FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Not all that was promised

   
Author Topic: Not all that was promised
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060804327.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Pelosi being heckled by Progressives and Code Pink. Progressives are heckling the most progressive member of government.

Even progressives expect results. What's next?

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. code pink heckles people not as crazy as them
2. pelosi is not the 'most progressive' member of government (or congress)
3. this becomes another pellet in the oncoming shotgun blast of random, scattershot points sure to come, with little or no tenable connection to each other

womp

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yes mal, the Obama administration and our government policy and legislation over the last year and a half is nowhere near as liberal as you seem to think it is. Many progressives are unhappy. This is not new.

While some things are legitimate frustrations, many are based on false expectations, not actual promises.

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This part at least seems pretty reasonable
quote:
"Progressives have grown ever more dissatisfied, and for good reason," Robert Borosage, the conference organizer, said at the start. "Our hopes or illusions were shattered: escalation in Afghanistan, retreat on Guantanamo, no movement on worker rights or comprehensive immigration reform, dithering on 'don't ask, don't tell,' reverses on choice, delay on climate change and new energy."

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mucus: I agree with that paragraph, I think those are all legitimate concerns. Not that I think the president has been resting on his laurels, but I was very disappointed with how Guantanamo panned out, and that this administration is defending the policies of the previous one in regards to holding enemy combatants without charging them or without trial.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Indeed.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucous
Member
Member # 12331

 - posted      Profile for Mucous           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, there are some areas that one could reasonably make the case that the President has simply been too busy or otherwise engaged in fighting fires somewhere else to address.

However, the active defence and even expansion of previous policies in regards to civil liberties has been most disappointing.

Posts: 58 | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought when Obama was running for office he was a bit more centrist than my tastes (I consider myself a European socialist). I was surprised that everyone was interpreting him as so left wing. He was my favorite candidate, but I knew going in he was a centrist at heart.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am especially disappointed on his blatant failure to even try to follow up on his promises of government accountability and transparency. I don't recall any explicit promises on these, but I've also been really disappointed by his continuation and even expansion of President Bush's assertion of executive privilege and encroachment on civil rights. The handling of the Health Care Reform was pretty awful (Congress gets a fair share of the blame there too, but President Obama did a poor job). I'm also very unhappy with the screwing the taxpayers are taking on the bank bailouts. I can't believe that we're basically giving the big banks near zero interest loans that they are then turning around and loaning to us at 4% by buying government bonds.

President Obama has been a pretty big disappointment for me. The Democratic controlled Senate and House, not so much, but that's because I've learned not to expect much of anything from them.

---

I've become increasingly dispirited by the absence of a loyal opposition in our government. As a general rule, the Democrats seem to lack the opposition part and the Republicans seem to lack the loyal part. The country has suffered a great deal because people either haven't had the spine to stand up to the ruling party (or, in Democrats case over the past couple of years, the party way in the minority) or, when they do stand up, they seem to be doing it to try to beat the other side with the interests of the country coming in much, much lower in the list of their priorities.

[ June 09, 2010, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Monetizing of the deficit has always been a problem, as in not a new thing there. Health care is just on e of those things that turns into a boondoggle in American politics.

That and notice a kind of contradiction in your statement. You don't have much faith in the House or Senate, yet you don't want the president to assert executive power. The way our legislature was put together was to be inefficient in the first place, which is why executive power has broadened so that the government can at least have a running go at getting the job done.

No spine to stand against the ruling party? Were you absent for the last two decades? The minority party has always done its best to put a monkey wrench into the other side's agenda. Especially the last decade, to the chagrin of both parties' loyalists. That and you have to realize that often they DO believe they are doing it for the good of the country ( of course those not on that particular side are not going to agree with that claim).

That and simply realizing the size and scope of the government today, not to mention current issues, means that it takes some serious time to iron things out. Especially since our government is designed to make it difficult to create any kind of major reform to government.

That and the bank bailouts were probably a pretty good deal for the taxpayer as if it had not taken place we would be living in an even shakier world at the moment. Not to mention taxpayers have a decent chance of getting the money back someday.

Don't hate government, simply understand the way that government functions in America. If you don't like how it functions, then get pissed at the Constitution. Which in all honesty, more people probably should be angry at instead of their politicians.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
yes mal, the Obama administration and our government policy and legislation over the last year and a half is nowhere near as liberal as you seem to think it is. Many progressives are unhappy. This is not new.

While some things are legitimate frustrations, many are based on false expectations, not actual promises.

Progressives are never satisfied....."Progress"....never ends.

Actual promises?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto

"Care for the sick, jobs for the jobless, homes for the homeless and the oceans stopped rising and our planet started to heal"........

you actually bought that campaign line? Hugging a baby is legitimate in comparison.

[ June 12, 2010, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have you ever thought it is a bit silly that we focus so much on all these "pre-election promises." You end up turning the leadership and management role that the executive branch is supposed to be into some sort of a she said he said spiel. Any person who has been in any sort of real leadership position realizes that you have to adapt to the environment that you are in today instead of trying to live in the one of yesterday.

Sure, Progressives are never satisfied, but neither are Conservatives. You can always turn the leaf back just a little bit more, or do some thing a little better. Get back to the tradition that never existed etc. Not to knock on either philosophy really, but they tend to both have points and in reality are extremely close on the political scale of things. I always laugh when I read Edmund Burke and his take on the French Revolution and how he completely overlooks the differences between England and France and how the French citizens were in a kind of bind that could not be easily dealt with ( not to mention forgets all the nasty Civil Wars etc. in England's past). Anyhow, I think I'm digressing here when I'm talking about Conservatives from a few hundred years ago.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama made the most outrageous preelection promises of all time:

"Care for the sick, jobs for the jobless, homes for the homeless and the oceans stopped rising and our planet started to heal"

Suckers. He's no different than Bush....just a politician.

When Obama promised CSPAN in congress, I understood he was a liar...I understand the separation of powers. He can't tell congress what to do. Being a "constitutional scholar" from Harvard Law School, I'm sure he understood this fact as well. That didn't stop him from making a campaign promise he couldn't follow up.

He's the modern version of a baby hugger. Once upon a time, hugging a baby proved you were honest.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See the problem I generally have with people who sneer and say "just a politician" tends to be that the majority will NOT vote for someone who plays those political games. That and I wouldn't say that those were the most outrageous pre-election promises of all time, I could go through quite a doozy that other politicians. That and all people make mistakes, I've rarely met anyone who could actually be on point the entire time. Which, by the way, is why politicians end up playing the games that they do. If they don't then they don't get to play the game.

You can certainly dislike politicians, our government, democracy, and a number of other things because of the beliefs that you seem to espouse. But I will say one thing, to say he is no different than Bush in being a politician, that is very true. However to take the matter any further than that is clearly ludicrous and a logical fallacy. Is Obama a liar, certainly like every other man. I'm rather certain he sins, makes mistakes, and is generally a human being. If you do any reading then you'll know that even our esteemed forefathers were just as flawed.

The reason I just find this kind of thought so inflaming is that it is this very same kind of thinking that adds to the pressure for leaders to behave this way. It drives the machine that picks out candidates that have to do all the right things in public, instead of simply loving the nation and leading it towards success and what the people want.

Hate all you want, but at least hate with precision and clear thought. Although, I wonder if those are mutually exclusive.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Call it politics as usual all you want. Give me an example of a candidate (other than Obama) that promised:
"Care for the sick, jobs for the jobless, homes for the homeless and the oceans stopped rising and our planet started to heal"..

Not to mention a Constitutional Lawyer running for president, promising CSPAN in congress. That's like a man promising to give birth to a child. He know's he can't do it but a lonely, single and desperate voter might think Obama can shit out a fetus.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well he can certainly have CSPAN in Congress, they certainly do a lot of broadcasting there, but I understand what you mean. Who knows, he may have thought that he could pull it off. Should he have promised it, heck no. However many Presidents have made promises in that realm, FDR comes to mind. Any President who has ever said that," I'll win the war." At least he has high aspirations if nothing else.

However, I don't think I can bring myself to hate a man for something along those lines. I've certainly forgiven far worse in my life.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any American President can win any war. He's the "Commander and Chief".

America only loses wars due to politics.

The president has no authority over congress and their media exposure. It didn't stop this one from campaigning on it.

The president of the Harvard Law Review campaigns for president by promising Congressional transparency???? Is Harvard that bad? I didn't study law but understood he was a liar.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We lost the War of 1812 because we got whipped. Go figure.

But in all reality, we don't just lose wars due to politics. I spent enough time in the Army to realize that. If you ever spent anytime talking to officers who know what they are doing they'll tell you the same. The issue that we had in Iraq, and really Afghanistan as well, is that the Army as a whole has had a difficult time closing the gap between conventional wars and stabilization operations. To a point that could be considered institutional failure. The reason that the Army lost Vietnam wasn't that they didn't fight well, they destroyed the VC. The problem is that the military didn't anticipate the fact that in the end they had to win a PR campaign as well. Walter Cronkite helped lose that war with a single broadcast after Tet. To talk about those issues would require you and me, a few beers and a lot of coffee. I could go on for a long time about how most people and military personnel have no real clue about the big picture when it comes to war. I understand nationalist zeal, esprit de corp, and what not, but I love my country enough to be a realist.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol


Same old mal. Barely coherent and never a moments shame. LOL

Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think I've ever agreed with Squicky more-- the expansion of executive powers continues to be one of the biggest political threats America faces.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, it was one of the most troubling aspects of the Bush administration, and one I'd love to see Obama reverse.
Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, I wonder when malanthrop will start lecturing Black Fox on military matters?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, it was troubling when Teddy Roosevelt did it. It has always been an issue as the Constitution is simply too vague when it comes to many matters of state that exist in the world today.

The example that I personally detest is how the President is labeled at the Commander in Chief, but what on earth does that really mean? What is has been interpreted as is that the President can order the military to basically do whatever they want it to do. So what happens is that though the Constitution prescribes that only Congress can declare war the President can wage war whenever they want to. Which means that in the real world the President declares war, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Now this is good and bad, depending of course on where you are coming from. Luckily with General Abram's reforms the military put a kink in executive authority by putting all critical support fields in the Army Reserve and National Guard so that the active component military cannot wage ware without a call up. I'm sure this still pisses off parts of the government.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Black Fox:
We lost the War of 1812 because we got whipped. Go figure.

But in all reality, we don't just lose wars due to politics. I spent enough time in the Army to realize that. If you ever spent anytime talking to officers who know what they are doing they'll tell you the same. The issue that we had in Iraq, and really Afghanistan as well, is that the Army as a whole has had a difficult time closing the gap between conventional wars and stabilization operations. To a point that could be considered institutional failure. The reason that the Army lost Vietnam wasn't that they didn't fight well, they destroyed the VC. The problem is that the military didn't anticipate the fact that in the end they had to win a PR campaign as well. Walter Cronkite helped lose that war with a single broadcast after Tet. To talk about those issues would require you and me, a few beers and a lot of coffee. I could go on for a long time about how most people and military personnel have no real clue about the big picture when it comes to war. I understand nationalist zeal, esprit de corp, and what not, but I love my country enough to be a realist.

I'll respond to you, since everyone else just said things like, "same old Mal"

I guarantee your time in the Army, you weren't as exposed to officers as I have been and continue to be, as a contractor.

I was the team chief of the comms team for General Honore, Justice, McVeigh, Veigh, Sorenson and have Briefed Casey and Patreous.

I understand politics and officers. As an enlisted I'm free to speak my mind. Officers don't have this same freedom of speech. Officers can't speak against the commander and chief. Officers can't speak their minds. They answer to the president. Presidents change.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Credentials mean nothing in a virtual forum. Only reasoning.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Credentials don't mean that much in any forum without reasoning.

And it doesn't particularly help when you can't spell the name of the high military officer you met once, and "briefed." So you're a starf***er. Congratulations.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In a forum, when your opponent resorts to criticizing grammar and spelling, - you know you've won. They can't deal with the content.

Patreauuuuus answers to the president. Bush or Obama. He can't speak for or against either one, he can only do what they tell him to do. Officers are required to be politically neutral.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
mal, really? Your content is criticized all the time. You conveniently seem to forget all of that.

You may have seen less of it recently because we're all tired of it. Many more people are outright ignoring you. It's funny to see Black Fox engage you with fresh enthusiasm because he's not use to your banal tactics.

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
malanthrop: Isn't it a bit unwise to just assume your experience is so much more extensive than Black Fox's?

That's great that you have what may be rightly considered inside knowledge that many folks here have. But what has your job got to do with Obama's campaign promises? You are talking about Gen. Petraeus and war matters, not Obama's promises to bring more social justice, to stop global climate change, and dispel the ill will many countries felt/feel towards us.

People have indicated that some feel Obama hasn't done enough, and for different reasons. Yet you continue to paint them all with the same broad brush. We can't be unabashed cheerleaders and unsatisfied malcontents at the same time. I remember when Obama won the peace prize all the conservative commentators were chagrined and saying things like, "What has he done? Nothing!" when not a week ago, they were saying, "Obama & Co have been unceasingly busy destroying the very fabric of our constitution and everything that makes this country great."

You can't have it both ways.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
In a forum, when your opponent resorts to criticizing grammar and spelling, - you know you've won. They can't deal with the content.

Yeah it's really awesome when people pretend that they can set the arbitrary criterion for automatically winning an argument.

MEANWHILE, IN THE REAL WORLD: someone can point out flaws in your grammar and spelling — or, on wider levels, your general incomprehensibility — while additionally 'dealing' with the content.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Every day, I sit next to senior officers who bite their lips. The enlisted are free to discuss the things we discuss here. Enlisted in the office discuss and debate. Officers cannot express their position. The only position an officer can take is the one of the president.....even when they disagree with the president.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
In a forum, when your opponent resorts to criticizing grammar and spelling, - you know you've won. They can't deal with the content.

Content? I haven't seen any.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Every day, I sit next to senior officers who bite their lips. The enlisted are free to discuss the things we discuss here. Enlisted in the office discuss and debate. Officers cannot express their position. The only position an officer can take is the one of the president.....even when they disagree with the president.

Hehe. I feel like you don't understand that much about the military or the executive. It's a great irony that you allege yourself an expert on both.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
yes mal, the Obama administration and our government policy and legislation over the last year and a half is nowhere near as liberal as you seem to think it is. Many progressives are unhappy. This is not new.

While some things are legitimate frustrations, many are based on false expectations, not actual promises.

Progressives are never satisfied....."Progress"....never ends.

Actual promises?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto

"Care for the sick, jobs for the jobless, homes for the homeless and the oceans stopped rising and our planet started to heal"........

you actually bought that campaign line? Hugging a baby is legitimate in comparison.

I'm not really sure how your post was a reply to my post mal. I said that Obama's policy isn't as liberal as many conservatives paint it. This is evidenced by the fact that many progressives are frustrated with it.

I then said some of this frustration is legitimate based on promises Obama made (the embracement of Bush's expansion of executive privilege is one prime example), and some are unrealistic expectations people had, and some are just impatience.

You linked to 40 seconds of a speech where he riles up the crowd with some sweeping language. If you really want to argue about promises kept vs. broken, this is a great site that tracks these things in detail.

[ June 13, 2010, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Strider ]

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, as it happened, the answer to my question was, "Not very long!"

quote:

I understand politics and officers. As an enlisted I'm free to speak my mind. Officers don't have this same freedom of speech. Officers can't speak against the commander and chief. Officers can't speak their minds. They answer to the president. Presidents change.

So you're saying they can't communicate to you directly, but you can still tell us what they're saying? Even if you had credibility, malanthrop, this would be a dubious claim.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First off, enlisted can't slander the commander in chief either Mal. That and the military, or even a single branch of service, rarely have one solitary vision of a President or anything else for that matter. You should read The Echo of Battle by Brian McAllister Linn, which would give you a great look at some of the competing groups of thought inside the US Army. That and if you ever read Clausewitz, or any other brilliant military mind, you would understand that politics is part of war, and for that reason a lot of that responsibility ( especially in the war planning department ) rests with the military. Not to mention for not liking Obama he certainly has taken most of the advice given to him from the JCS.

[ June 14, 2010, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: Black Fox ]

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Every day, I sit next to senior officers who bite their lips.

Yet, even though you're about the least credible person on this site short of ron lambert, you'll assume their positions for them. Way to mind-read!
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I call bullshit on mal. For like the 50th time.

I was enlisted as well, and you are NOT free to speak your mind about the CIC. I was in during the Clinton years, and there were plenty of people unhappy, yet we were not allowed to speak poorly about the CIC.

Plenty of enlisted AND officers were unhappy about Rumsfield and Bush II as well, and thought we were entering a bad situation with a poor plan and not enough protection for our soldiers at the beginning of this war, but they weren't allowed to speak against Bush either, so it cuts both ways.


And for the record, not only did I personally write the updated MRVS protocol for USAMRIID, but I was a founding member of the committee that made suggestions to Congress regarding the MRVS program at Ft. Deterick, MD in 1995. That program was about to be dismantled, but today it is still being used as a model from informed consent worldwide because of the reforms we recommended.
Those reforms saved the MRVS program, and that program has resulted in almost every single vaccination given to soldiers today. Not to mention at least 8 vaccinations used in the civilian world.

Congress approved and instituted every single recommendation I made, BTW. During the Clinton years, when every other budget was being cut.

Contractor of not, you still are talking BS. BTW, next time you see Patreous tell him my aunt says hi. She knows him well from her time as a liaison at Quantico. He should remember her, there aren't that many full bird Col's in the entire history of the Marine Corps. [Big Grin]

Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
1. code pink heckles people not as crazy as them
2. pelosi is not the 'most progressive' member of government (or congress)
3. this becomes another pellet in the oncoming shotgun blast of random, scattershot points sure to come, with little or no tenable connection to each other

womp

I hate Pelosi but I agree with Sam on this. There are crazies on both sides of the isle. You cant define the party's views on a few crazies.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2