A Political Statement

[Jackpine]

This is a reply to Lynn in the New Member Forum -

Lynn, I too am passionate about politics, probably more so than ever due to the last eight years. Please understand, I am a 20-year, Vietnam Era, Air Force combat pilot veteran, so I have some inkling of your feelings and sense of Duty, Honor and Country. My Father was a career Army officer, who fought in WWII, Korea and the early days of Vietnam. I am all too aware of the fact that we in the military are used when the political process breaks down, usually through inept or overly ambitious government.

I don't really agree that Bush was pro-military at all. Look at the way the Administration treated the returning wounded veterans. Look at the way they sent troops into harm's way with substandard equipment. Notice how they subverted the role of the military (who are trained to "break things") into a nation-building role more suited to a police force and NGOs. Look at how they overtly approved "extraordinary measures" and then hung the poor grunts who implemented those measures out to dry for using "excessive force" while completely ignoring worse behavior by civilian contractors and intelligence agencies. Look at how personnel are on third and fourth deployments, and how those deployments have been extended. Remember how the Administration effectively cut off support to the effort in Afghanistan so that it could pursue a more "profitable" adventure in Iraq. I could go on and on, but, hopefully, I've conveyed the idea. And please, I'm not some "bleeding heart" Democrat. I have much the same angst against President Johnson for the inept way he first got us into, and then tried to micro-manage the Vietnam War effort. Johnson "invented" a reason to escalate activities in Southeast Asia, it was an event in the Gulf of Tonken that didn't even happen. He allowed his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, to ignore virtually every request made by his military commanders. He forced the Air Force to conduct bombing raids on low-value targets at predictable times of the day using routes that were well known to the enemy. And finally, look at how his Administration failed to support returning veterans.

I don't mean to say that these two Presidents were all bad. President Bush made huge, successful efforts toward combating disease in Africa. President Johnson created the "Great Society" that probably resulted in the election of President Obama.

But, in my opinion, Bush was not a leader. In my opinion, Johnson was not a leader. We desperately need a LEADER, and that leader WILL have to make very tough decisions. That leader must be willing to acknowledge mistakes, because he will make them. That leader must recognize that he doesn't have all the answers so he must listen to his advisers and understand the full consequences of his decisions. He must keep to the moral high ground and not let the ends justify the means. That leader must govern from the center of the Country, not from the center of his political party. That leader must work with the other countries in the world and not try to dominate them.

I am optimistic about President Obama. I think President Obama would have listened to Colin Powell. I think he would not have allowed a Donald Rumsfeld to ignore the advice of General Tommy Franks. I don't think he would have abandoned the effort in Afghanistan for something more (politically) lucrative.

And, I think he WILL support the military.

- Jack

[88Racing]

Great job Jack.

Lars

[ChuckD]

Look at the way the Administration treated the returning wounded veterans.

Well said Jack.

I am proof. Look how they offer the RIRP while overseas but when you hurt and sent back to the states, you are no longer eligable for it.

[lynn2437]

Jack

I think that while intentionally trying to be unbiased in my reply, I have unintentionally shown my true feelings towards the two party system that is ruining this country. I have no doubts that Bush was inept in many things regarding this war. I also have no doubt that for all his faults he also did great things that he will never be recognized for. The media in this country has created a stigma around the Bush admin. and has made him a scapegoat for many things. At the same time, as gun shy as I am on the Obama admin, like you, I only wish him wisdom and grace to do well by his supporters and this country. I can only hope for his unwaivering support in the military.

Don't get me wrong Jack, I know you feel the same about this country and I appreciate your service. I will always have the upmost respect for our retirees and vets. I too have had many family members in active duty service. Look, everybody supports their party for issues that affect them and I support mine because of the way they affect my life and my family. I was raised very conservative and that mindset has brought me values that I could never live without.

The corruption in our political system has this country at a breaking point, something must give. This country will either fail or succeed together. Everbody is on the same team. I support all levels of the party that I honestly believe can bring this country back to greatness and I don't think it will be Obama.

[Jackpine]

The enduring great thing in this Country, Lynn, is that we are free to voice our thoughts. I respect your opinion and am willing to accept that there are no pat answers. You and I and your Wife and countless others have sworn to protect and defend this freedom. It is NOT "unpatriotic" to disagree, in fact, I would argue that it is unpatriotic to blindly agree.

I am a registered Republican, who, in 2000, would have happily voted for John McCain. But, I was not given that choice, so I voted for Al Gore. In 2004, I voted for John Kerry, and, last year I voted for President Obama.

I also voted for Ronald Reagan, who used to be a Democrat, but stated that his Party had deserted him. I feel much the same about the GOP.

Yes, we are on the same team, and, we can disagree.

The next four years will be interesting, to say the least, and I look forward to seeing what happens. I remain hopeful.

Peace, Brother!

- Jack

[lynn2437]

The enduring great thing in this Country, Lynn, is that we are free to voice our thoughts. I respect your opinion and am willing to accept that there are no pat answers. You and I and your Wife and countless others have sworn to protect and defend this freedom. It is NOT "unpatriotic" to disagree, in fact, I would argue that it is unpatriotic to blindly agree.

I am a registered Republican, who, in 2000, would have happily voted for John McCain. But, I was not given that choice, so I voted for Al Gore. In 2004, I voted for John Kerry, and, last year I voted for President Obama.

I also voted for Ronald Reagan, who used to be a Democrat, but stated that his Party had deserted him. I feel much the same about the GOP.

Yes, we are on the same team, and, we can disagree.

The next four years will be interesting, to say the least, and I look forward to seeing what happens. I remain hopeful.

Peace, Brother!

- Jack

I agree about the feeling of desertion and I remain stubbornly optimistic about the resurgence of the conservative voice. My stubborness probably comes from youthful exuberence, but with age comes wisdom and I could change my mind on a large amount of things.

I also want to say thanks for a well mannered discussion on our disagreement. That is one reason that I like this forum. Just because we don't see eye to eye on certain things doesn't mean we can't get along and learn from each other passions. To many people are too quick to fly in to a rage over other people's opinions.

Take care
-Lynn

[ChuckD]

I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but for the life of me I dont understand how the American people think that just 1 person can change it all. I also feel that there should be term limits in Congress, that way new fresh different voices will be in. They could be better or worse than the previous but new nonetheless and with limits in place then someone else can take a turn.

[secondarychaos]

I must say this is the calmest, most rational political discussion (note that I didn't say arguement) I've ever read on a forum.
I must say, Bravo for the levelheadedness.

[Jackpine]

Chuck, I think you're pretty bright. I doubt one person CAN change anything. If, however that one person can work with others (the real art of politics, and diplomacy) then change can occur.

The whole issue of term limits is a very mixed bag, isn't it? On one hand, by not limiting them, we risk reelecting some very corrupt, but "clever" politicians over and over again, because, to be honest, many people don't really do much research before voting. On the other hand though, if you get someone GOOD in office, you don't really want that person kicked out just when he/she has finally learned the ropes and is able to contribute. And, with seniority comes power and influence - and from a good representative, that's a good thing.

Secondarychaos, thanks for your observation. Part of our levelheadedness is due to the collegial atmosphere that Corey and Bill promote. We seem to be attracting people who are willing to share, rather than those who get off on "put-downs".

- Jack

[ccoll5]

I know, it is very calm, composed, insightful, and tasteful. I would hate to see this discussion on f150online haha.

[JWBFX4]

I know, it is very calm, composed, insightful, and tasteful. I would hate to see this discussion on f150online haha.

The moderators would be working overtime, if that went on over there:hehe:

[kokopellimotorsports]

The moderators would be working overtime, if that went on over there:hehe:

:smiley_roll1:

Seriously great discussion.

Ty

[ChuckD]

Chuck, I think you're pretty bright. I doubt one person CAN change anything. If, however that one person can work with others (the real art of politics, and diplomacy) then change can occur.

The whole issue of term limits is a very mixed bag, isn't it? On one hand, by not limiting them, we risk reelecting some very corrupt, but "clever" politicians over and over again, because, to be honest, many people don't really do much research before voting. On the other hand though, if you get someone GOOD in office, you don't really want that person kicked out just when he/she has finally learned the ropes and is able to contribute. And, with seniority comes power and influence - and from a good representative, that's a good thing.


- Jack

Yeah sometimes it would be a damned if you do, damned if you don't. But I do think there would be room for it. Plus if the people would be more involved in whats going on in Congress instead of having the blind eye and then complaining, that would be more productive.

Also on Obama, you may like him or you may not, but he is a good speaker and he got alot of Americans to vote. Ones that have never voted. The first thing that I said when he got elected was that he needs to suround himself with quality people or he would be done for. I think he should have offered Powell a position (maybe he did and I didn't hear about it) but he did say that Powell would be on speed dial anyway.

[lynn2437]

I know, it is very calm, composed, insightful, and tasteful. I would hate to see this discussion on f150online haha.

I too would hate to see that. I've seen some of the arguements that go on over there and it just makes me laugh. Arguing and getting mad with someone on a talk forum is ridiculous.:shrug: It makes no sense. Better yet, when someone makes a post to meet someone from a different state to "settle their differences". I die when I see that.:smiley_roll1:

-Lynn

[Jackpine]

Chuck and Lynn, I suspect you might resonate to this:

The oath that we all took upon entering service, had these words: "...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;..."

There's nothing in that oath that says we can't disagree, in fact, the Constitution gives us that right. We defend this "ideal" against all enemies. This seems to be our entire focus in the military - to defend an ideal, a way of life, the one we hold dear. We go to war to protect this ideal.

This is one reason I have never been able to feel great animosity towards Jane Fonda, for what she has been accused of doing in Hanoi. Her disagreement, and her right to voice that disagreement is a right that is guaranteed by the ideal we are sworn to support and defend.

It's also kind of sobering, isn't it, that the oath the President takes has essentially the same words?

You might guess that I've given these thoughts some time over the years.

- Jack

[lynn2437]

We are guaranteed this right, and I think it is one of the reasons this democratic experiment called the United States of America works so well. While I don't agree with Jane Fonda on a mulititude of issues, I will say it is her right to question and implore how her country conducts its buisness. If no one did that we could have opened ourselves to tyrannical rule long ago. For those who don't know there was strong communist following in our not so distant past. While many considered Jane Fonda unamerican, her and others like her continue to be a system of checks and balances.

-Lynn

[88Racing]

Jack

You brought a memory back from my childhood in the remark about Jane Fonda.

From the childs innocent questioning of his father's ideals it came about one evening why my dad didn't like certain people or other things. I can't remember the actor but my dad was not going to watch a tv show with a &$?!:: draft dodging actor. The tv was turned off and the house was silent the rest of the evening.

Through all my experiences this one stays there. My dad shows us pictures of him and his unit. He doesn't however talk about the polictical policy side of and what he experienced during that time.

Jack, my dad did his service over there before the police action, the pre-escalation of the war 62 63 64 and for some reason it remains a mystery to us kids. We still tread lightly about the people and service of our country when we are around him.

So, I am glad to hear someone from his era speak their beliefs.

I served in the air force 89 90 released on a medical discharge.

Lars

[ChuckD]

Chuck and Lynn, I suspect you might resonate to this:

The oath that we all took upon entering service, had these words: "...do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;..."

- Jack

Fixed it fer ya.:thumbs up yellow::cheesy smile:

[Jackpine]

Fixed it fer ya.:thumbs up yellow::cheesy smile:

I think, Chuck, that you're referring to the "(or affirm)" phrase? (At least I don't see any other change).

But, the "or affirm" part is actually part of the oath and is an "alternate" to "swear". This is from Wikipedia: "An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath."

I heard recently, that the "affirm" part was added to the President's oath due to the objections of members of the Quaker religion. Again, from Wikipedia, there's this: "Some Christians, who may not be Quakers, refuse to swear oaths, based on Jesus' prohibition in the Sermon on the Mount. The relevant part is:

But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

-Matthew 5:34-5:37"

So, we again see how our Constitutional ideal tries to respect an individual's rights, while still obtaining allegiance. I acknowledge that in most cases, the "affirm" alternate is simply dropped. But, if an individual such as the President, a state or federal official or a member of the armed forces requested it, the oath would be: "...do solemnly affirm that...".

- Jack

[Jackpine]

Lars, we have similar memories. My Father was in Vietnam as an "adviser" in the 62-63 time frame. Neither he or my Mother would ever see a movie with Jane Fonda in it once her action became public.

It was an interesting time, when you could not disagree without being labeled "communist".

Now, of course, we recognize Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communism hearings as a witch hunt of the very worst kind. Yet, didn't we see echos of this thinking in the years since 9-11?

We WILL be a strong nation if we start taking the high road again.

- Jack

[ChuckD]

This is interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/ its got well over a million votes.

[Jackpine]

Very good, Chuck. I voted NO and was happy to see I was with the majority. I see the motto as accepting a "higher power", not "owned" by any one religion, which, as far as I can tell, is how the original framers of the Constitution intended the "Separation of Church and State" clause.

Nations seem to get into trouble when a particular religion decides its ideals MUST be adopted by all citizens, and then has the political clout to enforce that concept.

(We're having fun in this thread, aren't we)? :thumbs up yellow:

- Jack

[ChuckD]

True Jack. In other forums people would be going off and calling each other names and what not. Maybe Corey could add another section and call it Town Hall.

[Corey Cohron RIP]

KUDOS to everyone who has posted in and/or just read this thread! It's awesome that people can have a political discussion without resorting to being a-holes. :giggle:

I, personally, have found that it's best for me to remain on the periphery of political discussions. Though I have definite opinions, it would be like me jumping into a diesel discussion. I know just enough to make myself look like an idiot. :crazy:

I would have absolutely no problem creating a new section for more discussion -- or even a generic rant or two :cheesy smile: -- as long as everyone could remain civil. Unfortunately, due to the anonymity provided by the computer screen, people often feel that it's okay to be intentionally cruel and to belittle others. We're not going to play that game here (it happens too often on other forums!), so if it ever got out of hand, we'd have to step in. For those of you who've never checked out the FORUM DECORUM thread, here's the highlights:

We have one rule here: RESPECT

Who? Everyone! Members, Moderators, Our Dealers, Other Vendors and Manufacturers, and even the Administrators (that's us! :howdy:) -- even if we don't like 'em (you know who you are!), you can't bash 'em
What? Other people's ideas and their right to post about them
Where? On the Forum, of course -- but really, it should apply EVERYWHERE (the world sure would be a nicer place if everyone would try it!)
When? All the time-- especially when you don't agree with another member
How? By avoiding rude language and by not attacking other members, vendors, or products. The Golden Rule applies here, folks
Why? So that everyone feels comfortable posting and so that this forum remains a fun place for everyone to hang out!


Please know that everyone on here has been AMAZING, and I love the sense of community that we share. I don't think anybody on here would have a problem maintaining civility -- even in a heated "discussion." :debate: It's possible to get one's point across without turning from Dr. Jekyll :doctor: into Mr. Hyde. :ugly dude:

Would anybody else use a thread called "Town Hall" where anything goes? Opinions, please. I need opinions!

[Jackpine]

I kind of thought "Conversation Pit" was pretty good. You set it up so we could discuss anything that popped into our little brains, and I took advantage of the opportunity.

- Jack

[soutthpaw]

Very thoughtful and well presented post Jack. I agree with you. Nice to see a goo political discussion. Other forums I read or posted just became :horsepoop: matches between a dozen or so far right members of the forum and everyone else....
you are right a good leader is what we needed. look at Reagen, he was able to cross party lines and get the most electoral votes 489/525 in his 2 terms of any president in history. I was not old enough then, But I would have voted for him. he did a lot of good for the US and the World.
Myself I am an independent but lean to the left on most issues. However there just was no comparison of the leadership abilities between this past election's candidates.. Obama is a Very Charismatic orator and leader. (just like Reagan) He may not solve all the problems but he will definitely improve US relations around the world that Bush destroyed. He is promising better support and care for Veterans too. Also many benefits that the right in this country enjoy are due left sponsored actions and legislation.
It seems that many people have the view that you can only have liberal or conservative ideas. It :cursin: me that people name call "bleeding heart liberal" etc. if you support Obama or voice even a hint of a non-conservative opinion...
I Happen to supports issues on both sides of the fence.... Ok i'm gonna get off my :soapbox: and crawl back into :closet: :cool_beans:

[ChuckD]

Yeah the pit will work. One thing I don't like about the state of AZ is when you register to vote you have to register to a party. Thus you can only vote for that party in the primary. Even though you may like a person from a different party you can't vote for them. I feel you should be able to vote for whoever you want to vote for. I blew their minds when I said I was an American and that was the only label that would be put on me. They keep saying you have to, you have to. I said they only thing that I have to do is pay taxes and die. I know I can be an #$@ sometimes, but all this labeling is rediculus.

[Power Hungry]

Can't you register as "Independent"?? Seems like that would make things easier.

[Jackpine]

Can't you register as "Independent"?? Seems like that would make things easier.

You can register that way Bill, but I think that only gives you a choice of which ballot to use in the primaries. So, if you wanted to help select a Democratic candidate for President, but choose, say, a Republican for the Legislature, you couldn't.

- Jack

[Sburn]

The whole issue of term limits is a very mixed bag, isn't it? On one hand, by not limiting them, we risk reelecting some very corrupt, but "clever" politicians over and over again, because, to be honest, many people don't really do much research before voting. On the other hand though, if you get someone GOOD in office, you don't really want that person kicked out just when he/she has finally learned the ropes and is able to contribute. And, with seniority comes power and influence - and from a good representative, that's a good thing.
- Jack

Here in CA we've had term limits for a while now. What has happened is that the same career politicians just end up finding a different office to run for when they term out. State Senators term out and run for Assembly, termed-out Senators and Assemblypersons run for State Controller or Insurance Comissioner, termed out whatevers run for Mayor as a way of staying in the public's eye as a prelude for running for Governor or National office....Wash, Rinse, Repeat... Different tree -- same monkeys.

Meanwhile, the non-elected career bureaucrats tend to actually run things, since they get a new boss (elected or appointed) every few years. So you end up with stuff like the CARB (California Air Resources Board i.e., smog police) that have no accountability to the voters.

[Jackpine]

Here in CA we've had term limits for a while now. What has happened is that the same career politicians just end up finding a different office to run for when they term out. State Senators term out and run for Assembly, termed-out Senators and Assemblypersons run for State Controller or Insurance Comissioner, termed out whatevers run for Mayor as a way of staying in the public's eye as a prelude for running for Governor or National office....Wash, Rinse, Repeat... Different tree -- same monkeys.

Meanwhile, the non-elected career bureaucrats tend to actually run things, since they get a new boss (elected or appointed) every few years. So you end up with stuff like the CARB (California Air Resources Board i.e., smog police) that have no accountability to the voters.

Yes - excellent point! The new elected official comes in has to take a while being non-productive while he learns things, then, he has to "reinvent the wheel", since he doesn't know why his idea didn't work before and finally, when things don't work out, the career people put everything back the way it was. (And 2 or 4 more years have gone by).

We have some of that problem in the active duty military. And it was recognized as it pertained to units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. A decision was made to not rotate personnel in and out of units to minimize this effect.

Non-active duty units like the Guard and the Reserve, do better here I think. They have a true "corporate memory" that really makes them more efficient as a unit than active duty units.

- Jack

[ChuckD]

Yes - excellent point! The new elected official comes in has to take a while being non-productive while he learns things, then, he has to "reinvent the wheel", since he doesn't know why his idea didn't work before and finally, when things don't work out, the career people put everything back the way it was. (And 2 or 4 more years have gone by).

We have some of that problem in the active duty military. And it was recognized as it pertained to units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. A decision was made to not rotate personnel in and out of units to minimize this effect.

Non-active duty units like the Guard and the Reserve, do better here I think. They have a true "corporate memory" that really makes them more efficient as a unit than active duty units.

- Jack

Not sure if I would agree with that. When we got deployed they took everybody in the state that hadn't deployed and a list of volunteers and put them in a unit that been disbanded. There was alot of people that had never met each other, much less worked together.

[Jackpine]

Ouch, that's not good! I was thinking more of a Guard unit deploying AS a unit. Not being combined with anyone else.

- Jack

[ChuckD]

For the most part they do. But, there is always a but, when the federal side says you will give me a unit and pretty much all your units have been deployed this is a way to send the ones that hasn't been before. I have seen units made up from people from different states.