PDA

View Full Version : Refresh my memory, I know impersonating a cop is illegal...



PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 01:55 AM
...and I thought impersonating a soldier was illegal as well...anyone know off the top of their heads?

DolFan31
08-06-2004, 01:59 AM
...and I thought impersonating a soldier was illegal as well...anyone know off the top of their heads?

What relevance is this or are you just FYI-ing?

DolFan31
08-06-2004, 02:00 AM
..because I was expecting a picture of John Kerry dressed up as a cop.

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 02:02 AM
The relevence is that a poster on this board has repeatedly claimed to have served in the military and has repeatedly failed to back that claim up with ANY information. If I remember correctly there is an organization which you can report false military claims to. I'm just considering reporting that posters user IP to that organization.

Clumpy
08-06-2004, 02:25 AM
:shakeno:

P4E
08-06-2004, 03:31 AM
Falsely claiming military credentials is a HUGE phenomenon. The scope and psychological dynamics of it are like a field of study unto themselves.

I've read stories about families reaching out to the Veterans Administration to request benefit stuff because their husband/father/brother/whatever was a decorated soldier and needs help now... and the gov't has to inform them that the guy never served.

I've seen people elected and reelected to office year in and year out in part on the strength of their military credentials... and then someone actually investigates it.

I think exaggeration is far more common than wholesale invention of a military past, but each seems to happen constantly.

I think that in many cases, a person who didn't contribute jack-**** when others gave everything carries a form of guilt that makes them want to be able to say they did something. So they make **** up.:shakeno:

My own dad was a Marine and he's buried in Arlington. I loved the guy, but I know that large parts of what he wanted people to believe about his service -- and led them to believe about his service -- were utterly inflated.:( I really think his problem was guilt. He signed up early at 17 while WWII was wrapping up and he never saw combat. Older brothers and other peers saw lots of action and some died. He wasn't involved in anything. (His eligibility for Arlington was based on a minimal disability due to non-combat injuries.)

I served as a volunteer fireman, myself.:)

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 02:01 AM
The relevence is that a poster on this board has repeatedly claimed to have served in the military and has repeatedly failed to back that claim up with ANY information. If I remember correctly there is an organization which you can report false military claims to. I'm just considering reporting that posters user IP to that organization.

If you're talking about me, please do, I also want a public apology on this board from you when you find out I did everything I claimed. I invite you to report me..The truth will set you free. Serving in the Military for me was honorable and I enjoyed my time. It's something I'd never claim if I didn't do it. It wouldn't serve no purpose to claim it if I didn't do it. To help you out, graduated in 1980, went through FA OBC in 1981 at Fort Sill, started Jan 11th of that year, upon graduation went to Neu Ulm, Germany, assigned to 2/33rd FA, later to become 4/5FA, started as a Fist Chief, later XO of HQ battery, returned to the states to OK, to attend OAC, started Mar of 84, afterwards assigned to the Gunnery Dept as a instructor, then went to the Weapons Department as a instructor, then assigned to Weapon's division of the Weapons department a evaluator, then was assigned to 3/9 FA in the S-3 office, to await command, became a Battery Commander for A battery 3/9FA, served there from 87-89, then went to CAS3 at Levenworth, from there went to the MAM's course in Peterburg, VA, now working in secondary- Research and Developement, then assigned to OPTEC, Operational Test and Evaluation Command in Alexandria, Va, after my 3 years there, I got out of the Mililitary in 92 and have been here ever since. That should make it easy for them to track me wouldn't you say? :D

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 03:01 AM
If you're talking about me, please do, I also want a public apology on this board from you when you find out I did everything I claimed. I invite you to report me..The truth will set you free. Serving in the Military for me was honorable and I enjoyed my time. It's something I'd never claim if I didn't do it. It wouldn't serve no purpose to claim it if I didn't do it. To help you out, graduated in 1980, went through FA OBC in 1981 at Fort Sill, started Jan 11th of that year, upon graduation went to Neu Ulm, Germany, assigned to 2/33rd FA, later to become 4/5FA, started as a Fist Chief, later XO of HQ battery, returned to the states to OK, to attend OAC, started Mar of 84, afterwards assigned to the Gunnery Dept as a instructor, then went to the Weapons Department as a instructor, then assigned to Weapon's division of the Weapons department a evaluator, then was assigned to 3/9 FA in the S-3 office, to await command, became a Battery Commander for A battery 3/9FA, served there from 87-89, then went to CAS3 at Levenworth, from there went to the MAM's course in Peterburg, VA, now working in secondary- Research and Developement, then assigned to OPTEC, Operational Test and Evaluation Command in Alexandria, Va, after my 3 years there, I got out of the Mililitary in 92 and have been here ever since. That should make it easy for them to track me wouldn't you say? :D

Actually, no, not without a name, and I wouldn't ask you to reveal that online. Bottom line, and I'll say this ONCE again, I just don't buy that you were an officer. That's my opinion and nothing I have seen so far has altered that opinion. As for "It wouldn't serve no purpose"(you're killing me as you butcher the english language), it lends credence to arguments for which you have presented nothing of substance.

Clumpy
08-10-2004, 03:02 AM
I believe you owe him an apology :up:


:patriot:

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 03:17 AM
I believe you owe him an apology :up:


:patriot:


I believe I don't owe him ****e. I could declare that I was a Navy Seal and with roughly 45 minutes of Internet research I could give you book and verse about a fictional career. I stand behind my disbelief of his story because of his ability, or lack of same, to communicate. I dealt with Officers in the service for 7 years. Afterwards, as a headhunter I've dealt with dozens of former officers for the last 8 years. In that time, I haven't dealt with a single one who had such a poor grasp of diction and syntax. Do you have any idea of the sheer volume of paperwork that an officer in the military has to deal with? Even a field officer deals with report after report. No organization in the world generates as much paperwork as the US military. And yes, grammer counts. Christ, as a Sgt I had AAR's handed back to me to be rewritten. As a Captain, this guy would have been beaten to death by any of his XO's if he churned out crap like this. And I'm sorry but it isn't laziness. After the years he said he put in it becomes a habit. Maybe he served. I wouldn't be surprised if he served at Sill, or grew up there. But I don't buy his whole story. And I don't expect him to provide the personal data that would verify his story.

Section126
08-10-2004, 11:00 AM
I believe I don't owe him ****e. I could declare that I was a Navy Seal and with roughly 45 minutes of Internet research I could give you book and verse about a fictional career. I stand behind my disbelief of his story because of his ability, or lack of same, to communicate. I dealt with Officers in the service for 7 years. Afterwards, as a headhunter I've dealt with dozens of former officers for the last 8 years. In that time, I haven't dealt with a single one who had such a poor grasp of diction and syntax. Do you have any idea of the sheer volume of paperwork that an officer in the military has to deal with? Even a field officer deals with report after report. No organization in the world generates as much paperwork as the US military. And yes, grammer counts. Christ, as a Sgt I had AAR's handed back to me to be rewritten. As a Captain, this guy would have been beaten to death by any of his XO's if he churned out crap like this. And I'm sorry but it isn't laziness. After the years he said he put in it becomes a habit. Maybe he served. I wouldn't be surprised if he served at Sill, or grew up there. But I don't buy his whole story. And I don't expect him to provide the personal data that would verify his story.


Really? I was FDR's main man in Berlin...I was the guy that assasinated Hitler...Yep...I did......Him shooting himself was a cover story......I was in Black Ops and was the man responsible for placing a charge on the USS. Tonkin........I can tell you the inside scoop on Aliens and who killed JFK as well as the Yeti I captured in Atlanta but I am not at liberty to discuss those things.......

My Name? I can't reveal that......My Unit? It's secret.......Go ahead...investigate me.........I DARE YOU!!!!!!! :roflmao:

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 01:01 PM
Actually, no, not without a name, and I wouldn't ask you to reveal that online. Bottom line, and I'll say this ONCE again, I just don't buy that you were an officer. That's my opinion and nothing I have seen so far has altered that opinion. As for "It wouldn't serve no purpose"(you're killing me as you butcher the english language), it lends credence to arguments for which you have presented nothing of substance.

George Bush butchers the English language and you want to keep him as president. I believe while writing is a noble and helpful tool, it's not the only tool in the Military for Officers. Common Sense helps a lot, and at that I excelled. Too bad you don't really know what it's about. And as a human, you're being very petty, but what more can I expect from someone who have no clue. Blind to the facts, even if the truth was put at your nose, you'd miss it. If I were talking to something of substance, maybe I'd produce substance, it's hard to give factual statements and opinions to a nut case. Anyway if it makes you feel better to think I didn't serve and that allows you to stay in your Bush fantasy world, so be it. I just hope we don't all sink with you in your blindness if he remains president. After saying all that, I'm not mad at you, I didn't take care of my writing here, didn't think it was necessary, but it's the only thing you can use to say my opinions aren't true. That at least let's me know I made an impression on you with my statements. Now if you weren't so stubborn, you may actually learn something, but I know, my being a Officer, a non writing one at that, really irks the enlisted. (Not all enlisted, just the jerks) :D

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 01:26 PM
I believe I don't owe him ****e. I could declare that I was a Navy Seal and with roughly 45 minutes of Internet research I could give you book and verse about a fictional career. I stand behind my disbelief of his story because of his ability, or lack of same, to communicate. I dealt with Officers in the service for 7 years. Afterwards, as a headhunter I've dealt with dozens of former officers for the last 8 years. In that time, I haven't dealt with a single one who had such a poor grasp of diction and syntax. Do you have any idea of the sheer volume of paperwork that an officer in the military has to deal with? Even a field officer deals with report after report. No organization in the world generates as much paperwork as the US military. And yes, grammer counts. Christ, as a Sgt I had AAR's handed back to me to be rewritten. As a Captain, this guy would have been beaten to death by any of his XO's if he churned out crap like this. And I'm sorry but it isn't laziness. After the years he said he put in it becomes a habit. Maybe he served. I wouldn't be surprised if he served at Sill, or grew up there. But I don't buy his whole story. And I don't expect him to provide the personal data that would verify his story.

No, writing doesn't become a habit in the Army, what do you think we do for a living, the only time you write is evaluations, after-action reports, and op orders and most of those are canned. And yes there were times I had evaluation handed back to me to rewrite. As I've stated, I wasn't a great writer, but to question my whole military career over it is a first for me. I'm not sure if I'm handling this correctly, but that was a lot of my life until I got out. I'm trying to be nice about this. If you would remember, they dummied down the Military writing style years ago to help soldiers learn quicker, remember all the pictures in books to illustrate how to do something. The Army uses a 6 grade writing level to ensure everyone can comprehend. So you're being very disingenuous to suggest the ideas you're imposing on me. I also say I agree, the Army didn't help with my writing, I actually got worst from college to the military, because as you know, the military has it's own writing style. Are you sure you served in the military? The rest of the time we're managing the troops, the training and physical training. Being in the field, especially FA, you send a lot of time in the field training for war, not much writing involved. Most of the writing I did actually came in the research and development field at the end. I must admit I hated the amount of writing involved, but it had to be done. Writing does not make an Officer, his ability to lead, common sense, to be creative when he doesn't have all the assets he needs, his ability to motivate troops and come up with sound plans to accomplish the mission, this is what a Officer is. Based on your assessment, you must have had some dudes for officers, and yes there are plenty of them out there. There is one member on this board who knows of my career and that's bamaphin22, he knows all about me. You can catch him on the main boards; ask him about me in terms of Military service. Then apologize. I would to you if I'd questioned you as much as you've questioned me. I wish you would question this administration as much, then I could consider you a real independent. :lol: BTW, I'd be willing to PM you my name if you really want to investigate me, I have nothing to hide, unlike this President

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 02:00 PM
George Bush butchers the English language and you want to keep him as president. I believe while writing is a noble and helpful tool, it's not the only tool in the Military for Officers. Common Sense helps a lot, and at that I excelled. Too bad you don't really know what it's about. And as a human, you're being very petty, but what more can I expect from someone who have no clue. Blind to the facts, even if the truth was put at your nose, you'd miss it. If I were talking to something of substance, maybe I'd produce substance, it's hard to give factual statements and opinions to a nut case. Anyway if it makes you feel better to think I didn't serve and that allows you to stay in your Bush fantasy world, so be it. I just hope we don't all sink with you in your blindness if he remains president. After saying all that, I'm not mad at you, I didn't take care of my writing here, didn't think it was necessary, but it's the only thing you can use to say my opinions aren't true. That at least let's me know I made an impression on you with my statements. Now if you weren't so stubborn, you may actually learn something, but I know, my being a Officer, a non writing one at that, really irks the enlisted. (Not all enlisted, just the jerks) :D



Actually I haven't knocked a single one of your opinons. I have attacked some incorrect facts you have put out and I have questioned and doubted the back story you have presented. Nothing petty about it, you just don't gibe with my experience. Neither your mannerisms, communications skills, or attitude equate with other officers I have dealt with. And I've worked with everything from former LT's to the former CIC Air Ops Europe. As for my being someone who "have no clue", why don't we start over? You address my opinions and facts and I will address yours. I'll refrain from referencing any secret communications from Agent Fox Mulder, and you can refrain from referencing operations which you can't talk about and which had no bearing on the converstation. BTW, have you found your old unit yet?

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 03:00 PM
Actually I haven't knocked a single one of your opinons. I have attacked some incorrect facts you have put out and I have questioned and doubted the back story you have presented. Nothing petty about it, you just don't gibe with my experience. Neither your mannerisms, communications skills, or attitude equate with other officers I have dealt with. And I've worked with everything from former LT's to the former CIC Air Ops Europe. As for my being someone who "have no clue", why don't we start over? You address my opinions and facts and I will address yours. I'll refrain from referencing any secret communications from Agent Fox Mulder, and you can refrain from referencing operations which you can't talk about and which had no bearing on the converstation. BTW, have you found your old unit yet?

But phinfan1227, look how limited your experience is. Have you even come close to seeing how we procure weapons? Been overseas on duty or traveled in our weapons programs? It’s a time consuming process and the training that's involved is incredible. Bottom line is I did one thing in the military, you did anther, I can't talk to you about mountain infantry tactics, I've never experienced it. The reason we have difference MOS are for people to master those skill sets. We all can't be Rangers, Special forces, and definitely can't speak to their training and experiences. You don't even know me, so you know nothing of my mannerisms, or attitude about anything, the one point that you should note is after being insulted by you and ridiculed by you, I still, with some degree of dignity continue to debate you. What back story? I'm not sure about that. I can't refrain from using things I saw as a bases for some things I write, it a fact for me, I'm sorry I can't share them with you in a more real way. So whether you want to or not, you'll have to trust me, if you choose not, fine. But just because you can't see them or have not shared my experience doesn't mean I'm lying. That's a convenient excuse to stay with a blind opinion. No matter how many Officers you've dealt with, you haven't met us all, we're not all the same. Believe me on that. As you can see on the nightly news channels, you have different former Generals debating different points of views. Yes, Officers can think independently unlike the ones you've been around apparently.

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 04:28 PM
But phinfan1227, look how limited your experience is. Have you even come close to seeing how we procure weapons? Been overseas on duty or traveled in our weapons programs? It’s a time consuming process and the training that's involved is incredible. Bottom line is I did one thing in the military, you did anther, I can't talk to you about mountain infantry tactics, I've never experienced it. The reason we have difference MOS are for people to master those skill sets. We all can't be Rangers, Special forces, and definitely can't speak to their training and experiences. You don't even know me, so you know nothing of my mannerisms, or attitude about anything, the one point that you should note is after being insulted by you and ridiculed by you, I still, with some degree of dignity continue to debate you. What back story? I'm not sure about that. I can't refrain from using things I saw as a bases for some things I write, it a fact for me, I'm sorry I can't share them with you in a more real way. So whether you want to or not, you'll have to trust me, if you choose not, fine. But just because you can't see them or have not shared my experience doesn't mean I'm lying. That's a convenient excuse to stay with a blind opinion. No matter how many Officers you've dealt with, you haven't met us all, we're not all the same. Believe me on that. As you can see on the nightly news channels, you have different former Generals debating different points of views. Yes, Officers can think independently unlike the ones you've been around apparently.

Of course officers have different opinions. Can the paranoia for a moment here. I never said that your political beliefs had anything to do with my doubts about you. My doubts stem from your mannerisms, skill sets, and willinglness to throw it up when stuck for a compelling argument. I don't care if your the biggest Liberal since MArx. The fact is that by your OWN admission the only information you have that has any bearing on this discussion comes from independant research on "our enemies". I'm also sceptical of you BECAUSE YOU CAN'T KEEP YOUR STORIES STRAIGHT. First there's the great disapearing 3rd of the 9th, then there's this...

"I got out of the Mililitary in '92 "

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=576368

"Wow, then you were there(Sill) while I was there('94)"..

Did you get out of the military in '92 or not?

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=42543&page=5&pp=15

themole
08-10-2004, 05:39 PM
Falsely claiming military credentials is a HUGE phenomenon. The scope and psychological dynamics of it are like a field of study unto themselves.

I've read stories about families reaching out to the Veterans Administration to request benefit stuff because their husband/father/brother/whatever was a decorated soldier and needs help now... and the gov't has to inform them that the guy never served.

I've seen people elected and reelected to office year in and year out in part on the strength of their military credentials... and then someone actually investigates it.

I think exaggeration is far more common than wholesale invention of a military past, but each seems to happen constantly.

I think that in many cases, a person who didn't contribute jack-**** when others gave everything carries a form of guilt that makes them want to be able to say they did something. So they make **** up.:shakeno:

My own dad was a Marine and he's buried in Arlington. I loved the guy, but I know that large parts of what he wanted people to believe about his service -- and led them to believe about his service -- were utterly inflated.:( I really think his problem was guilt. He signed up early at 17 while WWII was wrapping up and he never saw combat. Older brothers and other peers saw lots of action and some died. He wasn't involved in anything. (His eligibility for Arlington was based on a minimal disability due to non-combat injuries.)

I served as a volunteer fireman, myself.:)


Oh my gosh P4E! I know you prequalified your post by stating you loved your dad, but then went on to say that he "embellished" his service record due to guilt. Personaly, and of course it's none of business, but I felt you shamed the honor of a Marine that was ready to serve. I'll tell ya bro...he was a Marine and I've never met one that wasn't ready and willing. Themole snaps a crisp :salute: to P4Es Pop. I have a DEEP DEEP love and respect for ALL who served, at least they made themselves availible. Look at some of the attitudes of those who post on this forum. Man talking abouts Wimps without guilt!

P4E
08-10-2004, 06:22 PM
Oh my gosh P4E! I know you prequalified your post by stating you loved your dad, but then went on to say that he "embellished" his service record due to guilt. Personaly, and of course it's none of business, but I felt you shamed the honor of a Marine that was ready to serve. I'll tell ya bro...he was a Marine and I've never met one that wasn't ready and willing. Themole snaps a crisp :salute: to P4Es Pop. I have a DEEP DEEP love and respect for ALL who served, at least they made themselves availible. Look at some of the attitudes of those who post on this forum. Man talking abouts Wimps without guilt!I am very much with you on the basic principles you're pointing to, mole. I feel much the same way. And my dad should be proud of his voluntarily signing up to join the Marines AS A MINOR while a brutal war was being waged in two theatres. These facts alone make me proud and made me quite comfortable with fulfilling his wish to see that he was interred at Arlington National Cemetery. He earned that great privilege.

At the same time, I hold truth and integrity as pretty damned sacrosanct, and I quite clearly recall on more than one occasion as a child hearing my father state or imply that he was in combat. He was not. He was never deployed outside the states. I don't know why a good man felt the need to embellish a perfectly honorable record, but he did.

One weekend ago my brother and I brought my dad's only grandson (Zachary, age 6) to Arlington for the first time. We did not immediately bring him to my dad's resting place. Instead, we drove him thru the rolling hills and valleys to see row upon row of graves. We brought him to JFK's grave to see that Presidents are buried there. We explained what it means to be respectful, and then took him to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers where he silently and respectfully witnessed the changing of the guard. We walked him out to the center of a vast slope of graves and asked him to walk along and pick out any one grave that we could then talk about. He chose the grave of one Barry Graham, who happened to be from NJ and died in Vietnam. We talked about his life and the decisions he faced -- and how he might have wanted his life to unfold otherwise.

Then we took him to where my dad rests... and told him how his granddad served, and what it meant to him to be a Marine. No embellishment necessary. None whatsoever.

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 06:52 PM
Of course officers have different opinions. Can the paranoia for a moment here. I never said that your political beliefs had anything to do with my doubts about you. My doubts stem from your mannerisms, skill sets, and willinglness to throw it up when stuck for a compelling argument. I don't care if your the biggest Liberal since MArx. The fact is that by your OWN admission the only information you have that has any bearing on this discussion comes from independant research on "our enemies". I'm also sceptical of you BECAUSE YOU CAN'T KEEP YOUR STORIES STRAIGHT. First there's the great disapearing 3rd of the 9th, then there's this...

"I got out of the Mililitary in '92 "

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=576368

"Wow, then you were there(Sill) while I was there('94)"..

Did you get out of the military in '92 or not?

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=42543&page=5&pp=15

Bottom line you're sceptical because my arguments discredit your opinions. As I said, I can't really care if you don't believe me, I've been as honest as I can with you and I still get insulted. I use the military info only once and that's to back up my knowledge of Iraq. Sorry it offended you, but I stand by my info. 3/9 to my knowlegde didn't disappear, just like 2/33FA change to 4/5, 3/9 was talked about being sent to Germany, for all I know it could have been redesignated as another number, just like 2/33rd was. 3/9 use to pershing before it became MLRS, I left before the talked about reassignment happened and didn't keep abreast of them. That's not disappearing, that's reassigned. Get your story straight, I've been consistent
On the 94 thing, Opps, you got me there, I misread your post, I thought you wrote 84, if you'd note I talked about advance course..and if you go back to my career highlights I mentioned the year..well what do you know, I'm human after all.
Any way all this side bar stuff does not take away from the facts that Bush's administration didn't have real evidence to do what they did, nor does it take away from his inabilitiy to speak, nor does it take away my impressions or any one else impression that he's not very bright. As a matter of fact this side bar issue of yours says you don't have much info to prove your points. But if it makes you feel better, this bud's on me. :D

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 07:06 PM
Bottom line you're sceptical because my arguments discredit your opinions. As I said, I can't really care if you don't believe me, I've been as honest as I can with you and I still get insulted. I use the military info only once and that's to back up my knowledge of Iraq. Sorry it offended you, but I stand by my info. 3/9 to my knowlegde didn't disappear, just like 2/33FA change to 4/5, 3/9 was talked about being sent to Germany, for all I know it could have been redesignated as another number, just like 2/33rd was. 3/9 use to pershing before it became MLRS, I left before the talked about reassignment happened and didn't keep abreast of them. That's not disappearing, that's reassigned. Get your story straight, I've been consistent
On the 94 thing, Opps, you got me there, I misread your post, I thought you wrote 84, if you'd note I talked about advance course..and if you go back to my career highlights I mentioned the year..well what do you know, I'm human after all.
Any way all this side bar stuff does not take away from the facts that Bush's administration didn't have real evidence to do what they did, nor does it take away from his inabilitiy to speak, nor does it take away my impressions or any one else impression that he's not very bright. As a matter of fact this side bar issue of yours says you don't have much info to prove your points. But if it makes you feel better, this bud's on me. :D

Sigh...we're going round and round here MD. And it's getting painful trying to decypher what you MEANT to say from the words you actually used. It's also getting tiring adding up what MIGHT be a lie about your background with the information you just flat out make up about Bush. Here are a few facts for you...maybe you could try something new and actually addressing them?

#1-According to Senate Dems Bush went into Iraq with info he believed was true.

#2-Saddam claimed to anyone who would listen that he had WMD's

#3-Clinton, Russia, and the UN all believed from the available infor that Saddam had WMD's.

#4-Bringing stability to the region is the ONLY long term solution to terrorism that has been presented. And a free, stable Iraq is a major component of that soplution.

#5-John Kerry has spent decades in Congress and has virtually nothing to show for it.

#6-Better a leader who makes some bad decisions than a leader who makes NO decisions.

BigFinFan
08-10-2004, 07:33 PM
I am very much with you on the basic principles you're pointing to, mole. I feel much the same way. And my dad should be proud of his voluntarily signing up to join the Marines AS A MINOR while a brutal war was being waged in two theatres. These facts alone make me proud and made me quite comfortable with fulfilling his wish to see that he was interred at Arlington National Cemetery. He earned that great privilege.

At the same time, I hold truth and integrity as pretty damned sacrosanct, and I quite clearly recall on more than one occasion as a child hearing my father state or imply that he was in combat. He was not. He was never deployed outside the states. I don't know why a good man felt the need to embellish a perfectly honorable record, but he did.

One weekend ago my brother and I brought my dad's only grandson (Zachary, age 6) to Arlington for the first time. We did not immediately bring him to my dad's resting place. Instead, we drove him thru the rolling hills and valleys to see row upon row of graves. We brought him to JFK's grave to see that Presidents are buried there. We explained what it means to be respectful, and then took him to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers where he silently and respectfully witnessed the changing of the guard. We walked him out to the center of a vast slope of graves and asked him to walk along and pick out any one grave that we could then talk about. He chose the grave of one Barry Graham, who happened to be from NJ and died in Vietnam. We talked about his life and the decisions he faced -- and how he might have wanted his life to unfold otherwise.

Then we took him to where my dad rests... and told him how his granddad served, and what it meant to him to be a Marine. No embellishment necessary. None whatsoever.

Very nicely done.

If any one has not been to Arlington, it is a most humbling experience. P4E, I salute your father for saluting. It is an honor to live in America - however, it is a privledge to defend her.

I come from a long line of Military Men. My two grandfathers fought in WW II - one in Pearl Harbor and the other on Normandy. I have two Uncles and my Father-in-Law that Served in Vietnam. The majority of my cousins joined and my brother and 1 cousin are currently in Iraq. I had choices - I turned down a Scholarship to UF after High School to join the Navy. I love my job and I love America!

t2thejz
08-10-2004, 07:38 PM
Very nicely done.

If any one has not been to Arlington, it is a most humbling experience. P4E, I salute your father for saluting. It is an honor to live in America - however, it is a privledge to defend her.

I come from a long line of Military Men. My two grandfathers fought in WW II - one in Pearl Harbor and the other on Normandy. I have two Uncles and my Father-in-Law that Served in Vietnam. The majority of my cousins joined and my brother and 1 cousin are currently in Iraq. I had choices - I turned down a Scholarship to UF after High School to join the Navy. I love my job and I love America!
Sorry if Im being nosey but what was the scholership for?

themole
08-10-2004, 08:37 PM
I am very much with you on the basic principles you're pointing to, mole. I feel much the same way. And my dad should be proud of his voluntarily signing up to join the Marines AS A MINOR while a brutal war was being waged in two theatres. These facts alone make me proud and made me quite comfortable with fulfilling his wish to see that he was interred at Arlington National Cemetery. He earned that great privilege.

At the same time, I hold truth and integrity as pretty damned sacrosanct, and I quite clearly recall on more than one occasion as a child hearing my father state or imply that he was in combat. He was not. He was never deployed outside the states. I don't know why a good man felt the need to embellish a perfectly honorable record, but he did.

One weekend ago my brother and I brought my dad's only grandson (Zachary, age 6) to Arlington for the first time. We did not immediately bring him to my dad's resting place. Instead, we drove him thru the rolling hills and valleys to see row upon row of graves. We brought him to JFK's grave to see that Presidents are buried there. We explained what it means to be respectful, and then took him to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers where he silently and respectfully witnessed the changing of the guard. We walked him out to the center of a vast slope of graves and asked him to walk along and pick out any one grave that we could then talk about. He chose the grave of one Barry Graham, who happened to be from NJ and died in Vietnam. We talked about his life and the decisions he faced -- and how he might have wanted his life to unfold otherwise.

Then we took him to where my dad rests... and told him how his granddad served, and what it meant to him to be a Marine. No embellishment necessary. None whatsoever.


I know! it's just a "Don't cast your pearls before swine" kinda thing with me. I was embarrassed for him.

We have spoken many times here, and a few times "Sub Rosa". There are many people on this forum that I have come to respect a great deal, you being one of them. Others I would ....well we want go there! Those are the ones I didn't want reading that. To me they are not worthy, they don't understand the depth of any kind of military service.

Here's a door....I'm old school and have that deep south code of honor instilled in me. Truth, Honor, Integrity and a damn firm hand shake will win loyalty from me.

I've seen your pedigree chart, you have it also. :D Sacrosanct is the only way to describe it!

BTW...I'm glad to see you are doing the things with Zach that instills pride in America. I've taken my son there on three occasions, told him whos home it once was. Cried every time we saw the changing of the guard. How moving is that?

I so..so love this thing we have, that I would die for it a thousand times. Yet I don't trust it.

Ramblings!

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 09:44 PM
I know! it's just a "Don't cast your pearls before swine" kinda thing with me. I was embarrassed for him.

We have spoken many times here, and a few times "Sub Rosa". There are many people on this forum that I have come to respect a great deal, you being one of them. Others I would ....well we want go there! Those are the ones I didn't want reading that. To me they are not worthy, they don't understand the depth of any kind of military service.

Here's a door....I'm old school and have that deep south code of honor instilled in me. Truth, Honor, Integrity and a damn firm hand shake will win loyalty from me.

I've seen your pedigree chart, you have it also. :D Sacrosanct is the only way to describe it!

BTW...I'm glad to see you are doing the things with Zach that instills pride in America. I've taken my son there on three occasions, told him whos home it once was. Cried every time we saw the changing of the guard. How moving is that?

I so..so love this thing we have, that I would die for it a thousand times. Yet I don't trust it.

Ramblings!

That's because what we have sits on a razor edge. It amazes me how cavalierly people think that what we have will just remain without threat either internal or external. simple terrifying math...if 2/3rds of this country decided that a the Bill of Rights had outlived it's usefullness, it's gone as simple as that. And it's not that difficult to imagine. Take a look at the current composition of the US military. Every day a greater and greater percentage of it is comprised of recent immigrants. As an American of Cuban descent that part doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the historical precedent. One of the symptoms of the impending fall of Rome was the fact that her armies became comprised of non-Romans. And again, those non-Romans were actually quite loyal to Rome, so that, again, wasn't the problem. The problem was that Romans couldn't be bothered to defend what they had. They just assumed that it would be eternal, and that someone else would insure that fact. That was a symptom if INTERNAL rot, not external. The barbarian hordes didn't kill Rome, they just knocked down a house that had already rotted. I see some of the same things happening here.

themole
08-10-2004, 10:51 PM
That's because what we have sits on a razor edge. It amazes me how cavalierly people think that what we have will just remain without threat either internal or external. simple terrifying math...if 2/3rds of this country decided that a the Bill of Rights had outlived it's usefullness, it's gone as simple as that. And it's not that difficult to imagine. Take a look at the current composition of the US military. Every day a greater and greater percentage of it is comprised of recent immigrants. As an American of Cuban descent that part doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the historical precedent. One of the symptoms of the impending fall of Rome was the fact that her armies became comprised of non-Romans. And again, those non-Romans were actually quite loyal to Rome, so that, again, wasn't the problem. The problem was that Romans couldn't be bothered to defend what they had. They just assumed that it would be eternal, and that someone else would insure that fact. That was a symptom if INTERNAL rot, not external. The barbarian hordes didn't kill Rome, they just knocked down a house that had already rotted. I see some of the same things happening here.


George Washingtons farewell address to the nation would serve the people well. Everything he warned us about we "the future" have allowed to happen. Infact I think I will paste it now for all to read. George will be proud that we care.

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School

Washington's Farewell Address 1796

1796

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it 7 It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this con duct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

MDFINFAN
08-11-2004, 01:08 AM
Sigh...we're going round and round here MD. And it's getting painful trying to decypher what you MEANT to say from the words you actually used. It's also getting tiring adding up what MIGHT be a lie about your background with the information you just flat out make up about Bush. Here are a few facts for you...maybe you could try something new and actually addressing them?

#1-According to Senate Dems Bush went into Iraq with info he believed was true.

#2-Saddam claimed to anyone who would listen that he had WMD's

#3-Clinton, Russia, and the UN all believed from the available infor that Saddam had WMD's.

#4-Bringing stability to the region is the ONLY long term solution to terrorism that has been presented. And a free, stable Iraq is a major component of that soplution.

#5-John Kerry has spent decades in Congress and has virtually nothing to show for it.

#6-Better a leader who makes some bad decisions than a leader who makes NO decisions.

Phin, I am getting tire of this, it's old, but i don't care what dems say, they're politicians for goodness sake. The point should be what Bush stated to us about his proof of WMD's, forget all that before stuff, where no one really new about Iraq's WMD's, so they stay on the safe side by saying he probably has them. If you don't know, you don't want to be on the wrong side in case he does. Makes sense to me. But the fact is no one knew for sure. Saddam was a very proud person, he did not want others in the region to attack him and find that he had nothing to withstand them with. You ever heard of a buff. I stated Sadam's antic's help get him invaded. But I believe our info and reasoning was shakey and I said this to people before we went to war. I truely believed it at the time, and the results of the war has proven to me at least, that I was correct in my assessment. The region is not stabled, actually it was more stabled before the war, now we've created thousands of Al quida recruits, and if you don't believe or see that, then you are really living a fantasy. More Middle East people resent us now than before the war, we will have long range problems as a result, just wait. When someone stabs your brother, you don't really forget, even if you don't respond immediately. As far as leaders not making decision, I'll have to wait and see what Kerry does in Office, being a senator really doesn't allow for one to be a headliner like president. So to compare the 2 is total BS. A senator only represents his district, not the country. Any way phin we've beat this into a bush, I've been clear, you've tried to dodge the real issue with stuff from before the war stating people said. And I simply said the evidence presented to us was shakey at best or full of BS. take your pick. There was nothing to indicate that Iraq was a threat to us based on the evidence that Bush presented and that's why a lot of the members of the UN didn't go along with it to include a lot of our allies. They're not dumb just because their not Americans you know. They thought independently and felt the case wasn't there for war. I agreed with them base on the evidence presented and the reasoning. You simply disagree and I think that's a good place to end our debate, we've tried to convince each other on points that we can't share. So we end where we started, We agree to disagree.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 04:30 PM
Works for me. Honestly, people are so polarized on this issue that I don't see anyone changing their minds at this point. As I've said, the election will come down to turnout since almost nobody is going to change thei opinions at this point.

BAMAPHIN 22
08-11-2004, 05:23 PM
The two biggest issues of this years election is first the stability of IRAQ... Which is at this point not stable... And secondly, the economy... Which is presently is not promising... Those are issues we should be discussing instead of trying to belittle and questions someones military service...Heck our present Commander and Chief have quite a few of questionable issues concerning his tour of military service... I don't see any dicussions about that... You are correct about the turnout for this election.... It is paramount...

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 05:37 PM
The two biggest issues of this years election is first the stability of IRAQ... Which is at this point not stable... And secondly, the economy... Which is presently is not promising... Those are issues we should be discussing instead of trying to belittle and questions someones military service...Heck our present Commander and Chief have quite a few of questionable issues concerning his tour of military service... I don't see any dicussions about that... You are correct about the turnout for this election.... It is paramount...


#1-It took 7 years to get a free, stable Japan. How about giving Iraq at least HALF that time?

#2-One bad month after two VERY good quarters is hardly "not promising".

MDFINFAN
08-12-2004, 12:58 PM
#1-It took 7 years to get a free, stable Japan. How about giving Iraq at least HALF that time?

#2-One bad month after two VERY good quarters is hardly "not promising".

Totally different circumstances PP1227, once the war was over, it was over, this thing we've gotten into is taking a life of it's own. 2 very good quarters, :roflmao: we'll still trying to catch up to all the jobs lost. It will take more than what those quarters produced, at a rate higher than those quarters, and much better quality jobs than what was going on in those quarters. I say again, go ask engineers what they think about the type of jobs they had to settle for after the outsourcing of their jobs.

themole
08-12-2004, 06:22 PM
I say again, go ask engineers what they think about the type of jobs they had to settle for after the outsourcing of their jobs.

I'm well aware of the outsourcing of jobs plus loss of jobs to offshore business. You have to lay blame on CONGRESS for that crap! Yes, William Jefferson Cliton had a huge hand in this also, as does "W".

NAFTA & GATT... :goof:idea! It's time both parties come to their senses and initiate "Fair trade" over "Free trade".

Remember..it was the democrats that started this "New World Order" stuff, they were known as the first Internationalist. The republicans have carried the banner quite well for them the past 15 years though.

We the people have suffered.

Themole

America Firster
Protectionist & all around Azzhole

PhinPhan1227
08-12-2004, 07:14 PM
Totally different circumstances PP1227, once the war was over, it was over, this thing we've gotten into is taking a life of it's own. 2 very good quarters, :roflmao: we'll still trying to catch up to all the jobs lost. It will take more than what those quarters produced, at a rate higher than those quarters, and much better quality jobs than what was going on in those quarters. I say again, go ask engineers what they think about the type of jobs they had to settle for after the outsourcing of their jobs.


#1-Hardly. No, there wasn't an insurectionist movement, but there also wasn't the economic opportunity. Japan had no resources, and no industry on which to build. Iraq has the wealth which makes stability so much more sustainable.

#2-Outsourcing is inevitable. Firstly, there are 3-4 treaties which prevent us from doing anything about it, and secondly, that's capitalism.

#3-Check your facts man. At the growth we had over the first two quarters, those 3 million lost jobs were coming back before the end of the year. And that growth was based largely in manufacturing, and construction.

#4-As for IT/software engineers...guess what...the dot com bubble burst. There are now 4 times as many IT people as there will EVER again be IT jobs.

Section126
08-12-2004, 07:16 PM
Engineers? Losing jobs due to outsourcing? BS...period....that is pure BS......

I am in that line of work and Structural and Civil Engineers have the safest jobs against outsourcing because Architects and Contractors must hire Engineers that are certified in the state of the construction project....

The Engineer must also provide ON SITE inspections on the progress of the construction......So unless some guy from India is flying into Miami 4 times a week for 2 years...then the job must go to a local....

You sir just got OWNED.

MDFINFAN
08-13-2004, 11:58 AM
Engineers? Losing jobs due to outsourcing? BS...period....that is pure BS......

I am in that line of work and Structural and Civil Engineers have the safest jobs against outsourcing because Architects and Contractors must hire Engineers that are certified in the state of the construction project....

The Engineer must also provide ON SITE inspections on the progress of the construction......So unless some guy from India is flying into Miami 4 times a week for 2 years...then the job must go to a local....

You sir just got OWNED.

Sec, look at that guy who has the economic show on either CNN, or MSNBC, I think his name was Lu Dobbs or something like that. Anyway about 2 weeks ago he had a show on this very subject. He put out the Engineer section of the country losing works to outsourcing. He had some Engineers who where talking about it. BTW PP1227, they were the ones talking about taking lesser paying jobs in the last 2 quarters. So that's why I questioned the quality of the jobs supportively created, I know right here in the DC area, people who lost jobs had to settle for a job paying way less than what they were making. Sec, there are more kinds of Engineers than just your area. I think the more vulnerable engineer is probably the IT engineers.

I'm no longer Owned..but I'm not Buying and I claim YOU.. :lol: OWNED


Back to PP1227

Your #1 make the biggest and most important difference, insurgence, which the is only thing I pointed out. It defintely makes the job harder, don't you think?

#2. I'm not against outsourcing unless it's my job. :roflmao:

#3. Link to show your facts on this.

#4. My point to sec here. Outsourcing is really cutting this down in the USA, when you call DELL, Gateway and others and are routed to India for their customer service..this is the thing that hurts, those were good paying jobs in America. I guess I hate the fact that Americans help build a company and then that company turn their back on those people for cheaper labor once the company is established. What ever happened to loyalty?

Section126
08-13-2004, 12:03 PM
Sec, look at that guy who has the economic show on either CNN, or MSNBC, I think his name was Lu Dobbs or something like that. Anyway about 2 weeks ago he had a show on this very subject. He put out the Engineer section of the country losing works to outsourcing. He had some Engineers who where talking about it. BTW PP1227, they were the ones talking about taking lesser paying jobs in the last 2 quarters. So that's why I questioned the quality of the jobs supportively created, I know right here in the DC area, people who lost jobs had to settle for a job paying way less than what they were making. Sec, there are more kinds of Engineers than just your area. I think the more vulnerable engineer is probably the IT engineers.

I'm no longer Owned..but I'm not Buying and I claim YOU.. :lol: OWNED


Back to PP1227

Your #1 make the biggest and most important difference, insurgence, which the only thing I pointed out.

#2. I'm not against outsourcing unless it's my job. :roflmao:

#3. Link to show your facts on this.

#4. My point to sec here. Outsourcing is really cutting this down in the USA, when you call DELL, Gateway and others and are routed to India for their customer service..this is the thing that hurts, those were good paying jobs in America. I guess I hate the fact that Americans help build a company and then that company turn their back on those people for cheaper labor once the company is established. What ever happened to loyalty?


I was talking about Structural Engineers and Civil Engineers..........so...you stay OWNED.

PhinPhan1227
08-13-2004, 12:11 PM
Sec, look at that guy who has the economic show on either CNN, or MSNBC, I think his name was Lu Dobbs or something like that. Anyway about 2 weeks ago he had a show on this very subject. He put out the Engineer section of the country losing works to outsourcing. He had some Engineers who where talking about it. BTW PP1227, they were the ones talking about taking lesser paying jobs in the last 2 quarters. So that's why I questioned the quality of the jobs supportively created, I know right here in the DC area, people who lost jobs had to settle for a job paying way less than what they were making. Sec, there are more kinds of Engineers than just your area. I think the more vulnerable engineer is probably the IT engineers.

I'm no longer Owned..but I'm not Buying and I claim YOU.. :lol: OWNED


Back to PP1227

Your #1 make the biggest and most important difference, insurgence, which the only thing I pointed out.

#2. I'm not against outsourcing unless it's my job. :roflmao:

#3. Link to show your facts on this.

#4. My point to sec here. Outsourcing is really cutting this down in the USA, when you call DELL, Gateway and others and are routed to India for their customer service..this is the thing that hurts, those were good paying jobs in America. I guess I hate the fact that Americans help build a company and then that company turn their back on those people for cheaper labor once the company is established. What ever happened to loyalty?

A company is in business to make a profit, and to pay it's shareholders. In the case of Dell, many of those shareholders are employees. In the case of their HelpDesk, we're not talking highly skilled positions here. They can train a person in India for a few weeks and get the same QOS, so why wouldn't they outsource? Now, there's a bit of a balancing act going on. Some companies went overboard and tried to outsource their development arms and have paid the price. Trying to coordinate complicated issues across 15 time zones with people who are less proficient isn't proving to be effective. So just like most things, I think outsourcing will reach a balance. One thing I do agree with...a company that employees people overseas should recieve NO tax credit for THAT person here in the US. That would still be in line with current treaties. But anything that Kerry says he would do beyond that is a bold faced lie.

MDFINFAN
08-13-2004, 12:25 PM
I was talking about Structural Engineers and Civil Engineers..........so...you stay OWNED.

And I stated there's more types of Egineers, you're still CLAIMED :D

MDFINFAN
08-13-2004, 12:46 PM
A company is in business to make a profit, and to pay it's shareholders. In the case of Dell, many of those shareholders are employees. In the case of their HelpDesk, we're not talking highly skilled positions here. They can train a person in India for a few weeks and get the same QOS, so why wouldn't they outsource? Now, there's a bit of a balancing act going on. Some companies went overboard and tried to outsource their development arms and have paid the price. Trying to coordinate complicated issues across 15 time zones with people who are less proficient isn't proving to be effective. So just like most things, I think outsourcing will reach a balance. One thing I do agree with...a company that employees people overseas should recieve NO tax credit for THAT person here in the US. That would still be in line with current treaties. But anything that Kerry says he would do beyond that is a bold faced lie.

That's not true, being on a help desk is a lot more than you think. The problem is people are not well trained and that's why customer satisfaction is low in this area. Well trained help desk people will cost you. We're talking about people who really know their jobs. What you're getting now is people know read off a script and can't really troubleshoot to help fix a problem. I'm in the IT business and this I know for a fact. I agree with you on most the rest of what you've written. That's exactly how I feel about Nike..built in America, then send the Jobs to India, and still sell the shoes for as much or more. American's reaped no benifit of lower labor cost. That's what piss me off. You're right, tax the hell of them to pay the cost of the laid off. I'm not talking about Kerry, how did you get there. I didn't mention a politician. In this case Bush is President, he inherited this, but hasn't done anything about it either. So his record is no better than anyone else in this area.

PhinPhan1227
08-13-2004, 01:13 PM
I agree with you. I don't expect Bush to do much beyond taking awat tax breaks. But I don't expect Kerry to do any more than that...it's a wash.

Section126
08-13-2004, 04:46 PM
And I stated there's more types of Egineers, you're still CLAIMED :D


:mad: