And another

[Sierraman]

Absolutley Katrina.

 

[katrina]

I must confess I didn't write this. But do believe this.......

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable, that last post was out of real desperation wasn't it?

Great, DOC HARRIS, I'd say the same, but your probably better at it.

Disagreeable, I think of you as a machine that spits out garbage. Now, if we could have alittle info about you, I could put a human idea to you. I'll answer any question you have about me if you'll just tell a little. Gender, dwelling place, occupation, interests? Well, can't wait to see some more puke. By the way, DO you believe in God?

Desperate? Get a life, Sierraman. You post on this board that this is a right and justified war, but you aren't willing to put yourself in danger to support it. You cheer and brag about what a great country others have given you by shedding their blood, but you're careful that none of your precious blood will be shed. Some people on this board know about me. A low life, scumball like you doesn't deserve to be answered. You want to know something about me so you can put me in a "category" and dismiss my arguments. Why? Because you can't defend your position. I, personally, don't care who you are, where you are, or anything else about you. I know you to be a coward, a sideline cheerleader that enjoys the excitment of a war, as long as you don't have to endanger your life, new pickup truck or college career.

 

[Sierraman]

Disagreeable, that is absolutley more garbage. What IF evry person who thought this war was justified went over to help. This country would be filled with people like you! What a nightmare! As I said, you're real desparate to put me down. I know you don't care about who I am, and I don't want to put you into a category, butknowing nothing about oyu, what is there to even consider caring about. A nickname (which begs for you to be put into a category, "disagreeable") for a posting board and I guess the fact that you're a liberal. There's nothing good in it, so I CAN'T care about you. Of course your reply to this will be more puke, I'll have to read , ingest it and puke it back out when I take a shower to rid myself of the words. But I really do care to know who you are, even a litttle. Don't tell me about shedding blood. I don't believe fighting in this war right now is the right thing for me. Becaus etyou don't know me, I have a better call on it than you do.

 

[Disagreeable]

I heard today on the news that RE-ENLISTMENT in the Armed Forces is up. WAYYYYY UP. So the folks in the know are keeping on, keeping on.

How about it Diz(ZY)? What do you have to say about that? Must come as a real suprise.

I'm not Diz(ZY), but I do have someting to say. We can't maintain a capable Army by re-elistment. Soldiers get old, they get promoted, they get hurt, they die. Recruiting is the life's blood of the Army. So here are some excerpts from an article. My emphasis and full article at the link below.

" Through June 27, the Army had recruited 47,121 new soldiers in 2005. That's more than 7,800 below the number it needed to be on track to meet its goal for the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.The Army's success in June can be partly attributed to modest expectations. The June 2005 goal was more than 1,000 recruits lower than the June 2004 goal.
Despite the improvement, the Army has only three months left to recruit the soldiers needed to meet its yearly goal. That's an average of nearly 11,000 per month."
And

"The June numbers, while an improvement over the four previous months, also were not anywhere near the 8,086 recruits the Army brought in during January. That's despite offering enlistments as short as 15 months and bonuses as high as $20,000 for some who join."
And

"The Army will try to reverse the downturn later this year by adding an additional 800 recruiters and exploring options that include focusing on home-schooled teenagers and signing up more soldiers who score in the lower half of military aptitude tests.
The new recruiters will bring the total to 7,000, which includes 1,000 added earlier this year, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said in an interview with USA TODAY.
Harvey also said the Army will seek congressional approval to raise the top enlistment bonus to $40,000.
The new recruiters will come from the ranks of midcareer enlisted troops in other units, putting further strain on a force that has carried the heaviest burden in prosecuting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Harvey and other Army officials say they expect recruiting to pick up this summer, but they concede that 2006 could be another extremely difficult year."

"Another option to boost the Army's numbers, Harvey said, is increasing the number of soldiers who scored below 50% on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test. Currently, the Army requires that 67% of new recruits score above 50%. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-29-army-recruiting_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

 

[Soapweed]

Disagreeable: "Must be Sandhusker that's the banker?"

Yes.

Disagreeable: "How do you explain the Republican Federal Deficit? Reagan left us a huge deficit; a Democrat president fixed it. Another Republican is running up the largest deficit in memory. Lots of conservatives are against this war and Bush's wild spending of their taxdollars."

You say, "a Democrat president fixed it (the deficit)."

Yes, Clinton "fixed it" alright. He sold off assets and depleted much of the military in the USA. Any business or country can "look" like it is making money and operating "in the black" for a short time, if it sells off capital investments to create cash flow for the moment. Short term gain for long term pain.

Clinton left this great country in one heck of a shape, militarily speaking. It has cost our country a lot of expense to get back into a position of power, under the leadership of George W. Bush. If we had continued the downward spiral brought on by the Democrats, Ethiopia could have probably taken us over.

Disagreeable: "We're wasting a lot of money and blood in Iraq. Is that OK with you?"

I don't like it any better than anyone else, but as Jimmy Stewart would say, "A man's got to do what a man's got to do." Short term pain for long term gain. For the record, I did spend six years serving in the Nebraska National Guard.

Dipsydoodle: "BTW, what do you think about a high government official leaking classified information of any kind to a reporter? I'd enjoy a straight answer, but you're allowed to spin. I'll get a real kick out of that."

Once again, I don't like it any better than anyone else, but sometimes s--t happens. That doesn't make it right. On the news today, GWB doesn't like it either, and promises to get to the bottom of it, and if anyone in his cabinet is guilty they will be expelled. GWB is doing the right thing. What more can we ask?

Here are my thoughts from a common sense perspective and in general terms: Liberals are the cause of a lot of problems; Conservatives provide the solutions. Cry if you want to. :cry2: :wink:

I'll post this again, Disagreeable. You either didn't see it, or you know I'm right so are just ignoring it.

 

[Disagreeable]

You say, "a Democrat president fixed it (the deficit)."

Yes, Clinton "fixed it" alright. He sold off assets and depleted much of the military in the USA. Any business or country can "look" like it is making money and operating "in the black" for a short time, if it sells off capital investments to create cash flow for the moment. Short term gain for long term pain.

Depends on what you mean by "short term." I know that the eight years Clinton was in office were very profitable for my stock market investments. The five years Bush has been president have been a disaster. However you look at it, Bush inherited the largest Federal surplus in history and is currently responsible for one of the, if not THE, largest Federal deficit in history. You can spin all day, but those are the facts.

Clinton left this great country in one heck of a shape, militarily speaking. It has cost our country a lot of expense to get back into a position of power, under the leadership of George W. Bush. If we had continued the downward spiral brought on by the Democrats, Ethiopia could have probably taken us over.

If the military was in such bad shape when Rumsfeld was appointed to Sec of Def, why was his first priority downsizing the Army? My emphasis and links below quoted items.

"Army generals successfully defended the Army's force structure from a two-division cut contemplated by Rumsfeld during the 2001 Quadrennial Review process, but it is doubtful that they will continue to resist such cuts for long in opposition to the autocratic Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld is accustomed to getting his own way and sometimes even resorts to firing those who disagree with him on matters of principle as in the case of former Secretary of the Army Thomas White.

The elimination of the Army's divisions would provide Rumsfeld with cover for his longtime plan to slash tens of thousands of troops from the service's payrolls, despite the fact that the Army remains severely overextended in Iraq. It has been unable to sustain the current level of deployments, forcing the call-up of tens of thousands reservists and National Guard troops to fill the gap."

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_110503_Brigade,00.html


"...But to Shinseki's dismay, Rumsfeld's budget aides this fall said they were considering slashing the planned six brigades to three. The proposal was seen as a vote of no-confidence not only in Stryker, but in the army's efforts to modernize.
Without Stryker, Army officials fretted, they would be unable to fulfill the mission Rumsfeld had laid out for them.


As recently as last year, Rumsfeld and his top confidante for transformation issues, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Steven Cambone, were reported to be continuing to plan to reduce the number of Army divisions from ten to as few as six, for a reduction of up to 40 percent. Under that earlier scenario, the few remaining Army divisions would then be transformed into an all-wheeled force of motorized light infantry brigades without the tanks or tracked vehicles necessary to fight and win major conflicts.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021129-sbct.htm

I don't like it any better than anyone else, but as Jimmy Stewart would say, "A man's got to do what a man's got to do." Short term pain for long term gain. For the record, I did spend six years serving in the Nebraska National Guard.

Even though the CIA told Bush otherwise, he stood up in front of God, the American people, the world and told us Saddam was trying to buy "significant quantities of uranium" from Africa. He knowingly used that lie to send young Americans off to die. How can you support that?

Once again, I don't like it any better than anyone else, but sometimes s--t happens. That doesn't make it right. On the news today, GWB doesn't like it either, and promises to get to the bottom of it, and if anyone in his cabinet is guilty they will be expelled. GWB is doing the right thing. What more can we ask?

His job approval ratings probably haven't hit bottom yet, but they're for sure headed that way. He said very clearly that he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked classified information. Now that it turns out to be his pal Carl Rove, he's changing his tune. No, he's not doing the right thing and America is watching.

Here are my thoughts from a common sense perspective and in general terms: Liberals are the cause of a lot of problems; Conservatives provide the solutions. Cry if you want to. :cry2: :wink:

It's a shame you put Americans into categories.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

You say, "a Democrat president fixed it (the deficit)."

Yes, Clinton "fixed it" alright. He sold off assets and depleted much of the military in the USA. Any business or country can "look" like it is making money and operating "in the black" for a short time, if it sells off capital investments to create cash flow for the moment. Short term gain for long term pain.

Depends on what you mean by "short term." I know that the eight years Clinton was in office were very profitable for my stock market investments. The five years Bush has been president have been a disaster. However you look at it, Bush inherited the largest Federal surplus in history and is currently responsible for one of the, if not THE, largest Federal deficit in history. You can spin all day, but those are the facts.

Clinton left this great country in one heck of a shape, militarily speaking. It has cost our country a lot of expense to get back into a position of power, under the leadership of George W. Bush. If we had continued the downward spiral brought on by the Democrats, Ethiopia could have probably taken us over.

If the military was in such bad shape when Rumsfeld was appointed to Sec of Def, why was his first priority downsizing the Army? My emphasis and links below quoted items.

"Army generals successfully defended the Army's force structure from a two-division cut contemplated by Rumsfeld during the 2001 Quadrennial Review process, but it is doubtful that they will continue to resist such cuts for long in opposition to the autocratic Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld is accustomed to getting his own way and sometimes even resorts to firing those who disagree with him on matters of principle as in the case of former Secretary of the Army Thomas White.

The elimination of the Army's divisions would provide Rumsfeld with cover for his longtime plan to slash tens of thousands of troops from the service's payrolls, despite the fact that the Army remains severely overextended in Iraq. It has been unable to sustain the current level of deployments, forcing the call-up of tens of thousands reservists and National Guard troops to fill the gap."

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_110503_Brigade,00.html


"...But to Shinseki's dismay, Rumsfeld's budget aides this fall said they were considering slashing the planned six brigades to three. The proposal was seen as a vote of no-confidence not only in Stryker, but in the army's efforts to modernize.
Without Stryker, Army officials fretted, they would be unable to fulfill the mission Rumsfeld had laid out for them.


As recently as last year, Rumsfeld and his top confidante for transformation issues, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Steven Cambone, were reported to be continuing to plan to reduce the number of Army divisions from ten to as few as six, for a reduction of up to 40 percent. Under that earlier scenario, the few remaining Army divisions would then be transformed into an all-wheeled force of motorized light infantry brigades without the tanks or tracked vehicles necessary to fight and win major conflicts.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021129-sbct.htm

I don't like it any better than anyone else, but as Jimmy Stewart would say, "A man's got to do what a man's got to do." Short term pain for long term gain. For the record, I did spend six years serving in the Nebraska National Guard.

Even though the CIA told Bush otherwise, he stood up in front of God, the American people, the world and told us Saddam was trying to buy "significant quantities of uranium" from Africa. He knowingly used that lie to send young Americans off to die. How can you support that?

Once again, I don't like it any better than anyone else, but sometimes s--t happens. That doesn't make it right. On the news today, GWB doesn't like it either, and promises to get to the bottom of it, and if anyone in his cabinet is guilty they will be expelled. GWB is doing the right thing. What more can we ask?

His job approval ratings probably haven't hit bottom yet, but they're for sure headed that way. He said very clearly that he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked classified information. Now that it turns out to be his pal Carl Rove, he's changing his tune. No, he's not doing the right thing and America is watching.

Here are my thoughts from a common sense perspective and in general terms: Liberals are the cause of a lot of problems; Conservatives provide the solutions. Cry if you want to. :cry2: :wink:

It's a shame you put Americans into categories.

The "Ricochet" of the Day: "It's a shame YOU put Americans into categories." :???: ( My emphasis added.) Question: WHO puts WHO into WHAT? Another Third Grade. Elementary School 'Change of Subject' tactic to see if :twisted: she :twisted: can get ANYBODY to react! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:We-e-el-l-l 8) Just - - slap my - - wrist, you - -Bad Boy you!

 

[Sierraman]

Actually DOC< its not a third grade tactic. 4 yr. old. I have worked with 4 yr. olds. What do they want all the time to do? Get attention and see how you will react to what they do. They want you to laugh, to smile. In this case, Disagreeable, wants quite a different reaction, but same principle. Well, Disagreeable, I'd like to ask: Why do you trust the media more than what you know for yourself? You listen to their opinions and tell them to us, but to listen to the plain facts is hard for you.

 

[TXTibbs]

Sierraman and Disagreeable......

I think it is time you two hug and make up!!!

HAHA...joking.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Its quite fun to read you two chopping each other. haha

 

[Sierraman]

TxTibbs, I think you just shot me back into reality. You're right , Its foolish, but fun. I'm glad someone's getting entertained along the way.!

 

[Sierraman]

TxTibbs, I think you just shot me back into reality. You're right , Its foolish, but fun. I'm glad someone's getting entertained along the way.!

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Actually DOC< its not a third grade tactic. 4 yr. old. I have worked with 4 yr. olds. What do they want all the time to do? Get attention and see how you will react to what they do. They want you to laugh, to smile. In this case, Disagreeable, wants quite a different reaction, but same principle. Well, Disagreeable, I'd like to ask: Why do you trust the media more than what you know for yourself? You listen to their opinions and tell them to us, but to listen to the plain facts is hard for you.

Well said, Sierraman - however - :twisted: dis's :twisted: agenda has NOTHING to do with "listening to plain facts"! :shock: Her purpose , as with ALL Left-wing Liberals' agenda's, is to bad-mouth and discredit the Republican Agenda and President Bush in ANY WAY possible - Lie, cheat, scheme, connive, conspire - - -do WHATEVER it takes to perhaps put one little question in the mind of one voter - - and make them think about - -changing their mind politically. Just one! - -and then -another one. and another! That is directly out of the "Liberal Play Book." Alan Colmes on "Hannity and Colmes" Fox News Channel is another good example of that technic: come out of LEFT field with some Cockamamie screwball through-the-backdoor window rickochet comment! :shock: :???: As does most of the News Media. You have to be VERY alert and aware of what you believe when you hear this garbage and know WHY it is being presented to the public. This is why :twisted: disagreeable :twisted: is frantically providing ALL of this WONDERFUL and INVALUABLE FACTUAL :???: :???: (Bull Pucky) information for our perusal! Why - we should fall over backwards and kiss her feet for being so considerate of our awareness and comprehension of the REAL facts of political life and how rotten these dastardly Republicans really are! Horse Apples. I have seen these tactics and heard this dung thrown around all of my life (a long time) and it is MORE obvious now than ever before in the past because they are SCARED of losing more of the :x grip and CONTROL that they have had over the general public for the last - - -almost 100 years now - -.

Really think about this: The President of the United States is the 'Leader' of the Nation - - but the CONGRESS - HOUSE AND SENATE - is in CONTROL of the WAYS that the President leads. And if something goes awry - why - - it's the Presidents fault - - and the Congress slides through and goes about their merry controlling way and an unsuspecting public doesn't have a clue - - - and at the next General Election - - "- - -we'll just throw THAT rascal out and put in - - -whomever will GIVE us the most in her campaign promises (or his) but the SENATE and the House dry-washes their hands and stays for thirty years or so doing just what they want to do - RUN the country however THEY want to! :shock:

Don't Get Me Started!

 

[ez now]

Why is everyone saying LISTEN TO THE FACTS, Where you getting them from Fox News. Why dont you look at the facts yourself like Disagreeable said, stocks done a heck of a lot better under Clinton and Im quite sure you all remember the huge surplus and you can come back again and say it was just a projected surplus but maybe one of you can tell me what the projected surpluss is now.

 

[ez now]

Almost forgot about our growing economy, I seen where hewitt packard just let go 14500, maybe they can take the money their saving and build some wallmarts and hire 15000 people, that will show another little boost in the economy. Keep up the good the work GW and crew.

 

[Soapweed]

Disagreeable: "It's a shame you put Americans into categories."

It is sure more fun being a happy Republican than a Disagreeable Democrat.

 

[Faster horses]

WELL SAID, SOAPWEED! :clap: :clap: :clap:

I like the way you think!

 

[Disagreeable]

Sierraman and Disagreeable......

I think it is time you two hug and make up!!!

HAHA...joking.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Its quite fun to read you two chopping each other. haha

I'm not bothering to read Sierraman's posts anymore so you don't have to worry about me chopping him up. He hasn't had an original thought since I've been back on the board.

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable: "It's a shame you put Americans into categories."

It is sure more fun being a happy Republican than a Disagreeable Democrat.

Go on being a happy Republican while our Federal deficit is growing and Americans are dying.

But I'm waiting for your explanation of how you can defend Bush using information he new to be false to send young Americans off to die. Even a Republican should have a problem with that one.

 

[TXTibbs]

Sierraman and Disagreeable......

I think it is time you two hug and make up!!!

HAHA...joking.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Its quite fun to read you two chopping each other. haha

I'm not bothering to read Sierraman's posts anymore so you don't have to worry about me chopping him up. He hasn't had an original thought since I've been back on the board.

Oooh....Sierraman won't like those words. haha