« Elderly Christian Woman Attacked by Homosexual Mob | Main | Another Small Step Toward Envirototalitarianism »

Is he considering Michael Dukakis for Secretary of Defense? I heard he is pretty good at tank driving.

Putting someone not proud of their country in the Whitehouse to "protect the American way of life from its enemies" somehow just doesn't make sense does it!? The patients are running the Democrat Asylum...but hey I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM!

I suspect this brown shirt national police force wont see the light of day. If it does, then its time to worry - a lot.

The headline for the "Army Times" I picked up today- "OBAMA'S ARMY". Scary.

And in regards to the 'civilian national security force', I told my mother-in-law (who voted for Obama) that the civilian national security force was what probably scared me the most about him. She looked at me and said, "What are you talking about? I never heard anything about THAT!" Thanks so much for not reporting it, mainstream media! *gag*

Darn he looks like a arrogant eletist snob dont he maybe thats one reason i dont care for him

More like Ernst Roehm's Sturmabteilung. I wonder how much of that 19% is a variation on the Bradley effect - sort of like "yes I know it is supposed to be a secret ballot, but I don't really quite believe it."

"Darn he looks like a arrogant eletist snob dont he maybe thats one reason i dont care for him"

Translation: "He looks like an arrogant, elitist snob, doesn't he? Perhaps that is one reason why I don't care for him."

Was this poll sceintific, in that military.com asked a random sampling of people, or was it just online and anyone can vote? Because AOL had an unscientific online poll like that the night before the election in which 80% of people said they were voting McCain. Even Hawaii and Vermont, liberal meccas, came up as being red states in this poll. If the military.com poll was done the same way, I imagine it is just as acurate.

The reason Republicans are going to KEEP losing elections is that they keep making completely contradicting claims about the SAME PEOPLE.

For instance, Obama. On the one hand 'he's a mystery" "no one knows who he really is" "he never talks about himself" while in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE complaining that he is "self obsessed" "a celebrity" "has made this election all about him' "has written bestselling autobiographies talking about himself for hundreds of pages"

Liberals. In one argument, every single liberal is a lout who has never worked one day, never paid taxes, and are nothing but welfare hounds trying to steal from hardworking Republicans. In the next argument, they are the educated cosmo sipping Jewish Corporate Elite, living in penthouse ivory towers and looking down malevolently upon the average Joe American.

Now another diametrically opposing argument in this thread. On the one hand, Obama is the world's biggest baby, who wants only to "talk" to his enemies rather than fight them, who would surey roll over, cry and surrender the second Putin or any other power player made a scary face at him. But then, he's ALSO violent monster amassing a personal army with which he will conquer and elininate the opposition in Gestapo fashion.

Geeze Louise can you keep your story straight for two seconds? You know what the police say about people who keep changing their story...they're probably LIARS

Oh I believe this, totally. After all, under George Bush and since the Iraq war, army recruitment went in the tank, and our military recruitment dwindled to dangerously low numbers.

To compensante for this, the army famously has had to lower its standards significantly to accept felons, people with IQ scores previously too low to get them into the army, people who had been bankrupt or had severe debt, and people with mental and physical problems. In other words, people who frankly, should never be in uniform.

Am I supposed to be surprised these same people don't like Obama?

Oh no, the 300 pound rapist who's borderline retarded isn't going to re enlist? Boo hoo hoo. The competant and smart guy next to him will stay, and another like HIM will take the fat dumbo's place.

The reason Republicans are going to KEEP losing elections is that they keep making completely contradicting claims about the SAME PEOPLE.

Posted by: Hypnotique at November 11, 2008 1:55 PM

Oh, yeah. Silly liberals NEVER do that.
What a schmuck.

I honestly am not worried about this in the slightest.

What libs and cons both forget is that as much as soldiers talk about ideology...that isn't what shapes most of their decisions to be in the military.

For most military members, the reason they are in is that the military is the best -or only- possible option available to them. It has job security, healthcare, a pension, and a sign on bonus. Who is the president and what wars are being fought DOES have an effect, but I feel this effect is greatly exagerated by both sides of the political divide.

With the economy and unemployment levels as is, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that we're going to see anything other than increased or unchanged enrollment, and I don't think that love or hate for Obama has anything to do with it. A bad economy always is good for voluntary military recruitment.

For most military members, the reason they are in is that the military is the best -or only- possible option available to them.
Posted by: Shana

I disagree. Most? If were a betting man, I'd say less than 10% - and those are the ones who end up as cooks. That's why our military is the greatest, most dedicated fighting force the world has ever known.

And while on the subject; Happy Veteran's Day to all you retired heroes out there. May God bless you and your families for your sacrifices.

I had to check out this poll and here it is; copied from the website:

>When I think of President Obama as my commander-in-chief . . .

>I'm filled with pride. I look forward to serving under him.
>I'm worried and doubt I'll re-up when my time comes.
>I'm ready to salute and follow his orders.

As was reported in the artical, there are TWO complimentery choices for Obama. Is this what Liberals deem "FAIR"? Of course it is!

Yes, it's set up so that ANYONE with a computer can vote. That's also what Liberals want.

"Liberals. In one argument, every single liberal is a lout who has never worked one day, never paid taxes, and are nothing but welfare hounds trying to steal from hardworking Republicans. In the next argument, they are the educated cosmo sipping Jewish Corporate Elite, living in penthouse ivory towers and looking down malevolently upon the average Joe American."

Both can fall under the description of "liberal."

It's a lot like how to the left, in one argument, every single conservative is a brainless, racist, Bible- thumping hillbilly living in a trailer park and owning at least 8 guns. In the next argument, every single conservative is a brilliant, greedy, and heartless corporate executive who's worth billions and wants to get even richer through deliberately exploiting/ oppressing the poor or other nefarious methods.
In other words, using Simpsons terminology (Since that show goes further to the left with every episode nowadays), in one argument, liberals dismiss us all as a cross between Ned Flanders and Cletus, and in another argument, view us all as Mr. Burns.
They tend to give George W. Bush equally contradictory definitions. In one argument, they portray him as a borderline retarded man-child being manipulated by Dick Cheney and the aforementioned evil corporate boogeymen (This is a favorite portrayal for comedians/ talk show hosts who like to make fun of Bush). In another argument, they portray him as a superintelligent, pure- evil mastermind who planned and carried out intricate conspiracies such as destroying the WTC towers through controlled demolition to make us invade Iraq, and blowing up the New Orleans levees to keep black people from escaping with their lives (This is a favorite portrayal for the psychotically radical libs on the Internet blogosphere to use when attempting to push for impeachment or an armed revolution).

There you go again Shana, presenting your opinion as if it were known fact.

It's OK to have an opinion. In fact, it's encouraged here. If you're going to use it in a discussion, however, it needs to be supported by evidence and used in support of a larger point. Your opinion can't be the point itself.

In this example, you could've said,

"I feel most military members join the military because it's their only/best option. I believe this because [insert real, verifiable evidence of your choosing]. Therefore, [insert your argument]."

I'm rooting for you. You're one of the few here from "the other side" with a firm grasp of the English language and who uses proper spelling. Geez, you're among the elite in that group simply for writing coherent sentences. I'm looking at you, "MORE HATE NOISES."

"With the economy and unemployment levels as is, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that we're going to see anything other than increased or unchanged enrollment, and I don't think that love or hate for Obama has anything to do with it. A bad economy always is good for voluntary military recruitment."

With this statement Shana assumes that the One cannot fix the economy. I agree, it may be a problem above his pay scale. I hope we are wrong, the soup line does not seem very appealing to me. Nor does the toilet paper line (see Russia 30 years ago).

"Military Unenthused About Chairman O"

Wow, I so didn't see that coming. And by that I mean, I so saw that coming.

I honestly am not worried about this in the slightest.

What libs and cons both forget is that as much as soldiers talk about ideology...that isn't what shapes most of their decisions to be in the military.

For most military members, the reason they are in is that the military is the best -or only- possible option available to them. It has job security, healthcare, a pension, and a sign on bonus. Who is the president and what wars are being fought DOES have an effect, but I feel this effect is greatly exagerated by both sides of the political divide.

With the economy and unemployment levels as is, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that we're going to see anything other than increased or unchanged enrollment, and I don't think that love or hate for Obama has anything to do with it. A bad economy always is good for voluntary military recruitment.

Posted by: Shana at November 11, 2008 3:08 PM

Wow, yesterday it was Israelis and Jews you knew all about, today it's soldiers. I'd bet good money you have never spoken personally to a single Israeli Jew or American soldier. You certainly don't have a shred of a clue on military demographics: average education levels and IQ levels in the military are much higher than average education and IQ levels in the rest of society. The military being the "last resort" for people is such an incredibly stupid canard it's ridiculous. Oh, and guess when it dates back to, that's right the 60s when the way to avoid the draft was via college deferment (or running off to Canada) and those who did avoid the draft looked down on those who joined the service as having "no other options" as they hadn't got/couldn't get college deferments.

But hey if it suits your world-view to imagine illiterate hicks and rubes magically being able to operate the insane amounts of technology the modern soldier incorporates into his/her equipment then sure go ahead and keep dreaming.

Posted by: Hypnotique at November 11, 2008 1:55 PM

The reason Republicans are going to KEEP losing elections is that they keep making completely contradicting claims about the SAME PEOPLE.

For instance, Obama. On the one hand 'he's a mystery" "no one knows who he really is" "he never talks about himself" while in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE complaining that he is "self obsessed" "a celebrity" "has made this election all about him' "has written bestselling autobiographies talking about himself for hundreds of pages"

No. The reason liberals are going to keep missing the point is because you are smallminded simpletons with the brain consistency of porridge.

Obama has plenty to say about himself - far too much in fact - when it comes to IRRELEVANCIES. Yeah, he's "written" best-selling autobiographies that dribble on and on about his problems with fitting into society and how his feeeeeeelings were everyone else's fault and everyone else was racist. He can deliberate at length in public on why the grandmother that took him in and raised him is a racist. But his relationship to Ayers and various other figures - including Frank Marshall Davis - is simply verboten to be brought up. He will gain fawning media interviews about his role as the uniter of the races - and yet he isn't expected to elaborate on his plans for the economy. We know plenty about him as a person, and almost nothing about him as a leader. Or are we "wingnuts" perhaps just not listening, and just complaining for the sake of it? Maybe we are - and you could prove this by articulating clearly what Obama's precise taxation plans are, or what his precise stance on foreign policy will be. Go on; if you can do that you will have proven your point. If not - and you know you can't - you will have proven ours.

Liberals. In one argument, every single liberal is a lout who has never worked one day, never paid taxes, and are nothing but welfare hounds trying to steal from hardworking Republicans.

Yeah, and this is inaccurate how, precisely? The political left is comprised of the mindless droning droogs at the bottom who are either on welfare and pontificating about the state of the world and the economy in their spare time as they spend 15 years completing college, or are brainless working-class union types who think the left helping to headlock their employer into working for them instead of vice versa is a good thing. At the other end of the spectrum are academics and lawyers and so forth who are statist/collectivist types and who manipulate those lower in the demographic scale into doing their bidding. We are talking about one or the other at any given time when we refer to the left; or both. The fact that this concept would have to be explained to you seems somewhat indicative of a lack of intelligence - perhaps you should stop trying to argue with people when you can't even understand what they're talking about in the first place without having it explained? Just a thought.

In the next argument, they are the educated cosmo sipping Jewish Corporate Elite,

Um who the hell is it that has a problem with Jews again? It's not the right who are constantly whining about AIPAC running US politics and sending the army to war in Iraq so the Israelis can get oil or something. It's you people; the left, who have been the ones who scapegoated and murdered the Jews throughout the centuries with libels of oppressing the workers, controlling international finance and media, and who knows what else.

Don't even dare to think about trying to project on the right.

...living in penthouse ivory towers and looking down malevolently upon the average Joe American.

Are you able to explain why this is not a completely accurate description of most liberal journalists, academics and politicians?

Now another diametrically opposing argument in this thread. On the one hand, Obama is the world's biggest baby, who wants only to "talk" to his enemies rather than fight them, who would surey roll over, cry and surrender the second Putin or any other power player made a scary face at him.

He's proven this both in word and in deed. What's your point?

But then, he's ALSO violent monster amassing a personal army with which he will conquer and elininate the opposition in Gestapo fashion.

Um yes. Except that that opposition would be his domestic political opposition. Case in point, Joe Wurzelbacher asked a simple question to the guy when Obama set foot on his property while out campaigning for support. You, we and the rest of the world now know that Joe Wurzelbacher has been on welfare, had a tax lien, and is divorced and a single parent, and (supposedly) "doesn't have a plumber's licence," and is a registered Republican, that he uses his middle name instead of his first name, and boundless other details. And why do we know these things? Because an Obama supporter illegally delved into his records and the left blogosphere and left-dominated mass media hounded the story out in order to try and destroy him. Joe the Plumber's tax records are a matter of national importance when it's still not even clear whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii. A team of media and Obama supporters travel to Wasilla the day after Sarah Palin is tapped for Vice President to look through her garbage and investigate "troopergate" - and STILL no media outlet has substantially examined Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, who killed a dozen policemen with pipe bombs and never went to justice.

Please explain how any of these actions demonstrate anything other than a willingness and drive to destroy political enemies using the apparatus of the state? Either that or shut your damn mouth and accept that the right have a better lock on who you chose to lead us than you do yourself.

Geeze Louise can you keep your story straight for two seconds? You know what the police say about people who keep changing their story...they're probably LIARS

You know what rational, intelligent humans say about people who claim others are lying because they themselves can't actually figure out what the others are talking about - and haven't bothered to try?

Oh, and as for "keeping losing elections," how's that been going for you in the last decade? Two wins out of how many elections? Two of the most devastating presidential election losses in the history of the US? And you managed to win this one with only the same or lower turnout as your man Kerry achieved in the last one?

Hm.. Don't think you're jumping the gun at all there, do you?

I honestly am not worried about this in the slightest.

What libs and cons both forget is that as much as soldiers talk about ideology...that isn't what shapes most of their decisions to be in the military.

For most military members, the reason they are in is that the military is the best -or only- possible option available to them. It has job security, healthcare, a pension, and a sign on bonus. Who is the president and what wars are being fought DOES have an effect, but I feel this effect is greatly exagerated by both sides of the political divide.

With the economy and unemployment levels as is, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that we're going to see anything other than increased or unchanged enrollment, and I don't think that love or hate for Obama has anything to do with it. A bad economy always is good for voluntary military recruitment.

Posted by: Shana at November 11, 2008 3:08 PM

Wow, yesterday it was Israelis and Jews you knew all about, today it's soldiers. I'd bet good money you have never spoken personally to a single Israeli Jew or American soldier. You certainly don't have a shred of a clue on military demographics: average education levels and IQ levels in the military are much higher than average education and IQ levels in the rest of society. The military being the "last resort" for people is such an incredibly stupid canard it's ridiculous. Oh, and guess when it dates back to, that's right the 60s when the way to avoid the draft was via college deferment (or running off to Canada) and those who did avoid the draft looked down on those who joined the service as having "no other options" as they hadn't got/couldn't get college deferments.

But hey if it suits your world-view to imagine illiterate hicks and rubes magically being able to operate the insane amounts of technology the modern soldier incorporates into his/her equipment then sure go ahead and keep dreaming.

Posted by: Hypnotique at November 11, 2008 1:55 PM

The reason Republicans are going to KEEP losing elections is that they keep making completely contradicting claims about the SAME PEOPLE.

For instance, Obama. On the one hand 'he's a mystery" "no one knows who he really is" "he never talks about himself" while in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE complaining that he is "self obsessed" "a celebrity" "has made this election all about him' "has written bestselling autobiographies talking about himself for hundreds of pages"

No. The reason liberals are going to keep missing the point is because you are smallminded simpletons with the brain consistency of porridge.

Obama has plenty to say about himself - far too much in fact - when it comes to IRRELEVANCIES. Yeah, he's "written" best-selling autobiographies that dribble on and on about his problems with fitting into society and how his feeeeeeelings were everyone else's fault and everyone else was racist. He can deliberate at length in public on why the grandmother that took him in and raised him is a racist. But his relationship to Ayers and various other figures - including Frank Marshall Davis - is simply verboten to be brought up. He will gain fawning media interviews about his role as the uniter of the races - and yet he isn't expected to elaborate on his plans for the economy. We know plenty about him as a person, and almost nothing about him as a leader. Or are we "wingnuts" perhaps just not listening, and just complaining for the sake of it? Maybe we are - and you could prove this by articulating clearly what Obama's precise taxation plans are, or what his precise stance on foreign policy will be. Go on; if you can do that you will have proven your point. If not - and you know you can't - you will have proven ours.

Liberals. In one argument, every single liberal is a lout who has never worked one day, never paid taxes, and are nothing but welfare hounds trying to steal from hardworking Republicans.

Yeah, and this is inaccurate how, precisely? The political left is comprised of the mindless droning droogs at the bottom who are either on welfare and pontificating about the state of the world and the economy in their spare time as they spend 15 years completing college, or are brainless working-class union types who think the left helping to headlock their employer into working for them instead of vice versa is a good thing. At the other end of the spectrum are academics and lawyers and so forth who are statist/collectivist types and who manipulate those lower in the demographic scale into doing their bidding. We are talking about one or the other at any given time when we refer to the left; or both. The fact that this concept would have to be explained to you seems somewhat indicative of a lack of intelligence - perhaps you should stop trying to argue with people when you can't even understand what they're talking about in the first place without having it explained? Just a thought.

In the next argument, they are the educated cosmo sipping Jewish Corporate Elite,

Um who the hell is it that has a problem with Jews again? It's not the right who are constantly whining about AIPAC running US politics and sending the army to war in Iraq so the Israelis can get oil or something. It's you people; the left, who have been the ones who scapegoated and murdered the Jews throughout the centuries with libels of oppressing the workers, controlling international finance and media, and who knows what else.

Don't even dare to think about trying to project that onto the right.

...living in penthouse ivory towers and looking down malevolently upon the average Joe American.

Are you able to explain why this is not a completely accurate description of most liberal journalists, academics and politicians?

Now another diametrically opposing argument in this thread. On the one hand, Obama is the world's biggest baby, who wants only to "talk" to his enemies rather than fight them, who would surey roll over, cry and surrender the second Putin or any other power player made a scary face at him.

He's proven this both in word and in deed. What's your point?

But then, he's ALSO violent monster amassing a personal army with which he will conquer and elininate the opposition in Gestapo fashion.

Um yes. Except that that opposition would be his domestic political opposition. Case in point, Joe Wurzelbacher asked a simple question to the guy when Obama set foot on his property while out campaigning for support. You, we and the rest of the world now know that Joe Wurzelbacher has been on welfare, had a tax lien, and is divorced and a single parent, and (supposedly) "doesn't have a plumber's licence," and is a registered Republican, that he uses his middle name instead of his first name, and boundless other details. And why do we know these things? Because an Obama supporter illegally delved into his records and the left blogosphere and left-dominated mass media hounded the story out in order to try and destroy him. Joe the Plumber's tax records are a matter of national importance when it's still not even clear whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii. A team of media and Obama supporters travel to Wasilla the day after Sarah Palin is tapped for Vice President to look through her garbage and investigate "troopergate" - and STILL no media outlet has substantially examined Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, who killed a dozen policemen with pipe bombs and never went to justice.

Please explain how any of these actions demonstrate anything other than a willingness and drive to destroy political enemies using the apparatus of the state? Either that or shut your damn mouth and accept that the right have a better lock on who you chose to lead us than you do yourself.

Geeze Louise can you keep your story straight for two seconds? You know what the police say about people who keep changing their story...they're probably LIARS

You know what rational, intelligent humans say about people who claim others are lying because they themselves can't actually figure out what the others are talking about - and haven't bothered to try?

Oh, and as for "keeping losing elections," how's that been going for you in the last decade? Two wins out of how many elections? Two of the most devastating presidential election losses in the history of the US? And you managed to win this one with only the same or lower turnout as your man Kerry achieved in the last one?

Hm.. Don't think you're jumping the gun at all there, do you?

/apologies to Van Helsing for the double post, italics didn't turn out right the first time around

["Military Unenthused About Chairman O"

Wow, I so didn't see that coming. And by that I mean, I so saw that coming.

Posted by: SpideyTerry at November 11, 2008 8:58 PM]

I am glad I am retired. It was hard enough saluting Slick Willy.

Oh but Mike dontchu know that since you retired under Bush you are a living, breathing denouncement of his fascist racist policies to oppress innocent Muslims and steal their oil for the Jooooos?

It's true. Shana told me, ask her if you don't believe me.

"I disagree. Most? If were a betting man, I'd say less than 10% - and those are the ones who end up as cooks."

Easy there, Jimbo...I was a cook with a 132 GT score. I did it for the bonus :)

That picture is hilarious. Thanks for sharing. Not surprising the U.S. Military isn't on board with Obama. Hopefully he won't mess things up too bad.

A-trolling we will go... a-trolling we will go... hi-ho the libtard-o, a-trolling we will go.

Shana, the least you could do before regurgitating lies and half truths about the military is to actually go to the DoD and Service web sites (and other places) and get some actual facts about our fine service people. As stated above the average IQ and educational level in today's military is markably above that of the general population. In addition, we all served to serve America by swearing to protect the Constitution and the offices it authorizes, not because we had nothing else to do. Today's military folks are hip deep in technology - skills in demand "on the outside".

But don't worry, there won't be much military left for you to dis in a couple of years. Schumer, Biden, Pelosi, and His Majesty Zero have already stated that they are going to gut the American military. What's left will be Madeleine Half-bright's International Meals On Wheels. Zero's Schutzstaffel will concentrate on America's real enemies: conservatives. All Hail The One, we are saved!

Posted by: Jimbo at November 11, 2008 3:45 PM
That's why our military is the greatest, most dedicated fighting force the world has ever known.

You are glorifying the US military without knowing the depths of their actions. The US military bombed my city and killed my parents, they are not angels on earth. If obama reduces the power of the US military he will do a favour to the world.