Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (418565)	3/25/2011 8:59:12 PM
From: MrLucky	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793955

CONCUR FULLY!!!!

To: unclewest who wrote (418565)	3/26/2011 12:58:22 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

Napolitano: Border security better than ever March 25, 2011 10:42 AM Posted by Stephanie Condon cbsnews.com Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano visited the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday to ensure Americans that it's safe to travel and conduct business across the border, but Republicans from the Southwest suggested the Obama administration isn't doing enough to keep the region secure. "There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been," Napolitano said at the Bridge of The Americas border crossing in El Paso, Texas, the Associated Press reports. "That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been." Napolitano met with the mayors of El Paso, Nogales, Arizona, and Yuma, Arizona yesterday, along with Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Francisco Sanchez and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin. The perception that violent crime in Mexico is spilling across the border is false, Napolitano and other leaders said. Violent crime rates have remained flat or decreased in Southwest border communities, she said. El Paso has been ranked the safest U.S. city of its size, even though it sits across from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, which is plagued by drug cartel violence, Mayor John Cook said. "The lie about border cities being dangerous has been told so many times that people are starting to believe it, but we as border communities have to speak out," Cook sad. The 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama deployed along the southern border last year are scheduled to leave in June, when they'll be replaced by 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, the Arizona Daily Star reports. The federal legislation that funded those new agents also allocated funds for two new unmanned aircraft systems, the erection of two new forward operating bases, 250 Customs and Border Protection port offices and 250 Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators. Still, after touring the border in Arizona with other Republican lawmakers, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in Tucson Thursday that the administration was making a mistake by withdrawing the National Guard, according to the Star. "The work that the National Guard has been doing is vital and it needs to be increased rather than decreased," McCain said. "When the secretary of Homeland Security withdraws the National Guard from the border after they've been doing such a good job, we don't know if they are really serious about securing our border." Other Southwest Republicans also criticized federal efforts at border security while Napolitano was in town. Texas State Sen. Tommy Williams at a news conference on Thursday highlighted an incident last year in which bullets thought to have come from a Juarez shootout hit El Paso's City Hall. "Napolitano is visiting there today," Williams said, the El Paso Times reports. "I hope she sees some of these bullet holes as I did when I was in El Paso." Williams unveiled a resolution on Thursday calling for a bipartisan state delegation to go to Washington to meet with the executive branch over border security, as well as for a cost analysis of immigration enforcement needs.

To: unclewest who wrote (418565)	3/26/2011 12:45:31 PM
From: Katelew	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

What unbelievable hubris and arrogance to be willing to GAMBLE other Americans lives for a coin toss. What if you lose? I have such a problem with this argument because it's so selective. This argument was made with Bosnia and now with Libya, but not by the right when we were preparing to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think it is worth a similar gamble to protect our own borders and ourselves? If not why not? If yes, when will you begin to support that? Way before 9/11 happened , I was arguing with my right wing friends that it made sense to use our military to protect our borders--mainly the southern border--and to cut down on the amount of illegal immigration and drug crossings. They all thought that would be a misuse of the military, even though at that time the country had excess active duty and reserve personnel. Now, of course, the military is stretched, making border protection a bit of a logistical problem. In theory, though, I don't see it as a misuse of the military to protect our borders. What do you think? Your opinion would have some value if you were a volunteer doing the fighting and gambling with your own life. Have you ever served in the US Armed Forces? Have you ever risked your life in a gunfight to help someone else or to kill someone else? or kill many someone elses? No, I haven't but I was raised in a military family and grew up on bases around the world. My dad was a career AF pilot, a bomber pilot in WWII, and part of the atom bomb testing done in the Pacific in the late 50s, flying secret weather reconnaissance missions out of Hickam where we were stationed in Hawaii. We were also members of the first squadron to open the SAC base in Little Rock, Arkansas, where my dad finished his career conducting training missions. I'm proud of his service and believe that when one joins the military, they accept the fact that they may become the pawn in someone's else's decisionmaking. If I were a volunteer, it would never occur to me to fret that my life was being gambled with because I had already accepted that on the front end. So I guess this is a round about way of saying that I don't have a problem with the fact that when a nation maintains a military, it's inherent in the whole scheme of things that those lives will be gambled with. In fact, I think your argument is somewhat dangerous and subversive to military cohesiveness. I'm not trying to insult you, but how can a military work if members are second guessing the decisions of those above them, or wanting to pick and choose those engagments that make sense, or fostering feelings of persecution that their lives are being trifled with. Seriously. I see this as dangerously erosive to overall military success. I was genuinely surprised by your emotional response and sorry if I offended you. One reason I'm surprised by your arguments is that I thought you had been military yourself at one time. As for Libya, it doesn't seem to me that our military will be exposed to much harm if any. The Libyan army is puny--only 10,00--and was pretty neutered with only a few air strikes. At this point, Gaddafi can probably just be squeezed out by the cutting off of arms and money. Time is not on his side, imo. FWIW, my dad would have been appalled by the Iraq invasion. I think, though, he would have been proud to take on this Libyan excursion. When are you going to start preaching to us about the Koran and the wonderful Sharia laws? Or have you? What have I ever said to put that notion in your head? For some reason, you're stereotyping me. All I can say is don't--because you can't. I'm all over the place and don't fit neatly into whatever the current right or left memes are. My opinions are my own plus I'm willing to freely change them when additional info leads me in a new direction.

To: unclewest who wrote (418565)	3/26/2011 1:18:31 PM
From: Honey_Bee	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Unclewest said: "I believe the only thing on Obama's menu for America is arrogance, cowardice and bullshit. Arrogant enough to interfere with and destroy other lives, cowardly enough to order others to kill or be killed, and so full of BS that integrity seems like an ancient hieroglyph." While I enjoyed your whole post, this paragraph is profound and bears repeating. .

To: unclewest who wrote (418565)	5/9/2011 9:34:13 PM
From: LindyBill	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Maybe you can be the flowerboy. Navy Allows Chaplains to Perform Same-Sex Unions Monday, May 9, 2011 08:53 AM By: Dave Eberhart The Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains is now allowing same-sex couples in the Navy to get married in Navy chapels by Navy chaplains under condition that same-sex marriage is legal in the state where the ceremony is to be performed, according to a report by cnsnews.com. chaplains, same-sex, marriagesRear Admiral Mark L. Tidd, the Chief of Navy Chaplains, noted via a directive to the field the historic change now officially codified in a training manual, which had previously proscribed same-sex marriages on federal property. The admiral said the Navy "has concluded that, generally speaking, base facility use is sexual orientation neutral.” “If the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then the base facilities may be used to celebrate the marriage,” the admiral’s directive states. “Regarding chaplain participation, consistent with the tenets of his or her religious organization, a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage: if it is conducted in accordance with the laws of the state which permits same-sex marriages or union; and if the chaplain is, according to applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to officiate that state’s marriages,” the directive concludes.