Posted on 11/09/2006 12:43:12 PM PST by WBL 1952
Charlie Rangel opens his mouth...and mocks the South: (hat tip: reader CRB)
“It’s not just committees — our influence within the House Democratic caucus will grow enormously,” Mr. Rangel said in an interview.
To that end, he sketched out an expansive federal agenda: Teaming up with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on gun control, passing new tax incentives for urban job programs, and redirecting federal money to New York in return for the outsize tax collections that the federal government makes here.
“Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?” Mr. Rangel said.
I agree!
----------------------------------------------
Hey Bob, believe this...?
<< I've driven through there. >>
The Sovereign State of Mississippi will be forever grateful of having been so honored. (And that it, being more a New Orleans kinda character, didn't stop!)
Better yet:
GINGRICH/BARBOUR2008!
God Bless You, P and S.
We've got to get together at Hal's new place.
It ain't the Hilton, but it's full of soldiers and it has more class than 6 Hilton's.
Have you checked out Hal's new foundation?
Couldn't resist one more slap at New Orleans could ya?
I know you're still getting it done...has anyone floated your name for 'Freeper of the year" yet? Out-foxing Code Pink was the high-point for 2006.
It was called the Combat Arms Survey, and was administered primarily to Marines.
Don't stop there! What were the results? OK, I'm going to google it.
300 Marines were asked to respond to this statement:
I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
The stated scenario 46:
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this p eriod, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to:
I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded.
Strongly disagree:
127 = 42.33%
Disagree
58 = 19.33%
Agree 56 = 18.67%
Strongly agree 23 = 07.67%
No opinion 36 = 12.00%
Total: 300 = 100.00%
The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire.
According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the thesis and designer of the survey qu estions; "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks on their response or written comments in the margin space."
Is there a problem here?
What troubles Lt. Cdr. Cunningham and other opponents of using U.S. military forces for U.N. peacekeeping and non-traditional missions within United States territories is the 26.34% indicating they would fire.
In another scenario, such a significant minority could be separated from those unwilling to shoot their fellow citizens, and easily organized into a unit that would obey such orders.
Source: VikingPhoenix.com
I see the Mod picked on the wrong poster, as usual! The Mods are always defending IRA trolls!!!
You still haven't explained what these other reasons are, explain yourself immediately, followed by an apology.
Ok... I'll let it drop, he pisses me off, but I'll let it drop! :-P
BTTT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.