USAF/USA/USN Times - Rummy Has To Go - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Palangi · #16 11-05-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Democrats have a hard time with this "one man, one vote" thingy.

B

Yep, some Democrats have a hard time with democracy.

cmac2012 · #17 11-06-2006, 03:40 AM

Yeah, those damn democrats and their plan to implement a permanent Democratic majority, already well under way, what a bunch of .... oh wait, that's Rove and the Repos plan....

My bad.

cmac2012 · #18 11-06-2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Democrats have a hard time with this "one man, one vote" thingy.

I read that the proven instances of anyone successfully voting multiple times are very, very rare.

However, looking at Florida '00 and Ohio '04, I'd say that voter suppression is real and has a much, much greater effect. And we may never know about the voting machines, lessen it is actually happening and someone spills the beans someday, which is what I think will happen, IF indeed it is taking place.

Hows the bible have it, "Be certain your sin will find you out."

Botnst · #19 11-06-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I read that the proven instances of anyone successfully voting multiple times are very, very rare.

However, looking at Florida '00 and Ohio '04, I'd say that voter suppression is real and has a much, much greater effect. And we may never know about the voting machines, lessen it is actually happening and someone spills the beans someday, which is what I think will happen, IF indeed it is taking place.

Hows the bible have it, "Be certain your sin will find you out."

I read an authoritative and well-research monograph saying that multiple voting was common and intimidation never happens.

Doesn't matter where or when I read it, who wrote it or anything. Trust me.

B

aklim · #20 11-06-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Yeah, those damn democrats and their plan to implement a permanent Democratic majority, already well under way, what a bunch of .... oh wait, that's Rove and the Repos plan....

My bad.

You wait and see. Should they get a chance they would do the same thing. Unless they are not human, that is. Find me a superbowl champ that does not want to win it again next year and the next.

crash9 · #21 11-06-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Came across this on msnbc.com . In an editorial to be published Monday in the Air Force, Army, and Navy Times, they opine that it's time for Rumsfeld to be replaced as SecDef. In their words, because of the botched mess in Iraq, and having lost the trust of not only most of the country but a large part of the military as well, to the point that many high ranking officers on active duty have taken the rare and unusual step of publicly criticizing both the sitting SecDef and his policies.

These publications are not official or semi-official periodicals of the military branches. They are actually under the same ownership as USA Today.

Honus · #22 11-06-2006, 11:27 AM

After looking at the editorial calling for the President to fire Donald Rumsfeld, I browsed around http://www.armytimes.com/index.php and found that it violates MedMech's rules on capitalization. That publication repeatedly uses the word "soldier" without capitalizing the "s", which is of course consistent with customary usage in the English language. So, those of you who are accustomed to seeing that word spelled with a lower case "s", you are not alone.

I did a quick google on this issue and did not come up with anything directly on point, but I did find a reference to a style manual used by the Army. It seems to support the Army Times' approach. Maybe MM knows of a rule out there that says that "Soldier" is to be treated differently than other official titles such as "president." Here's the link:

http://www.gordon.army.mil/ac/stylemanual.asp#Article%20sections

And this is what it says:

Quote:

B-3. Titles used with names or titles standing for persons
a. Capitalize titles preceding proper names. Do not capitalize when used in a general sense. b. Capitalize titles following proper names, or used alone as substitutes for names, when they indicate pre-eminence. Capitalize titles in the second person. Do not capitalize when used in a general sense or when not indicating pre-eminence.

AP Stylebook guidance agrees with a but disagrees with b, and therefore AC style follows the AP Stylebook on b. Capitalize a person's title only when used preceding one or more names (President Bush; Presidents Clinton and Bush). Lowercase in all other instances. Therefore most frequent usage is to lowercase: the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of the Army. But: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of the Army Thomas White. (Because these titles are long, it's more grammatically correct to say Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, or Thomas White, secretary of the Army. Note that when set off by commas, the title is not capitalized! "Capitalization" entry in AP Stylebook has more information.)

I guess we need the AP Stylebook to answer the question, unless MM is talking about an unwritten rule.

Maroon 300D · #23 11-06-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

After looking at the editorial calling for the President to fire Donald Rumsfeld, I browsed around http://www.armytimes.com/index.php and found that it violates MedMech's rules on capitalization. That publication repeatedly uses the word "soldier" without capitalizing the "s", which is of course consistent with customary usage in the English language. So, those of you who are accustomed to seeing that word spelled with a lower case "s", you are not alone.

I did a quick google on this issue and did not come up with anything directly on point, but I did find a reference to a style manual used by the Army. It seems to support the Army Times' approach. Maybe MM knows of a rule out there that says that "Soldier" is to be treated differently than other official titles such as "president." Here's the link:

http://www.gordon.army.mil/ac/stylemanual.asp#Article%20sections

And this is what it says:
I guess we need the AP Stylebook to answer the question, unless MM is talking about an unwritten rule.

As a general rule, AP style has you capitalize as few things as possible. When in doubt as to whether something ought to be capitalized, it's better to put the title after the name so that there's no doubt.

In general people don't get bent out of shape about capitalization. The thing that irks some people is that in AP style, only medical doctors get the title of 'Dr.' This upsets some people with Ph.D.s. But I digress.

Maroon 300D · #24 11-06-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash9

These publications are not official or semi-official periodicals of the military branches. They are actually under the same ownership as USA Today.

That's a good thing. I'm no fan of Rumsfeld, but it would be bad for the country if the armed forces started opining openly about which civilians can lead them and which can't.

retmil46 · #25 11-06-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

That's a good thing. I'm no fan of Rumsfeld, but it would be bad for the country if the armed forces started opining openly about which civilians can lead them and which can't.

Dude, News Flash - they already ARE. At least some elements.

It used to be unheard of to hear ANY such opining coming from the military.

It seems to have started up big time while Slick Willie was in office. I started hearing active duty personnel, both officer and enlisted, openly expressing disrespect and disgust toward the CinC. What really shocked me was when I went into the Navy Exchange on Norfolk Naval Base, and they were openly selling t-shirts that showed two military personnel simulating a homosexual act with the words "Clinton's Military" printed above.

Maroon 300D · #26 11-06-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Dude, News Flash - they already ARE. At least some elements.

It used to be unheard of to hear ANY such opining coming from the military.

It seems to have started up big time while Slick Willie was in office. I started hearing active duty personnel, both officer and enlisted, openly expressing disrespect and disgust toward the CinC. What really shocked me was when I went into the Navy Exchange on Norfolk Naval Base, and they were openly selling t-shirts that showed two military personnel simulating a homosexual act with the words "Clinton's Military" printed above.

The t-shirt thing is disturbing and I'm surprised to hear that. Seems to me that it's the sort of thing that could foster a culture that could someday enable military leaders to pick and choose who leads them. Like in Turkey, where if the military doesn't support the government, a new government is ushered in.

#27 11-06-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Dude, News Flash - they already ARE. At least some elements.

It used to be unheard of to hear ANY such opining coming from the military.

It seems to have started up big time while Slick Willie was in office. I started hearing active duty personnel, both officer and enlisted, openly expressing disrespect and disgust toward the CinC. What really shocked me was when I went into the Navy Exchange on Norfolk Naval Base, and they were openly selling t-shirts that showed two military personnel simulating a homosexual act with the words "Clinton's Military" printed above.

Exactly, I remember my CO telling us that Clinton is the CinC and disiplinary actions will be taken for trash talk about the Cinc.

I remember that moment in high definition, it really struck me that the Army had me by the balls.

Botnst · #28 11-06-2006, 02:16 PM

Same thing with Nixon when I was in. Everybody knew the mofo was a turkey but saying anything was forbidden fruit. During his re-election I remember my chief saying something like shut-up and make your feelings known on the absentee ballot. I think he may have expressed himself more colorfully.

B

Mistress · #29 11-06-2006, 03:23 PM

there is a conga line to the guillotine....

cmac2012 · #30 11-06-2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I read an authoritative and well-research monograph saying that multiple voting was common and intimidation never happens.

Doesn't matter where or when I read it, who wrote it or anything. Trust me.

The difference here is I did read about it whereas you are making it up for dramatic effect. Maybe what I came across is purest propaganda but the fellow made what sounded like a good case to me.

OK, from now on, everything I say will come backed up with numerous footnotes, Op Cits, etc, just like you do.