Story Comments
Posted by: leftylemn 1 year, 1 month ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
18%
leftylemn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SARAH PALIN HAS MORE EXPERIENCE AND IS MORE QUALIFIED THAN OBAMA. GOOD BYE U.S.A.....TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS WILL FINISH THE JOB OF BANKRUPTING US THAT BUSH BEGAN. IT'S BEEN A NICE RIDE, NICE KNOWING YOU ALL. GOTTA GO POLISH UP ON MY FRENCH AND SPANISH.VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN.....PLEEEEEASE.
Reply-
21%
UnDumbed1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you do some research, Carter and Clinton started the mess that we as taxpayers have to pay for. Not Bush. War yes, you can blame Congress and Bush. But, haven't we been safe ever since 9-11. It isn't because the Terrorist have not tried, it is because they were stopped. If you do some research you will find that the Democrats in Congress and Senate were making bundles in kickbacks from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Obama being number 2 on the list of the big takers. In 144 days in the Senate, he ask for 143 billion dollars in earmarks. Most of which he would have recieved a kick back. I pray daily that God lead us in the right direction, but God can only do so much. With all of the voter fraud that is already being caught, we are in deep doo doo.
Reply-
17%
gerisgirls1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Think about when Clinton got in office He cut our military big time made us look very weak, to the point that 911 happened. If our military wouldn't have been cut, 911 most likely wouldn't have happened. Then sure under clinton we weren't as deep in debt BUT we were saving funds on our lack of military, So Bush gets in . 911 happens, So now we have to put up a crapful of money to rebuild our military, Bush had to fix Clinton bad choices. If Clinton wasn't such a pancy we wouldn't be going through what we are now. And for Sarah She has more balls then Clinton could ever wish for!!!!!
Reply-
17%
HMMace1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What does cuting the militery thave o do with either the CIA, or the FBI ???? Clinton was a mistake---Bush was worse---now they have an ex muslim for us to elect....
Reply
If anything bad happens to Mccain--I would love to see Palin in the white house..She reminds me of Truman...Truman may have saved my life,, along with a million others..Those were the numbers it may have taken to invade Japan--which the A bombs negated..Truman acted...he had guts..or the courage of his convistion..Some thing Hiussien does not have..-
50%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The US military commanders of the time thought Truman was wrong to use nukes on Japan - and they specifically said your assertions are false.
Reply
Slow Boats and Atom Bombs
Admiral William D. Leahy. 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942–1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945–1949 (Truman):
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And – E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake ever to drop it . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin – to use a good word – [a word that] should be used more often – to kill non-combatants. . . ."-
33%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945):
Reply
"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb . . . the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China:
"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."
Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy.
"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it. . . . I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."
General Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"I voiced to him [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum of loss of 'face'. . . . It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
former President Herbert Hoover:
"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
Richard M. Nixon:
"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it. . . . He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him
Norman Cousins, from an interview with MacArthur:
". . . [H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it did later anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/white/white46.html -
-
-
-
-
80%
thanos19191 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
gerisgirls and UnDumbed, are you two freakin' insane? You are saying that Clinton started this mess by cutting the military budget was why 911 happened?!!
Reply
What the hell is wrong with your brain! Bush had ALL THE INTELLIGENCE IN THE LAND to stop 911. He just didn't think that anyone was bold enough to do that.
1.) Clinton signed a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS BILL that would help more people own homes. Here that, A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS BILL. Now, if the Wall Street Republicans wouldn't have been so GREEDY, then this financial meltdown wouldn't be happening now.
That's what happens when you put your trust in some freakin' Republican financial sharks.
2.) How, IN THE HELL, you can say that "911 was Clinton's fault" and that Bush had to "fix Clinton's mistakes" is PREPOSTEROUS!!!! Our Military had a war when Clinton was in office that he ENDED...you know, THE GULF WAR!!
What, you're saying that the soldiers were weak then?? You both are idiots.
You freakin' Republicans are INSANE when it comes to the famous "Republican Spin." Let's look at this in a simple way (if you imbeciles can even comprehend simplicity):
1.) We are currently in war in Iraq that Bush has now asked to be extended to 2011!
2.) We are currently in war in Afghanistan!
3.) John McInsane is talking about bombing Iran!
4.) Sarah Palin is talking about potentially having to go to war with Russia, a NUCLEAR FREAKIN' POWER!!
(For those of you who can't count or read, that's 4 freakin' wars!)
George Dubya has:
1.) ...allowed the most deadly attack on American soil to happen...
2.) ...Overstretched our Military in a war against someone who was no imminent threat to our security, which is why Russia LAUGHED AT US when we tried to use "stern words" when they invaded Georgia. They knew we were weakened by our overstretched military, so they weren't in the slightest worried about us...
3.) ...had the worse response in a national natural disaster, leaving individuals devastated by hurricane Katrina TO DIE ...
4.) ...run the economy into the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression...
Yet, here you two are talking about it's all Clinton's fault? ROFL. You all are hard line, lying, intellectually dishonest, right-winged nut jobs.
**BREAKING NEWS!!!**
Bush has had FOUR MAJOR, NEGATIVE, AND DISASTROUS SITUATIONS OCCUR ON HIS PRESIDENTIAL WATCH. He is no longer "arguably" anymore, but LITERALLY THE WORSE PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE FREE WORLD!!
Yet here you are, gerisgirls and UnDumbed, talking negatively about Clinton, one of the best president EVER. Even with all of this American bloodshed, gore, and Republican warmongering, you Republicans are STILL talking about "George Bush is great!". You are mental, THAT'S what you are. The proof is all in this message. SWALLOW IT WHOLE! -
-
-
79%
jebon1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amazing how Republicans talk about tax and spend liberals but are willing to look the other way as their borrow and spend conservatives wreck the country. Reagan added far more to the national debt than Carter. Not once did he balance his budget. That is an indication that his economic ideas were not sound. He could not pay for them. Bush I never balanced a budget sending us further into debt. Clinton reversed the Republican trend and gave the country a balanced budget. He left W a trillion dollar surplus. Which that fiscal conservative promptly spent. Bush II is the consummate conservative fulfilling every conservative's wet dream. He cut taxes on the wealthy. IN A TIME OF WAR. He has never balanced a budget. As a matter of fact he has doubled the national debt amassing more debt than all other presidents combined. Your saviour John McCain has already stated that he will not balance the budget until 2013. More of the same failed conservative policies. That tax and spend liberal Obama shows how he will pay for every nickle of his economic plan. You conservatives can fool yourself into believing that Republicans take care of our finances but the record of the last 3 Republican presidents along with the proposal of the current nominee tell differently. As for the economic meltdown it is happening because of deregulation. The conservative track record is quite astounding. The S scandal of the 80's happened because of deregulation. The Enron scandal happened because of deregulation. Now our entire financial system is melting down because of deregulation. And who is one of McCain's chief economic advisors? Phil Gramm who wrote the Bill to deregulate the financial sector. Yet you trust him to fix what he broke? The 100+ lobbyists on McCain's staff will make sure that the Maverick sticks to the status quo. The brilliant bailout alternative put forth by Republicans and echoed by the straight talk express is to further deregulate the industry and give corporations more tax cuts. McCain himself held up the deregulation of the financial sector as an example of how the healthcare system could be reformed. Are you willing to gamble your health on his bad judgement and allegiance to failed conservative ideology? No thanks.
Reply-
71%
not2needy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You will never get a one of them to even read your post, let alone agree with any of it. If they have to, they will go back to George Washington to find someone to blame this situation on rather than where the real blame lies, with the repugs.
Reply-
40%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jebon is wrong or nuts or both.
Reply
-Clinton did not leave a $1 T surplus.
-Reagan's economic 'ideas' are not wrong. its the politicians that write the laws to benefit certain groups.
Mccain balance the budget by 2013? even that is optimistic when you consider how little of the budget is discretionary.
i'm tired of typing. go do some of your own research.
let's just say, you're about 80% wrong...
-
-
-
82%
jimsit1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those of you who manage to keep a straight face while blaming Clinton for our financial and international image and condition have got to have ADD. Bill Clinton's Presidency left this country at peace, with a surplus and not a dollar iin deficits, created more jobs than any time inhistory and earned the respect politically of the entire world.
Reply-
50%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
AHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Reply
last week Slick Willy noted that he should't have signed the CRA reauthorization bil in 1995 but Fannie and Freddie were making lots of money and had cash on hand.
yes. that Slick Willy.
what happened was that normal lending rules went out the window. it took Wall Street 10 years to game the rules.
straight face? i'm howling with anger! -
-
-
-
-
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It might not have if he had taken the warnings more seriously. Condi tried to tell him at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on August 9, 2001, but he would not listen. As for other terrorist attacks, consider the bombing of our embassy in Yemen in 2008. Our allies have been attacked in Germany, London, Madrid, and the Philippines. If you do some research, you would discover that numerous Republicans have been receiving kickbacks from oil and natural gas companies. Praying that God leads us anywhere is a bunch of nonsense. If you want to make change in this country, get out in the public eye and make some change on your own. Until then, quit yapping about how much the Dems have messed up without nailing the Repubs for the same actions.
Reply -
0%
rocc1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
undumbed,
Reply
do a little more research...it began with ronald r. the great conservative deregulator...clinton was the one with a BALANCED budget (not that the budget has anything to do with the mess on wall street)...and ALASKA is the NUMBER ONE earmark taker ! and hop, what the hell does friendly have to do with being qualified for the job ? sarah palin doesn't even have enough sense to know that she is sooooo out of her league ! some of you people seem to be confused and think yr voting for american idol.
-
-
79%
miklkit1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Democrats try to pay for their programs. The republicons do not even try to pay for their pet projects. Historically the economy has done better with Democrats in control, while it has tanked when republicons are running things. Like now. Look at this chart.
Reply
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html-
50%
not2needy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So true mik, in fact, repugs want to make bills, spend, spend, spend and then leave it to democrats to clean up.. That's why they hate dems so much, our party has done nothing for the past 4 decades but clean up their mess. Ever since Nixon, probably before.
Reply-
33%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
how would you dems pay for these, just 3 of the proposals:
Reply
Obama will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in areas that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement in cities across the nation.
The Promise Neighborhoods will be modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone, which provides a full network of services, including early childhood education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school activities, to an entire neighborhood from birth to college.
Obama proposes to achieve almost universal service for the nation’s 17 million college students by offering a refundable annual tax credit of $4,000 toward college tuition. This program should cost about $65-100 billion a year, perhaps more if it substantially increases the number of students attending college. In return for the credit, college students will be required to perform 100 hours of community service every year for four years. By offering college students a hefty $40 an hour, Mr. Obama will ensure that nearly every college student will participate in his program, without actually making their service mandatory.
Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups.-
100%
protoham1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He doesn't have to fund it. Because talk is cheap! Nothing will actually happen.
Reply
Just like he helped his community as a community organizer and started suing the bank so they had to make loans to people who could not afford it. Now they are in the street, no money, no credit. Maybe they will come to the White house and live with him.
-
-
-
100%
protoham1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try to comprehend that Congress controls the budget. So you have to put this chart in perspective as to who was in charge in congress.
Reply
As far as I am concerned I would like to see congress limited to spending only a certain amount of the GDP.
So how is BO's tax cut and spending increase going to make this better? -
100%
buckncindykill1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm stealing brilliant talking points from ChuckCanuck. And I quote.....
Reply
"A thread of the brain dead.
Call me anything you want, but you people are truly pathetic. I’m amazed that any of you managed to live long enough to learn to read and write. You people prove time and time again, that most liberals are dumber than dirt."
-
-
-
63%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe the rapture will come along soon enough to save Sarah from further embarrassment.
Reply
Sarah Palin and the Rapture
Is this country ready for a president who is excited about and eagerly looking forward to the Rapture?
Anyone who believes in the Rapture scenario will likely interpret a catastrophic nuclear exchange as the opening scene of the Rapture. A believer in the Rapture with his or her fingers on the nuclear trigger might even be tempted to bring on the Rapture.
Presumably Sarah Palin believes in the Rapture. It is one of the doctrines of her religion, and she has nowhere disavowed it. Are Americans ready to sleep at night with a President who longs for the Rapture?
The Rapture doctrine has no support in the historic Christianity of any of the main traditions - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. The doctrine of the Rapture is cobbled together from several obscure, unrelated comments drawn from the epistles of Paul the Apostle. No credible biblical scholar in two thousand years of Christian history has taken seriously the Rapture doctrine, millennialism, or anything similar to it.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/21/sarah-pa...-
-
-
0%
Dimpanne1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would not call any passages in the Bible "obscure". Paul was used to write 13 of the 27 books in the New Testament and was one of the greatest Christians who ever lived. Every word was written for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction and Jesus Himself honored the written Word and quoted it. Jesus also told us to "look up" when certain things begin to happen in this world, which you can read in Luke, Chapter 21, beginning with verse 8.
Reply
-
-
33%
Klarissa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
wow, a real responsible souce
Reply
http://www.thesecretpathoflife.com/blog/2008/09/27...
who is this person?
HuOS The Human Life Map - The Secret Path Of Life
A. James Gentry - Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved -
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Klarissa
protoham
buckncindykill
gwhiddon
Engnr
redtomato
Ciera-Marie
bonaroo
Ratskii
chuck-the-canuck
Dobes_Rule
cushi
not2needy
jordan11
Fedquip
miklkit
hamy
ADAGUY
mntnman444
BillieMaxer
fsev41
ProudBlueTexan
bluetexasvalley
Mdiar
9critters
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.