Betting each-way.

[equicom]

Goldman Sachs contributed $653,030 to Obama's campagin. They also contributed $208,395 to McCain's campaign.

JP Morgan contributed $414,760 to Obama's campaign and $179,975 to McCain's.

It just seems so.... so wrong.

Even more astonishing is that the US Army donated money to the Republican party. How on earth is it even remotely possible that a public service organization that your tax dollars are funding is able to donate money to a political party? It's not the sort of thing that is supposed to happen in a democracy.

[NJ Stinks]

equicom, that's a good question. A fair question.

Now be ready to duck (it won't be coming from the left!:) )

[PaceAdvantage]

equicom, that's a good question. A fair question.

Now be ready to duck (it won't be coming from the left!:) )Actually, you've thrown the first punch here with this silly closing line. Be ready to duck from what? A retort to your nonsense?

You see, the left dominates off-topic, as evidenced by this post from NJ Stinks. Another boring instigator.

[PaceAdvantage]

Even more astonishing is that the US Army donated money to the Republican party. How on earth is it even remotely possible that a public service organization that your tax dollars are funding is able to donate money to a political party? It's not the sort of thing that is supposed to happen in a democracy.I don't understand your line of thinking.

First off, the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. The people elect representatives from each state who then make policy and laws on their behalf.

With that out of the way, why shouldn't the US Army be able to donate money to a political party, when helping said political party may benefit them more than another party? Obviously, it would seem that Democrats are intent on downsizing the military somewhat in order to pay for their programs (Obama has stated this in one way or another on more than one occasion), while Republicans are more likely not to downsize the military, which means more jobs and more money for the folks in the US Army.

What does being a democracy or not have to do with this? If we were a pure democracy, then the people could conceivably vote to allow the US Army to donate to whatever party they wish. Would you then argue that this should not happen in a democracy?

[JustRalph]

Even more astonishing is that the US Army donated money to the Republican party. How on earth is it even remotely possible that a public service organization that your tax dollars are funding is able to donate money to a political party?

I didn't know the Army could donate? Where do you get that info?

Calling the U.S. Army a "Public service organization" is the funniest thing I have read in a few days............ :lol:

[equicom]

I don't understand your line of thinking.

With that out of the way, why shouldn't the US Army be able to donate money to a political party, when helping said political party may benefit them more than another party?

Let's not bother with the other part of your question for now unless you really think it is important, but to briefly cover it, the interference by the military in governmental matters is a cause of deep concern in many parts of the world, and I really do think that it should be in America too (even though I guess a coup is very unlikely at the moment... then again, you never really know!).

Look, the thing is, the Army is a public service. It receives money from the government in the form of taxes to do a job. They can buy as many $500 hammers as they want, that's OK, but they definitely should not be making donations with the money that is entrusted to them... simply because it is not their money, it is yours.

Government agencies are not supposed to do this kind of thing. If it were the welfare office making donations to Obama, how would you feel about that? And more importantly, how would the leftists feel about that? Because in both cases (the army giving to the republicans and the welfare giving to the dems) they are not spending the money on what it was given to them for, and therefore ultimately undermining their mission (to provide defense for the nation or to provide welfare to the needy).

If Obama gets elected, that effectively puts him in the role of Commander in Chief. The military is not there to serve itself, it is there to serve the nation. If Obama is in charge, he represents the nation, and therefore the military is obliged to do what is asked of it by the "nation". If that includes downsizing, then so be it. It is not the role of the army to serve itself, which basically it is doing if it is acting in its own best interests. No government department should ever do that.

When government departments start exercising that kind of independent decision making, you have a borderline situation (whether it is officially acknowledged or not) that is only one step away from a dictatorship.

Public money is public money, and should never be used for private purposes, such as trying to ensure the continuance or survival of a government agency. Because essentially it is not their army and not their money. It is the nation's money and the nation's army.


*Edit*

Just to clarify a point... the OP was neither anti-army or anti-republican. It was anti-misuse of public funds. And also pointing out the problem of corporations trying to bribe both sides of government (well, OK, we're not supposed to say it is a bribe, but uh.... well.... I'm sure those "donations" are very much appreciated).

[jonnielu]

I don't understand your line of thinking.

First off, the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. The people elect representatives from each state who then make policy and laws on their behalf.

With that out of the way, why shouldn't the US Army be able to donate money to a political party, when helping said political party may benefit them more than another party? Obviously, it would seem that Democrats are intent on downsizing the military somewhat in order to pay for their programs (Obama has stated this in one way or another on more than one occasion), while Republicans are more likely not to downsize the military, which means more jobs and more money for the folks in the US Army.

What does being a democracy or not have to do with this? If we were a pure democracy, then the people could conceivably vote to allow the US Army to donate to whatever party they wish. Would you then argue that this should not happen in a democracy?

Happy to see that there are still people that know America to be a republic and not a democracy.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Let's not bother with the other part of your question for now unless you really think it is important, but to briefly cover it, the interference by the military in governmental matters is a cause of deep concern in many parts of the world, and I really do think that it should be in America too (even though I guess a coup is very unlikely at the moment... then again, you never really know!).

Look, the thing is, the Army is a public service. It receives money from the government in the form of taxes to do a job. They can buy as many $500 hammers as they want, that's OK, but they definitely should not be making donations with the money that is entrusted to them... simply because it is not their money, it is yours.

Government agencies are not supposed to do this kind of thing. If it were the welfare office making donations to Obama, how would you feel about that? And more importantly, how would the leftists feel about that? Because in both cases (the army giving to the republicans and the welfare giving to the dems) they are not spending the money on what it was given to them for, and therefore ultimately undermining their mission (to provide defense for the nation or to provide welfare to the needy).

If Obama gets elected, that effectively puts him in the role of Commander in Chief. The military is not there to serve itself, it is there to serve the nation. If Obama is in charge, he represents the nation, and therefore the military is obliged to do what is asked of it by the "nation". If that includes downsizing, then so be it. It is not the role of the army to serve itself, which basically it is doing if it is acting in its own best interests. No government department should ever do that.

When government departments start exercising that kind of independent decision making, you have a borderline situation (whether it is officially acknowledged or not) that is only one step away from a dictatorship.

Public money is public money, and should never be used for private purposes, such as trying to ensure the continuance or survival of a government agency. Because essentially it is not their army and not their money. It is the nation's money and the nation's army.


*Edit*

Just to clarify a point... the OP was neither anti-army or anti-republican. It was anti-misuse of public funds. And also pointing out the problem of corporations trying to bribe both sides of government (well, OK, we're not supposed to say it is a bribe, but uh.... well.... I'm sure those "donations" are very much appreciated).

It is not the army of the public, it is the army of the federal jurisdiction. The federal jurisdiction is authorized by you to do whatever they feel like doing, as long as they don't do it to you.

That is how the federal jurisdiction goes to foreign lands to kill people on your behalf.

Of course, doing it to you too has been okay with you for many years, so why should the federal jurisdiction think that you care what they do with your money when you keep giving it to them.

Don't expect any politician to throw the brakes on the gravy train, if it happens you will have to do it, just check human history.

jdl

[equicom]

It is not the army of the public, it is the army of the federal jurisdiction.

Nope. You're wrong. Look at the oath that every soldier is required to take. You will see that they are there to serve America, not "the federal jurisdiction". I don't think that is even written up as you have presented it. Their job is to defend Americans and the national interest, nothing more & nothing less.

They certainly don't have carte blanche. Or at least that's not how things are supposed to be.

[PaceAdvantage]

Their job is to defend Americans and the national interest, nothing more & nothing less.The Army just doesn't go around willy nilly trying to defend America and the national interest. They take orders, most importantly from the President. Their job is to follow orders, basically.

Anyway, you do bring up some solid points as to why perhaps they shouldn't be contributing money to various political parties. Thanks for the reply.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Were these donations from the organizations and the Army, or employees/members of these organizations?

[equicom]

They take orders, most importantly from the President. Their job is to follow orders, basically.

That is correct. I certainly was not saying that the Army was bad, but I do think whoever made that faulty decision to donate the money should be made to explain the action to the American public. It was done very quietly too, since many don't seem to have been aware of it previously.

I wonder if you knew that in certain circumstances the Army is permitted to disobey a presidential order (for that matter, I wonder if the President knows that?). Very exceptional circumstances, I might add. But it is still possible.

[equicom]

Were these donations from the organizations and the Army, or employees/members of these organizations?

Well, that's really the point. If a general or something decided to donate money from his own funds, or even to encourage others to do the same, that is perfectly legitimate and acceptable.

But when that same general treats the Army's money as his own, then that is a very different scenario.

The officially listed donor is "The United States Army", so it's unlikely to be made up of individual contributions, because in that case it should more correctly be listed as "Soldiers and Officers of the United States Army".

[Tom]

What is the US Army supposed to do?


Whatever the HELL it feels like doing! You gonna stand in it's way?:lol::lol::lol:

[equicom]

The mission of the US Army, according to it's Chief of Staff is:


The Army's primary mission is to provide necessary forces and capabilities to the Combatant Commanders in support of the National Security and Defense Strategies. We have more than 300,000 Soldiers deployed or forward stationed today to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war and to deter aggression, while securing the homeland. We are fighting today while simultaneously preparing for tomorrow.


A little later on he says:


The Army is dependent upon the resources requested in the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget, coupled with emergency supplemental appropriations, to support current operations. These funds will also enable the force to recover from the stress placed on equipment and Soldiers during combat and continually "reset" itself for future deployments. Moreover, these resources are required to continue to transform the Army into a larger, more powerful force built on self-sufficient brigade-based modules.


So what we can see from this is that the Army, as part of its mission, is required (and even desires) to use funds to sustain, build, and improve itself.

Ultimately, the Army is a military organization, not a political one. It's job, in part, is to enforce the political will of the country, not to influence the political will.

Furthermore we must never forget that America is a nation born out of rebellion, not mindless conformity. The idea that when a government agency or department oversteps its bounds that the people are powerless and can do nothing is against the American ideal. It is not only the right, but indeed the duty, of Americans to act when they become aware of something that is not right.

Unfortunately the culture that is evolving at the micro level is affecting how people view what happens at the macro level. The generally adopted policy these days is that "one does not get involved". For example, if a 70 year old man is flattened in a hit-and-run incident, nobody reacts, even to the extent of calling 911.

This is partly what PA was referring to in his other post about the decline of religion/morality and the degradation of society. There was a time when the vast majority of Americans were a proud and noble people. A nation of optimists with the courage to make a seemingly impossible dream become a reality.

Unfortunately since the invention of television (and perhaps to a lesser extent, radio) all that has slowly but surely changed, and so now the courageous American nobility has been eroded most alarmingly.

See that post (PA's "Question about religion") for a more detailed explanation.

[Tom]

The nuts are falling early this year.

[equicom]

This is typical of you Tom. You post these little one-line comments that have no real substance to them. What was the point of that comment? If you want to say something like that, you shold elaborate on specifically what points you are attacking. Otherwise you just come across as shallow and fartified.

[jonnielu]

Nope. You're wrong. Look at the oath that every soldier is required to take. You will see that they are there to serve America, not "the federal jurisdiction". I don't think that is even written up as you have presented it. Their job is to defend Americans and the national interest, nothing more & nothing less.

They certainly don't have carte blanche. Or at least that's not how things are supposed to be.

They take an oath to defend the Constitution, just like their commander-in-chief does. The Army of the United States, became the United States Army in 1948 I believe. You might want to check on whether or not the public (people) has an Army.

jdl

[Tom]

If you want to say something like that, you shold elaborate on specifically what points you are attacking.

Any that you make. :D

[equicom]

The government pays for it. The government, at least in theory, is the government of the people. Therefore anything paid for by the government that is not in the private sector is public property. That does not of course give you the right to carry out an inspection of the troops, but it does mean that there are rules governing the conduct of the Army, just as there are for any other public service.

If you feel, as an American, that you are not entitled to have a say in the way that the Army spends the money allocated to it, then all I can say is that America is in a whole mess of trouble if everyone else thinks the same way.

All governmental agencies and departments should be accountable to the public, because it is the public who provides for their existence.

[equicom]

Any that you make. :D

If anybody fails to see the childishness of that statement, I will be really surprised. You need to learn to not make things personal. If you disagree with something I say, then by all means you can argue the point. But you should not have a go at something I say just because I said it.

Furthermore, once you make it personal, you're taking the whole argument down to the level of trolling, and I am quite surprised that PA doesn't get a bit stricter on trolling.

I am not in favor of censorship, and I see a lot of the name calling and banter as harmless, nor do I take your cumudgeony rants very seriously, but I also think there is some call for you to take a more mature approach when debating serious matters.

There's a very fine line we tread between giving somebody a friendly dig in the ribs and publically insulting them with the intention of discrediting them. When you are wrong, I will say so. If I am wrong, then step up and say and if you can prove your point then I will concede with good grace.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy a good mutual mass-debating session just as much as you do, the difference is that I try not to let things get messy. You have a tendency to just spray without thinking of who you might hurt in the process.

[Tom]

You mean stuff like this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Then there's the birds of a feather phenomena.



Certainly is, if you're jumping on that other guy's bandwaggon. Or did you miss the bit where I proved I was right and he was wrong? Maybe you could ask whichever grown-up is reading this to you to read it a little slower, so you can follow along more easily.

[equicom]

No because I am referring to your nonsensical and unfunny one-liners.

I didn't say that I would never take a swipe at someone. But I would never make an unprovoked attack upon somebody, or attempt to discredit them without offering an explanation.

In the example you quoted above, I was very specific about what I was referring to. And yes, I truly believe he needed somebody to read it to him a little slower, because obviously he wasn't getting it.

I know you're not an idiot Tom, but quite a lot of the time your posts do not make the cut.

[Tom]

Gee, I thought "Any that you make" was very direct and to the point.
Where exactly did I lose you?

[equicom]

OK, I can see the problem here... it's not just a matter of being "to the point", there is a science to this posting stuff.

If you make a critical post in response to another post and you happen to say what it is that you're critiquing, that is an argument, debate, legitimate gripe, etc.

On the other hand, if your sole reason for posting the comment is because of the identity of the person who made the OP, regardless of the content, or if you're just trying to generally attack another person repeatedly and without just cause, then that is a flame.

Now, I don't know what it is that makes you think you need to attack me, but I can tell you it's not brainy or smart or whatever it is you think it is. If you don't want it to be a waste of everyone's time, you need to at least be entertaining with your insults.

I've told you before. Insults need to cut deeply. They shouldn't be like a whiny annoying mosquito, they should be more like a rhinocerous horn to the perenium.

You fail to make the grade as an insulter, and therefore your insults just make you look like a pathetic loser. Work harder at it. Or give up. But don't just keep on being that whiny mosquito... have some ambition for gosh sakes.

[Tom]

Your horse is better looking than you are.

[equicom]

You won't get any argument from me on that.