Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (
More info?)
"Ron" <ronf957@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0a6369d.0405232217.121d21ad@posting.google.com...
> Scott
>
> I respectfully have to disagree.
>
> We need to support our troops. We do not need to support the people
> that sent them, especially if they are incompetents
Incompetent or not (and I wouldn't disagree), they represent a link in the
chain of command. While I understand the ability to disagree with the
orders, yet support those carrying them out, we (as a country) have done a
pretty shitty job of it. The abuse scandal is a perfect example- the kids
caught in the photos are the focus of this country's wrath. Is there
anybody that truly believes that a General in a nicely decorated office
didn't only know about it, but ordered it? Where is our support for these
kids- kids who have been conditioned to follow orders at all costs. We, as
a country, only support our troops when we get a "touchy-feely" feeling from
it. When things go bad, the 'support' becomes very silent in nature.
>
> BTW Really supporting our troops is something that the people that
> sent them there are NOT doing. While we had men on the ground the GOP
> (fact, not a political statement go look it up) almost cut military
> pay to make the tax cut number line up. A protest signed by all the
> DNC and some GOP members, got that pay cut killed. When the latest
> body armor was available (after 2000) Bush did not sent it to our
> troops. We still have families sending protective gear to their kids.
> That is a disgrace.
No argument there- and we have nobody but ourselves to blame for it. We
continue to value charisma over philosophy when selecting the almighty of
this country. And once they have taken office, there is no rope strong
enough to remove them from office. We, as a society, are no better. Both
the government and people of this country are reactive to a fault. Being an
entitlement society, we only react when the government tells us there is a
problem, and are unable to solve problems without them involved. We don't
ask how much or how long- we let the government determine that, and NEVER do
anything to shake up the status quo. Sure, we may vote a couple out of
office, but they are replaced by the newer model- better connected and even
more power hungry. We, as a society, refuse to get actively involved. THe
experiment will work, but only with the original set of rules in action.
>
> Bush & Co want to give 10 billion to build more Nuke plants (instead
> of solar) but has no money to protect our guys on the front line.
> Explain that one to me please? BTW The GAC report showed there is no
> workable business case for new nuke plants but that isn't stopping
> Bush from pushing it. After all what is better than 10 billion of
> free pork for your pals when you have a tough election to win.
>
>
There hasn't been a workable business case for anything done over the last
eight years or so. Both parties have had their chance, and both have failed
miserably. And given the choices for the next four years, I don't see any
break in the pattern any time soon.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram