English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

cards this year?

I'm sure our soldiers and their families are still reeling with joy about being compared to Nazis, illiterates, and Pol Pot's boys.

2006-11-11 23:28:39 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

12 answers

I hope you are not sending out any more of that white powder with your Christmas cards this year, it's federal crime you know..

2006-11-16 02:31:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

I think they sould value life by drastically improving the social contract like I taught the Democrats who wrote, "It is a fight for freedom": 1.The Constitution of The United States posters in different languages. 2. State Constitution posters, but Alabama's too long at 25,000 words (The longest). 3. New Layman's Guide to US Constitutional Rights the old one (1972) was an admittance to Invisibility. 4. Better Small Claims Court System and broshurers. I call it: The United States of Iceland, (The Charlote was in Iceland that Nicholas Cage found in National Treasure) know it all of the law jerk kids, the adults are almost hopeless but WE can try. And getting rid of North Dakota, the least violent state per capita that doesn't help the rest of US, to the French Canadians and drive the Bloody British out of Pennsylvania once and for all and thereby obtain a star for the Monarchy of Pennsylvania.

2016-05-22 06:51:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, as a rule, we don't dabble much in politics. Serving military members, particularly officers, are supposed to stay neutral, so we don't end up with a de facto junta, and so the principle of civilian control of the military stays intact. So typically, members of the military send no holiday cards to politicians - kinda bad form. General Marshall went so far as to note vote, and recommended that other officers not do so, in order to make it abundantly clear that the officer corps serves whoever is in office, regardless of political party. We're missing some of that spirit these days.

However, I've enjoyed the points they've made. The Army does keep lowering standards. I was enlisted in the Army, and when I went through basic - damn. There were some fellas in my basic training company who were borderline "special" - and I mean, they had visible Downs syndrome genetic markers, and were barely functional. And that was in the mid-90s. I shudder to think what "lowered" standards means, especially in a rifle company, where you've got to be pretty sharp and on it these days.

Which means, you have to have fantastic officers, who understand and rigidly enforce all military discipline, including LOAC and UCMJ (laws of armed conflict and the Uniform Code of Military Justice). What we've seen in Iraq, from Abu Ghraib to the most recent atrocities, indicates a failure of leadership at the mid-grade officer level. And where the military fails, they deserve censure, even if it's from politicians who've never served a day (which is most of 'em, John Kerry being a notable exception). I would really rather not have a military that feels it's somehow above criticism from the elected representatives of the people they serve. It is not the President's private army - they answer to the entire U.S. government, and the people of the United States.

I thought Kerry's remark was a little snide, and he could have made his point better, certainly more tactfully. But he's right, in that most college graduates don't serve anymore. That's different from a few decades ago, when the best and the brightest often felt an obligation to give something back to their country, not just immediately go out and try to make their first million before thirty. And Vietnam and now Iraq are why they don't - nobody wants to be a victim of a horrendously mistaken foreign policy, and once you sign on that dotted line, you've volunteered to be used and abused. Most people who join, whether enlisted or office have never even heard of the Feres decision, and what that means for armed forces personnel.

I didn't read or hear any comparisons to Nazis or Khmer Rouge, but if the individuals in question were those Marines who dragged an innocent man out of his house, murdered him, and then put a shovel and a Kalishnikov next to the body, then perhaps the comparisons are fair, if they are indeed guilty of those crimes, as the mounting series of confessions would seem to indicate. Also fair would be comparisons fo the Chicago PD of old, or perhaps the current LAPD on occasion.

Anyway, no, as a vet, I won't be sending them holiday cards. But neither will I be sending any to Randall "Duke" Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, or Dennis Hastert.

2006-11-11 23:43:46 · answer #3 · answered by DJ Cosmolicious 3 · 0 4

LOL, yes, they are (still "reeling"). We're still talking about Kerry over here, and the recent attitudes of the Democratic party is leading many to become Republicans.
It's like the sergeant who leads our Bible study said: "The Democratic party used to stand for something. Now they stand for Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan. I'll never vote Democrat again, unless this changes."

I couldn't agree more.

2006-11-11 23:34:16 · answer #4 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2 2

The military "thank you " will show up in the 2008 elections .
Unless of course the fools named in your Q pass a law taking the vote away from the military .

Expect these 3 to try and cut the military budget to pay for pet social programs .

2006-11-12 00:47:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Do you think Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry et al really care? They are drunk with their new found power and never give a thought to the military, as evidenced by Kerry's "botched joke".

2006-11-12 00:14:42 · answer #6 · answered by Bawney 6 · 3 1

It is not the soldiers that are being told they are Nazis it is the president and his cronies. The soldiers were lied to just as the rest of the world. Bushy decided not to tell what he really knew just to go and avenge his daddy (there was an attempt on daddys life while daddy was in office) and he even said so. He wanted another war so he could look good in the history books...well that backfired.
When Clinton lied thousands were not killed...now Bush on the other hand....

2006-11-11 23:35:44 · answer #7 · answered by spider 3 · 1 4

I'm going to guess somewhere between zero and seven. With a plus or minus margin of error of 7.

2006-11-11 23:32:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Democrats have insulted the men and women of our country who have chosen to defend America's values. These soldiers have put their lives on the line so that others can live in freedom. In my opinion, it is the Democratic Party that is our country's most dangerous enemy. Democrats are the terrorists in U.S.A. and they have an agenda..... an agenda of lies that promotes the destruction of family values and freedom.

2006-11-12 00:02:28 · answer #9 · answered by ofthehighest 1 · 4 1

Not me as their actions and words have proven to be anti military and borderling treasonous.

2006-11-12 01:34:32 · answer #10 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 3 1

Christmas packages maybe. The ones that go boom.

2006-11-11 23:34:31 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers