I usually do some research but owing to need-to-know issues, the government has not friended me. We had tons of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and some 5,000 of our men and women wearing those boots died. I think some 30,000, wearing those boots, were seriously wounded. Compare to 4 people dying in Benghazi and the congressional investigations found Hillary to be faultless. No blood on her hands.
The excuse for those thousands of Americans dying was false credible evidence of both weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam would use it against us. Now, there are some out there who want to not use drones and go back to boots. Others want drones and boots. Some intellects want 100% assurance that drones only kill the bad guys. They should wear black hats and name plates and house prisoners far away.
I don't want boots on the ground. I don't want parents, spouses, brothers and sisters to lose their American warrior or have them wounded. I well know the other side of the issue. For these reasons, I love our drone program.
Friday, April 10, 2015
I read in cyberspace that Rand Paul requires that anything he said in the past, hereinafter, must be off limits. Really wish I remembered the exact quote, language and context, however I think it is the most bizarre thing to emerge from the mouth of a Presidential Candidate. He seems to feel free to viciously go after anyone's past without necessarily being encumbered by facts, Yet, anything he said in his past, any of his flip-flops, any simply not true statements are no to be mentioned hereinafter. Well so much for his statements
Now, I understand that in addition to not talking about what he said, he ends interviews or gets enraged if something he did comes under scrutiny.
What an ideal position to be in. He wants to erase his utterances, wants to be assured only mutual admiration interviews, and he thus assures he's as clean and pure as Caesar's wife. And, all the time have his way with his dis tractors.
Now, once he says something, it becomes in his past, as soon as it is said. So, he is actually also protecting the present and future. Brilliant!
The last person who had such free reign, was a little mustached fool in 1939.
Posted by Harv at 7:59 PM
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Just my stupid opinion that Indiana's answer will be that there is no license to discriminate. To them this will simple mean that no specific law says you can discriminate. This does not mean that a person can't discriminate, only that the State does not give specific permission to do so. A person can still refuse service or products because there is no law stating that they can't. Then if a person refuses service, he can say it is not discrimination, but simply exercising the laws protection of his religious beliefs.
The State must have a non discrimination law
Posted by Harv at 11:30 AM