Military Funeral Protesters
Posted By: Truthseeker on 2009-02-11
In Reply to: And clearly, neither did mine... - Kendra
The people who protest at military funerals are radical homosexual and gay-rights haters led by noted wacko Fred Phelps, Kendra.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/18/usa.gayrights
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/06/btsc.lavandrera.funerals/
Just Google Fred Phelps military funerals.
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
Journalists not Protesters
were subjected to police-state tactics...........
Not defending violent protesters, but for the 10,000 others
nm
Funeral...
I did not watch the whole thing either but I was thinking how unbelievable it was that Mrs. King was lying in state and then had her funeral attended by 4 presidents. Events like Katrina bring the inequalities in this country to the forefront, yet Ms. King's funeral would not have happened 40 years ago, a woman, a black woman, lying in state in the State of Georgia.For a state who still sports the Confederate Flag as a portion of its state flag. I would say we have come a long way.
As far as the remarks made, I doubt that they were off the cuff, in other words my guess is that the content of the speeches would have to have been run by the King family first. Politics has been an integral part of their lives since the 1950s, so politics would not be an offensive subject to broach in this particular setting. I don't believe one could discuss Mrs. King's life without the mention of politics. Mrs. King took the torch from her husband and became the figurehead for civil rights, ergo, politics was appropriate in this case, albeit uncomfortable. From the position of the King family and the congregation present there is still much work to be done and that sentiment was conveyed by the speakers.
Bush to criminalize his protesters under Patriot Act
By Patriot Daily
News Clearinghouse
1-13-6
George Bush wants to create the new criminal of disruptor who can be jailed for the crime of disruptive behavior. A little-noticed provision in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics.
The Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with breaching security and to charge for entering a restricted area which is where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting. In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.
Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse's diary:
Who is the disruptor? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights, environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a press conference or during an interview.
What are the parameters of the crime of disruptive behavior? The dictionary defines disruptive as characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination. The American Medical Association defines disruptive behavior as a style of interaction with people that interferes with patient care, and can include behavior such as foul language; rude, loud or offensive comments; and intimidation of patients and family members.
What are the rules of engagement for disruptors? Some Bush Team history of their treatment of disruptors provide some clues on how this administration will treat disruptors in the future.
(1) People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.
In the beginning of this war against disruptors, Americans were ejected from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush's post election campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush's policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons who may disrupt an event: If we think people are coming to the event to disrupt it, obviously, they're going to be asked to leave.
(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those persons who it deems having disruptor potential and then blacklist those persons from events.
The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be disruptive to an eventand then blacklists those persons from attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as enemy combatants in the global war on terror, but to unilaterally designate Americans as disruptive in the domestic war against free speech.
(3) The use of surveillance, monitoring and legal actions against disruptors.
Bush's war against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance, monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups (e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).
This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities surrounding protests of the Iraq war and the Republican National Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence gathering is intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations, not to quell free speech.
Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before grand juries based on the FBI's intent to prevent disruptive convention protests. The Justice Dept. opened a criminal investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case.
So now the Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt President Bush wherever his bubble may travel. If this provision is enacted into law, then Bush will have a law upon which to expand the type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities that constitute disruptive activities. And, then throw them all in jail.
Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
Every state funeral is that long
as its been for every deceased president. It's the same whether its a Democrat or Republican. They are tiresomely long, but Coretta Scott King's service was one long tiresome bash of anything white, conservative or Republican. I'm sure Coretta would've not wanted it to be that way, the wonderful woman she was. I'm sorry you're so jaded as to think every memorial service should be an opportunity to bash Bush, Republicans, or conservatives. Have a nice day.
Protests at Tiller's funeral.
We are all entitled to our opinions about abortion but for God sakes people....why do we feel the need to protest at someone's funeral. Isn't the family going through enough. Their loved one was gunned down and now you are protesting at his funeral. I'm pro-life and these protests at his funeral upset even me. It is hard enough attending a funeral service of a loved one without this added drama and craziness.
Did he pay for Mary Jane Kopeckne's funeral?
turned down for disability - notified the day of the funeral!
My sister-in-law was diagnosed with a heart condition and told she only had a matter of months to live. She applied for disability and her husband received the notice that her benefits were denied on the day of her funeral because they said she was not disabled. Now how much more disabled can you get?
King funeral--just another money shot for politicians
and opportunity for all politicians involved to bloviate ad nauseum. The whole thing went on forever. Reminds me of the old Appalachian mountain funerals where there were five or six preachers and each one had to see who could out preach the other.
Everybody had to get their money shot (especially Clinton and Carter) and to me it was sad to see a bunch of politicans and so-called religious leaders take advantage a good woman's funeral just to make their political hay.
Goes to show that you can't even die anymore without it being shrouded in politics.
The protesters, who were reportedly made up of followers of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr...
nm
The protesters, who were reportedly made up of followers of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr...
and also have burned American flags.
This is just ridiculous! Is this kind of a funeral? Have you ever heard of emails? Email her!..nm
nm
We ARE the military.
You forget that when it comes time to put themselves on the line, you have just as many Democrats stepping forward as you do Republicans - and many more Dems go on for careers in public service. You think you own the Army? The Marines? The Navy? Well you're wrong. The military is a BIPARTISAN operation. Your problem in understanding this is that you refuse to listen to anything BUT soldiers confirming your tunnel vision. I watched the C-Span coverage of Saturday's march AND the C-Span coverage of Sunday's pro-war attempt. I listen to what all veterans have to say, not just a few that I can brand as like me. You won't have any kind of a realistic view of the whole picture until you consider BOTH sides of the issue.
I was in the military all through the 80s.
Ex-husband is a 100 percent disabled Vietnam vet with PTSD. Currently 1 son in the Army on his 2nd enlistment (in Korea even as we speak, as well as serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq). My other son and daughter-in-law also served in the Army.
The military is not the only way
su
The military could get him...yes
I can't say enough good about our young warriers but they can only follow orders.
How did they get in the military? sm
They ENLISTED. The draft was abolished in 1973 after the end of the Viet Nam War.
If our military can
be waterboarded during training, I think I could handle it for 50K. That would be a nice payment on my house. Where do I sign up?
I say let the military do what they have sm
to do to get the information they need. If the media would stay away from the military, battlefields, etc things would not drag on as long as they have. Our soldiers are limited as to what they can do or say to these bunch of terrorist because there is a camera or a microphone, it seems, recording their every word or every move they make.
The enemies of this country do not care what they do to us, but we are suppose to "molly-coddle" the terrorists and for goodness sake, don't "torture" them. Out guys go through more "torture" in boot camp than we are allowed to give to the worst terrorist when trying to get information from them.
Personally I say get the media, the papers, the TV, etc out of the battlefield. Let our soldiers do what they need to do and get back home! I wonder what the soldiers who found Sadam Hussein would have done if the media had not been breathing down their necks? If I had my guess, they probably would have blown him away and stuffed him back in the hole saving a whole lot of hassle and money.
love the military
that is why I want them home. Cant fight a war without military, so no military, no war. No immoral, illegal war. Bush will have to finally face up to facts that he lied about this war, this war is wrong. Let him send his daughters or let him finish his military duty. No we are not going to send our sons and daughters to your illegal war, Bush..
The military is not a kid club. sm
Drinking age and fighting is an old and worn out reasoning. Besides, they get all the alcohol they want. What are we supposed to do with men and women who choose to join the military. Put it in writing that they will never have to go to war? And where was the left's outrage when Clinton sent men and women into his little skirmishes. I never heard a word then. Never saw one leftie holding a sign that said NO MORE MOGADISHUs. In fact, the left hardly even mentions it. Why is that exactly?
I never said all the military supports the war.
That is a flat out untruth.
How can one's child being in the military sm
equate to a point for foreign affairs experience? Please explain that to me. I know a lot of people whose children are in the military, in the war zone and not one of them would say they have foreign affairs experience. Also, didn't she herself say she doesn't know anything about Iraq.
And so you think our military isn't fed a load of
they've been sent to do is 'morally right'? Dont' get me wrong, they are brave, upstanding young men and women who believe in the country. But once they sign on that dotted line, they've gotta go & do what they're told during their enlistment. Even if it's for dubious reasons. So what you wanna bet they get fed a WHOLE lotta propaganda.
Suicide rates amongst our military is at an all-time high, as well. Ever wonder why that might be?
The majority of the military
have always been conservative. However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years. Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past.
Cut military spending!
How about we spend less on war and more on the citizens of the United States? Those who have family members in the military whose livelihood depends on war may call this socialism, but I call it common sense!
yes, they enlisted in the military
but they didn't enlist in the war.
I stand behind our military too but
I sure as heck am not going to stand behind a president who sends our young men and women in harms way for his own personal gain and that of his oil cronies. What happened to bin Laden? Don't tell me that our military men and women couldn't take him out. And how about McCain saying he knew how to get him. How anyone who can support this administration and this war is beyond me. Isn't it "Mission Iraqi Freedom" now? What about 9/11? Who has paid for that? And today Iraq has given us "permission" to stay for 3 more years? Permission??? We have no business meddling in their business to begin with. Wasn't Bushes and Sadam friends before they became enemies???
I'm from a military family, too
My grandfather fought in WWI and WWII. He received 5 medals for the battles in WWI in France, plus the French Etagierre. My father and mom's brothers were army. My gf retired in the 1970s. My one uncle retired in 1990 from the Army. My son was in the Marines. They all enlisted.
AND BECAUSE OUR MILITARY IS BROKEN.....
The biggest selling product in the US right now is GUNS. So you think the cowards in this country can't protect themselves? Think again. Your family members weren't drafted and because they made that choice doesn't make everyone else cowards. You insult this country with your pious crap.
You don't need military at our borders.....
that's against our constitution. That's what our National Guard is for, to protect OUR borders. Combat military is not supposed to be involved in this country. I do not want our troops on the borders of my country; I want our national guard sent down to do what they are supposed to do, protect our country against foreign invasion.
I am sick to death of paying for illegals and their anchor babies by the thousands and thousands....
Good question.....why is our country allowing this and then punishing our agents to shoot one of them. Maybe more shooting would stop a lot of their illegal trespassing into our country if they knew they would be shot.
And who never served in the military
and is on record as despising it? Class? Obama!
Military does NOTHING with blessings of
You are so very misinformed. You can not compare the CEO of a car company to the United States Military.
not true...the military does most everything without
the blessing of the president directly. However, in this case, you are right. He did give the direct go ahead, although I doubt he planned it. By the way--with your vast knowledge of the military, do you know what the CNO is, let alone who it is without looking it up? I do.
not true...the military does most everything without
the blessing of the president directly. However, in this case, you are right. He did give the direct go ahead, although I doubt he planned it. By the way--with your vast knowledge of the military, do you know what the CNO is, let alone who he is without looking it up? I do.
Yes, and could put the country and/or our military
nm
I have 4 sons in the military ..sm
and have changed my views on the war. It is not what you hear from the "left", it is not what you see in Hollywood movies, the whole story is not being told by vets who solicit funds for "peace" and "truth" organizations.
The majority of Iraqi do want us there and our help. They do not hold all troops responsible for the acts committed 6 years ago by a few. Several troops have been convicted and sentenced - something no other country would do to it's troops in the same circumstances.
These photos not released are no worse than what we've seen, but they're a talking point for the "left." I expect they will be eventually released and the "left" will be off on another tangent b/c the "torture" meme lost traction.
The "left" isn't interested in law of the land and justice yadayada - they just gnaw at bones of contention and get a warm fuzzy until their "leaders" throw them the next bone.
Comment on enlistees in the military
I notice that repeatedly there is a rhetoric among conservatives that if an 18-year-old (or 19 or 20) signed up, then that was their adult decision and there's no use complaining over it. War is war and they have to go.
Okay, so why is it fine for an 18-year-old to be considered mature enough to make a major life decision like enlisting in the military but at same time is not allowed to drink alcohol for 3 more years in most states? So.....he/she can kill folks but not take a drink of beer. Seems like rather skewed logic.
Secondly, when those folks of ALL ages enlisted they put their faith in the powers that be in this country that their service would be used wisely and that they would NOT have their lives squandered for a highly questionable and suspect war. To me that is the crux of the matter -- sure they signed up but many of them did not sign up to fight in a spurious and illegal war. They put their faith in the US military and were let down, as far as I can tell. Very sad.
Who's REALLY signing up for the military these days.
Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters
By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM
There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.
When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at influencers such as parents, teachers and coaches.
But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?
Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.
The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
Military service isn't for our son, she told Rivera. It isn't for our kind of people.
The Post-Gazette piece focused on parental disapproval of military recruitment efforts, and dealt only tangentially with the larger question of class. What we do know is that recruiting is down across the board and that both the Army and Marines have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals.
This is what the Army's hired advertising company, Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: Titled 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds.
I asked Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins for further explanation on the intent of the ads.
Clearly it was to talk to influencers, she said. She said studies have shown that today's young people yearn to serve their country in one way or another. The problem is that today the people who influence their decisions are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service].
Why?
In part because the economy is strong, said Robbins. In part because they are concerned about the war. And in part because fewer of them have a direct relationship with the military or have ever served.
So would it be logical to conclude that, if the strong economy is one of the reasons it is more difficult to recruit, the most affluent parents should be the most difficult to reach? After all, their children have more options, including college, than less affluent parents? And if that's true, isn't it somewhat ironic that the military is paying millions of dollars ultimately to influence the behavior of the parents who are among the most likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq?
I disagree with your premise, Robbins said, arguing that the military is represented strongly across the board by people of all income levels and faces challenges in recruiting at all income levels.
Referring to the Post-Gazette anecdote, she said, One woman saying stupid things does not a trend make.
Actually, I did have a premise, but it wasn't unshakable. But because neither the Army nor the Defense Department keeps detailed information about the household incomes of the people who join, it was not easy to prove or disprove.
So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55 to 44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.
The wealthier you become, apparently, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP advantage grows more pronounced for people from households making more than $100,000. People from households with incomes exceeding that amount voted for Bush over Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent. Those from households making less than $100,000 favored Kerry over Bush 51 to 49 percent. And nearly two-thirds of voters from households making more than $200,000 favored Bush over Kerry.
Those making more than $100,000 made up only 18 percent of the electorate, which explains why Bush won by a narrow 2.5 percentage points in the general election.
This raises all sorts of complicated socioeconomic questions, such as whether the rich expect others to fight their wars for them. Or, asked another way, are they more likely to support the war in Iraq because their families are less likely to carry part of the burden?
Certainly, there are no absolutes here. Many of the wealthy are Democrats, some of whom support the war. Some of whom oppose it. Many of the poor and working class are Republicans, and support the GOP on Iraq.
By looking at long-term trends, it seems logical that some of those most likely to support Bush and his Iraq policy are also those least likely to encourage their children to go into the military at wartime. And it raises questions, such as, if you are among those most likely to support the war, shouldn't you be among those most likely to encourage your child to serve in the military? Shouldn't your socioeconomic group be the most receptive to the recruiters' call? And would there be a recruitment problem at all if the affluent put their money where their mouth is?
Several social scientists have studied the question of economics and class in military enlistment. Many of these studies don't look at the officer ranks, which might tend to counter some of the class argument. But officers, of course, make up a relatively small portion of the military.
Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the casualties in Iraq.
I talked to two other academicians who have studied the issue. Their conclusions, though reached prior to the war in Iraq, were helpful because of their understanding of the historical implications of the class question.
David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland, said contrary to conventional wisdom both the poorest and the wealthiest people are underrepresented at the bottom of the military ranks, for completely different reasons. This trend held for both from the conscription years of Vietnam through at least the late 1990s.
Poorer people, he said, are likely to be kept out of the military by a range of factors, including higher likelihood of having a criminal record or academic deficiencies or health problems.
Back during Vietnam, the top [economic class] had access for means of staying out of the military, said Segal. The National Guard was known to be a well-to-do white man's club back then. People knew if you if joined the guard you weren't going to go to Vietnam. That included people like Dan Quayle and our current commander in chief. If you were rich, you might have found it easier to get a doctor to certify you as having a condition that precluded you from service. You could get a medical deferment with braces on your teeth, so you would go get braces -- something that was very expensive back then. The wealthy had more access to educational and occupational deferments.
Today's affluent merely see themselves as having more options and are not as enticed by financial incentives, such as money for college, Segal said.
The Army was able to provide socioeconomic data only for the 2002 fiscal year. Its numbers confirm Segal's findings that service members in the highest and lowest income brackets are underrepresented, but because those numbers chronicle enlistments in the year immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, it's difficult to ascertain whether this was a normal recruiting year.
Segal and Jerald G. Bachman, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, have studied the correlation between a parental education levels and likelihood for their offspring to enlist.
Examining data from early to mid-1990s, they created five categories, with one being the lowest level. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found the children of the most-educated parents -- those with post-graduate degrees -- were the least likely to join the military. The children of parents with high school diplomas were three times more likely to enlist.
One of the interesting phenomenon of today's politics is that, in general, Republicans tend to be more educated on average than Democrats, with a larger percentage either holding a bachelor's degree or having attended some college. But Democrats represent a larger portion of the super-educated -- that is, those holding graduate degrees. So Democrats are made up of the least and the most educated, with Republicans congregated largely near, but not at, the top.
So how did those near the top of the educational tree do in Segal's and Bachman's study? They were half as likely as those in group two to enlist. And because there are far more people who have been to college or have bachelor's degrees than there are people who have post-graduate degrees, the former group has far more political influence, just in sheer numbers.
While there have been changes in racial and ethnic enlistment trends, with the number of black recruits dropping precipitously since the Iraq war, Segal and Bachman said they've seen nothing to indicate significant changes in the class -- of which education levels is a prime indicator -- trends in the military.
Journalists can get themselves in trouble by drawing simplistic conclusions based on less-than-exhaustive research, and we won't do so here. But we can at least raise the question of whether the rich are more likely to support the war because their loved ones are less likely to die in it.
Comments can be sent to Terry Neal at commentsforneal@washingtonpost.com.
© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
Permanent military base. sm
This has nothing to do with anything. We have permanent military bases in many European countries. That does not mean we are involved in the politics in those countries. It means, and I have said this three times but I will try again, that when the Iraqi Democratic government is finally in place, they will decide what happens with prisoners of war. Right now, we are involved in that. In the future, we won't be. I am not sure how much clearer I can make it. Very much to the contrary of what the poster Democrat has posted above, this is not a partisan brouhaha that the media has somehow missed. They miss very little. It is something you are misunderstanding. There is plenty out there on the internet that explains it. That might be your first step, or, if you are determined to be upset about it, then there is little anyone can do. Now, having said that, I am off to other boards. Have a nice day.
Skinheads don't join the military.
They have their own militia. If you or anyone at the NYT knew how the military works, there is a quite extensive questionnaire before you are inducted and questioning regarding subversive groups. KKK is one of them. The KKK has actually greatly dwindled in size. Add to that the fact that the majority of the military now is made of minorities and you get the picture. Skinheads would not rape a woman of color. It's not what they do. In fact, it is the antithesis of what they do. They might kill them, but rape them...no way. Educate yourself. You just look foolish when you continue to downgrade our military this way.
I come from a long line of military. sm
And none of them feel that way. To each his own.
I am a firm supporter of the military, but --
My exhusband was a soldier the entire 20 years we were married and is in fact in Iraq right now; my son, whom I love dearly, is graduating from basic training on Friday. I support the military wholeheartedly, but that does not mean I have to support McCain.
I don't believe that our soldiers should be where they are and I don't believe they should have ever been where they are. And I believe that when they come home, they should have better support and better care than they are getting.
But I have the utmost respect for the military and their families and would always hope and pray the best for them. They did after all fight to give me the right to disagree on who their commander-in-chief should be.
That being said, I also do not think that serving in the military should be experience that counts in running the country. Just because McCain is a a war hero and former POW does not make him entitled to be the leader of the United States of America. That would be the same as saying my ex-husband could have that job; he has just as much experience in the military as McCain, not as a POW, but he has served many more years than McCain did.
What about the military votes not being counted? nm
x
Once again, a "civilian military force" that is
ENDORSED BY BUSH.
That little tidbit was conveniently deleted from the link that was provided.
Keep believing all the hype and the lies. That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.
If they were born on a military base, they
are considered U.S. citizens. Military bases anywhere in the world are considered U.S. soil.
they were not born on a military base either
they have dual citizenship.
Just shows your ignorance of the military then..
period. Just because you might not like it, does not change the fact that that's how it works. Nobody acts alone in the military. Any action must be approved by the Commander in Chief - who is the President. So, as much as it KILLS some people to give Obama any credit whatsoever, I'm afraid that is where the credit is due in this case.
Just shows your ignorance of the military
period. Just because you might not like it, does not change the fact that that's how it works. Nobody acts alone in the military. Any action must be approved by the Commander in Chief - who is the President. So, as much as it KILLS some people to give Obama any credit whatsoever, I'm afraid that is where the credit is due in this case - along with the brave men who did the actual physical rescuing.
They were ALL brave and they ALL acted with bravery and intelligence.
Once again, class, WHO is in charge of the military?
.
MOST people who serve in the military are
..
|
