Comments

   

Comment from Rob
Time November 13, 2009 at 5:13 am

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia

Religiously - no. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews

Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . Because Islam, Muhammad and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation….

Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans.

Call it what you wish it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Can a muslims be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, open fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 12

He is a good Muslim!!!

And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, is now are President? You have GOT to be kidding! Wake up America !

Comment from Rob
Time November 13, 2009 at 6:42 am

The president without a country
By Pat Boone

\"We\’re no longer a Christian nation.\" - President Barack Obama, June 2007

\" America has been arrogant.\" - President Barack Obama

\"After 9/11, America didn\’t always live up to her ideals.\"- President Barack Obama

\"You might say that America is a Muslim nation.\"- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president. I keep wondering what country he believes he\’s president of.

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale\’s \"The Man without a Country,\" a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, \"Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!\"

The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: \"You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country\’s naval vessels - under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed.\"

And so it was Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan\’s dying hours in his small stateroom - now turned into a shrine to the country he fore swore - never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America , refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president - a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white - I want to ask him, \"Just what country do you think you\’re president of?\"

You surely can\’t be referring to the United States of America , can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It\’s because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn\’t you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago ? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark \"Federalist Papers\": \"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers\"?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: \"Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.\"

Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900\’s that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a \"wall of separation between church and state\" was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson\’s intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute . were your ideas about America \’s Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that \" America is no longer a Christian nation\"? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that \" America has been arrogant\"?

Even if that\’s the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of \"not always living up to her ideals,\" how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be \"considered a Muslim nation\"?

Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a \"Muslim nation\"?

Why are we not, then, a \"Chinese nation\"? A \"Korean nation\"? Even a \"Vietnamese nation\"? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you\’re trying to make is a religious one, why is America not \"a Jewish nation\"? There\’s actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution - and the success of our Revolution and founding - owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran ? Even in Egypt ? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can\’t you? You do recall Muhammad\’s directives [Surah 9:5,73] to \"break the cross\" and \"kill the infidel\"?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are \"no longer Christian,\" who have \"failed to live up to our ideals,\" who \"have been arrogant,\" and might even be \"considered Muslim\" - you are president of a country most Americans don\’t recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?

Comment from geoff
Time November 13, 2009 at 9:25 am

Rob: “Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans.”
Years ago, Americans debated whether a Catholic like JFK could be a good President, or whether he would have to take his orders from the Pope.
And before that much the same was being said, in turn, about East European, Japanese, Chinese and even Irish immigrants.
Before that, it was argued that blacks couldn’t be soldiers, and Jews weren’t quite equal enough to join a whole lot of country clubs.
But the most extreme example of where your kind of “reasoning” leads is the case of German Jews who, despite having converted to Christianity (in a lot of cases even generations previously), served in the German military with distinction, were still not quite “German” enough by the 1930s.
You also posted a variant of this on Cagle’s blog: repetition doesn’t make it any less false.

Comment from Stug
Time November 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm

\"If you consider yourself the president of a people who are no longer Christian…\"
- Perhaps he is overestimating the ability of some to look beyond the narrow scope of their religion as their only tool of definition.
What he actually said: \"Whatever we once were, we\’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,\" Though I can see why Boone and others of the far-Right would choose to take the statement out of context as Obama continued with: \"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it\’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who\’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us,\"

\"…who have failed to live up to our ideals…\"
- We initiated an unprovoked, poorly planned and poorly executed war, engaged in torture (allegedly), reduced the freedoms of speech and demonstration to \"free-speech zones\", illegaly initiated clandestine eavesdropping programs on American citizens, politicized the DoJ, etc.

\"…who \"have been arrogant…\"
- As evidenced by the opinions of foreign citizens the world over. It has always been a bit amusing to me that we put together a \"coalition of the willing\" while simultaneously announcing that \"if you aren\’t with us, you\’re against us.\" I hope those who dissent from this observation will try to avoid the predictable, and oft-repeated on these boards, comment of \’Who cares what foreigners think?\’, as that would be, well, arrogant.

\"…and might even be considered Muslim…\"
- Fortunately, for the cause of the far-Right, Pat Boone did write, and attribute, these words to Obama. Unfortunately, Obama did not oblige Mr. Boone by ever actually saying them. I can understand why such a blatantly inflammatory accusation would be flaunted by the Right without regard for it\’s veracity, but it is a sad statement on their ideology that they have to resort to falsehoods to forward their cause. Instead of castigating Obama for words never spoken, perhaps they should castigate Boone, a Christian activist, for using his national podium to spread a lie. The text of Obama\’s speech is available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_.....y-6-04-09/

\"…you are president of a country most Americans don’t recognize…\"
- The majority of American voters agreed on Nov. 4th 2008 with this statement. It is because they no longer recognized their country that they elected him.

Comment from AngrySailor302
Time November 13, 2009 at 11:26 pm

What this issue with the Ft. Hood shooting is a result of is the determination to make the military as PC and “diverse” as possible.

Decisions on who to promote, who should go where, and so on, are not determined off of performance, but what race/religion/gender the servicemember is.

There has been many, many claims that diversity is the biggest priority to having the best military force.

Not true.

I have no problems with any particular group of people, but I believe that this “Forced Diversity” crapola is a bad idea, and that if you want to get somewhere, you should work for it, not getting a leg up on your competition based on what race/gender/etc. that you are.

A good military is not based off of diversity, but of training, dedication,hard work, and yes, sacrifice.

Giving certain groups special treatment only serves the purpose of ruing unit cohesion, motivation, and morale.

Case in point, when I was in the Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit, in Charleston, SC, there was one black student there, and he was given quite a bit of preferential treatment. Instructors were told to give him special attention to ensure that he did well in the course of his training, despite his poor attitude towards getting his qualifications done.

When it became apparent that he could not pass the written examinations required to pass the school (about the only color blind process in the school), the staff completed an application for the Naval Academy for him and told him that he was going to the Academy as the Navy “needed” more diversity in the ranks.

Normally in order to get into the Academy, one has to work hard and jump through a lot of hoops, but this man was given a free ticket in based on race.

Basically it’s the same concept as to why the shooter was kept in, as the guilt-ridden liberals are trying to make everthing PC, and now their fascist PC campaign is starting to backfire…

Comment from chrissy
Time November 14, 2009 at 3:23 am

Comment from geoff :-You also posted a variant of this on Cagle’s blog: repetition doesn’t make it any less false.

When are you going to learn it geoff?
No point teaching others when you cannot follow it yourself.
hahahahahaha
http://blog.cagle.com/daryl/20.....mment-4378

Comment from Cal
Time November 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm

For Obama, the greater concern is with a potential backlash against Muslims than it is with what just happened in America—Islamic terrorism on a US military base. This is an unconscionable act and our president will not acknowledge what just happened beyond the obvious crime of murder. This should surprise no one. Although elected president of all the people, he represents only a minority in the radical views he holds. Regardless of the mainstream media’s failure to explore these radical connections the president himself boasts of in his books, we’ve come to know who he is by what he’s done and by the people with whom he surrounds himself. He does not see Islamic jihad as a real threat. He does not consider what this “mujahidin” did in Texas to be terrorism. Obama is even willing to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York to stand trial regardless of the consequences to our military and our intelligence agencies.

While some of what Rob wrote may be hard for some to process, please read it carefully and consider who this man (Obama) is in light of what he has said, done, and perhaps most importantly, _not_ said. This is a man who could not even qualify for military service because of his past associations and yet is now the commander in chief. His priorities are domestic as he seeks to socialize America and the defense of America is but a distraction for him as it takes time and money from his real agenda. We see this in his reaction to Fort Hood as well as in non-response to his hand-picked general’s request for more troops in Afghanistan.

Political correctness has been killing us figuratively for decades and is now killing us literally. The loons will try and attribute this to one man who “snapped” under stress to avoid having to call it what it is—Islamic terrorism. This same political correctness demands we ignore the large percentage of Muslims who adhere to Sharia law in this country and advocate or tolerate jihad to the detriment of our own safety and national security. The fact that many, or even most Muslims live peaceably among us does not justify pretending there is no real threat from a growing minority.

We tried this “law enforcement” approach during the ‘90s under Clinton and got attack after attack on US citizens and property as a result. And now this “president” wants to take us back to those same failed policies in the name of political correctness. And for those of us who are Kool Aid free, there is grave cause to wonder if this blindness doesn’t have an even deeper root cause than just liberal ideology.

“- The majority of American voters agreed on Nov. 4th 2008 with this statement. It is because they no longer recognized their country that they elected him.” Uh, no, that had little to do with the wave of populism that swept up the youth and African-American community to actually turn and vote. Populism, coupled with a lousy Republican alternative that kept conservatives at home all worked to give Obama a solid margin of victory. But those who voted for blind “change” and now quickly changing their minds about the man who is so far the worst president of my lifetime.

Comment from geoff
Time November 14, 2009 at 5:01 pm

Hey Chrissy: how are Jack & Janet these days? Give my love to the Ropers.

Comment from chrissy
Time November 14, 2009 at 8:31 pm

I thought you know better about irrelevant questions.
hahahahaha

What happened to putting your point clearly?
Lost the magic touch?

Comment from Cantor
Time November 15, 2009 at 1:21 am

I think Geoff made his point very well, as he always does.

Comment from chrissy
Time November 15, 2009 at 7:47 am

geoff now cantor is your new alter ego?
do you really think you put your point clearly?
You need help geoff.
fake proved you to be a lying idiot.
And you still brag without shame.
Shame shame geoff.
follow your own advice.
Look in the mirror.

Comment from Cantor
Time November 15, 2009 at 9:48 am

Looks like chrissy is just Cal in drag. LOL

Comment from geoff
Time November 15, 2009 at 11:46 am

Chrissy: I think I made my point about my estimation of your intelligence quite clearly (or haven’t you been watching “Three’s Company” reruns? I would have thought that was your style). As did your assertion that “fake” (Sunita?) proved anything other than that he seems to like wasting people’s time.
When did I either lie or brag? Please provide an example.

Comment from chrissy
Time November 15, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Follow your own advice.
Do you own homework.
Check your conversation in this blog.
http://blog.cagle.com/daryl/20.....e-cartoon/

Comment from geoff
Time November 15, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Chrissy: can’t you be specific? instead of making empty generalisations all the time? Or even explain why I should waste my time looking at a “fake” “conversation”? It is impossible to converse with jelly.
I will admit, on reflection (that means looking in the mirror, by the way), that yes, maybe I have bragged about having a decent health system, great public transit, low crime rates, environmentally-friendly politics, and even political parties that represent a wider portion of the political spectrum than just “right” and “further right,” etc.
And, also upon reflection, I consider I might have been amiss by making allusions to something as progressive as “Three’s Company.” Given that you are a conservative, I should have assumed you would be more at home with “classics,” such as “Gilligan’s Island.”
I will try to remedy that failure in future.

Comment from geoff
Time November 15, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Hmm, interesting: “Screeds about the Hasan case are completely at odds with both the Afghanistan policy they endorse and the leadership that must execute that policy, including Gen. Stanley McChrystal. These hawks, all demanding that Obama act on McChrystal’s proposals immediately, do not seem to have read his strategy assessment for Afghanistan or the many press interviews he gave as it leaked out. If they had, they’d discover that the whole thrust of his counterinsurgency pitch is to befriend and win the support of the Afghan population — i.e., Muslims. The “key to success,” the general wrote in his brief to the president, will be “strong personal relationships forged between security forces and local populations.”
More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11.....5rich.html

Comment from chrissy
Time November 15, 2009 at 4:53 pm

geoff, It is no generalization that you are stupid and vain.
I cannot be more specific than that.
Unlike you fake,
1) believes in whole facts and not parts of it.
2) does not distort facts to prove his point.
3) he accepts facts at the facevalue.
4) he does not keep trying to prove himself right all the time.
5) he respects other peoples views and tries to understand their point of view.
6) he reads content and not grammar.
7) he does not have illusions (read your comment about right and further right)

And the best is he makes you writhe in pain every time he proves your bias.

Comment from Cantor
Time November 15, 2009 at 7:21 pm

geoff, It is no generalization that you are stupid and vain.
Comment from chrissy
Time November 15, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Actually it is. But when it comes to being stupid and vain, I’m sure you’re more experienced in these matters.

Comment from geoff
Time November 15, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Chrissy, or fakegeoff, or Sunita, or whoever you’re pretending to be this time: I don’t happen to remember fake having posted any facts (if you can find one, I’d be glad to reconsider). And it is a “generalization” to say that I am “stupid and vain” or “a lying idiot” or “without shame” when you fail to provide examples to support your opinion. What exactly have I said that was “stupid and vain,” for example? In all of my many postings, there must be something you can copy & paste. It’s not rocket science: you can usually do it with 2 clicks of your mouse.
And without any “facts” to consider the validity of, there is no sense accepting them “at the facevalue” (the “the” in there is a giveaway, Sunita). There’s no point iIf “he” tries to tell me that he gets his “facts” straight from Fox “news,” for example. And if he doesn’t like wikipedia, then he could always provide alternate links where we could all go, examine and weigh the evidence together and see if “his” conclusions are valid.
But no, it’s just so much easier to keep repeating the same old tired insults over & over again, than actually having to think, right?
And my comment about “right and further right”? What’s wrong with it? I have repeatedly pointed out the error of people like Cal who continue to equate “liberal,” “left,” “socialist,” “communist,” and sometimes “fascist” and/or “Nazi” as though red, green, yellow, blue, etc. were all equivalent. Right wing American insistence on labelling the Democrats as being “left” does not make that true. As far as much of the rest of the world seems to see it, the Democrats are right-of-centre or centre-right; numerous other sources have pointed out that ostensibly “conservative” parties are often somewhere to the left of the Democrats: the German CDU, for example, or even Canada’s Conservative Party. And the NYTimes regularly labels Canada’s pro-business newspaper, the Globe and Mail, as “left” basically because it is, although not too unlike the WSJ, somewhere to the left of the (supposedly leftist, according to GOP & various other self-proclaimed “conservatives”) NYTimes. The trouble is that the US has shifted so far to the right that communication becomes difficult, even without people like Cal deliberately muddying the waters.
Now: which illusions does fakegeoff (or do you) supposedly not have?

Comment from geoff
Time November 15, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Interesting: “In a 2004 study of approximately 1,400 Vietnam veterans, almost 90 percent Christian, researchers at Yale found that nearly one-third said the war had shaken their faith in God and that their religion no longer provided comfort for them. The Yale study found that these soldiers were more likely than others to seek mental health treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) when they came home. It was not that these veterans had unusually high confidence in government or especially good information about services at VA hospitals. Instead, they had fallen into a spiritual abyss and were desperate to find a way out. The trauma of war seems to be especially acute for men and women whose faith in a benevolent God is challenged by the carnage they have witnessed.”
And this is how Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Michael McLendon addressed the problem ” that the rise in benefits claims the VA was noticing was caused partly by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were suffering from PTSD. “That’s too many,” McLendon said, then hit his hand on the table. “They are too young” to be filing claims, and they are doing it “too soon.” He hit the table again. The claims, he said, are “costing us too much money,” and if the veterans “believed in God and country . . . they would not come home with PTSD.” At that point, he slammed his palm against the table a final time, making a loud smack.”
More here: http://bostonreview.net/BR34.6/mckelvey.php

Comment from chrissy
Time November 15, 2009 at 11:34 pm

hahahahahaha….
you want me to do your homework for you geoff/cantor?
I am following your methods geoff/cantor.
Do you see how others get irritated by your methods?
The IP address of Cantor, GoodLife and your postings are same.
Next time you post with different names go 3 blocks away and change the name.
I told you. You are stupid, vain and a Lunatic.
hahahahahahahaha
I can see your frustration in dealing with your own methods.
hahahahahahaha…

Comment from Spartan117
Time November 16, 2009 at 2:53 am

chrissy, go to your corner in that you are unable to play with other children.

War is not the answer, never has been. I am willing to bet many of you only wore a uniform when McDonalds or Burger King told you to. I served my time in hell (Nam) and got nothing in return…no thanks, no parades, nothing. Wait, Let me take that back, I have nightmares and a cadre of Demons chasing me.

In religion, wars are fought over stupid ideology. Is Mary the mother of Jesus or God? Is Jesus the son of God or God himself? Is Jesus Jewish or Christian? Who is the Real God? Budda? Allah? A Magic Mushroom? If we did away with religion, wars would end because very few wars are fought over anything else.
BTW, when you adress Barack Obama, it is PRESIDENT Obama. You may not respect the man, but be respectful of the office of the Presidency. Or is that beneath your cold rock hard heart?

Comment from OMG!
Time November 16, 2009 at 5:16 am

I think I agree more with AngrySailor302. There were three distinct criteria involved here. The first was the PC of the military to overlook Hassan’s qualifications, loyalty, and stability. The second was that the military was unarmed…for Godsakes, this is the military…that usually means guns, or at least other means of defense other than hiding behind trash cans for cover. The third is that it really isn’t terrorism…..it’s an act of a man snapping under the pressure of having to choose between two loyalties…..who just happened to be Muslim. I think having an unarmed army base is a very silly, stupid idea. It suggests our military is only useful as cannon fodder….and this time they were. This one’s our fault guys, we should know better.

Comment from fakesunita
Time November 16, 2009 at 7:47 am

chrissy: \"The IP address of Cantor, GoodLife and your postings are same.\"
Cantor, GoodLife: do you agree?
\"I told you. You are stupid, vain and a Lunatic.\" You keep saying that, yes, but in this and your accusations of multiple ID use, it becomes increasingly obvious that you are talking about yourself and projecting your own failings onto others. Those are not my methods, chrissy/fakegeoff/sunita. As Spartan117 said: go back to your corner until you know how to play.

Comment from chrissy
Time November 16, 2009 at 8:43 am

who is sunita?
geoff did you get your sex changed?
awww you must be looking historically cute and hilariously stupid
hahahaha.
I am counting
geoff
goodlife
cantor
spartan117 and now
fakesunita
you better get to the doctor before you lose your identity and your confidence.
hahahahaha

Comment from love my country
Time November 16, 2009 at 3:20 pm

hahaha?? Some people around here seem to be very pleased with themselves when the subject matter is about more death and destruction. People are dying for you and there is nothing funny about it. I dont believe that anyone is interested in your opinions about other bloggers but only the topic at hand. (this is my opinion) In my house we are not allowed to use words like liar and stupid. This is how the children talk to each other in first and second grade. I dont believe many would get away with this on the job or really in any face to face public situation.
My opinion on the subject at hand is this….I do believe that this was a soldier gone off the deep end but when he screams his Gods name during the shootings it became a terrorist act.

Comment from Stug
Time November 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Angry Sailor,
- I also went through the Navy’s nuc program, did prototype in Idaho Falls. I knew several guys belonging to ethnic minorities that washed out, both from NNPS in Orlando and later from prototype. This was in the early nineties, I don’t know if that would have any bearing though. I’d be willing to make a bet that the person to whom you are refering got preferential treatment because his daddy knew someone who could pull strings. Just my opinion though.

Comment from Cal
Time November 16, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Spartan 117, You’re not the only American to have fought in Vietnam and you’re also certainly not the only one still whining about the time you spent there. I don’t buy the “demon dreams” or any of your other melodrama. You’re an angry, bitter sounding man like Angry Sailor and a few others who post here. This, plus your atheistic rants provide a real window into your life. It sounds pretty miserable.

I served in four different wars and I’m quite sure if I had never worn a uniform other than one from McDonalds that as an American I have all the right I need to address Barry Obama any damn way I please. I really find it ironic that YOU would take it upon yourself to lecture anyone about how to address someone, let alone the worst president and worst commander-in-chief in my lifetime. If I need a lecture in military courtesy, I’ll go ask someone who has a leg up on you. Like a Marine PFC who actually carries some amount of credibility. Have a nice day and thank you for interest in national security.

Late add: A daddy who could get someone to pull strings? Funny, I’ve never seen a single incident in almost 26 years in uniform and I’ve know guys who dads wore four stars or served in congress. But it makes guys like “Angry Sailor” feel better to find excuses for what is always just sour grapes or poor performance.

Comment from geoff
Time November 16, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Cal, don’t you remember how “the worst president and worst commander-in-chief in my lifetime” managed to get his daddy to “pull strings” to get him into the Texas Air National Guard? then over to Alabama, where he didn’t even bother to report to duty? You really are having trouble with your memory.

Comment from fencerider rob
Time November 16, 2009 at 10:07 pm

The reality America’s leaders must face is that our morally bankrupt foriegn policy of nation building (empirical) is only exascerbating a growing hatred of the US citizenry as a whole. When actually attacking the leaders is not an option civilians will do just fine. As for the intellectuals here who scream about jihad, it would do them great service to read up a little regarding the subject. Jihad is the war necessary to expel non-islam forces from the holy lands. Nothing about jihad speaks about attacking non-islamic holy lands, of which the US is not. This manipulation of the meaning of jihad has done the western nations of the world a great disservice, further engaging their armies in islamic holy lands and creating a good reason (for the jihadists) to attack them where ever, when ever. There’s a good reason jihad was relatively unheard of prior to our entrenchment in the ME.

Comment from Stug
Time November 16, 2009 at 10:38 pm

Cal: “I served in four different wars and I’m quite sure if I had never worn a uniform other than one from McDonalds that as an American I have all the right I need to address Barry Obama any damn way I please.”
- True, as an American citizen, you do have that right. But as the self-touted expert on all things military (and economic and environmental for that matter) you know full well that the only correct way to address the President is , Mr. President, as that is the official title, or President Obama. If you wish to pretend otherwise, I suggest you contact your Marine PFC, because you apparently need the lecture on military courtesy. I have no doubt that if you meet W. face to face at some point you will proudly address him as “Mr. President”, as you should, so the question of how you will address “the worst president and worst commander-in-chief in my lifetime,” is not in issue. You’re the one always touting the military as the only properly run portion of the government, walk the walk for a change and show the office the respect that it is due.
“A daddy who could get someone to pull strings? Funny, I’ve never seen a single incident in almost 26 years in uniform and I’ve know guys who dads wore four stars or served in congress.”
- Now you’re going to pretend that favoritism doesn’t happen in the military? I’m starting to wonder if you actually served or if you’ve been all wind. You’re starting to sound like Ahmedinejad with his “There are no homosexuals in Iran!” Yeah, ok, whatever.

Comment from fencerider rob
Time November 17, 2009 at 12:06 am

How the president is addressed is such a trivial non-issue it only shows how shallow the intellect here is.

Comment from Cal
Time November 17, 2009 at 8:33 pm

In a never-ending saga of confusing the issues, Stug writes, “I have no doubt that if you meet W. face to face at some point you will proudly address him as “Mr. President”, as you should, so the question of how you will address “the worst president and worst commander-in-chief in my lifetime,” is not in issue.” No, I would not “proudly” address him as Mr. President. I would do so reluctantly but would in fact, do so because the office demands it. I don’t respect him but I do respect the office.

My issue was with Spartan’s lame attempt to lecture anyone on how or what to do in defense of this terrible commander-in-chief. I think I made my point quite well that neither I nor any other American citizen needs nor desires any such advice from an angry, bitter, godless man who’s still whining about a war he fought in 40 years ago. That subtle distinction was lost on you (as usual) as you then proceeded to bring in an example that had nothing to do with my post. I’m learning to expect that lately.

And then another incredible leap of “logic.” From “I’ve never seen the level of favoritism Angry Sailor’s talking about” you proceed directly to the extreme again by saying, “Now you’re going to pretend that favoritism doesn’t happen in the military?” Are you fully incapable of following a simple thought? Your penchant for coming up with examples unrelated to the basic comment is really annoying.

As to the last paragraph: When I was a junior enlisted guy, I used to sit around and gripe the way all enlisted guys do. I call it “shop talk.” It’s always “management” or “the boss.” In the Marine Corps it was always “the Gunny” who was f’d up—never us. We “knew” (just like liberals just seem to “know”) that Jones made meritorious sergeant because he was a “kiss ass”–not because he was good. Smith got the best school because his dad was a sergeant major not because he was qualified and applied. Same old blue collar junk I used to say from E-1 to E-5 and then heard as an officer the rest of my career. To quote your astute summation Stug, “Yeah, whatever.”

Comment from GoodLife
Time November 17, 2009 at 9:06 pm

Chrissy–I don’t know where you look up IP addresses, but Goeff and I have been on here a long time (although I took a summer break) and don’t have a clue who you or Cantor are.

Comment from Stug
Time November 19, 2009 at 6:44 am

Cal, c’mon, you can do better than that. You wrote four short paragraphs and didn’t manage to actually say anything except to denigrate a man who fought for his country. Sad. Admittedly, you did try to soften my previous comments by trying to bring my logic into question. Probably even convinced yourself.
Spartan has as much right as any American to lecture on the repect due the office of the presidency, whether you desire the advice is irrelevant, that some, if not you, need it is unquestionable.
Your post was: “how to address someone, let alone the worst president and worst commander-in-chief in my lifetime.” - my reply was that you would greet W. as Mr. President, relevant enough.
“And then another incredible leap of “logic.” From “I’ve never seen the level of favoritism Angry Sailor’s talking about” you proceed directly to the extreme again by saying, “Now you’re going to pretend that favoritism doesn’t happen in the military?” Are you fully incapable of following a simple thought? - Actually, I am. What you said was “A daddy who could get someone to pull strings? Funny, I’ve never seen a single incident…”, what you just attempted to pretend you said was “I’ve never seen the level of favoritism Angry Sailor’s talking about.” So basicaly, after getting called out, you attempted to change what you actually said, a fairly blatant generalization that everyone knows is false, to what you perhaps actually meant which regarded the ‘level’ of favoritism. Two different statements, fairly simple thought, no?

Comment from geoff
Time November 19, 2009 at 10:14 am

fencerider rob: comments on jihad: yeah. Somewhere, years ago (Joseph Campbell? some textbook?) also suggested Jihad first had to be practiced on oneself anyway, kind of like “he who is without sin.”
I wanted to get back to the “central planning” of economies but forgot where that was, because I’ve been thinking about that ever since. And in general it would seem that you need some kind of strong leader to push really major changes through, like moving Russia from a feudal to a nuclear state in just 100 years, and the Bolsheviks recognised this with their idea of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the Nazis had it in their “Fuehrerprinzip,” whereas in places like Africa and South America “strong men” just seem to be synonymous with rampant corruption. And I guess whether that strong leadership is justified depends on whether you believe the end justifies the means, and I’m just assuming that a relatively modern Russia (ca. 1950) was generally better for most Russians than was the feudal Russia of 1860 (and about all the reforms did was free the serfs, and not a whole lot changed until 1917: Russia remained a backwater socially and economically).
The problem you pointed out is in the continuation of this “dictatorship” to micromanage everything, which eventually seems to dissipate progress, like in any corporation. And the leftist critics would largely argue that the USSR wasn’t a truly communist state partly because it maintained this centralised control, economic system of “state capitalism,” etc.
And we can maybe contrast the USSR 1920-1950 with Russia since 1989: since 1989 Russians have been “free,” but there has been rampant corruption, drastic reduction in life expectancy, etc. No progress under a series of weak leaders. And contrast with China: I don’t know if Mao actually managed to raise standards for the vast majority of Chinese peasantry, but think he probably failed in that regard. The present Chinese system, though, which seems to be “free market” without political freedoms, has greatly benefited urban minorities while, again, not helping the peasants much (& given Chinese residency laws, “peasants” seems justified). So in Russia & China today it seems to be accepted that a relative few can get obscenely rich, a slightly larger majority can profit, but there is still accepted that a large rural majority will stagnate. The question then becomes one of whether this kind of social divide is really any more sustainable in the long run than was the sort of barely post-feudal situations occuring just before the revolutions.
So: the central planning of the economy as a means for achieving social progress, or should the regime allow economics to rule at the risk of leading to eventual revolution by the disenfranchised?

Comment from GoodLife
Time November 19, 2009 at 3:04 pm

It would sure help if “christians?” would read their own scriptures. They might discover that their Messiah actually spoke against the combining of church and state. And they might find that he was killed by those “conservative” religious leaders who found power by combining religion and government.

It would sur help if “americans?” would read their own constitution. They might discover that their government is not and never has been anything but neutral in regard to religion. Actually allowing all religions to be equally protected.

Show me one place in the NT or the Constitution that says the civil government should be Christian or any other religion. If you are a true Christian or true American, you would not combine the two. If I’m wrong, I DARE you to show me the scripture or the Constitutional provision.

Comment from geoff
Time November 19, 2009 at 3:18 pm

GoodLife: in some cases, as Cal notes (and has proven on many occasions), reading comprehension is lacking. Others just don’t want to face facts, they’d rather believe their fantasies (or even faulty translations of the Bible when they even bother reading it; did that “church” in North Carolina actually go ahead and burn translations they didn’t approve of?).

Comment from Cal
Time November 19, 2009 at 8:44 pm

Stug, If using examples that take the simple to the complex the way you try and do is “calling someone out” then, well, okay, you really “called me out.” If denying that you took both simple basic ideas to the extreme is your idea of “countering” a point, then again, as you say, “Yeah, whatever.” (Oh, and thanks for the encouraging words. It’s nice to know I have some potential!)

Sure, Angry Sailor or ANY American has a right to say pretty much anything they want. On that I think we agree. But all Americans have the same right to either ignore what is said or to express a contrary opinion. And while his _opinion_ may be that one MUST address the president as _Mister_ President, the truth of the matter is that is not so. Because you are a fellow liberal you’re putting your rational good sense aside and siding with your ideological shipmate. I get that. But as far as the merits of the argument go, he is dead wrong. He knows it, you know, and I certainly know it. His entire post was an angry diatribe—as usual. I normally ignore that sort of thing but often find myself “up to here” with either the silliness (“Asian Ann Coulter” or “bitter neocon”) or anger (Spartan and his atheist rants, Angry Sailor and his sour grapes, etc.,) and respond in kind.

And I wasn’t just calling your logic into question. I was also calling into question your judgment and experience. You have anecdotal examples based on a few years of enlisted experience. (And I want to say ‘thanks’ for the time you did serve, btw. The Navy is one of my four favorite armed services.) I not only have that same enlisted experience but an entirely different, much broader perspective having been on all sides (to include twice) as it were. But again, if just “know” you’re right, well, who am I to argue with that?

These aren’t difficult issues unless, of course, you just can’t admit you’re wrong. (In keeping with your latest follow-on post, this is where you now reply with something witty like, “Yeah, right, that’s the advice I’d give to you.”) Another disagreement on Cagle. I’m shocked!

Comment from Stug
Time November 19, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Cal, your attempt to press the taking of an example to the extreme onto me is an impressive attempt to impugn me with your fault. I’ll try to make it clear for you.
Angry Sailor: “Normally in order to get into the Academy, one has to work hard and jump through a lot of hoops, but this man was given a free ticket in based on race.” - Probably not true.
Me: “I’d be willing to make a bet that the person to whom you are refering got preferential treatment because his daddy knew someone who could pull strings.” - Assuming any preferential treatment was shown.
You: “A daddy who could get someone to pull strings? Funny, I’ve never seen a single incident in almost 26 years in uniform…” - You basicaly denying that favoritism exists in the military.
Geoff: “Cal, don’t you remember how “the worst president and worst commander-in-chief in my lifetime” managed to get his daddy to “pull strings” to get him into the Texas Air National Guard?” - A rather egregious example.
Me: “Now you’re going to pretend that favoritism doesn’t happen in the military?” - A legitimate question based on your previous comment.
You: “And then another incredible leap of “logic.” From “I’ve never seen the level of favoritism Angry Sailor’s talking about” you proceed directly to the extreme again by saying, “Now you’re going to pretend that favoritism doesn’t happen in the military?” ” - Where you change your statement, going so far as to put it in quotes as if it were what you said in the first place.
Yes, admittedly I do sometimes use extreme examples in order to make a point, it is a useful tool. Think of it as my version of how you mis-quote people, including yourself, to make your own points.
“I was also calling into question your judgment and experience.” - Granted, I only served four years. Like you, I didn’t directly observe any favoritism either. But the military is like any other institution comprised of people and favoritism is a matter of fact in such institutions. Did it happen in Angry Sailor’s example, I have no idea. My original statement was intended to convey the fact that it was less likely that the individual was shown such favoritism based on his race and more likely that he had family connections.

“Because you are a fellow liberal you’re putting your rational good sense aside and siding with your ideological shipmate.”
- No, I’m not a fellow liberal, and my ideology is shaped largely by factual information and probabilities and a desire to see the country move forward in a positive direction. It is unfortunate that your inability to see shades of gray forces you to label anyone that doesn’t march in lockstep with your archaic ideals as a liberal. You are so far to the right you probably have Barry Goldwater pegged as a liberal.

“And while his _opinion_ may be that one MUST address the president as _Mister_ President, the truth of the matter is that is not so.” - True, you could also address him as Sir. I don’t disagree that one can address the president however one choses, but you brought up military courtesy. I imagine if your Marine PFC addressed him as “Yo Barry!”, his Gunny would beat the crap out of him, no?

fencerider, of course this is a trivial non-issue, but so what. It isn’t as if Obama’s administration is any more likely than Bush’s was to go “Hey, let’s go see what solutions the Cagle think-tank has come up with!” Almost all of our bantering is a complete waste of time, argument for argument’s sake. It is all trivial, no matter how serious the actual issues are.

Comment from Cal
Time November 20, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Stug, You came as close as I think I’m going to get to an “okay, you have a point.” Not a “you were right” but intended or not, I’m taking it as that! You’re starting to be as big a gasbag as me. Forgive me I missed it a second time if you answered me but how did your cert go? (If it’s none of my damn business, fine–just thought I’d ask. You may have answered on a thread that dropped off before I read it.)

And what do you mean what we say here is mindless? We’re not changing the world here? Okay, maybe not, but you have to admit we ARE changing each other’s minds, right? I mean, Left? :-)

Comment from Stug
Time November 21, 2009 at 12:19 am

I haven’t taken the actual cert exam yet, it was for the class final and practice tests that I dropped off earlier. I was 10 points shy on the practice exam so I put off the actual to get some more study time in. Since then personal issues have prevented any real progress so it’s still up in the air. I did answer on a different thread, but I understand how you missed it. Thanks for asking.
I suppose we are changing each other’s minds, in the same manner that a blacksmith changes raw iron to Damascus steel, with lots of heat and pounding.

Comment from coetsee
Time December 14, 2009 at 1:29 pm

1. Cash Making Opportunities - The Beginning The working life is already tough enough, but the worries of being out of work was even tougher. The unsecured working environment have prompted me to search the internet for an alternative source of extra income so that I could learn how to Make Money Work for me and be Financially Independent. I listed down a number of Free Internet Business Opportunity Ideas while researching ways how people earn money online while working-from-home…….

http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Write a comment


                               





You need to enable javascript in order to use Simple CAPTCHA.