Flag lapel pin?!? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #31 04-19-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I was watching the Leher NewsHour today, Mark Shields pointed out that Sen. Jim Webb, who served in Vietnam doesn't wear a flag pin while Dick Cheney, who got several deferments in order to pursue his "other priorities" does.

What a shame. What was Clinton doing at that time, again? My memory is kinda hazy.

aklim · #32 04-19-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

There are problems that go beyond technology. We began the missile race. Having a shield to protect us makes us that more menacing to those who don't have one. Invulnerability sounds cool, but methinks it would just lead to more arrogance.

So we should leave ourself vulnerable?

aklim · #33 04-19-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Most important, what will SDI do to protect us from clandestine, surface delivered nukes besides exactly nothing?

Absolutely correct. However, do you want to be vulnerable on 2 fronts or 1?

Honus · #34 04-19-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

The flag pin is part of the customary attire, like wearing a dark suit and understated tie. It means you are a member of a certain club where you have to be a team player to push through your agenda and get the things you want and stand for...

Really? Who told you that?

Medmech · #35 04-19-2008, 07:23 PM

Obama does not give a crap about the flag or national anthem which is fine for a private citizen but the commander in chief he better abide by the customs of the nation he wants to lead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxfvxKBXRM4

Ara T. · #36 04-19-2008, 07:27 PM

Holy crap thats the worst national anthem I've ever heard. I would've done the same if I heard that ****.

raymr · #37 04-19-2008, 07:35 PM

Yup, only a symbol. Just like a star on a Mercedes. Meaningless.

aklim · #38 04-20-2008, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Obama does not give a crap about the flag or national anthem which is fine for a private citizen but the commander in chief he better abide by the customs of the nation he wants to lead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxfvxKBXRM4

Obama is a politician. He will stand for whatever he feels will get him elected. No difference from any politician, right or left side of the asile

MS Fowler · #39 04-20-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Absolutely correct. However, do you want to be vulnerable on 2 fronts or 1?

That gets back to the lunacy of our open borders. We need absolute control of the borders. Yeah, clever people can still smuggle in trouble-makers, but lets at least make a challenge for them.

aklim · #40 04-20-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

That gets back to the lunacy of our open borders. We need absolute control of the borders. Yeah, clever people can still smuggle in trouble-makers, but lets at least make a challenge for them.

Lunacy is kinda mild. The problem with the southern border is that it is political. Sealing it will be easy as long as we have the political will.

Jim B. · #41 04-20-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Lunacy is kinda mild. The problem with the southern border is that it is political. Sealing it will be easy as long as we have the political will.

That is a facile analysis even if it is true.

What about the 30,000,000 illegals living here already? That's right, I said 30 MILLION of them.

Many don't, can't or refuse to speak English.

Total amnesty was given to them in 1986, but guess what? Millions of them kept coming. And these are mostly the bottom of the barrel intheir countries, people barely literate, or uneducated, and utterly without skills. Many are or become criminals, never even mind thaqt border jumping itself is a criminal act.

What is being done to their countries to stop it? They could care less, because they are rid of those people, and they benefit from the millions of dollars they receive from the illegals that is remitted home and gets spent in their economies and not in the USA.

What is being done to people who hire them in the USA?

And, their babies are ALL automatically US citizens. What about that?

aklim · #42 04-20-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

What is being done to people who hire them in the USA?

Hence the political will part. If we had the stones to do it, we could pass a law. Hire an illegal? How about a half million fine for the first offense. Can't pay? Sucks to be you. That's ok. Your company goes up for public auction. 2nd offense? OK. See above fine and double it plus throw the owner in prison.

cmac2012 · #43 04-20-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

As for SDI....
IMO I never favored the idea of having the ability to know down 90% of a first strike launch from another super power.
However, I would like a 50% or better chance to knock down 2 or 3 missiles launched by some crack pot dictator or terrorist. Right now we have no capability; I'd like a chance at least.

I'd settle for being right 60% of the time myself.

My feeling on the crack pot dictator with a missile -- I can only imagine most of them realize that they are very unlikely to get missile technology even remotely in the ball park of what we have.

It would be in their interests to let us spend gazillions on SDI, and have some sort of feeling of security from it, while they pursue the only real chance they have of nuking us, i.e., with a ground delivered refrigerator sized nuke.

As I've said before, they could hide it under several metric tons of cocaine and get it into all sorts of locations on our coast line.

cmac2012 · #44 04-20-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

WGAS what he said is alleged to say. I guess if those are the choices, it will be country since I don't believe in any god.

What?? These are your sentiments regarding religion?!? Who knew?!!!

cmac2012 · #45 04-20-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What a shame. What was Clinton doing at that time, again? My memory is kinda hazy.

Clinton wisely considered that it was not worth risking his life for a lost cause, and a criminal one at that.

The difference, the HUGE difference between Vietanm war avoiders like myself and Clinton, and war avoiders like Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh, et. al., is that BC and I were not in favor of anyone being sent to Nam -- we wanted it stopped ASAP. The chickenhawks were big time Nam war backers, they just wanted less valuable members of society risking their necks for it.

Is this in any way unclear to you?