Thursday's Letters to the Editor

[Michael Ejercito]

Justa Person wrote:

<quoted text>
What are you talking about?

I was talking about the intel that FDR had in November of 1944.

[Michael Ejercito]

Justwondering wrote:

<quoted text>Justwondering but, if the economy was only failing in the final months of the Bush administration, why was the Fed continually lowering interest rates to try to spur economic growth throughout Bush's term? What happened during the final months of Bush's administration was, the Fed had no where else to go. Interest rates were already at the bottom. Bush was just trying to postpone the inevitable until the next President was in office. At least it collapsed on the person responsible for the mess.

The economy was continuously growing for six-and-a-half years.

[Michael Ejercito]

Lou wrote:

<quoted text>
Great point!
Why did Bush keep giving money to the corporations and companies on Wall St? He enhanced the supply side of the equation but never the demand sides.
Now that Obama is trying to stimulate demand, people call it socialism? So what exactly is it when Bush gave money directly to companies to be paid as bonuses?

Obama only SAYS he wants to stimulate demand. In reality, he is increasing the deficit.

[bjh]

Steve wrote:

A terrible event like the shooting at Fort Hood used to bring our nation together. The hatred fanned by political shows on both sides of the spectrum will destroy us from withing.

That is what our enemies are counting on.

[bjh]

Michael Ejercito wrote:

<quoted text>
I was talking about the intel that FDR had in November of 1944.

What intel?

[Say What]

Michael Ejercito wrote:

<quoted text>
The economy was continuously growing for six-and-a-half years.

Yeah, Bush inherited a growing economy from Clinton and a big surplus. Then subtract six-and-a-half years from eight and you end up with one-and-a-half years that Bush sent it all to hell. Holy chit!

[Szoin]

Surf,
We aren't fighting for the ideals of the man in the seat. We are fighting for the bill of rights, for the constitution.
People having or not having stomachs to fight isn't relevant to their feelings about this war. Some don't feel that this war is just. Our army is lead by the commander in chief but it isn't his army, is it? If he says something is right, you believe it's right? Doesn't the army fight for the American people and not for one individuals sense of justice? Isn't that more of a monarch or a dictatorship?

If the Major was a terrorist before, then how should it be blamed on the current administration? He signed up a while ago since he is a major.

My guess is, he wasn't always a terrorist. The reason why i call this a nutcase incident is because he used a gun. Don't terrorists usually use bombs? Also, he didn't have a plan. He just went out and shot everybody. Don't terrorists usually have plans to produce some kind of effect or statement?

What would be the point in going wild in the army but to tighten security so that those terrorists cannot plan anything?

It's a nutcase incident not a terrorist plot.

Let me play a scenerio by you Surf.
Would you follow the commander in chief if he said "Lets move out to Pakinstan and kill all women, children and everybody until half their population is dead. We want to give them a message that they should stop attacking Israel."
Would you still follow the president's ideal since he "represents" America?
America has very many different beliefs but the core principles are outlined in the constitution and the bill of rights.
The invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional.

Signing on the dotted line doesn't mean that you throw away all of your morals and ideals. It means that you have to listen to the person in-charge unless he gives an unlawlful order.

Also, my cousins wouldn't lie. I've watched some videos of soldiers in the Army who have spoken about this war being unconstitutional.

Btw, research Halliburton and Bush's relation to that company.
The Bush family, before the war, gave Iraq and Saddam hussein equipement such as oil factory parts and other equipement not relating to oil.

Are you saying that a soldier is a mindless robot who instills in himself the ideals of "The man on the throne?"

[Justwondering]

Michael Ejercito wrote:

<quoted text>
The economy was continuously growing for six-and-a-half years.

Since you can't seem to be able to answer a simple question, I'll help you. When the economy falters, what the Fed does is, LOWER interest rates in the hope that, the cheaper money is to borrow, people will take advantage of that, and borrow more money to spend, which has the appearance as if the economy is cranking along. This went along until the interest to borrow money was almost zero. This is the period when you claim the economy was continuously growing. Let me make it simpler for you. When you see your neighbor buying a new Truck, then a new Boat to haul behind it, then build on to their house, one thinks, man my neighbor (economy) is doing really well. In reality, all your neighbor has done, is gone deeper into debt. He's not doing better at all because now he just owes more money, but the money he borrowed doesn't cost him anything (lower interest rates). When he's received and spent so much of that free money that he can't pay it back, and everything is repossessed, was the neighbor doing really well (economy), or did it just have the APPEARANCE that your neighbor (economy) was doing really well? How can one double the debt they are in and say they (economy) are going gangbusters? Meanwhile the people who save money and should be rewarded for that, instead are punished with paltry savings account rates of only 2%, while the people who should be punished for having to borrow money, are rewarded with interest rates that are next to nothing. That is NOT growth.

[Justa Person]

Szoin wrote: "We aren't fighting for the ideals of the man in the seat. We are fighting for the bill of rights, for the constitution."

Wrong. Our Constitution and the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) are not on trial or being tested. They are the documents upon which our country was founded and the only "fighting" that was done was in the 18th century when the Colonists revolted against the rule of King George III so that we could form our own country. I don't understand why people think present-day wars are being fought over that.

As for the Iraq war, that was the result of the Bush administration's desire to take over Iraq's oil. In that respect we were (are) fighting over the "ideals" of an oil rich leader named George W. Bush and his Big Oil buddies, including Cheney/Halliburton. The Afghan War is still a mystery, but certainly it is not being fought over our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

With all the information that is available today, it's pathetic how little people know about what's going on in the world.

[Szoin]

Justa Person

I didn't say we are fighting for the constitution in Iraq. I'm saying these are core principles which, ideally, are what we uphold and if they are threatened is what we should fight for.

The actions of such individuals who hold these principles should be ones that follow them. Otherwise, what would the constitution and the bill of rights be if we didn't?

I know present day wars aren't fought over that which which was what I was pointing out. That we shouldn't fight for the ideals of one man who may or may not follow the core principles. In essence, the military is fighting for the people not a rich, well-connected man and his constituents.

[oh really]

Of course. What's your point?

Justwondering wrote:

<quoted text>Justwondering but have you ever heard of the Crusades?

[SURF808]

oh really wrote:

Of course. What's your point?
<quoted text>

It's between Conservative and Liberal beliefs and policies:

CONSERVATIVE policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERAL policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

Too many bleeding hearts and too many people are dependent on government handouts.

GET A FRIGGING JOB!!!

[Michael Ejercito]

bjh wrote:

<quoted text>
What intel?

That Hitler was determined to win the war.

Apparently that was not enough to prevent the Battle of the Bulge.

[Michael Ejercito]

Say What wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, Bush inherited a growing economy from Clinton and a big surplus. Then subtract six-and-a-half years from eight and you end up with one-and-a-half years that Bush sent it all to hell. Holy chit!

There was a recession in 2001, which followed the dot-com crash of 2000.

[SURF808]

Szoin wrote:

Justa Person
I didn't say we are fighting for the constitution in Iraq. I'm saying these are core principles which, ideally, are what we uphold and if they are threatened is what we should fight for.
The actions of such individuals who hold these principles should be ones that follow them. Otherwise, what would the constitution and the bill of rights be if we didn't?
I know present day wars aren't fought over that which which was what I was pointing out. That we shouldn't fight for the ideals of one man who may or may not follow the core principles. In essence, the military is fighting for the people not a rich, well-connected man and his constituents.

You seemed to forget the long process that led to war? The president didn't just wake up in the morning and say: "GI Joe, go kill so and so."!!!

Do you think these Islamic jihad terrorists groups cared less if the President is well connected or that the President and his "buddies" will be rich as result of going after them??? However you rolled the dice, it is clear these fanatics have one goal in mind: "To kill the "Great Satan" and all the infidels in the name of Allah."

Other than minor conflicts, the Congress has to declare war when requested by the President, on behalf of the American people. It is the President's responsibility then as Commander in Chief, to lead that fight and to employ the Armed Forces, however he sees fit. Very few Presidents have the balls to confront such enemies.

It's unfortunate this current faker and a "man-child" of a CIC is dithering. Opting instead for an American apology tour around the world. In the meantime, our troops are dying and waiting patiently for reinforcements.

Did you hear him praise Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope during the commemoration for the fall of the Berlin wall recently??? These were the "key" people that made that happened.

Instead, he praised himself via video, for the same freedom these great people provided him (to be president) without any mention of their names. How typical!!!

[Dode Penrod]

Michael Ejercito wrote:

<quoted text>
There was a recession in 2001, which followed the dot-com crash of 2000.

So? Who was president then?

[Justwondering]

SURF808 wrote:

<quoted text>
You seemed to forget the long process that led to war? The president didn't just wake up in the morning and say: "GI Joe, go kill so and so."!!!
Do you think these Islamic jihad terrorists groups cared less if the President is well connected or that the President and his "buddies" will be rich as result of going after them??? However you rolled the dice, it is clear these fanatics have one goal in mind: "To kill the "Great Satan" and all the infidels in the name of Allah."
Other than minor conflicts, the Congress has to declare war when requested by the President, on behalf of the American people. It is the President's responsibility then as Commander in Chief, to lead that fight and to employ the Armed Forces, however he sees fit. Very few Presidents have the balls to confront such enemies.
It's unfortunate this current faker and a "man-child" of a CIC is dithering. Opting instead for an American apology tour around the world. In the meantime, our troops are dying and waiting patiently for reinforcements.
Did you hear him praise Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope during the commemoration for the fall of the Berlin wall recently??? These were the "key" people that made that happened.
Instead, he praised himself via video, for the same freedom these great people provided him (to be president) without any mention of their names. How typical!!!

Justwondering but, Rush, is that you?

[SURF808]

Justwondering wrote:

<quoted text> Justwondering but, Rush, is that you?

You shouldn't be wondering knowing all conservatives think alike huh? You should listen to Rush more often... lol

Btw, I love listening to Rush, Hannity, Beck, Oriley, Savage, Bork, and the truth from Fox News... LOL

[catcher]

Hey surfer dude, go back to work. Better yet, school so you'll know something. Hey wow check
out that breaker!!

[bjh]

SURF808 wrote:

<quoted text>
that happened.
Instead, he praised himself via video, for the same freedom these great people provided him (to be president) without any mention of their names. How typical!!!

He is, as you know, his own favorite subject.