Quantcast

Is President Obama deliberately trying to alienate the US Military and Veterans?

NotWithoutAFight 2009/04/09 16:04:46
You!
Add Photos & Videos
1- Refusing to attend the traditional "Hero's Ball"
2- Supporting Legislation that would require war injured Vets to foot the bill for their own insurance
3- Refusing to visit the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial

Veterans and the US Military and Guard that protect us - pretty much come in all shapes and sizes - politically speaking.

But I'm starting to see a trend that is frightful and disconcerting.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • true american 2009/04/09 16:09:30
    Yes - He shows disdain for the military and vets
    true american
    +5
    This is the one of the biggest issues I have with this asshat.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • MARCY 2009/09/22 04:19:17 (edited)
    Yes - He shows disdain for the military and vets
    MARCY
    +1
    That is a liberal policy to disregard the military,socialists see them as a threat for their ideologies,in a lot of countries the military swear to protect their citizens against foreign and internal enemies,thats why they rather dismantle the military and create their own civilian force to protect a dictator.
  • NotWith... MARCY 2009/09/23 00:45:45
    NotWithoutAFight
    +1
    You have it spot on Marcy.
  • oldsalt 2009/05/06 16:37:21
    Yes - He shows disdain for the military and vets
    oldsalt
    +1
    Yes. My active duty Navy daughter says that OB has very little support among active duty folks & it's growing weaker all the time. He hemmed & hawed about giving the green liight to shoot those pirates despite the SEALS being good to go & the advice of his military advisors to do so. My daughter, btw works for the Navy SEAL HQ in San Diego, so she knows.
  • neoredpill 2009/04/18 05:02:05
    You are paranoid my Good Woman.
    neoredpill
    +1
    Well, not paranoid, really, but terribly biased. While he didn't attend the Heroes Ball, he did attend the Commander in Chief's Ball, where he spoke with soldiers on a personal basis.

    He did NOT support legislation that would "require Vets to foot the bill for their own insurance." He supported legislation that would have provided the insurance through private industry rather than the VA. Hey, you right-wingers should appreciate the move towards privatization. In any case, he changed course on this in response to protests by veterans. So he does listen to them.

    He skipped the visit to the American Cemetery in Normandy for this visit in order to have time to meet with German officials on an equal basis. He has announced plans to attend memorial services there on the anniversary of D-Day.

    I am also curious whether you posted on SodaHead last year in criticism of George W Bush who opposed a bill to extend education and unemployment benefits for veterans. Obama supported the measure.
  • NotWith... neoredpill 2009/04/18 12:09:48
    NotWithoutAFight
    WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

    "It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

    The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies.
    --------------------
    As a civilian, just who do you think pays for 'private' insurance? "...PLAN to require private insurance carr..."





    ''



    '







    '





    '''

    '



    WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

    "It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

    The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies.
    --------------------
    As a civilian, just who do you think pays for 'private' insurance? "...PLAN to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the VA. ...FORCE private insurance companies..."

    He did in fact - do just that.

    I was not a member here on Soda when Bush proposed cutting unemployment for vets. Are you speaking of HR 5749? I did however post against the wall street bailout.

    How about you? I'm curious. How'd you feel about the following?

    9/10/08 Vote 198: S 3001: Vitter Amdt. No. 5280; To authorize, with an offset, an additional $100,000,000 for Procurement, Defense-wide, and an additional $171,000,000 for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for near-term missile defense programs and activities. Obama Not Voting

    3/13/08 Vote 57: S CON RES 70: Kennedy Amdt. No. 4350; To increase funding for the Department of Education's English Literacy-Civics Education State Grant program, with an offset. Obama Not Voting

    3/13/08 Vote 50: S CON RES 70: Kyl Amdt. No. 4191; To protect small businesses, family ranches and farms from the Death Tax by providing a $5 million exemption, a low rate for smaller estates and a maximum rate no higher than 35%. Obama voted No

    3/13/08 Vote 79: S CON RES 70: DeMint Amdt. No. 4380; To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for transferring funding for Berkeley, CA earmarks to the Marine Corps. Obama voted No

    3/13/08 Vote 43: S CON RES 70: Graham Amdt. No. 4170 as Modified; To protect families, family farms and small businesses by extending the income tax rate structure, raising the death tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum death tax rate to no more than 35%; to keep education affordable by extending the college tuition deduction; and to protect senior citizens from higher taxes on their retirement income, maintain U.S. financial market competitiveness, and promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Obama voted No

    2/12/07 Vote 422: H R 2419: Gregg Amdt. No. 3673; To improve women's access to heath care services in rural areas and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the delivery of obstetrical and gynecological services. Obama Not Voting

    1/1/07 Vote 403: H R 3963: H.R.3963; Support for Injured Servicemembers Act Obama Not Voting

    9/27/07 Vote 356: H R 1585: Coburn Amdt. No. 2196; To eliminate wasteful spending and improve the management of counter-drug intelligence. Obama Not Voting.

    I won't even go into his record of voting 'present'.

    As for my record of voting - I've never voted along strict party lines and believe that both parties are out for themselves with little thought to the people they represent. Lobbying and special interests have long since taken over our government.

    As for visiting on D-Day - Hope it happens. By then he will really need the press.

    Biased. I guess I am guilty of it. Veterans and service people have gotten a raw deal for a very long time. But if I am - so are you.
    (more)
  • neoredpill NotWith... 2009/04/18 13:53:06
    neoredpill
    The government would pay for the insurance. The savings presume that private insurance would bring down costs. Note that medicare is provided the same way. There is nothing in your quote that indicates otherwise. As for the non-votes you mention, he was busy campaigning, after all, for much of that. A non-vote in and of itself does not indicate support or opposition, especially for a politician running for president. Some, for example, including Obama himself tried to make political hay out of McCain's non-vote on the same veteran's benefits bill that I mentioned above -- the one that Bush had opposed. I didn't accept the criticism of McCain on that issue, either.
  • NotWith... neoredpill 2009/04/18 15:34:28
    NotWithoutAFight
    I saw no indication that the proposed would be like medicare. But why should this have even been proposed? Why can't a service member depend on the very government that sent them in harm's way - to know the same government will provide for injury?

    "...Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies.

    The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran’s condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits.

    The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is conce...

    "

    '

    ''

    '''



    ''
    I saw no indication that the proposed would be like medicare. But why should this have even been proposed? Why can't a service member depend on the very government that sent them in harm's way - to know the same government will provide for injury?

    "...Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies.

    The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran’s condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits.

    The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

    “I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted,” said Commander Rehbein, “is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President’s financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future..."

    Give me an example under the bill that doesn't leave service members potentially holding the bag? At the very least the bill shifts the burden to private individuals and companies. Private people do not send people to war. Companies do not send people to war.

    There are many things in government that are pure waste. One thing a service member needs to know - is that their government will take care of their medical expense for service related injury. Period. Not use private insurance. Fund the VA adequately and provide for bureaucratic overspending within the VA be addressed. VA oversight that isn't a joke instead of the government's typical B.S. when it comes to any oversight.

    A Vet comes home and gets his job back with a previous employer that covered medical with a deduction of say.. 175.00 every two weeks from the employee to offset the average cost of $1000.00 per month for a family of 4. So are you saying the government would reimburse the employer for the cost of the insurance? Reimburse the 175.00 the vet pays for same insurance? Cost rate it for a single vet and have employers insure family members differently while prorating the vet's individual health care costs? What about deductibles? Out of pocket then reimbursed maybe? What kind of coverage for psychological care? What about determining exactly a 'service related injury' is? Who would make that determination?

    How did the legislature address Vets with no private insurance?

    How many injuries would be deemed 'catastrophic' and be capped at a yearly allowance? Would the government cover those? Catastrophic injury includes - paralysis, amputation, burns etc. Kind of like so many of the injuries Vets receive.
    (more)
  • neoredpill NotWith... 2009/04/18 16:07:35
    neoredpill
    Well, you saw no indication that veterans would have to pay for the coverage, but you were perfectly willing to assume that to be the case. Of course, you did admit your bias already.
  • NotWith... neoredpill 2009/04/18 16:38:59
    NotWithoutAFight
    Did you not read about costs the vet must pay? Or the employer? Did you answer any question which reflects that I can stand my my original statement that questions vets being liable for their service related costs? None.

    No. Why? Can't answer?

    You splitting hairs about what those costs will be - I'm saying no cost is what is right.

    The bill was tabled because a military service member should not be liable for his own health care when it is a service related cause.

    As I stated - give me an example under the bill that doesn't leave service members potentially holding the bag?

    Biased? Look in a mirror.
  • neoredpill NotWith... 2009/04/18 18:21:16
    neoredpill
    I am not "splitting hairs about what the costs will be." I'm saying that nothing the president announced support for would necessarily cause the veterans to incur costs. That is someone else's assumptions. And, as I mentioned, Obama listened to the veterans and backed off the plan when they stated their opposition to it.
  • Gracie - Proud Conservative 2009/04/17 16:01:45
    Yes - He shows disdain for the military and vets
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +2
    All Democrats come in and destroy the military. That's why the Republicans have to spend so much money on defense when they take over. It's just more of the same.
  • K-ZOOMI... Gracie ... 2009/04/18 16:34:57
    K-ZOOMI-----0
    +2
    Both Grandfathers - WWII
    Uncle - Korea
    Father & another Uncle - Vietnam
    Me & ALL my cousins - Military service during the 80's

    My family knows all too well what Democrats think and do about the Armed Forces!
  • Gracie ... K-ZOOMI... 2009/04/18 17:57:34
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +2
    K-ZOOMI, it's thanks to you and your entire family that these people can even breathe here much less have a decent life. It absolutely infuriates me that they denigrate the military every chance they get! Like Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady didn't like to see anyone with a military uniform on in the White House. Now she represents our country as Secretary of State?

    Thank God we have your family and I hope we survive this administration.
  • NotWith... K-ZOOMI... 2009/04/18 18:12:25
    NotWithoutAFight
    +1
    Thank you kindly for your service and the service of your family.
  • Red Lizzard 2009/04/17 15:58:36
    Yes - He shows disdain for the military and vets
    Red Lizzard
    +2
    Plus, his staff believes they are all or going to become right-winged, racist, extremist!
    What a slap in the face!
  • Red Liz... Red Liz... 2009/04/17 16:03:27
  • 404 2009/04/17 15:06:15
    I think...
    404
    +2
    >>Is President Obama deliberately trying to alienate the US Military and Veterans?

    What Obama's handlers may be having him do is to fly trial balloons which "needle" these people into identifying themselves as folks who will (or will not) "go with the program" if the decision is made to deploy them here at home.

    Those who have problems blindly following "difficult" orders (that may "alienate" them) here at home, could be positioned out-of-country before such an event.

    ...Or maybe not. Such an evil idea is very hard to seriously ponder (though getting easier to believe all the time).
    .
  • NotWith... 404 2009/04/17 15:34:34
    NotWithoutAFight
    I'm not getting a warm fuzzy.

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5...
  • 404 NotWith... 2009/04/17 15:39:26
    404
    +1
    .
    Oh, come on...don't you just feel the love?

    C'mon...Send him a Twinkie!

    http://www.sodahead.com/quest...
    .
  • Red Liz... 404 2009/04/17 15:59:37
    Red Lizzard
    +1
    hmmmm.........haven't been paranoid enough to think of that yet, but now I am.
  • 404 Red Liz... 2009/04/17 16:36:53
    404
    +2
    .
    Glad I could brighten your day!
    ;-)
    .
  • NotWithoutAFight 2009/04/17 09:12:24
    Yes - He shows disdain for the military and vets
    NotWithoutAFight
    +1
    The latest DHS document targeting returning vets just adds to it.
  • Larson Whipsnade 2009/04/12 10:01:22
    Yes - He shows disdain for the military and vets
    Larson Whipsnade
    +2
    he is alienating the one demographic he needs most to stay in power- the military! Joe McCarthy made that mistake once, and was censured shortly afterwards
  • NotWith... Larson ... 2009/04/12 10:01:49
    NotWithoutAFight
    Excellent point.
  • K-ZOOMI-----0 2009/04/11 16:27:31
    Yes - He shows disdain for the military and vets
    K-ZOOMI-----0
    +3
    Not visiting the ones who gave the ultimate sacrefice to freedom shows Obama's true colors!

    They deserve our respect: vets visiting ultimate sacrefice freedom obamas true colors deserve respect
  • lslsttn 2009/04/09 19:45:23
    I think...
    lslsttn
    +1
    I think it's almost over. :))
  • 404 lslsttn 2009/04/17 15:08:16
    404
    +2
    .
    Oh, no. The "fun" has yet to begin.
    .
  • lslsttn 404 2009/04/17 15:43:54
    lslsttn
    +1
    I just got a reply to a question you might be interested in. I asked, If Barack Obama and Congress broke the law, why have they not been arrested? The reply was:

    "Because the result would be total chaos, There are .more Dems in the house and senate and that's your answer "

    The way I see it, more people than not are addressing info about Bilderberg connections; and breaking the Constitution; and citizenship issues.

    One option could be that the Reps and Dems decided that in order to not lose their stranglehold on the votes of the People, that they'd stir up this "game" in order to get a third party started. Which is what the Tea Party was all about. If this is the case, then everyone involved knew what was going to happen when they "bailed out the banks" thereby designing and supporting a second stage siphoning off of the "eonomy", Wonder how many people yet have begun viewing the failure to read the Bills before voting on them as perhaps just a simple way to "fly under the radar."

    So I think the possibility exists that the fomentors are either liars, lying about the Constitution being broken, or coward for not arresting him, Geithner, Hillary, Summers, and whoever else is in on the breaking of the Constitution.

    Either way, doing nothing about the manipulations which people say ha...
    I just got a reply to a question you might be interested in. I asked, If Barack Obama and Congress broke the law, why have they not been arrested? The reply was:

    "Because the result would be total chaos, There are .more Dems in the house and senate and that's your answer "

    The way I see it, more people than not are addressing info about Bilderberg connections; and breaking the Constitution; and citizenship issues.

    One option could be that the Reps and Dems decided that in order to not lose their stranglehold on the votes of the People, that they'd stir up this "game" in order to get a third party started. Which is what the Tea Party was all about. If this is the case, then everyone involved knew what was going to happen when they "bailed out the banks" thereby designing and supporting a second stage siphoning off of the "eonomy", Wonder how many people yet have begun viewing the failure to read the Bills before voting on them as perhaps just a simple way to "fly under the radar."

    So I think the possibility exists that the fomentors are either liars, lying about the Constitution being broken, or coward for not arresting him, Geithner, Hillary, Summers, and whoever else is in on the breaking of the Constitution.

    Either way, doing nothing about the manipulations which people say have caused this turn to socialism is tantamount to supporting the siphoning from the economy in order to change the face of the Republic to some other form of world-wide government.
    (more)
  • 404 lslsttn 2009/04/17 15:54:11
    404
    .
    Well, with respect to the "teabagging" phenomenon, one should art least consider this assessment:

    http://www.sodahead.com/quest...
    .
  • lslsttn 404 2009/04/17 16:44:32
    lslsttn
    +1
    You and I are on the same page. This is all a big scam. I had to go to the Tea Party to figure it out, but once I got there and heard what "they" had to say, it became apparent to me. Very few people are actually sincere about the welfare and sovereignty of this nation. This third party, it's kickoff being the Tea Party, isn't any different than the other two parties.

    Here's a comment I just wrote to someone. It's my best and last guess at what is really going on:

    am in the process of closing down my sodahead activity. I am only answering replies to comments previously made. When those die down, I won't be contributing to sodahead any longer.

    Here's why: Now, I'm the one annoyed :))

    So let me catch you up on what I've learned, and figured, right or wrong:

    1. Supposedly Barack, Hillary and many others, Geithner, Summers, Biden, et al. broke the Constitution

    2. The first stage of siphoning off our economy happened via hundreds of billions of dollars electronically pulled out of the stock market in about 3 hours' time. Everything that happened after that was "bi-partisan."

    3. The second stage siphon was the Bailout legislation, which basically gave banks money to buy toxic assets from each other and keep passing them around, adding to the cost of each asset as it was traded from...""'""'

    "'"""""

    ''

    '

    '

    "'"'

    '

    "
    '


    '







    "




    '

    '
    You and I are on the same page. This is all a big scam. I had to go to the Tea Party to figure it out, but once I got there and heard what "they" had to say, it became apparent to me. Very few people are actually sincere about the welfare and sovereignty of this nation. This third party, it's kickoff being the Tea Party, isn't any different than the other two parties.

    Here's a comment I just wrote to someone. It's my best and last guess at what is really going on:

    am in the process of closing down my sodahead activity. I am only answering replies to comments previously made. When those die down, I won't be contributing to sodahead any longer.

    Here's why: Now, I'm the one annoyed :))

    So let me catch you up on what I've learned, and figured, right or wrong:

    1. Supposedly Barack, Hillary and many others, Geithner, Summers, Biden, et al. broke the Constitution

    2. The first stage of siphoning off our economy happened via hundreds of billions of dollars electronically pulled out of the stock market in about 3 hours' time. Everything that happened after that was "bi-partisan."

    3. The second stage siphon was the Bailout legislation, which basically gave banks money to buy toxic assets from each other and keep passing them around, adding to the cost of each asset as it was traded from one bank to another. This is why the TARP did not work to stop the foreclosures.The banks "would rather foreclose" because even though it doesn't help their shareholders or the economy "they get their money up front when they foreclose" and resell the toxic asset. Actually, that's our tax dollars hard at work. It was designed this way, and the legislators say the legislation was too big to read just like the banks were too big to fail. Begs the question: Who Wrote the Legislation.

    4. These issues, plus the citizenship issue have been fomented throughout the site, along with every scare tactic possible and then the offer for a Tea Party, complete with "Don't Tread on Us/Sons of Liberty" accoutrements has now started another patriarchal, religious-morality based "party." This will bode well for all those politicians who were just waiting in line for their turn and will serve to keep the Bilderbergs iron grip on the "powers" of our nation.

    5. To top that off, now the race card pulling and race baiting has returned to the scene. You should read my sodafeed to find all the information you've missed. Also, my last question answered, you should check that out - it was something about a diminishing presence of Christians on sodahead. Go to the bottom right of my profile (while it's still up) and choose entire sodafeed to get to the info.

    6. All of this came together for me when I realized that by walking down the middle trying to encourage people to let go of the party line and work together was causing insult after insult to be delivered to my mailbox as well as in replies to my comments. And I can honestly say that I think there have been veiled threats, which don't really mean anything to me, other than showing the desperation on the part of the commenters.

    7. So there you have it. It could be Bilderberg, it could be corruption and collusion, it could be stupidity, it could be all of the above. Who knows, who cares. Not me. And here's why:

    This is a reply I got to the question, If Barack Obama and Congress broke the law, why are they not arrested? Here it is: "Because the result would be total chaos, There are .more Dems in the house and senate and that's your answer" (As if what has happened is not the epidome of chaos, at least to this person's point of view.)

    I can see it now: The third party, Called the Constitutional Revolution Party or some such name, is already talking about Christian morality. And we're on our way to socialism, according to the same person who gave me the answer in the previous paragraph. Here is what he said about the socialism issue:

    "What the wealthy minority are protesting is that they are going to have more responsibility in supporting our country as a whole. Trickle-down Economics
    dose not work well enough for the masses, that's it in a nutshell.
    Social Scientists have been saying for many years that at some point the 2% that have the greater amount of wealth are at the top of the pyramid, 80 % of the people
    are barely surviving and some of them are homeless (over 1 million by far) and the other 18% are upper middle class and above. The masses have stood up this last election and voted to Socialize our Government and Economics.
    Now every country in Europe are Socialist Democracies which is what we are transitioning into now, there's no going back, the Majority of the people have spoken
    and Won. Its up to us to except what cannot be changed and work with what we have
    or have a bloody civil war and that would destroy us all to the point of being classified as a third world group of smaller countries, and no one wants that.
    We can chose to live with what we have now and make it successful and maintaining
    our world stature. I Am going to change my secular beliefs while maintaining
    my Christian values which is very much alike with the exception of some very
    personal convictions. I want to see every one to have a home, health care, food, acceptable transportation, freedom to travel anywhere in the country, maintain freedom of speech, right to own guns for hunting and self defence, right to vote
    and the right to increase they-er earnings raising they-er standard of living as well to worship.
    God Bless Us All"


    So, for all that could have been done, Restoring the Constitution, getting rid of the bad actors (Bilderbergs, et al.), healing the divide between the religious zealots thereby beginning the end of terroism, and bringing our economy back to sanity with the right kinds of stimulation is now lost to this Country.

    So there's no need for me to be on sodahead any longer.

    I wish you well. Btw, not one single politician replied to the letter that the group worked so hard with each other to produce. Of course not. Once you digest all of this, the reason they didn't respond will float right to the top for you.
    (more)
  • 404 lslsttn 2009/04/17 17:01:00 (edited)
    404
    +2
    .
    In short:

    Government is a criminal enterprise.

    This is evidenced by the fact that they have no respect for the body of law established to keep them from hurting us (the constitution).

    Criminals (by definition) are those who disobey the law.

    The trouble with these bozos is that they just have no respect for authority!

    ;-)
    .
  • lslsttn 404 2009/04/17 17:31:18
    lslsttn
    The trouble is they think they Are the law.
  • 404 lslsttn 2009/04/17 17:46:57 (edited)
    404
    +1
    .
    Be patient.

    They will find out otherwise.

    This is the REAL law
    .
  • lslsttn 404 2009/04/17 18:08:22
    lslsttn
    What do you think about this information I found on another thread?

    Early in our nation's history we signed a treaty with Tripoli -- our first, and an event that calcified America's place as a world entity. In that treaty, drafted during the presidency of Washington and signed by President Adams included this article:

    Article XI: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
  • 404 lslsttn 2009/04/17 18:35:43 (edited)
    404
    +1
    .
    The USA was founded in such a way that (through the 1st Amendment), individuals were not prohibited from practicing Scripture.

    (As imperfect as this has turned out to be, to be fair, it had never even been tried before.)

    ...So, technically, the first statement of the article is true.

    As to the second statement, it is a declaration of an agreement to the USA's lack of jurisdiction of such matters abroad.

    It would seem that the integrity of BOTH statements has been corrupted.
    .
  • lslsttn 404 2009/04/17 23:03:20
    lslsttn
    And it didn't take us but a few decades to land a whole nation of people in danger because of it.

    For oil, money, and flatteries.

    I don't care what happens any longer. I'm just going to sit back and let it happen.
  • duminda723 2009/04/09 18:10:27
    You are paranoid my Good Woman.
    duminda723
    +1
    This is nitpicking.
    1) Come on now. Maybe he was busy.
    2) His plan was meant to save money and when the veterans said no he agreed to drop it. He listened to them
    3) Bush didn't even visit Normandy on his first visit to Europe. Plus Obama is scheduled to go there for the anniversary
  • NotWith... duminda723 2009/04/10 08:07:35
    NotWithoutAFight
    +2
    I suppose it's nitpicking if you aren't a Vet or member of the US Military.
    It's nitpicking if you don't consider a decades old tradition of attending a Hero's Ball.

    It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with Obama.
  • duminda723 NotWith... 2009/04/10 14:14:02
    duminda723
    I can see why it might be important, I just don't see how you can say he is trying to alienate the entire military because he couldn't make it to the Ball.
  • NotWith... duminda723 2009/04/10 14:19:48
    NotWithoutAFight
    +2
    He chose to attend a 'hollywood' type ball instead - one that honored him. I consider that a slap in the face.

    And I never said that action alone illustrated how he is trying to alienate the military - I believe I listed three. Seems like it it's becoming a trend.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/02 19:42:40

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals