afghanistan

HOW ABOUT EVERY COMPANY THAT EMPLOYS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ADDING JUST ONE JOB THIS MONTH? WE COULD CALL IT "EACH ONE HIRE ONE."
Great idea Dorothy, even better if the government force private companies to do this!

Obama knows way more about military strategy and tactics than some old general does.

I think Dorothy Jamison's letter was part of a fifth grade letter-to-the-editor class assignment. Had to be.

Should President Barack Obama continue his escalation of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it will be the liberal thing to do.
What too few Americans realize—especially the president’s anti-war supporters, who accuse him of betraying liberal or "progressive" values—is that if he accedes to General Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan and intensifies the drone attacks in Pakistan, he will follow squarely in the footsteps of the great liberal statesmen he has cited as his role models. Though opponents of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cheered loudly when Obama spoke reverentially in his campaign speeches of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy, those heroes of the president promoted and oversaw U.S. involvement in wars that killed, by great magnitudes, more Americans and foreign civilians than all the modern Republican military operations combined.
Though liberals are routinely chastised for their “secular relativism,” as Bill O’Reilly puts it, American statesmen who waged the largest wars were driven by the Christian doctrine of “good works,” often enunciated in Obama’s speeches as the duty to be “our brother’s keeper.”
What should be even more troubling to those who call themselves progressives but oppose the current wars: Obama's motivations for pursuing them are rooted in the central tenet of progressivism, enunciated by his idols, that the American national government is responsible for the reform and uplift of those "we" deem to be living below "our" standards, and that "they" must be protected from their oppressors. Obama's role models followed the logic of that moral calling to the ends of the earth.
And though liberals are routinely chastised for their "secular relativism," as Bill O'Reilly puts it, liberal statesmen who waged the largest wars were driven by the Christian doctrine of "good works," often enunciated in Obama's speeches as the duty to be "our brother's keeper." Whereas the traditional conservative notion of Christian communal obligation is limited to one’s family or nation, Obama’s political ancestors extended it to the world.
Both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson declared that God had given American leaders—"Christ's Army," according to Wilson—the divine duty to "improve" the backward peoples of America and the world. Roosevelt and Wilson used that rationale to establish modern progressivism and American imperialism, both of which were part of what Roosevelt called "the long struggle for the uplift of humanity." They argued that greater government intervention, through social welfare and regulatory programs at home and military incursions abroad, would remake American slums and all the countries of the world into the Puritan ideal of a "city on a hill."
To fulfill this mission, Roosevelt championed many social-welfare measures, including pure-food and worker-safety regulations, but he also pushed the United States to attack Spain and occupy Cuba and the Philippines—the so-called Spanish-American War, which historians characterize as America's "first imperial war.” The assault and subsequent occupations resulted in the deaths of more than 10,000 Cubans, several hundred thousand Filipino civilians, and 4,541 American soldiers.
Wilson believed that to "Christianize the world" required the radical expansion of government power. Along with fellow progressives in Congress, Wilson established three classic progressive institutions: the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, and the federal income tax.

Former Ranger wrote:

HOW ABOUT EVERY COMPANY THAT EMPLOYS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ADDING JUST ONE JOB THIS MONTH? WE COULD CALL IT "EACH ONE HIRE ONE."
Great idea Dorothy, even better if the government force private companies to do this!

Now don't be giving Dorothy any crazy ideas.

If the government hires one person to dig holes and hires another to fill them back up, are these really "jobs" when nothing productive gets done?

If an employer has enough work for 1.25 people, does he hire one person to work 50 hours a week or does he hire two people to each work 25 hours a week. If it takes 40 hours for a person to support himself, then in the first scenario, at least one person can support himself but in the second scenario, neither person can support himself. So which is better?

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
Now don't be giving Dorothy any crazy ideas.
If the government hires one person to dig holes and hires another to fill them back up, are these really "jobs" when nothing productive gets done?

Reminds me of a story my father once told me. Back in the 30's during the real depression the government would hire locals to build bridges and work on fire roads in the wilderness of northern MN, it was the WPA (Works Projects Administration) started by FDR, another great liberal. Anyway, Dad said after they build these wooden bridges, and the work ran out, they'd sneak up there during the night and burn the bridges so they would get rehired to build them again. Sounds just like a government job doesn't it?

Former Ranger wrote:

<quoted text>
Reminds me of a story my father once told me. Back in the 30's during the real depression the government would hire locals to build bridges and work on fire roads in the wilderness of northern MN, it was the WPA (Works Projects Administration) started by FDR, another great liberal. Anyway, Dad said after they build these wooden bridges, and the work ran out, they'd sneak up there during the night and burn the bridges so they would get rehired to build them again. Sounds just like a government job doesn't it?

I heard one time that WPA also stood for We Puttz Around.