Senator McCain still sounds week on immigration.  Immigration (and deportation) is my top issue for this election cycle and none of the three candidates is interested in shutting the door on our borders and deporting those that don't belong here.  I won't be voting this time.  I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.  I like Ike.

Bullwinkle

[quote user="Bulllwinkle"]

Senator McCain still sounds week on immigration.  Immigration (and deportation) is my top issue for this election cycle and none of the three candidates is interested in shutting the door on our borders and deporting those that don't belong here.  I won't be voting this time.  I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.  I like Ike.

Bullwinkle

[/quote]

 

I can't argue that, Tony. I did the same thing in '04. 

EXHUME HARRY TRUMAN!

Tony, one of me grans was a semi-mucky muck in the local Rep party (I come from a mixed background politically) so evidently when I was but a wee Hetty, I got to meet Ike. Yesh, I was probably in stroller with a little American flag perched on it and rudely slept through the encounter, but technically I met him.

What's sad is that our political system provides smart people like you and Twinlabs with these "lesser of the evils choices" that make you voluntarily stay home on certain Election Days.  When the elimination process results in "Who?  Him?  Her?  Them? Arrrgghhhh!" as choices and turns you off, our country suffers for it.

Happy coffee anyone?

;)

Hetty

Liked Ike...

Exhume Harry Truman 2008 Committee

Twinlab you are right on about all three candidates tap dancing on immigration . The candidates do not talk about the major issues facing America..  Universal health care, New immigration laws , to stop the senseless war in Iraq and control the outsourcing of American jobs.   I also liked IKE .

Too young for Ike, here....but it is sad when there is no one who meets enough of your qualifications to vote for them.

Hank, I believe the media is strongly responsible for not allowing the candidates to focus on issues that matter to the American people. The media wants to focus on things that sell newspapers. 

What is even worse about the media?  The government and special interest groups control the media.  Who won'n t find hard nose news on FOX, CNN, ABC and NBC. All the news is filtered .

Bull, that is your right, of course.  If everyone who feels as you do does the same, however, we will end up with the Democrats in control of all three branches of government, and the result (one of many results) will be open borders.  Period.

It's worth thinking about.

MWL

I'm in a district that was gerrymandered in the early - mid 1990's.  It guarantees a black democratic congressman (Bobbie Scott) - he usually runs unopposed.  He will be in congress longer than Teddy Kennedy if he wants.

But Senator Warner is retiring & i might vote just to help Virginia NOT have 2 democratic senators.  But right now i am leaning toward staying home election day.     Bullwinkle

My condolences bull (RE: Scott as Representative).  We are in close proximity, apparently;  Thelma Drake is my representative.

The guy in our areaI really like, however, is Randy Forbes.  Have you heard him speak by any chance?  Pretty sharp IMO.  I'd like to see HIM get to the senate eventually.

MWL

This used to be the late Herb Bateman's district.  I really liked him.  That idiot from channel 10 (Andy Fox?) ran against Bateman & got a lot of votes, but lost.  I've very close to Langley AFB & Ft Monroe.  Langley was my last base before i retired.

Bullwinkle

My Representative can beat up your Representative:

http://www.house.gov/harman/index.shtml

She's a Blue Dog Democrat, however, who grasps the concept of working in bi-partisan coalitions.  She's up for releection (we have yet ANOTHER primary June 3) and probably will have no problem winning.

Mrs. C. should have her luck.

;)

Hetty 

P.S.  I don't follow O'Reilly; however, Mrs. C. and Mr. McC have now appeared on the program, that we know.  Has Mr. O appeared? Or scheduled or appearing?  Or scheduled and not appearing?  Clues? 

President Bush, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama all refuse to secure our borders or enforce our immigration laws.  They are all a disgrace.

This will have a two-fold effect:

1.  The United States will experience a horrific attack from our Islamic adversaries.

2.  The illusion of political correctness and multicultural diversity will be obliterated and will give way to brute force within the United States against innocent Moslems and other minority ethnic groups.

Thank you

Mr. Purrington

Hetty, " don't let the Buck stop here" Harry never got the accolades that he deserved.

Twinlabs,

The reason no candidate cares about the issues that most American believed to be addressed is because special interest groups have hand picked the candidates.  You will not see an "Honest Abe" or a"Truman" or an "IKE" running as a candidate until Congress passes a bill on the amount a candidate can spend .  Secondly, The Government should pay for 90% of a set amount of funds available to all candidates.  Than you would find candidates that would truely serve the people who voted them into office.  Only than will special interest groups be neutaralized..

Some general comments:

1.  Obama has not appeared on O'Reilly, though I suspect he will eventually.   Obama refused for close to a year to be interviewed by Cris Wallace - well after McCain and Clinton had already been interviewed.  BTW, the latter agreed despite furious pressure from Move.on.Org and the "netroots" - her herasy of agreeing to appear on a Fox News program was one of the reasons the extreme left totally bailed on Hillary.  They will oppose Obama's doing so as well, but I suspect they will grudgingly ascede when he does so.

2.  Hillary and Hank:

Actually, I think Truman HAS received his due - though it took quite awhile.  I believe HE had the lowest approval rating of any President when he left office (even lower that George W. Bush's is now).  However, history - quite justifiably - has treated Truman well, and he is now recognized as one of our good, above average Presidents.  (There may be a lesson in here, BTW, though it will take awhile for many to see it ;-)

3.  Mr. P, you predict:

1.  The United States will experience a horrific attack from our Islamic adversaries.

2.  The illusion of political correctness and multicultural diversity will be obliterated and will give way to brute force within the United States against innocent Moslems and other minority ethnic groups.

That is quite possible.  HOWEVER, such a horrific attack can only occur if the enemy has long enough to plan such an attack, has at least some support from one or more foreign governments (it is only they that can provide resources for a truly "horrific attack"), and has a sanctuary from which to train and conduct their operations.  And that can be prevented if we remain on offense (and I mean not solely military, but also diplomatic, psychological, and cultural.)

No one is more for securing the borders than I am.  But unless they are stopped at the source, the bad guys, eventually, will get through.

No war has ever been won on defense.

World War IV against Islamist totalitarianism will not be the first.

Thank you.

MWL

2.  Hillary and Hank:

 

I KNEW she was posting here!  I knew, I knew, I knew!!!!!!!! 

;)

Hetty 

Qh,  

Wow - my absolute bust, requiring a MASSIVE apology!

I should just edit, but I will leave it as proof of my carelessness.

Forgive me?

MWL

Mwleach,  Hey man if you are trying to compare Bush with Truman with low approval ratings.  The buck stops here.  First of all Truman was not a war monger.  He tried to stop the Korean  War quickly before China and Russia get involved.  He had to fire General MacArthur because of "The General" tried to provoke China into the war.  As you probably know MacArthur was a hero to the American people after World War11.  It was the firing of MacArthur that caused his low approval rating.  When Truman left office our middle class was starting to thrive.  Our trade balance was super against all other countries.  The housing market was booming.  The dollar was at a record level. Our school systems even though not integrated, was on the up-swing.  American manufacturing was going strong. Health care was not an issue for the majority of Americans.  The cost of staying in a hospital was nominal.  Our US borders where strictly enforced.  Mwleach I am sorry to say ,but our present President has done none of the above. Please do not try to compare the two.

"warmonger"

Good grief, grow up.

Mark 

 

Mark,

I am grown up.  The problem is are you !  If you want to talk about stopping this useless war, by all means , let's talk

[quote user="mwleach"]

Qh,  

Wow - my absolute bust, requiring a MASSIVE apology!

I should just edit, but I will leave it as proof of my carelessness.

Forgive me?

MWL

[/quote]

Alas, Mike, she has worked her way into your brain.  Flea, flea for your life.

Here's your penance:  you are Royally Commanded to chase a little white ball around a big green area and relax.

And I do know you know the difference between Hillary and me.  I'm Queen...she's only running for President,

;)

qh1 the benevolent and forgiving 

Hank,

When you resort to name calling, the level of discourse goes to the adolescent level, and intelligent discussion gets a little difficult. It is a common tactic to attach labels to try to discredit the opposition, but it does nothing to help understanding.

Mark 

Mark, "What we have is a failure to communicate" I thought my statements were inteligent Unfortunately, you call me to grow up and stop descredit the opposition. Just why are you on this forum if you cannot accept criticism when warranted.

 First of all Truman was not a war monger.  He tried to stop the Korean  War quickly before China and Russia get involved. 

Uh ..., well Truman wisely did not want the war EXPANDED.  However, Truman was the one that ordered US troops in to begin with, and also concurred with the decision to take the war into the North after NK troops were driven out of South Korea.

Hank, at least I am glad to see that you (unlike some Truman critics on the far left) are apparently willing to overlook that earlier little episode of Truman's involving those two bombs :-)

MWL

mwleach, I agree with you Truman did order the original troop build up. He did so because he unfortunately listened to General MacArthur.  He did learn his lesson  by  stopping the expansion into North Korea.  I still feel bad about all those innocent people who lost their lives thanks to the monster bombs.  I only hope this will never happen again.

Truman went to the UN and persuaded that august body to defend South Korea from the North's invasion. He was successful because the Soviets were boycotting the UN and failed to veto Truman in the Security Council. MacArthur was the emperor of Japan at the time and had nothing to say about Truman's or the UN's decision to go to Korea.  North Korea had pushed US and SK troops all the way to the southern tip of South Korea. MacArthur's invasion at Inchon cut North Korea's lines of communication and stopped their advance cold. Truman never stopped any expansion into North Korea, the Chinese communists did that at Chosin. MacArthur was fired because he publicly disagreed with Truman's decision not to go north of the Yalu.

Mark 

Mark

On June 30, 1950 President Truman and the United Nation authorized US ground forces to stop the invasion of North Korea onto South Korean soil.   The USSR had assured President Truman that they will not intervene.  That is why the Soviets boycotted the UN.  I believe General MacArthur had a lot to say about Truman's and the UN decision to employ US troops.  The General personally flew from Tokyo to South Korea during the 2nd week of June to check the South Korean strengths and weaknesses and watch the enemy movements through binoculars close up. The President would not have authorized troop movements without MacArthurs and the Defense Dpt. recomendations. I do agree with you the "Old Soldier" was fired because he publicly disagreed with Truman's decision not to go north to Yalu. MacArthur was definitely out of control and wanted more power than Truman. I think he was eyeing the White House.

[quote user="Hank"]

Mark

On June 30, 1950 President Truman and the United Nation authorized US ground forces to stop the invasion of North Korea onto South Korean soil.   The USSR had assured President Truman that they will not intervene.  That is why the Soviets boycotted the UN.  I believe General MacArthur had a lot to say about Truman's and the UN decision to employ US troops.  The General personally flew from Tokyo to South Korea during the 2nd week of June to check the South Korean strengths and weaknesses and watch the enemy movements through binoculars close up. The President would not have authorized troop movements without MacArthurs and the Defense Dpt. recomendations. I do agree with you the "Old Soldier" was fired because he publicly disagreed with Truman's decision not to go north to Yalu. MacArthur was definitely out of control and wanted more power than Truman. I think he was eyeing the White House.

[/quote]

Hank,

I really don't know what you are saying here. NK attacked the South. US troop movements were in the southern direction because they were in full retreat (bugging out is a better description). The Soviets did not boycott the UN Security Council because they wanted the UN to vote to go to war against NK, they were boycotting because the UN would not admit communist China. NK did approach the Soviets prior to their invasion to seek approval, which Stalin did and even equipped and trained the NK's. Truman was so incensed at the communist aggression, he didn't even consult Congress before going to the UN. Truman himself decided to invade North Korea. He fired his Sec of Def because American troops were not ready to go to war. The first troops out of Japan were occupation troops and were not properly equipped or trained. MacArthur's landing at Inchon and drive north was implementing Truman's policy. China was supplying NK forces and MacArthur wanted to attack those supply lines. Truman said no, so MacArthur went public. That is why he was fired. It had nothing to do with troop buildups or "invading" North Korea. Truman wanted that.

Mark 

Marks, I think you and I were reading two different history books.  Two views ,two opinions.  I still think that McArthur advised Truman before he called for the troop build up.  However, you make a good point about our first wave of troops entering Korea.  They were not fit or trained for this war.  It was only after the Marines started to arrive did the US finally turn the tide.

There is no such thing as a "useless war, meaningless war" ...

Sureee, 

"Useless war, meaningless war" is all in the eye of the beholder. For you it might be usefull, for me it is definitely is  useless.

being an old fart and living at the time ... MacArthur was correct and Truman was incorrect ... another case of the field commanders being over ridden by the Whitehouse ... and no MacArthur IMHO had never wanted to run for President ... MacArthur kept in mind that he WAS FIGHTING A WAR ... how many safe haven's were there in WWII were the ememy was allowed to cross over - shoot you up and return safely?

Truman created such a situation ... and Johnson followed suite ...

Sureee, since you are an old timer. You and most of the American people worshipped MacArthur at that time.  I have no problems with that.  However, did MacArthur advise Truman of the North Korean build up in the early stages of the war.? Or did Truman call up the unprepared Army without consulting with "The Gerneral"?