| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
That's what counts! I started out olive drab "ike" jackets and cardavan boots. I cant use the name we called the hats. Then it was black boots, a lot of guys needed to buy them, because while dyed boots were legal, they were sort of frowned upon,Then it was fatique hats. The issue ones didn't look "sharp" so you bought your own. I doubt the pres. had much to do with those changes.
Senior Member
It's just smoke and mirrors people,smoke and mirrors. Our economy is in the crapper and Ovomitcare isn't rolling out too smoothly. Let's create a diversion to confuse the minions.
Senior Member
just another Obama hater, nitpicking at Obama and like all the other untrue stories about the President. by now you guys should know that, if President Obama wants something done, he don't try to do it, he does it.
MILITARY & DEFENSEMore: Military Defense Obama
The Story About Obama Wanting Marines To Wear 'Girly' Hats Is Total B.S.
PAUL SZOLDRA OCT. 24, 2013, 4:28 PM 38,163 55
inShare1
MORE
http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...girly-caps.pngNY Post
There's a big story getting passed around in military circles and beyond from The New York Post that President Obama wants the Marines to start wearing 'girly' caps.The Post writer, Jeane MacIntosh, writes of a "plan by President Obama to create a 'unisex' look for the Corps, officials are on the verge of swapping out the Marines’ iconic caps – known as 'covers' — with a new version that some have derided as so 'girly' that they would make the French blush."
As a Marine veteran who knows how these changes actually happen, I can tell you the story is 100% B.S. The bottom line: The President doesn't involve himself in what troops happen to be wearing.
But just to make sure, I called Headquarters Marine Corps and a spokesperson confirmed that the process for making changes to Marine uniforms hasn't changed since I last left the service in 2010.
Every year, a board (made up of senior enlisted Marines) meets and goes over things that they may want to change with uniforms. In 2007 for example, the board made a change that outlawed "sleeve" tattoos — and I don't remember thinking that was all President George W. Bush's fault.
"The President in no way, shape, or form directed the Marine Corps to change our uniform cover," said Capt. Maureen Krebs, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps. "We're looking for a new cover for our female Marines for the primary reason that the former manufacturer went out of business. The Marine Corps has zero intention of changing the male cover."
If there's someone to blame about a change in a uniform, the buck would stop at Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos, who has the final say.
To clarify, I made sure to ask whether President Obama had suddenly joined the uniform board of the Marine Corps.
"Not that I know of, but that would certainly be newsworthy," Krebs said.
There's plenty of things to nitpick with the Obama administration, but this isn't even close to one of them.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...#ixzz2ixi9QThF
Senior Member
I guess this is just one more reason the right wing is behind the eight ball, instead of grabbing at just any straw they can find to try and discredit the president (who is there for a few more years regardless of what they would like to happen) they need to figure out how to dump the so called (tea party) and put their house back in order.
Senior Member
You mean that nobody cared to check it out? It was just bull crap? How could fox news do something like that!
Senior Member
I read the story on MSNBC NOT on Fox. It was also on other news sources as well.
It is a proposal by Barry it is not law yet. I forgot people like Hill like to spend money at what ever, spend it on hats, gloves awe Hell lets get some new shoes to we don't need. This I know for sure I bet their is less than a thousand people in the USMC that doesn't hate the ground that idiot walks on, wanna look that one up to, lol...
Your Messiah is a failure, a hack, a wannabe pure and simple. He will go down as the worst American President in history and YOU voted for him twice, yep we right wingers we are the stupid ones, lmao....
Senior Member
Senior Member
I layed patio pavers most of the day Saturday, and filled the joints with Polymeric sand. it's had around 30 hours to set up, now it's raining outside. I know the good Lord lets it rain on us all, but if I was like some folks, I would just ASSUME Obama did it, he made it rain on my patio. that rascal
Senior Member
Well we can al;l tell who the Obama Nudge Squad people are on this forum,I guess you'll deny that Obama pays Liars to sway opinion too? Anyone who supports Obama is an enemy top Christianity,so unless you are talking about your Allah,quit using God's name in a lie .Originally Posted by waterdog101
Senior Member
The biggest enemy Christianity faces is those who claim the name of Jesus but don't apply his teachings or those of Scripture. God is a sovereign God; hate to tell you this, but it's not like God campaigned against Obama and came up short. Every ruler in every country reigns because God put them there to suit his purposes:
• "There is no authority except from God" (Romans 13:1).
• "Submit yourselves to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him" (1 Peter 2:13-14).
• "And it is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings" (Daniel 2:21).
That doesn't mean for one second that what those rulers do, or don't do, pleases God. His ways are not our ways. Nor does it mean we forfeit our right to challenge laws that go against our faith. But it does require us to deal with conflict in a Christ-like manner. Oh yeah, while loving our enemies, we love to forget that one.
Christians should pray for all our leaders, including President Obama. God cares a lot more about how we respond to our neighbor than how we respond towards our political leaders.
Senior Member
http://larouchepac.com/node/10305
Soros Sponsored the Genocide Agenda Which Orszag Now Proposes
May 19, 2009 • 10:16AM
Led by Budget Director Peter Orszag and chief economic advisor Lawrence Summers, the Obama Administration is demanding trillions of dollars be cut from health care for the elderly, the poor, and the sick, as lives not worth preserving.
Billionaire British imperial agent George Soros, infamous as head of the global narcotics lobby, was a main sponsor and shaper of the recent years' campaign to gain acceptance for the euthanasia agenda now thrust forward by the Administration.
Soros spelled out his genocide campaign in a speech at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, on Nov. 30, 1994. He described the "Project on Death in America" which he was about to launch, and which would be based at that hospital/medical school.
In this speech, Soros stated his companion goals of legalizing narcotics, and ending life-saving medical care for the elderly and other useless eaters. He made clear the moral premise of his euthanasia policy, by explaining how he killed his mother. And he stated exactly how he intended to subvert and overthrow the American commitment to saving human lives, by inflitrating his own paid and trained agents throughout the nation's medical education centers.
Terminating Mom
In his 1994 New York speech, Soros said that he offered to help his mother kill herself, but she refused, and when she was unconscious, he withdrew food from her, and she died about a week later.
As he put it, his mother "had joined the Hemlock Society and had at hand a means of doing away with herself. I asked her if she needed my help; I offered it, although I wasn't particularly keen to do it. But I would have helped her because I felt that I owed it to her. At the point of decision, however, she did not want to take her own life."
He continued, "She lost consciousness and lingered for another seven to ten days before dying.... We weren't forced by lack of financial resources to put her into a hospital where medical intervention may well have kept her much longer in a state of limbo between living and dying. Just by giving her food, the process could have been unnecessarily prolonged."
Terminating Medicine
Soros attacked the concept of treating disease and saving lives. If patients die sooner, it will save resources. Families should be able to kill patients, he stressed, even without the patients' consent:
"This emphasis on treating disease, instead of providing care, has altered the practice of medicine. People live longer, surviving four or five illnesses before dying. But the health care bill grows with every illness. Our success has also brought other unintended consequences. We have created a medical culture that is so intent on curing disease and prolonging life that it fails to provide support in that inevitable phase of life — death. Advances in high technology interventions have contributed to this weakness in our medical system, deluding doctors and patients alike into believing that the inevitable can be delayed almost indefinitely.... We should consider laws that permit next of kin to decide to forgo life sustaining medical interventions even when a patient's wishes are not known. The government may have to help family members financially so that they can take care of dying persons at home by the least expensive means. Aggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient's wishes, are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.... [With] physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia ... I cannot but approve. But I must emphasize that I am speaking in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the Board of the Project on Death in America."
How would the Project rapidly spread a culture of death?
Soros laid it out: "The first major program is to establish a number of faculty scholarships. We hope to identify outstanding faculty and clinicians who are committed to the Project's goals and to support them in their work of developing new models for the care of the dying and new approaches to the education of health professionals about the care of dying patients and their families. The scholars ... will become the academic leaders on this issue, the role models, and mentors to future generations of health professionals.... In three years we will have a leader and role model in place in one-fourth of the country's medical schools."
The Soros Project on Death in America (PDIA) immediately took the lead in a partnernship with the Robert Wood Johnson foundation and others to promote euthanasia, assisted suicide, doping in place of curing, etc. As the Project itelf explained, "In 1995 the PDIA joined forces with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Office, and the Commonwealth Fund to form Grantmakers Concerned with Care at the End of Life."
Nine years after the Project's startup, the Boston Globe reported (Nov. 9, 2003) the results: "The Project on Death in America, financed by billionaire George Soros and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, poured more than $200 million over the last decade into end-of-life programs and research."
A typical public policy discussion of this Soros-led enterprise was the March 12, 1996 conference of the "Last Act" organization, in Arlington, Virginia, with three Soros-paid speakers, Kathleen Foley, Michelle Ervin, and Barbara Koenig. The meeting was designed around strategy proposals by the founder of the Hastings Center, Daniel Callahan, including this gem:
"Establish working relationships with educators in secondary school systems, particularly those who teach family life or health, aimed at making the vocabulary of death and dying more natural." The example used was the Soros-funded "Grief at School Program."
We note that today, Peter Orszag and his entourage are intimately attached to the same Hastings Center for euthansia action.
Did Dope Dollars Foot the Bill?
The narcotics reference in the Soros 1994 speech raises the question: Has the Soros death agenda been financed by proceeds from drug trafficking?
He stated that "our actions have unintended consequences. Nowhere are they more glaring than in the war on drugs. By treating drug abuse as a crime we have created crime, corruption and violence which are much more destructive than drug abuse by itself."
This November 1994 speech, kicking off the euthanasia campaign, came only three months after a $70-$80 million personal investment by Soros had completed the half-billion-dollar takeover by Soros and his henchmen, the Gilinski family, of the Banco de Colombia and the Eagle National Bank of Miami. These two, the Columbian parent and the U.S. subsidiary, were identified by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration as two of the world's main conduits for dope money laundering. The chairman of the Soros Banco de Colombia, Jaime Gilinski, has been nailed in qualified Russian and Canadian counterterror reports for using billions in cocaine revenue to buy up Russian resort properties, trading cocaine for automatic weapons and surface-to-air missiles that went to narcoterrorists inside Colombia.
Thus, in his 1994 New York address, Soros coldly propounded the two halves of the genocide agenda: euthansia, and the doping of the population to accept its own death.
Senior Member
Man I LOVE that stuff. I used it on my patio out front..........REALLY LOCKS the pavers in, and really helps eliminate weeds, etc, etc.
Later,
Geo
Posting Permissions
