h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dear TBTPM I like your style, you are unabashed and are not backward in coming forward, you are unashamed to be a voice in a wilderness. I'd like to put a question to you, as a person who has served in the armed forces and in law enforcement, do you think that the National guards and reserve forces of the US Military are enough to meet the present military threats to the United States?
I ask this because the 2nd amemndment to a me (and indeed the drafters of the constitution) mitigates for the provision of a fedral armed force because of the 2nd ammendment. This is probab
ly just a stupid idea, but i would like to know your thoughts on the subject

Thanks for all the nice things.

I think we're stretched severely. I think our force structure needs to be expanded. The military is bloated. I think we could increase the number of combat brigades or divisions without a huge increase in end strength. President Bush's drawdown was short sighted.

I think it's critical that we get two more divisions or six separate brigades up and running. If we need to employ force against a nation not in the Iraqi theater, we'll be too stretched and have to send in a few active troops along with National Guard troops who haven't had the time they're supposed to have to train up.

As the war on terror moves continues, I think there should be a firm commitment from the Pentagon to rotate entire units in and out of combat zones every six months. We're in a long campaign, and I think that soldiers need the time with their families. This isn't a war where we can send people for the duration. The duration could be decades.

I don't really see a second amendment issue in the War on Terror. We haven't had terrorism in this country to the extend that we would need the populace armed against it. Israel is in that situation. We aren't. The main purpose of the second amendment is the same now as it was when it was at the outset. It is the ultimate check on our government.

I don't think we'll be invaded nor do I think we'll ever need to have citizens armed against terrorism.

That's my take on it. I don't know if I totally understood where you were coming from in reference to the second amendment.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redcomedy/message/173

any comments

I can't see it. What does it say?

try for most of the other link http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=452972

Interesting.

So if you buy this Cathy Cox, our democrat Secretary of State may have cost the election of an unpopular liberal governor and senator by buying republican biased voting machines. That's cute.

First off, Georgia is a very conservative state. We voted for President Bush by a wide margin. I don't think Georgia has voted for a democrat for president since our former governor, Jimmy Carter. Governor Barnes forced unpopular items like the flag down through the legislature. Senator Cleland was very liberal. [F56377?thread=221710]

There was a recent study done that showed that voting machines are less accurate than punch cards.

Of course, the old punch cards were perfectly easy to use. Any person with a room temperature IQ could use them without a problem. It's just that those people seem to have been the deciding factor in the Florida vote. The computers were seemed fairly straight forward. I didn't have a problem, but others did. I remember one lady who nearly broke down in tears because of something she did to the machine. I think she pressed the vote button when she meant to push the review button.

In the end, I'm a little confused who is tampering with stuff. Is it our democrat Secretary of State? Is it the Candian/republican programmer?

I don't know. Could it be a massive conspiracy of republican held companies? Maybe. I'm reminded of the liberal bias in most of the US mainstream media. They're almost all owned by conservatives. Yet, the only place the bias shows is on FoxNews and Rupert Murdoch's outlets.

After reading the entire article, I do have questions. I suspect bias on the part of the author. It was relentlessly negative, which makes me suspicious. I think it would be funny if Cathy Cox inadvertently threw the election in 2002. I think it may be time to step back and look at the solutions that we're imposing. Big government rarely helps anything, I don't see why we would think that it would help fix it's own problems.

I don't think it is a question of bias.

real issues of voting transparency were raised by the article, do you not think? not to mention that the rules regarding certification of voting equipment were apparently ignored...

I do not thing it is a question of voting fraud but a question of ability to disprove such allegations...

It brings up serious questions. It strikes me as extremely negative.

I think we should go back to the punch cards uuntil someone can up with something better. Floridians who are too stupid to vote properly would just have to live with it.

I won't argue about the fact there was a political slant to the article but above that like you I did think it raised some impotent issues

Is your issue with the flag because it was the old flag or because it was a confederate falg?

That plus the flag was an eyesore. Mostly because of the way Governor Barnes forced it through the legislature with almost no debate and strong arm tactics.

This is a controversial subject here. It's something that deserved some debate. I think it should have been decided by referendum.

Governor Perdue promised that we could have a vote to return to the southern cross version, but he has reneged, and now the choice is between his flag and Governor Barnes' flag.

Personally, I'm going to vote for our latest flag. It's a beautiful flag, and I'll be happy with it.