Comments Posted By Marv Loopstra
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 15 Comments
WHO SAYS THE DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE ANY NEW IDEAS?
During the California recall the california democrats (a STRONG majority) offered up several resolutions to an overwhelmingly democratic population. These resolutions included DRIVERS LICENCES for ILLEGAL immigrants, VOTING RIGHTS for illegaal immigrants, FREE STATE COLLEGE TUITION for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. They were overwhelmingly defeated by a majority, including a democratic majority.
I can only hope that the national dems do the same.
By the way, my dad came here in 1924 from Holland. My brother and I are the first of our family born here. We weren't here during the civil war.... Do I get an exemption too?
This government, on both sides of the isle, has decended to so much BS I am afraid to think of the the consequences for our republic. To those elected to run our government...do what you were elected to do or GTFO.
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 10.05.2006 @ 20:40
THE MEDIA AND THE LEFT GO NUCLEAR
So, Steve,
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 9.04.2006 @ 20:07
What are your grounds for impeachment? You don't like the guy? You think he's an idiot? You think he screwed up? You think he lied?
Check the grounds for impeachment in the Constitution...ain't there bud....
Have a good one.....
IN THE END, IT'S ABOUT EMPATHY
A very thoughtful piece Rick. I read it first thing this morning. Having been away from my box this Sunday, I have had much time to reflect on what you say.
From Wikipedia: "A Dhimmi, or Zimmi (Arabic ???), as defined in classical Islamic legal and political literature, is a person living in a Muslim state who is a member of an officially tolerated non-Islamic religion. The term literally means person of the dhimma, the security treaty signed with the Muslim state."
The determination as to whether the refusal to show the cartoons is simply dhimmitude can be answered by the past history of the media outlet refusing to show the pictures. If it is consistant, I agree that the term Dhimmi does not apply. But if it is NOT consistant, if the same standards are not used with every religion, then I would suspect that they are "going along to get along", not out of some mighty respect a people's religion.
But, even more, as the media has a duty to act responsibly, so do the kids in this playground called "the world" have a responsibility to act responsibly when offended, because we all know that offence WILL happen. Flag burning and protests are one thing.
Burning consulates constitutes an act of war.
Do I suspect that war will come from this episode? No, I do not, because the west "go along to get along" to calm things down. But the rancor from the east will continue until they eventually get what they want....Sharia.
Allowing Sharia law to take precedence over other local, national and international laws and rights allows a form of dhimmitude.
If this is not the case, I would expect the muslims of the world to act respectfully of those of us who are not muslim, to express outrage of those who murder, bomb, execute, and all other manner of uncivilized beavior. They do not express that outrage. If they have a complaint, let's have it adressed, respectful of ALL parties, not threaten beheading of any who "insults a prophet". Instead they threaten death and war upon the infidel.
That we have a clash of civilizations is true. But this is only the beginning. Those who believe that all law must be Sharia and that those of us who are not Muslim may be allowed to live with certain conditions under that law (dhimmitude) will continue to press for that end. This clash will continue and it will grow. Victory may not come by force of arms, but force of arms there will be because that is, appearently, the direction that these barbarians desire to go.
I hope we have the will to resist them.
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 5.02.2006 @ 16:30
I couldn't agree more Rick.
And Aiden has a very good and valid point:Had the left joined the right with a unified voice regarding Iraq, I believe that we would be closer to our victory in Iraq with fewer casualties.
It is my firm opinion that the left has the blood of our bravest young men on their hands, all for the sake of political power and political revenge.
You will not see them defending themselves or this country until their spineless backs are hopelessly pressed against the wall of Islamist Fasicm. Even then I am doubtful of their motives.
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 1.02.2006 @ 21:46
HOW MSNBC'S CRAIG CRAWFORD SAVED MY DAY
Frankly, I hope that Bush learned an important lesson from Johnny "taliban" Lindh. He fought against the U.S., directly caused the death of CIA officer Michael Spann and proceeded through the U.S. justice system to spend a few years in prison.
Lindh should have been shot as a traitor on a foreign battlefield then and there. He had forfitted his rights at that point.(look it up Crawford and CO Bob....)
But idiots like Crawford (and CO Bob) would suggest that our Constitutional Rights apply to everyone, regardless of nationality or circumstances.
Crawford says: "I guess I am one of those constitutional wimps. Even the reality cop shows get me riled, as we watch the police routinely trample the individual rights of hapless suspects."
My relpy to that statement is in the context of elecronic surviellance of suspected enemies and his feelings that Bush is somehow violating their Constitutional rights....
When was the last time he read the Constitution?
What rights are being trampled?
How can he possibly believe that these people are "hapless suspects"?
For Crawford's benefit, "Give me liberty or give me death" means give me liberty or let me die trying..... It DOESN't mean rolling over and letting people kill you because you don't have the balls to fight. If you don't have the balls to fight to victory your "liberty" won't mean a damned thing.
CO Bob, for Christ's sake, if these people weren't previously implicated in terrorist activities and/or connections the government wouldn't give a rats ass about them or their phone calls.
PS Bob, ever come home drunk?
"I Don't Like you 'cause you're gunna get me killed!"
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 30.12.2005 @ 08:51
IRAN'S MAIN MAD MULLAH: " WE CAN WIN NUKE WAR WITH ISRAEL"
Correctamundo oh great one.
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 18.12.2005 @ 16:20
And I am encouraged by the fact that this President that the left loves to call stupid had the forsight to recognize the Iranian threat and has been taking steps to counter her militarily....hence IRAQ. IMHO the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan have always been about, among other things, the military isolation of Iran before it's too late.
NOTE TO TOOKIE: SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL FOR ME
Matt,
I agree with kender regarding your knee jerk sobbing and gut wrenching over Tookies execution. But that's heither here nor there. Let's cut to the chase shall we?....The Merriam Webster definition of murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". The key word there being UNLAWFULLY. Is the state (as representing the will of the citizens of California) KILLING Tookie? yes.
Is the state (as representing the will of the citizens of California)murdering Tookie? No.
He is being executed because the people of the State of California, of which I was one for many years) have decided that his crimes are so terrible that he must be removed from society for the sake of society.
Even as his books written against gang violence (which did not sell) are given as a reason to spare his life, I suspect that his execution may be a more effective influence on that young punk that yesterday thought that the "system" would be on his side. Is it possible his execution might just save lives? God forbid you consider that. (oops, did I say God?)
Don't know about you but the real possibility of execution would make me think twice....
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 12.12.2005 @ 23:00
Doesn't The Posse Comitatus Act come into play somewhere in #2?
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 4.09.2005 @ 22:08
I am Soooo glad you did this!
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 4.09.2005 @ 21:27
I have referred to it several times already and will do so in the future I am sure.....
I do have a question though.
I am a bit rusty here, please refresh my memory. Am I correct in the following:
1) Since the Nat'l Guard is under the jurisdiction of the governors of eash state, the President cannot order Nat'l Guard troops anywhere unless a governor turns them over to the President?
2) The President cannot order federal troops into a state without approval of the governor of that state?
3) Up until the time that a governor of a state asks for federal help, that state is on its own (and the same holds for a city/state relationship...)?
Rick,
You begin with the statements:
1) "His “Mahdi Militia†has twice foolishly tried to take on the US military and been slaughtered..." 2) "...where the radical cleric was forced to agree to a cease fire to save what was left of his militia",
3) "Despite those two setbacks, Sadr’s militia has become the sharp end of the stick for his brand of Iraqi nation building.I am not so sure that he was foolish, forced to agree to a settlement or was setback in any way.
I suspect that he knew exactly what he was up against and knew how to be victorious. There are more ways to win than killing all of the enemy and my opinion is that a political victory is what he was looking for, and got. He did, after all, walk away with a cease fire not once but twice and he is now so deeply invoved in the equation that he can disrupted the entire constitutional process. His victory comes in the form of being that "sharp end of the stick for his brand of Iraqi nation building."
I would like to think that our military and political professionals thought through the consequences of allowing Al Sadr breathe air rather than dirt and that they knew what they were doing (although I fear that we have forgotten how to fight a war). I still recall EVERYONE asking why we let him walk, not once but TWICE! So much for massive military power.
But since it is fun to throw out opinions, I'll throw this out: it was he who was victorious, not us. We should have taken him out with a show of force that no one could have mistaken while we had the chance. I am not sure what all of the consequences of killing him might have been but maybe we would have been rid of him and his sharp stick.
I don't know what the consequences
Comment Posted By Marv Loopstra On 27.08.2005 @ 09:22
