The Liberal SuperMajority

[NuTcAsE]

Let me tell you something. Not everybody that is poor is that way because they don't work. If it was that easy, many of them would have stopped being poor a long time ago.

Didn't say anybody was lazy. Just stop doing whatever it is that keeps them poor.

Prices went up when the cost of fuel went up. Nobody where I work gets a raise based on the minimum wage going up.

Yes, there are many factors those are two.

It's not that simple and you know it. Not everybody that lives paycheck to paycheck does it because they don't manage their money.

Yes, it is that simple. I was there, didn't like it so I did what I needed to do to fix it. This is America, there is always opportunity to do better.

There are people that were paying their rent on time and are getting evicted anyway because the owner defaulted.

Life sucks like that sometimes.

I'll gladly swap paychecks with the upper 5% and pay their taxes so they won't have to bear such a terrible burden.

Why not become one instead?

I never said they were for the working class. In fact, I've stated numerous times that both parties have turned their backs on us in favor of their cronies.

Neither party is interested in cutting wasteful spending by the government.

Yup.

[Guest Honest AK]

Life sucks like that sometimes.

Apparently not for Wall Street. I'm not going to attempt to reason with someone who doesn't give a crap in the first place.

Why not become one instead?

I'm working on it.

[towerclimber37]

Let's get something straight. You don't pay for a ******* thing for me. I cost you nothing. I've never accepted any government assistance for anything. Also, I'm neither a Democrat or a socialist.

and I have no intention of doing that either. just to "set the record straight".

as for being a democrat or a socialist. hmmm lets see. you're advocating a change to socialism, which is what the democratic party espouses. so either you're shilling or you don't understand what you're talking about, or you're trying to sell the rest of us a crap sandwich and calling it a porterhouse steak...

I'm curious as to which one this is...you see because I won't get ANY of my taxes back this year..and will probably be paying a bit..AGAIN, because of the failed logic of people JUST LIKE YOU. am I pissed off? yes..yes I am.

Instead of thinking it through, you're saying "well lets just give the socialists a chance to fix it." even when they have a record of doing exactly opposite of what they say, taking MORE money from the people and not giving them anything back. they're responsible for the majority of the mess we're in right now to begin with.

The big problem we're experiencing right now was caused by folks from all walks of life making bad financial decisions. Not just the evil poor people. Also, stop equating the word poor with being lazy. Everybody I work with is what most would call poor. None of us are lazy.

actually, its been caused by democratic socialists who decided to give home loans to people who a. couldn't pay them back or b. didn't have any intention of paying them back. when the banking institutions refused to do this, they took them to court and sued them. then they lobbied many socialist politicians to pass laws to support them. this in turn led to a couple of federal institutions that had absolutely no way to do anything but lose money on an epic scale.

It's also been caused because the congress refuses to work together. that I can understand a little better since capitalists and socialists just don't mix. I don't condone it. I think we need to replace them ALL with new delegates that do NOT have a poly sci. major for one year. if they work well together and better our country, they have the option of running for that seat and the old delegate is banned from serving in a public office ever again.

THAT would encourage them to work together.

Poor people aren't evil. some aren't lazy. but they ain't that bright either. This is evinced by the logic chain they used to make the decisions that put them into their situation they're in in the first place.

The most interesting piece of info in that article is at the very bottom:

Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.

ah..so it's propaganda? I wondered when you'd say it.

its so funny that the propaganda is backed up with FACTS.

you know..like the legislation that all the socialist democrats blocked to regulate fannie mae and freddy mac.

I DO admit to being wrong though. this straight from the archives of the NYT...it's dated 2003!!!

Bush wanted to overhaul Fannie may and freddy mac..

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

it was blocked by the democrats.

you know..those people that, even though it was THEIR FAULT, blamed the Evil BOOSH.

yep..you're right..its a vast right wing conspiracy

to bilk you out of what you don't have.

LOL!!!!!!!

I never said Democrats didn't deserve their fair share of the blame yet you still fly off the handle like I'm a partisan Democrat when in fact, I dislike both parties equally.

their fair share?? the republicans don't HAVE a share in this debacle.

the democratic party is now in the mode of "if we can't win, we'll sabotage". they'll get their way even if they have to break this country to do it.

so lets get this straight.. you're supporting the socialist democrats. well and good. you say you're not a socialist OR a democrat. what ever you say. you're welcome to say what ever you please but don't sell me a **** sandwich and call it a steak and then get mad when I call it what it is.

Edited October 19, 2008 by towerclimber37

[NuTcAsE]

Apparently not for Wall Street. I'm not going to attempt to reason with someone who doesn't give a crap in the first place.

It ain't that I don't give a crap, I can't do anything about it. They were lookin for a place when they found that one, they'll be lookin when they find the next one. They might consider moving to Wall St.

I'm working on it.

Great!, I sincerely hope you succeed!

[Guest Honest AK]

and I have no intention of doing that either. just to "set the record straight".

as for being a democrat or a socialist. hmmm lets see. you're advocating a change to socialism, which is what the democratic party espouses. so either you're shilling or you don't understand what you're talking about, or you're trying to sell the rest of us a crap sandwich and calling it a porterhouse steak...

I'm curious as to which one this is...you see because I won't get ANY of my taxes back this year..and will probably be paying a bit..AGAIN, because of the failed logic of people JUST LIKE YOU. am I pissed off? yes..yes I am.

Instead of thinking it through, you're saying "well lets just give the socialists a chance to fix it." even when they have a record of doing exactly opposite of what they say, taking MORE money from the people and not giving them anything back. they're responsible for the majority of the mess we're in right now to begin with.

actually, its been caused by democratic socialists who decided to give home loans to people who a. couldn't pay them back or b. didn't have any intention of paying them back. when the banking institutions refused to do this, they took them to court and sued them. then they lobbied many socialist politicians to pass laws to support them. this in turn led to a couple of federal institutions that had absolutely no way to do anything but lose money on an epic scale.

It's also been caused because the congress refuses to work together. that I can understand a little better since capitalists and socialists just don't mix. I don't condone it. I think we need to replace them ALL with new delegates that do NOT have a poly sci. major for one year. if they work well together and better our country, they have the option of running for that seat and the old delegate is banned from serving in a public office ever again.

THAT would encourage them to work together.

Poor people aren't evil. some aren't lazy. but they ain't that bright either. This is evinced by the logic chain they used to make the decisions that put them into their situation they're in in the first place.

ah..so it's propaganda? I wondered when you'd say it.

its so funny that the propaganda is backed up with FACTS.

you know..like the legislation that all the socialist democrats blocked to regulate fannie mae and freddy mac.

I DO admit to being wrong though. this straight from the archives of the NYT...it's dated 2003!!!

Bush wanted to overhaul Fannie may and freddy mac..

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

it was blocked by the democrats.

you know..those people that, even though it was THEIR FAULT, blamed the Evil BOOSH.

yep..you're right..its a vast right wing conspiracy

to bilk you out of what you don't have.

LOL!!!!!!!

their fair share?? the republicans don't HAVE a share in this debacle.

the democratic party is now in the mode of "if we can't win, we'll sabotage". they'll get their way even if they have to break this country to do it.

so lets get this straight.. you're supporting the socialist democrats. well and good. you say you're not a socialist OR a democrat. what ever you say. you're welcome to say what ever you please but don't sell me a **** sandwich and call it a steak and then get mad when I call it what it is.

I'm not advocating for Obama. I've said countless times on this forum that I'd like to see everyone vote for independent candidates. How many times do I have to say that? If you're going to continue to ignore this fact, and just use me for a reason to bitch, I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list with that idiotic Foxbot "nsnate02".

[Almond27]

Good discussion and points

Edited October 19, 2008 by Almond27

[towerclimber37]

I'm not advocating for Obama. I've said countless times on this forum that I'd like to see everyone vote for independent candidates. How many times do I have to say that? If you're going to continue to ignore this fact, and just use me for a reason to bitch, I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list with that idiotic Foxbot "nsnate02".

now why would I use you for a reason to bitch? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

since an independent candidate has about as much chance to win the election as a paper dog chasing an asbestos cat through hell itself, voting that way is a waste.

you've said the democrats would be hard pressed to do worse with our economy than republicans, and that you don't advocate Obama.

there is a dichotomy there that leads me to believe that you're shilling.

I presented facts. how do YOU explain, when defending the Democratic party (tell me if I'm wrong here..you ARE defending them, right?) the fact that several members got kickbacks from fannie mae and freddy mac, (no.12 of the list of kickbacks was hillary clinton..but she only got 75k)

you say you don't advocate for any major party yet you have stated that the republicans should share blame for something they haven't done and you've stated that the democrats couldn't do any worse for the country than the Republicans.

do I think that McCain is a good choice? no. he's a Rhino. but he's the better of 2 evils.

you've made blanket statements about both major parties, yet you haven't backed up your assertions with facts.so far, all I see is emotions and rhetoric...so I'm trying to get facts. I'm dissecting your statements to see exactly what your opinions are and why that's so.

explain to me please HOW an independent candidate will help our country? which one in particular? Bob Barr? Cynthia McKinney? Chuck Baldwin?

I hate to sound like the Rabbi here, and I really don't mean to..this isn't a personal attack, I just would like a fact or 2.

show me where the republicans should share the blame for this fiasco?

or put me on ignore..I'm pretty sure I'd be in good company...and you won't have to see me laugh at you when you say something that makes absolutely no sense.

[Guest Honest AK]

towerclimber,

In regards to the failed loans, I think it wasn't just lenders forced by the government to hand out money to poor people and minorities per CRA regulations. The reading I've done on it is all partisan one way or the other, though, so I doubt I could point you to any links offering a different viewpoint because only one side is responsible in your eyes. I've listened to both sides and it's my impression that no economic class or race of people or political party is deserving of all the blame so I'm sorry I won't be able to ride along on the Republican hate train with you on that issue.

I see the Democrats and Republicans as the same. Both parties are for bigger government. Both parties are run by fringe elements that are out of touch with the average American. They are both rotten to the core and owe their allegiance not to this country but to the highest paying lobbyist.

IMO, a vote for either of the major parties as a wasted vote. No matter how far fetched it seems, I think it would help our country to have some real "mavericks" involved in our government. Maybe it would remind candidates on both sides what their party is supposed to stand for.

If you want to know about Bob Barr, go to the Libertarian party website:

http://www.lp.org/

I hear he's quite popular with the NRA so maybe you'd like him.

I don't look at the issues from the viewpoint of one party or another. I try to think about what would be best for every citizen instead of what I think would benefit me most.

To be specific, I think the AWB will come back if Obama is elected. Law abiding citizens like the ones on this forum have every right to continue buying them. I felt that way even before I became interested in owning a firearm myself. The anti gunners poisoning the Democratic party have cost them no telling how many elections. They'll need to remove their anti gun stance from their party platform before I could give serious thought to voting for them.

The Republicans have lost their way as well. They cater to the christofascist arm of their party. Their use of religion to justify their hate is dangerous and I refuse to go along with them. Most of all, McCain's pick of Sarah Palin' has me wondering about his judgment. Considering his age, he should have known to make a more responsible choice. She is in way over her head and "I'll betcha" she has cost the Republicans the election.*wink*

Those are two issues that leave me unable to support either party. Hopefully this will conclude my vetting process.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Honest AK
fix spellin' errors

[Guest jackdog]

I just love to hear all these pro dem, pro repub arguments. Both parties are controlled by big money, both parties suck and if you keep voting for either one nothing will change for the better. So ladies and gents keep spouting off the party line bull**** because that's what they want you to do. You just keep being good little sheep.

[Guest Dean_JC78]

Unfortunatly, we have a 2 party system. Until the time comes where we fix that or abolish parties as George Washington said, then this will continue.

IMO voting should be only allow by the 45% of CITIZENS that actually pay taxes. Then you cast a vote for your 1st choice and 2nd choice.

Say there are 3 major candidates like in 1992. It would give people confidence to vote for the 3rd party like Perot without the fear of wasting their vote. Then if Perot would still lose like he did in 1992, then the 2nd choice gets the vote in the runoff 2nd round. If the run off is between the 1st and 2nd choice for a person then the 1st choice gets it.

Imagin a system like that. You would get 5 parties at least. Conservative, GOP, Libertarian, Democrat, Green/Socialist. That would be an end to the days of domination by the DNC and GOP. With the provision to only allow the 45% of citizens that pay taxes to vote, the DNC would never again win an election (any election).

[towerclimber37]

towerclimber,

In regards to the failed loans, I think it wasn't just lenders forced by the government to hand out money to poor people and minorities per CRA regulations. The reading I've done on it is all partisan one way or the other, though, so I doubt I could point you to any links offering a different viewpoint because only one side is responsible in your eyes. I've listened to both sides and it's my impression that no economic class or race of people or political party is deserving of all the blame so I'm sorry I won't be able to ride along on the Republican hate train with you on that issue.

I see the Democrats and Republicans as the same. Both parties are for bigger government. Both parties are run by fringe elements that are out of touch with the average American. They are both rotten to the core and owe their allegiance not to this country but to the highest paying lobbyist.

agreed!

IMO, a vote for either of the major parties as a wasted vote. No matter how far fetched it seems, I think it would help our country to have some real "mavericks" involved in our government. Maybe it would remind candidates on both sides what their party is supposed to stand for.

If you want to know about Bob Barr, go to the Libertarian party website:

http://www.lp.org/

I hear he's quite popular with the NRA so maybe you'd like him.

I don't look at the issues from the viewpoint of one party or another. I try to think about what would be best for every citizen instead of what I think would benefit me most.

To be specific, I think the AWB will come back if Obama is elected. Law abiding citizens like the ones on this forum have every right to continue buying them. I felt that way even before I became interested in owning a firearm myself. The anti gunners poisoning the Democratic party have cost them no telling how many elections. They'll need to remove their anti gun stance from their party platform before I could give serious thought to voting for them.

The Republicans have lost their way as well. They cater to the christofascist arm of their party. Their use of religion to justify their hate is dangerous and I refuse to go along with them. Most of all, McCain's pick of Sarah Palin' has me wondering about his judgment. Considering his age, he should have known to make a more responsible choice. She is in way over her head and "I'll betcha" she has cost the Republicans the election.*wink*

Those are two issues that leave me unable to support either party. Hopefully this will conclude my vetting process.

I agree with you on both issues.

and yes, Bob Barr DOES appeal to me.

I also agree that the Republican party has lost its touch with the American people. well and truly, both parties have become more polarized AWAY from each other...and they're squaring off for a fight. who EVER wins, we're going to be the losers. Unfortunately, the other parties aren't as strong as the 2 main parties..that will change in the future I believe.

Dean, I also agree with your voting qualifications except that I would add the caveat that those who have served in combat are also allowed a vote. this would allow for those who were poor..and used the only thing they have, to support our country. Their lives.

notice I qualified those who've served in combat. not remfs, toc-roaches need not apply.

AK, Thanks. I appreciate you telling me these things about your comments and reasoning behind them. you didn't have to, you could have easily just put me on ignore....

that says quite a bit about you! I appreciate you putting up with my caustic approach. I have little use for socialists. I REALLY don't like them...Nazis' were socialists. So is Hugo Chavez and quite a few others.

Obama is a socialist. see where I'm going with this?

Republicans are on the OTHER side of the spectrum...they're becoming fascists. the reasoning behind their fascism is irrelevant. I don't need to know WHY an alligator feels bad enough to bite me...just that he's going to do it every chance he gets.

It won't be this election..but within the next 8 years, we WILL be looking for a change.

Keep your powder dry.

[Guest Dean_JC78]

Actually I really have to disagree with the fascists comment. Fascism is actually a left leaning form of govt. If you take a look at the policy of fascist Germany or Italy, it is very very liberal and socialist. In fact, much of their policy almost mirrors that of todays Democrats. That is not to say there are not elements within the GOP that are fascist in a sense (Like censorship) but on policy, the Democrats hands down are the fascists in todays society.

I believe the lie that fascism is on the "right" comes from Communist who correctly viewed fascism to the right of their beliefs but to the far left of everything else. I too took the notion that fascism was to the right for a long time until I started to wonder how that was and began to look up policy of Nazi Germany.

The major difference that I can find between the two is that fascists want to have a heavily regulated and taxed market to the point of total Govt control over everything while the Communist want outright direct control.

[fury2neon]

Actually I really have to disagree with the fascists comment. Fascism is actually a left leaning form of govt. If you take a look at the policy of fascist Germany or Italy, it is very very liberal and socialist. In fact, much of their policy almost mirrors that of todays Democrats. That is not to say there are not elements within the GOP that are fascist in a sense (Like censorship) but on policy, the Democrats hands down are the fascists in todays society.

I believe the lie that fascism is on the "right" comes from Communist who correctly viewed fascism to the right of their beliefs but to the far left of everything else. I too took the notion that fascism was to the right for a long time until I started to wonder how that was and began to look up policy of Nazi Germany.

The major difference that I can find between the two is that fascists want to have a heavily regulated and taxed market to the point of total Govt control over everything while the Communist want outright direct control.

+1

Mussolini who developed Fascism was socialist writer who could not convince his people to turn to world communism. So he developed National Socialism (Fascism) to move them along toward world communism.

[Guest gunslinger707]

I qualified those who've served in combat. not remfs, toc-roaches need not apply.Tower why would you exempt remf's and toc-roache's whatever that is from voting ??

[towerclimber37]

I qualified those who've served in combat. not remfs, toc-roaches need not apply.Tower why would you exempt remf's and toc-roache's whatever that is from voting ??

a good question. I would say that it's because many of them don't care to put their butts out there with the troops. there are some guys and girls that kick butt and are just stuck in a staff postion. then again, there are others that are SO not there for anything but personal advancement.

you've met some..in my time we called them "ring knockers"..they would no more risk their neck for others than a frog would fly.

then again..I could be wrong.

but it would keep the murtha's out of our hair..

[Guest canynracer]

Lookie what I found...predict the future much???

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

[molonlabetn]

Good find!

[Guest gunslinger707]

a good question. I would say that it's because many of them don't care to put their butts out there with the troops. there are some guys and girls that kick butt and are just stuck in a staff postion. then again, there are others that are SO not there for anything but personal advancement.

you've met some..in my time we called them "ring knockers"..they would no more risk their neck for others than a frog would fly.

then again..I could be wrong.

but it would keep the murtha's out of our hair..

Tower in 1968 I was in Vietnam being in Transportation we were considered remf's.BUT 7 day's a week we put our A** on the line hauling supplie's from Qui-Nhon to Pleiku. We faced sniper's ambush's and landmine's aka IED's.After that i worked and paid taxe's 33 yrs before being forced to medically retire in 2005.Now my friend tell me why i should'nt be allowed to vote because i was aREMF!!...............................BTW THANK YOU for your service .

[Guest Dean_JC78]

I agree and amend my previous statement to include anyone that has served in our armed forces even if for some reason they are not currently paying any taxes.

My whole point is that the people voting have given to the well being of our Republic, not the people standing around looking for a hand out.

[towerclimber37]

Tower in 1968 I was in Vietnam being in Transportation we were considered remf's.BUT 7 day's a week we put our A** on the line hauling supplie's from Qui-Nhon to Pleiku. We faced sniper's ambush's and landmine's aka IED's.After that i worked and paid taxe's 33 yrs before being forced to medically retire in 2005.Now my friend tell me why i should'nt be allowed to vote because i was aREMF!!...............................BTW THANK YOU for your service .

cause you're a geezer remf!

Just kidding!!! don't beat me please. sometimes I DO stick my foot in my mouth.

I can recognize that though and amend my viewpoint.

[Guest gunslinger707]

cause you're a geezer remf!

Just kidding!!! don't beat me please. sometimes I DO stick my foot in my mouth.

I can recognize that though and amend my viewpoint.

Yup i'm a geezer remf:rofl: an old one ! lol

BTW flavored shoe sole's help with was'nt raggin on ya just trying to understand your remf statement we's all good

[bubbiesdad]

Scare tactics from the same people who just stole 700 billion from us.

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

[towerclimber37]

Yup i'm a geezer remf:rofl: an old one ! lol

BTW flavored shoe sole's help with was'nt raggin on ya just trying to understand your remf statement we's all good

no worries. *sigh*

The older I get the more I realize that there is so much that I don't know...Oh for the days when I was really young and knew everything.

Nice work there old timer. you did the work when it was unpopular.

I tell you..I was in when folks were ambivalent and when they allasudden started appreciating soldiers...I felt weird and shied away from the folks that were doing the glad handing.

It took me a long time to take them at face value and realize that many of them had fathers or brothers who served in YOUR time and to simply say "you're welcome"

I DO know that if anyone ever did something like spit on me..or threw anything at me..like as not I would have let the engine take over..and hurt as many as I could have before they put me down.

[Rightwinger]

Tower in 1968 I was in Vietnam being in Transportation we were considered remf's.BUT 7 day's a week we put our A** on the line hauling supplie's from Qui-Nhon to Pleiku. We faced sniper's ambush's and landmine's aka IED's.After that i worked and paid taxe's 33 yrs before being forced to medically retire in 2005.Now my friend tell me why i should'nt be allowed to vote because i was aREMF!!...............................BTW THANK YOU for your service .

Join the Mobile Infantry, see the Universe. Service Gurantees Citizenship!

Courtesy of Robert Heinlein (the movie sucked but the book was great)

Service earning you the franchise to vote has been thought of by many in the past. It will never pass with the current humanists that don't mind so many not being active, producing participants in our society, but I see merit in it being a part of the process.

[Rightwinger]

no worries. *sigh*

The older I get the more I realize that there is so much that I don't know...Oh for the days when I was really young and knew everything.

Nice work there old timer. you did the work when it was unpopular.

I tell you..I was in when folks were ambivalent and when they allasudden started appreciating soldiers...I felt weird and shied away from the folks that were doing the glad handing.

It took me a long time to take them at face value and realize that many of them had fathers or brothers who served in YOUR time and to simply say "you're welcome"

I DO know that if anyone ever did something like spit on me..or threw anything at me..like as not I would have let the engine take over..and hurt as many as I could have before they put me down.

Got to ask Tower, your reference to the "engine"? Did you get that from the book "Armor"?