Ah, no dear, do your homework.............
Posted By: MsMT on 2009-03-12
In Reply to: That was McCain's campaign promise... - Mrs. Bridger
Obama stood in front of the country and declared out of his OWN mouth he would go line by line and and not only that, but would NOT allow any more lobbyists or pork spending, which we now know and most with a brain knew to begin with, was a bold face lie. He has 12 lobbyists in his administration only!!! And, as we ALL know, he has NOT gone line by line over ANYTHING.....nada! WHat a shocker there!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I did my homework
While everyone knows that McCain wishes to stay in Iraq “for 100 years” (those are his words), and his attitude toward every enemy and perceived enemy from Iraq, Iran, North Korea and every other country, there are many other disturbing issues about McCain.
He believes in the neoconservative goal of remaking the world to fit our desires and beliefs. Everything you are accusing that would happen if Obama is elected will happen to other countries if McCain is elected. And you are okay with that????????
McCain has a little more contempt for the First Amendment and free speech. He is the principal author of a campaign finance bill that severely restricts political speech. He said he would rather have a clean government rather than one where “First Amendment rights are being respected”.
His general attitude is that criticism of the government, the war, and in particular himself is in some way “unpatriotic”. This is totally absurd. So he is the only one allowed to criticize his opponent? Whenever Barack criticizes McCain, McCain always comes back accusing him of being unpatriotic.
He voted in favor of amnesty towards illegals and is generally pro-immigration.
He has supported increased government regulation, support for raising social security taxes, and has persistently attacked political free speech in the McCain-Feingold Act.
For everyone who believes he will continue the Bush tax rebates each year, not only did McCain oppose those cuts, he aligned himself with the likes of Ted Kennedy and voted against both the 2001 and 2003 cuts.
“At best on foreign policy he would be a competent Bush.”
Like George Bush he tends to support federal power over federalism, executive authority over legislative, and generally leans toward the imperial presidency.
McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He now says his position has “evolved” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.
His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, then applauded Bush for vetoing that ban.
McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned”, so you have to wonder about the depths of his pro-life convictions.
The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worse senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.
He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.
Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me”.
McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.
McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor that McCain calls his “spiritual guide”, Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion”. McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult”.
McCain has an irrational, explosive side that makes many question whether he is fit to serve as president and to be commander in chief. Nowhere is that sentiment stronger than in the Sensate where McCain has few friends or supporters (maybe that’s why he keeps saying “my friends” every 3 or 4 minutes in his speeches). When he ran for the nomination in 2000, only 4 senators endorsed him.
There have been witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at them. He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. McCain’s outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the nomination for president. When McCain asked for support from a fellow republican senator the senator explained that he had already committed to support Bush. The witness said McCain then said “f—you” and never spoke to him again. He doesn’t have a lot of support from people who know him well.
On another occasion at a policy lunch another senator disagreed with him and McCain used the f-word and then called him a “sh—head”. The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said “I apologize, but you’re still a sh—head”. He said this in front of 40 to 50 republican senators, and people who disagree with him get the “f-word”
Many people say he is a “vicious person”. Senators are leery of speaking on the record about what McCain is really like.
In 1998 McCain stated that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians (I had wondered where that started). McCain stated “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father”. This is his idea of a joke?
Bertram Brown, MD, a psychiatrist who formerly headed the National Institute of Mental Health and was an aide to JF Kennedy said “The true strength of the character of the person, not his past accomplishments, will determine whether his presidency ends in accomplishment or failure”. By this statement I cannot understand why anyone would want someone with McCain’s character in the office.
Other people have said that “his temper is bombastic, volatile, and purple-faced. Sometimes he gets out of control. Do you want somebody sitting in the White House with that kind of temper?”
Judy Leiby, a longtime member of Dennis DeConci’s (Democrat) staff, worked on veteran’s issues and had differed with McCain on some of them over the years. After DeConci announced he was retiring McCain showed up in his office and was walking down the line shaking hands with the postal workers and he ignored Judy Leiby. One of the other postal workers asked if McCain knew Judy Leiby and McCain said “oh yeah I know her”. McCain turned away from Leiby, then turned back and said “I’m so glad you’re out of a job, and I’ll see that you never work again”.
Other incidents report McCain spewing profanities at another democrat in the white house, which led to pushes and shoves before the two were separated.
In 1993 McCain came across the Senate floor while mocking Ted Kennedy and then told him to “shut up”. Observers in the chamber said that “A stunned Kennedy returned the comment telling McCain to “shut up” and “act like a senator”.
McCain has been seen slamming fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room, jumping up and down, screaming obscenities for at least 10 minutes, and shook his fists like he was going to “slug” people.
The question on the minds of those who know him is whether a man who seems so out of control should have the authority to unleash nuclear weapons.
You really need to do your homework
xx
You need to do your homework......actually
You seem to be stuck on thinking anyone who is against Obama MUST be a republican. That is a very close-minded way of looking at this but if you need proof that the "pubs" aren't the only one screaming fraud, take a look at the DEMOCRATIC, yes, that's what I said, DEMOCRATIC election officials in Ohio alone who are saying they are seeing tons of voter registrations coming in in waves, with thousands of them frauds. They all have the same hand writing, false information, etc. Sorry to disappoint you again.
okay, you need to do some homework
Who owns the Federal Reserve? Who did Paulson work for? Why is J.P. Morgan the beloved son? Why was Lehman allowed to fail? Why is Citibank suing Wells Fargo to buy Wachovia with FDIC help? The banks own the government! Bush just does what he is told.
Oh if only we would do our homework....
In this time period of debtor's prison, poor houses and jails; England simply farmed out its wretched refuse to the New World, and unceremoniously dumped them out on the quays of New England.
That pattern of considering a prosperous nation a dumping ground and safety valve for failed nations, continues today, with the unbridled and endless "immigration," being foisted onto a politically correct, gullible American public. We imagine that the "Mother of Exiles" immigrant mantra, parroted by the central bankers, obligates us to absorb all the Third World riff-raff of the planet.
Our lawmakers assure us that Mexico's problems are our number one national priority. Failing that argument; they would have us believe that our country is an enforcer of United Nations resolutions.
His English friends asked Franklin how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England colonies. Franklin replied:"That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one."
This information came to the attention of the English bankers, who deemed it necessary to have the British Parliament pass a law which prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money, and made it mandatory that they use gold and silver money that was provided by English bankers.
This was the beginning of the plague in America of debt-ridden money, which has since brought great misfortune to our republic, and is indeed now the single greatest threat to our national security, and future as a sovereign country.
Do your homework
The civil war did not start over slavery. Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery. He used it as a pawn in winning the war. Basic high school american history.
Mrs. M, you don't do your homework....
if you really cared about your freedoms in this country, that would be a BIG red flag for you. Instead, you're just so stuck on Obama being president, you can't look past the end of your nose.
Perhaps McCain should have done his homework
nm
Yep, homework done, everybody read
You're hired.
Federal Reserve....... I have done my homework
The Federal Reserve is not a bank...it has absolutely nothing to do with government, though it does run our government as well as many governments throughout the world. The Federal Reserve is made up of very deep filthy rich pocket individuals. Just try to find the names of those that make up the Federal Reserve....you can't. You can only find their board of governors. Our President does elect the chairman, in this case Bernanke. Fed Res is a private central bank that decides everybody's interest rates. The history on that is a good read and sickens me frankly, because it is a deceitful organization with a corrupt history. NOBODY owns the Federal Reserve except those you will never know of.....these families go back to the days of British rule, though by carefully reading, you will get the picture of who those families are.
Paulson worked for Goldman Sachs among being elected to other high boards (and has very close ties with China which scares the crap out of me); don't know what he really has going with them, so everyone should be concerned there, as half of the billions they have taken from us are now going to foreign investors/countries....why? No foreign country is going to pay us if we invest and their country fails to profit.
JP Morgan was a very powerful banker and during his time alive, he helped combine GE and actually financed steel companies in this country which created a huge economic boom for this country when it really needed it, so he basically is considered a man who saved the US economy and more imporantly, the US government on at least two occasions. This is a man who dates back to England, where his dad was also a wealthy banker, so like I said, we have always had strong ties with British banking since we tried to break from the British rule. Morgan's contributions to this country go way back and are really good ones, so he has handed down quite a good legacy. He even helped our railroads succeed. He is responsible for establishing U.S. Steel, so you can see why this company is basically gold to many. Matter of fact, he helped sell push gold to keep this country afloat. His life is a good read as well.
Now, common sense dictates why Citigroup is fighting with Wells Fargo, even though Wachovia did agree to sell to Citigroup to begin with. That's the behind-the-scenes deals that you will never know the truth about. As far as FDIC, the Federal Reserve was pushing for it, but our government did NOT want to make any financial guarantees of funds. THere is a block on that buyout for a good reason; if this took place, with a sell to either Wells Fargo or Citigroup, this would put the US citizens' money in the hands of three banks, Bank of American, JP Morgan, and whoever bought Wachovia. Whoever buys Wachovia would literally own 30% of the banking industries profits (bad, bad, bad). If only these three banks exist, they would dominate the banking industry and would have so much power that they could set their own prices for loans and services. I'm sure then stricter federal regulations would be placed on them but no doubt then the smaller banks would be so squeezed, they would have to look for buyers as well and guess who would buy them then? Wah lah....a monopoly will be formed......
So, in answer to your question, the banks don't own the governement, the Federal Reserve owns the government and always has since Roosevelt's days back in 1913. That is why those of us who understand how wrong it is for the fed res to even exist, want it abolished. Ron Paul has brought this before the floor on many occasions, to many deaf ears. Now, ask yourself why that is. Mostly, because most those nitwits don't have a clue what the federal reserve is, where it came from, and what it does.
So when you end up with just three banks, look out folks!! This has happened before with three central banks in our history and they all participated in fractional banking...creating money out of thin air.....sound familiar?
So if you want to solve this problem, blame the Federal Reserve and petition your government to abolish it NOW. I beg everyone to please do your homework on the Federal Reserve and when you think you could puke knowing the corruption of it all, then here is a site for a petition to sign to abolish it. Ron Paul has been all over this for years. President Andrew Jackson abolished the first version of a centralized governing bank. Thomas Jefferson could see this coming.....
Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." This is serious business folks!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/fedres/petition.html
Homework for the Fearful - article to read
An interesting article - posted at bottom of this email. Yes, FYI, it is from a liberal leaning online source.
The author suggests that fear is a powerful emotion. I knew if McCain won I would have had many fears. I also knew I would choose to try my best to trust yet stay aware. Above all, I would have wanted to see him do far better than I ever imagined and be glad to eat crow when he did, rather than to sit and wallow in my fears and disappointment, thinking he would do terribly.
Does your higher power say to fear? Mine doesn't.
I'm amazed at this day and age that anyone still believe Obama is a Muslim. Do you not realize the evangelicals and fundamentalists and extremists of our own country are feared just as much as extremist Muslims might be? As for the cries of socialism and communism - have you not Googled and educated yourself about the FACT that there are already aspects of our government HERE AND NOW that are socialistic and communistic?! (OH NO!!. And, we all accept them, want them, and both sides, Dem/Rep, brought them about. As for the embarrassing comparisons to Hitler... do you not know Bush (W) has been compared to Hitler also? It's just embarrassing. Google George W. Bush and Hitler, see whatcha find!
Find something good, even if it is the most minimal thing, that you respect the office of president. Go with it. Ignore the rest - put it in a letter like this author suggests. Turn off your TV! Better yet, get rid of cable. Read more books that make you feel good, spend time with your family. Trust that your higher power will take care of things.
Thank you for listening.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-berney/homework-for-the-fearful_b_142108.html
Oh dear...
I appreciate your time spent on the Chomsky quotes, however, they are out of context from the overall essay. Some do seem a bit inflammatory, but I must admit I see the truth in a great many of them. The US can be a great and noble country, but it often isn't and hasn't been.
Your last paragraph I don't understand - but I have grown tired and have to finish my evening's typing.
No, Dear.
Bin Laden isn't dead. If he were dead, enlarged, beautifully matted and gold-framed photos of his bloody corpse would have been shown repeatedly on every television screen in the world.
Does it make sense, in your warped world, to go after the man who had NOTHING to do with 9/11 while ignoring the one who WAS responsible for it? By the way, have you heard? The Taliban has strengthened. You have your president to thank for that.
But don't worry about another terra attack. Ain't gonna happen. Bush has repeatedly said he is the only one who can keep us safe. Wouldn't be prudent to have another terra attack before he leaves office. 
not quite dear
That is the complete opposite for me. I got to keep more of my money under Bush, plain and simple. And sorry my vote is not bought and paid for. That is ignorant to even say considering people are trying to "scare" me to vote for Obama because the tax breaks won't affect poor pitiful me. I get so sick of all the W bashing going on. I shudder to think of where we would be today if Kerry or Gore had won the presidency.
Sam, I can do you one better on dear
This was a quote he made back in 2003 -
‘’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘’The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’
You know what they say about lying down with dogs......well, he was romantically involved with a dog, uh, I mean, executive from Fannie Mae.....
If I were him I sure wouldn't want my face plastered on any newscast anymore.
Oh dear...
LOL my bad, my bad.
And you, my dear, get an "F"....sm
Work it out for yourself.
my dear you need a
run for mayor or something
No dear, it's not..........
Our local police department has it in their little hands!!! BIL is assistance police chief and he DOES have it and I have seen it......... Even the local police here are puzzled as to why in the heck "conservative" is the title of the document...THEY KNOW IT IS A TARGET OF CONSERVATIVES.....too bad you don't have a clue or you should be very upset and concerned.
Furthermore, all receiving it was told to not let the GENERAL public see it even though they have every right to see it and our police dept is breaking absolutely no laws by letting the public see it....
It is a PUBLIC document!!
Okay dear....
I provided proof that he SAYS he is a Christian...then I went on to say BUT he doesn't act like one...hence the "you will know a tree by the fruit it bears"
Never mentioned anything about him being a Muslim, more than likely he is one of those hypocritical "Christians" who sits in church (Jeremiah Wright's for 20 years if you want to bring out skeletons) and gives lip service but in the end he's going to do what furthers himself.
Christians are called to glorify God in all that they do and to further God's kingdom. By killing what God says is good (children) and promoting what God says is an abomination (gay marriage) he is definitely not doing that.
Which leads me to the conclusion that he is not a true Christian!
Do YOU get it now?
Oh dear.
The bottom line is that no matter how uncomfortable waterboarding is, terrorists do not fall under protection of the Geneva Convention. Also, Pelosi was briefed on this type of interrogation and her story is fastly crumbling apart. The only reason I want them to go after Pelosi is to show that the dems knew about this too and didn't seem to have a problem until now. Just like a lot of dems didn't have a problem with going to war in Iraq until now.
As for Hannity...if the best rebuttal you have is that we shouldn't waterboard terrorists because Sean Hannity won't do it for charity.....well....our conversation is done here.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
So it's all right to do what's necessary to save one life, but not a much LESS harmful action (we do it to our own troops) in order to save thousands.
Nothing more can be said to someone who thinks this way except that I'm glad you're not teaching logic anywhere - or is there a Liberal Academy of Doublespeak somewhere that I don't know about?
Whatever you say..dear...
--
Dear Anon. SM
This site is no more being hijacked than the conservative board was some time back. Most of us have stayed on one board or the other. sm has offered to stay on the conservative board from now on, but was told she need not. Which is it, pray tell? As for me, I post here rarely and usually in respons to something quite specific. After this post, I will not venture here again. I do indeed hope this makes you all happy.
Dear Laughing A**. SM
I mean a collective you, as in the same mindset, much as you are.
Dear Red States
Dear Red States...
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're
taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that
includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to
the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New
California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get
stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken
Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and
Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85
percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay
their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower
than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a
bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and
we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need
people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently
willing to send to their death for no purpose, and they don't care if you
don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you
success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to
spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of
the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and
lettuce,
92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality
wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all
cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur
coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven
Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88
percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92
percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90
percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually
100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University,
Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless
we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that
evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and
61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals
then we lefties.
By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed
they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California.
Now, now, dear, it's not nice to lie.
 I said no such thing.
And one of the other voices in your head has already judged me and declared that the Rapture will pass me by, which is fine with me. Would prefer to spend eternity with those who are nice, loving, kind and HAPPY. 
No, my dear, YOU are the liar.
Scarborough's record is public and well known.
So is the objectivity and blatant refusal to ever tell the truth of Bush and his worshippers.
Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I can see why you love him.
Why don't you go back to the CON board? You're showing your colors more and more with each post, and they ain't a pretty sight.
Dear Teddy....
you are So very angry, because you are so frustrated. And the way you post is far from *sassy.* I will leave it at that.
Oh, my dear, that is so untrue.
General Giap of the North Vietnamese army wrote his memoirs after the war. He posted that the antiwar movement in the United States gave the North Vietnamese hope after Tet, when they were decimated and ready to surrender. It gave them hope, prolonged the war, and eventually led to our precipitous departure. No, I am afraid you are wrong about your facts. Here's the post from the 1st Cav.
Tet Offensive -- Monica
what are the cause and effects of the TET offensive? and who won this campaign? I don't really get this event! can someone tell me the story in a easier version? I am in the 9th Grade. Monica,
Here is an answer to a very complex question. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was an initiative of the North Vietnam Army to have the civilian population of South Vietnam join them in their offensive and efforts to overthrow the South Vietnam Government, forcing the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces.
The Tet Offensive of 1968 was conceived by General Giap, commander of the North Vietnam Army and his staff. General Giap earlier in his career planned and executed the battle at Dien Bien Phu which drove the French out of Vietnam in 1954. During the battle of Dien Bien Phu, General Giap stated he was willing to lose 10 men for every 1 enemy soldier killed, which indicated that a person's life in Vietnam was cheap.
By the end of 1966, North Vietnam had suffered large causalities in manpower and supplies through the bombing of the North and the fighting in the South. They consider the war was at a stalemate. North Vietnam would need a major victory if they would continue on with the war. Thus the planning for what is known as the Tet Offensive began with General Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) and his staff.
The battle of Khe Sanh (Jan. 21, 1968) was the prelude to the Tet Offensive of January 31, 1968. The battle at Khe Sanh was similar to that of Dien Bien Phu in which the Vietnamese had surrounded their enemy and cut off all land routes for supplies and evacuation. Khe Sanh had two objectives besides the obvious objective in defeating the Marines.
1. Diversionary tactic to draw American attention away from the cities of South Vietnam and more towards Khe Sanh.
2. Remind the people of South Vietnam of another battle that took place 14 years earlier at Dien Bien Phu, which would encourage South Vietnamese to join the VC in throwing out the Americans as they did with the French.
The North Vietnamese Army fought the battle at Khe Sanh and the National Liberation Front (VC) fought the Tet Offensive, which attacked the cities and provinces throughout South Vietnam.
It should be noted that NVA units who were not participating in the Khe Sanh siege supported the VC in their attacks on the cities during the Tet Offensive.
National Liberation Front - (Also Known As) Viet Cong or VC were comprised of South Vietnamese civilians and North Vietnamese advisors who lived in the cities and villages throughout South Vietnam. They were part of the North Vietnamese forces in reuniting the two countries as one. |
A cease-fire began on January 30, 1968 for the Vietnamese new year of Tet, which falls on the first new moon of January. On January 31, 1968 the Viet Cong broke their cease-fire and attacked many cities and provinces throughout South Vietnam. In Saigon, a small number of VC (19) were able to reach the American Embassy grounds, but did not gain entry into the embassy itself.
In the Northern part of South Vietnam, the city of Hue was taken over by the V.C. and executions of city officials and their families took place. The initial reporting indicated the number of people executed was in the thousands (2,300 persons executed in and around Hue during Tet 68 - Time Magazine 31 Oct 69).
Saigon was the center for most if not all of the news agencies that were covering the war in South Vietnam. Tet offensive of 1968 was the first time, during the war, that actual street fighting took place in the major cities. Rear support personnel and MP’s did the initial fighting by American troops until support from infantry and armor could arrive. These men did an outstanding job in defending the cities, airfields and bases along with the embassy. The news media were able to capture this street fighting on tape in addition to the attack on the American Embassy. This new offensive was immediately brought into the homes of American families through reporting by television and the press. The sensationalism of this reporting brought forth a misrepresentation of the actual facts that took place during the Tet Offensive of 1968. The reports led the American people to think that we were losing the war in Vietnam and that the Tet Offensive was a major victory for North Vietnam. This was not the case. The VC suffered such high casualties that they were no longer considered a fighting force and their ranks would have to be replaced by North Vietnamese regulars. The civilian population of South Vietnam was indifferent to both the current regime in South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The civilian population, for the most part, did not join with the VC during the Tet Offensive.
The Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded It was essential to our strategy, referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. Mr. Tin surmised, America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. Mr. Tin further advised that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat.
The military defeat of North Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968 became a political victory for North Vietnam because of anti-war demonstrations and the sensationalism of the news media. The North Vietnamese interpreted the U.S. reaction to these events as the weakening of America's resolve to win the war. The North Vietnamese believed that victory could be theirs, if they stayed their course.
From 1969 until the end of the war, over 20,000 American soldiers lost their lives in a war that the United States did not have the resolve to win. The sensationalism by the American news media and the anti-war protests following the 1968 Tet Offensive gave hope to Communist North Vietnam, strengthening their belief that their will to succeed was greater than ours. Instead of seeking a successful resolution at the Paris Peace Conference following the disastrous defeat of the 1968 Tet Offensive, they employed delay tactics as another tool to inflame U.S. politics. This delaying tactic spurned further anti-war demonstrations. Those who sensationalized their reporting of the war and those who supported anti-war demonstrations are guilty of giving our enemy hope. Because of their actions, they must share partial responsibility for those 20,000 + Americans deaths.
We won the war on the battlefield but lost it back home on the college campuses and in the city streets.
Dear Girlfriend(s)
Now if someone would have just blown Bush say....6 or 7 years ago, we could be rid of him already. If I wasn't such a big homo, I'd have volunteered myself.
Nite Gracie.
Dear whoever....it would help cut to the chase...
if you would vet (since you were so concerned with vetting) the information BEFORE you post it instead of assuming if it is negative it by golly must be true. But the truth is not what you are interested in. This post proves that. So just admit it. Doesn't matter if it is true or not...you aren't interested in the truth. About your candidate or the other one.
Sigh.
Dear Car Czar.....sm
Interesting perspective on buying a new car. I particularly like the very last line......
Washington, D.C. — To Whom It May Concern:
Forgive the ambiguity of the salutation — I didn't know whether to address this missive to Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and "Dear Car Czar" just sounded so, well, tacky.
Let's cut to the chase: I need a new car. I'm not asking for a bailout or anything like that. I just need some good advice and I am hoping one or all of you can help. Here are the facts:
First, we only buy American cars in my family. My Dad fought in World War II and I've always been afraid he would rise up out of the grave and haunt me if I bought one of those Japanese or German machines. Perhaps you can recommend a pill or some kind of counseling for this problem.
I'm currently driving an 8-year-old Oldsmobile and the odometer is pushing a quarter of a million miles. Yes, I know that makes me part of the problem. I just don't buy cars often enough because we don't buy things we can't afford. Silly, I know, but after 40 years of marriage, we're kind of stuck in our ways.
If it makes any difference, in my family we also have a Chrysler PT Cruiser and a Ford truck. They're all paid for so I guess we don't qualify for federal help in paying them off. And that gets me back to the big question: What kind of car should I get?
During my career, I've driven Jeeps, Humvees and even a few tanks. I once owned a Shelby Cobra, but we traded it for a station wagon when we started having kids. My wife suggested that given my advanced age and the sad state of our economy, I should get a Winnebago. She says that way, if the bank forecloses on our home, at least we would have a place to live.
I can't get a new Oldsmobile (is that an oxymoron?) because GM doesn't make them anymore. Now, Speaker Pelosi says that she "hopes that there will be a viable automotive industry in our country" after the first quarter of next year. "Hopes?" I'm shopping in Virginia. Where is Hope?
In the past when I shopped for a new car, I asked friends about their recent purchases, read newspaper advertisements, paid attention to television or radio commercials and picked up "Car and Driver." After compiling what Washingtonians call a "short list," I consulted "Consumer Reports" to determine how my choices ranked against similar autos. Then I bought what I could afford from a dealer I trusted.
Given what happened on Capitol Hill this week, it's clear that my "old fashioned" way of car shopping is hopelessly outdated. Today's experts on the automobile that's best for my family and me are the members of Congress. (Please note that this acknowledgement is not meant as a slight to President-elect Barack Obama — known in our house as PEBO. During the recent presidential campaign, PEBO admonished us all to "keep our tires properly inflated." Thank you for the tip.)
PEBO's help notwithstanding, the recent congressional hearings raised questions I had never thought to ask when car shopping. For example, Senator Chuck Schumer told auto executives that it is "unacceptable," to continue building cars with internal combustion engines and that I should be able to buy a "plug-in hybrid electric car." Does Mr. Schumer know of such a car I can afford that will allow me to make my daily, 150-mile round trip commute? If I don't make it home, will he give me a ride?
Can you give me a hint as to which of the "Big Three" car companies Congress will allow to survive? Will you permit the dealer where I purchase a car to stay in business? Should I get the extended warranty?
While driving, I listen to talk radio and would like to have satellite radio installed, but not if Congress is going to insist on the "Fairness Doctrine." Will you?
If I get the tow-package will Senator Chris Dodd accuse me of owning an "inefficient, gas guzzling" vehicle and dismissing "the threat of global warming?"
If I put down a minimal deposit at the time of purchase, then wait a few months and default on my loan, will the federal government bail me out? Since the feds will own the automakers, should I call the Department of Transportation or the "Car Czar" when I need a tune up?
The best solution for my problem is to have a member of Congress join me while I hunt for a new car. Hopefully the member you assign can "kick the tires" and answer some of these questions — and one other:
Congress has insisted that auto company executives achieve performance standards or be financially penalized. The CEOs of Chrysler, Ford and GM are all working for $1 per year. Shouldn't congressional pay be adjusted the same way?
— Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465524,00.html
Dear Mr. Obama...................sm
Watch the whole video from this courageous young man....and two of the comments from the poster on youtube
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
weneedmccain (6 days ago)
One final comment. Some have suggested that the McCain Campaign paid for this ad. Nothing could be further from the truth.
McCain would never use soldiers for political gain. He has honored them, but he will not use them.
Unlike the Obama who has used Tammy Duckworth to score political points. McCain has such reverance and respect for our military men and women, he would never use them as political posters.
Nuff said.
=======
We have over 700 comments posted now, and approving each one has been laborous and intersting.
I promised this man's father I would ensure that no disrepectful posts would be approved. I have kept my word.
But I have more commercials on the issues I want to create so I have to shut down the comments section.
In all, about 75% of the comments were positive and supportive, 15% were disagreeing but respectful, and 10% were ugly, demeaning, rude, and hateful. So much for HOPE.
My dear, you will not be paying any
more taxes than they paid in the 1990s, and I can't feel sorry for you. 250K is a lot of money. Our country is under seige by big business, and you feel sorry for yourself that you might have to pay your fair share. My DH and I work our butts off for 60K a year, and we pay 20% to 25% in taxes, but we don't whine about it. However, it would be nice to get a break.
Sorry dear to disappoint you but I'm not a
xx
My dear, you do know that the New Democracy is what - sm
The 'New Democracy' is what The Shining Path (Communist Party of Peru), New People's Army (Communisty Party of the Philippines), and the Maoists (Communist Party of India) are calling their cultural revolution, right?
You know, the revolution where they tried to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat through such 'democratic' things as terrorism against peasants and union workers and other 'dissidents' in their own countries?
And I'm sure you know that the goal of the 'New Democracy' is to induce a world-wide revolution as a path to what they call 'pure' communism?
You know all that, right?
Otherwise, your statement about dragging Americans 'kicking and screaming into the new democracy' would just sound uneducated and silly.
Dear Mr. Obama...
Has anyone see this video yet??
No dear.....not talking about you
Racist remarks are how you perceive them. Depending on the color of your skin, perhaps others saw comments made toward them as racist but they weren't calling for the moderator. Mrs. M has not been above name calling on this board tonight but she claims to be. In her mind, she has said nothing derrogatory but in others' minds, perhaps she did.
Dear Mr Obama
Wait till you see when it gets to 1:19 minutes...
Whateer you say, dear.
x
dear ditzil
You have been insulting all morning long to anyone with the misfortune of responding to you. Why is it okay for you and not others?
I'm sure you'll think up an appropriate comeback to mine, as well.
But think on this.
I'm not a conservative, just hate to see libs do what you're doing.
As one poster said already, you are giving us a bad name.
Please think before you post.
You are a bit confused, dear.
I also bike, so spare me your suggestions, especially since it is quite evident that it has not really done a whole lot in the way of relieving your frustrations. You might want to bump it up. Perhaps you could try doubling your current schedule. It might start to make a dent in all that resentment you exude.
I'm not the sm who posted the article or ditzil (both of whose posts contained nothing but upbeat sentiment) which YOU decided to take issue with (and in your next breath are now trying to promote "positivity.") When you got all snippy, ditzil called you on it in no uncertain terms, with which I agree with because she described the tone of your post most accurately as sounding profoundly miserable and alienated. I simply chimed in to lend her my support and did not start anything here. In fact, you might want to look at the thread and notice it did not turn south until you showed up.
Your third paragraph has confirmed what I originally suspected. You sounded rather disingenuous in your other post when trying to claim to be supportive of Obama "for all the right reasons." My post to you has nothing to do with "whirling," little to do with your opinion and everything to do with your stinky attitude, so your attempts to belittle "crats" is a nonsequiter.
Your fixation on the chili dogs and cheesey fries perhaps can be explained by some unrequited calorie envy you harbor as you maintain that svelte 118-pound perfect bod. It certainly would explain why you are in such a bad mood. In any case, the point of the OP, ditzil and some of the posts that appear below was to talk about the difference between O and W, i.e., getting down with the public versus keeping above the fray of the hoi-polloi and the relief they feel to have a Prez who is more down-to-earth.
Guess you are just one of those folks who would rather gnash your teeth and regurgitate a whole bunch of ugly than to try to follow a thread and understand what the posters are really trying to say.
You are a bit confused, dear.
I also bike, so spare me your suggestions, especially since it is quite evident that it has not really done a whole lot in the way of relieving your frustrations. You might want to bump it up. Perhaps you could try doubling your current schedule. It might start to make a dent in all that resentment you exude.
I'm not the sm who posted the article or ditzil (both of whose posts contained nothing but upbeat sentiment) which YOU decided to take issue with (and in your next breath are now trying to promote "positivity.") When you got all snippy, ditzil called you on it in no uncertain terms, with which I agree with because she described the tone of your post most accurately as sounding profoundly miserable and alienated. I simply chimed in to lend her my support and did not start anything here. In fact, you might want to look at the thread and notice it did not turn south until you showed up.
Your third paragraph has confirmed what I originally suspected. You sounded rather disingenuous in your other post when trying to claim to be supportive of Obama "for all the right reasons." My post to you has nothing to do with "whirling," little to do with your opinion and everything to do with your stinky attitude, so your attempts to belittle "crats" is a nonsequiter.
Your fixation on the chili dogs and cheesey fries perhaps can be explained by some unrequited calorie envy you harbor as you maintain that svelte 118-pound perfect bod. It certainly would explain why you are in such a bad mood. In any case, the point of the OP, ditzil and some of the posts that appear below was to talk about the difference between O and W, i.e., getting down with the public versus keeping above the fray of the hoi-polloi and the relief they feel to have a Prez who is more down-to-earth.
Guess you are just one of those folks who would rather gnash your teeth and regurgitate a whole bunch of ugly than to try to follow a thread and understand what the posters are really trying to say.
My dear, 2 wrongs, a right does not
.
Nothing snooty my dear...
we have no debt either, own a home, both work, put at least $600 in savings every month, contribute to a 401k also. Even when my DH was paying $1000 a month in child support (over now thank goodness) we still never went without, took vacations every year and continued to live comfortably. We live within a budget also. If you are both working you have got to be making at least 70K a year.
Okay dear, you must focus............
Remember all those promises about cutting our taxes....funny how you conveniently push that aside when someone post a question as to where the tax cuts are. So what you're saying is you really didn't expect a tax cut from the big O in the first place; you knew he was lying through his teeth?
Don't start blaming states and local govt for extra fees. Focus on the one who made all the promises......that would be Obama......no tax cuts for me yet!!!!
As do you, my dear. As do you.
I apologize if my references zoom past you. I must remember not to do that.
EXPLANATION: "Like bedbugs at a cheap motel" is a very common allusion to things that exist in profusion (in this case, the ethical problems). Cheap motels have lots of bedbugs. It has no pejorative connotations.
Get it now?
That would be his predecessor, my dear
.
Of course dear! Don't ya know govt ALWAYS knows what's
nm
Ummm..Martha my dear
Woo..Hoo..is this gonna be a **Martha Stewart moment**?
|
