Josh Sledge's Comments
Page 1 of 19  first | prev | next 
Jul 23, 2009 | comments: 191
in reply to a comment by Richard B.
Josh Sledge Jul 26, 2009, 11:44am EDT
rascist unfortunantly come in all colors my friend. There are as many if not more black and brown rascist as there are white rascist in this country. For every redneck with a confederate flag on his pickup truck there is militant member of the Nation screaming "death to whitey." Let's hate all rascist not just the one's who are white.
Jul 23, 2009 | comments: 191
in reply to a comment by Wil B.
Josh Sledge Jul 26, 2009, 11:34am EDT
Wil B. no one is upset that there president is black, there upset that he is lieing, manipulative, inexperienced, piece of filth! There are plenty of black and brown men and women who would have made good presidents. Barack Hussein Obama, however, is not one of them.

Alan Keyes would have been a good president, Bobby Jendal would have also been a good president, even Colin Powell would have had experience for the job. There is nouthing wrong for calling the president of the United States out for what he truly is. Furthermore it is odd that he continues to hide his birth cirtificate. What does he have to hide from the public anyway?

“I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!” I hope your angry Wil B! This is the voice of a woman who is conscious of the ineptitude of her president, of the scum and vermin that he truly is! Not because he is black, but because he lacks character, something that people like MLK taught America to look for in the souls of men.

You and the rest of your ACLU nazis, live in the wrong country my friend, we are going to take it back, and this time were going to play for keeps. I'm glad your a member of the ACLU, because its scum like you that motivate me to stay in law school so I can someday make it to court to crush people like you. It's you who should be ashamed about race mongering and throughing around the race card, not the average red blooded American who is furious about what is happening to their beloved country.
Jul 23, 2009 | comments: 191
in reply to a comment by Rude D.
Josh Sledge Jul 26, 2009, 11:20am EDT
Obama just bankrupted the nation and is about to destroy health care as we no it. I would say his administration is already a failure and it has been a little more than a hundred days into his first term. Obama quandrupled the deficit! Bush spent like a liberal, but he did not burden future generations with debt slavery, Obama did.
Jul 26, 2009 | comments: 21
Josh Sledge Jul 26, 2009, 11:06am EDT
You forgot to list Barack Hussein Obama, Osama bin Laden, Nancy Palosi in your list of dicks.

That said, Palin is stupid. I'm a die hard conservative, but I would never vote for her. I don't understand why she left office as governor, she doesn't have a chance as a political candidate, not because she is a woman but because she seems to lack any common sense of information about important political issues. I blame Sarah Palin for the huge defeat the Republicans had last November. I think if we had had a reasonable running mate for McCain, i.e. Mitt Romney we still might have lost but not near as bad as what actually happened. Sarah Palin deserves not place in politics, I hope that's something we can all agree upon whether you are a conservative or a liberal.
Jul 20, 2009 | comments: 10
in reply to a comment by Brain W.
Josh Sledge Jul 21, 2009, 1:39pm EDT
Brain W. how does examining the facts make me a right wing nut or a fascist? Furthermore do you even know what fascism actually is? You don't... I'm not surprised.

As far as historical revisionism goes, how have I revised or distorted history. The U.S. military won the war in the Phillipines against rebels in the mountains. This is a historical fact, it is not an incorrect interpretation of history as you claim. The U.S. won by instituting successful COIN operations. You don't even know what that means do you? COIN operations mean Counterinsurgency Operations, the term was created by General Patraeus.

Here is a description of the conflict:

As early 1899, U.S. and Filipino forces faced off as a tense situation became worse. American forces held the capitol of Manila, while Aguinaldo's army occupied a trench-line surrounding the city. On the evening of February 4, 1899, Private William Grayson of the Nebraska Volunteers fired the first shot in what would turn out to be a very bloody war. Grayson shot at a group of Filipinos approaching his position, provoking an armed response. Shooting soon spread up and down the ten-mile U.S.-Filipino lines, causing hundreds of casualties. Upon the outbreak of hostilities, U.S. troops, supported by shelling from Admiral Dewey's fleet, quickly overwhelmed the Filipino positions while inflicting thousands of casualties. Within days, American forces spread outward from Manila, using superior firepower, mobile artillery and command of the sea to full effect.

By November of 1899, Aguinaldo and his forces had been pushed further and further into central Luzon (the main Philippine island) and he realized he could not fight the Americans with conventional military units. At this point, he ordered his followers to turn to guerilla tactics to combat the American army. From this point on, the war became a savage, no-holds-barred guerilla conflict made up of ambushes, massacres and retribution. Both sides engaged in wanton violence and slaughter. Villages were destroyed, civilians murdered, prisoners tortured and mutilated along with a host of other atrocities. Many American officers and non-coms had served in the Indian Wars, and thus applied the old belief that "the only good Indian was a dead Indian" to their relations with the Filipinos. This attitude of course was reciprocated by the native forces.

Emilio Aguinaldo was captured in March, 1902, and organized opposition from his followers soon faded. Despite the official end to hostilities proclaimed on July 4, 1902, individual tribes in Luzon and the Muslim Moros of the southern islands launched further uprisings for another decade or so.

American won the conflict, end of story! Great Britian also won the Boar War against the Afrikaners in South Africa! These are all facts, it is not revisionism, although I suspect that these are historical facts that you do not want to admit to, because like every other liberal I have met you are pacifist, a defeatist, and an un-patriotic welp! If you were a true student of history and politics you would realize that America has never fought a war that it could not win, even Vietnam was winnable if we had been willing to sacrifice enough money and enough human life to the conflict. Why don't you just come out and say what you really think, you just don't want to fight this war because you don't see the point in it and you don't grasp the importance of the struggle against Islamic-fundamentalism!

Brain W. The Patriot Act is not an affront to democracy! Has the patriot act ever inhibited your right to vote? No. By definition, "democracy" is the rule of the people. Democracy entails citizens, people like you and me electing their representatives in government. The Patriot Act never stopped anyone from going to the ballot box last November, so your silly contention that it is an affront to democracy is wrong and only serves as a crude Orwellian rhetorical devise to hide your discontent with the substance of the legislation.

Brain unless you have Osama bin Laden's cell phone number in your phone or a Colombian drug lord you have nouthing to worry about. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand.
Jul 20, 2009 | comments: 10
in reply to a comment by Jim Marshall
Josh Sledge Jul 21, 2009, 6:08am EDT
I guess you have not read the Army/Marine Corps manuel on counter-insurgency written by General Patraeus. Counter-insurgency operations are winnable, but they take considerably more resources to achieve victory than a traditional large scale conflict. In a counter-insurgency operation, winning the hearts and minds of the people is the first objective. This is accomplished by providing them with a stable government capable of giving the people basic social services and access to essential resources needed for daily life. Our military needs to be equiped for nation building operations instead of convential conflicts. Counter-insurgency operations are won or lost by building schools and providing communities with potable sources of water instead of racking up an impressive body count.

Obama is not incorrect in escalating the war in Afghanistan! I actually support his policies in this particular area. The United States needs more boots on the ground to aggressively counter the Taliban/Al-Qaeda forces in the southern region of the country. Afghanistan needs time to forge a strong government capable of crushing the Islamic fundamentalist militants in the country side. One of the mistakes our government made after the Soviet-Afghan War was not providing the needed financial support required to rebuild the infastructure of government and civil society that had been destroyed by the conflict.

The Patriot Act is not an attack on civil liberties! Unless you are calling an Afghan warlord or possibly a Colombian drug lord on your cellphone you have nouthing to worry about. The Patriot Act has only been used against citizens in a non-terrorism related event only once. The courts found that the Patriot Act could not be utilized to prosecute common criminals.

As far as torture goes, enhanced interrogation is technically not torture. Enhanced interrogation exist in a grey area of international and domestic law. Detainees are not Prisoners of War, because they are not fighting in defense of a recognized nation-state. They therefore do not fall under protection of the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, these men have never been exposed to questionable techniques of interoggation inside the legal jurisdiction of the United States.

"military history any guerrilla war is unwinnable by the invading or occupying power."

This is simply not true! The United States won a guerrilla war against rebels in the Phillipines. The British won wars against guerrilla forces in both South Africa and Malaysa. The Colombian government is currently winning a war against FARC, despite the fact that the rebels are well financed by the international drug trade. Shri Lanka has nearly crushed the Tamil Tigers.
Jul 20, 2009 | comments: 10
in reply to a comment by Chuck L.
Josh Sledge Jul 21, 2009, 5:45am EDT
The point of this article was to point out the fact that Islamic fundamentalist have only been able to attack Westerners in non-Western countries since September 11th with the notable exceptions of the Madrid train bombings and the London bus bombings. I believe we haven't had an attack on American ground in eight years because of the policies of the Bush Administration. The best defense against terrorism is a strong offense.

The Obama Administration endangers American citizens by deconstructing the policies implimented by the Bush Administration. Enhanced interrogation has produced results! Extra-ordinary rendition has taken terrorist off of the streets. An aggressive military solution to terrorism is simply more effective than the law enforcement approach of the Clinton Administration. If we are going to fight terrorism originating from the Middle East, it makes more sense to go after it source instead of letting terrorism have a medium to germinate in.
Jul 19, 2009 | comments: 90
Josh Sledge Jul 20, 2009, 8:38pm EDT
Look here is my opinion, the Central Intelligence Agency is suppose to be secret. They should ideally be conducting operations that congress and the American people don't know about. I would support removing a large degree of oversight from Congress. Since we are still fighting a war on terror and rogue nations, the mussel of the CIA needs to be removed. As far as the secret assassination squads go, that was a good idea, even if it conflicts with pre-existing executive orders preventing assassinations. Furthermore, rendition and extraordinary rendition were also very effective ideas that have been prematurely put to rest.
Jul 16, 2009 | comments: 46
in reply to a comment by Chuck L.
Josh Sledge Jul 16, 2009, 8:00pm EDT
Chuck, I guess God is a bigot? It says in clear english in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. In the Talmud, the Jewish Old Testament, it says that homosexuality is a moral insult to God that should be punished with death by stoning. The Quran also says the homosexuality is a capital offense. How can all these religions be wrong. Finally something that Christians, Jews, and even Muslims can agree on. Are the practioners of these three faiths all bigots Chuck?
Jul 16, 2009 | comments: 46
in reply to a comment by Peter Joseph Swanson
Josh Sledge Jul 16, 2009, 7:57pm EDT
I'm sorry if the Bible isn't politicaly correct it was never intended to be politicaly correct. Murder, theft, assault and battery, intoxication, adultery, rape, incest, beastality, and yes homosexuality are all wrong, period.
Jul 16, 2009 | comments: 46
in reply to a comment by ("Gather Site Street-Walking Cheetah")Dorian T.
Josh Sledge Jul 16, 2009, 7:54pm EDT
"debased and filthy scum will always be desperate to point fingers... anything to take attention away from their own perfidy."

Is this what you think Christians are truelly like? I find this offensive! Just because there have been a few priest or pastors who have been hypocritical, you can not take 0.01% of Christians in position of authority and call the rest ignorant, debased, filthy, or bigoted. The point is, abherents of the three Abrahamic religions (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) clearly believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin! It would be wrong for the federal government to condone this activity when it opposses other sins condemned by these three religions, mainly theft, murder, the proliferation of intoxicants (drugs), assault and battery, and under state law in some cases adultery is illegal under the law. You call religous people "fascist", because we believe in a life of principles? Because we believe in a life of morality? Because we believe in a higher spiritual power? I sorry but aren't you the minority imposing your will against the majority of Americans who don't want homosexual marriage, if that is not fascist I don't know what is.
Jul 16, 2009 | comments: 46
in reply to a comment by Donna Marie G.
Josh Sledge Jul 16, 2009, 7:44pm EDT
Look, I am a Christian, but I have a poor command of the Bible. I am not here to Bible thump anyone, however, I know from what little scripture I have read that God does not condone homosexuality in any sense.

God explicitely says, "a man should not lie down with another man as he would with a woman" he also says that, "a man should not lie down with a beast as he would with a woman." These verses essentially explain sexual sin, it spells out in clear language that homosexuality and bestality, along with adultery which I did not mention are wrong, and offensive in God's eyes.

Also there is the story of Abraham in Sodom and Gemorrah, where we get the word "sodomy." Anyone who knows the story of the family of Abraham, the patriarch of both the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faith, knows that men from these cities demanded to "know" visiters who were really arch angles in human form who were staying at Abraham's house. Abraham refused to let his gues be sexualy assaulted by the mob, and instead offered his own daughters to satisfy the sexual impulses of the men outside.

God destroyed both Sodom and Gemorrah. Furthermore, where are you getting all of this tolerance from the Bible? Haven't you ever read the story about Jesus lashing and overturning merchants and money lenders in a temple that he was visiting, because they were acting unGodly in the Lord's house. Sin is offensive and vile in the eyes of the Lord. Homosexuality is considered a sin, to Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Christians believe that the state should not condone sin. The state should not oppress gay couples but it should not enable them to engage in homosexual acts and it should not bless their activities by granting them the legal entitlements of marriage. I agree with this view, although I have never considered myself a member of the Christian right. I like to keep politics and religion seperate.
Jul 15, 2009 | comments: 14
in reply to a comment by August Lady
Josh Sledge Jul 15, 2009, 6:29pm EDT

"ha ha ha" Julie, revelations about the fact that she could possibly be a reverse racist, revelations about the fact that she would support gun bans under state law?

Justices of the Supreme Court need to follow the letter of the law and not engage in judicial activism. American jurisprudence needs a Supreme Court Justice who understands the theory of legal precedent and will not legislate from the bench.

I think she is a horrible choice. The blander the political and social views of the judge the better!
Jul 15, 2009 | comments: 12
in reply to a comment by Carla G.
Josh Sledge Jul 15, 2009, 5:53pm EDT

Carla G. I am a 22 year old law school student, I have good insurance, I don't want to be forced to pay money into a health care system that I don't want to use. I have worked hard in college and have continued to do the same in law school. I have always dreamed of being a rich man someday, but to fund this system they will aggressively tax the affluent segments of society. This is robbing from the rich to fund inefficient, inferior social programs for the poor. It is wrong! This is the United States of America, it is not Sherwood Forrest. I for one am fed up with the Democrats, I voted for John McCain in the last election, but don't think I would ever be tempted to vote Democrat in any other election because of this.
Jul 14, 2009 | comments: 233
in reply to a comment by Bad A.
Josh Sledge Jul 15, 2009, 5:41pm EDT

We ARE ALL AMERICANS! Rich, poor, or Middle class, we are countrymen with one another, or at least we are suppose to be. Class warfare is not a good thing for this country and has been shamelessly exploited by the new administration to push through its social programs. Taxes are not good for the poor, the middle class, and the rich too. Taxes are bad period. That is why we need a small government in this country and need to run what government we need as efficiently as possible. The role of the government should be regulatory. Ir should regulate the practices of health care providers so that they provide a service to the public which is as ethical as possible under a profit making system of free enterprise. The government does not have a mandate to create a state-run health care system in this country.
Jul 13, 2009 | comments: 4
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
Josh Sledge Jul 14, 2009, 8:17pm EDT

"They also say US Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave."

I like this part more dead terrorist who can't beat up innocent little girls with the butts of their Kalashnikovs while their on their way to school for not wearing their head scarfs.
Jul 13, 2009 | comments: 4
Josh Sledge Jul 14, 2009, 8:15pm EDT

Good riddance I hope their deaths were painful. These men shot at and killed American troops, your soldiers, and you dare defend these terrorist. It is a shame we don't have a Pinochet in this country to empty Camp Guantanamo the right way!
Jul 14, 2009 | comments: 233
in reply to a comment by Josh Sledge
Josh Sledge Jul 14, 2009, 8:08pm EDT

Please excuse the typos I was very mad
Jul 14, 2009 | comments: 233
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
Josh Sledge Jul 14, 2009, 8:03pm EDT

This is America it is not Sherwood Forrest!
Jul 14, 2009 | comments: 233
in reply to a comment by Josh Sledge
Josh Sledge Jul 14, 2009, 8:02pm EDT

You talked about how modern class systems worked, Swanson? Have you ever read someone named Karl Marx or maybe Oswald Spengler. People in the working classes and middle class in a capitalist state, work hard and produce more material goods, and thus become increasingly more innovative in the process by being envious of the upper class, wanting to become members of the upper class. A classically liberal economist such as Adam Smith would also add that these people generally increase the welfare of humanity by struggling to climb the social ladder of society. Their competition far from being negative results in increased production and better living conditions for everyone. Unless you were descended from eighteenth century industrialist, the rich got rich through hard work and intelligence, not by deceiving the public. Every social class has members within itself that are negative, the working class has winos and drug dealers, the middle class as petty embezzlers, the affluent class has people like Bernie Madoff, but this does not mean that all those social classes are comprised of the few bad apples that give them a negative reputation.
Page 1 of 19  first | prev | next 
 
Josh Sledge
New Orleans, LA

Hated by many, loved by few, but respected by all!
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.