Obama shit in his messkit......

[Gunner]

This...is NOT going to go over well with the military...oooooh
boy howdy no its not.....



"According to this report, yesterday (27 October) Obama ordered the
immediate removal of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette from his command
of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located
in the Middle East.

CSG-3 is one of five US Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned
to the US Pacific Fleet. US Navy carrier strike groups are employed in
a variety of roles, which involve gaining and maintaining sea control
and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower
ashore.

The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) is the strike
group's current flagship, and as of 2012, other units assigned to
Carrier Strike Group Three include Carrier Air Wing Nine; the
guided-missile cruisers USS Mobile Bay (CG-53) and USS Antietam
(CG-54); and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 21, the guided-missile
destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108), USS Dewey (DDG-105), USS Kidd
(DDG-100), and USS Milius (DDG-69).

US news reports on Obama's unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy
Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouette's removal was for
"allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment" that arose during
the strike group's deployment to the Middle East.

This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette's firing by
President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying
orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to "assist and
provide intelligence for" American military forces ordered into action
by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the
United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces
attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military
intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama.
And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this
growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military
leaders:

"The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head
of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received
requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham
immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the
Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to
screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute
after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended
General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command."

Read more here:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2032156/pg1





--
"President Obama is not going to lose. He will be re-elected. It is those of
you who have these grand fantasies of that pip-squeak Romney actually having
a chance at winning the election that will have to wake up to reality the
day after the election. I hear there is plenty of room in the rest of the
world where you can reside and establish new citizenship.
Kirby Grant,<KGr...@yahoo.com>

[terryc]

On 30/10/12 15:44, Gunner wrote:
> This...is NOT going to go over well with the military...oooooh
> boy howdy no its not.....

Only the morons in the military. People with something other than
meatloaf betwee their ears will think otherwise.

> General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to
> screw it, he was going to help anyhow.

In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?

> This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette's firing by
> President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying
> orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to "assist and
> provide intelligence for" American military forces ordered into action
> by US Army General Carter Ham,

And this silly idiot was going to assist him.

Rightly or wrongly, a command was given by higher up. they both sort to
disobey that command and received the inevitable consequences of their
action.

[Snag]

terryc wrote:
> On 30/10/12 15:44, Gunner wrote:
>> This...is NOT going to go over well with the military...oooooh
>> boy howdy no its not.....
>
> Only the morons in the military. People with something other than
> meatloaf betwee their ears will think otherwise.
>
>> General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was
>> to screw it, he was going to help anyhow.
>
> In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
> launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?
>

BZZZZZT wrong , he was going to protect US embassy property . ALL
EMBASSIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SOIL OF THE COUNTRY THEY REPRESENT . Thus he
would be protecting our country by defending the embassy .
We're still waiting for an explanation why security was pulled from an
embassy in a hostile country ... and the rumors have indicated that they
were set up by the president for political reasons . I believe they call
that treason .

>> This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette's firing by
>> President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying
>> orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to "assist and
>> provide intelligence for" American military forces ordered into
>> action by US Army General Carter Ham,
>
> And this silly idiot was going to assist him.
>
> Rightly or wrongly, a command was given by higher up. they both sort
> to disobey that command and received the inevitable consequences of
> their action.

I'm not saying they were in the right to disobey , I'm saying that the CIC
was wrong to deny our citizens on our soil the protection they were supposed
to have .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

[Frank]

If Obama is reelected, which I doubt, the seeds are sown for his
impeachment.

[rbowman]

Gunner wrote:

> The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) is the strike
> group's current flagship, and as of 2012, other units assigned to
> Carrier Strike Group Three include Carrier Air Wing Nine; the
> guided-missile cruisers USS Mobile Bay (CG-53) and USS Antietam
> (CG-54); and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 21, the guided-missile
> destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108), USS Dewey (DDG-105), USS Kidd
> (DDG-100), and USS Milius (DDG-69).

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/cg53/Pages/MobileBayParticipatesinValiantShield.aspx#.UI_YqrTA89t
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/Pages/JointForcestoConductValiantShieldExercise.aspx#.UI_ZerTA89s

Navy disinformation or was the Stennis playing games in Guam?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Snag wrote:
>
> I'm not saying they were in the right to disobey, I'm saying that

> the CIC was wrong to deny our citizens on our soil the protection
> they were supposed to have.

I agree, 100%.

[Winston_Smith]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:44:52 -0700, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>US news reports on Obama's unprecedented firing

Unprecedented? Truman fired MacArthur in 1951. Same story different
branch of the military. MacArthur was actually fighting a shooting war
in Korea at the time. All Obama has is Bush's little blunder.

>of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime

War time ? Are the Germans and Japanese getting out of control again?
Or do you mean Bush's war that was to be over in six weeks?

>state that Admiral Gaouette's removal was for
>"allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment" that arose during
>the strike group's deployment to the Middle East.
>
>This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette's firing by
>President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying
>orders

And disobeying orders is just fine with über-Führer Gunner. Standard
military practice and nothing to get your knickers in a twist over,
über-Führer Gunner says.

Also note. After Romney got done flapping his jaws for the last year
about what a great mistake it was to set a date to get out of
Afghanistan - a flap fest you and the rest of your merry band of
NeoCons ran for a year in the election of 2008 - he said in the last
debate we would be out by 2014. Sounds like a deadline to me.

Shake that etch-a-sketch one more time Gunner.

[terryc]

On 30/10/12 22:59, Snag wrote:
> terryc wrote:
>> On 30/10/12 15:44, Gunner wrote:
>>> This...is NOT going to go over well with the military...oooooh
>>> boy howdy no its not.....
>>
>> Only the morons in the military. People with something other than
>> meatloaf betwee their ears will think otherwise.
>>
>>> General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was
>>> to screw it, he was going to help anyhow.
>>
>> In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
>> launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?
>>
>
> BZZZZZT wrong , he was going to protect US embassy property . ALL
> EMBASSIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SOIL OF THE COUNTRY THEY REPRESENT . Thus he
> would be protecting our country by defending the embassy .

Bullshit. Your country may be given "title" to the land, but you do not
invade another country to send armed forces to defend it. It is still,
bottom line, part of that other country.

>>
>> Rightly or wrongly, a command was given by higher up. they both sort
>> to disobey that command and received the inevitable consequences of
>> their action.
>
> I'm not saying they were in the right to disobey , I'm saying that the CIC
> was wrong to deny our citizens on our soil the protection they were supposed
> to have .

some of you people live in pipe dream world. How many people do the
powers that be allow to be killed each year becuasethey do not take some
basic actions to repair, replace and improve.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:59:04 -0500, "Snag" <snag...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>terryc wrote:
>> On 30/10/12 15:44, Gunner wrote:
>>> This...is NOT going to go over well with the military...oooooh
>>> boy howdy no its not.....
>>
>> Only the morons in the military. People with something other than
>> meatloaf betwee their ears will think otherwise.

Notice TerryC thinks that people in the military are stupid? Ignorant
people secure in their own buffoonery tend to discredit the military.

>>
>>> General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was
>>> to screw it, he was going to help anyhow.
>>
>> In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
>> launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?
>>
>
> BZZZZZT wrong , he was going to protect US embassy property . ALL
>EMBASSIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SOIL OF THE COUNTRY THEY REPRESENT . Thus he
>would be protecting our country by defending the embassy .
> We're still waiting for an explanation why security was pulled from an
>embassy in a hostile country ... and the rumors have indicated that they
>were set up by the president for political reasons . I believe they call
>that treason .

Indeed they do.

>
>>> This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette's firing by
>>> President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying
>>> orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to "assist and
>>> provide intelligence for" American military forces ordered into
>>> action by US Army General Carter Ham,
>>
>> And this silly idiot was going to assist him.
>>
>> Rightly or wrongly, a command was given by higher up. they both sort
>> to disobey that command and received the inevitable consequences of
>> their action.
>
> I'm not saying they were in the right to disobey , I'm saying that the CIC
>was wrong to deny our citizens on our soil the protection they were supposed
>to have .

As the word gets around what happened.....think Obama is going to be
getting the military vote?

Id bet terribly surprised if even the Secret Service doesnt now hold
him in deep contempt.

Chuckle

Gunner

[Jeff M]

On 10/30/2012 6:59 AM, Snag wrote:
> terryc wrote:
>> On 30/10/12 15:44, Gunner wrote:
>>> This...is NOT going to go over well with the military...oooooh
>>> boy howdy no its not.....
>>
>> Only the morons in the military. People with something other than
>> meatloaf betwee their ears will think otherwise.
>>
>>> General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was
>>> to screw it, he was going to help anyhow.
>>
>> In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
>> launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?
>>
>
> BZZZZZT wrong , he was going to protect US embassy property . ALL
> EMBASSIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SOIL OF THE COUNTRY THEY REPRESENT . Thus he
> would be protecting our country by defending the embassy .

Factually incorrect. Embassies are not considered to be the sovereign
territory of the country represented. The considerations and exemptions
extended to diplomats and embassies are courtesies granted by
convention, treaty and long-established practice, nothing more.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:53:38 +1100, terryc
<newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote:

<snip>

>In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
>launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?

<snip>

Two observations:

(1) The Nuremberg Military Tribunal and subsequent hangings
established "I was only following orders" is not a valid
excuse or justification. ==>There is such a thing as an
illegal order<==, and IMNSHO an order to abandon U.S.
citizens, military or otherwise to mob action is illegal.
Lethal force need not have been used. For example a few
supersonic full afterburner passes at slightly above head
level over the "mobs" would have done wonders to concentrate
their attention on the urgent business they had at home...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

(2) The U.S. military, and indeed all governmental
employees, are sworn to uphold, protect and defend the
Constitution [not the president/administration/government]
of the United States from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.
In this era of the internet, YouTube, Wikileaks, thumb
drives, and miniature digital audio/vidio recorders, it is
no longer necessary to park the tanks on the White House
lawn to effect a regime change...
http://www.amazon.com/Mini-Recorder-Video-Camera-1280/dp/B007TP0M5W/ref=pd_cp_p_0


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Snag]

terryc wrote:
> On 30/10/12 22:59, Snag wrote:
>> terryc wrote:
>>> On 30/10/12 15:44, Gunner wrote:
>>>> This...is NOT going to go over well with the military...oooooh
>>>> boy howdy no its not.....
>>>
>>> Only the morons in the military. People with something other than
>>> meatloaf betwee their ears will think otherwise.
>>>
>>>> General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was
>>>> to screw it, he was going to help anyhow.
>>>
>>> In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
>>> launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?
>>>
>>
>> BZZZZZT wrong , he was going to protect US embassy property .
>> ALL EMBASSIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SOIL OF THE COUNTRY THEY
>> REPRESENT . Thus he would be protecting our country by defending the
>> embassy .
>
> Bullshit. Your country may be given "title" to the land, but you do
> not invade another country to send armed forces to defend it. It is
> still, bottom line, part of that other country.
>

Nope , you need to check your facts . An embassy is considered to be part
of the country it represents .

[Snag]

Okay , semantics ... see the 4th paragraph at this link -
http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm
It says that an attack on an embassy is considered to be an attack on that
country - which means that defending said embassy is within the scope of our
military .

[Gunner]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:43:58 -0500, "Snag" <snag...@comcast.net>

Absolutely correct.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:52:21 -0500, "Snag" <snag...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>The considerations and
>> exemptions extended to diplomats and embassies are courtesies granted
>> by convention, treaty and long-established practice, nothing more.

Thats a rather interesting bit the OP stated..isnt it?

"convention, treaty and long established practice"

Seems as though your opponent appears to be an American Leftwinger
when he can blow off "convention, treaty and long established
practice" with such ease.

Gunner

[Winston_Smith]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:30:41 -0500, G. Morgan
<seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote:

>Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>Also note. After Romney got done flapping his jaws for the last year
>>about what a great mistake it was to set a date to get out of
>>Afghanistan - a flap fest you and the rest of your merry band of
>>NeoCons ran for a year in the election of 2008 - he said in the last
>>debate we would be out by 2014. Sounds like a deadline to me.
>

>And you have the nerve to call me a liberal? Lol... you fuckwit.

I hold you in high regard too. Mostly for your outstanding ability at
filthy language.

[Winston_Smith]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:30:41 -0500, G. Morgan
<seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote:

>Winston_Smith wrote:
>

>>Also note. After Romney got done flapping his jaws for the last year
>>about what a great mistake it was to set a date to get out of
>>Afghanistan - a flap fest you and the rest of your merry band of
>>NeoCons ran for a year in the election of 2008 - he said in the last
>>debate we would be out by 2014. Sounds like a deadline to me.
>

>And you have the nerve to call me a liberal? Lol... you fuckwit.

Please correct anything I wrote that is factually incorrect.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Snag" <snag...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n_Xjs.12769$Be....@newsfe13.iad...

From what I understand the attack was upon the consulate, not the embassy,
and so you might want to look up the differences between the two before you
go on any further with this.

[terryc]

The word is "considered". It follows from mutual respect.
It works that local laws do not apply. End of story.

It doesn't mean that you can do anything you like there.

[terryc]

On 31/10/12 06:08, Gunner wrote:

> As the word gets around what happened.....think Obama is going to be
> getting the military vote?

For someone who is a wanna be, you sure claim to know what they think.
Hint, if there was widespread support in the military, how come SFA
actually occurred.

What was written was "fsck it, we're going and next thing he gets a pink
slip" and meekly takes it. In otherwords, he and everyone else around
him knew that he had stepped outside his authority and blown his career
and what was going to happen was inevitable.

BTW, does anyone have a credible source that this actually occurred?

[terryc]

On 31/10/12 09:39, Gunner wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:52:21 -0500, "Snag"<snag...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The considerations and
>>> exemptions extended to diplomats and embassies are courtesies granted
>>> by convention, treaty and long-established practice, nothing more.
>
> Thats a rather interesting bit the OP stated..isnt it?
>
> "convention, treaty and long established practice"
>
> Seems as though your opponent appears to be an American Leftwinger
> when he can blow off "convention, treaty and long established
> practice" with such ease.

In otherwords, gumbie is totally trumped by the facts of reality.

[terryc]

On 31/10/12 07:08, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:53:38 +1100, terryc
> <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
>> launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?
> <snip>
>
> Two observations:
>
> (1) The Nuremberg Military Tribunal and subsequent hangings
> established "I was only following orders" is not a valid
> excuse or justification. ==>There is such a thing as an
> illegal order<==, and IMNSHO an order to abandon U.S.
> citizens, military or otherwise to mob action is illegal.

As you said, it is your opinion and a common fallacy. no country has the
right to invade another country in pursuit of the excuse of "protecting
our citizens".

> Lethal force need not have been used. For example a few
> supersonic full afterburner passes at slightly above head
> level over the "mobs" would have done wonders to concentrate
> their attention on the urgent business they had at home..

Umm, that worked so well in Vietnam didn't. Pop up and cause a rucus,
then wait for the calvalry to come flying in and POW, you nail them.

What is the speed of those jets compared to anti-aricraft stuff
available on the black market? While you're at it, list the cost in
pilot & aircraft Vs the cost of one of those.

[Michael A. Terrell]

terryc wrote:
>
> On 31/10/12 06:08, Gunner wrote:
>
> > As the word gets around what happened.....think Obama is going to be
> > getting the military vote?
>
> For someone who is a wanna be, you sure claim to know what they think.
> Hint, if there was widespread support in the military, how come SFA
> actually occurred.
>
> What was written was "fsck it, we're going and next thing he gets a pink
> slip" and meekly takes it. In otherwords, he and everyone else around
> him knew that he had stepped outside his authority and blown his career
> and what was going to happen was inevitable.

How the hell do you know? Anyway, the military doesn't issue 'pink
slips'. Not that anyone expects you to know the process.

[Jeff M]

On 10/31/2012 3:47 AM, terryc wrote:
> On 31/10/12 07:08, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:53:38 +1100, terryc
>> <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
>>> launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?
>> <snip>
>>
>> Two observations:
>>
>> (1) The Nuremberg Military Tribunal and subsequent hangings
>> established "I was only following orders" is not a valid
>> excuse or justification. ==>There is such a thing as an
>> illegal order<==, and IMNSHO an order to abandon U.S.
>> citizens, military or otherwise to mob action is illegal.
>
> As you said, it is your opinion and a common fallacy. no country has the
> right to invade another country in pursuit of the excuse of "protecting
> our citizens".

But it is often cited as a primary casus belli. The US has used that
justification many times. The usage itself is not, however, very
controversial. Typically, most controversy has to do with the facts of
the case, such as whether or not our citizens were really in that much
danger.

[Shall not be infringed]

Exactly when did we cease military operations in Libya?

[Shall not be infringed]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:17:27 PM UTC-4, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:44:52 -0700, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >US news reports on Obama's unprecedented firing
>
>
>
> Unprecedented? Truman fired MacArthur in 1951. Same story different
>
> branch of the military. MacArthur was actually fighting a shooting war
>
> in Korea at the time. All Obama has is Bush's little blunder.

Libya is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

Argue away!

[terryc]

On 01/11/12 00:20, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> terryc wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/12 06:08, Gunner wrote:
>>
>>> As the word gets around what happened.....think Obama is going to be
>>> getting the military vote?
>>
>> For someone who is a wanna be, you sure claim to know what they think.
>> Hint, if there was widespread support in the military, how come SFA
>> actually occurred.
>>
>> What was written was "fsck it, we're going and next thing he gets a pink
>> slip" and meekly takes it. In otherwords, he and everyone else around
>> him knew that he had stepped outside his authority and blown his career
>> and what was going to happen was inevitable.
>
>
> How the hell do you know?

Read what was posted. Your explanation is?

Of course, we are still waiting for authorative information rather than
more phud & crud from gumbie.

> Anyway, the military doesn't issue 'pink slips'.

Oh, leet knowledge huh?

[Michael A. Terrell]

They court martial and then go to a military trial if they decide
they have reason to. You post with a email address from down under, so
it's VERY unlikely that you served in the US military. I did. I
alsohad an idiot E8 try to have me court-martialed for 'Dereliction of
Duty' for repairing TV broadcast gear outside of a depot even though my
MOS was for depot level work. That lasted less than 15 minutes, and I
was promoted before the 15 minutes was up.

[Winston_Smith]

Nor are we fighting there, losing troops there, or wasting billions
there. Obama got dragged into what little we did reluctantly instead
of striding off boldly and bragging to settle scores with a guy that
was mean to his daddy.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"G. Morgan" <seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote in message
news:ap34985cacbeiadg6...@Osama-is-dead.net...

> I'm not a liberal.
>

"Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of
these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair
elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free
trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[Winston_Smith]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:21:54 -0500, G. Morgan
<seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote:

>PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

>>"Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of
>>these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair
>>elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free
>>trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property"
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
>>
>

>If that is the only definition to go by, I am a liberal. I was really
>referring to what Faux News and Limbaugh and company call "liberals".

That is precisely the problem with the current state of politics -
both parties have decided to tag their opposition with what they treat
as a dirty words that can be using in polite company - liberal and
conservative - both said with a sneer.

From my viewpoint the parties have virtually switched positions from
where they were 100 years ago but the labels they pin on the
opposition have not changed.

Every Republican candidate since Nixon 1960 ran on smaller government,
strong dollar, balanced budget, less regulation, less government
intervention in personal lives.

Each one of them wound up doing the opposite, which is to say just
about exactly the same things the intervening Democrats did.

By the Republican definition of "liberal", at least in campaign
rhetoric, Bush was the biggest liberal we had up until his time. The
good Mr. Romney has very liberal roots, demonstrated by RomneyCare and
a number of other programs he instituted to be politically popular in
a very liberal state. Then he ran to the rhetorical right to sucker in
the people that are social conservative but don't know how to spell
fiscal conservative. Once nominated he has run to the left meeting
Obama in the middle. In their last debate they agreed on more than the
differed on. From my view, what I just called the middle is far left
of what real people call moderate.

I don't doubt if he is elected, Romney will continue to expand
government, To meet the costs he will ontinue to debase the dollar and
raise taxes in ways that he can say are not tax increases. The natural
result will be further erosion of the employment picture. I hasten to
add, I see exactly the same future if Obama is elected. There is no
real political diversity between the two candidate or the two parties.

The are both liberals by the original definition and as a
paleo-conservative, I call them both dangerously liberal. By your
perpetual support of the liberal that calls himself a conservative,
there is no rational option but to label the good Mr. Morgan as a
liberal too.

[terryc]

On 02/11/12 05:21, G. Morgan wrote:

> If that is the only definition to go by, I am a liberal.

Everyone is a liberal when it comes to themselves.

> I was really
> referring to what Faux News and Limbaugh and company call "liberals".

The test is how well they accept that it applies to everyone else as well.

[Winston_Smith]

Here's the test.

Muhdock owns Fox and he's allowed to tap telephones and mess with a
murdered girls cell phone account confusing police, producing false
hope in the parents, and selling papers, so he's special and the rules
don't apply.

Limbaugh can doctor shop and get parallel prescriptions for dangerous
drugs, so he's special and the rules don't apply.

If the good Mr. Morgan uses them as his standards, he's special too
and a liberal just as I said.

[Gunner]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:21:54 -0500, G. Morgan
<seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote:

>>
>>"Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of
>>these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair
>>elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free
>>trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property"
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
>>
>

>If that is the only definition to go by, I am a liberal. I was really

>referring to what Faux News and Limbaugh and company call "liberals".

And what normal people call pond scum.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:45:00 -0700 typed
in alt.survival the following:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:21:54 -0500, G. Morgan
><seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of
>>>these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair
>>>elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free
>>>trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property"
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Yep. By which definition, we can see that the Democrats and their
fellow travelers - are not "liberal."

>>>
>>
>>If that is the only definition to go by, I am a liberal. I was really
>>referring to what Faux News and Limbaugh and company call "liberals".
>
>And what normal people call pond scum.
--

pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

[Winston_Smith]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:34:52 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Yep. By which definition, we can see that the Democrats and their
>fellow travelers - are not "liberal."

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Give the man a cigar.

And neither are the Republicans and their fellow travelers
"conservatives".

[Shall not be infringed]

Only command authority can court martial you. An E-8 has no such power.

Thank you for your service.

[Shall not be infringed]

When did military operations cease in Libya?

[terryc]

On 01/11/12 12:14, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> They court martial and then go to a military trial if they decide
> they have reason to.

That is only for the guys that don't want to go. When you're higher up
you either realise it is time for you to go or get that weather station
in Alaska.

[Michael A. Terrell]

There are many reasons to court martial someone. I had an E8 try
that on me, but it was stopped within 15 minutes.

The weather stations in Alaska were staffed by civilians and run by
NOAA. One of the 'Broadcasters' at the radio & TV station aunt & uncle
worked at the one near Greely. They would stop by the station to bering
him leftovers, so he didn't have to wait till midnight chow to eat.

[Shall not be infringed]

King Salmon, Tin City and others were military weather stations staffed by military, or civilians under military contract.

[Allen Drake]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:36:59 -0400, Frank
<frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 7:59 AM, Snag wrote:
>> terryc wrote:
>>> On 30/10/12 15:44, Gunner wrote:
>>>> This...is NOT going to go over well with the military...oooooh
>>>> boy howdy no its not.....
>>>
>>> Only the morons in the military. People with something other than
>>> meatloaf betwee their ears will think otherwise.
>>>
>>>> General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was
>>>> to screw it, he was going to help anyhow.
>>>
>>> In otherwords, he was prepared to disobey the chain of command and
>>> launch an armed invasion into a foreign country. Correct?
>>>
>>

>> BZZZZZT wrong , he was going to protect US embassy property . ALL
>> EMBASSIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SOIL OF THE COUNTRY THEY REPRESENT . Thus he
>> would be protecting our country by defending the embassy .

>> We're still waiting for an explanation why security was pulled from an
>> embassy in a hostile country ... and the rumors have indicated that they
>> were set up by the president for political reasons . I believe they call
>> that treason .

>>
>>>> This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette's firing by
>>>> President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying
>>>> orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to "assist and
>>>> provide intelligence for" American military forces ordered into
>>>> action by US Army General Carter Ham,
>>>
>>> And this silly idiot was going to assist him.
>>>
>>> Rightly or wrongly, a command was given by higher up. they both sort
>>> to disobey that command and received the inevitable consequences of
>>> their action.
>>

>> I'm not saying they were in the right to disobey , I'm saying that the CIC
>> was wrong to deny our citizens on our soil the protection they were supposed
>> to have .
>>
>
>If Obama is reelected, which I doubt, the seeds are sown for his
>impeachment.


This is why you guys can't win elections. You are
simply.............. stupid.

[Allen Drake]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:31:00 -0800, sittingduck
<du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:

>Allen Drake wrote:
>
>> This is why you guys can't win elections. You are
>> simply.............. stupid.
>

>And simply wrong. About almost everything. They work themselves into a
>hateful frenzy to take their minds off of it, though.

It will be a long time before a republican will ever hold the
Executive office again. They are filled with to much hate and finally
have been caught and recognized as bigots and racists. The Grumby Old
People will have to die off because it's a new world now ruled by the
young and tolerant.

[F. George McDuffee]

===============

While from one view point this may be correct, a more useful
explanation is that at some point you have to deliver on
your promises or be exposed as another Bernie Madoff.

Politics is at a severe disadvantage compared to religion at
this point, in that they must at some point deliver in the
"here and now" of this world and the results [or lack of
results] are generally easily measurable, or at least easily
sensed, by the majority of people.

While there are indeed a few bigots/racists, the major
problem appears to be that traditional agriculture and heavy
industry have become minor components of the U.S. economy,
while the attitudes, perceptions and general world view of
the Republican leadership and/or their major donors remains
fixated on this golden age with fantasies of laissez-faire
capitalism and "rugged individualism" of an obsolete era
(which in fact never existed at all), and adamantly refusing
to adapt themselves and the party to the new soci-economic
and political-cultural realities of the service/information
based economy, which they themselves have done so much to
promote, e.g. NAFTA, and from which they have profited so
handsomely by liquidating, e.g. job exporting and
outsourcing.

IMNSHO, the problem is not so much one of racism as it is
atavistic throwback to the even earlier and highly
pernicious attitude/assumption of the naturalness of
elitism, peerage and hereditary nobility for the select few
[themselves] and obediant/subserviant peonage of the masses
[the rest of us], combined with rapidly increasing
supranational corporatism and the resulting loss of national
identity.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Bill Smith]

I'm that sort of liberal, but as you well know that definition doesn't
seem to get much use these days.

Bill Smith

[rbowman]

Allen Drake wrote:

> The Grumby Old
> People will have to die off because it's a new world now ruled by the
> young and tolerant.

It's good the young are tolerant because they're going to have to tolerate a
lot of shit in their lives assuming they ever get out of Mom and Dad's
basement and pay off the debt they incurred to learn trades that will be
meaningless in the brave new world.

I do seem to remember the same sentiments from the '60s and we've seen how
well that worked out. When 'we' got into power it was slags like Clinton and
Bush.

[Allen Drake]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:07:29 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

What trades? Sentiments from the 60's? Noting from that era applies
any more.

Who's 'we'?

People are being forced into their parents basement by the policies
of the right. It starts with education. Something the right wants to
cut while making sure their children's learning it bought and paid for
whether they learn anything or not. The same with health care.
Everyone should chip in and assure we have a healthy America. The
right's answer is to let them die. Nuke everyone that hates America no
matter what the consequences. Put America on lock down so no one can
enter instead of a real answer. Burry your heads in the sand and blame
everyone else.

More examples of why the right can't win elections. Congress at a all
new low approval while they keep getting elected. The people get the
government they deserve.

[Winston_Smith]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:37:35 -0500, Allen Drake <ALD...@Spamex.com>
wrote:

> People are being forced into their parents basement by the policies
>of the right. It starts with education. Something the right wants to
>cut while making sure their children's learning it bought and paid for
>whether they learn anything or not.

Why are so many educated and fully qualified college graduates
unemployed if just being educated is the solution to all the world's
problems?

[terryc]

It was an economic theory that only worked when tere was limted supply.
We are now in the oversupply period, but no one likes to say they were
suckered into taking a course.