GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Personally, I don't want anyone with the title "czar" making decisions for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 When I got to the #43 glanced and saw the name Ashton.....my first thought was Ashton Kutcher. Then w/my reasoning (or lack of it).....hummmmmm....might not be so bad, we could just "punk" everyone. Corny, yes......sorry.......;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Current Czar List...as of Friday, August 21, 2009: 45. swvasports czar: g-man, Lance Lance is the SWVASports czar...I'm more like the Bolsheviks...:D... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) ...I'm more like the Bolsheviks...:D... "Whoop there it is".....:D.... Edited September 3, 2009 by trublue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 "Whoop there it is".....:D.... It is what it is...:rolleyes:... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhs7695 185 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 I'm more like the Bolsheviks...:D... You mean The Bushwackers........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the watcher 10 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Yea they do,thats why we should not have voted for a dimwit like Bush and were still trying to fix the mess that years upon years of a Republican congress caused,more debt than ever ,loss of liberty with federal intrusion into our lives and private homes.The fact is we already have public options in higher education and you still have a choice. State schools who receive aid like Va Tech WVU all receive Federal help.And then their are totally private schools.Giving out quotes and letters from biased sources does not help the cause which is to find the best plan and the cheapest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Yea they do,thats why we should not have voted for a dimwit like Bush and were still trying to fix the mess that years upon years of a Republican congress caused,more debt than ever ,loss of liberty with federal intrusion into our lives and private homes.The fact is we already have public options in higher education and you still have a choice. State schools who receive aid like Va Tech WVU all receive Federal help.And then their are totally private schools.Giving out quotes and letters from biased sources does not help the cause which is to find the best plan and the cheapest. Obama has increased the debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the watcher 10 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 The debt has increased because of the bad economy-mainly because of when spending stays the same and you are not taking in as much from taxes that is going to happen. My philosophy is not rooted in either party but rather looking to do what is right,something that is sorely lacking in both parties.When Bush was in power,he left the war spending out of the public debt-Obama put it back in so he would have a better view of the debt.The conservative politician from Texas said it best-we spend too much on these little wars all over the world-this ruined the Roman empire.We spend way too much on wars,prisons and are not progressive enough on issues to save money.What is happening on the Republican side of the aisle right now will not win big elections,just border wars.Like i said, they had control but were no different than the democrats.The demographics of the country and this state have changed,I went to a northern virginia mall and hardly anybody spoke English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 You can trace this bad economy back to Bill Clinton and his signing of the NAFTA agreement...that is when America's economy started going down hill... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the watcher 10 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 I don't claim to be an expert but those jobs were already leaving.People shop at Family Dollar and Walmart and most of these products have been coming overseas for years.Levis jeans for years would not make factories overseas-their headquarters in San Francisco devoutly hired only American workers and their quality was very high but that has changed.The fact of the matter is that the economy is not as bad for people with a college or vocational degree. The last figure I saw was almost full employment with 4 year degree.We need to invest in education and younger people because that is our future.People like to point fingers at agreements and who supported Nafta but the legislature, both Senate and House were Republican at that time.They make the laws just like in the States and Clinton did sign it.I hardly think this make him the only bad boy !The President has no power to construct any bill-he has his agenda and the vice president is one of the leaders of the Senate.A lot of Americans have become spoiled.None of the banks in Canada failed by the way because they are regulated a little more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane55 10 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Watcher wrote: I went to a northern virginia mall and hardly anybody spoke English. I visited California five years ago and felt like I was in a foreign country ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 You can trace this bad economy back to Bill Clinton and his signing of the NAFTA agreement...that is when America's economy started going down hill... I agree with that...only problem is I remember all the living presidents made an appearance when it was signed to make sure everyone knew it was both parties behind it...lol...that crap was worked up during the Bush-1 era ...I think that is the single most damaging thing we have done as a country...I was working for AVX in Myrtle Beach at the time and within a week of NAFTA being signed they had trucks in there loading up the machines in the plant and moving to Mexico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 You can trace this bad economy back to Bill Clinton and his signing of the NAFTA agreement...that is when America's economy started going down hill... I'd go back to Reagan. First $10B+ deficit right there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 I'd go back to Reagan. First $10B+ deficit right there... But that also takes into account the huge increase in inflation under the previous administration... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the watcher 10 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Reagan also ran up big deficits in California!He governed on principles,not specific facts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) A new policy in afghanistan, as of earlier this summer, is that troops can't call for artillery support unless they are being overrun. The last time we saw a blatant policy that endangered the lives of military personnel like this was in '93 when the U.S. was in somelia and the clinton administration ordered the specter gunships off limits to soldiers there, because they were to "warlike". That resulted in the battle for somelia, (black hawk down incident) that cost 18 u.s. soldiers their lives. In the last day or so, this most recent debacle of a policy got 4 u.s. marines killed. This is a disgrace. It's not "100%" the administrations fault, to be fair, modern day America is soft overall and doesn't have the stomach for a prolonged fight. I'm all for the u.s. fighting in afghanistan and iraq myself, but they might as well just surrender and pull out and just take whatever the terrorists have for us on down the line if they aren't going to let the military actually fight. " GANJGAL, Afghanistan –– We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortresslike village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition. "We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgents' leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation. Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away. U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines - despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village. "We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters. Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border. Three Americans and 19 Afghans were wounded, and U.S. forces later recovered the bodies of two insurgents, although they believe more were killed. " Edited September 9, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 cliff notes version, the u.s. has billions for liberal projects, acorn, illegals and handouts to those who won't work, but none to pay some elderly folks who protected this country during world war 2. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/76088.html WASHINGTON –– In a strongly worded message to Congress outlining its priorities for a military spending bill, the Obama administration today said it disapproved of including money for pensions for 26 elderly members of the World War II-era Alaska Territorial Guard. The Guardsmen are among those assigned to protect Alaska from the Japanese during World War II. The Army decided this year to no longer count service in the Guard in calculating the military's 20-year minimum for retirement pay, although it still counts for military benefits. As a result, their pensions were decreased in January. An estimated 300 members are still living from the original 6,600-member unit formed in 1942 to protect Alaska, then a territory, from attack. The 26 men have enough other military service to reach the 20-year minimum for retirement pay but would lose it if the Territorial Guard service doesn't count. A Senate military spending bill up for a vote in the Senate allows the former Guard members count their service as part of active military duty, and it reinstates the payments. State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year to fill the pay gap until Congress made a permanent fix, but the White House said Friday it didn't think it was "appropriate to establish a precedent of treating service performed by a state employee as active duty for purposes of the computation of retired pay." Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, sponsored the fix, called the administration move "deeply disappointing, bordering on insensitive." The legislation honors 26 elderly Native people who are the few remaining survivors of a military unit that served the country with valor, Murkowski said. "The administration's justification, which is that the legislation will set the precedent of treating service as a state employee as federal service, defies logic and history," she said in a statement. "Sixty-two years after the Territorial Guard was disbanded, the Obama administration minimizes the contribution of this gallant unit to America's success in World War II by calling its service 'state service.' " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) say goodbye to "by far" the worlds best all around combat aircraft. It's not as if the u.s. needs to be the best military, the world is 1 big happy place and always will be. It's not as if the the u.s. benefits from being steps ahead of everyone else. Equality. yes we can,. change you can believe in............. This 1 pi!!es me off more than most, the raptor is light years ahead of any aircraft any other country has and provides "critical" force protection that other countries truly had to respect. The president says it's not needed in afghan against insurgents, that could be so, guess it doesn't matter that the u.s. might go to war against the likes of say china or some other much more advanced military some day. And speaking of high tech stealth, lets just attach a gay rights hate crime bill to this anti military debacle. "WASHINGTON – Trumpeting a victory against careless spending, President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a defense bill that kills some costly weapons projects and expands war efforts. In a major civil rights change, the law also makes it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation. The $680 billion bill authorizes spending but doesn't provide any actual dollars. Rather, it sets guidance that is typically followed by congressional committees that decide appropriations. Obama hailed it as a step toward ending needless military spending that he called "an affront to the American people and to our troops." Still, the president did not win every fiscal fight. He acknowledged he was putting his name to a bill that still had waste. The measure expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to the must-pass defense policy bill over the steep objections of many Republicans. The White House put most of its focus on what the bill does contain: project after project that Obama billed as unneeded. The bill terminates production of the F-22 fighter jet program, which has its origins in the Cold War era and, its critics maintain, is poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates targeted certain projects for elimination, putting them at odds with some lawmakers. The same spending items deemed unnecessary or outdated by Pentagon officials can mean lost jobs and political fallout for lawmakers back in their home districts. "When Secretary Gates and I first proposed going after some of these wasteful projects, there were a lot of people who didn't think it was possible, who were certain we were going to lose, who were certain that we were going to get steamrolled," Obama said. "Today, we have proven them wrong." In another of several examples, the legislation terminates the replacement helicopter program for the president's own fleet. That program is six years behind schedule and estimated costs have doubled to more than $13 billion. Yet the legislation still contains an effort by lawmakers to continue development — over the president's strong objections — of a costly alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Air Force's fighter of the future. A vague White House veto threat about that never came to fruition. "There's still more fights that we need to win," Obama said. "Changing the culture in Washington will take time and sustained effort." Obama signed the bill in the East Room, adding some fanfare to draw attention to his message of fiscal responsibility and support for the military. He spoke more personally about the new civil rights protections. A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago. Obama acknowledged Shepard's mom, Judy, and remembered that he had told her this day would come. He also gave a nod to Kennedy's family. Going forward, Obama promised, people will be protected from violence based on "what they look like, who they love, how they pray or why they are." The expansion has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims. They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds. On the military front, the legislation approves Obama's $130 billion request as the latest installment of money toward the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The far-reaching law also prohibits the Obama administration from transferring any detainee being held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba to the U.S. for trial until 45 days after it has given notice to Congress. Guantanamo prisoners could not be released into the U.S." Edited October 28, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Anyone that actually is crazy enough to blame all of the deficit problems on one political party is in need of some serious help. Folks can blame the Republcans if they want, folks can blame the Democrats if they want, but until they stop playing the PARTY LOYALTY GAME and blame BOTH GROUPS these problems will continue. Both parties are to blame, there is no way around this fact! In my opinion the American people should carry some of the blame, we are the ones that have played the my party vs their party game for so long. Often overlooking the errors of our party and seeing only the negative of the other party. This LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM has grown to the point that the overwhelming majority of folks are not even aware of the philosophy and viewpoints of those that they have elected to serve. The only thing that matters is whether or not the guy is a donkey or an elephant! I recently asked two Democrats that I know if they could tell me the name of our governor, they didn't know. But you can rest assure that they voted for the guy. I am likewise sure that if I asked the same question to a Republican they couldn't tell me who the last guy was that they voted for. Facts are people vote PARTY LINE, without even once considering who or what they are voting for....... There was a time in this country, when politicians were at least held accountable for their actions, today, people would just assume vote for a convict as long as he was towing the party line. FINALLY, all of you have heard the arguments made, you complain about Obama and someone referst to Bush, you refer to Bush someone refers to Clinton. Since when did TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT? If what a Democrat does is WRONG, why do they try to justify that wrong doing, by referring to a WRONG that Bush did? Does that make things O.K.? Before some yellow dog liberal gets on here and attacks me for the last statement, I will say it loud, the same applies to those who try to justify the actions of Bush by complaining about Clinton. WRONG IS WRONG, CORRUPTION IS CORRUPTION! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.