Presidential Politics

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

At the suggestion of Senior Chief Endicott………

Ray, if I ever put together a softball team, I'll keep you in mind for left field. You didn't actually answer the question about the reporter.... and can I assume that Dick Morris' career came to an untimely end after he made that comment?

oh and I would gladly pitch and bat clean up on Ray's team ;)

I was always the kid that had the fly ball drop behind/ahead/beside/etc him. A softball player I ain’t. :)

I was trying to figure out a good way to answer Senior Chief’s question and I came up with this.

Imus is the big fish, the report was the tiny minnow. Imus had more power to derail Hillary than the reporter did. The reporter was just that, a reporter.

Hillary has an enemies list a mile long, just take a look at the people she and Bill tried to destroy during Lewinsky.

Hillary hates dissent and she would love for congress to restore The Fairness Doctrine (TFD). TFD was designed to ensure that both sides of an issue were being heard. However, sometimes this is just not possible or practical, as in the case of talk radio. The repeal of TFD in 1987 by Ronald Reagan had the resultant effect of creating conservative talk radio into the force it is today. If TFD (also known as Hush Rush) were put back into law (and a democratic controlled congress has the power to at least try to get the president to sign it) it would have the effect of stifling conservative talk radio.

Think about it. If TFD were gone, who would speak out against Hillary? Rush couldn’t, neither could Hannity.

For more on TFD, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Could we at least refer to the Clintons as Senator Clinton and President Clinton. I'm a staunch Democrat and would be glad to debate these issues, but I don't want the conversation to degenerate into mud slinging.

How about if we concentrate on facts and policies? I'll respect President Bush and his fellow Republicans, and you do the same for the other side of the aisle. Agreed?

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Could we at least refer to the Clintons as Senator Clinton and President Clinton. I'm a staunch Democrat and would be glad to debate these issues, but I don't want the conversation to degenerate into mud slinging.

How about if we concentrate on facts and policies? I'll respect President Bush and his fellow Republicans, and you do the same for the other side of the aisle. Agreed?

Senior, you are asking a lot. I'm from New York and I will never consider Hillary to be my Senator. But, since I do agree that to do otherwise would cause any debate to sink to the level of the far right and left bloggers, in the future I will refer to them by their proper titles.

BTW a few years ago shortly after she became a Senator I watched Senator Clinton give a speech in my home town, she gave a good speech and I have to admit that she made some good points.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Ray-
That's a start.

What say you we begin with the most visible issue facing this election?
Specifically- U.S. presence in Iraq.

1) Do you believe that one party is less likely to support the troops than the other? Why?

2) Is one party more likely to resolve the Iraqi occupation better than the other? Why

3) Is one party more likely to enlist the aid of the other party in resolving the Iraqi occupation? Why?

That should get us started.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Ray-
That's a start.

What say you we begin with the most visible issue facing this election?
Specifically- U.S. presence in Iraq.

1) Do you believe that one party is less likely to support the troops than the other? Why?

2) Is one party more likely to resolve the Iraqi occupation better than the other? Why

3) Is one party more likely to enlist the aid of the other party in resolving the Iraqi occupation? Why?

That should get us started.

1) Do you believe that one party is less likely to support the troops than the other? Why?

The democratic presidential nominee will say they support the troops, but, in the end they will do everything they can to undermine the mission. Democrats have never been strong on defense (look at former presidents Carter and Clintons record on national defense).

2) Is one party more likely to resolve the Iraqi occupation better than the other? Why

One way to resolve the issue in Iraq would be a pull out , (I refuse to use the democrats "re-deploy", re-deploy to where? Kansas?), but that would mean abandoning the mission. Iraq is a theater in the war on terror but Senators Obama and Clinton do not see it that way. A Fred Thompson as a candidate would do everything in his power to win the war. Like I said before, historically democrats are weak on defense.

3) Is one party more likely to enlist the aid of the other party in resolving the Iraqi occupation? Why?

Never happen, see my answer to question number two.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'll play.....

1) Do you believe that one party is less likely to support the troops than the other? Why? The troops....no. Both parties will claim to support the troops. Both parties do support having large military contracts awarded in their areas. But in fairness,..... one party has been more vocal with an anti-military theme.

2) Is one party more likely to resolve the Iraqi occupation better than the other? Why No. Both parties got us in there, and it benefits both parties to keep us in. And you can go back thru history, pick the battle, and see the same thing. This presidential campaign will be filled with people slinging the mud about how who voted on what and where they stand on that vote today......politics as usual.

3) Is one party more likely to enlist the aid of the other party in resolving the Iraqi occupation? Why? No. Regardless of who controls the majority, or who holds the oval office, we will remain a two party system, where people are warned what their vote will mean to them from both inside their party and across the aisle. One party will only reach out to the other if they see their party gaining more from the gesture.....and who ever reaches out first gets the media credit for being bipartisan.......

Ray......... your little fish is trying to make a big name for himself. And your Senator already has made hers. And Ray,.......she is your Senator. Your state held an election, and the people spoke. They overwelming picked her over someone who was born and raised there, and had already dedicated most of his adult life serving New Yorkers in the political arena. I can't think of anyone in politics that doesn't have a list of enemies. If she ran again, they would re-elect her. If she gets the democratic spot, she will carry New York, even if that's the only state she gets..........which it won't be. And for the record, I'm so far to the right in the political scene......I can't even see Dennis from where I'm standing.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

I'll play.....

1) Do you believe that one party is less likely to support the troops than the other? Why? The troops....no. Both parties will claim to support the troops. Both parties do support having large military contracts awarded in their areas. But in fairness,..... one party has been more vocal with an anti-military theme.

2) Is one party more likely to resolve the Iraqi occupation better than the other? Why No. Both parties got us in there, and it benefits both parties to keep us in. And you can go back thru history, pick the battle, and see the same thing. This presidential campaign will be filled with people slinging the mud about how who voted on what and where they stand on that vote today......politics as usual.

3) Is one party more likely to enlist the aid of the other party in resolving the Iraqi occupation? Why? No. Regardless of who controls the majority, or who holds the oval office, we will remain a two party system, where people are warned what their vote will mean to them from both inside their party and across the aisle. One party will only reach out to the other if they see their party gaining more from the gesture.....and who ever reaches out first gets the media credit for being bipartisan.......

Ray......... your little fish is trying to make a big name for himself. And your Senator already has made hers. And Ray,.......she is your Senator. Your state held an election, and the people spoke. They overwelming picked her over someone who was born and raised there, and had already dedicated most of his adult life serving New Yorkers in the political arena. I can't think of anyone in politics that doesn't have a list of enemies. If she ran again, they would re-elect her. If she gets the democratic spot, she will carry New York, even if that's the only state she gets..........which it won't be. And for the record, I'm so far to the right in the political scene......I can't even see Dennis from where I'm standing.

Master Chief, Sen. Clinton may be a Senator from New York but she does not represent me. I resent that woman in so many ways.

I want someone as president that I can trust, I can't trust Sen. Clinton just like I couldn't trust her husband.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Would you consider supporting a third party candidate?

I would love to vote for a third party candidate, I am sick and tired of politics as usual but I voted for Perot in '92 and got eight years of President Clinton.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Allow me to answer my own questions:

1. The troops are going to get support from both parties. Although, the media sound bites always talk about "support for our troops" nobody wants to see our young men and women get killed. Democrats and Republicans are going to give them the best support they can muster.

2. I believe that the Democrats are more likely to resolve the Iraqi occupation simply because they will end it. It won't be pretty and the Iraqi population will suffer because of it. But, it will happen. The Republicans are between a rock and the hard place. If they push to get out, the sitting Republican President started a war that he couldn't finish. If they push to remain, more American lives are lost trying to win a war with no end in sight.
And, just for the record, I would agree with ending the occupation today/right now/last person close the door on the way out.

3. I believe that the Democrats are more likely to enlist the aid of the other side, especially if Senator Clinton becomes President. As I recall, her husband appointed a Republican as Secretary of Defense during his administration. I don't know that she will actually do something along those lines, but I do believe she is more inclined than her republican counter-parts.

What next?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis,...
1.....I wish either party supported the troops enough to vote us the same pay raises they vote themselves.....

2..... when in history have the Democrats ever gotten us out of a conflict they didn't help get us into.....and Dennis, for the record, Congress okayed the Presdient's plan to go to war. He didn't start the war, and he said going into it that it would last for years. Nobody must have been listening. You could check the records, but I believe that you'll see Senator Clinton was onboard for that decision.

3..... What has she done since her time in the Senate that would make you thing she would do anything differently as President ? And appointing a Republican as your Sec of Defense ....?..... Don't make me start seeing Ray's side of this,....... but how many of the former President's inner circle had any military experience? He kinda had to go next door to shop....their shelves were bare. She was a lawyer before their political careers started, not an engineer. Go to her for legal advise... ask someone to build that bridge for you. As was mentioned, she has a long list of enemies. I think there are more people in congress than would help her fail, than help her succeed. At least look for someone that has a little charisma.

Or and Ray.......I vote for the person I want to sit in the seat. If a third party candidate was that person, I'd vote for them. If I don't like either of the two major party candidates, I cast a write in vote.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

1. Ok.

2. I agree with everything you wrote. However, that doesn't mean the democrats aren't going to end the war. It's time. American's have not historically been receptive to long unclear conflicts.

3. a) I don't exactly know what you're driving at with that first question. b) I don't know how many of Pres. Clinton's inner circle had military experience. Do you? c) Many of our representatives (including Presidents) have law degrees. I'm not sure of your point there. d) Who exactly would you count as her enemies? I ask these questions not to be trite, I just don't want to accept a generalization without some specific information. e) I got a chance to talk to Senator Clinton for about 45 minutes when I was OIC at Station Montauk. She has loads of charisma. And, she was one of the few politicians that I've talked to that actually listened to what I had to say.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

1. It's good to see we can reach common ground when it comes to our money. I think we're both ready for our own run at Congress.

2. It also doesn't mean that they can. Americans not wanting to stay in any long drawn out unclear conflict could work for which ever party gets the oval office next time around. And more Americans would support a conflict they believed in. Someone should do a better job spinning it.

3. What has she done as a Senator that makes you think she could build bridges between the two parties? B. I don't have an actual number, but many books have been written about the strained ties and resentments towards the military. I will also never believe that Admiral Borda commited suicide. C. I was going with the line that she isn't an engineer and doesn't know how to build the bridge between to two parties, but she can help you sue if you fall off the structure. D. I've rarely heard anyone claim to be her friend, while the list of people who can't stand her grows all the time......sorry I have to be general on this one. None of the political show have people on who want to say nice things about her. E. Dennis, you're the first person I've ever heard say that. I've heard just about every possible negative thing said about her that you could imagine. I've always heard her referred to as the ambitious one, while her husband was credited with the charisma. How many Americans were willing to understand why he did the things he did, simply because he was married to her? How many jokes do you know where she's the victim and he's the villian? All of the ones I've heard have it the other way around.

Dennis I have no doubt that what you're telling me about meeting her is true. I think you saw a side of her many of us never will. And I have no doubt that she listened to what you had to say. But what did she do afterwards? Did she act on that information? Did she even consider it? I don't want politicians that listen to people and do nothing about it. We elect those people to act on our behave. Many of these people aren't working on what they were elected to do. They're working on their next election.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Well, a couple of things are for certain:

1) A lot of people in New York (Ray excluded) think very highly of Senator Clinton. And, your right, they would vote her in again.

2) When you watch a lot of right wing commentaries, you're going to hear negative things there about left wing politicians. I could point to TV shows and column writers that attack President Bush just as vehemently.

3) If you surround yourself with people that have like opinions, you're apt to think that those opinions are correct. One thing about being a democrat in the Coast Guard-- I never had the luxury of assuming the guy standing next to me voted the same way or believed in the same things. Could it be that you are hearing all this negativity because of the company you keep?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, believe me when I tell you that the company I keep never talks about stateside politics. I don't know who the right wing commentators are let alone watch them. I can hear all of the negative stuff I want about the president by turning on just about any new broadcast or by reading any newspaper in any language. That also won't change, regardless of who is elected next.
The negative things I've been hearing about Senator Clinton have been bombarding me from every news outlet for the past 17(?) years. She's been nationally attacked since her husband's first run for the white house. You've had to have listened to the same stuff. If you haven't heard it already, strap yourself in, its going to be a bumpy ride. We're still eight months away from 2008. You still have time to take in about 6000 negative campaign ads that the democrats will air against her, before the Republicans get their chance at bat.
By the time we elect our next president I may actually care who the father of Anna Nicoles' baby is or if Kate finally escaped from Tom's clutches......... Unfortunately for me, I'll be in Mississippi where those ads will be running non-stop. The last election I was in New York. It wasn't a battleground state, so the ads ran less. I visited PA which was considered a battleground state. My niece was two at the time. She used to walk around the house and say "I'm George W. Bush.....and I approve this message." For those of you that don't understand why, you should try watching network TV from a battleground state sometime.

Dennis, I think all network television is slanted to the left. I also don't think that things change all that much. The Democrats took back the House and the Senate a couple of months ago. How did that change things again ? It must have been a subtle change, because I haven't noticed any differences yet.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

How about a presidential candidate that cared more about this country than their political party? Well moeny will throw that concept out of the window. The two pary system used to represent differing ideas, now it's just a team game. Which side do you cheer for. The attitude is more we won than, wow, we won and now we have to get to work. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are a bunch of idiots or should I say, "highly intelligent politcal players that knows where the money is". Unfourtunately those are the only two legitimate parties to vote for if you want your vote to count. If it wasn't for all the men and women who died so I could maintain the freedom to vote I probably wouldn't even bother anymore. The democrats and reublicans are embarassing.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

1) A lot of people in New York (Ray excluded) think very highly of Senator Clinton. And, your right, they would vote her in again.

Sen. Clinton did not carry all of the counties, she did not win in Steuben, Hamilton and Allegheny counties.

I would have to agree, if she did run for the senate, she would win again, and she will carry New York in '08.

[GMC Kevin L. Godwin]

Well I'll weigh in and go with the majority of the latest FOX News opinion poll.
I am with the 60.4% of the responders and say I am not happy with the President. I'll also go with the 56.6% who are not happy with the current Congress either. The problem with our current system is partisan politics and the power the lobbiest have over the government. Our elected officials are not beholden to the voters in this country, but to the people that paid for election those canidates. :mad:

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

With all of the negative talk in the media these days you would think that Pres. Bush is the worst president in history.

What do you think he has done right?

(1) The Global War on Terror – This is a battle that was not started by us, it has been a declared war ever since the Islamofascists declared war on the United States during the Carter presidency, extending through every president since. Pres. Bush is the only one to have taken concrete action against the terrorists.

(2) The War in Iraq – What choice did he have? Waiting for another useless resolution from the UN? Hussein knew that the UN was not serious and if he waited them out long enough he would be able to win. If Pres. Bush did not invade and Hussein was able to obtain a nuke or biological weapon and used it, Pres. Bush would be condemned for doing nothing.

(3) The economy – Pres. Bush ran on the idea that he would give us tax cuts and he did not go back on that promise. We are living in the greatest period of economic prosperity that this country has ever seen, interest rates are below 7%, unemployment is hovering around 5% and people have more of their own money to spend due to the tax cuts.

(4) Character – A former president ran on the premise that character no longer mattered, that ethics was not important. That led us into 8 years of one scandal after another and the first time an elected president was nearly thrown out of office. Pres. Bush brought character back to the White House. When he says he will do something he means it. He does not care about poll numbers, his popularity or lack of it does not drive him. There are those in politics that say that he lied to get us into a war with Iraq, I don’t believe that for a minute. He was acting on the best intelligence he had available to him and acting the way he thought the UN would want him to act.

Just so you don’t think I am one of those mindless lemmings that follow blindly behind someone, let us look at what he has done wrong.

(1) Illegal immigration – This is the one area I just can’t figure him out, he says that he does not believe in polls, but yet gives into the illegal immigrant lobby that wants amnesty or no action taken to deal with illegal immigration.

(2) The War in Iraq – Were mistakes made? Absolutely, the biggest being lack of a better plan for what to do after Iraq was conquered.

(3) Trying to work with democrats – Democrats in congress have the idea that bi-partisanship means giving in to their demands and refusing to listen to any other point of view. I realize as president Bush has to work with these people but I would have liked to have seen him stand up to them more. During this past election some of that came out in his speeches but it was too little to make a difference.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

1) I think it was a good decision to go into Afghanistan. I'm still not sure why we went to Iraq.

2) Let's not forget that the U.S. invaded Iraq because we believed they already had WMDs. We were wrong.

3) Agreed. He also tried to tackle the social security problem. That was ballsy.

4) I disagree with what you wrote about President Clinton, but I do agree that President Bush seems to be a decent guy.

5) I agree with his stance on illegal immigration. In fact, I 'd say open up the border and let Mexico become the 51st state. Might as well start collecting taxes from them.

6) Agreed. President George Bush avoided Bahgdad for exactly that reason. Removing Saddam resulted in a power vacuum that we had to fill. It was a bad bad bad idea.

7) Obviously, I disagree. We can overcome philosophical differences and get things accomplished. One quote from Ronald Reagan that I always liked.

"There's no limit to what a man can accomplish if he doesn't care who gets the credit." Not bad for a republican.

For those of you that profess our political system to be FUBAR, what have you done to make it better?!?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

#4-Dennis we went to PCO/PXO school with a LCDR who car pooled with a female whitehouse aid. Do you remember the story he told? I not sure weahter it was in class or in the hallway but according to this aid, female, she hated working under the clinton adminstration. the LCDR said she was going to quit but when Bush came in things changed. No one was groping her any longer and people were polite and professional, no more comments about her "assets". Bush also put the business back into the dress code at the whitehouse.

Do you remember the video they showed from Bush's Pholisphy? For those that have not seen it it is pretty good.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

That's not even a second-hand story. It's third-hand.

"I've got a friend, who knows a guy..."

Come on, now. Even if that stuff is true (it may very well be), we should at least limit our discussions to facts.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

1) 4) I disagree with what you wrote about President Clinton, but I do agree that President Bush seems to be a decent guy.

That's funny. Do you remember back in 1992 during the Richmond debate? The matter of character was brought up, some guy in the audience stood up and said "Let's get back to the issues, character does not matter." Pres. Clinton took that to mean that he could do any damn thing he wanted to and get away with it. This mornings paper has a story about the Edwards $400.00 haircut. No problem, its his money, he can do what he wants with it. But, in the same article the author reminds us of another Clinton scandal. In 1993 Pres. Clinton forced planes to circle the Los Angeles airport for an hour and a half while they waited for him to get a $200.00 hair cut.

[GMC Kevin L. Godwin]

Senior Chief writes:
2) Let's not forget that the U.S. invaded Iraq because we believed they already had WMDs. We were wrong.

I disagree with you, The leadership in Iraq had already used WMD's on both the Kurds and the Iranians. Iraq had large stock piles through out the 1980's and 1990's. The intel from both domestic, Iraqis and foreign sources corroborated the presence within Iraq. US military has found several different locations containing small batches in motor rounds and artillery shells after the fall of the regime.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Ray-
That guy stood up because he was tired of candidates attacking each other's character instead of talking about the issues. If you're looking for the perfect man/woman, you are going to be forever disappointed. I would much rather hear what specific policies they intend to fight for.

Kevin-
"US military has found several different locations containing small batches in motor rounds and artillery shells after the fall of the regime." Can you give me a source on this? I'd like to argue the relevance, but I need to know where you get your information.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Now that we have covered what President Bush has done right or wrong, please state what you believe Senator Hillary Clinton has done right or wrong since she has been in the Senate.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Presidential politics are much bigger than President Bush vs Senator Clinton. Rather thatn throwing darts at them, what are YOUR positions on various issues? What do YOU want to see done differently. Anyone can pick a candidate apart. Lets try thinking about what we want. Seems that since there will be no incumbent running, we have a clean slate to look to. The primarys are off and running. Lets talk about issues rather than people. Once everyone decides what is important to them, and direction that they think the country should go, then they should look to the candidate that best fits their desires.
1. Immigration - We (Coast Guard) have been stopping Hatiens, Domincans, Chinese...) for years. I think it is time that we seal our land borders as well. After all, we are an autonomous country. That needs to be done first. Next, we need to look for all the folks that are in the country illegally. Those that have jobs whose employers are willing to sponsor them should be documented and allowed to stay. They are adding to the economy. Give them their own SSN and let them pay federal income tax. Social security however, should be for citizens only. We cannot be a welfare state. Criminal illegal aliens should do their time followed by a one way ticket home. Those without jobs or a willing employer / sponsor... Goodbye.
2. War in Iraq - Well, that is a mess. I think that we went in with the right intentions as did congress at the time. Now I think it is a mess. All I know about it is what I get from the news which is never a good thing, but it appears to me that we need to decide what is realistic and what is not. I don't like the idea of leaving a job unfinished, but what do the majority of Iraqi's want. What are they willing to do to get it? I am always willing to help out those that are willing to help themselves. But if they are not willing, neither am I. The simple fact is that the tribes in the middle east have been at war with each other since Old Testiment times. I find it difficult to believe that it will all stop and they will love each other in a matter of a few years.
3. Taxes - President Bush did a good thing in cutting taxes. Those tax cuts need to be made perminent or we will see a slow down in our economy again. Anyone have stocks or TSP? 9/11 could have killed them but with tax cuts allowing people that have and are doing well to re-invest helps everyone out. I would rather invest in individuals and companies that are capitalists than give more money to "uncle" to re-distibute. I look at it as a return on investment.

While I am conservative, I don't subscribe to a party. They remind me to much of a union. Maybe I am just not a "team player" when it comes to my vote.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, you're saying that you want to only argue the facts. Can you state for a fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs? I'll admit that I didn't see a report of any being found, but does that mean they didn't exist? Also along those lines....what do you consider a WMD? Many reports came out about Sadam using chemical weapons against his own people,....do you discount those?

Ray....you're doing it again. Where did you find that the former president determined that he could do whatever he wanted after having heard one person say that character doesn't matter?

And your vote always matters. It may not decide the election, but it still lets you complain about the outcome. Even if your person didn't win, you still stated your objection to who did. If you don't vote, don't complain about the outcome. Your silence allowed someone to win. Remain as silent as you did when they asked for your vote. Keep your mouth shut until the next election.

[GMC Kevin L. Godwin]

Senior,

The sources I found were on the net at CSNNEWS.com, Foxnews.com, Government congressional report as reported by SEN Rick Santorum, R-PA. The Senator was quoting from the partialy declassified NGIC report.
I am countering your assessment that no WMD have been found. The fact are that there have been WMD's found inside Iraq since the fall of Sadam Hussain. That our forces cannot search every square inch of a country the roughly the size of California and say with certainty that no WMD exist.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

There is a good reason why caches of WMDs were not found...the fact that Sadam knew we were comming...If police today were going to raid a meth lab and let everyone know about it weeks in advance...do you think when the raid happened that the lab would still be there? Sadam has used chemical weapons in the past so he HAD them...the question is what did he do with them while waiting for us to invade???

Strat sends...

[GMC Kevin L. Godwin]

I went back and re-read the entire thread and discovered I am off topic. BMCS Endicott, I would not mind discussing with you my views in the WMD issues via another means and return to the original topic at hand. I don't want to hijack the original intent of this thread. :(

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Ray....you're doing it again. Where did you find that the former president determined that he could do whatever he wanted after having heard one person say that character doesn't matter?

And your vote always matters. It may not decide the election, but it still lets you complain about the outcome. Even if your person didn't win, you still stated your objection to who did. If you don't vote, don't complain about the outcome. Your silence allowed someone to win. Remain as silent as you did when they asked for your vote. Keep your mouth shut until the next election.

1. Doing what again? Stating my opinion? Pres. Clinton's scandals are numerous and well documented on the web. They started with Travelgate when all members of the White House travel office were fired for no reason than to bring in his and her's own people to run the place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy They ended with Pardongate, which included the pardoning the FALN terrorists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

2. Very well said!

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Ray- give me a couple of days to get my info together and I'll answer your post.

Jim- Good post. I'll write up my discussion preferences later, and respond to yours.

Stuart- No. I don't know for a fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs. But, considering that we invaded their country, toppled their government, and were directly linked to the execution of their head-of-state, don't you think we should know?!?

What are "Weapons of Mass Destruction?" That's a great question. It appears that no one can really agree on a general definition. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1013136.ece

The real question is what did President Bush and Congress consider to be WMDs? It appears to me that it wasn't the lethal gas that Iraq was using on Iran because that had been going on for awhile before 9-11. I'd say nuclear/biological/chemical with an ability to deliver and sustain a supply.

Kevin- start another thread. I'll join the discussion.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ray, you're claiming to have insight into what the man thought, and you're pin pointing when he started thinking that way, and why. If you're going to state those things as your opinion just make it clear that it's only your opinion.

Dennis......we were directly linked to his execution? How is that? Directly linked? Did we hold the trial? Did we state the charges? Did we prosecute? Did we pull the lever? I think we captured him and turned him over to his own people.
And Dennis, no, I don't think the we need the proof. I'm fine with the thought that we went in there because we had reasonable suspicion that he had WMDs. I would have supported going in to prevent him from continuing what he was doing to his own people. I'm the kind of guy that thinks the biggest kid on the playground should prevent the other kids from picking on the weak ones. I'm of the mindset that when the women next door is getting beat up by her boyfriend/husband, you do something about it. When you hear the kids next door screaming, you care enough to find out why. I'm not a big fan of turning up the volume on my T.V. set and pretending that it doesn't affect me.

Dennis, no conspiracy theories, just published facts. Who killed JFK? The fact is that our own government hasn't released all of the facts on that one. Information is being kept from the American People,....and according to Oliver Stone's movie, won't be released until something like 2025. Who knows what we found over there? We're told what we want to hear.
We live in a Republic. When you go to the polls you pick the person that you want representing your interests. If they aren't meeting your expectations, let them know. If they don't want to listen, campaign to get someone better in there the next time around.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Presidential politics are much bigger than President Bush vs Senator Clinton. Rather thatn throwing darts at them, what are YOUR positions on various issues? What do YOU want to see done differently. Anyone can pick a candidate apart. Lets try thinking about what we want. Seems that since there will be no incumbent running, we have a clean slate to look to. The primarys are off and running. Lets talk about issues rather than people. Once everyone decides what is important to them, and direction that they think the country should go, then they should look to the candidate that best fits their desires.
1. Immigration - We (Coast Guard) have been stopping Hatiens, Domincans, Chinese...) for years. I think it is time that we seal our land borders as well. After all, we are an autonomous country. That needs to be done first. Next, we need to look for all the folks that are in the country illegally. Those that have jobs whose employers are willing to sponsor them should be documented and allowed to stay. They are adding to the economy. Give them their own SSN and let them pay federal income tax. Social security however, should be for citizens only. We cannot be a welfare state. Criminal illegal aliens should do their time followed by a one way ticket home. Those without jobs or a willing employer / sponsor... Goodbye.
2. War in Iraq - Well, that is a mess. I think that we went in with the right intentions as did congress at the time. Now I think it is a mess. All I know about it is what I get from the news which is never a good thing, but it appears to me that we need to decide what is realistic and what is not. I don't like the idea of leaving a job unfinished, but what do the majority of Iraqi's want. What are they willing to do to get it? I am always willing to help out those that are willing to help themselves. But if they are not willing, neither am I. The simple fact is that the tribes in the middle east have been at war with each other since Old Testiment times. I find it difficult to believe that it will all stop and they will love each other in a matter of a few years.
3. Taxes - President Bush did a good thing in cutting taxes. Those tax cuts need to be made perminent or we will see a slow down in our economy again. Anyone have stocks or TSP? 9/11 could have killed them but with tax cuts allowing people that have and are doing well to re-invest helps everyone out. I would rather invest in individuals and companies that are capitalists than give more money to "uncle" to re-distibute. I look at it as a return on investment.

While I am conservative, I don't subscribe to a party. They remind me to much of a union. Maybe I am just not a "team player" when it comes to my vote.

TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE's!!! Your kidding right. If the Republicans and Democrats don't want to talk about issues and just sling mud why should we, the little voters care about the issues. Yes I'm a cynic, sorry. The Them vrs Us, Clinton vrs Bush has caused political discussion to turn into Oprah and it's sad. I'm not a Poly Sci graduate nor do I have experience in politics. But I'm willing to listen and learn. Unfourtunately there are few examples of politicians that we can actually learn from.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Ray- While I'm sitting here in evening school with all the problem kids, I thought I'd get us started.
Here is Senator Clinton's voting record. What particular issue would you like to discuss?

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, I don't want to turn this into whether abortion is right or wrong.....blah, blah, blah.......... I just want one person to explain to me the need for partial birth abortion. I just need one example why this is needed.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Stu-
Again, we toppled the government, hunted the man down, captured him hiding in a hole, and turned him over to his political enemies. That's at the very least, a link.

I don't share your views about being the world's policeman. And, just because I don't, please don't imply that I would ignore the cries of an abused child.

I'm not sure what you were getting at with the conspiracy theories, but I can't imagine a reason why the federal government would withhold information on what was found in Iraq.

I agree with your statements on picking our representatives.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Again Dennis, we didn't turn him over to his political enemies, we turned him over to the people in power. We didn't determine their views before we handed him over, they were in power. I won't care if you said we were indirectly linked to his execution, I could see how someone could reach that conclusion.

I was expressing my own views, not implying that everyone who didn't share them would do nothing. But we've had cases were a woman was attacked, several times and was screaming for help, and her own neighbors did nothing. Cases were children were found half starved to death, and their neighbors did nothing.

I didn't need any of the theories behind JFK's assasination. I just wanted to point out that our governemnt wasn't forthcoming with information that happened within our own boundaries. I can't image how keeping the information about that 44 years after the fact makes any sense. Let me throw this out there as an incredibly remote scenerio...... what if the WMDs that we found originally came from our own stock piles? Would the government save more face by claiming that we found nothing, or admitting that we provided or lost to Iraq in the first place? We have supplied more than our fair share of weapons around the globe. Do you think that our representatives have been completely forth coming with all of that information?

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Aww give me a break, anyone can post a web link. Tell me what YOU think she did well or what she failed at.

I have one. She did help my home town by securing funding for a railroad museum, something that was sorely needed. Back in the day Hornell, NY was a thriving railroad hub.

We got way off track here with the delving into Pres. Clinton's career. But, the scandals are part of history.

#1. Travelgate. The Clinton's fired the White House travel staff to put their own people in. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose that every administration has done something similar to that before. But, Pres. Clinton ran on the promise that his administration would be the most ethical in history. Firing a staff of people that was around for years was not a good step.

#2 Vince Foster - No one really knows what happened to Foster, it was found to be a suicide, but there were too many unanswered questions about how he died.

#3 Taxgate - Pres. Clinton was elected to the White House partly because the previous president lied about not raising taxes (the "read my lips, no new taxes pledge") Pres. Clinton promised not to raise taxes. Problem is, the day after the election, Pres. Clinton admitted that the figures were wrong and that he would have to raise taxes after all.

#4 The Paula Jones affair - Here was an American citizen trying to obtain justice because she was unfairly treated at the hands of Gov. Clinton. She filed a lawsuit and ultimately Pres. Clinton had to testify under oath about an affair he was having with Miss Monica Lewinsky. He lied under oath, thereby committing a felony. He also went before the American people and lied on national TV.

#5 Pardongate - At the end of his presidency Pres. Clinton pardoned various people. Again, nothing wrong with that, except some of the people he pardoned were FALN terrorists.

#6 The USS Cole - What was the result of the USS Cole bombing? Not a darned thing. Pres. Clinton had very good intelligence on who the attackers were and where they came from and yet did nothing.

#7 Somalia

#8 Almost forgot one - The firing of the 93 federal attorneys. All 93 were fired. Of course Pres. Clinton came up with the stock excuse that all administrations fired attorneys. True, but not one administration ever fired all 93 attorneys.

#9 Almost forgot another one - Filegate - Remember the FBI files that were found in the White House? These were files detailing the activities of private citizens and the President was not supposed to have them.

Whew! That was hard work, but it was only my opinion.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

So Ray, who's the front runner for your vote in 2008?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Stuart- I do believe that our representatives have been forthcoming. If I come to know otherwise, I'll take whatever action is appropriate and available to me. I hope you'll do the same.

In regards to partial birth abortions, my understanding is that they are performed when the mother's life is in grave danger and there is no possibility that the child will survive outside of the womb. They are also performed when the fetus is incredibly malformed and will not survive outside of the womb.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Geez Ray. I asked for a couple of days. I just posted the link to get us started. R-E-L-A-X.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, that doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand how the mother could have carried to the point of delivering the child, they take the child half way out, abort it, and then attend to the mother. Why not just attend to the mother and let nature take it's course. And with the scenario of the deformed baby that is going to die anyway........... why do they need to speed up the process?
The timing on this conservation is ironic. The Supreme Court just made a decision on it yesterday. People were protesting about that. Some of them were upset that they didn't provide a clause when the life of the mother was at risk. So not all of these were being done over the concerns for the health of the mother. I think that you were probably on the right track with deformed babies but it would have been more about their parents not wanting to raise them.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Geez Ray. I asked for a couple of days. I just posted the link to get us started. R-E-L-A-X.

Sorry, politics gets me toooooooooooooooooooooooooo serious :)

No more bashing, I promise (even I had something good to say about Sen. Clinton :) )

Even though he has not officialy announced his campaign, I like Fred Thompson, but we'll see.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Stu- I get my info by google search, so I'm no expert. But, I don't think that the timing is such that the baby has any chance of survival (pre-pre-pre mature), and the mother's life is at risk because of the baby.

I also don't think that when they refer to a severely deformed baby, that we are talking about cosmetics. I think the deformities to which they refer will not allow the baby to live outside of the womb.

[AMTCM John Long]

IMO, politics is more about philosophy than the individual (Bush, Clinton, Pelosi, etc). Individuals come and go, tradition tends to have a longer life. With that said, I lean to the conservative/traditional viewpoints.

I would like to see more from former Sen Fred Thompson and what he has to offer up should he decide to enter that race.:cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, I don't know what pre-mature is anymore. My son was born at 29 weeks and is healthier than any of us. There was a baby girl in the same neo-natal unit that only weighted 1lb 7oz when she was born. I read in a paper about a baby that was born weighing 9oz and was about the size of a cell phone. The advances that we've made in medicine have me scratching my head at the need for this. Enough members of the Supreme Court couldn't understand the need either.

If Sen. Thompson holds the same believes as his Law and Order character I'd seriously think about voting for him. It would be good for me if art imitated life in this case.......

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Stu-
The Supreme Court was not debating the appropriateness of the legislation. They debated its legality. Their job was decide if it was constitutional.

Ray- I like Sen. Clinton's voting record on education. She supported the No Child Left Behind bill, and a number of subsequent bills relating to the same topic. Although, the resulting legislation has some problems, it was a step in the right direction. Putting money into education reform has not been a republican strong-point.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Ray- I like Sen. Clinton's voting record on education. She supported the No Child Left Behind bill, and a number of subsequent bills relating to the same topic. Although, the resulting legislation has some problems, it was a step in the right direction. Putting money into education reform has not been a republican strong-point.

The day that Senator Clinton supports vouchers is the day that I will believe that she is serious about education reform. Sen. Clinton cannot vote for vouchers, not while she and her party receive money from the N.E.A.

Republicans are not in favor of spending more money on a problem that can only be solved by reform. For example, every time it is even suggested that teachers get tested for competency, the N.E.A. is able to get it stopped.

What I find laughable is that Democrats (mainly) love the public school system. Where do they send their children? That's right, to private school.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

You're very angry, Ray. And, so un-informed.

All teachers in the country (with some notable exceptions) are required to be "highly qualified." That means that they must hold a degree and have passed some very stringent tests on their content knowledge and teaching pedagogy. They then must be licensed by the state which places more professional development requirements upon them, usually resulting in seminars, speaking engagements, etc.

By the way Ray, do you know who pays for those stringent tests (Praxis Exams)? The teachers pay for them. So, after being started at one of the lowest professional salaries in the country, placed into school systems that are underfunded (by your tax dollars, Ray), and then after being legally obligated to take on the same responsibilities to your child as you the parent do, Ray, these same teachers are then required to pull some money out of their own pocket and prove to guys like you that they are competent.

But, school systems don't stop there. A new teacher is evaluated 3 times in a 9 month period. This is done every year for the first three years. How many times were you evaluated in your first three years, Ray?

In regards to teachers sending their children to private schools...

I picked a private school that is located about 5 miles from my pubic school. They aren't the most expensive in the area. This school charges $17,500 in tuition per year. A teacher with 5 years experience in Chattanooga makes $34,000 per year. You do the math, Ray. Do you think we're really sending our kids to private schools?

In regards to vouchers...
That's a big topic that will have to wait until another post.

I wish the N.E.A. had as much influence as the N.R.A.. Maybe then we could get our children to carry ideas and hope, instead of semi-automatics.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Dennis,
I think Ray was talking about the politicians sending their kids to private school.
I agree that teachers salaries are weak. By in large, I think that they are very dedicated people that for the most part to a great job. There are some that see that are either bunt out, or are no longer being evaluated. I know of one in particular at my son's middle school that is about as disorganized as anyone can be. The problem is once these folks are tenured, they can cruise. I don't think that many of them do, but enough do to make me dislike unions. Not just the teachers, but it is like that with all organized unions. I see and hear a tremendous amount about that with the Govt contracts that are union ran here in my area.
I don't know if the Federal Govt needs to subsidize local education. If the State would budget the property taxes as they were originally designed (1% for schools), the schools would probably be just fine. I don't mind a federally mandated standard for graduation from high school. And, there needs to be a way to hold those schools that fail to meet a standard to account. Cutting funding is not the answer. Allowing the unions to protect failing teachers is not the answer. Throwing more money at a problem is not the right answer. Studying the schools that have great records and finding out what they are doing right and following that model would probably be a step in the right direction.
Another thing that aggrivates me is seeing these State subsidized universities that still cost an arm and a leg to send our kids to, spend 40K for some pundent to come do a speach. In my opinion, that is not money well spent.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Jim-
Ray referred to democrats and I took that to mean all democrats. I suppose, though, that I shouldn't have lumped all teachers into the democrat party.

There is some truth in your statements about burned out teachers and tenure. I'm still figuring out my stance on that one.

The need for federal funding generally results from a lack of community support. A school in white suburbia gets a lot of parent involvement. Many school programs are funded by student fees, donations, and fund-drives that simply do not exist in the inner-city and rural America. There are other reasons that federal money is needed, but that would take awhile to write.

In regards to the high cost of college, I couldn't agree more. I'd even go so far as to say that college should be free, just like K-12. I'd even vote for a tax increase to pay for it. But then again, I'm a democrat. I throw money at everything.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

I guess I made too broad of a statement, yes I was referring to politicians not ordinary democrats like Senior Chief Endicott.

I really do love democratic politicians, they are always screaming about choice (not just abortion), what about my choice to send my daughter to a school of my choice? I pay property taxes, why should I have to go into debt to pay for my daughter's education? I stand by my statement that if the government run schools are so great and wonderful, why don't democratic politicians send their children there? Because they know that the government run school systems are breeding grounds for violence and immorality and that their children will not recieve the same quality education that they would receive at a private school.

Do the research on what the NEA stands for. Find out how much money is donated to the republican party vs the democratic party. In my opinion the NEA has nothing to do with the children but everything to do with power.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

But then again, I'm a democrat. I throw money at everything.

A Democrat that is willing to admit that, I am impressed!!:)

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

[quote]Teachers, parents, and the general public have long opposed private school tuition vouchers — especially when funds for vouchers compete with funds for overall improvements in America's public schools. [quote]

The above quote is taken from the NEA website. http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.html

The NEA is also against homeschooling. http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv040220.html

The Wall Street Journal also has an editorial on the NEA. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007761

Teachers' Pets
The NEA gave $65 million in its members' dues to left-liberal groups last year.

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.

Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.





We already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.
Many of the organization's disbursements--$30,000 to the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, $122,000 to the Center for Teaching Quality--at least target groups that ostensibly have a direct educational mission. But many others are a stretch, to say the least. The NEA gave $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." The National Women's Law Center, whose Web site currently features a "pocket guide" to opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts.

The new disclosure rules mark the first revisions since 1959 and took effect this year. "What wasn't clear before is how much of a part the teachers unions play in the wider liberal movement and the Democratic Party," says Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a California-based watchdog group. "They're like some philanthropic organization that passes out grant money to interest groups."

There's been a lot in the news recently about published opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid. The partisans at People for the American Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens to be vehemently anti-voucher.

The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA's Washington state affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public schools.) And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on "the construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction," received a $249,000 donation from NEA headquarters.





When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.
The good news is that for the first time members can find out how their union chieftains did their political thinking for them, by going to www.union-reports.dol.gov, where the Labor Department has posted the details.

Union officials claim that they favored such transparency all along, but the truth is they fought the new rules hard in both Congress and the courts. Originally, the AFL-CIO said detailed disclosures were too expensive, citing compliance costs in excess of $1 billion. The final bill turned out to be $54,000, or half of what the unions spent on litigation fighting the new requirements. When Secretary Chao refused to back down, the unions took her to court, and lost.

It's well understood that the NEA is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. (Or is it the other way around?) But we wonder if the union's rank-and-file stand in unity behind this laundry list of left-to-liberal recipients of money that comes out of their pockets.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I wonder how many books, supplies, and continued education grants for teachers that $65 million would have covered?
The problems are not just money, but how that money is used.
Dennis, I concur that there may be some schools and districts that get additional funds from one source or another. Mostly parents in the form of this fee or that fundraiser. I know about that all to well. I spend probably $150.00 per child (X3) at the begining of each school year just in fees for one thing or another. Then there are the sports fundraisers, band fundraisers, fun fundraisers, school bonds on the ballot... It never ends. It is not just schools but all government across the board that need to learn to budget their limited resouces and prioritize spending. I am of the feeling that when the well runs dry, that is it. Sure there may need to be some emergency funding for this or that, but that should be the exception and not the rule. We as voters and tax payers need to hold the politicians that we elect accountable for responsiblity in the fiscal arena.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, even hinting that the NRA is somehow responsible for someone going on a killing spree is as silly as the people that claim the teachers should have stopped it.
Do you have anything to link anyone who did the shootings to the NRA? And no, I'm not a member and no I don't own a gun. But the NRA wants people who stay within the law, to be able to continue legally posessing guns. And they do teach gun safety.

I'll get onboard with your free college for anyone who wants to attend. I'll even pay more taxes for it. I just want to add one small clause........ Those that get that free education, go to get educated. While they're on that free ride, they attend every class, maintain a C average in each class, and aren't allowed to drink alcohol or do drugs during the school year. If they aren't willing to do that, do they really want to go for the education, and they can pay for their own party.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Ray- give me a couple of days to get my info together and I'll answer your post.

Still waiting for your response.

I do love how Sen. Clinton can change herself to match any situation, like speaking in a southern accent in front of a group of southerners. I thought she was from the North, New York state to be specific. No, she is from Arkansas. No that isn't right either. She's from Chicago.

I thought she was pround to be a New Yorker, if so, why the southern accent? http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/11/214655/485

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I didn't forget you, Ray. I'm trying to find out why the NEA contributes to those causes. Give me a little time.

Stuart- I agree with everything you said about free college tuition.

However, you're pretty far off base on the NRA comment.

Guns are much too easy to come by. Kids on the streets are getting them because organizations like the NRA are fighting every attempt to tighten gun control.

I'm glad the NRA exists. I don't agree with them, and vote the other way every chance I get, but I do believe that people should be able to ban together to fight for what they want.

Heeeyyyy...The NRA sounds like a union.

[AMTCM John Long]

Guns are much too easy to come by. Kids on the streets are getting them because organizations like the NRA are fighting every attempt to tighten gun control.

Dennis,

You might already know what I'm going to say........but I'll say it anyway.

Lets swap a couple of words and spin it a few times.

Hot rods are much too easy to come by. Kids on the streets are getting them because organizations like UAW are fighting every attempt to limit hot rod purchases.

Twinkees are much too easy to come by. Obese people on the streets are getting them because organizations like Hostess are fighting every attempt to limit Twinkee sales.

The Second Amendment gives all of us the right to own guns. It does not give us the right to use them to break laws.

If someone chooses to use guns in an illegal manner, whose at fault?

If someone chooses to live off of Twinkees, gains weight and dies, whose at fault?

If someone chooses to drive their hot rod 50 mph over the speed limit and kills a pedestrian, whose at fault?

It's easy to blaming all of society's ills on the easy targets. However we as country have become de-sensitized (s) to personal responsibility and accountability across all spectrums of life on this earth. It's almost seems like these rules of life don't exisit anymore.

IMO, the problem it isn't the guns, the twinkees or the hot rods. It's the person behind them who chooses to misuse them. :mad: :mad:

John

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

It's an old argument.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

It's an old argument.

Being old doesn't make it false, it just makes it old.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, those people have those guns illegally. If the government put a ban on all guns, the only people who would have them would be the criminals. And don't tell me that the NRA makes it easier for people to buy guns illegally. Money makes it easier for people to buy illegal guns. It's big business. You're accusing Ray of being misinformed....... you should look into what the NRA actually does, and who some of it's biggest supporters are. The NRA isn't manufacturing those guns. They aren't putting them on the streets or into the hands of kids, and they aren't creating the legislation or the culture that goes soft and the people who break the law.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I'm not advocating a ban on guns. I simply want better gun control. The NRA fights against all gun control because they believe it will lead to a ban on guns.

Rather than know the NRA supporters, I'd like to know who they donated to. Unfortunately, they are not a union (per se) and that information is not readily available.

And, they are creating the legislation to make guns easier to procure. They do so thru the politicians that help put into office.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

I didn't forget you, Ray. I'm trying to find out why the NEA contributes to those causes. Give me a little time.

Senior Chief, be careful. When you find out WHY you might just switch to the Republican party. :)

The following is a story about how keeping guns in the hands of honest citizens really works.

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

________________________________________
Posted: April 19, 2007
1:52 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
This was not what some predicted.
In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.
Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.
Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.
The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."
Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.
Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

YI wish the N.E.A. had as much influence as the N.R.A.. Maybe then we could get our children to carry ideas and hope, instead of semi-automatics.

Dennis,

Insinuating that the NRA supports letting kids carry semi automatic weapons is about the most biased and uninformed things I have seen you post.

Getting back o the NEA for a minute, they are a TEACHERS union. They do not exist for the advancement of education they exist for the advancement of TEACHERS. To say otherwise is the same as saying that the UAW exists for the betterment of automobiles (sounds silly doesn’t it). Unions look out for their members not their member’s customers.

Now back to the NRA. The NRA defends gun rights the same way the ACLU defends the 1st amendment.

The ACLU fought to let the Nazi party march in Skokie, they fought the Flag burning law, and they fought the Pledge of Allegiance. They did this, not because they like Nazis, or think Flag burning is a good thing. They did it because they feel that anything that erodes our first amendment rights is bad. That is the position of the NRA in regards to the second amendment. Same concept, same logic. Why is it so easy for people to understand what the ACLU is trying to do and at the same time not understanding what the NRA is trying to do.

To say you don't have a problem with guns, we just need better gun control laws is the same as saying you don’t have a problem with free speech, we just need more laws to control speech. By the way, McCain-Feingold was argued yesterday; wish I could have been there.

If you don't like the 2nd amendment, start a campaign to change it. Write an amendment to restrict the right to bear arms, but please don't attack the people that are defending your constitutional rights.

As Always, Be Safe.

Brett

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Dennis,

Insinuating that the NRA supports letting kids carry semi automatic weapons is about the most biased and uninformed things I have seen you post.

Getting back o the NEA for a minute, they are a TEACHERS union. They do not exist for the advancement of education they exist for the advancement of TEACHERS. To say otherwise is the same as saying that the UAW exists for the betterment of automobiles (sounds silly doesn’t it). Unions look out for their members not their member’s customers.

Now back to the NRA. The NRA defends gun rights the same way the ACLU defends the 1st amendment.

The ACLU fought to let the Nazi party march in Skokie, they fought the Flag burning law, and they fought the Pledge of Allegiance. They did this, not because they like Nazis, or think Flag burning is a good thing. They did it because they feel that anything that erodes our first amendment rights is bad. That is the position of the NRA in regards to the second amendment. Same concept, same logic. Why is it so easy for people to understand what the ACLU is trying to do and at the same time not understanding what the NRA is trying to do.

To say you don't have a problem with guns, we just need better gun control laws is the same as saying you don’t have a problem with free speech, we just need more laws to control speech. By the way, McCain-Feingold was argued yesterday; wish I could have been there.

If you don't like the 2nd amendment, start a campaign to change it. Write an amendment to restrict the right to bear arms, but please don't attack the people that are defending your constitutional rights.

Wow!!

I am not a big supporter of the ACLU, however, like any other organization, the ACLU does do some good things, for example, a the Epworth Fellowship church erected a billboard on route 13 in Delaware that contained positive Christian messages. Someone complained about it and contacted the ACLU to get the billboard removed. The ACLU investigated and found that the billboard was on privately owned land and because of that could not force the church to remove the billboard.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

While I was refreshing my memory of the socialist begininings of the ACLU, I found this by Alan Keyes concerning presidential elections http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/keyes/070425

It is a worthwhile read.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

"Insinuating that the NRA supports letting kids carry semi automatic weapons is about the most biased and uninformed things I have seen you post."

Please. I wrote that the NRA advocates against gun control. Loose gun control laws do make it easier for kids to carry semi automatics. I never wrote that the NRA supports letting kids carry semi automatics. You insinuated that notion, not me.

Perhaps I am "biased and uniformed." But, the only thing you proved with that statement is your reactionary stance to any questioning of gun control.

I know that NRA has a purpose. And, I would not lobby to it disband it. I just wish it had less influence.

"If you don't like the 2nd amendment, start a campaign to change it. Write an amendment to restrict the right to bear arms, but please don't attack the people that are defending your constitutional rights."

Does it have to be all or nothing? I can't just lobby for stricter gun control?

I see that this is a hot button issue for you, but that doesn't give you an excuse to accuse me of attacking people that are defending my constitutional rights. I did my time in uniform, I've embraced my civic duty post-CG, I vote, and if anyone has a right to criticize the way this country operates, IT IS ME.

You be safe, as well.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Like the bumper sticker says: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

The NRA is a lobbying group. Not a union. HUGE difference. If you want to know who the NRA donates to, check the politicians. They need to report who gives what to their campaigns.

The NRA also provides and advocates and provides training on the safe use of guns, trigger locks...

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Things we should have strict controls on.

(1) Bricks.
(2) Cinder blocks.
(3) Lumber over 18" long.
(4) Saws.
(5) Hunting knives.
(6) Kitchen knives (all types).
(7) Tire irons.
(8) Baseball bats.
(9) Motorized vehicles.
(10) Golf clubs.
(11 through infinity) Anything not on the above list that can cause harm to another human being.

Extreme? You bet. But so is the idea that banning guns will cause anyone with a criminal bent that wants to hurt another human being to stop and break into a chorus of kum bay ya.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Jim- What is the difference between a lobbying group and a union?

Ray- I say "gun control", you read "gun banning." That's why this country cannot seem to have a productive debate of this issue. Too much knee-jerk reacting.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I'm in favor of gun control ... and that means putting the round right where you want it.

You must decide on what the phrase "the people" mean in the Constitution.

It can't mean one thing for the admendments you favor and another for those you dislike.

The courts have ruled for years ... "the people" ... means it's an individual right, not a collective right.

Gun Control is placing the round where you want it to go. IF you want it to go into another human, so be it, but be prepared to answer to the courts for your actions. If it were justifiable, you should go free. If it wasn't ... expect to be incarcerated. When you dance to the music, you have to pay the piper.

Attempts to establish gun control keeps the law abiding citizen from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

History is replete with examples of "gun control" turning into "gun banning". Look at the assualt weapon's ban ... if the weapon looks like an assualt weapon it was banned. Rep Waxman wanted to place a 1000% tax on bullets. That certainly would have opened the black market up. The only thing the assualt weapon ban did was raise prices on the weapons.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Lobbying groups champion a cause, usually to and through polititians. They are funded by donations and / or memberships and often rely on volunteers to get things done. NRA is a typical lobby. The CPOA is supposed to be involved in this as well (probabably through FRA).
Unions on the other hand, while lobbying is part of what they do, they are all about looking out for their dues paying members. While they may be good for the workers and union members in the short term, they generally are not good for business in the long term. If it weren't for the lobbying of congress that the UAW has done to get tariffs on foriegn auto's, the US automakers would be out of business. Why? They can't compete because the cost of labor and benifits are so high. While this is good for the worker, it is bad for the economy since we have to compete on a global scale. Far to often we see pour workers protected by the union. A company cannot simply hire good help and get rid of the bad. Or pay on a graduated scale for performance. Some of government is trying to go this way. DHS is with the MAX-HR system. It will be interesting to see how long and how far that can be pushed before it is challenged. If labor was treated like a comodity, hard workers would find good paying jobs while the lazy would be earning much less or doing those jobs that "Americans won't do".
Imagine if employers were able to hire and fire people based on productivity? Companies that had good employees would be very successful. The employee that has proven himself would be able to demand a good wage and benifit. It would behoove the employer to keep that employee while getting rid of the less productive. Business would be good, allowing for capital re-investment. This would lead to more jobs for those good workers and more revenue for the company. When unions step in requiring companies to keep the dead weight and provide more and more it reduces revenue and hurts profits. This same thing applies to taxes. When taxes are reduced, capital is generated, expansion occurs, unemployment drops due to increased demand, revenue increases and the tax base grows. Lower taxes = greater income.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Back to presidential politics................

The 8 Democratic front runners (why there are eight I have no idea, we all know who is going to get the nomination and it ain't Sen. Obama) had a debate in South Carolina last night. I really love it when they all talk about the importance of energy conservation and global warming WHILE FLYING TO THE EVENT IN INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE JETS!!

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Ray- I say "gun control", you read "gun banning." That's why this country cannot seem to have a productive debate of this issue. Too much knee-jerk reacting.

Dennis,
I don't think it's so much knee-jerk reaction, it's more like total mistrust. The folks who want more gun control are afraid that if laws aren't in place or added, that some nut toting fool will end up with a tank or rocket launcher. The folks who want to own guns believe the gun control folks are just trying to slowly but surely whittle away at gun owners rights until no private citizen can own a gun.
This has been going on for so long, no one trusts anyone who is on the opposite side of the debate. You asked Brett "Does it have to be all or nothing? I can't just lobby for stricter gun control?. Just curiousity on my part but what stricter gun control are you looking for?

Craig

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I have an idea... How about stricter sentences for the goobers that comit a crime with a gun?
Currently, a convicted felon cannot posess a gun. I wonder how many convicted felons currently have guns? I would guess it is plenty. I really don't think that more gun control laws will change that fact. It will only keep the honest folks from owning them and maybe even keep someone from protecting his family.
I don't have any problem with registering guns that I own, but I am not about to give them back.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Craig-
I'd be happy just to see every state do a background check on everyone that wishes to purchase a gun. Even the NRA would argue that most crimes conducted with a gun, are conducted by people who have previous records. Yet, in Tennessee, I can go to a local auction and purchase a gun simply by showing my TN driver's license. That's all it takes.

Jim- I agree with the stricter sentences. In fact, I believe that many states already tack on an extra 5 years for felonies committed with a gun.
In regards to lobbying groups and a union, they both use collective bargaining. They unite a group of like-minded people to force their will on others.

Ray- For every case that you cite where gun advocacy is working, I can cite a case where it is not. For every hypocrisy you can point to for the democratic candidates, I can point to an equal number for the republicans. For every tired cliché you can pull up from memory, I can match with one of my own. But, why do that? It doesn't help. It just allows us to feel clever for a few moments and doesn't do a darn thing to make things better. How about we concentrate on a candidate's plan-of-action instead? Let's debate the likely effectiveness of what they intend to do? Can we do that?

By the way, I am still looking into why the NEA donates to some of those organizations. I'll get back to you on that one. I would still like to know exactly how the NRA spends its money, too. It's not just going to politicians. Or, if it is, those guys are making a hellava lot of money!

[BMC Gene Daigle]

The issue with guns is accessibility. I believe that every law-abiding citizen has the right to own a gun. Should they be totting it to church and school, or work? Probably not. The wild Wild West, everyone owned guns, but it did not stop crimes from taking place, even murders in the middle of the street. Yes, that was then this is now, but the same thing goes for the wording of the Constitution. Circumstances are much different now, than it was back then. The playing field was much more equal then between individual citizens and the Government. A musket vs. a cannon (then). How about a shotgun, vs. laser guided missiles (now).

Eliminate all the loopholes for background checks (five days cooling off period/background check) before being able to buy a weapon, and eliminating the loophole for the mentally ill from getting their hands on a gun. Of course with the number of weapons on the streets, and almost 40% of weapons purchased are from other individual buyers, well, only the law abiding citizens would register a weapon. However, all weapons should be registered. I am sick right now, and my wife wanted to buy some cough medicine. She wanted to buy me some Non-drowsy stuff for the daytime and some different stuff for the nighttime to help me sleep. Well because of a federal law, the pharmacists had to come to the front register, and then my wife had to give them her driver’s license and sign an authorization sheet since she was buying more than one item that had the active ingredient that is used in meth labs. Pretty bad, she has had to go through more checks than someone who wants to buy a gun. Moreover, she was limited to two items max. You can buy as many guns as you want in Florida at the same time. Go figure. That is ironic.

But to talk about the Assault weapons ban, also known as the Brady Bill, since that ban was lifted in September 2004, which also prevented purchasing magazines for hand guns that had a max of 10 rounds. Well the VT killer, used magazines that had a capacity of over 30 rounds. Don't you think not having to reload so often would have made a bit of a difference?

Again, I have owned guns; I use guns often, and hear both sides of the argument. Just like most issues, common sense should prevail. I wish people would start to use logic and common sense when it applies to making laws. This is not an all or nothing issue. But common sense should prevail.

And as for the start of this post. Which party is stronger on defense, someone indicated to go back to President Clinton’s history on defense. I am sure they were talking about the early 90’s streamlining of the military. The wheels were sent in motion way before President Clinton took office and who was Secretary of Defense until 1993? That is right. Vice President Dick Cheney. The Joint Chiefs and the SOD already had decided way before then how the streamlining was to take place. And of course the War in Kosovo. How many soldiers, sailors, airman, marines, and coastguardsman died? And how long into the war did the Majority party (Republican) ask for the withdrawal of troops in combat? Within 30 days. And who were the biggest opponents. Rep. Tom Delay and Senator Trent Lott. Therefore, I guess they were not patriotic and did not support the troops back then. I guess the thinking it is not the cause the troops are fighting but who is in the big house. If the majority party has their party as President, then no worries. Otherwise, it is just plain politics no matter if it is justified or not to go to war. We chose to start this war, and did not fully preapre before sending our troops into harms way. Yes we don't go into a war with what we want, but what we have, but when we chose the who, what, when, where, and why, there was no reason to ensure that we had all of our bases covered, mainly the training, the materials (body armor and armored vehicles), and an exit strategy, once the objectives were met. How is that being strong on defense. And I do believe 9-11 happened during a Republican administration during a Republican majority. With a Republican New York Mayor who chose to place the Command Center, during an emergency, under the Twin Towers, and not listening to those with greater wisdom for another location, which also contributed to the number of lives lost on that day.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Just for you Dennis; in addition to lobbying to protect our 2nd amendment rights, the NRA does the following:

1. NRA's Competitive Shooting Division offers a wide range of activities in all types of shooting, for everyone from the novice to the world-class competitor

2. The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches children in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun.

3. Whether you're a new or prospective gun owner or hunter in search of training, whatever your age or level of expertise, whatever type of firearm you're interested in, NRA's Education & Training Division is here to help you.

4. When it comes to hunting and skills training, America's 17 million hunters have known for years where to go: The NRA. Working in cooperation with the State of New York in 1949, we developed hunter safety training as it's known today.

5. Serving the law enforcement and military community for over 45 years by providing the best, most current, and most cost-effective law enforcement firearm instructor training anywhere. We also conduct the National Police Shooting Championships and support police shooting competition as an extension of training.

6. Come and shoot on one of the most technically advanced, user-friendly indoor shooting ranges in the country -- right in the basement of NRA Headquarters!

7. NRA Youth Programs offer many opportunities for youths who are interested in the shooting sports and our firearms heritage.

8. Welcome to the National Rifle Association's Women's Programs Department! This department is pleased to offer a wide range of programs and opportunities for women from all walks of life.

9. Annual members receive $5,000 of Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage at NO COST to you. The plan covers accidents at, or to and from, an NRA event; and accidents that occur during the use of firearms or hunting equipment while hunting. Insurance must be activated at time of renewal.

10. Life members receive $10,000 of Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage at NO COST to you. The plan covers accidents at, or to and from, an NRA event; and accidents that occur during the use of firearms or hunting equipment while hunting. Insurance must be activated at time of upgrade to Life member status

11. Law Enforcement Officers, that are NRA members, killed in the line of duty will have $25,000 in coverage.

12. $1,000 of ArmsCare coverage with your NRA membership. This plan covers insured firearms, air guns, bows and arrows against theft, accidental loss, and damage.

Of course you get you choice of 3 monthly magazines.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Nice post , Gene. Where the hell have you been?!?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

If the majority party has their party as President, then no worries. Otherwise, it is just plain politics no matter if it is justified or not to go to war.

You are right Gene.

Sorry for the double post, but Gene and I were posting at the same time.

The problem with politics is the politicians. The are, for the most part, power hungry. The power of the presidency is like a drug and they are addicted. It is not about money. They all have plenty of that. It is about power and influence. In my opinion, we need to get rid of the old wood. We need to limit the amount of time that one can stay in office. Even amoung themselves there is the seniority heirarchy. They feed on each their own young if they need to in order to get that better office. Those are the ones that scare me the most. Senator Clinton scares me the most of all the candidates. Her whole adult life has been spent chasing the office. I have heard to many horror stories about her and seen to many faces of her over the years to trust her for a second. Of course I don't like her politics either, but that is another story. Guliani is a proven leader. I don't think that he is on a power trip. I think he is running because he has been pressured for several years and believes that he can do a good job leading our nation. I am anxious to see more about him. I am also looking forward to learning more about Romney. He has done very well in business. I have heard some great stories about the 2002 Olympics that he was head of and things that he did there. I am not all that familiar with his term as Gov of Mass, but from what I hear, he did a good job there, in a very liberal state. Senator McCain, not interested. I have seen his colors change to many times to trust him either. Senator Obama, way to far left for me.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Politicians chase office like officers chase promotions. Their talents and skills will determine how high they rise. We tell every child that they can aspire to be President. Yet, when a politician clearly wants the office, we chastise him/her for their ambition. Did you ever think that perhaps the appeal of power is its ability to make change?

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Ray- For every case that you cite where gun advocacy is working, I can cite a case where it is not. For every hypocrisy you can point to for the democratic candidates, I can point to an equal number for the republicans. By the way, I am still looking into why the NEA donates to some of those organizations. I'll get back to you on that one.

Senior, have you been reading form the Democratic play book again? I remember during the Clinton years, when he was engaging in questionable behavior with an intern and lying about it, that the media (and the Clintons) saying it was okay, everybody does it.

It took me about 15 minutes to list what I felt Pres. Bush was doing right and what he was doing wrong. I didn’t have to consult the ‘net for research either. I knew these things because I pay attention to what’s going on.

If Sen. Hillary Clinton is so wonderful, why is it taking so long for you to list the things you believe she has done right?

As far as the NEA goes, there is no why. Just the fact that the NEA is contributing to far left organizations is enough to prove to me that the NEA is not about the children, but more about power and money. The NRA is a heck of lot more helpful than the NEA ever was. The NRA protects life by helping “the people” to have the tools they need to protect themselves, just check out what the NEA’s position is on abortion. I can guarantee you that they are not pro-life.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

It doesn't really matter which side is in power...the other side will try all they can to drag anchor and stop the other from getting anything done...both the Republicans and Democrats do it...The only thing on politicians minds is to get their party in power because that is where the money is...the only thing that ever seems to get done is the congressinal raise...whatever happened to democracy, vote on a issues then get onboard with the results...not vote on an issue then do all you can to hose that issue if you lose...

When we have many farms in trouble in middle america, why can't we switch to bio fuels grown by our own breadbasket. The answer is because too many politicians make too much money from the oil industry. Instead of creating our own fuels, creating more work and product for our own markets, politicians today only watch as gas prices skyrocket for the blue collar people of this country...of course they all say that gas prices are horrible and that we muct do more to prevent global warming...all while flying all over the country in private jets on the pulbic's dime, heating multiple houses all over the country, etc...give me a break, I just wish more indepent politicians ran for office and that more people voted for them, that way we wouldn't be locked between two opposite parties that can't see eye to eye enough for the good of the people the represent.

IMO...

Strat sends...

[AMTCM John Long]

I just wish more indepent politicians ran for office and that more people voted for them, that way we wouldn't be locked between two opposite parties that can't see eye to eye enough for the good of the people the represent.

IMO...

Strat sends...

Here's a theory on that.......if we had term limits we could get more indy's to run. Right now under the entrenched two-party system I don't see it happening.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Here's a theory on that.......if we had term limits we could get more indy's to run. Right now under the entrenched two-party system I don't see it happening.

The voters in Washington State tried that. Wanna guess what happened? In 1992, after the issue was passed by the voters, Tom Foley , the Speaker of the House at that time went to court to have it overturned.
From Wikepedia.com.

During his time in the House, Foley repeatedly opposed efforts to impose term limits on Washington state's elected officials, winning the support of the state's voters to reject term limits in a 1991 referendum. However, in 1992, a term limit ballot initiative was approved by the state's voters.
Foley brought suit, challenging the constitutionality of a state law setting eligibility requirements on federal offices. Foley won his suit, with federal courts declaring that states did not have the authority under the U.S. Constitution to limit the terms of federal officeholders.
However, in Foley's bid for a 16th term in the House, his Republican opponent, George Nethercutt, used the issue against him, repeatedly citing the caption of the federal case brought by Foley, "Foley against the People of the State of Washington." Nethercutt vowed that if elected, he would not serve more than three terms in the House (but ultimately served for five terms). So much for honesty in politics. Ed. Foley lost in a narrow race that coincided with the Republican electoral triumph of 1994. Foley became the first sitting speaker of the House to lose his bid for re-election since William Pennington (R-New Jersey) in 1860. He is now commonly viewed as a political casualty of the term limits controversy of the early 1990s.

Term limits would help limit the corruption in Washington, DC, unfortunately, that will not happen. Why would they put themselves into a position to only serve X amount a terms and then go back home and live under the laws they passed? Sad to say it appears that our system is broke and we the people are powerless to do anything about it.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

"I remember during the Clinton years, when he was engaging in questionable behavior with an intern and lying about it, that the media (and the Clintons) saying it was okay, everybody does it. "
Show me where the Clintons said that.

"If Sen. Hillary Clinton is so wonderful, why is it taking so long for you to list the things you believe she has done right?"
I gave you a direct link to her voting record, and explained why I liked her record on education. We judge a senator's worth by his/her voting record. What else are you looking for?

And, Ray, when you quote me in a block of text, at least put some "..." in the gaps that you deleted. You wouldn't want people thinking that you are spinning my words. But, I guess that does imply that you don't want to talk about plans-of-action.

Also, when you quote from Wikipedia, do so with the understanding that those articles can be edited by anyone with internet access.

Funny that you didn't mention any of the republicans that have voted down term limits. You do know that, right? Republicans are the biggest opponents of term limits. I know its true because I just wrote it on Wikipedia.

"The NRA protects life by helping “the people” to have the tools they need to protect themselves, just check out what the NEA’s position is on abortion. I can guarantee you that they are not pro-life."
The NRA protects life and the NEA takes life? Holy Moly, Ray. Are you serious?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Holy spinning out of control Batman. Dennis, you just put two and two together and came up with seven.

Dennis, President Clinton did use the defense that he was a man, and implied all men cheat. They also successfully spun that his lying under oath was okay, because the whole thing was a private matter about their marriage.
Senator Clinton called the whole scandal a right wing conspiracy created to discredit her husband.
I think the bills that someone creates are a better measure of what they've done than just their voting record. What has she done on her own? What has she sponsored or created that is worthy of recognition?

And for everybody.......... people in office who have a shot at being re-elected are opposed to term limits. Those that aren't don't want other people sticking around filling that seat. In my opinion term limits are bad. Keep people around as long as they're productive. Once they aren't elect someone who will be. We need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator. If you base your vote on the person who spent the most money to get elected, you deserve what you get. If you can't see a person for the illusionist they are, sit back and enjoy their show. If you see what they're doing and don't like it, elect someone else.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=270354

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=272149

http://clinton.senate.gov/features/defense/index.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
(that one's for Ray)

http://www.jfanow.org/jfanow/index.php?mode=P&id=3208

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=248770&Month=3&Year=2007

I could go on and on. And, those bills are specifically military oriented.

Now, back to the President Clinton having "...sex with that woman..." fiasco. Did it happen? Of course. Did he lie? Of course. Should he have been impeached? Probably. I don't like public officials who lie under oath. Should that overshadow everything he did in the eight years he was President? Of course, not!

If you are going to ignore the positives of any Presidency and talk only of the negatives, you're demonstrating you care more about the politics than the work. Ronald Regan, George Bush sr., and George Bush jr. have done some great things. When I decide if they are good Presidents, I don't start with their politics, I start with their record.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

"If Sen. Hillary Clinton is so wonderful, why is it taking so long for you to list the things you believe she has done right?"
I gave you a direct link to her voting record, and explained why I liked her record on education. We judge a senator's worth by his/her voting record. What else are you looking for?

Funny that you didn't mention any of the republicans that have voted down term limits. You do know that, right? Republicans are the biggest opponents of term limits. I know its true because I just wrote it on Wikipedia.

"The NRA protects life by helping “the people” to have the tools they need to protect themselves, just check out what the NEA’s position is on abortion. I can guarantee you that they are not pro-life."
The NRA protects life and the NEA takes life? Holy Moly, Ray. Are you serious?

I want to hear it from your mouth, err, key pad. I could have went to some website to list the achievements of Pres. Bush but didn't. You don't have to list everything, just give me the highlights.

Ahem, I agree with you that Republicans are against term limits, and you did not have to post it to Wikepedia. The guy that replaced Foley was for term limits. He even vowed to serve only three terms, but instead changed his mind and served another two. No one in their right mind would vote themselves out of a job.

A convicted rapist breaks into a house while the husband is away. The rapist is a convicted felon and therefore should not be carrying a gun. He is anyways. He did not break into the house to chit chat with the wife. The rapist makes enough noise to cause the wife to call the police. The rapist breaks down the bedroom door and abuses the wife. The police arrive 10 miinutes after the wife calls the police, they arrive to comfort a sobbing woman, the rapist is no where in sight. Due to the strict gun control laws of the city (Washington, DC?) the woman was not allowed to protect herself.

The NRA does more to protect innocenthuman life than the NEA will ever do. Call me crazy, but I believe in that. The NEA lobbies for strict gun control laws that would keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens. All the while promoting abortion.

Dennis, let's face it. You and I will never see eye to eye on anything political. You know what? That's okay. I worked with two different people that had the same views as you do. I used to have some rather heated discussions with them. Did I get angry with them? No. Did I have bad feelings about them. Not a chance. I still consider them to be friends (I just don't have political discussions with them because I know what will happen).

[AMTCM John Long]

I can't remember the guys name, but he was Bob Wooward's partner in the Watergate deal. This guy has a book coming out on Sen Clinton that is supposed to be quite revealing. If the book lives up to the hype, it should make for some interesting politicking(s).:eek::mad::eek:

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

The big news in Virginia is that there is a bill before Congress that would allow drilling for oil and gas, 50 miles off the coast of Virginia. I believe this is a good plan, perhaps it would help lessen our dependency on mid east oil and maybe lower the price we pay for fuel.

However, I really don't think that the plan has much of a chance for success, the environmental lobby is much too strong. This is not a democratic or republican problem, it affects both parties. If the republicans had the guts to stand up to the environmental lobbyists, drilling would already be going on in ANWAR, since the republican party was in control long enough to make it happen.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Do you remember the video they showed from Bush's Pholisphy? For those that have not seen it it is pretty good.

I doubt it was his "pholisphy" but something someone else told him it was. Perhaps Cheney or Rumsfeld.

I have a co-worker who's father worked with Dubya at an oil firm in New Olreans. All he did there was drink and tell dirty jokes. Dubya was eventually fired for not bringing in business. Yep, he's got a "pholisphy." Don't forget this is a guy who doesn't read.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

The NRA protects life and the NEA takes life? Holy Moly, Ray. Are you serious?

Lets change that to "innocent" life.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

The name game and is it just a simple thing to overlook.

Think back to the '92 presidential race. Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of William Jefferson Clinton, referred to herself during the campaign as Hillary Clinton. As soon as she was elected she went back to using her maiden name. Why? Because Mrs. Clinton knew that the United States was still a nation of traditionalists and would not go for a married woman using her maiden name. After the election it did not matter.

Just recently Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the Rodham. Why? Same reason as above.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Don't forget this is a guy who doesn't read.

This is also the first president to have a masters degree.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Who did he get to do his homework?

Sorry. Cheap shot.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Whoever he got was better than whoever John Kerry got, as GWBs grades were better than JFKs.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/

The link to the Boston Globe's report.

[AMTCM John Long]

Whoever he got was better than whoever John Kerry got, as GWBs grades were better than JFKs.

That was pretty funny!:p

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Yep, he's got a "pholisphy." Don't forget this is a guy who doesn't read.

I think you need to back that one up. If you have facts state them, if not, stop posting left wing propaganda.

By the way, I have a Friend that has a Brother that has an Uncle that worked for NASA and he said the whole Apollo thing was filmed in Hollywood. It must be true, he worked for NASA :)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17bushbooks.htm

Be Safe.

Brett

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

There is a plausible explanation for the perception that Pres. Bush isn't too smart.

When he is giving a speech he appears to be nervous and not comfortable