The President has failed us

The President has failed us

There are 391208 comments on the Times News story from Jun 9, 2012, titled The President has failed us. In it, Times News reports that:

This week, I decided to list the reasons I would not vote for Barack Obama in the next election.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Times News.

Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#100267 Feb 6, 2013
Parthenon wrote:
<quoted text>
Target shooting, home defense and military operations are not the same. This was all covered in earlier post, which I assumed you missed. This is rather obvious, but I will go over a bit since you asked:
Yes, having a gun is a great equalizer when it comes to women vs. men (or young adult males vs. the elderly, the lame, the sick or the female). That's rather obvious. If someone is breaking into a young woman's apartment intent on rape or murder, she's almost always better off with a firearm, assuming a rudimentary understanding of its use and due caution. The IDEAL outcome is no shots fired, but rather the presence of an armed victim causes the perp to flee. War is quite different.
Target shooting is a sport. There's no intent to kill anything. Normally small caliber arms are used such as a .22. It has noting to do with this discussion, other than to note that women, with training, can perform it as well as any similarly-trained man. War is not target shooting.
Military operations are another thing entirely. Only very rarely is anything done alone or even in small groups. It's a team effort from beginning to end. Anyone who can't keep up with the standards drags the team down. That applies to EVERYTHING, not just to putting bullets on a target. Yes, marksmanship is important. But the ability to carry large numbers of supplies (bullets, med gear, water, food, comm, etc) and keep up with the others is probably more important. Warfare is more about logistics and maneuver than anything else.
The woman front-line combat soldier will be, on average, 60% of what you get for the same training & equipping cost of a man. The assets she brings to the unit are not her's alone. They're everybody's. If by bad luck she's shot dead in the first few minutes, her kit only gives the unit 300 rounds (vs. 500). Why? Because she couldn't carry the full load. If she falls behind on a march or a run for cover during an attack, she slows down the entire unit. If she can't fill 1000 lbs of sandbags in 1/2 hour, the next mortar attack may have a devastating affect. If she can't dig a trench quickly, same thing.
It's an easy (amateur) mistake to assume that marksmanship is all there is to military operations, especially front-line ground combat. That is simply not true. Much more time is devoted to physical conditioning, unit tactics, communications, movement and other skills than to weapons firing. A valuable skill? No doubt. But most definitely NOT the only factor. Not even close. If it was, they'd spend most of the time at the firing range. But they don't. That's because the military has carefully analyzed this and have apportionend training time & resources to match their utility in actual combat.
Ever since the industrial revolution the ratio of support troops to front-line combat troops has increased. I don't know the numbers for today's armies, but let's say it's 10-1. The leave plenty of jobs for women in the support field. Bringing them to the front lines is a foolish as deliberately selecting under-size, slow and more easily fatigued men for that job. This is all about fulfilling some liberal's notion of reality and has NOTHING to do with actual ground combat.
According to the military, the military will not need to lower its physical standards as it opens direct combat jobs to women.

So regardless of gender, all individuals must be able to carry large numbers of supplies, carry 500 rounds, fill 1000 lbs of sandbags in 1/2 hour, etc

Since: Jun 10

Sunnyvale, CA

#100268 Feb 6, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
WHO GIVES A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK ... ;0)
Was THAT post to "you" ...???
THEN get the HELL
"off my CLOUD" ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =X4OUZew33Q4XX
Red, White And Blue
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
If ya don't wanna go to
FIST City ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
ya betta detour around my 'post'... ;0)
The post I was referring to was ABOUT NTR, and it was stupid of you just like she said.

You thought you hit the mother lode with some old crap from a 2007 thread, and you came up with a great big NOTHING.

Tell your "associate" to get you something really juicy, you conniving little twit.

People her like NTR. They don't like you. LOL!

Since: Jun 10

Sunnyvale, CA

#100269 Feb 6, 2013
<here>

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Trump 2016 and beyond

#100270 Feb 6, 2013
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, liberals are incapable of racism. Didn't you get the memo?
Disagree strongly. Every normal person is capable of racism.
Whether they practice racism or not is another issue. The only way that one can determine if another is a racist in the virtual world is by a count of instances of racism expressed by another in comparison to all. I have one of the best records of non-racism on topix by count of instances of my expression of such. That I know I can own.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100271 Feb 6, 2013
Parthenon wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama, the Prophet of Small Government! LOL!
Ok, you just might, if you try very, very hard, have some success at selling this fiction to a bunch of 8-year olds.
Go away, tiny-brained idiot.
I've presented you with the facts... you're free to live in your little delusional world of denial.

I really don't give a shit!!

Since: Jun 10

Sunnyvale, CA

#100272 Feb 6, 2013
huntscoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>From what I've read, you do the same thing. So do I. So does everyone. The thing is, that's MOST of your postings. The Lady NTR posts things that are interesting and informative as does Jaxxon, Eagle, Xman,and (not lately) USMail. Where are yours?
And who are you and why should I care WHAT you think of what I post?

I don't go researching five-year-old threads just to bring forth old posts for no reason.

I don't post anywhere to please anyone. You want interesting, then be interesting. I have no idea who you are, but I don't recall criticizing you for what you post.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100273 Feb 6, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>Neither is Hispanic.
You're learning well little grasshopper!!!

Since: Jun 10

Sunnyvale, CA

#100274 Feb 6, 2013
Figarooo wrote:
Good morning everyone!((HUGS))
Hi Figgy!

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100275 Feb 6, 2013
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
<quoted text>
The post I was referring to was ABOUT NTR, and it was stupid of you just like she said.
You thought you hit the mother lode with some old crap from a 2007 thread, and you came up with a great big NOTHING.
Tell your "associate" to get you something really juicy, you conniving little twit.
People her like NTR. They don't like you. LOL!
Her "ASSociate" is herself.

“Peace”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#100276 Feb 6, 2013
Quirky The Eye wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember seeing a story a couple months ago that said it was closer to 20 Billion in CA. But I found this.
Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnatu...
The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigrat...
The Gov link was from back in 2004 a time that we had many more numbers of illegal immigrants as well as much of the information being gathered then was biased.

Since: Jun 10

Sunnyvale, CA

#100277 Feb 6, 2013
huntscoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>From what I've read, you do the same thing. So do I. So does everyone. The thing is, that's MOST of your postings. The Lady NTR posts things that are interesting and informative as does Jaxxon, Eagle, Xman,and (not lately) USMail. Where are yours?
Oh by the way, I've been posting on this Forum for five years. How about you? You appear to be a new poster.

I dare say, you haven't read every single one of my previous posts, so it's completely unnecessary to play this little competition game of who posts "interesting" comments. It's childish, and just about EVERYONE has and does post off topic now and then.

I find the subject here pretty boring and exhausted, so I post what I want and when I want.

Since: Jun 10

Sunnyvale, CA

#100278 Feb 6, 2013
Pilgrim Pete wrote:
Inferior non-whites tend to be illegal aliens, or ghetto dwellers at best. Pathetic
No, what's pathetic is your ignorant, bigoted remark. But I'm sure "someone" will find it interesting.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Trump 2016 and beyond

#100279 Feb 6, 2013
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll Rehab? LOL!
Wild Irish Rose wrote:
Ta da! It's still here. There sure are a lot of threads on this forum.
Anybody have a beer? I feel like a Tecate. LOL!


I see there is.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100281 Feb 6, 2013
_White American_ wrote:
<quoted text>The Gov link was from back in 2004 a time that we had many more numbers of illegal immigrants as well as much of the information being gathered then was biased.
Poor Q-cumber... I'll give him a C+ for effort!!

Since: Jun 10

Sunnyvale, CA

#100282 Feb 6, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I see there is.
And your point is?

You found a thread and the first post on it. You must be so proud of yourself.

Since: Jun 10

Sunnyvale, CA

#100283 Feb 6, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
Her "ASSociate" is herself.
Interesting.
Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#100284 Feb 6, 2013
Parthenon wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of your numbers are BS, lies and distortions. Nobody said Obama is totally at fault, just that he's been the biggest spender of all time and has done NOTHING to alleviate the problem.
Anyone who think Obama and the Dems are not all about growing government is just too stupid & ignorant to argue with. Even Obama would think you are an idiot. Though he'd be delighted to know he'd fooled another clueless sucker.
Of course Obama is the biggest spender yet. The dollar now buys less than it did when others were president so he needs to spend more dollars just to keep up.

This is due to inflation, GDP growth, the CPI, and of course, politics. Specifically, Republican politics. Overall, since 1961, we have about half Republican and half Democratic presidents. How did our economy perform under them (and contribute to Obama being a big spender)?

% Per Annum Democrat-Republican-Bush43
GDP Growth 4.1% 2.9% 2.2%
Employment Growth2.9% 1.7% 0.5%
CPI 4.0% 5.1% 3.0%
DJIA 8.1% 6.5% 0.9%
Dollar +0.8%-3.6%-5.9%

Despite Republican rhetoric of jobs, growth, cut spending and taxes for increased prosperity, this chart shows that our country performed best under Democratic presidents.

So in addition to the dollar now buying less, the current administration needs to pay for the lack of prosperity suffered by our country under Republican policies.
Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#100286 Feb 6, 2013
Parthenon wrote:
<quoted text>
So the "fear" is hunger, shelter, medical care, eldery needs, etc. You mean the very same "fear" that all humans have had throughout recorded history?
Nobody is saying "gut" anything. But if you are afraid of not being able to afford living a reasonably decent life, the first thing to do is this: Do NOT go bankrupt.
Obama and the Dems will ruin us financially. That will do nobody any good whatsoever. All the "fears" you mentioned will be made worse... much worse.
The worst thing about liberals is their intolerance. They actually believe that their heart-felt sentiments for the poor, elderly, infirm, etc. are SOOOOOOOOOO special that NOBODY else can possibly share them. That is, if you're not a liberal you must want to starve kids, beat the elderly and shoot litters of kittens for fun.
The reason that liberals believe this nonsense is that their intolerant philosophy is based on HATRED. As with the Nazis and the communist, anyone who does not join up is automatically a despised enemy. There can be no oppostion because to be in opposition is EVIL! Only THEY have noble thoughts about caring for the needy. Everyone else, therefore, must despise the needy.
You are a perfect example of this closed-minded, retrograde, autocratic thinking.
Conservatives want to keep us, first & foremost, within a reasonable budget that will allow some measure of support for all those programs you mentioned. It is not as simple as just taxing the rich and giving it to the poor. That's infantile thinking for children. What moves and motivates a vibrant economy is complicated. And a healty economy is the prerequisite for all the charity work there is, or is ever going to be.
You don't decide how much the need is, spend the money on that need, then try to figure out how to pay for it. That's putting the cart before the horse. Wrecking the economy is irresponsible and actually shows a callous disregard for those you claim to be so worried about. Plus it's just damned stupid. Having everyone poor might make us all "equal" in our misery, but that's about all it will do.
You've let your envy, hatred and jealousy of the successful warp your mind into believing that their good fortune must be built upon the misfortune of others. This zero-sum view is a gross simplification of a very dynamic and complicated situation. It's put forth by politicians who've realized that stirring up class warfare among the ignorant pays off. It's much simpler to gin up a howling mob than to educate them about reality. YOU are just a pitch-fork & torch carrying member of that mob, nothing more.
This so called "good fortune" of others is, for a very large part, just that, luck. I suggest you explore recent topics in behavioral economics. There you'll find interesting studies demonstrating that the hard work of successful individuals was, in the majority of cases, a fortuitous combination of parental influence (wealth and/or connections) and access to a good education (the value of which is downplayed by Republicans).

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Trump 2016 and beyond

#100287 Feb 6, 2013
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
<quoted text>
And your point is?
You found a thread and the first post on it. You must be so proud of yourself.
Oh, I am. I should be. Want a beer?

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#100288 Feb 6, 2013
Parthenon wrote:
<quoted text>
So the "fear" is hunger, shelter, medical care, eldery needs, etc. You mean the very same "fear" that all humans have had throughout recorded history?
Nobody is saying "gut" anything. But if you are afraid of not being able to afford living a reasonably decent life, the first thing to do is this: Do NOT go bankrupt.
Obama and the Dems will ruin us financially. That will do nobody any good whatsoever. All the "fears" you mentioned will be made worse... much worse.
The worst thing about liberals is their intolerance. They actually believe that their heart-felt sentiments for the poor, elderly, infirm, etc. are SOOOOOOOOOO special that NOBODY else can possibly share them. That is, if you're not a liberal you must want to starve kids, beat the elderly and shoot litters of kittens for fun.
The reason that liberals believe this nonsense is that their intolerant philosophy is based on HATRED. As with the Nazis and the communist, anyone who does not join up is automatically a despised enemy. There can be no oppostion because to be in opposition is EVIL! Only THEY have noble thoughts about caring for the needy. Everyone else, therefore, must despise the needy.
You are a perfect example of this closed-minded, retrograde, autocratic thinking.
Conservatives want to keep us, first & foremost, within a reasonable budget that will allow some measure of support for all those programs you mentioned. It is not as simple as just taxing the rich and giving it to the poor. That's infantile thinking for children. What moves and motivates a vibrant economy is complicated. And a healty economy is the prerequisite for all the charity work there is, or is ever going to be.
You don't decide how much the need is, spend the money on that need, then try to figure out how to pay for it. That's putting the cart before the horse. Wrecking the economy is irresponsible and actually shows a callous disregard for those you claim to be so worried about. Plus it's just damned stupid. Having everyone poor might make us all "equal" in our misery, but that's about all it will do.
You've let your envy, hatred and jealousy of the successful warp your mind into believing that their good fortune must be built upon the misfortune of others. This zero-sum view is a gross simplification of a very dynamic and complicated situation. It's put forth by politicians who've realized that stirring up class warfare among the ignorant pays off. It's much simpler to gin up a howling mob than to educate them about reality. YOU are just a pitch-fork & torch carrying member of that mob, nothing more.
Oh, please. Spare me. The only thing "conservatives" talk about cutting is social welfare. They want to increase defense spending, hand people a voucher for public education (rolling eyes) and make sure that nothing changes for the top income earners, corporations using cheap labor and disparity of tax code.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed to have allowed yourself to be such a pawn of a movement that is in the "breakup" stage. Surely, you're aware? If not, read more. The Republican party cannot get enough votes to win a dog fight if they don't start expanding their plan to demonstrate they have the FIRST concern about the middle class and that they giveash*t about the poor and elderly.

I don't see one positive INVESTMENT in this economy and the middle class that the Republicans want to make. Unless or until they figure one out? They're headed toward defeat in the mid-terms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North America Travel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Prince William hits DC; Kate joins NYC first lady (Dec '14) 20 hr Mexican Lottery W... 13
News Downtown Winnipeg developments bring opportunit... Mon Gourd Steaves Dev... 2
News Stuck With Slow Bus Service? Cuomo Is Completel... Jul 23 Indict CUOMO 1
News Whata s the best way to end L.A.a s homeless cr... Jul 23 RiccardoFire 12
News Carlsbad schools Superintendent Gary Perkowski ... (Apr '13) Jul 16 Frankenfool 86
News How to find the centre of Canada Jul 15 David Cottu The Real 1
News The Truth About Chiropractors (Apr '13) Jul 13 Not a chiropractor 42
More from around the web