Homemade Commercial


wuzfuz

New member
Homemade

Exactly on target. As someone pointed out a couple of weeks ago, John McCain is the only candidate for the presidency that has actually fought and suffered for this country. Someone tried besmirching Senator McCain recently by saying he was not a hero. I am sorry, but in my book, he, like all combat veterans is a hero. Not only did he serve six years in the Hanoi Hilton. He had his fighter shot out from under him on the deck of his carrier. A Zuni missile fired from a nother plane and hit McCain's plane. He climbed out of the cockpit, walked along a fuel hose like a tightrope and from what I was told, started helping other naval personnel to safety. He is the kind of man I want for a CIC.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Exactly on target. As someone pointed out a couple of weeks ago, John McCain is the only candidate for the presidency that has actually fought and suffered for this country. Someone tried besmirching Senator McCain recently by saying he was not a hero. I am sorry, but in my book, he, like all combat veterans is a hero. Not only did he serve six years in the Hanoi Hilton. He had his fighter shot out from under him on the deck of his carrier. A Zuni missile fired from a nother plane and hit McCain's plane. He climbed out of the cockpit, walked along a fuel hose like a tightrope and from what I was told, started helping other naval personnel to safety. He is the kind of man I want for a CIC.

Not only that, he had an opportunity to escape captivity early but refused for the good of his country. If that's not a hero, I don't know what is.
 

jwtollett21

New member
I'm very thankful for John Mcains service to our country. He is a man of bravery and honor. He was a POW and a hero. But....................That doesn't automatically make him a good presidential candidate or the best one.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
First of all, I'll preface this by saying that I disagree strongly with people who claim that the war in Iraq was "immoral" or "illegal". War is amoral. Bringing morality into war is like bringing a sensitive nose into a slaughterhouse. Legality is somewhat suspect in this respect, too. History has shown us that nations go to war solely for self-interest - 95% of the time, to seize a resource or gain a better political foothold. It's quite possible that that's the only realistically valid reason to go to war, too - for a reason that will pay off concretely. Going to war for moral or emotional reasons is likely a ruinous path. This sounds bad, but it's just reality.

This guy is saying, "Look what Americans have sacrificed for Iraq. Iraqis are people just like you and I. How can you say this was for nothing?"

This doesn't really make a logical argument at all, but is a very emotional appeal. Iraq is not a colony or territory we annexed, so we have absolutely zero responsibility towards them.

Certainly many Americans have sacrificed a great deal - in their minds, for the United States and for Iraq. However, sacrifice in and of itself may create meaning for the person who gives, but not necessarily for everyone else. Obviously, Iraqis are people just like you and I - who isn't? Martians?

If we had gotten involved in Iraq and somehow turned it into a Grand Utopia where peace reigns for 10,000 years, the weather is always pleasant, everyone is happy and all evil is driven underground - it still wouldn't be a good reason for our involvement.

$1 spent reconstructing Iraq, going to Iraq, or having anything whatsoever to do with Iraq, is $1 too much. We are not indebted to Iraq for any reason and have no reason to try and improve them.

Just as Europe should, the Middle East should handle their own affairs. If that means a war, then let them fight it out. If it means a dictatorship, they'll have to deal with that. Life isn't fair.
 
Last edited:

sailor

New member
toreskha - tunnel vision in the extreme. Just my 2 cents. The history, the lives lost even before we went into Iraq (remember the Kurd and Shiia being buchered and gased?), are all too complex to cover credibly in a blog statement. Remember, it is not a U.S. only endeaver, but a coalition, however limited, sanctioned by the United Nations (a disgusting orginization!). The passion on each side of this is insurmountable, and will not be cleared up until the historians in 20-40- or more years disect it. I personally feel it was morally correct to do, but tactically misshandled (that's called 20-20 hind sight!).
sailor
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
toreskha - tunnel vision in the extreme. Just my 2 cents. The history, the lives lost even before we went into Iraq (remember the Kurd and Shiia being buchered and gased?), are all too complex to cover credibly in a blog statement. Remember, it is not a U.S. only endeaver, but a coalition, however limited, sanctioned by the United Nations (a disgusting orginization!). The passion on each side of this is insurmountable, and will not be cleared up until the historians in 20-40- or more years disect it. I personally feel it was morally correct to do, but tactically misshandled (that's called 20-20 hind sight!).
sailor
The United States is a nation, not a charity organization and we exist for the defense and common welfare of citizens of the United States - and NOT anyone else. Screw the coalition, Iraq and the United Nations. It doesn't matter to me if it was a coalition of every single nation in the world except for Iraq. We need to take care of ourselves, and not them. We're still footing part of the bill for something that is really not our problem at all. I remember the atrocities committed by Saddam on his people. That was horrible. We are obligated to condemn his actions and possibly to refuse to trade if he has used brutal labor practices.

How Saddam treats his people does not affect our national security. If there is a US citizen there, we can rescue them - but Kurds and Iraqis are not US citizens, and they are not our concern. That's someone else's problem. Putting hundreds of thousands of US citizens in harm's way for some people who we don't have any responsibility for is not the best way to ensure the safety of our own citizens.

Saddam can abuse them all he wants, but it doesn't change our position of power in the world one iota. Applying military force in such a situation is unwise, because it causes us to take action in an area in which we do not have any responsibility from whence that action comes.

Consider that you own a large company. You run things pretty well - although there are some shortcomings, they aren't major. You are aware of a smaller company, although a leader in its particular niche, which is a terrible place to work, abuses some of its workforce, takes advantage of industry programs and has poor accounting practices. You're justified in expressing your concerns to management there, and probably in leaking information about them to the press or to the IRS. Taking these actions doesn't endanger your own company one bit. But, you want to do more - as in, purchase the other business outright and turn it around.

You go ahead and do this, but it turns out to be far more difficult than you had imagined. However, you are committed to the process. Many of the employees are appreciative on one hand, but on the other, feel that your form of leadership is foreign and strange, and the management is constantly rebelling. The business really has nothing to offer you - no product or market share you can take advantage of.

The project takes an extraordinary amount of the cash out of your own company, causes debt to accumulate, and occupies the time of some of your best managers. In weekly update emails, you explain to your own employees, who are taking pay cuts for this project, that you're doing this out of the goodness of your own heart, and they should feel morally obligated to help fellow human beings. Although they like helping people, they remain unconvinced, and feel that you're trampling on their more immediate concerns because of an idealistic vision that you have for some other, strange company that you picked up. Eventually your business winds up with a ridiculous amount of debt; the other company ends up doing fairly well in the long run, and just goes on about its business - but isn't especially grateful to you for anything.

Obviously, no company in its right mind pulls this kind of crap. Their mission is to make money, not to go around fixing other people's mistakes.
 

Palmach

New member
I'm very thankful for John Mcains service to our country. He is a man of bravery and honor. He was a POW and a hero. But....................That doesn't automatically make him a good presidential candidate or the best one.

On the other hand, I guess you believe that a come from nowhere Jr. Senator, who has never authored any legislation, and has no major accomplishments is a good candidate.

No track record. His running mate stated that he was not ready to lead, that the Presidency is not conducive to on the job training, and that talking points do not equal foreign policy. Do you think that makes him a good candidate?

His former opponent Hillary Clinton said that both she and John McCain bring a wealth of experience to the job of President, but Obama brings a speech from 2002. Do you think this makes him a good candidate?

I keep hearing that McCain's experience in the military is not a good qualification for Presidency, but I have yet to hear from anyone what they think Obama brings to the table other than a good speech, and good slogan.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I agree with Toreskha. Any time we make the decision to put American troops in harm's way, we better be damn sure that we are going to benefit from it. Case in point, the conflict in Somalia; the United States had absolutely nothing to gain from intervening there, yet we lost 300 soldiers there, and for what?
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
I agree with Toreskha. Any time we make the decision to put American troops in harm's way, we better be damn sure that we are going to benefit from it. Case in point, the conflict in Somalia; the United States had absolutely nothing to gain from intervening there, yet we lost 300 soldiers there, and for what?
For nothing, apparently. Somalia is Somalia's problem.

Now I have no problem with blasting a true enemy away. If Iran is actually building a nuke (and I mean really this time...none of that WMD crap again), then go ahead and carpet bomb them and/or use deep-penetrating warheads. Shell them from the coast and blast their sand into smaller sand. Blow them away! If needed, we can send in ground forces.

But when we're done, we leave right then and don't stick around to help them rebuild and wash the dishes. That's just ridiculous. We make the mess, they clean it up because they're the enemy and it's their fault we invaded to begin with.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Mcain equals Bush. No way in hades i would vote for that. If thats what experience means then i don't want it.
It's hardly fair to say that McCain equals Bush, as they are strikingly different people with differing policies.

McCain has supported campaign finance reform - partly as a result of his own experiences with Keating Five. McCain-Feingold was heavily opposed by the Bush admin. He has also historically supported stem cell research and tends to heavily vote against extraneous budget appropriations. Have you seen the way Bush spends money? He seems to think someone wrote him a blank check to buy the world, so he just goes around shelling out money to every social services organization in the country. Obama is the same in that respect, actually. McCain has a long history of being much more fiscally responsible and not blasting taxpayer dollars away. He generally doesn't even request money for his own state.

How about this: Obama equals Bush, minus his good points such as pro-life and pro-gun stances. Worse, people actually take Obama seriously because he can speak well.
 

Palmach

New member
Mcain equals Bush. No way in hades i would vote for that. If thats what experience means then i don't want it.

Are you just able to repeat whatever you hear from the media and the Obama campaign, or have you actually attempted to ascertain the facts for yourself?

You would do well to answer the challenge, or be gone.

Present your documentation for Obama. Give us some enlightenment on his accomplishments?

Jr. Senator. Has not completed a term. Has not authored any legislation. His running mate did not support his knowledge or experience until he became his running mate.

The truth is that you can't answer the challenge, because he has no background that makes him ready to lead this country. You and many other mindless Americans will go to the polls and vote for the most dangerous man this company has ever had running for office, because you have believed the lies of the media.

Throwing talking points at us will convince nobody here. Unless you are simply here to stir things up, I see no reason for your continued posts that lack any relevance to "concealed carry" and are devoid of any logical thinking.
 

jwtollett21

New member
Thanks for that post Palmach. I hereby currently resign from USA carry. I will never post again. NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Actually no matter what i post on the issues or experience is going to change anybody's mind here. I think we have all made our decision on who we are voting for. We are merely just all babbling and arguing over what we believe. This post again is from cnn. Obama in a way does eual bush. Some good some bad in my opinion. You guys will like the religion, gun ban, off shore drilling, and gay marriage part. see what you think.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Since Barack Obama incessantly makes the case that a John McCain administration would equate to another Bush term, it's worth looking at just how much Sen. Obama himself is in agreement with the unpopular president.

Does that mean that he, too, would be a repeat of President Bush? If one were to apply his logic, maybe so.

Here are 20 reasons why:

1. Abstinence: Bush expanded community-based abstinence education during his term, including a $28 million budget increase for 2009 in an effort to "Teach both abstinence and contraception to teens." Obama concurred in April when he said: "We want to make sure that, even as we are teaching responsible sexuality and we are teaching abstinence to children, that we are also making sure that they've got enough understanding about contraception."

2. Affirmative action: Bush said of the 2003 University of Michigan affirmative action case: "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed" -- because it depended solely on race. Bush has said other factors, such as socioeconomic status, should be considered, which would include poor white students.

Obama now agrees with that view. "Inside Higher Ed" referred in May to "Obama's suggestion that he may be ready to change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education -- away from race to economic class. ... In his debate in Philadelphia with Hillary Clinton, he said in response to a question, that his own privileged daughters do not deserve affirmative action preferences, and that working-class students of all colors do."

3. Budgets: Obama voted for Bush's budgets, which included 19 spending bills.

4. Capital punishment: Like Bush, Obama supports capital punishment. He spoke out in opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision that denied the death penalty for child rapists. And in his 2006 memoir, Obama said, "I believe there are some crimes -- mass murder, the rape and murder of a child -- so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

5. Education: Obama supports charter schools, as does Bush, and merit pay for teachers, and he voted in favor of supporting the president's 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

6. Economics: Obama told reporters that he agreed with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bush's bailout package, then voted for the $700 billion plan. And despite routinely criticizing "the Bush tax cuts," Obama is now offering tax cuts of his own (although only for the 95 percent of taxpayers earning less than $250,000 a year). What a concept!

7. Energy: In signing the $12.3 billion Energy Policy Act of 2005, Bush said it "promotes dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for America's future." Obama voted for the energy plan and called it a "first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil."

8. Faith-based initiatives/fatherhood: Bush is well known for his commitment to the faith-based community -- with initiatives for the poor and on fatherhood -- and he expanded the ability to allow faith-based providers a seat at the funding table. Obama, who has railed against Bush's efforts, has still found a way to embrace them, saying he would "expand" faith-based initiatives. He used his Father's Day speech to echo the president's Fatherhood Initiative.

9. FISA: Of the Senate bill passage that rewrote intelligence laws to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's wiretapping program, Bush said: "This vital intelligence bill will allow our national security professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists outside the United States, while respecting the liberties of the American people."

Obama, who supported it, after opposing FISA last year, said: "Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people." Almost identical, huh? Are we sure they don't share the same speechwriter? But Obama did take heat for his change of heart, as The Washington Post reported that: "The Illinois senator's reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups." Guess you can't please everyone.

10. Gay marriage: Both Obama and Bush agree that marriage is and should remain between one man and one woman. As far back as 2004, Obama said: "Gays ... should not marry." And in a 2007 Senate debate, he said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states. ... Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

11. Global AIDS: Obama has said the U.S. must "lead the global fight against the AIDS virus." And earlier this year, he encouraged lawmakers to "Use whatever works with AIDS, including teaching abstinence." Obama has given Bush kudos for his efforts to combat global AIDS and the record amount of funding ($15 billion over 5 years) the president has earmarked for the fight. Obama said in September, "I think President Bush -- and many of you here today -- have shown real leadership in the fight against HIV/AIDS."

12. Health care: While they don't share similar views on universal health care coverage, Bush and Obama agree that the problem with health care is "about affordability" and there is a need to address minority health concerns with more coverage and targeting. That is why Bush expanded community health care centers, covering the uninsured and targeting urban areas, to the tune of $1.5 billion for 1,200 centers "coast to coast."

13. Middle-class tax cuts: While he hasn't voted for such cuts, Obama is pushing his biggest economic initiative yet: tax cuts for the middle class. "We've got to help the middle class," Obama said Tuesday. Perhaps unbeknownst to him, Bush has already been there, done that. In signing the 2001 Tax Cut Bill, Bush said: "Tax relief is an achievement for families struggling to enter the middle class. For hard-working lower-income families, we have cut the bottom rate of federal income tax from 15 percent to 10 percent. We doubled the per-child tax credit to $1,000, and made it refundable. ... Tax relief is an achievement for middle-class families squeezed by high energy prices and credit card debt."

14. Minority homeownership: Obama adopted the Congressional Black Caucus principles "to increase minority homeownership" as it is "one of the best wealth-creation vehicles for minority families." These principles were developed as part of Bush's vision to expand minority homeownership to 5.5 million new homeowners by 2010. "Across our nation, every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color or place of birth, should have the opportunity to become a homeowner," Bush said.

Similar comparisons can be drawn for their positions on small businesses and on businesses owned by women and minorities.

15. National security: Obama voted yes on preauthorizing the much ballyhooed Patriot Act, sought by the Bush administration.

16. Offshore drilling: Bush has consistently pushed for drilling offshore, while Obama, who until recently opposed it, now says he's for it. In Nashville, Tennessee, he told an audience: "We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling."

17. Racial profiling: Obama's campaign literature states that he will call for a ban on racial profiling, even though Bush issued a directive that banned racial profiling in 2001. In his order, Bush said to the attorney general: "I hereby direct you to review the use by federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches and other investigative procedures. ... I further direct that you report back to me with your findings and recommendations for the improvement of the just and equal administration of our nation's laws."

18. Religion: It is widely known that Obama is a person of faith. He has said: "I am a proud Christian who believes deeply in Jesus Christ." Bush, who shares the same faith, has been just as much, if not more vocal, about his faith. He once told The Washington Times that he doesn't "see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord."

19. Supreme Court ruling on gun ban: Despite his past endorsements of some gun control measures, Obama's reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutional right of individuals to own handguns mirrors the administration's. Obama now says: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."

20. Welfare reform: An Obama ad this summer said he "passed a law to move people from welfare to work" and "slashed the rolls by 80 percent" (though all states had to as a result of the Clinton administration's mandate). Obama said in 2004: "Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency." In 2003, Bush successfully called on Congress to reauthorize and expand on welfare reform efforts, "to make welfare even more focused on the well being of children and supportive of families."

So, although he has been ranked as the most liberal senator by the National Journal and obviously hasn't voted with Bush as often as Sen. McCain has -- based on his voting "record" -- Obama's "rhetoric" still sounds a lot like, well, Bush. McCain might want to take that into account the next time Obama talks about another Bush term.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,343
Messages
622,604
Members
74,169
Latest member
gamike
Top