9-11 Commission where those who sat on the Commission itself, should have been sitting in front of it testifying why they created rules that prevented the sharing of intelligence that may have (notice I say "may") prevented 9-11.
On January 20, 2009, we will become a weaker nation. You can lay money on that. And the very ones whose ideals caused 9-11 will also take note.
For God's sake, you have been pounding on President Bush since November 5, 1999. Isn't it time to let it go?
Comment Posted By retire05 On 14.01.2009 @ 18:29
I find it humorous that Rick seems to think that if Republicans (i.e. conservatives) don't buy into the global warming scare (now reduced to "climate change" because the jury is still out on man's contribution and the cause of the "climate change") and think that ID is a valid belief that can be taught along with the "theory" of evolution (yes, Rick, it is still a theory) are somehow simple minded primates that are dragging down the Republican party, or at least his view of what the Republican party should be. Hence, his argument against Jindal.
I guess we can back Rick's argument up by the fact that the majority of Americans who voted for Barack Obama had "climate change" and ID as their primary concerns for voting for Obama. (yes, sarcasim intended)
Jindal has proven himself to be an able and qualifed leader in a state that equaled Illinois in corruption as a way of life. And I see no indication that Jindal, who probably does accept ID, has forced it down the throats of his constituants that are of the mindset of Rick.
What Rick has done is argue the "big tent" philosophy much like Democrats. If you are not with us, then you don't belong. Think like we do or get out. Yeah, that should do a lot to rebuild a party that has been taking body blows for two election cycles now. If you don't accept "climate change", if you don't accept Darwinism, you have no place at the table. That should really build conservative numbers.
Rick, like many non-believers, seem to think that the jury is no longer out on all science of "climate change". But now, as has been pointed out, there is dissention among scientific ranks as to the global warming fear mongering and it is not settled. You know that the bar has been reset when people now refer to GW as "climate change". When your theory is being questioned, change the terminology. There, that takes care of that.
Were the citizens of Louisiana concerned about Jindal's personal thoughts on Darwinism vs. ID when they elected him? No. They were concerned about the same thing that all citizens are concerned about; their wallets. And in that aspect, Jindal has stepped up to the plate.
There is a place in the Republican party for the deep thinkers like Rick who seem to feel that GW and ID are priority issues. But there is also a place for those who could not care less and are worried that they will have a job next week or that their kids are getting a decent education not hampered by the Teacher's Union that can't seem to police it's own.
Jindal is a rising star, as are a number of Republicans. 2012 may not be their year, but I can promise you, 2016 will be a different story. And you don't regain control/power by becoming Democrat Lite. That was proven on Nov. 4 2006 and 2008.
Yes, Louisiana, as all coastal states, is feeling the pinch coming from falling oil prices. But I didn't notice Jindal bellying up to the federal coffers trough demanding a bail out like Jennifer Granholm of Michigan or The Governator of California. Perhaps he feels a financial shortfall is the responsibility of his state, and his state alone, and not the citizens of Iowa, Nebraska or New Mexico. Texas, another state that benefits from oil revenue, has already come out and said that it is against the "bail outs" for states that have driven themselves into bankruptcy.
Why do I feel Rick is relishing in the demise of the GOP? Could it be that he is planning his "coming out" party where he announces he can no longer relate to the "conservatives" of the nation and has now switched parties?
You read minds just like a liberal. And since I'm not a Republican, it would be pretty tough to "switch" anything.
ed.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 29.12.2008 @ 10:58
TORTURE: A MATTER OF OPINION OR A QUESTION OF LEGALITY
Chuck, how odd that you treat any question that seems to make you uncomfortable as "nonsense". But that's OK. I am used to typical leftist responses when facts interfer with their perception of reality.
Now, perhaps you would like to explain how Christianity is not a religion of peace? How far back do you want to go? 15th century? 10th century? 8th century? How about modern Christianity? Seen many Christians flying planes into tall buildings lately?
You say you have never read anything that leads you to believe that "torture" (since you consider waterboarding torture) works. Explain then KSM. Why is it that after he was waterboarded he gave up intelligence that proved to be 90% accurate? Or do you discount him out of convenience?
Obviously, you do not understand radical Islam as you seem to be operating from a moral compass they do not subscribe to. You, like most liberals, judge a society by your own accepted societal norms. Perhaps you should read a little more about Islam, and where the radicalism comes from. You say that you don't care that they don't subscribe to your guidelines of morality. I say that if you don't understand the enemy, you cannot defeat them.
You think I am a bad person because I don't give a damn about the terrorists, their supposed "civil" rights, and know that if they had the chance, they would happily remove my head from my neck. I think you are a fool. Guess that levels the playing field.
You stick to your guns. I will continue to support those who load theirs.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 23.12.2008 @ 14:35
Chuck Tucson, are you then saying we should abandon the War on Poverty? Good, no more public housing, food stamps, AFDC, WIC or any other program designed to combat poverty in America. After all, poverty is just a "notion" as is terrorism. Besides, Harry Ried has already told us the War is lost.
It is amazing to me that people here say they would do anything to protect their own children, yet will take the moral high ground when it comes to protecting thousand of other people's children just so they can feel good about themselves.
What is it you don't understand about radical Islam? Are you still buying into that whole "Religion of Peace" thing? Do you really think that the Jolly Jihadists subscribe to your guidelines on "morality"? Can you show that even one person's life has been spared since we announced we will no longer waterboard anyone in our custody? I can promise you that if you had one clue as to the mindset of the jihadists, you would understand that any capulation on our part (including the suspension of tough interrogation techniques) is thought of as a weakness on our part and should be exploited.
No, I don't think we should "torture". No cutting off limbs or hands. No streching racks, cigarette put out in eyes, hanging from hoodks. But if subjecting the jihadists to Madonna music at a high decible level, and pouring water over their faces to make them think they are going to drown saves even one innocent American life, pass me the watering can.
Feel free to take the "moral" high ground. There are those who are willing to abandon theirs to protect you and prevent a tall building from falling down around you.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 22.12.2008 @ 14:09
