I actually responded to a lady's post on the Providers Board about Senator McCain, and I thought I would share these feelings with you babes on the Political board.

The subject of war: one that is a touchy subject and yet close to my heart because I lost an uncle and two cousins in Vietnam, seven friends whom I served with in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as being injured myself in the Middle East. Have some of you ever wondered what it would feel like to be shot -- to feel the hole in your skin, the burning sensation that almost makes your heart stop? Well, I have.  Actually, I have more repercussions from a bad parachuting jump where I broke my friggin' neck on a combat training jump than anything else. And then there were the road marches from Hell that I experienced once a month with Special Ops -- carrying a 45-pound ruck sack (some had to carry 100 pounds because of radio equipment), two filled canteens rubbing against my hip bones (probably another 10 to 15 pounds of weight), a Kevolar (that's a military combat hat for those who do not know) that feels like you are wearing a steel bowl on your head, boots that give you blisters and open sores, holding you rifle across your shoulders (not hanging it on your shoulder), hiking 13 miles on hard roads and in sand, road marching with a bad back and a sprained ankle because knuckleheads wanted to toughen me up. Well, it worked but not without a price, and with only a 110-pound frame to carry all of it (which is what I weighed while serving in the military) -- true story.

I have also seen what war does to soldiers, some negative points and some positive points. I have also seen little children who are half-naked and crying in the streets, and hugging you because you just stepped into their country to relieve them of their suffering. Yet there is always a downside to war, one which I would not like to repeat. I have also thought that my friends who are still in the military would want to come home (and they do), but you know what surprised me the most: All of them -- even those who I previously knew as liberals and never lifted a hand to help back at Garrison (on base) -- said they needed to be there, especially in Afghanistan. I am proud to call them "friends." They know the real story. I'm not saying I want them to be there, but I had to listen to them and try to comprehend what they see and not what the politicians or media portrays. However, the media -- in some ways -- has also braved going into dangerous territory, but unfortunately the news they gather is sometimes thwarted by large corporations who have to sensationalize other things for competitive gain. Not all journalists are bad. Some are actually trying to make a difference. I know of several who do it on a daily basis.

Am I saying that I know who is a better candidate because of being in the military and being a past journalist? Of course not. I'm fairly objective about most people. I guess that also comes from being a writer for a newspaper for years (but not at present) and having a divided political party in my house growing up. Believe it or not, I have always leaned toward the Democratic party but I have also always said, "I will vote for the best man/woman." I'm not into labels. I don't necessarily think that we have two candidates who I totally agree with, but I'd take Senator McCain (who also came to my rescue when the V.A. wouldn't treat me) over Obama any day. I'd take a bullet for McCain. I think Obama is a reasonably intelligent man, a great speaker, and yet dangerously close to stating he is unpatriotic -- not because he wants change, but because he wants too much change all at once and doesn't have any experience to back it up. He will raise the hell out of our taxes, and he also openly admits leaning toward the Muslim faith (which is great), and I have a few friends who are Muslim, but Obama casually voices his sympathies for people who are deprived but who are also terrorists (under a clever disguise). I truly believe that the President of the United States should have some type of military experience or training. Otherwise, how can he/she possibly understand his/her troops. However, I know this will probably not be a notable asset toward the Presidency in the future, as many men and women would rather go to college than serve. I cannot say I entirely blame them for their choices. Everyone in America has a choice, albeit not always financially profitable. Yet the fact is: We are Americans and we had to earn our freedom, or at least some of us had to fight for the rest of us.  I know that I served my country so that other people could have varying opinions.

It is becoming increasingly more difficult to maintain a free, enterprising America and one that is threat-free. Yes, 911 was a wakeup call. Unfortunately, we have had plenty of other attacks, but this one was the "big daddy"! I don't think that the majority of Americans ever really believed it could happen on our soil -- a pretty scarey feeling. Some of us can only imagine what it feels like to live in what most spoiled Americans perceive as third-world politics and its ugly environment.

Just a thought or two . . .

Hugs,
Ciara






-- Modified on 6/6/2008 9:18:55 PM

1) It's hard to get complex ideas across in a forum.  You gotta make the bottom line clear & simple.

2) McCain is clearly the more stereotypical political image.  Problem is, he has saddled himself with all the failed policies of the Bush administration. So that's the choice.

3) Yes, the war is on everybody's mind, as it should be.  It's probably the dominant fact of American politics.  

4)  The critical facts of this war are a re-run of Vietnam, that is, it's a political issue.  It's easy for us to take out the target once it's identified.  The problem is simple - our leaders cannot identify a target, or an objective, so they can't come up with a plan, and that's their failing.   This isn't working because of a failure of leadership.

5)  It's not because they're stupid.  There are plenty of bright enough people in DC.  It's because the ones that hold the power aren't focused on the problem of the war.  They're focused on their own political prejudices and power, and on exploiting people's fears.

6) So people aren't asking, "WTF is this "war on terror?"  How exactly do you declare war on a tactic?  Who do you shoot?  Instead, they are encouraging us to beat our chests, which is fun until the bill comes.

7)  McCain is doubtless a hero (as have been many others - notably excepting those who find a way to shirk when they are needed, and then later become chickenhawks.)  OTOH, that does not make him particularly sagacious.   Brave people are often notoriously reckless, or just plain stupid.  He wasn't smart enough to stay away from the Keating boys.

8) I am personally dismayed that his Straight Talk (TM) has turned into so many Immelmans that I can't keep track.  I am amazed that people can get excited about Wright running his mouth, but not about Hagee.

9) I don't buy the "experience" argument, because the experience that is on the market today is long experience in fucking things up.  We aren't good at judging experience, and inexperienced presidents have been some of the best, eg Lincoln.
Nor am I impressed by the cultural semantics BS about yellow ribbons, lapel pins, and who said what 40 years ago.  I don't care about Laura or  Michelle.  I do care about the candidates ability to explain their plans in a credible way, and if I think those plans are half-assed sensible.

10) IMHO:  the ragheads are really a minor threat.  The real threat is that we will shoot ourselves in the balls, and that 3rd parties (eg the Chinese or EU) will step in to eat our lunch once we've tripped over our own shoelaces.

11) The fight is not over Iraq, or terrorism.  Those are side issues - the real fight is over controlling Washington D.C.  It should be obvious that whatever this fight is, we're not doing a good job.  Osama is running loose - it took us less time to chase Hitler and Tojo to ground.  Obviously, we are doing something wrong, and continuation of these policies is like banging our heads against a brick wall thinking we're going to knock it down, instead of just kill ourselves.  This has to be re-thought.

12) Personally, I think we already have enough drama in American politics.  17 year old boys don't need more opportunities to jump on grenades without any clear purpose.  They need the chance to stay home and learn to get along with their neighbors' sisters.

13)  I will tell you what I think of GW Bush - he's the hapless idiot 2/Lt who doesn't know any better than to keep walking his people into ambushes.  He's particularly offensive to me because he's never there when it happens.   He's the guy that gets reassigned to special services before somebody pushes him into the line of fire.

14) But it's way more complex than Bush - he's just the face and personification of GOP policies that people are buying into.   We civilians really don't care that he's an asshole, as long as he's OUR asshole.

15) If you want to support the troops, send money to Jim Webb to get the GI Bill reinstated.  Webb is a guy who understands how to win wars - you marry their hot sisters, and fuck them happily ever after!   Well, as much as you can.

16)  BK has pointed out that victory will come when there is a gay pride parade in Baghdad.  I seriously doubt there are enough hot babes in Baghdad, so the way to win this war is simple - send all the fairy hairdressers to Baghdad to set up franchised salons to tart the women up and motivate our troops!

tart them up?

I am not promoting war, nor am I supporting a particular candidate for President. I think if you knew what I was referencing if might have been helpful. Unfortunately, I cannot take what was written on the Providers Board and paste it here. I was simply responding to someone saying -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- she was tired of the old geezer and was sick of the POW crap. I guess she thought McCain was using that as leverage against Obama, but she didn't state it. When Obama first came to light, I thought to myself, "This guy is a great speaker, intelligent and seems to be what this country needs at the present. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone new with challenging ideas in the Presidency?" However, what has he really done that we can credit him? Yes, we need to look at our options and -- unfortunately -- we don't have many, do we?

I'm also all about supporting the troops with the G.I. Bill. I haven't heard that the G.I. Bill is not in force. That's news to me and very disturbing. I have friends that are currently using their G.I. Bill to go to school. I took advantage of it and got a degree. For me, it's more of an issue of getting proper care from doctors/V.A. when our soliders come home. Believe me, that worries me more. They're going to be not only dealing with physcial injuries but also mental disabilities -- even worse in some cases.

NO, I don't want war. I hate war! But if we are over there, we need to clean up after ourselves. Unfortunately, anyone with common sense is aware of that situation. We should have finished the job while we were in Desert Storm and taken out a few radicals who were brutally killing people, but certain high-profiled officials stopped that and now look where it's lead us. Yes, this war was based upon President Bush's anger toward certain leaders and antagonists, and YES it pisses me off. I just look at his stupid grin and I want to slap it off of him. He didn't serve as far as I'm concerned. Yea, he got his pilot's license but didn't do any real time. He was just biding his time in order to get all his ducks in a row for future political purposes and survival.

I believe I also stated that I wasn't comfortable with either candidate, but that I would prefer McCain over Obama. I don't like the fact that we're still chasing Osama around. A lot of that has to do with politics and not our military guys. We could have taken Bin Laden a long time ago, yet the CIA and special op guys were not allowed to pull it off in time because of "well, let's just say we played politics for safe keeping." There are lots of things that were preconceived ideas about this war. President Bush (whom I do not like) should never have lied to us to begin with, and I cannot believe he was not impeached for that breach of trust -- let's just call it "an extreme error in judgment."

Now, as far as hairdressers in Baghdad: That is your sense of humor, and there is a movie with Adam Sandler playing an Israeli hitman who becomes a hairdresser in New York (I think). You should go see it. Were you stealing Hollywood's ideas? I only wish women were allowed to look that good over there. However, Chadors do not do justice to nice hairstyles or makeup, nor make the men who have made women conform to wearing them any more intriguing.

A "chador" or "chadar" (Persian چادر, from Sanskrit chattram is an outer garment or open cloak worn by some Iranian women in public spaces; it is one possible way in which a Muslim woman may follow the Islamic dress code known as "ħijāb."  A chador is a full-length semi-circle of fabric open down the front, which is thrown over the head and held closed in front. It has no hand openings or closures but is held shut by the hands or by wrapping the ends around the waist.

The full "Afghan chadri" covers the wearer's entire face except for a small region about the eyes, which is covered by a concealing net or grille. This type of covering is also common in North Western Pakistan close to the Afghan border. It is frequently referred to as "Shuttlecock Burqa" in Pakistan to differentiate it from other Burqa styles (and due to its resemblance with a badminton shuttlecock or birdie). Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian burqas may expose the face or eyes. The garment is usually sewn from light materials and requires many metres of material. Blue is a favorite color for chadris. The cap from which the material hangs may be decorated with embroidery.

The chadri was created by one of Afghanistan's rulers trying to stop anyone from seeing his wives' faces. He came up with the chadri, which became a sign of an upper-class citizen; however, as times changed, the new government decided that chadris weren't modern enough and banned them. The upper class people then gave them to their servants. The chadris in those days were made out of silk and the mesh at the front was lace.

Before the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the chadri was infrequently worn in cities. While they were in power, the Taliban treatment of women required the wearing of a chadri in public. Officially, it is not required under the present Afghan regime, but local warlords still enforce it in southern Afghanistan. Burqa use in the remainder of Afghanistan is variable and is observed to be gradually declining in Kabul. Due to political instability in these areas, women who might not otherwise be inclined to wear the chadri must do so as matter of personal safety.

"Yashmak", "yashmac" or "yasmak" (from Turkish yaşmak, literally "to cover, hide" is a Turkish type of veil or "niqab" worn by many Muslim women to cover their faces in public.

Unlike an ordinary veil, yashmak contains a head-veil and a face veil in one, thus consisting of two pieces of fine muslin, one tied across the face under the nose and the other tied across the forehead draping the head. Yashmak can also contain a piece of black horsehair attached close to the temples and sloping down like an awning to cover the face, or it can be a veil covered with pieces of lace, having slits for the eyes, tied behind the head by strings and sometimes supported over the nose by a small piece of gold.

Some American Muslim women, upperclass middle-eastern women, and young ladies wear colorful silk scarves. And, some with more traditional & religious faith (especially the elderly) still wear the chador. This differs dependent upon which country you visit.

History:
The first recorded instance of veiling for women is recorded in an Assyrian legal text from the 13th century BCE, which restricted its use to noble women and forbade prostitutes and common women from adopting it. Greek texts have also spoken of veiling and seclusion of women being practiced among the Persian elite. Statues from Persepolis depict women both veiled and unveiled, and it seems to be regarded as an attribute of higher status. For many centuries, until around 1175, Anglo-Saxon and then Anglo-Norman women -- with the exception of young unmarried girls -- wore veils that entirely covered their hair and often their necks up to their chins. Only in the Tudor period (1485), when hoods became increasingly popular, did veils of this type become less common.

For centuries, women have worn sheer veils, but only under certain circumstances. Sometimes a veil of this type was draped over and pinned to the bonnet or hat of a woman in mourning, especially at a funeral and during the subsequent period of "high mourning". They would also have been used as an alternative to a mask, as a simple method of hiding the identity of a woman who was traveling to meet a lover or doing anything she didn't want other people to find out about. More pragmatically, veils were also sometimes worn to protect the complexion from sun and wind damage (when un-tanned skin was fashionable) or to keep dust out of a woman's face.










Hugs,
ciara
























-- Modified on 6/6/2008 1:03:44 PM

Thank you for your service to our country.  Anyone that joins the military is a hero in my book.  I have the medals that my father won in WWII proudly displayed in my home.

I just wish the libs would wake up and realize the dangerous world in which we live.

Your thoughts as always are very well reasoned and reasonable.

My fear of both Obama and McCain are similar - both see the function of the US as a kind of peace keeper or policeman of the world.  We've not the resouces, the populace, the mandate or the will necessary to do that.  Further, no one has asked that of us.  But I must agree with you, at best you can say that Obama has very poor choices with whom he surrounds himself - and if he continues to pursue and maintain those associations, well one could say that he fails to learn from his mistakes.  And that could be fatal to the US.  And all the ivy league education will have failed, and that would make me think that the man is not uneducated, but rather unintelligent... and that is not good for the office of the POTUS.

Sadly - most in this country have very little appreciation for the blessings they have.  Obama seems to surround himself with ungrateful and very bitter people.

-- Modified on 6/6/2008 12:41:00 PM

In exchange for their tax exempt status... Havard is to use a portion of their 32 Billion$ endowment earnings... and put returning GI's on full scholarship - to the university they qualify for, and wish to attend...  

That would be simply a fair exchange for them risking their life and limb to defend the crackpot ungrateful wretches that now make up our academic elite.
But hey, don't get me started with the cesspool we call universities.

-- Modified on 6/6/2008 1:08:05 PM

-- Modified on 6/6/2008 9:47:06 PM

I am not sure if I could live if the Hildabeast became president of any damn country in the world. Maybe if she became president of Kiribati or something where no radios, newspapers, televisions, cellphones, or computers exist. On second thought, I would like to be there. She is just too damn dangerous and with all her political associations, her family is the equivalent of a political crime family.

If McCain became president, I would simply move to another country and move my cash to swiss bank accounts. I liked the guy in 2000 but not any more. Not only is the guy a loose cannon, he has swung dangerously right. He is also the same person who said in MI "those jobs are not coming back folks" and "the economy is not my thing."

Overall, both he, Kerry, Dole and Hildabeast come across as "too desperate to be president" or "entitled to be president" just because they fought in a war?

Also, next time both you and Sins come to this board, please don't pretend to be objective, not racist, or not sexist. Just say you are voting for McCain and despise Obama. Nobody will be offended.

Still can't figure out what is it with the "war syndrome" where sane people go to war and come back all looney.

gonna have a nuke within 12 months and they're gonna use it on Israel.  

It doesn't take some kind of super-brain theory wizard to imagine all the scenarios that that will bring!!!!!! ie India nuking Pakistan and Pakistan nuking India and Israel nuking Syria along w/Iran and Egypt for good measure and maybe Gaza and Russia nuking Turkey etc. etc.

I'm sorry, but that empty-suit-post-turtle, Barry Obama just is not up for the job.  Only *sshole McCain is up for the job.

I'M SORRY, BUT WE MUST TACTICIALLY SMASH IRAN WHILE WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE.

That's just the way it is.

that we'd be in a better position to do that if Saddam were still in power, and willing to cut Iranian throats?

Fuck no, these idiot ragheads weren't killing enough of each other, WE had to step between them.

Fucking BRILLIANT move - to say nothing of the way George has run it since then.

My theory is that his defense contracting buddies got greedy, and figured they could generate more business in-country.


I know you don't read, you just FEEL with your ASS, but Willie explained the problem with random airstrikes to you the other day.  Better not start things you can't finish, you know?

world more time. If Iran has to start over and rebuild everything.

And it seems the only thing that they understand and respect is brute force.  I think we've been trying to talk to them since Jimmy Carter's term.  And they just laugh laugh laugh and go their merry way causing trouble.

Shit, Bush could have been selling THEM weapons to kill each other with, but NOOOOOOOO, he got greedy and had to have a better market!

The fact that I went to war does not mean I am "looney".  By the way, nice choice of words.  I like cartoons too.  On the contrary, I think I am a more rounded person. But, again, you are "ass"uming.  Also, I did not say I was voting for McCain.  I said I would vote for him before I vote for Obama, but that does not mean I am voting for either of them. I have yet to cast my vote.  Personally, I do not think either one is a great candidate for President. I mentioned that I would take a bullet for McCain because he has helped me, but it does not mean I think he is the right person to serve as Commander in Chief.  I was responding to another's post about POWs.  I think you need to read and interpret more clearly.

I believe you are the one who has prejudice issues . . . and against women.  Why this slander toward me and Sinn when you stated "don't pretend to be objective, not racist, or not sexist"?  Those were very ignorant and uneducated statements.  I have had many nationalities in my family but you do not care to ask before you assume -- typical reaction of someone who is either very young or set in his ways.  You are too silly to respond to again, but thank you for your opinion and the freedom to voice it.


Ciara




























-- Modified on 6/6/2008 9:28:59 PM

I am objective. I am not racist. I am not a sexist. I am voting for McCain.

Any other requests?

However, I have given it a great deal of thought. I have decided that I think sitting down with no pre-conditions, no negotiating strategies, and almost no understanding of the agenda of our opposition is a great idea. I have also decided that it is high time Iran developed a nuclear program of their own. I have decided that we should turn our back on Israel and tell them to fend for themselves. Having come to these conclusions, I have decided Obama might be the man to vote for.

Furthermore, I have decided that the best possible thing we can do for race relations in this country is to send a clear and unequivocal message that anti-white sentiment from the black community is not only acceptable, but encouraged. Meanwhile, we should still fire people like Don Imus, Trent Lott, Jimmy the Greek (I doubt anyone even remembers the poor bastard anymore), and any other white person who has a slip of the tongue and accidentally says something that someone might consider to be somewhat in a roundabout way racially insensitive. Yes, I think that is exactly what we need. So perhaps, I might need to consider voting for Obama.

Also, I have pondered deeply and exhaustively about what to do about nanny state programs like welfare, medicare, social security, and the like. I don't think we have enough of them. We aren't deeply in debt enough, so I think what we really need is a massive expansion of these programs by adding in nationalized health care, and government sponsored "green" technology development. Lets really go all out and have a national smoking ban, a national ban on trans fats, and a national seat belt and helmet law too. We don't resemble a socialist state nearly enough yet, but I believe if we really put our shoulder into it, we can really make a difference. So yes, perhaps Obama is the man for me.

There is just one problem though. Iraq remains at this time a highly volatile and unstable country, easily prey to the infiltration and control of Al Qaeda. Although sectarian violence is now nearly non-existent, it can easily be started again with little effort from Al Qaeda operatives if they are given the chance to reorganize themselves. The only thing standing in their way are the brave men and women who go where their country sends them. If I vote for Obama, I will get all the racial reconciliation I could ask for, I will get the great socialist state we all long for, and Iran will get the nuclear program it has long sought, but it will be the expense of the progress we have made in Iraq to date, and at the expense of the eventual stability that we ARE making progress toward.

So I have to weigh the benefits against the drawbacks. It is a tough decsion. For now though, I think I like McCain best. That socialist nanny state sure is tempting though.

PS. I do want to correct you on one thing. I do not despise Obama. He is a very intelligent man, extremely well spoken. I simply do not trust him one iota with the job of being the President.

"Still can't figure out what is it with the "war syndrome" where sane people go to war and come back all looney."

Have you been trying to explain jack0?

I suggest that you practice by looking at countries that have no safety nets. They are not paradigms of mature, self-sufficient individuals as you would think. Exceptions like Hong Kong may give you pause, but not when you consider it had a monopoly on all trade coming out of China.

The national debts are caused by other reasons: that welfare programs have been mismanaged since . . . Reagan. When he decided to do the popular thing and cut taxes, without cutting services, while trying to stick democrats with unpopular part of cutting services, and blamed the Democrats when they wouldn't do the suicidal thing that Ronald himself didn't have the balls to do.

Ron didn't have the balls, partially because he didn't want to be responsible for what happened if Food Stamps, Social Security and Medicare were cut.

Other countries have run social programs, and still do. Most wealthier companies have government paid medical. The citizenry haven't been ambivalent about them, and look at our medical system and recoil. Up to the 1970s we did well with social programs. They didn't give us huge deficits. They problem with ours? Severe mismanagement by people who don' believe government should do it, or can do its jobs effectively, and don't have enough funding to do it effectively at any rate.  

Conservatives have it totally wrong. People elect governments to do things. If people have a government that doesn't do anything for them, they ultimately get pissed off. If in peacetime, the government doesn't function positively, the country is not going to be ready in wartime, no matter how good its soldiers are. The country won't be ready.

-What was I thinking

-- Modified on 6/7/2008 10:17:11 PM

Mr. McCain said "the economy is not my thing" and "those jobs aren't coming back folks."

As naive as Mr. McCain is regarding the economy, I may actually need all those "state nanny" programs that you so eloquently talk about after I don't have a job to put food on the table for my kids, shelter for my family, forget about clothes.

If I don't have a job or the "state nanny" programs to live, do you really think I care about anything else. No. Why? because we are all going to die either way.

No matter what, I will never ever become a prostitute and sell my body for money like you, Ciara, or Tori. If the government put more time and resources into cleaning the sinful deeds you prostitutes engage in, I would still have a husband! No! it's nothing I deed wrong, its you whores that are the problem.

Still can't figure you what is it with sane women joining the military, going to a war and coming back with nothing better to do but become prostitutes.

The bible says, prostitution is a sin and all prostitutes will face the wrath of God, yet you people continue to use his name in vain and think of yourselves as children of God!

One of the many good things regarding Obama's candidacy is finally all the closet racists are coming out into the open. They are so horrified at an Obama presidency, they cannot stay quiet anymore and are letting their true feelings be known.

And for a fact Sins, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain both will win many more states that two. And win or lose by either one, they will not be any riots on both coasts that many of you brain washed bible thumping southerners have been led to believe.


-- Modified on 6/7/2008 2:13:19 AM

smell you over the internet, we wouldn't have that problem!

I think our government doesn't do well at taking care of its citizens, especially with the d_ _n
HMOs. When people are turned away for operations and even in the emergency department, there is something wrong, yet illegal aliens can get assistance. Hmmmmm


Hugs,
Ciara

but both the libs and the cons want to make you think that you must be either with them - or somehow stupid or uninformed... and most are neither.

as I have said - this recruitment process of both the libs and the cons focuses on issues of no real importance.  They really should be "non" issues....

For me?  I am very grateful to know the independant thinking individuals on this board.  Some, do get "it..... "  granted relatively few, but some do!

So, now the real person shows her true colors.  Are you really a man who got dumped by his wife or a woman whose husband needs sex? I take it from your post that you are a scorned woman. I'm sorry that someone has left you. I would never take a man away from another woman, but that's just me. That is also why this business is so important, because most of us just "keep it business as usual." We are not into stealing someone's husband. You probably lost yours to a mistress and possibly forgave him but not the woman, which is why you are so hostile toward providers on this board. I do not condone men cheating on their spouses, but I certainly understand its value with certain relationships.

Another valid point:  Don't ever say "I'll never become . . ."  because that is when you will, my dear.  A lot of us "never" thought we would get into this business, and I would not have if I knew I would have to walk the streets. It is not easy being constantly monitored by hypocrits and the fear of going to jail just because we slept with someone. Also, I have learned more about people since I have been in this profession -- call it bad or good, but some of it has been an eye opener and good. Would you call your daughter a whore if she got drunk, slept with someone and then her lover paid for breakfast the next day? Would you call your daughter an imbecile if she went to war, saved 10 children and came back a hero?  Would you cast the first stone if your son slept with someone, or would that be okay because he is a guy?  I think you are still living in the Middle Ages.

Escorting is a choice, and for those of us who chose it for whatever reasons (money to help raise children, pay for parents' operations, because some of us actually like sex, etc.), it is really none of your business. As far as the southern racial slur you made, I had to laugh because I am originally from California and have also lived overseas. However, I have known a few southerners who are great people. Where are you from?  Just curious.  I think it is sad when Christians have to tell lies, get angry and vulgar to prove a point. Perhaps you would have a better argument if you went to college for Theology and presented yourself more calmly and like an intelligent person. Your viewpoints sound a little hypocritical, don't you think?  Weren't we talking politics and war, not religion?  I think your rebuttal needs some polishing, or perhaps you need to get your clock polished -- several times so you can be happy again and not come off as a raving lunatic on meds.  I am sorry but that is how you are betraying yourself.

I was raised as a Christian, and believe me I help more people in a week than you probably do all year. I also found it comical when you stated that women who come back from the military become whores. Actually, a large percentage of women in the military are lesbians and hate men. I am not, but I have kissed a few girls. Oops! Did I say that?  Perhaps you should try it?  You might actually make some money. And yes, most of us do still pay taxes on our income.

True Christians forgive, True Christians help people, and True Christians do not go on boards and say vulgar things to people who they do not know and should not judge.  If you truly are a decent person and a Christian then you know that God is the only one who will judge us in the end, my dear. But I guess you would have been first to cast a stone at the Lord if you didn't know he was the Messiah.

Take your pity party elsewhere, madam.

Hugs,
ciara

















-- Modified on 6/7/2008 8:13:04 AM

Oh dear, now I am forced to ask a question. When was the last time you had your medication adjusted? In this post you talk about still having a husband. So one must assume you are female. I will refer you to a post you wrote on the newbie board sometime ago.

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=33&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&SearchType=1&Author=beautiful_planet&DayFrom=60&DayTo=0&MessageID=38465&frmSearch=1

So which is it? Are you confused or merely forgetful of your gender?

Another point I feel I must make is that not only do I not sell my body, but selling my body is quite impossible since it is my own and cannot be given away. One might say that I am happy to rent it.

As to not being able to do anything else, I have two bachelor's degrees. Not only could I be doing something else, but given the very low volume of gentlemen I entertain, I could be making more money if I chose to put one of my degrees to work. I once saw an episode of the West Wing in which one of the characters made the point that no little girl grows up wanting to be a prostitute. Well, meet one. I'm doing what I love and living my dream, and I have genuine sympathy for anyone who cannot say the same thing of their chosen career.

Last point to make, if I gave the impression that I feel programs such as welfare should not exist at all that is not quite correct. As a society we have an obligation and duty to care for the least among us. It is one of many things that separates us from savages. There is a difference between safety nets, and massive programs to "help" people that ultimately keep them locked into the poverty you are ostensibly trying to help them escape from. The phrase killing them with kindness comes to mind. I believe that safety nets are exactly that - a way to help someone get back on their feet so that they can go on with their lives. I do not believe it our obligation, nor is it right to care for someone from cradle to grave as Democrats would have us do.

Lastly, yes Obama will probably win more than two states. Perhaps as many as five. But my money is still on worse riots on the West coast than the East coast when he loses, and lose he certainly will.

If you thought I was saying we should not have social programs such as welfare and social security at all, allow me to correct that.

I absolutely support programs that provide Americans with a safety net in the event of some crisis that prevents them from working or otherwise taking care of themselves. As I said in another post, caring for the least among us is not only an obligation, it is the right thing to do.

What I object to are programs that are so entrenched in doling out "assistance" month after month, year after year, that they in effect become a way of life, become the only 'career' some people will ever know. We have people today on welfare who's mother was on welfare, and who's grandmother was on welfare. That isn't providing a safety net, that is taking care of someone from cradle to grave.

Corruption and fraud are also two problems. As a former director of the NIH once said, if government had been responsible for finding a cure for polio, we would have a world class iron lung, and still no polio vaccine. It is a rare problem that exists for which the best solution is MORE government. Rarely do we find a government program that could not be better performed by the private sector.

The idea of socialized medicine is an attractive one. There is no denying that. But here are a few points to ponder. Canada, France, England, and Sweden, along with numerous other nations spend a combined total on their defense that is LESS than what we spend on defense. Why are they able to afford to pay for socialized medicine for their citizens? Because they know that they don't NEED to spend tens of billions on defense. They have the best defense in the world at their disposal - the brave men and women of the US Military.

Yes, we could certainly afford to pay for socialized medicine if we reduced our military down to the size of say, France's military. Are you willing to lay this country open to attack? I am not, nor am I willing to allow our allies to be exposed to attack because we lack the strength to come to their defense.

Furthermore, have you ever done some research about the quality of care citizens recieve in countries that have nationalized health care? Patients often wait weeks, or even months for tests and procedures, and are forced to live with pain and illness for weeks and months at a time in the meantime. In the last two weeks, I have had X-rays, a CT, and an MRI on my arm. On Monday, I am going for what is called an EMG test. It has taken only about 2 weeks from the time I told my doctor that my hand was going numb, to run a battery of tests to find out what the problem is. If I lived in Canada, I shudder to think how long I would be forced to live with a numb hand and arm before getting so much as an X ray on it.

So no, I am not at all opposed to welfare, social security, and other government run programs. I am opposed to the notion of "helping" people by keeping them locked in the same cycle of poverty that got them on a gov't program in the first place, and I am opposed to the idea that government can solve complex problems we mere mortals are incapable of figuring out through our own ingenuity.

is inevitably managed to benefit the insurance company, whether it's MDs or private.  So they focus on the problems that are profitable to them, not the patients.  They can spend billions trying to find imaginary diseases that are wonderfully profitable (eg SAD) but they can't fix a broken leg unless the county pays for it.  

If people get turned away in the ER for their broken legs or runny noses, then we got a couple problems - (1) people who think runny noses are a problem, and (2) hospitals that won't staff the ER to set broken legs, because the county won't pay as much as fatassed women will for plastic surgery.  She can join the Marines and GET PAID for her own personal trainer!  OK, so she has to share.

So you have some illegal who gets his leg broken working for you.  You want to leave him in the street, is that it?  Tell him crawl back to Mexico?  That's how illegals get treated, in the ER.  Yes, it might be cheaper if they would have the courtesy to die and cremate themselves - but they're ingrates that way.

It might work better if (1) the Fed govt would sub in for the county, and (2)broaden coverage so they werent paying ER rates for everything, and (3) refuse to pay for the HMOs imagining profititis, eg SAD.

There is so much money in whining people that it's very rare to run into a doctor who gives a shit about his patient anymore.  The money is blinding, and yet the care does not get down to the street.  How does THAT work?  Hunh?!  And yes, it's a massive cartel - don't tell me that competition will make it better - they won't compete because people will believe any shit a guy in a white coat says.

pay them what you pay your gym to whip your fat asses into shape!

Shit, I'll come to your house, and roust the entire family out at zero dark 30, and put your faces in the dirt for no additional charge!

Wow . . . tell me how you really feel

I didn't say people should be turned away in the emergency room, on the contrary I want them to be helped. I agree that too many people come into the ER for a stupid runny nose and abuse their insurance priviledges but who am I to say that the runny nose might not be a 103-degree temperature. However, I did not bring up the topic in regards to the difference between a runny nose or "let's say 'a heart attack.' "  NO!  What I meant by socialized medicine is just what you are saying. I hate what the HMOs and drug companies have done to us. Other countries seem to take care of their people. I am sick to death of our elderly being turned away because they have already spent all their money on their wife's or husband's cancer treatment, and it has drained them. Or, those who have children with Leukemia and they cannot get medicine for them, but they might if they lived in France or Cuba.  And, as far as "men" or "women" getting plastic surgery, it is their income and I really do not give a rat's ass about it. And, to your comment about hiring a personal trainer in the military, that is not a practical solution for some people. We could spend all day discussing who should -- or should not -- get medical attention, but everyone who is injured or suffering should not be turned away because of no insurance (which many companies do not offer their employees now) or some crappy HMO. Have you priced individual insurance rates if you are not covered through your employer? Outrageous! Many people cannot afford it.

And, my dear, I'm not against Mexicans. My latest grandfather was one, so don't put that crap on me.  Is there anything else you'd like to get off your chest? Why didn't you also harrass others on this board that share varying opinions? Or, is it that you just resent women voicing their opinions on this board, while you try to twist what they say to benefit your negative attitude? Also, why the alias?

Hugs,
Ciara








-- Modified on 6/7/2008 10:23:12 AM

Just who the fuck are you, and why are you here?

We have enough of our own assholes here on the P&R board, we certainly don't need to import any of the holier than thou crowd.

FWIW I don't hate Obama because he's black, there are many black people I can't stand, not because they're black, but because I can't stand them as human being. Just like idiots, I don't dislike you because you are stupid, there are many stupid people I don't dislike. In your case, it is a contributing fact however. rofl

You'd think that as old and as tough as you are, you'd have made it past the rank of Corporal by now? Oh well, maybe the military requires brains too.

I don't hate you, I don't despise you. I just wish the worst on you cause you are a known illeterate NUT who can't read.

How are you so sure of that? Is it because you closet racist republicans already have in place a process to fix the election? The same way you'll did with Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?

"analyze" the meaning of their words...  I know, kinda strange from an entity that does not believe in psychology...

Sadly this person has in fact chased many off this board....  he needs a whoppin - badly...

"you are a known illeterate NUT who can't read"

As opposed to an ILLITERATE nut who can't spell?

Ah, the irony is too sweet.

give me a count of BIBLE-thumping assholes who don't vote, and vote Republican.

I think there are 18 in Idaho who write in WAR, and 37 in TX who are Perotistas.

I think that's market control.

(1) This is a political forum.   Whatever is said is not necessarily directed at you personally - it's very likely to be a general statement, or even an idea.  Wow - ideas in a political forum - who'da thunk?

(2) I don't bitch about small shit.  I will bitch about dipshits.  The difference is that small shit doesn't matter, as in 'no harm, no foul'.  Dipshits are people who get in the FUCKING WAY with shit like lapel pins, and then CRY AND WHINE that people are taking time to accomodate them.  Dipshits are usually Republicans, and vice versa.

So, when I do bitch, I rarely mince words.  I often resort to mockery where it's obvious that I'm dealing with somebody already determined to be an idiot, eg harryj.

(3) There are many problems with US medical care.  I used to think as you seem to, ie, why get the govt involved when any agency (eg Kaiser) can provide it on the free market?

(4) Then I asked, what failure of capitalism is keeping good service from spreading, and the answer is, the market is NOT free.  There are many mazes of restrictions that may or may not be useful, but are nevertheless restricting the market.  

(5) The net result is that the community as a whole suffers from undertreatment of readily treatable conditions, while the same insurance systems often overpay in a number of ways.  

(6) The whole idea of insurance is to acheive wholesale economies, but it's also communistic in that (even as a private agency) it groups you with many others who the insurer may make more money from treating, and that's where my mention of SAD & other BS comes in.

(7) If you pay retail, you will see horrendously inflated medical bills, and can easily bankrupt uninsured people.   My buddy the lawyer can pick up the phone and settle that bill for 50 cents on the dollar in 10 minutes.  Why don't we cut the BS, and guarantee that 50 cents up front, and what it amounts to is cutting out the paperwork.

(8) But we also need to recognize the BS, and we can't afford to pay for pointless treatments.

(9) One of my favorite pissoffs is people whining about some illegal getting treated in the ER.  What, you want to leave him in the street?  Most people are just venting because (a) they don't know what they're talking about, and (b) the system isn't working for them in some way - so instead of talking to the people who run the system, they blame the hapless fucker who looks least like them.   No, you have NO CLUE whether that dude is legal, or not, because I KNOW you don't know enough to interpret his papers, and I've seen plenty with no papers who don't even know they are already legal.  You see, I've worked with the Border Patrol.

(10) Chances are excellent that schlub you call illegal was working to cut your costs, and he has no coverage, and he'd still be working if his fucking leg wasn't broken.  Now, people talk about charity, then they make it clear that's something for somebody else to do.  See the discussion of dipshits, above.

(11) Now, I don't know what an American looks like.  Enough of them are dumb, uneducated dirty fucks that I can't tell from that.  I've met Polacks born in Chicago, and crackers born in the LA bayou who didn't speak a word of English, so I can't guess from that.  I knew plenty enough green people in Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, and I never gave a shit where they came from or who they thought they were, only whether I could rely on them to cover my back, and bluntly, it was usually the spoiled boys, black or white native born spoiled boys, who caused the most trouble.

(12) But I AM an American, and I know what that means to me, so I don't leave somebody lying in the street if I can help it; and I sure don't leave him there if he was doing something for me.  The fucking Border Patrol can figure out the paperwork.

SO, REMEMBER - this is a political forum.  Try to consider issues as ideas 1st; don't assume it's directed at you.

-- Modified on 6/7/2008 2:40:58 PM

far better to just spout whatever diarrhea percolates outta your head, eh!!

You need to get off the pills and onto my fine wares.  You'd be far more sensible.

Fuckin A!

he's already fuckin shaking at the thought of some weenie headed weirdo threatening him.

[Um, where's the SHAKE button on this goddamn thing!?  Susie baby, why isn't this fuckin thing working?]

1st you have to find your keys.  Check up your ass, where most of your stuff is.

Next you better get directions to the hospital - he might not kill you.  In fact, while you're at it, you might as well just drop by the psych ward - they're probably missing you (in the administrative sense, not the emotional one) already.

Do you really believe that JackO actually started off sane?

-- Modified on 6/8/2008 2:38:20 AM

His campaign had totally collapsed, and he won the nomination by being the only guy most Republicans could make themselves vote for. Now he's trying to purge his organization of all those pesky lobbyists he said he doesn't like. He's beginning to look like a Republican version of George McGovern.  

As for Obama's "endorsements" I think those enemies are seeing what they want to see in Obama. Most of them only know he's in that other party, not in Bush's and McCain's party. It's hard to believe, but Republicans have made themselves less popular overseas than they've made themselves here.  

BTW, for a reversal, I remember when Bush "endorsed" Ayhmadinejad's opponent for the Iranian election. Thus, because the Iranians despised Bush, they saddled themselves with the idiot Ahmadinejad for 7 years, with exactly your reasoning.  

Our reputation around the world does need some repair, with friends. With enemies, it would help if they didn't think of us as fools.  

I don't think there's a way in hell McCain can win. But let's say he channels Theodore Roosevelt and pulls it out. He's not going to have a very productive presidency with both houses of Congress thoroughly Democratic. And they will be solidly Democratic. Meanwhile, the one thing he'll inherit from Dubya are the approval ratings. McCain will limp through the longest 4 years in Presidential history. Think of Chester T. Arthur without the charisma. Also, given McCain's talent for tranquilizing his supporters, Republicans are going wish Bush were still President.  

You might be surprised at how many servicemen end up voting for Obama, or anybody besides McCain.

A very heartfelt statement. It doesn't surprise me that your soldier friends previously identified as liberals, say that they need to be there. No one wants to make the effort that they have made only to leave things unfinished and unimproved. It's the main reason why putting us into Iraq was so dastardly. Our people would want to finish even while it means having their lives at stake.

I think moving them to Afghanistan to build that country will be the best place for their efforts. Iraq is a bad move.

If Obama wins, he will inherit the Lyndon Johnson curse. I think, though, he's far more prepared than Johnson was. From what I've seen of him, I expect him to be cautious about any changes he makes. In the words of Rumsfeld, at least he knows what he doesn't know.

Same thing happened in the Middle East. We pushed for elections in Gaza / West Bank with the idea they could be used as a springboard for peace with Israel and Hamas got elected.

Same thing in Pakistan, we endorsed Bhutto and she got killed. Prior to that Musharraf was targeted twice.

Karzai in Afghanistan has also been targeted several times.

The U.S. is viewed as enemy # 1 worldwide and anytime we endorse, support somebody in a foreign land, the locals are going to view them as "sleeping with the enemy." As a result any any endorsee will be target for assassination.

Lesson learned is maybe we should quit meddling with foreign affairs and let people of foreign countries decide for themselves what they want to do and then we take our que from there.

Bill Clinton said voting for B.O. is "a roll of the dice." Well you know that is exactly what I want and will do. I cannot imagine things getting any worse than they are now after eight years of Bush / Cheney.

Also time to play hardball with Saudi Arabia / Kuwait etc. If they want our arms that we so generously give to them as an arms deal everytime we meet them and if they want us to defend them from countries like Iran, it is time for them to sell us oil at below market value or out produce OPEC quotas.

Iraq could have and Iran can still be used as a successful bargainning chip when dealing with Middle Eastern countries. Unfortunately, the whole world knows we are looking for a war with Iran and thus they are not scared of Iran anymore. The irony is we are.

What is the result of this, when we negotiate with foreign countries, they are not willing to give up anything anymore as their bases are all covered. They know we will cover their asses for free!

"monopoly is market control, not exclusive membership"

no, monopoly IS exclusive ownership. Market control is an implication of monopoly, not a definition.

RWU used the term properly. This is one of the few things he's ever gotten correct; give him credit where its due.

Most of my friends are now in Afghanistan. Finally, the troops from my past regiment are coming home (all of them) from ? ? ?, but they already have their next deployment for September 2009 (and I cannot say where) and they haven't even hit American soil. However, I doubt they will need to wait a year before being deployed again. So . . . many of these soldiers feel that their homes are in Iraq or Afghanistan, and coming home is more like visiting.

Hugs,
Ciara



-- Modified on 6/8/2008 11:10:55 AM

I'm working from Title 5 USC.

or any introductory economics textbook.

And Title 5 as far as I am aware does not ever define the term monopoly (none that I could find on an internet search using Cornell University Law School) --- it only makes repeated usage of the phrase "tend to create a monopoly"