Wednesday, December 21, 2011

RE: [LA-F] The (Illegal) Private Bus System That Works

-----Original Message-----
Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:38:07 pm
To: "Hope4America" <Hope4america@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: politicalforum <PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com>
From: "Bruce Majors" <majors.bruce@gmail.com>
Subject: [LA-F] The (Illegal) Private Bus System That Works

----------

Source:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/the-illegal-private-bus-system-that-works/246166/

-<quote>--------------------------------------------------

The (Illegal) Private Bus System That Works

By Lisa Margonelli

Brooklyn's dollar van fleet is a tantalizing demonstration of how we might
supplement mass transit with privately-owned mini-transit entrepreneurs

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13460288cce3e2bf&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw>

Winston Williams owns and operates this advertising-wrapped dollar van /
Lisa Margonelli


America's 20th largest bus service -- hauling 120,000 riders a day -- is
profitable and also illegal. It's not really a bus service at all, but a
willy-nilly aggregation of 350 licensed and 500 unlicensed privately-owned
"dollar vans" that roam the streets of Brooklyn and Queens, picking up
passengers from street corners where city buses are either missing or
inconvenient. The dollar van fleet is a tantalizing demonstration of how we
might supplement mass transit to include privately-owned mini-transit
entrepreneurs, giving people alternative ways to get around, and creating
jobs.
To see how the dollar van universe works (I'll get to why it's illegal in a
minute), I spent a morning riding around with one of Brooklyn's dollar van
entrepreneurs, Winston Williams of Blackstreet Van Lines. I caught up with
Winston's pink, advertising-covered van on Livingston Street in downtown
Brooklyn and hopped in the front seat, and off we went up Flatbush Avenue.
Almost all of the dollar vans are Ford E350's, with a high body and side
doors and enough seats in the back to hold 14 people. Once you notice them
in the parts of Brooklyn and Queens where they work, they're ubiquitous.
Winston looks in the rear-view mirror and explains that the trick is to
keep a distance between the vans in front and the vans behind to maximize
the chance of getting passengers. At $2 a ride, he needs to get 14 people
in the van on the 5.6 mile trip from downtown Brooklyn to King's Highway to
turn a profit. The cost of licensing, insuring, staffing, and fueling the
eight vans in his fleet is considerable.

Some people worry that dollar vans pick up passengers who would otherwise
ride the bus, but Columbia Assistant Professor of Urban Planning David King
and doctoral student Eric Goldwyn say that's not likely. Dollar vans seem
to complement the bus service, and they have real advantages. Goldwyn has
ridden in the vans and conducted tallies where he's found that on some
corners there are four city buses an hour and 45 to 60 vans, meaning that
passengers literally don't have to wait more than a minute for a ride.
Also, the vans can be a lot faster than public transit. A service that runs
between Chinatowns can get from Flushing to Sunset Park in 20 minutes while
the subway will take an hour and 13 minutes at minimum. And for regular
riders, there are other perks. "I've heard they offer more services -- for
example, they'll wait while a parent walks a child up to the door of
daycare or a school." That is service that you can't get from a bus.

With its pink advertising wrapping, Winston's van gives the impression that
the inside will have a party atmosphere. But it doesn't. The passengers,
most of whom are from Jamaica (like Winston) or Trinidad, sit quietly. One
Trinidadian woman dressed in business clothes overhears me interviewing
Winston and volunteers that vans are a common way to get around the
islands. The interior of the van is clean, gray, and institutional -- very
much of a piece with Winston's overall business plan to brand his vans and
make them mainstream.

He'd like to eventually move beyond the Flatbush route and pick up, say,
hipsters in Williamsburg and bring them to Manhattan. If this sounds
improbable, it's really not: Think of the incredible popularity of food
trucks, which were known as "roach coaches" only 10 years ago. A hip fleet
of dollar vans, providing proximity and cheap transit to 20-somethings,
could easily catch on. If the vans ran on cleaner engines -- hybrids or
natural gas -- they could be part of a greener city. (In another move to
raise the profile of his vans beyond Flatbush, Winston allows a music
promoter called Dollar Van Demos to film rappers in his vans for broadcast
on the Internet.) But no broader growth can happen until the vans can be
branded and made attractive to people who don't already know them, says
Winston.

Ah, and that's where the illegality comes in. Winston used to have his vans
all painted with a green stripe, so they became easily recognized in the
neighborhood. While this "uniform" was good for business, his vans also
caught the attention of police of various kinds who ticketed him for
stopping to pick up passengers, and he accrued fines that ate into profits.
This is the paradox of Winston's work: While he is fully licensed, insured,
and inspected, his vans are prohibited from doing the one thing they really
do -- picking up passengers off the street.

David King, from Columbia, quips that all dollar vans are 100 percent
illegal (because they work the curbs), but some are 200 percent illegal
(because they don't bother to get licensed in the first place). Winston
says police don't cite the unlicensed vans, which eat into his business,
but do go after the licensed ones for the curb infractions. "The law gets
made up as you go along," Winston says, adding that the pink cellphone ad
on the van is both an attempt to make a little money as he cruises up and
down Flatbush, and a trial balloon to see whether there's a specific law
prohibiting advertising on the vans. Later, one of the 500 or so completely
illegal vans pulls up beside him, and in friendly Jamaican patois, Winston
accuses the driver of being a terrorist. "It's not like I hate against
them. But I'm running a business and they're running a hustle," he says.

The existence of laws and the lack of enforcement put the legal drivers in
a bind that Winston describes as a Catch 22. In 1993, New York outlawed
dollar vans entirely. It took the intervention of some activist van owners
with the help of the Libertarian Institute For Justice to get them
legalized. Deliberate or not, the city's perverse policy of half-legalizing
legal vans and failing to enforce laws against the unlicensed ones limits
the growth of what could be a useful transit resource. Winston describes a
decade and half of Coyote and Roadrunner exploits with the law, concluding
with, "Let there be a train strike, a blackout, a storm, or 9/11, and
people are practically tearing the doors off." Last year, when the city was
trying to cut bus routes, they even tried to substitute official dollar van
routes, but that program was canceled when van drivers were uninterested in
the routes, and riders were uninterested in the vans.

You might want to know why, exactly, jitneys or dollar vans are illegal in
most states. The answer lies in the history of public transit. Until the
early 1950s, most transit systems in the U.S. were privately owned
companies that operated as regulated monopolies (like electric utilities
today) and expected to provide transit service to an entire city. In
exchange, they got the right to be the city's only transit service. Transit
ridership peaked during World War II, but the transit companies slid into
bankruptcy afterwards, as they were expected to serve greater suburban
areas, service declined, and more and more federal money went into highways
-- all of which tempted people to buy cars and abandon the trolleys and
buses. Most of the country's 200 private transit franchises died in the
1950s. (Roger Rabbit had nothing to do with it. I swear.) In the late
1950s, cities took over the bankrupt transit lines and tried to make a go
of them, retaining for themselves the monopoly on the right to provide
service. In the early 60s the feds became involved in propping those
systems up, but without much enthusiasm. Meanwhile, private transit were
prevented from driving the streets even when they offered serviced
differen I have been the Taxi/Limo business for 36 years. this sounds great! Got room for a southern white guy from Florida?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: FLY DELTA, the Muslim ‘unfriendly’ airline

I went to the Delta site and left a thank you in the comment section.


On Dec 20, 8:37 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>  FLY DELTA,
> the Muslim 'unfriendly'
> airline<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/fly-delta-the-muslim-u...>by
> barenakedislam <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
>
> Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated CAIR Litigation Jihadists are shaking down
> another airline, Delta, for trying to protect its passengers from what the
> pilot believed to be potential terrorists - praying "Allahu Akbar" Muslims.
> Commercial Appeal  Two Muslim clerics who were kicked off a Delta Air Lines
> flight in Memphis on their way to a religious conference in [...]
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/fly-delta-the-muslim-u...>
>  *barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> * | December 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM | Categories: CAIR
> Nazis<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=22749357>| URL:http://wp.me/peHnV-DSJ
>
>   Comment<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/fly-delta-the-muslim-u...>
>    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/fly-delta-the-muslim-u...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/fly-delta-the-muslim-u...
>     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The canidate the Republicans don't want you know about

http://www.buddyroemer.com/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Fw: Superb Answers



--- On Wed, 21/12/11, Farhan Safeer Qureshi <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Farhan Safeer Qureshi <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com>
Subject: Superb Answers
To: "Farhan Safeer Qureshi" <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 21 December, 2011, 9:04 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correct Answers of a Brilliant student who obtained 0%

 

Q. In which battle did Tipu Sultan died?
A. His last battle.

Q. Where was the Declaration of IndependanceSigned?
A. At the Bottom of the Page.
...

Q. Ganga flows in which state?
A. Liquid.

Q. Whats the main reason for Divorce?
A. Marriage.

Q. Whats the main reason for Failure?
A. Examinations...

Did the student Answer Anything Wrong ?

 

 

 

__._,_.___

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

**JP** Fw: ! Ya Zindagee ha



--- On Wed, 21/12/11, Farhan Safeer Qureshi <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Farhan Safeer Qureshi <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com>
Subject: ! Ya Zindagee ha
To: "Farhan Safeer Qureshi" <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 21 December, 2011, 9:29 AM

                                    Ya Zindagee ha

 


 

 


a     

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

[LA-F] The (Illegal) Private Bus System That Works



----------

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/the-illegal-private-bus-system-that-works/246166/

-<quote>--------------------------------------------------

The (Illegal) Private Bus System That Works

By Lisa Margonelli

Brooklyn's dollar van fleet is a tantalizing demonstration of how we might supplement mass transit with privately-owned mini-transit entrepreneurs

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13460288cce3e2bf&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw>

Winston Williams owns and operates this advertising-wrapped dollar van / Lisa Margonelli


America's 20th largest bus service -- hauling 120,000 riders a day -- is profitable and also illegal. It's not really a bus service at all, but a willy-nilly aggregation of 350 licensed and 500 unlicensed privately-owned "dollar vans" that roam the streets of Brooklyn and Queens, picking up passengers from street corners where city buses are either missing or inconvenient. The dollar van fleet is a tantalizing demonstration of how we might supplement mass transit to include privately-owned mini-transit entrepreneurs, giving people alternative ways to get around, and creating jobs.
To see how the dollar van universe works (I'll get to why it's illegal in a minute), I spent a morning riding around with one of Brooklyn's dollar van entrepreneurs, Winston Williams of Blackstreet Van Lines. I caught up with Winston's pink, advertising-covered van on Livingston Street in downtown Brooklyn and hopped in the front seat, and off we went up Flatbush Avenue. Almost all of the dollar vans are Ford E350's, with a high body and side doors and enough seats in the back to hold 14 people. Once you notice them in the parts of Brooklyn and Queens where they work, they're ubiquitous. Winston looks in the rear-view mirror and explains that the trick is to keep a distance between the vans in front and the vans behind to maximize the chance of getting passengers. At $2 a ride, he needs to get 14 people in the van on the 5.6 mile trip from downtown Brooklyn to King's Highway to turn a profit. The cost of licensing, insuring, staffing, and fueling the eight vans in his fleet is considerable.

Some people worry that dollar vans pick up passengers who would otherwise ride the bus, but Columbia Assistant Professor of Urban Planning David King and doctoral student Eric Goldwyn say that's not likely. Dollar vans seem to complement the bus service, and they have real advantages. Goldwyn has ridden in the vans and conducted tallies where he's found that on some corners there are four city buses an hour and 45 to 60 vans, meaning that passengers literally don't have to wait more than a minute for a ride. Also, the vans can be a lot faster than public transit. A service that runs between Chinatowns can get from Flushing to Sunset Park in 20 minutes while the subway will take an hour and 13 minutes at minimum. And for regular riders, there are other perks. "I've heard they offer more services -- for example, they'll wait while a parent walks a child up to the door of daycare or a school." That is service that you can't get from a bus.

With its pink advertising wrapping, Winston's van gives the impression that the inside will have a party atmosphere. But it doesn't. The passengers, most of whom are from Jamaica (like Winston) or Trinidad, sit quietly. One Trinidadian woman dressed in business clothes overhears me interviewing Winston and volunteers that vans are a common way to get around the islands. The interior of the van is clean, gray, and institutional -- very much of a piece with Winston's overall business plan to brand his vans and make them mainstream.

He'd like to eventually move beyond the Flatbush route and pick up, say, hipsters in Williamsburg and bring them to Manhattan. If this sounds improbable, it's really not: Think of the incredible popularity of food trucks, which were known as "roach coaches" only 10 years ago. A hip fleet of dollar vans, providing proximity and cheap transit to 20-somethings, could easily catch on. If the vans ran on cleaner engines -- hybrids or natural gas -- they could be part of a greener city. (In another move to raise the profile of his vans beyond Flatbush, Winston allows a music promoter called Dollar Van Demos to film rappers in his vans for broadcast on the Internet.) But no broader growth can happen until the vans can be branded and made attractive to people who don't already know them, says Winston.

Ah, and that's where the illegality comes in. Winston used to have his vans all painted with a green stripe, so they became easily recognized in the neighborhood. While this "uniform" was good for business, his vans also caught the attention of police of various kinds who ticketed him for stopping to pick up passengers, and he accrued fines that ate into profits. This is the paradox of Winston's work: While he is fully licensed, insured, and inspected, his vans are prohibited from doing the one thing they really do -- picking up passengers off the street.

David King, from Columbia, quips that all dollar vans are 100 percent illegal (because they work the curbs), but some are 200 percent illegal (because they don't bother to get licensed in the first place). Winston says police don't cite the unlicensed vans, which eat into his business, but do go after the licensed ones for the curb infractions. "The law gets made up as you go along," Winston says, adding that the pink cellphone ad on the van is both an attempt to make a little money as he cruises up and down Flatbush, and a trial balloon to see whether there's a specific law prohibiting advertising on the vans. Later, one of the 500 or so completely illegal vans pulls up beside him, and in friendly Jamaican patois, Winston accuses the driver of being a terrorist. "It's not like I hate against them. But I'm running a business and they're running a hustle," he says.

The existence of laws and the lack of enforcement put the legal drivers in a bind that Winston describes as a Catch 22. In 1993, New York outlawed dollar vans entirely. It took the intervention of some activist van owners with the help of the Libertarian Institute For Justice to get them legalized. Deliberate or not, the city's perverse policy of half-legalizing legal vans and failing to enforce laws against the unlicensed ones limits the growth of what could be a useful transit resource. Winston describes a decade and half of Coyote and Roadrunner exploits with the law, concluding with, "Let there be a train strike, a blackout, a storm, or 9/11, and people are practically tearing the doors off." Last year, when the city was trying to cut bus routes, they even tried to substitute official dollar van routes, but that program was canceled when van drivers were uninterested in the routes, and riders were uninterested in the vans.

You might want to know why, exactly, jitneys or dollar vans are illegal in most states. The answer lies in the history of public transit. Until the early 1950s, most transit systems in the U.S. were privately owned companies that operated as regulated monopolies (like electric utilities today) and expected to provide transit service to an entire city. In exchange, they got the right to be the city's only transit service. Transit ridership peaked during World War II, but the transit companies slid into bankruptcy afterwards, as they were expected to serve greater suburban areas, service declined, and more and more federal money went into highways -- all of which tempted people to buy cars and abandon the trolleys and buses. Most of the country's 200 private transit franchises died in the 1950s. (Roger Rabbit had nothing to do with it. I swear.) In the late 1950s, cities took over the bankrupt transit lines and tried to make a go of them, retaining for themselves the monopoly on the right to provide service. In the early 60s the feds became involved in propping those systems up, but without much enthusiasm. Meanwhile, private transit were prevented from driving the streets even when they offered serviced different from the public transit agencies.

What's interesting about dollar vans, if they're properly licensed and insured -- and reasonably legal -- is that they could gravitate to where the riders are and where they want to go faster than public transit, which requires more infrastructure and meetings. In some cities, bus routes have histories going back decades, and they don't change to reflect how people's lives and work habits have changed. (They certainly don't stop at daycare centers.) Dollar vans are out there to make a buck, and that's not bad for passengers. Here's a video of a valiant dollar van on the prowl for customers during Hurricane Irene, when New York subways were shut down. You can see Winston's pink van at the curb.
dollar van

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/the-illegal-private-bus-system-that-works/246166/

-</quote>-------------------------------------------------

--
Mark Rousell

PGP public key: http://www.signal100.com/markr/pgp
Key ID: C9C5C162
 
 
 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: For GOP, It's Paul or Obama

Crazy Uncle Ron's base consists of Crackpots
---
opinion noted

those who support newt are warmongers and interventionists

choose sides carefully

On Dec 21, 9:21 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Ron Paul's base will not compromise."
> *
> That's because Crazy Uncle Ron's base consists of Crackpots!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >  *"Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of
> > voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or
> > policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters
> > who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact
> > that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look
> > judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict
> > party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming
> > increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes
> > forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise."
>
> > **For GOP, It's Paul or Obama
> > * Roderick Lovan<http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/1456069/roderick_lovan.html>
> > Dec 20, 2011
>
> > Hi Newt. Welcome to your first meeting as a member of the Former
> > Frontrunner Club. Please have a seat in between Mrs. Bachmann and Mr.
> > Perry. Mr. Cain used to sit there, but he's decided he doesn't want to play
> > anymore. Today we will be discussing how to best deal with the
> > "anti-Romney" stereotype as well as Rick Santorum's request to join the
> > club without possessing the proper credentials.
>
> > While that is just a comedic dramatization of the last six months of the
> > GOP race, it's definitely not a dramatization that the Republican Party is
> > begging for anyone but Mitt Romney to step forward. While Romney has
> > certainly held steady at or near the top since the process began, his
> > numbers have been anything but inspiring for likely voters. Virtually
> > everyone not named Huntsman or Santorum has flirted with frontrunner status
> > over the past six months, only to see the numbers crash back down leaving
> > Romney on top again with his paltry 20%. Now, we receive word that Ron
> > Paul, yes Ron Paul, has taken the lead in Iowa<http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/gingrich-collapses-io...>.
> > So what does this mean for GOP voters as we approach Iowa<http://voices.yahoo.com/theme/516/iowa.html>and New Hampshire in the coming weeks? Simple. It's Ron
> > Paul <http://voices.yahoo.com/theme/1271/ron_paul.html> or four more
> > years of Obama.
>
> > Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting
> > for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy
> > views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who
> > have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that
> > his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look
> > judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict
> > party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming
> > increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes
> > forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise.
>
> > Depending on which poll you use, Paul generally comes in somewhere in the
> > high single-digits to the very low double-digits in the national polls. It
> > doesn't sound like much compared to the numbers currently held by the
> > falling Gingrich and the steady Romney, and it certainly doesn't lead one
> > to believe that Paul should be the GOP choice. But when you take that 8-12%
> > of the GOP base away from Romney or whoever becomes the final anti-Romney
> > and put that candidate against the incumbent President, the incumbent
> > President gets four more years 100% of the time. It is simply too much of a
> > handicap to overcome.
>
> > Are Ron Paul supporters (or "Paulbots," "Paulites," and "Paulestinians" as
> > they have been derisively called) really that staunch in their support that
> > they would risk four more years of Obama just to make a point that they
> > will not vote for whatever empty suit the GOP pushes out on stage?
> > Unhesitatingly, yes. All you need to do to prove this to yourself is spend
> > some time perusing the comment section of any story about Congressman Paul.
> > His 8-12% belongs to him and him only, even if it means writing his name in
> > on the ballot come November 2012. No other candidate can boast that type of
> > support. The average Romney supporter will drop Mitt in a heartbeat and
> > follow someone else if he doesn't get the GOP nod. In contrast, the typical
> > fervent supporter of Paul is the type of person who truly believes that an
> > establishment GOP candidate won't change the direction of the country
> > anymore than Obama did when he took over for Bush. Thus, in the eyes of a
> > Paulite, a vote for Romney is a vote for continuing the policies of Obama
> > and Bush before him and might as well be a vote for Obama himself. At least
> > with the re-election of Obama, you only have to deal with it as a GOP voter
> > for four more years. If Romney or Gingrich were to win, you're stuck with
> > him for eight. Paulites just won't have anything to do with that.
>
> > For the "anyone but Obama" crowd, this is a harsh reality to deal with.
> > Many of them refuse to take a second look at Paul because of reservations
> > about his foreign policy. Many voters are coming around to Paul's message,
> > as evidenced by his rise in Iowa and New Hampshire<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele...>,
> > but nationally it remains to be seen if this momentum will continue. Will
> > the GOP accept the reality for what it is and throw their support behind
> > Paul, thus giving credibility to their shouts of "anyone but Obama," or
> > will they force the hand of the Paul supporters by pushing out Romney or
> > another GOP suit? If they want the White House they will choose Paul.
> > Otherwise they will live with four more years of Obama and have no one but
> > themselves to blame.
>
> >  http://voices.yahoo.com/for-gop-its-paul-obama-10713793.html?cat=9
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
>  Newt.2012.org.jpg
> 39KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: “Hanna Montana is the filth of the planet, worse than animals,” says Muslim Brotherhood front group spokesman

Islam isn't trying to
influence Western Society, and has no design to influence or change
Western
Culture.
---
sure they are ... and they have the freedom to do so

but they can't be allowed to effectively change our laws or foreign
policy ... the same thing goes for judaism and xianity

On Dec 21, 9:40 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the important message here,  is that Islam isn't trying to
> influence Western Society, and has no design to influence or change Western
> Culture.
>
> Just ask PlainOl or any other Ron Paul supporter.   Again,  nothing to see
> here folks.....Move along.
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anyone have the heart to tell these idiots than Hannah isn't real?
>
> > On Dec 20, 7:25 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Still keeps her above the sub-semian muzziesheets though.
>
> > > **
> > >            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> > > <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>  "Hanna
> > > Montana is the filth of the planet, worse than animals," says Muslim
> > > Brotherhood front group
> > > spokesman<
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f..
> > .>by
> > > barenakedislam <
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
>
> > > The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), satellite organization of the
> > > Muslim Brotherhood, deplores Disney and American culture in general. (So,
> > > how about getting the Hell out of our country? Nobody wants you here
> > > anyway.) The Islamic Circle of North America(ICNA) is preaching a global
> > > Caliphate and Islamic Shari'a law over America to its members, according
> > > [...]
>
> > > Read more of this
> > > post<
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
> > >  *barenakedislam<
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> > > * | December 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM | Categories: Islam in
> > > America<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=52721>| URL:
> >http://wp.me/peHnV-DSn
>
> > >   Comment<
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
> > >    See all comments<
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>
> > >   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> > > Subscriptions<
> >http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> > > *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...
> > >     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Naik Dua


Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: “Hanna Montana is the filth of the planet, worse than animals,” says Muslim Brotherhood front group spokesman

I think the important message here,  is that Islam isn't trying to influence Western Society, and has no design to influence or change Western Culture.
 
Just ask PlainOl or any other Ron Paul supporter.   Again,  nothing to see here folks.....Move along.
 


 
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
Anyone have the heart to tell these idiots than Hannah isn't real?

On Dec 20, 7:25 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still keeps her above the sub-semian muzziesheets though.
>
> **
>            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>  "Hanna
> Montana is the filth of the planet, worse than animals," says Muslim
> Brotherhood front group
> spokesman<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>by
> barenakedislam <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
>
> The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), satellite organization of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, deplores Disney and American culture in general. (So,
> how about getting the Hell out of our country? Nobody wants you here
> anyway.) The Islamic Circle of North America(ICNA) is preaching a global
> Caliphate and Islamic Shari'a law over America to its members, according
> [...]
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>  *barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> * | December 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM | Categories: Islam in
> America<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=52721>| URL:http://wp.me/peHnV-DSn
>
>   Comment<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...
>     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Bedbugs and Islam........

And yet,  Uncle Ron and his devout followers still see no threat or nothng wrong with Islam.  No threat there.  Move along folks.....Nothing to see here!
 


 
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:







 

 


Bedbugs and Islam.................

This is GREAT, a MUST watch.
Lots of "food for thought".
If you haven't seen this Brit before, you've missed an extraordinarily erudite speaker.
He is serious when he is funny and he is funny when he is serious.
And, oh boy, is he on point!
This is his latest, and I think the first for 2011.
And he doesn't pull any punches, either! 


      
http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e0896337ec4b/e/m

 

 

 

 





--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: “Hanna Montana is the filth of the planet, worse than animals,” says Muslim Brotherhood front group spokesman

Anyone have the heart to tell these idiots than Hannah isn't real?

On Dec 20, 7:25 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still keeps her above the sub-semian muzziesheets though.
>
> **
>            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>  "Hanna
> Montana is the filth of the planet, worse than animals," says Muslim
> Brotherhood front group
> spokesman<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>by
> barenakedislam <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
>
> The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), satellite organization of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, deplores Disney and American culture in general. (So,
> how about getting the Hell out of our country? Nobody wants you here
> anyway.) The Islamic Circle of North America(ICNA) is preaching a global
> Caliphate and Islamic Shari'a law over America to its members, according
> [...]
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>  *barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> * | December 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM | Categories: Islam in
> America<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=52721>| URL:http://wp.me/peHnV-DSn
>
>   Comment<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/hanna-montana-is-the-f...
>     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: For GOP, It's Paul or Obama

Ron Paul's base will not compromise."
That's because Crazy Uncle Ron's base consists of Crackpots!
 

 
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
"Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise."

For GOP, It's Paul or Obama
Roderick Lovan
Dec 20, 2011

Hi Newt. Welcome to your first meeting as a member of the Former Frontrunner Club. Please have a seat in between Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry. Mr. Cain used to sit there, but he's decided he doesn't want to play anymore. Today we will be discussing how to best deal with the "anti-Romney" stereotype as well as Rick Santorum's request to join the club without possessing the proper credentials.

While that is just a comedic dramatization of the last six months of the GOP race, it's definitely not a dramatization that the Republican Party is begging for anyone but Mitt Romney to step forward. While Romney has certainly held steady at or near the top since the process began, his numbers have been anything but inspiring for likely voters. Virtually everyone not named Huntsman or Santorum has flirted with frontrunner status over the past six months, only to see the numbers crash back down leaving Romney on top again with his paltry 20%. Now, we receive word that Ron Paul, yes Ron Paul, has taken the lead in Iowa. So what does this mean for GOP voters as we approach Iowa and New Hampshire in the coming weeks? Simple. It's Ron Paul or four more years of Obama.

Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise.

Depending on which poll you use, Paul generally comes in somewhere in the high single-digits to the very low double-digits in the national polls. It doesn't sound like much compared to the numbers currently held by the falling Gingrich and the steady Romney, and it certainly doesn't lead one to believe that Paul should be the GOP choice. But when you take that 8-12% of the GOP base away from Romney or whoever becomes the final anti-Romney and put that candidate against the incumbent President, the incumbent President gets four more years 100% of the time. It is simply too much of a handicap to overcome.

Are Ron Paul supporters (or "Paulbots," "Paulites," and "Paulestinians" as they have been derisively called) really that staunch in their support that they would risk four more years of Obama just to make a point that they will not vote for whatever empty suit the GOP pushes out on stage? Unhesitatingly, yes. All you need to do to prove this to yourself is spend some time perusing the comment section of any story about Congressman Paul. His 8-12% belongs to him and him only, even if it means writing his name in on the ballot come November 2012. No other candidate can boast that type of support. The average Romney supporter will drop Mitt in a heartbeat and follow someone else if he doesn't get the GOP nod. In contrast, the typical fervent supporter of Paul is the type of person who truly believes that an establishment GOP candidate won't change the direction of the country anymore than Obama did when he took over for Bush. Thus, in the eyes of a Paulite, a vote for Romney is a vote for continuing the policies of Obama and Bush before him and might as well be a vote for Obama himself. At least with the re-election of Obama, you only have to deal with it as a GOP voter for four more years. If Romney or Gingrich were to win, you're stuck with him for eight. Paulites just won't have anything to do with that.

For the "anyone but Obama" crowd, this is a harsh reality to deal with. Many of them refuse to take a second look at Paul because of reservations about his foreign policy. Many voters are coming around to Paul's message, as evidenced by his rise in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nationally it remains to be seen if this momentum will continue. Will the GOP accept the reality for what it is and throw their support behind Paul, thus giving credibility to their shouts of "anyone but Obama," or will they force the hand of the Paul supporters by pushing out Romney or another GOP suit? If they want the White House they will choose Paul. Otherwise they will live with four more years of Obama and have no one but themselves to blame.

http://voices.yahoo.com/for-gop-its-paul-obama-10713793.html?cat=9

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

For GOP, It's Paul or Obama

"Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise."

For GOP, It's Paul or Obama
Roderick Lovan
Dec 20, 2011

Hi Newt. Welcome to your first meeting as a member of the Former Frontrunner Club. Please have a seat in between Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry. Mr. Cain used to sit there, but he's decided he doesn't want to play anymore. Today we will be discussing how to best deal with the "anti-Romney" stereotype as well as Rick Santorum's request to join the club without possessing the proper credentials.

While that is just a comedic dramatization of the last six months of the GOP race, it's definitely not a dramatization that the Republican Party is begging for anyone but Mitt Romney to step forward. While Romney has certainly held steady at or near the top since the process began, his numbers have been anything but inspiring for likely voters. Virtually everyone not named Huntsman or Santorum has flirted with frontrunner status over the past six months, only to see the numbers crash back down leaving Romney on top again with his paltry 20%. Now, we receive word that Ron Paul, yes Ron Paul, has taken the lead in Iowa. So what does this mean for GOP voters as we approach Iowa and New Hampshire in the coming weeks? Simple. It's Ron Paul or four more years of Obama.

Republican voters may not want to ever admit it, but the stance of voting for "anyone but Obama" regardless of that candidate's history or policy views is as narrow-minded and stubborn as the Democrat Party voters who have had their heads in the sand about President Obama and the fact that his spending sprees and foreign policy have made George W. Bush look judicious. But this is not a debate about the merits and flaws of strict party line voting. It is an allusion to a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to many as the fight for the GOP nomination pushes forward: Ron Paul's base will not compromise.

Depending on which poll you use, Paul generally comes in somewhere in the high single-digits to the very low double-digits in the national polls. It doesn't sound like much compared to the numbers currently held by the falling Gingrich and the steady Romney, and it certainly doesn't lead one to believe that Paul should be the GOP choice. But when you take that 8-12% of the GOP base away from Romney or whoever becomes the final anti-Romney and put that candidate against the incumbent President, the incumbent President gets four more years 100% of the time. It is simply too much of a handicap to overcome.

Are Ron Paul supporters (or "Paulbots," "Paulites," and "Paulestinians" as they have been derisively called) really that staunch in their support that they would risk four more years of Obama just to make a point that they will not vote for whatever empty suit the GOP pushes out on stage? Unhesitatingly, yes. All you need to do to prove this to yourself is spend some time perusing the comment section of any story about Congressman Paul. His 8-12% belongs to him and him only, even if it means writing his name in on the ballot come November 2012. No other candidate can boast that type of support. The average Romney supporter will drop Mitt in a heartbeat and follow someone else if he doesn't get the GOP nod. In contrast, the typical fervent supporter of Paul is the type of person who truly believes that an establishment GOP candidate won't change the direction of the country anymore than Obama did when he took over for Bush. Thus, in the eyes of a Paulite, a vote for Romney is a vote for continuing the policies of Obama and Bush before him and might as well be a vote for Obama himself. At least with the re-election of Obama, you only have to deal with it as a GOP voter for four more years. If Romney or Gingrich were to win, you're stuck with him for eight. Paulites just won't have anything to do with that.

For the "anyone but Obama" crowd, this is a harsh reality to deal with. Many of them refuse to take a second look at Paul because of reservations about his foreign policy. Many voters are coming around to Paul's message, as evidenced by his rise in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nationally it remains to be seen if this momentum will continue. Will the GOP accept the reality for what it is and throw their support behind Paul, thus giving credibility to their shouts of "anyone but Obama," or will they force the hand of the Paul supporters by pushing out Romney or another GOP suit? If they want the White House they will choose Paul. Otherwise they will live with four more years of Obama and have no one but themselves to blame.

http://voices.yahoo.com/for-gop-its-paul-obama-10713793.html?cat=9

Re: Marines help Santa



On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Coach <coachluc1@gmail.com> wrote:
so let me guess, charity work by the Marines is a zionist xian plot to
overthrow the military through toys for tots, right?

On Dec 20, 5:50 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in
> 1995, the Secretary of Defense approved Toys for Tots as an official
> activity of the U. S. Marine Corps and an official mission of the
> Marine
> Corps Reserve:
> ---
> he also released DoD's 1995 base realignment and closure (BRAC) plan,
> recommending 146 actions. He estimated that implementing BRAC 95 would
> bring one-time costs of $3.8 billion and net savings of $4 billion
> within a six-year period.
>
> What could possibly be wrong with this?
> ---
> he could have started with important national defense priorities as
> it's not their job to do charity work
>
> The US military is not a charity organization.
>
> On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Marines have been doing the Toys For Tots campaign since 1948, and in
> > 1995, the Secretary of Defense approved Toys for Tots as an official
> > activity of the U. S. Marine Corps and an official mission of the Marine
> > Corps Reserve:
>
> >http://www.toysfortots.org/about_toys_for_tots/toys_for_tots_program/...
>
> > What could possibly be wrong with this?
>
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > the U.S. Marines that are stationed at the embassy
> > > in Ottawa, the capital of Canada for the geographically challenged,
> > > have
> > > been collecting toys for the local Ronald McDonald house
> > > ---
> > > since when are US marines supposed to be working for a charity
> > > organization?
>
> > > On Dec 20, 12:10 pm, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *for the last few years the U.S. Marines that are stationed at the
> > > embassy
> > > > in Ottawa, the capital of Canada for the geographically challenged, have
> > > > been collecting toys for the local Ronald McDonald house. *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *Even when they are at a soft posting these great guys are still looking
> > > > for ways to help out. *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *Good on 'em *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *Damn cute bunch too. *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *Bear*
> > > > *
> > > > *http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Santa+lands+Ronald+McDonald+House+w.
> > > ..
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Dick Morris Says American Troops Are Not “True Patriots”


Dick Morris Says American Troops Are Not "True Patriots"
Posted on December 20, 2011

"NO TRUE PATRIOT COULD BE FOR RON PAUL" – Dick Morris 12/19/11 on Hannity radio.
by Nick Allison, U.S. Army

Recently, Dick Morris made comments on Sean Hannity's radio show stating that anyone who supports Ron Paul and his campaign is unpatriotic. There's nothing quite like a couple of chickenhawks who never served their country sitting around defining patriotism. While I am not easily offended, I nonetheless found Mr. Morris' statements to be slightly disturbing and seriously hypocritical.

Ron Paul enjoys strong support among members of the military and veterans. He receives more campaign contributions from active duty troops than all of the other Republican candidates combined. Is Dick implying that we, the people who have actually fought in America's wars, are somehow less patriotic than people such as himself simply because we disagree on foreign policy? His remarks have insulted thousands of military personnel and veterans.

The sad part is that Dick has no idea what he is talking about. He has no personal experience on which to base his opinion. You see, Mr. Morris was too much of a coward to put his own ass on the line by volunteering for the military during the Vietnam War. He was twenty years old in 1968- prime fighting age. Some other poor kid fought and died in his place. He should be ashamed of himself. Not for dodging service in Vietnam, mind you, but for espousing his current hawkish attitude toward foreign policy despite his reluctance to serve in his own war. You can talk the talk, Dick, but you never had the balls to walk the walk.

I would like to see him tell a veteran to his face, a soldier or marine- someone who was wounded in Afghanistan, who lost buddies in Iraq, who spent years of his life away from his family, who came home with mental as well a physical scars from fighting an immoral and unnecessary war with one hand tied behind his back with red-tape and bureaucratic bullshit- that he is somehow not a true patriot, simply because he supports Ron Paul for President.

I would like to make it clear that I don't claim to speak for all veterans. I never have. But I do speak for a large and ever-growing number of us. We have fought your dirty little wars. We have killed for our country. Many of us have died. And we don't all share the same views as Dick Morris. And, according to him, this alone makes us "unpatriotic."

Even my brothers who don't necessarily share all of my ideas wouldn't take such an un-American stance as Mr. Morris has in calling anyone, including the members of the military who disagree with him, unpatriotic.

Dick Morris is a coward, a chickenhawk, a disgrace and a hypocrite. His name doesn't even deserve to be mentioned next to the names of the brave men and women who have fought and died for this country, regardless of their political, moral or personal beliefs.

CVRP

Nick Allison served as a squad leader with 1-21 IN, 25th ID, US Army from 2001-2005, including a 14 month combat tour in Northern Iraq. He lives in Austin, TX with his wife, son and two dogs.

nick.cvrp@gmail.com

[]

http://cvrp2012.com/2011/12/20/dick-morris-says-american-troops-are-not-true-patriots/