Obama Seeks To Gain Support Among Military Voters

Thought for the day...
n church yesterday, this little old lady
in the pew next to me was silently saying a private prayer. I saw
her lips moving and I thought it was so unique that I just had to ask
her who she was praying for. What she said was so sweet and sincere
that I just had to share it with you:

Dear Father,
These past couple of years
have been tough....
You have taken my
favorite Actor Patrick Swayze,
my favorite actress Elizabeth Taylor,
my favorite Cowboy James Arness,
my favorite athlete Bob Feller,
my favorite singer Lena Horne and
my favorite salesman Billy Mays.

I just wanted you to know that my
favorite president is Barack Obama.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>No one voted to go to war. There was an authorization to use force...and Dubya violated the terms it contained. Proof postive Dubya LIED the country into war: No weapons of mass destruction have been found.
Since neither of the 2 articles I mention contained a reference to McKinley I have no idea what hell you are talking about.
Unless and until you can demonstrate the Daily Kos article contain any errors, we'll just assume you are pissed because it is factual and contradicts your erroneous understanding of history.

What terms specifically did he violate? Here's the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/...

Please be specific and stick to this resolution.

BTW according to the resolution "Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations''

Did you notice that it was CONGRESS that believed Iraq had WMD’s? And it was CONGRESS (both R’s and D’s) that “urged the President to take appropriate action.”

Regarding McKinley. You brought up Gen Butler. I referenced a Wiki article that disputed your post and you said “And anyone who believes wiki for anything but limited verifiable facts is a fool.” You posted a reference, except the reference said that it was good for historical material just not good for modern day politics. Smedley began his service in the Philippines under President McKinley and continued to serve through WW1 under Wilson.

My point was simple but apparently not simple enough. Your reference said that Wiki wasn’t reliable for recent political events and materials. You disputed the Wiki material I posted. Therefore logically you believe that President McKinley through Wilson should be considered recent political events. Your reference said that Wiki was good for historical material. You don’t consider the Wiki material on Butler to be correct therefore you must not consider the 1930’s to be historical but rather you must, based on your posts consider it to be recent.

Regarding the Daily Kos. If you can’t find the flaws in just about every article you are a typical liberal progressive. Totally clueless about economics, human behavior, society and history. You are full of the “people should behave this way” and “if we do this, then people should do that” and “the cost doesn’t matter, it’s the right thing to do” and of course the cry of every progressive (and 5 year old)“it’s not fair.” Honestly, I went to this article on the Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/26/1094... - If you don’t understand why this is pure crap, you are brain dead. Basic economics,(and I mean 10 year old lemonade stand economics) shows why there is no real wage gap. If you truly believe that women are paid significantly less than men for the exact same thing, you’ve never had a real job in your life.

But go for it. There are lots of us around here who can blow you and your Kos out of the water. Pick an article and we’ll tear it apart. Just make sure, it fits this topic or start a new thread and we’ll go there for your Kos.

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, we usually agree but here I'm going to disagree. May (not all() wars are heroic. Whether it was the Revolutionary, Civil, WWW1 or 2 it was heroic. Probably like you I've had relatives going back to the Revolutionary war who fought and died.
It comes down to a simple issue: what is worth dying for? If no war is heroic than there is nothing worth dying for. Old adage is that to give one's life for another is the greatest act of love. To lay one's life down for family is great. To lay one's life down for one's countryman is awesome is amazing.
To lay one's life down for those in need, who one doesn't know is beyond heroic.
My relatives fought in the Revolutionary war. They fought and died on both sides on during the Civil War. My grandfather fought in the trenches in WW1 (and was gased). My dad fought in Korea and then we get to Vietnam and the middle east.
We live but a few decades but our deeds live for centuries. Or die upon our death. Wars can be stupid, but when they are instituted to help the helpless, they are by any definition "heroic."

I think you missed my point or maybe I did a poor job of making it clear. War in itself is not heroic, to win one side must kill and break more people and things than the other side. Now those who fight in those wars can be an so often are heroic and do heroic acts.
“No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.”
General George S. Patton

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you missed my point or maybe I did a poor job of making it clear. War in itself is not heroic, to win one side must kill and break more people and things than the other side. Now those who fight in those wars can be an so often are heroic and do heroic acts.
“No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.”
General George S. Patton

That I agree with.

Stay dry!

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
If you think the recession was caused by Bush you need to learn to read and operate a computer. The recession, which Bush warned against, goes back to Carter, Clinton and Pelosi.
The only one's who blame Bush for the recession are dumber than my dog's butt.

The Bush administration is not the cause of the recession, but played a major part.

Mayby its you that should learn a thing or two.

Black Rhino wrote:

<quoted text>
The Bush administration is not the cause of the recession, but played a major part.
Mayby its you that should learn a thing or two.

Looking at some of the factors that caused the recession, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under Clinton was a big factor.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a big part, and that points to Barney Frank. Frank (D) said,“I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness” regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as exercised with regard to other government-affiliated agencies, preferring, as he memorably put it, to “roll the dice a little bit.” The government-backed mortgage giants were at the center of the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis. Representative Frank was a stalwart defender of the organizations, even after the government uncovered “extensive” fraud at Fannie Mae and found that Freddie Mac had illegally channeled funds to its political benefactors. Again, Representative Frank’s personal life intruded into the story: He was sexually involved with a Fannie Mae executive during a time when he was voting on laws affecting the organization.

In response to a financial crisis in which he was a significant figure, Representative Frank helped to craft a financial-reform law that bears his name. The drafting of Dodd-Frank began as a punitive measure, evolved into a dispensary of political favors, and in the end did little or nothing to address the problems that led to the 2008–09 crisis or to prevent similar crises in the future.

And then there is the CRA that evolved over time to the point where a Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages down to $0 down. Because of the CRA Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.

Similarly, banks were expected by regulators to relax income requirements. Day labors and others often lack reportable income. Stated-income was a way of resolving the gap between actual income of borrowers and reported income. The problem, of course, comes when the con-artists and liars come into the game.

Nothing down, no proof of income, no credit score problems. Thanks to the D’s CRA legislation.

Bush had nothing to do with any of these and although he tried to change some things, Congress wasn’t going to go along with any changes that could slow the boom down.

I know Congress screwed up (on both sides) but what specific piece of legislation did Bush push through that contributed to the recession?

i'm a soldier fighting a war every day!!! it's tough on the skreets.

Just to keep this thread on track.

The latest poll shows Romney ahead of Obama among Veterans 58-34

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/Veterans-Gi...

I would bet he has 75-80% of enlisted service members support....He maybe only has 40-50 % of officers support...Typical that a DFL person has common workingclass and not the rich and office types.

FLBeaver wrote:

Just to keep this thread on track.
The latest poll shows Romney ahead of Obama among Veterans 58-34
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/Veterans-Gi...

That's what happens with a volunteer army that lowered it's recruitment standards. It's only now that both wars are winding down that the stanards are going back up.

FLBeaver wrote:

Just to keep this thread on track.
The latest poll shows Romney ahead of Obama among Veterans 58-34
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/Veterans-Gi...

it's on topic partner.

NEW wrote:

I would bet he has 75-80% of enlisted service members support....He maybe only has 40-50 % of officers support...Typical that a DFL person has common workingclass and not the rich and office types.

I would be you are wrong. Most of those enlisted service members want jobs when they get out of the service. Under Obama their current choices are to do another tour, go on welfare, or hope the local fast food place is hiring. Give him another 4 years and their options get even smaller as more and more college graduates beat them to McDonalds.

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
I would be you are wrong. Most of those enlisted service members want jobs when they get out of the service. Under Obama their current choices are to do another tour, go on welfare, or hope the local fast food place is hiring. Give him another 4 years and their options get even smaller as more and more college graduates beat them to McDonalds.

Obama did not creat the job market. That would be the GOP and there rich controlers. If Bush had not destroyed the economy with help from his GOP party we wouldnt have any problem. Obama has done alot to rebuild the economy if the GOP would get out of the way he would have it all the way back....

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>That's what happens with a volunteer army that lowered it's recruitment standards. It's only now that both wars are winding down that the stanards are going back up.

Sorry, but that's what liberals keep saying to make themselves feel better about their anti-military attitudes. Read the following and understand the "myths" come from the liberals, both anti-war and black "community organizers" who don't like facts because it screws up their twisted view of the world.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213...

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but that's what liberals keep saying to make themselves feel better about their anti-military attitudes. Read the following and understand the "myths" come from the liberals, both anti-war and black "community organizers" who don't like facts because it screws up their twisted view of the world.
http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213...

Really?..
April 17, 2008

The Army is meeting its recruiting goals partly by accepting more enlistees who lack high school diplomas, who have low scores on the military's aptitude test or receive waivers for criminal and medical problems. Look it up.
Ya think they're voting for the guys that started the war? Sure. The teabaggers have succeeded in dumbing down the whole country, including the military. By the way, since you think you know about liberals and their anti-military attitudes, I am sure you and the rest of the teabag contingent will all post their DD214s and their combat experience.

I think obama should get down and low crawl through some shit soup with the troops. You know, lead by example, do what they do, share their hardship.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Really?..
April 17, 2008

The Army is meeting its recruiting goals partly by accepting more enlistees who lack high school diplomas, who have low scores on the military's aptitude test or receive waivers for criminal and medical problems. Look it up.
Ya think they're voting for the guys that started the war? Sure. The teabaggers have succeeded in dumbing down the whole country, including the military. By the way, since you think you know about liberals and their anti-military attitudes, I am sure you and the rest of the teabag contingent will all post their DD214s and their combat experience.

And your source?

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
And your source?

my source is the streets dawg! that's where it be at.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Really?..
April 17, 2008

The Army is meeting its recruiting goals partly by accepting more enlistees who lack high school diplomas, who have low scores on the military's aptitude test or receive waivers for criminal and medical problems. Look it up.
Ya think they're voting for the guys that started the war? Sure. The teabaggers have succeeded in dumbing down the whole country, including the military. By the way, since you think you know about liberals and their anti-military attitudes, I am sure you and the rest of the teabag contingent will all post their DD214s and their combat experience.

Here is another link refuting your claim.

Current data shows that so far in fiscal 2009, 96 percent of new military recruits have a high school diploma, and 71 percent score in the upper half on the armed services qualification test, Gilroy said yesterday. Those figures are up from fiscal 2008, when the department reported 92 percent of its recruits entered with a high school diploma and 69 percent scored in the upper half on the qualification test.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/librar...

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>Looking at some of the factors that caused the recession, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under Clinton was a big factor.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a big part, and that points to Barney Frank. Frank (D) said,“I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness” regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as exercised with regard to other government-affiliated agencies, preferring, as he memorably put it, to “roll the dice a little bit.” The government-backed mortgage giants were at the center of the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis. Representative Frank was a stalwart defender of the organizations, even after the government uncovered “extensive” fraud at Fannie Mae and found that Freddie Mac had illegally channeled funds to its political benefactors. Again, Representative Frank’s personal life intruded into the story: He was sexually involved with a Fannie Mae executive during a time when he was voting on laws affecting the organization.

In response to a financial crisis in which he was a significant figure, Representative Frank helped to craft a financial-reform law that bears his name. The drafting of Dodd-Frank began as a punitive measure, evolved into a dispensary of political favors, and in the end did little or nothing to address the problems that led to the 2008–09 crisis or to prevent similar crises in the future.

And then there is the CRA that evolved over time to the point where a Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages down to $0 down. Because of the CRA Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.

Similarly, banks were expected by regulators to relax income requirements. Day labors and others often lack reportable income. Stated-income was a way of resolving the gap between actual income of borrowers and reported income. The problem, of course, comes when the con-artists and liars come into the game.

Nothing down, no proof of income, no credit score problems. Thanks to the DÂ’s CRA legislation.

Bush had nothing to do with any of these and although he tried to change some things, Congress wasnÂ’t going to go along with any changes that could slow the boom down.

I know Congress screwed up (on both sides) but what specific piece of legislation did Bush push through that contributed to the recession?

President Bush worked for tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation, and he allowed price-gouging by oil companies to go unnoticed, which increased the cost of living for Americans.

I know you don't like it, but it's true.