NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) What access to information about the war do you have? For example, newspapers, tv, radio, etc. I have full internet access at a cost to me of 50 a month. There's some local here on our base who is really cleaning up from running it but I have no problem with that as it allows me to stay in touch for the same price I was paying for the net back home. This being the case, I can read any of the news websites I choose, stay up to date with sports, trade stocks.......whatever. That's a far cry from the 1st time I was over here when I was jostling to get close to the shortwave radio someone brought to listen to BBC.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) I'd go with a combination of poor marketing and the personality of the demographics involved. Marketing is pretty obvious - they just do a really poor job of it, and the conservatives are just better at the business end of things. But another key is that the personality types of the mainline and further left, nowadays, is way too online-oriented. Radio is passe. Whereas the mainline and further right tends to be more old school - radio is still big time. The liberal folks are far better at the online battleground than the rightists are. That doesn't bode well for the future for the GOP, since that is the direction things are going. That's an excellent point. One saving grace for radio, however, is that you can't log onto the internet during your drive time, which is when a lot of folks tune into talk radio.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) So it is ok to smear soldiers you don't agree with and destroy the credibility of military honors? I guess it's ok as long as there is political capital to be made for the GOP. Support the GOP faithful Troops!! So it's ok for the left to smear the military while someone on the right gets taken out of context and he's the devil? I understand your views perfectly now. Thanks.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 11:33 AM) If he said it prove it. Show me. If not wanting to go to war and not wanting to invade countries that haven't done anything to anyone is "extreme". Than I guess that I'm an extremist. I think it's just a dumb word that republicans wanna call anyone with a diffrent view. Much like people from the left who run around calling everyone "fasict". And why do people on the right compare everyone remotly to the left of their political views to The Clinton's? Your obsessed with the Clinton's. Did you have your head in the sand for those couple of months after he said it? It got constant media attention for a very long time.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 10:28 AM) Yet you supported the Swifties. I don't get it. Not hard to see really, in fact it's a perfect fit. The Swifties were out to expose John Kerry for his 2 faced conduct during the election cycle. He went around lying to the United States Senate during the Winter Soldier Investigations of 1971, bringing, to steal a phrase, a bunch of phony soldiers up there to testify about atrocities that they not only did not witness but in fact did not exist at all. His actions served to smear every man and woman that served in that war and that's exactly the type of person I have no use for whatsoever.

I do have an objective question, though. Why do you guys think that liberal radio is struggling so much while conservative radio is an explosive success? Is it the message, the marketing, maybe a combination of both? Is it a demographic thing ( being that most listeners of talk radio are white males )?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 18, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) My last comments were more in response to Nuke's post regarding leftists. And I did not mean to disparage all the lapel pin wearers out there. Using Kap for an example. He has examined "why" and come to the conclusion that we should be in for the long haul, that the troops are needed in Iraq today, tomorrow, and probably for a while. I respect his position and his waving (metaphorically) the flag is wonderful. However, someone who believes supporting the troops is never questioning why we are there, never questioning what is being done, never questioning the leadership, is rather hollow. And, I'll point it out and save someone the typing. The opposite occurs on the other side when people decide the war is wrong without looking at why. But the knee jerk reaction of anyone who is against the war is also against the soldiers is false. Perhaps Nuke's view of citizens is because Nuke's employer demands total loyalty and he has no choice but to follow orders. He has to believe in his mission to be effective. I believe once again it is the check and balance, the fact we have civilians who are free to protest, free to vote for candidates that are in line with our views that has kept us out of some unjust, immoral, unethical conflicts. It has also kept us out of some places we probably should have been, but that is a different thread. By valuing our soldiers enough to say, this is not worth losing American lives, we support them far more than some flag waving rightly who is afraid to question, who finds it easier to stack body bags than question the government's actions. One of the beautiful things of a volunteer Army is that people join of their own free will and if they don't agree with what we're doing they can opt to finish their time in service and walk away. I believe in the mission we're involved in over here as a whole, but I'm certainly critical of a lot of the way it's being executed. Back on task here. I have a great deal of respect for those who have actually served over here that are opposed to the war. I would never disparage anyone who has served in combat that is anti-war as if anyone is entitled to their opinion about this matter, they are. The people that do bother me are all these militant anti-war people who have never set foot over here going around in the media claiming that they speak for us. Organizations like this move on.org and the like who say they are looking out for us with their views, then turn around and try to smear Gen Petraeus in the media are what I'm talking about. They, and those who are that far on the left are cut from the same cloth as those who spent the 60's and 70's spitting on returning Vietnam Vets and calling them baby killers. The only reason these 2 faced bastardsr claim to be looking out for our welfare is that these days its fashionable to support the troops.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) I'd be interested in hearing your hierarchy of human values? Which lives are worth less than others? Those who choose not to commit murder or rape or sell drugs or abuse the weak and defenseless ________________ Those that do. It's very simple really.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) Also, doesn't it cost more to execute someone than to give them life without parole due to the legal costs associated with the appeal process? It does......and that's a most unfortunate byproduct of a legal system which favors the rights of criminals over the rights of the victims they slaughter on a daily basis.

Quiet, quiet and more quiet. Those are the words of the day. Since my last entry it has been more of the same.....many arrests......a few weapon cache's found......no insurgent attacks in sector. This thing is on total lockdown right now and I couldn't be happier about it.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 09:01 PM) The Koskids are still in denial, now claiming that the lawyers claims are 'fake' so that they can investigate what really happened. But this one comments just really stood out to me: THIS, from the same webiste that hopes Bush gets shot, dies of AIDS and wished him ill will when Bush fell off his mountain bike. THIS, from the site that wishes all conservatives would die in a plane crash. I had to just laugh at the sheer blindness of that particular poster. This, in a nutshell, is why leftist talk radio fails. It's amazing to me how leftists can sit there with a straight face and call Conservative radio "hate radio" and almost in the same breath spew vile comments like this.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) How are we different than Saudis who behead? Why don't we just cut off the hands of thieves? Methodology.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 15, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) Nuke!!! Hope to hear from you soon bud. Ive been reading things on the EPP's that have been really threatening our troops, wanted to know if you had any interaction with insurgents using those weapons Fortunately, my unit has not been hit by any of those devices. I knock on wood for that one as I've seen the photos of what they are capable of doing. Actually, things have been VERY quiet in our area lately. We've been all over it in the last few months arresting several dozen insurgents and finding a whole mess of weapons cache's. With us having a 24 hour presence in the area, the bad guys don't even have room to breathe.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) Valuing all life as sacred and valuable is less hypocritical than valuing some more than others, which is what your position does. You make it seem as if death is the only suitable punishment. Life in prison values both lives. I do not believe our government is perfect and do not feel comfortable allowing the government to execute humans. We've sent people to death row who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. If we allow executions, what could be considered cruel and unusual? Anything less than death could be considered better so all punishments would be allowed. Valuing some more than others? Are you trying to place someone who committed a brutal crime on the same level as an innocent old lady? How do you justify that position? I also find it ironic that many of those who say that preventing executions "values life" are the same ones who approve of abortion. ( Not saying you hold that position personally ). How is it so much more preferable to warehouse slime like this in jail......at the expense of the taxpayer...... for life than just eliminate it?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 08:28 PM) As for Rush, his initial commentary seemed to be geared towards soldiers who came home and became anti-war activists after their experiences. It was nice for a man of his size and stature that he had the wiggle room to get his foot out of his mouth. Wrong again. He was referring to that anti-war activist who claimed he had participated in "war crimes" in Iraq when he had actually been in uniform for a few weeks and never set one foot in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that he defrauded the government out of thousands of dollars in VA benefits. This, of course, has been twisted out of context by leftists like you in a vain attempt to make the man look bad. This is nothing more than an attempted snow job by the leftist media "watchdog" Media Matters, who are basically throwing s*** up against a wall and seeing what sticks. 41 leftist Senators bought this nonsense hook, line, and sinker and now they look like fools for doing so. If you're so f***ing worried about those who smear soldiers you should direct your comments to slime like this Jessie MacBeth or this Private Beauchamp. Both of these people told lies about "war crimes" they "witnessed" in Iraq and smeared everyone in uniform in so doing. Where is all your outrage about men like John Kerry, who lied about "war crimes" he "witnessed" while in Vietnam in front of the United States Senate himself and brought a bunch of fake soldiers, men who had never even been in uniform, to do the same? Truth of the matter is that leftists like you don't give 2 s***s if American Troops get smeared in the media. You think we're all a bunch of baby killing, mercenary, war criminals anyway. All you're interested in is using the sacrifices we make to further your own leftist, anti-war agenda. Do me a favor, save your fake sympathy for someone else. We don't want it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/16/nevad...n.ap/index.html I think it comes down to this, is there a way to kill someone that is usual? When killing someone becomes usual, we lose some humanity. I believe we should value all human life, even low life garbage like this monster. Yeah. We value life alright........ The life of this piece of s*** gets a greater value assigned to it than that of the defenseless old lady he clobbered to death with a tire iron. There are many ways to kill people that are usual. Bullet in the back of the head, electrocution, gas, hanging....etc......etc. For all the bleeding hearts who think lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" ( I can't help but laugh when I hear that ) I ask them to tell me what the preferred method of execution was when the 8th amendment was written. I guarantee you they weren't too worried about whether the perp felt pain back in those days.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Oct 15, 2007 -> 12:19 PM) All of Ronnie Rayguns kids are cool. Too bad he was a jerk. Whatever.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 13, 2007 -> 08:11 PM) I had my third discussion with my 7th grade classes. We were talking about the Puritans establishing their colony in the 1630's. However, in the 1640's ad 50's, a group of Quakers kept getting kicked out of the colony. They kept coming back because they thought being kicked out for their religious beliefs was unfair -- and the Puritans passed harsher laws against them (from first just jailing and booting them out to burning holes in the tongue/cutting off the ear) Then, by 1 vote in the Puritan government, they passed a capital punishment offense law for Quakers that kept coming in using self-defense as their argument. A woman named Mary Dyer who disagreed with the Quakers being targeted unfairly (using the idea of Inward Light that peoples' consciences could tell them the will of God) and had been warned numerous other times came back one more time, refused to be let go and was hanged. After the hanging, the public opinion and England took notice and banned the executions. The story led to a pretty interesting discussion about if Mary was right in continuously returning, when people should follow laws, why we follow laws and if it is ever justified for people to break laws that they think are unfair -- and how to develop a criteria for what an unfair law is. As always, they also had to come up with alternatives to the problem in the story that treat everybody involved respectfully. It was rather interesting to me in reading your post here that the answer I commonly use for this type of discussion was already written. If the masses truly believe that a law is unjust then they will work within the system to change the law. I don't believe for a minute that people have a right to disobey laws which laws they find distasteful. A society where the rule of law is optional is not a society at all. It is, in truth, the very definition of anarchy.

My avatar speaks for itself.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300719,00.html So regular left wing talk radio didn't work so now they're resorting to Atheism? LOL!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:57 AM) So, if I'm reading this thread right, the correct way to solve anthropogenic climate change is to stand up to greenhouse gases, be strong, and tell it to tear down those anvil clouds. Another failed attempt at sarcasm.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) So then why call it propaganda? If you want clean air and water and efficient energy why piss and crap all over Al Gore's message? Even if you think the whole global warming concept is false the outcomes from the message are beneficial for everyone, unless you are a CEO for big oil. Honestly, I think Global Warming is a bunch of horses***. I think we should be more energy efficient, partially for security reasons ( we get too much of our energy from bad neighborhoods ) and partially because I think wasting resources doing things the old way when a better way is out there is much better.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:43 AM) I guess I fail to see how striving for a cleaner and more energy efficient world is a negative. Do you honestly enjoy polluted air and water and gas guzzling technologies? Who ever said I did? If you go back through my posts where do you see me ever saying that ( hint: the opposite is true ).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:44 AM) Really? They wanted a war that would have killed tens of millions, and then gave up without a whimper? Further proof that peace through strength works.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) Fixed it for you. Had we not been there with huge armies of our own, backed by nuclear weapons, then that would indeed have happened.