Reality wrote:PBO, did you attend the Veteran Services at Forest Lawn yesterday? How about down town today?
... the vision in my left eye is recently afflicted by what looks like a set of fake eyelashes or a flying bat, which, if you try to focus on it, just moves again......
I'm not a doctor - and don't even play one on TV. But you need to go get that eye looked at. Odds are, it's just harmless floaters, but if they're that big or disruptive enough for you to leave work, it could be signs of a retinal tear. Go. First appointment opportunity.
Thanks for your opinion. I've had this since about Thursday, but just today it's like a bat flying around in there. Initially I thought I was dreaming, but then realized I wasn't sleeping, so it's definintely real. Don't have a regular eye doctor but will check yellow pages for "flying bat that cannot be focused on / aimed at" and hope for the best, I guess. Maybe I should have just gone over to the VA hospital when in Asheville today; I worked at the Mountain Home Johnson City VA facility when going to ETSU back in the 70's. I could see good then.
Bungalow Bill wrote:It's not the fault of the soldiers, it's the fault of the American imperialistas who send them on
these idiotic missions, though the soldiers often do use the ridiculous we're fighting for our
freedom line. Not since 1812. Does anyone truly believe the Iraqis and Afghans are an
actual threat to our freedoms? But the freedom spiel is a good sheen to put on we're just
sticking our noses in again, and nobody needs classified information to figure that out.
Another factor in the Grenada invasion may have been the black eye that Uncle Scam
had just got in Lebanon a few days before. Don't mess with the Gipper.
Wimpy Wuss is likely just a coward who now tries to atone for it with his over the top
lust of all things veteran. Pathetic wanker.
Maybe you'd feel better living in Iran, Syria, or Oman. Not to late to buy a ticket.
What qualifies Jeff Miller as a wimpy-wuss coward that the same wouldn't apply to you? From what I've read in the past, you
weren't man enough to serve in the military either. Jealousy.
Vrede wrote:Leo Lyons dishonors "all our brave men and women who chose to serve their country despite their personal opinions" by not telling the truth about my post in this "Veteran" Day thread.
If something like that old X Files oil thing starts to appear in your eye and doesn't get any
better, it's time to see the eye doctor. That happened to me and it was the problem that's
a step or two below a detached retina. The doctor used a laser to fix it.
Bungalow Bill wrote:The Korean government might have come close to Hitler in terms of evil, but the Vietnamese and
the Grenadians didn't. The invasion of Grenada was one of those we can do it so we will do it
military moves.
The Russian empire WAS that bad, and the only debate is on *how many times* they committed genocide. One could not expect any better of Russia's client states. North Vietnam was a Russian client. (Washington backed a dictator rather than someone who would have been democratically elected. As I said, there were some failures among the Washington politicians.)
.
no it wasn't
the vietnamese people had been fighting occupying colonial powers since the 30s; 1st the french, then the japanese, then finally beating the french into accepting a treaty that would allow for a free and fair election.
ho was scared of being consumed by china and felt much the same about a relationship with the soviets.
he made attempts to open talks with the U.S. and not only did we turn him down, we (Ike) supported a violent dictator's breaking of the treaty and his refusal to allow the southern part of the country vote
so they continued to do what they had been doing for 35 years - they fought for their freedom and beat the shit out of the Americans - and proved all the cons that no dominoes would fall
we should have talked with ho and saved millions of lives
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Still got that old 'love it or leave it' thing going? So 1960s, though Oman is one you don't
hear too often.
You don't have to be man enough to serve for the U.S. bullies, just stupid enough. I had
no interest in helping the American imperialistas in their missions, still don't. Miller likely
did, he was just too chicken to do so, so now we have to listen to his constant patriotic
drivel. Go press some clothes, chicken hawk.
Reality wrote:O'R, did you read the Forbes article on those awful oil subsidies? Are you in favor of keeping them?
.
I did read it. I do - in general - support such subsidies. I think we (the American public) should be willing to fund collectively through taxes things that are in the best interest of the country. As much as I'd like to see viable alternatives developed, fossil fuel is a big part of our energy usage. If we can encourage oil companies (or whoever) to do things in the best interest of the country - that they wouldn't otherwise do because of not making a profit at it, I would support the concept. Whether it works that way in real life with regard to the oil companies, however, I wouldn't know. My guess is not. I also favor subsidies to new companies coming into town/county in cases where, absent such subsidy they would go somewhere else. I favor subsidies for companies/industries that the community needs that might not be stand-alone profitable.
Problem for the "Obama is a socialist" crowd, however, is how to explain how the oil subsidies are not "socialist" and the auto loans were. Probably too much math and economics for me to understand.
Reality wrote:O'R, did you read the Forbes article on those awful oil subsidies? Are you in favor of keeping them?
.
I did read it. I do - in general - support such subsidies. I think we (the American public) should be willing to fund collectively through taxes things that are in the best interest of the country. As much as I'd like to see viable alternatives developed, fossil fuel is a big part of our energy usage. If we can encourage oil companies (or whoever) to do things in the best interest of the country - that they wouldn't otherwise do because of not making a profit at it, I would support the concept. Whether it works that way in real life with regard to the oil companies, however, I wouldn't know. My guess is not. I also favor subsidies to new companies coming into town/county in cases where, absent such subsidy they would go somewhere else. I favor subsidies for companies/industries that the community needs that might not be stand-alone profitable.
Problem for the "Obama is a socialist" crowd, however, is how to explain how the oil subsidies are not "socialist" and the auto loans were. Probably too much math and economics for me to understand.
The problem is the oil companies justifying the need for such subsidies when the oil companies are turning record profits. The world runs on oil. It's not like they have to convince us to start using oil-consumptive technology.
We can support Big Oil R&D but not NASA R&D.
I support a hand up for the needy, not a handout for the greedy.
Libs, as you all know I am slow in your opinion. So I ask you to slowly explain to me how Chu's comments about the price of gas are fine, but mine inidcates I hate America? I had a purpose in mind and Chu just wanted to hurt all Americans.
rip wrote:
A lot of good men and women died believing that they were fighting for their country, regardless of what any evil kings were doing.
They and their sacrifices deserve respect, . . . regardless of what any evil kings were doing.
I'm sure many service men and women do think they are, or were serving their country, just like many of the posters here do. That doesn't make it so. They were simply serving the man that sent them into war, that's all. Going into another country and killing and forcing your views on others in no way deserves "respect".
All the wars since WWII had absolutly nothing to do with our freedom here in America.
I'd say the invasion of Afghanistan to get the guy responsible for the murder of 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, has something to do with our freedom here in America.
Some of the leaders who sent men to war were convinced they were saving America from communist takeover. Overzealous? Misguided? Correct?
I support those who went to Canada or objected or deferred if their objections were because they thought the war was immoral. I detest those chickenhawks like Cheney or Rmoney who supported the war but were too busy to serve. I detest the way the rich supported the war but kept their kids out of harm's way by pulling strings and getting them into the Air National Guard.
I don't have any respect for people like William Calley. I have the utmost respect for those who did what their country asked them to do, regardless of how you spin the motivations.
The post was to honor our Veterans was all. The Veteran not the wars, not the mayhem or death and destruction. If you don't like the war that's fine, if you don't like the chaos that's fine also. But the Veteran follows orders from the highest of office, usually the POTUS. They do as ordered know matter what which is why our country is much more stable then others.
It's about the Veteran not the war.
Thank you.
Supsalemgr wrote:Libs, as you all know I am slow in your opinion. So I ask you to slowly explain to me how Chu's comments about the price of gas are fine, but mine inidcates I hate America? I had a purpose in mind and Chu just wanted to hurt all Americans.
Chu made a statement based on environmental concerns. A cleaner environment is good for everyone.
His statement, made before the economy collapsed, was also patriotic in nature because it was intended to wean American from its need for foreign oil.
You hate Arabs and Muslims. Well, Chu's strategy was to make us energy independent and keep us from sending billions to Arabs and socialist Venezuelans.
That's patriotic.
Wishing American people to suffer and lose jobs during a recovery period just so your side can win the White House is putting party before country.
Colonel Taylor wrote:The post was to honor our Veterans was all. The Veteran not the wars, not the mayhem or death and destruction. If you don't like the war that's fine, if you don't like the chaos that's fine also. But the Veteran follows orders from the highest of office, usually the POTUS. They do as ordered know matter what which is why our country is much more stable then others.
It's about the Veteran not the war.
Thank you.
neoplacebo wrote: I worked at the Mountain Home Johnson City VA facility when going to ETSU back in the 70's. I could see good then.
Me, too! Not the Mountain Home Facility, but ETSU in the early seventies, when so many guys were enrolling after their tours in Nam. Some of them haunt me to this day.
Now, get that eye checked PDQ.
rip wrote:
A lot of good men and women died believing that they were fighting for their country, regardless of what any evil kings were doing.
They and their sacrifices deserve respect, . . . regardless of what any evil kings were doing.
I'm sure many service men and women do think they are, or were serving their country, just like many of the posters here do. That doesn't make it so. They were simply serving the man that sent them into war, that's all. Going into another country and killing and forcing your views on others in no way deserves "respect".
All the wars since WWII had absolutly nothing to do with our freedom here in America.
If all our service men and women thought like this our country would be in complete disarea, probably wouldn't exist. The Veterans are just following orders and they would/do die doing so, for that they deserve our respect.
Colonel Taylor wrote:The post was to honor our Veterans was all. The Veteran not the wars, not the mayhem or death and destruction. If you don't like the war that's fine, if you don't like the chaos that's fine also. But the Veteran follows orders from the highest of office, usually the POTUS. They do as ordered know matter what which is why our country is much more stable then others.
It's about the Veteran not the war.
Thank you.
Supsalemgr wrote:Libs, as you all know I am slow in your opinion. So I ask you to slowly explain to me how Chu's comments about the price of gas are fine, but mine inidcates I hate America? I had a purpose in mind and Chu just wanted to hurt all Americans.
Chu made a statement based on environmental concerns. A cleaner environment is good for everyone.
His statement, made before the economy collapsed, was also patriotic in nature because it was intended to wean American from its need for foreign oil.
You hate Arabs and Muslims. Well, Chu's strategy was to make us energy independent and keep us from sending billions to Arabs and socialist Venezuelans.
That's patriotic.
Wishing American people to suffer and lose jobs during a recovery period just so your side can win the White House is putting party before country.
That's not patriotic. That's anti-American.
That is pure bulls--t! Both are about high gas prices, but Stinger puts a different meaning on the same desire.
