The Democrat Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

Yup.

 

/I HEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLL you!!!!!!!!! Benny Hinn (after the people attend the workshops on what to do on stage). I know this one first hand.

Actually, as odd as this my sound, one of my co-workers knows a guy who actually WAS healed.

[kapkomet]

Actually, as odd as this my sound, one of my co-workers knows a guy who actually WAS healed.

 

 

Different thread, different discussion... I'll leave it there for now.

 

Although, I'm curious as to the story.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Different thread, different discussion... I'll leave it there for now.

 

Although, I'm curious as to the story.

I dont know the story really at all. I mocked Hinn at a staff meeting once and one of the pastors retorted with what I told you... no details beyond that. I think t may have been a pastor who was healed, not sure.

[Rex Kickass]

Yup.

 

/I HEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLL you!!!!!!!!! Benny Hinn (after the people attend the workshops on what to do on stage). I know this one first hand.

 

Benny Hinn was always the best dressed televangelist IMO.

[kapkomet]

Benny Hinn was always the best dressed televangelist IMO.

 

 

 

Yea.

[Balta1701]

Sigh. Quite a collection today.

 

"The U.S. military is now Meals on Wheels. It always is with Democrat presidents"

Obviously, you can guess where that one comes from.

 

And a response to a caller disagreeing:

“What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a blockhead,” Limbaugh shot back. “What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a close-minded bigot who is ill-informed.”

 

“If you had listened to this program for a modicum of time, you would know it,” he said. “But instead, you’re a blockhead. Your mind is totally closed. You have tampons in your ears. Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read.”

Tampons in your ears? People seriously think of things like that, and then say it, and get rich on it?

 

Oh, and I might have missed this one.

“We've already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax.”

 

Anyway, here's Beck. Audio at link if you don't like the ....

I also believe this is dividing the nation…to where the nation sees him react so rapidly on Haiti and yet he couldn’t react rapidly on Afghanistan. He couldn’t react rapidly on Ft. Hood. He couldn’t react rapidly on our own airplanes with an underwear bomber…it doesn’t make sense. [...] Three different events and Haiti is the only one. I think personally that it deepens he divide to see him react this rapidly to Haiti.

 

And here's an actual elected Rep., Steve King (R-Ny). The money quote is him wanting to deport people to be relief workers.

Several liberal groups and members of Congress are urging the administration to grant the special protection to an estimated 30,000 Haitians with orders to leave. The designation would allow them to live and work freely in the United States until conditions in Haiti improve and the status could be revoked.

 

But conservative immigration groups, including at least one Republican congressman, said such a move amounts to a slippery slope to "amnesty" and could stoke a political controversy on immigration.

 

"This sounds to me like open borders advocates exercising the Rahm Emanuel axiom: 'Never let a crisis go to waste,'" Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said in an e-mail message to ABCNews. "Illegal immigrants from Haiti have no reason to fear deportation, but if they are deported, Haiti is in great need of relief workers, and many of them could be a big help to their fellow Haitians."

...Sigh....

[BigSqwert]

Three brilliant minds.

[kapkomet]

re: the meals on wheels comment: leaving the Democrat part out, our military is not built to provide "relief efforts". That much I agree with, no matter who is in charge.

 

I wonder if there should be a creation of some sort of meals on wheels type of military organization so that they actually could be effective at this sort of thing. Isn't that what americorps is or should be?

[Balta1701]

re: the meals on wheels comment: leaving the Democrat part out, our military is not built to provide "relief efforts". That much I agree with, no matter who is in charge.

 

I wonder if there should be a creation of some sort of meals on wheels type of military organization so that they actually could be effective at this sort of thing. Isn't that what americorps is or should be?

I think that the military has a number of advantages that no other group could possibly match. They're positioned around the world with, in large numbers, with many bases for logistical support and direct shipments from the U.S., with equipment unlike any other organization. The types of things the Navy has, carrier groups and landing craft, are simply perfect for these kinds of incidents. They carry large numbers of things like helicopters that can be used for moving supplies and evacuations. They have large medical facilities and supplies. Landing craft can land on beaches when the airport or harbor has been destroyed and render aid and supplies and evacuations. Carrier groups and landing craft groups can purify and generate clean drinking water in large amounts. And there's really no where in the world that isn't within a few days sailing of a U.S. carrier group at most times. Going even beyond the Navy, who else has the heavy lifting capacity of the air force? Who else can take over the police functions of a state/city after its government has been destroyed other than people with big guns?

 

Americorps couldn't do it, not without the resources of the Navy or air force. It does seem like these events happen often enough that the military ought to be game-planning for them. For all I know they might be; it's not that hard for us to guess where the areas on Earth that are at moderate to high seismic risk are and say "come up with a plan to render aid here".

[NorthSideSox72]

re: the meals on wheels comment: leaving the Democrat part out, our military is not built to provide "relief efforts". That much I agree with, no matter who is in charge.

 

I wonder if there should be a creation of some sort of meals on wheels type of military organization so that they actually could be effective at this sort of thing. Isn't that what americorps is or should be?

I think in this case, you need the military, because part of the issue here is security and logistics that the relief agencies can't provide. So I have no issue with it.

 

But really, my reaction to those quotes is... "hey look - assholes being assholes! Shocker!"

 

[kapkomet]

I think in this case, you need the military, because part of the issue here is security and logistics that the relief agencies can't provide. So I have no issue with it.

 

But really, my reaction to those quotes is... "hey look - assholes being assholes! Shocker!"

 

To you and Balta both - I'm actually raising a question about creating some sort of an organization that offshoots from the military that deals with this stuff. I understand both of your points as to the "heavy lifting" and support that the military provides, but they are not a rescue operation by and large - they are not designed for it. Security - agreed, but they are also not supposed to be police, either.

 

I'm not saying assholes are being assholes, I'm leaving that judgement out of it. I'm just asking a question from the logistics side, which Balta and you both partially addressed.

 

I'm just more or less thinking out loud - the military is supposed to blow stuff up, not be peace keepers and police and aid. So is there an arm that should be created for this? Or is that more bureaucratic crap?

[southsider2k5]

To you and Balta both - I'm actually raising a question about creating some sort of an organization that offshoots from the military that deals with this stuff. I understand both of your points as to the "heavy lifting" and support that the military provides, but they are not a rescue operation by and large - they are not designed for it. Security - agreed, but they are also not supposed to be police, either.

 

I'm not saying assholes are being assholes, I'm leaving that judgement out of it. I'm just asking a question from the logistics side, which Balta and you both partially addressed.

 

I'm just more or less thinking out loud - the military is supposed to blow stuff up, not be peace keepers and police and aid. So is there an arm that should be created for this? Or is that more bureaucratic crap?

 

Well they do have a wing of Military Police... after that I don't know.

[NorthSideSox72]

To you and Balta both - I'm actually raising a question about creating some sort of an organization that offshoots from the military that deals with this stuff. I understand both of your points as to the "heavy lifting" and support that the military provides, but they are not a rescue operation by and large - they are not designed for it. Security - agreed, but they are also not supposed to be police, either.

 

I'm not saying assholes are being assholes, I'm leaving that judgement out of it. I'm just asking a question from the logistics side, which Balta and you both partially addressed.

 

I'm just more or less thinking out loud - the military is supposed to blow stuff up, not be peace keepers and police and aid. So is there an arm that should be created for this? Or is that more bureaucratic crap?

I think you raise a good point - and the US has their own crews to do just that, domestically. If you want a crew to serve the world, that includes all those things, instead of cobbling it all together when these things happen... the UN is the ideal place to put it. In fact, I think that would be an ideal role for the UN. They have peacekeepers, but maybe they need a disaster response unit too. That's something all countries can agree on, I think, and pay in bits of money to.

 

[kapkomet]

I think you raise a good point - and the US has their own crews to do just that, domestically. If you want a crew to serve the world, that includes all those things, instead of cobbling it all together when these things happen... the UN is the ideal place to put it. In fact, I think that would be an ideal role for the UN. They have peacekeepers, but maybe they need a disaster response unit too. That's something all countries can agree on, I think, and pay in bits of money to.

 

 

Yea, that's what I'm getting at... and you are absolutely right, that should be what the UN is for. And I'd be all for the US training them, if they'd allow it.

[bmags]

I don't think what you are proposing could ever get funded on its own, kap, i think it would have to be worked within the military or else it would be derided.

[kapkomet]

I don't think what you are proposing could ever get funded on its own, kap, i think it would have to be worked within the military or else it would be derided.

 

 

Funded by US military (defense spending) or UN? I happen to agree with you, but I guess my point is, these disasters happen all the time, and there's no single resource that can handle it the right way. So, our military gets bogged down in what I don't think they belong in - the point being there that they are not as efficient at this as they would otherwise be if there were a specialized group that did this.

 

Like I said, it's just a thought. You're right, on its own, it would never fly, but shouldn't it? Do you think people would "sign up" for this type of branch over the traditional military?

[southsider2k5]

Funded by US military (defense spending) or UN? I happen to agree with you, but I guess my point is, these disasters happen all the time, and there's no single resource that can handle it the right way. So, our military gets bogged down in what I don't think they belong in - the point being there that they are not as efficient at this as they would otherwise be if there were a specialized group that did this.

 

Like I said, it's just a thought. You're right, on its own, it would never fly, but shouldn't it? Do you think people would "sign up" for this type of branch over the traditional military?

 

Honestly, I think the PR from a situation like this makes it totally worthwhile for the US to lead missions like this.

[bmags]

Funded by US military (defense spending) or UN? I happen to agree with you, but I guess my point is, these disasters happen all the time, and there's no single resource that can handle it the right way. So, our military gets bogged down in what I don't think they belong in - the point being there that they are not as efficient at this as they would otherwise be if there were a specialized group that did this.

 

Like I said, it's just a thought. You're right, on its own, it would never fly, but shouldn't it? Do you think people would "sign up" for this type of branch over the traditional military?

 

It's a really hard question. Do I think people would sign up for this specifically? Yes. Do I think this would be the first program you cut? yes. Do I think this would be a hard program to fund? Yes.

 

Ideally speaking i think it's a really good idea, but, like balta said, a lot of the reasons the military is most ideal is because of it's resources (AC carriers, logistics), and would you give this group their own?

[kapkomet]

It's a really hard question. Do I think people would sign up for this specifically? Yes. Do I think this would be the first program you cut? yes. Do I think this would be a hard program to fund? Yes.

 

Ideally speaking i think it's a really good idea, but, like balta said, a lot of the reasons the military is most ideal is because of it's resources (AC carriers, logistics), and would you give this group their own?

 

 

That's a good point, too. But, does it take an aircraft carrier? It is a good point that we "lead" in situations like this, I guess... but then again, it takes away resources from an already thin military.

[Rex Kickass]

That's a good point, too. But, does it take an aircraft carrier? It is a good point that we "lead" in situations like this, I guess... but then again, it takes away resources from an already thin military.

 

An aircraft carrier is sort of necessary when you need to coordinate helicopter delivery of aid and the one working airport in the region is so broken down and clogged that new aircraft are unable to land and there isn't enough fuel to facilitate regular landings and take offs and running a temporary control tower for the airspace around the airport.

 

The military has a fairly long history of providing assistance and comfort to populations. It's something that the military did extremely successfully in Japan and Germany at the end of World War II.

 

The navy also has the USNS Comfort which is a hospital ship and deployed specifically for situations like this.

 

 

[Balta1701]

That's a good point, too. But, does it take an aircraft carrier? It is a good point that we "lead" in situations like this, I guess... but then again, it takes away resources from an already thin military.

Quite frankly, yeah, it often does take an aircraft carrier.

 

One other thing to think about is utility. Let's say I had a humanitarian agency dedicated to responding to the world's crises on a massive scale, with everything the military ever winds up needing. It gets used for what, maybe 10% of its total time? 5%? The rest of the time, you're funding a relief agency that sits around doing nothing...or, they decide, more likely "There's lots of other places we can do good" so they go into Africa, Asia, wherever, and start rebuilding on a regular basis there. Then, an earthquake hits, their resources already in that place are knocked out, and the other resources are scattered around the world.

 

One other reason why the military is pretty useful in this matter is...it has something to do with the otner 95% of its time.

[lostfan]

They did exactly that in the first place, so I don't know what your point is.

 

They had a hell of a lot more wisdom then we do now, with our "me, me, me, I, I, I" (including our president) attitude. We don't think 30 seconds beyond our actions today, unless it's to "redistribute our wealth" and how we're going to do it. The founding of this country was aboslutely against that. They wanted a place where the individual could choose what it is they wanted. Today, we have to pay for everyone else's stupidity. That makes their wisdom a whole lot better then ours.

lol that wasn't really where I was going that, I just triggered a rant which I think is kind of funny. This country wasn't perfect when it was founded, it never really has been either, that was known back then, too.

Edited January 16, 2010 by lostfan

[bmags]

they wanted a place where an individual could choose what it is they wanted, that is, except for woman, non-landowners and black people. And indians.

[kapkomet]

they wanted a place where an individual could choose what it is they wanted, that is, except for woman, non-landowners and black people. And indians.

 

Um hmm. Evil f***ers didn't know that they needed to be marxist, or nothing.

[mr_genius]

they wanted a place where an individual could choose what it is they wanted, that is, except for woman, non-landowners and black people. And indians.

 

i hate America too. lets burn it down.