FFPCogs

Never forget all who perished that day at the hands of those fanatical murderers..but for us especially the 343. As I write this I have on the TV a National Geographic show about 9/11. As the clip if the second plane hitting the South Tower was shown I got the same horrible, disbelieveing, sinking feeling I got that day watching it live. It was like watching a movie, but I knew I wasn't, and I remember it took a few seconds to actually process what I just saw. It is as vivid today seven years later as it was then, and just as heartwrenching. I will never forget that day as long as I live. Nor will I ever forget the sacrifices of ALL on that day in New York, Washington and Shanksville. May God care for the souls of the lost, comfort their grieving relatives and friends, and protect those who continue to serve. God Bless America Never forget 9/11 Cogs

Ok I'll get this one going. What's the consensus on Sen. McCain"s VP choice? At present it hasn't changed my mind about who to support in November..and from what little I've read so far she seems to be a pretty good pick. Any one else care to chime in? Cogs

Here's an interesting take on Palin's foriegn affairs/defense experience. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080907/pl_politico/13222. Here again I find myself in agreement with the Republican ticket, when looking at her credientials vs. Obama's Remember too that as far as the widely unpopular war in Iraq is concerned, both Republican candidates have family members on ACTIVE duty in the armed forces and headed to Iraq. The Democratic hopefuls don't. To me the Republican ideal of victory even at the risk of personal loss is far more in line with my beliefs than the Democratic cut and run stratedgy proposed by Obama. Cogs

While the Vice Presidentail pick is important because they MAY one day inhabit the Oval Office SHOULD something happen to the President, many people and especially the media are overlooking (either intentionally or unintentionally) one very important FACT. Barak Obama is running against John McCain for the Presidency not Sarah Palin. When these two candidates are compared there is absolutely NO DOUBT as to who is BETTER QUALIFIED. Like I stated in an earlier post she MAY become President if elected, but he WILL become President. The only vald question is whether or not HE is qualified and experienced enough to be President starting in January vis a vis John McCain, the Republican nominee who if elected will be President in Jan. Therefore Obama's experience or lack thereof is of much more immediate importance than Sarah Palin's. Comparing the two is like the proverbial apples and oranges. I put my faith in the belief that my candidate for President...John McCain...will complete his first term, and during his tenure Sarah Palin will gain whatever experience she may be lacking. In truth even if Palin were running against Obama she would still get my vote based on her experience over his. Cogs

In all honesty I am in favor of the IDEA of socialized medicine. I would have abosloutely no problem paying higher taxes to guarantee the best health care for my family, or for that matter socialized education as well. My sister in law is from Sweden where taxes are extremely high by our standards, but for all that taxation Sweden's citizens are covered literally from cradle to grave. All their needs are covered regardless of income, profession ect. Sweden is also viewd by many as a modern, model system, and in alot of ways it is. But this is due to the attitude of the average Swede. They have chosen a socialist system, which works well for them. America is by tradition and choice a capitalst system whereby everything is done for profit. Until such time as a viable system of socialized medicine can be enacted, I prefer to keep things as they are. When the Government can ensure that the same level of care and choice will be provided to all, care that only the best insured get now, then I will jump on the universal healthcare bandwagon. The current Democratic plans for universal health care leave alot to be desired as far as I am concerned, because they are rooted in, and will be driven by the capitalist philosophy of profit. Socialized medicine (or universal healthcare) only works when all are commited to it and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for impartial coverage..and at present we Americans are not there yet. For all my right-wing beliefs I would like to see many changes to our system, which some might consider communist or fascist. Maybe I'll start another post outlining them for some good old fashioned debate. Stay tuned...... Cogs

As stated NO party affiliation or lack thereof is an indication of ones patriotism. How patriotic someone is is up to them. On the surface Republicans may seem more patriotic because they traditionally support a strong military, and the use of it when necessary. Democrats generally seek to cut military spending in favor of social programs ect, and rely much more on diplomacy. An argument can be made either way to show which is "more" patriotic, but both are to some degree. Many people hold the belief that the Republicans are "in bed" with military contractors more so than Democrats. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The proof of that is in the profits of the big defense contractors. Amazingly they don't go down under Democratic leadership even with all the cuts. All the Washington fat cats have a piece of the defense pie, and profit either directly or indirectly from their position...at least the Republicans make no secret of it. Obama's emasculation plan for the military will end up costing us far more than simply dollars if it should ever come to pass. I hope all those who plan to vote for him at least look carefully at what he proposes and the record of the Democrats in the last 1/4 century before pulling that lever. Yes there are many domestic problems, but they will pale in comparison to the costs of fighting a war caused by our potential weakness derived from his plans. Cogs

If she ends up in the BIG chair, I don't care if she's hunting or poaching..when it comes to our enemies. As long as they end up DEAD ! Cogs

I know this is off topic here as this thread is about Obama's defense "plans" but since the middle class was brought up I posted the link. There is no partisanship involved. To me the most telling and important statement made by the economist about the middle class was this. "it's not the high cost of living that hurts, it's the cost of living high". You can disagree but neither the Democratic or Republican party really stresses individual fiscal responsibility. The "squeeze" on the middle class is self induced. The vast majority of Americans live beyond their means, and then blame either Government action or inaction as the reason for their troubles. We Americans consume more of everything than the rest of the world combined, and have steadily become a buy now pay later society. Troubles ensue when it comes time to pay the piper. There has always been and always will be the rich, the poor and the majority...the middle class. As pointed out in the video MOST Americans a richer materially now than ever before in our history, but with that materialism comes the debt that is the real "sqeezer". Remember too that most of our elected officials in Washington, Dems and Republicans alike are a part of the top percentile of wealthy Americans..they are the rich getting richer and will NEVER jeapordize that status. Cogs

Being computer incompetent I am unable to post a link here... :angry: . I just watched a very interesting video about middle class woes that's worth a look. Go to www.reason.tv/video/show/61.html and have a look. It makes perfect sense to me. Cogs

Ditto !! As long as he can prove there's money in it..his ideas will succeed. Wouldn't it be nice if common sense, and true concern about our economy and national security were enough. Cogs

NY10570, Thank you for the compliment, and I find your replies equally well thought out and well presented...actually I find everyone on here has valid points and usually present their opinions well. I find that while I may not agree, I almost always wind up thinking carefully about the information and ideas presented..so to all thank you. The number one threat is terrorism right now, but as recent events have shown Russia has been flexing it's muscle again, Iran has no intention of halting it's nuclear programs, Pakistan is on the verge of implosion, North Korea is starving and becoming increasingly desperate, and China as it grows economically stronger needs resources more. Any one of these factors has historically been a cause for war in and of itself, combined that threat increases exponentially. There is really very little more that can be done to prevent a terrorist attack, as was stated they thrive in the underdog role, and this helps their cause. The size and abilities of our military will never offer a 100% deterrent against commited fanatics who seek glory through death. Our military power can only influence terrorist activity by controlling or destroying the nation/states that support it. The post cold war phase of international relations is over, and the U.S. will again find itself confronted by adversaries on a national scale. We cannot become so totally focused on terrorism that we become incapable of meeting our obligations to our allies and by virtue of that, to our own security. At times I have believed in isolationist policies, but the days of them being viable options for our country are over. Economically, militarily, politically and socially our nation is now linked to a majority of the worlds other nations, for better or for worse. Therefore our interests a scattered all over the globe and we must be in a position to continue to protect those interests. Downsizing any sector of the military, eliminating funding for further research into defense systems, and pulling out of military operations already in progress without a clear victory will have a negative and potentially dangerous effect in the long run. Again a simple look back shows this. In the 1970's after our withdrawl from Vietnam there were definite consequences. Soviet military expansion exploded, terrorism became international, our military suffered a huge drop in morale, and our government was paralyzed in dealing with international crisis. As the U.S. retreated into itself the world around us grew bolder in confronting us. Thankfully Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and addressed this decline, I believe successfully. Another huge difference between the recent past and today is the fact that there is no longer a Soviet Union. We, the U.S. and the USSR effectively controlled the world back then. While always in a state of "cold war" we both kept our allies and satellites basically in check and prevented wider scale conflicts. That system of checks and balances no longer exists and much of the world is in free fall mode, with no "big brother" to reign them in. Russia now has regained it's confidence, but not it's control over it's former lackeys. It is these former lackeys that pose a growing threat, above and beyond Islamic militants. Retreat, reduction and refusal to see the world as it is will greatly contribute to our nations IN-security. Obama's plans will put us on a collision course with the hostile nations of the world by sending the wrong message about American resolve and abilities. In the long run they will lead to more blood being shed by American service men and women. For all the ills facing our nation, I am firmly convinced that national defense is the prime issue facing voters in this election, because inaction on this front will impact every other sector of American life, if not today then in the very near tomorrow. Just another $.02 Cogs

The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty date back to Nixon with SALT I. Over these 35+ years we have already reduced our nuclear forces considerably, as have the Russians. That's all well and good, but these reductions are with Russia only, not the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, or any other nuclear state. Lik it or not nuclear weapons ARE a deterrent to their use..you bomb us, we bomb you..we both lose. This has been the working stratedgy since 1949 when the Russians tested their first atomic bomb. Further reductions will limit our effective deterrence level plain and simple. If we cannot ensure an enemies destruction he may very well be tempted to use his weapons against us and take his losses. It is the fear of these weapons that keeps them from being used, reduce that fear, and you increase the potential of their use. Missle defense systems, the money invested has had an impact. Just like SDI in the 80's which was a factor in the demise of the Soviet Union, today's missle defense systems forces any challengers to invest to defeat the intent of that system. Only the U.S. has the resources and ablility to do this, so as our potential enemies try to keep up, they suffer in other areas which in the end weakens them, not us. One must also remember that there is a high probability that there will be a few new countries in the nuclear club within the coming decade. Countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria all of whom have ballistic missles capable of reaching the U.S. or our allies (Japan, Israel, Taiwan, Turkey ect ect.). Cut back Future Combat Systems, another mistake. Our ability to field troops and weapons on the cutting edge is the strength of a downsized military (thanks Bill Clinton). Taking away the weapons systems that will allow them to effectively do their jobs is akin to cutting a fire dept by 50 % and then equiping them with 30 year old equipment while expecting the same level of service. Most important of all is the perceptions of our potential enemies. History has shown time and again that when a power is percieved to be weak or "soft" they invite trouble. In recent history, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they percieved Americans to be soft and unwilling to defend the Pacific. That erroneous perception was based in part on our defense spending at the time. Japan saw an America unwilling to invest in it's own security and struck. The same can be said of Korea, the Russians instigated the actions of North Korea because they perecieved us to be weak and unwilling to go to arms. An even greater tradgedy is the handling of Hitler. The European powers bent over backwards to appease him and reduce their militaries, as did we to some extent and look what that got the world. To be percieved to be weakening our military and their options is to invite disaster. America is like the huge Bison on the savanna, constantly stalked by the hyenas. Any weaking will cause them to pounce. Only from a position strength can we hope to keep our enemies and potential enemies at bay. My $.02 Cogs ps I have stated my beliefs about Iraq in other threads so I'm sure all are aware of my position there.

No 20th century born American can possibly be THIS naive, and out of touch with the realities of the world today. I said it before I'll say it again. This kind of liberal, pacifist thinking has already been tried, and proven dangerous. Does he really think everyone plays nice in the sandbox..my God what a fool. This has to be some kind of political posturing..he just can't be that stupid. Well if nothing else his foreign policy and defense experience is clearly evident now. Also what does this policy say about his running mate to allow Obama to make such ridiculous and potentially dangerous promises. Is this the advise we can expect from such an "experienced" Senator. I don't own a gun, but I can see myself getting one if B O get elected. I will be an Army of one..we'll all have to be. Cogs

Just was on yahoo and saw a survey about job satisfaction. Number 1 - Clergy with 87% polled saying they were very satisfied with and happy in their jobs number 2 -...you guessed it..Firefighters at 80%. It turns out at least by this poll that those whose careers are about helping others are happier and much more satisfied with their jobs. I've been paid to fight fires ect. and am definitely one of that 80%, but as a volunteer I can honestly say that joining the fire service is one of THE BEST choices I've ever made. I am fairly certain that saisifaction in terms of simply being a firefighter regardless of status ranks way way up on any scale. Anybody wish they'd taken a different road? Cogs

Joe, As I said RUMORS, but these rumors are the thinking of some...and not the ones who passed it on to me which is why I won't identify them. I will say this much the rumor mongers come from both sides of the fence and are obviously intent on stirring the pot. Now that all are aware that such BS is out there people can get a clearer picture of what's going on around them, and respond appropriately. I intended no offense, just information. The trouble makers will show thenmselves soon enough. Cogs

It never ceases to amaze me how this whole issue started over money, and yet here they are wanting to throw away another $140,000. I have heard numerous rumors, but thought better of posting them here as they are just that ...rumors. But just to give an indication of their tone. TOR will shortly accept the City's demand and house SFRD Eng.s 8 and 9 in their firehouses BFD is going under and will close up shop in the very near future..district to be incorporated into GFD, SFCo and TOR by Thankgiving. I'm not trying to start trouble, nor do I believe these and other rumors since the sources are 2nd and 3rd hand, just thought all might want to know. And no I won't name names. Cogs

DOC hope you feel better..take it slow bro. Cogs

Ahhhhh yes, the WAR. It is true that we were misled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we were not misled about the Taliban/Al Qaeda connection. Osama and Co. were indeed safe and sound in Afghanistan. As for Saddam, well he and his regime were a threat to U.S. interests, and safety in the region. In 1991 we refused to help the people of Iraq when they rose against Saddam and were gassed and bombed into oblivion. Yes GHW Bush was President then, but a Democrat controlled Congress would not approve any aid, and any unilateral overt action would have had dire consequences to the overall stability in the Middle East at that time. When in 2003 we did indeed go to war, the Democrats voted in favor because that is what their constituents wanted..action!. It really didn't matter against who, just so long as some Arabs paid for 9/11. The entire country was gripped by war fever and most everyone was happy to see our military kickin some Arab a**. Of course as Operation Iraqi Freedom dragged on, and more and more body bags returned home people became less hawkish. The reality of war in all it's ugliness and violence hit home. The war became unpopular, so like any good politicians, the Democrats who overwhelmingly vote to go to war, now had to do an about face to keep in the graces of the majority. If these Senators and Congressmen had actually been concerned about the WHY of the war they could have and should have investigated further before voting..but they didn't. They voted based on popularity not reality...so is that GWs fault..no it's theirs. Easier to blame someone else than to take responsibilty for their choice. Now the Democrats want to pull out, because the war has become unpopular..it wasn't over in a week. American suffer from the delusion that war can be somehow sanitary, clean and quick..it isn't. Our miltary has done a superb job, and should be given everything necessary to continue to do so. There actions have made us safer...no terrorist attacks since 9/11 here at home. We have applied pressure through the military to our enemies, and kept them from our shores. A pullback now would jeopordize any gains we've made and only embolden our enemies, while giving creedence to their propaganda. A pullout now would also play right into the hands of Iran. John McCain realizes this and is for staying the course and WINNING..which we can and will do under his leadership. Mr.Obama's idea of "talking" with Iran is simply ludicrous. The world tried talking to a leader like Ahmadenijad already in the 1930's..his name was Hitler. 50 million dead later the error of that judgement was blatantly evident. And now Pakistan is teetering on collapse under Al Qaeda pressure and the tacit aid of Iran..Pakistan a country in possesion of NUCLEAR WEAPONS may become our enemy. "Talking" won't help..only firm action can keep us safe. The Democratic notion of appeasement has already been proven throughout history to be not only foolhardy but exceedingly dangerous. I want peace as much as the next guy, and the ability to live in a secure world. Unfortunately that security does not exist at this time, not because of our Country's policies, but because many in this world want to do us harm. John McCain has not promised what people want to hear, he is taking a hard line because that is the reality of the world in which we live. To me, to think otherwise is to live with your head in the sand. I commend John McCain for his service to our great country, and for his honesty in addressing Iraq. He will make a better Commander in Chief, and one reason why he will get my vote is because we will need just that...a Commander in Chief. Cogs

HOLY SH*T !!!! I just realized I've turned into my father. Not that that is a bad thing..he was a great man, but I thought I had another 20 years. ...Damn! Cogs Oh yeah one more, I have to keep editing these posts becasue of my mis-spellings.

Getting old indeed..let's see I now need reading glasses, hair is a thing of the past, all the "anthems I grew up listening to on the radio are now commercial jingles, I hear my wife say to the kids "wait til you have kids" and agree with her, actually agree with my wife period, I would rather watch football than play it, sometimes look forward to doing nothing, feel old on retro days at my kid's school where they dress like the "80s", need my 11 y.o to show me how to work this computer and worst of all...actually sleep in bed more often than not. And that's just off the fireground.. Cogs

Prayers indeed. It appears as though things will get rough along the Gulf coast, but at least they seem to be better prepeared this time. If anyone has info on how to help please pass it along here..I'm sure there are many here willing. Cogs

Very true, But we are voting for President. Given the choice between the novices, I'll take my chances with her as VP as opposed to him in the Oval office. She MAY get the job if elected..He definitely WILL. Remember too that for all the rhetoric and name calling ANY President has to get their agenda through Congress. They can blabber on and on all they want, but they CANNOT in the end dictate policy. Obama's song of change WILL fall on deaf ears and closed minds on Capitol Hill. The insiders of Washington will still run the show..as they always have. The only one to take on any special interest so far and make even a slight difference is the nobody Governor of Alaska vs Big Oil to the tune of $1200 in every eligible Alaskan's pocket. John McCain may be old but he IS a Washington insider, and therefore knows how to work the system. The continued Obama chant of change is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to pander to a public upset with the current state of affairs. A state of affairs which HE helped to create as a Senator. A state which for all his promises Barak Obama can not and will not change. To even attempt to do so would be political suicide. There is not one single issue in this election that either candidate can walk in and change by themselves...period. That's how the system works. McCain has played the game for years, and knows and is generally respected by all the players, Obama is not. In truth the recent record of Democratic success is slim at best, although they repeatedly try to take credit for any good that comes out of Washington. Put simply Democrats talk, Republicans DO !!! and talk is cheap in my book. Cogs

This was posted by me on another thread here, but I think it fits here as well. (plus I'm too lazy to type it again LOL ) I have to agree that this country is in deep s*it no matter who gets elected, but it usually is at election time. Maybe that's because all our problems are repeatedly hammered upon by the candidates for soundbytes blaming the "other" guy or party. Once elected it gets awfully quiet regarding all our ills again...just business as usual. And try as they might the President isn't a dictator, (although some have tried) and they must work with the Congress so..... Does it really doesn't matter who gets elected anyway? The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, jobs will still be flooding overseas, the economy will still suck, we'll still be in Iraq, we'll still be in Afghanistan...sh*t we might end up in Georgia toe to toe with our old nemesis the Ruskies (anybody remember duck and cover) or bombing the crap out of Iran. I'm a devout cynic when it comes to politicians and their ideas and promises. That being said, I'm also a firm believer that if you don't vote you have NO right to complain (although the Constitution says otherwise). So yeah it does matter who get elected. For me McCain is less of a liar and opportunist than Obama and he's is (or at least was) an honorable man who suffered greatly when he could have gone home...he actually thought about someone other than himself. I believe somewhere in this man that integrity still exists, and even a little integrity is far better than what we've done to ourselves with the last few Presidents..yeah Good 'ole boy Bill too. Also having worked in a war zone to support the military, I would much rather have a man in the Oval Office who has actually served in the military, and more importantly is himself a war veteran, sending our young soldiers off to war. And at war we will most likely still be. I'm no Karnak or Nostredamus, but it has been suggested by some security experts based on previous elections that the new President may very well be tested by our enemies within his first year in office. Bill Clinton elected Nov. 1992, first WTC attack Feb 1993, GWB elected Nov. 2000...well we all know the rest. Who will be better suited to deal with this dreadful prospect when it occurs, a soldier, war veteran, veteran Senator involved in foreign affairs and miltary committees or a novice 1st term senator? It's 3am John McCain has already answered the phone...it's still ringing at the Obama's. Hey but if the polls are right, none of this matters and we'll be playing "hail to the Chief"' for Obama. As a proud American I will always honor, support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, regardless who's President. Cogs Another of my $.02 from that same thread. I respect your opinion and you are indeed correct about the experience of our last two Presidents. But at least GWB had a father who was a President to seek advise from...whether you agree with that advise or not is another matter. For me I'll take the values over the charisma anyday. Bill wasn't all that great in the White House...Whitewater, NAFTA, inaction in Bosnia, inaction in Rwanda, inaction in Sudan, inaction regarding Osama, and of course Monica Lewinski...Good Ole Bill's and the Democrat's judgement left alot to be desired. Oh and in regards to our wonderful economy during his tenure..many economists have stated that it was the result of the effects of Reagonomics not Bill Clinton and the Dems.

OK one more note (hopefully) on the "religion" angle of this thread. The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of religion, and as a fervent supporter of this I could care less what anyone else's religion is..or isn't. You are free to choose what is best for YOU, but don't sh*t on my religion based on your opinions. Intolerance, bigotry and ignorance are far more insidious and dangerous than an EMS service not being allowed to use one particular parking lot. Maybe just finding another parking lot is the answer. Also it is usually not prudent to make judgements without knowing all the facts...most of which are missing from the letter supplied on the first post here. Just a thought Cogs

Congratulations Hope everyone is doing ok......BTW..cute kid!! Cogs