USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]He is the FIRST Democrat I've heard who has openly questioned the relationship between the Republican Party's policies and their claim to uphold the Christian faith. He's also talked about the need for the Democratic Party to take back Christianity from being the sole domain of the Republican Party in the minds of the American people.

He's not always politically correct, but he has a hell of alot more balls then other democrat leaders in the Senate and Congress.

You wish, Dean has already called the Republican Party..you know. How can the Democrats "take back" Christianity when they support abortion like they do. etc etc etc The list goes on. Dean's rheotic may appeal to the Democrats hardline base but you got to remember people do not like those attitudes on the whole.

"People" meaning "Republicans"

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't see what that has to do with anything I said. I just didn't get that a president screwing an intern was more shocking than starting a war without knowing what you're doing.

"The middle east reagoin was the area we had the least amount of knowlage. we flew in blind in Afghanistan...

Quote[/b] ]The CIA had plenty of opportunities to insert agents into Iraq via the Kurdish controlled areas in the north, the Turkish border to the west and I'm very sure they'd be able to liase with anti-regimist groups in the south if they wanted to, and they've done so plenty of times in the past (even though the plug has been pulled every time it got serious).

" Iraq is a little bit differant. everything that was built in the past 15 years was monitored." Afghanistan was the country with weak intell, Iraq was quite the opposite.

Turkey didn't help us at all, remember their the reason we had to invade like the first Iraq War.

Quote[/b] ]The fact is that nobody had any reason to suspect Iraq of terrorism, even on a hunch. Anyone that knows a little about the structure and ideology of the islamic fundamentalist terror groups like Al Qaeda would know that they hate the Arab dictators of for example Iraq and Saudi Arabia, in fact I think Osama Bin Laden even said that literally on occasion.

THEN WHY THE HELL IS SAUDI ARABIAN, SYRIAN, AND EVEN FORMER IRAQIS CARYING OUT ATTACKS FOR AL QUEDA!? WHY IS THERE SUADIS FUNDING TERROR!?  

Quote[/b] ]You think the US would let the UN do something for them if they thought it was important? No way, they let Blix run his show and didn't invest in infiltrating the Iraqi system because they knew there was nothing there

Bunkers that have been created with great precautions. The US did invest in Infiltration. We monitored were all the bases were, troop numbers, number of vehicles and what vehicles were there.

Quote[/b] ]Was USA threatened by a hardened bunker ?

Geez, what a threat !!  

its not what it is its what is in it. it was itching at us because we could not see what was in it.

Quote[/b] ]Well, you should monitor more, as you saw WMD that weren't there

IF YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING IT WASN'T WMDS THAT MADE US GO IN! it was just a lie to get other nations and their public onboard. which didn't work.

Quote[/b] ]Apparently there is a movement by the Republicans now to cut funding to smaller and public (versus nation wide) news corporations and media.  The funny thing is this has been attempted for several decades now to control "real raw local news" and in order to keep the Republican mainstream "truth" on national netwoks dominating.  It has never gotten anywhere due to the lack of Republican hold of the house/senate etc.  Now there is even internal infiltration into Corporation of Public Broadcasting.

thats just the US tring to controll what leaves the media. You would be suprised on how much the media infuences military operations and war in general. think back to the tut-offencive durring the Vietnam war. CBS declared it a major defeat of the US forces, but in reality it was a major defeat of the Veitcong. the newscast made the public put major pressure on the government to withdraw, in-turn forcing the US to withdraw from the Veitnam war. Right now Rumsfeild said "the US is winning regardless what the news portrays it to be" so if the US gets hold of the news broadcast it would cut down on aboution of covert missions due to slips and it will help cut down on pressure from the public to do something when a solderi is shown on TV asking for help.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, if a regime controls the media, they control the masses. Thats never been a secret and is one way in which dictators and totalitarian types of governments keep the disent amongst the masses to a minimum.

I think the real advantage of the media in those nations is very limited. Anyone can get an amateur radio and listen in on whatever is going on out in the real world, and I think everybody knows when the regime executes a massacre on a group of people, regardless of what the media says.

However, one could use the media to increase intimidating of the populace instead of lying to them, like I think most of the totalitarian states television channels do

Quote[/b] ]This was one secret of the Romans to keep the masses distracted and happy.

Hey, and if they still opposed the regime you could always MAKE them the entertainment by putting them in the ring. I think the romans used the threat of force upon their populace as much as the next expansive empire.

Quote[/b] ]The third very powerful means of controlling the masses is to keep them fearful and finding a scapegoat. In the next election Iran will likely be the demon and the reason why a strong Republican President must be elected to protect America against the terrorists. Along with that goes the usual flag waving and calls to patriotism and defending America.

I definetely agree with the principle of what you're saying, but I don't think the Republicans can really use the fear of impending doom that much anymore.

Since their failure in Iraq on both the social and military side, and really also the failure to secure Afghanistan completely, and really just replacing the Taliban with another band of raging islamist murderers, I don't think they'll be able to sell the whole "glorious war, war is good, war keeps us safe at all times"-deal once again.

I think they'll find something new to protect people from, ie the expanding Asian economy or, if they're lucky they'll have a new terrorist attack to profit from. It wouldn't be the first time those intelligence reports of impending attacks got lost in the mail

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]THEN WHY THE HELL IS SAUDI ARABIAN, SYRIAN, AND EVEN FORMER IRAQIS CARYING OUT ATTACKS FOR AL QUEDA!? WHY IS THERE SUADIS FUNDING TERROR!?

THEN WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE IN SYRIA OR SAUDI ARABIA?

Your logic (or lack there of) really confuses me.

Quote[/b] ]Bunkers that have been created with great precautions. The US did invest in Infiltration. We monitored were all the bases were, troop numbers, number of vehicles and what vehicles were there.

THat is not "infiltration". Those numbers can easily be gotten by overflights and satillite.

Quote[/b] ]IF YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING IT WASN'T WMDS THAT MADE US GO IN! it was just a lie to get other nations and their public onboard. which didn't work.

Ummm. You don't say. Then why did we go in?

Quote[/b] ]thats just the US tring to controll what leaves the media. You would be suprised on how much the media infuences military operations and war in general. think back to the tut-offencive durring the Vietnam war. CBS declared it a major defeat of the US forces, but in reality it was a major defeat of the Veitcong. the newscast made the public put major pressure on the government to withdraw, in-turn forcing the US to withdraw from the Veitnam war. Right now Rumsfeild said "the US is winning regardless what the news portrays it to be" so if the US gets hold of the news broadcast it would cut down on aboution of covert missions due to slips and it will help cut down on pressure from the public to do something when a solderi is shown on TV asking for help.

Media is not controlled in a free democracy in case you forgot. Where do you get that CBS declared it "a major defeat of the US forces"? If anything, the news reports of the Tet offensive showed the disparity between the administrations upbeat propoganda about how the war was being won, and the truth. This suspicion also lead to the realization that Westmoreland's figures were highly inflated to make it look like the US was 1) killing more enemies than they were, and 2) winning the war.

Media has broken the undying trust between the public and presidential administrations and military offices. And that is a good thing. No longer will the public blindly follow their leader...well at least I thought that until Bush came along.

I love how if a TV shows an administations actions in a bad light, that that outlet is "biased". Well, you ever think that maybe it is because those actions are wrong by any definition of moral code? I didn't see Republicans bitching and moaning about "liberal bias" when Clinton and Whitewater was splashed over every news outlet.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Quote[/b] ]" Iraq is a little bit differant. everything that was built in the past 15 years was monitored." Afghanistan was the country with weak intell, Iraq was quite the opposite.

Turkey didn't help us at all, remember their the reason we had to invade like the first Iraq War.

Listen mate, it's simple politics. Turkey needs to get into the EU, the US holds some considerable diplomatic balance, that can be traded for cooperation surely in a matter as simple as getting agents into the country, if not mobilization. It's simply a matter of using your chips right.

Quote[/b] ]THEN WHY THE HELL IS SAUDI ARABIAN, SYRIAN, AND EVEN FORMER IRAQIS CARYING OUT ATTACKS FOR AL QUEDA!? WHY IS THERE SUADIS FUNDING TERROR!?

I think you lack understanding for the way things work in the arab world.

You have government in absolute power, anyone opposing them will be slaughtered in a public square to intimidate all others. Al Qaeda have vowed to bond with the oppressed peoples of Arabia to rid them of the ruthless state-oppressors, ie President Assad, ie King Fahd, which they have shown on several occasions. I think the reason that they haven't attacked Syria yet is that Syria is opposing Israel. Al Qaeda may hate Syria, but they hate Israel more. Just like the Iraqis may hate Saddam, but they hate the Western Devils more.

The totalitarian governments of Saudi Arabia, Syria and the other countries you mention along with every other arabic country oppressed by statesmen make it very easy for Al Qaeda to recruit holy warriors for what they see as the liberation of the arab world. It is not state sponsored, didn't you know that?

This is also why they hated Saddam Hussein, and the notion of cooperation between the two as proposed by your Colin Powell in the United Nations was widely ridiculed anywhere but Fox News.

And honestly, you play surveillance tapes, but you can't say where they are from, or who the officers on the tapes are. As the Iraqi envoy noted "That information could've been doctored in any 3rd world country in the world.".

Quote[/b] ]Bunkers that have been created with great precautions. The US did invest in Infiltration. We monitored were all the bases were, troop numbers, number of vehicles and what vehicles were there.

Get real man, if you'd have had solid info from agents on the ground, in the system, you couldn't possibly have started that war.

Even the CIA has admitted, along with most other serious intelligence services, that it was a lame duck, and practicly directly said that their info was abused by the spinners in the White House.

Those bunkers were absolutely normal bunkers to store conventional weaponry. True, they could've filled them with WMD's, they could've created giant pools of chocolate pudding for that matter, but will you sacrifice American lives to find that out without even sending someone in first to check out the facts?

If that's the case, your view of human beings is no better than that of President Assad.

[Akira 0]

Eminent Domain just got a new, broad reaching definition:

Quote[/b] ]Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice

John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice

Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter,

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

So it is now ok for the city to grab your property and hand it over to a corporation as long as they hide under the guise "tax revenue."

[SpongeBob 0]

Its like in SimCity, I can bulldoze a built up green zone and rezone it blue cause my commercial taxes are higher.  

You know who this doesn't effect? rednecks in trailer parks. They took our jebs!  

[SPQR 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, you should monitor more, as you saw WMD that weren't there

IF YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING IT WASN'T WMDS THAT MADE US GO IN! it was just a lie to get other nations and their public onboard. which didn't work.

A lie, JUST A LIE !!  

And you dare, YES YOU DARE, present yourself and your "tribe" as symbols of VIRTUE, MORALITY, HONESTY, HONOUR, carrier of the messages of love and peace of Jesus Christ himself  

WMD was a lie

Saddam Hussein and AQ relationship was a lie

How many more ?

"Hell is cobbled with good intents"

You are pathetic. I also have a bible at home, I received too the teachings of Jesus.

NOWHERE was written that Jesus lied to anybody, whatever the cost for him, nor did it ask to spread the war to teach to the others his words.

Is your "God" greater than the others', puny human ?

I guess, without any risk, that he wouldn't approve anything you may think or say.

Trying to wrap yourself in a mantlet of virtue, you are as worthless as the other soab who threw 2 planes into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon, and a fourth into the ground because fellow americans fought to prevent them from killing more people. You are a shame in front of their boldness, sacrifice and death.  

Now TBA decides recently to erase debts of many poor countries and send food in North Korea to prevent famine....

Just now after several years ! That's only a unsubbtle mean to buy you a new virginity. Need help for sewing up again your hymen ?

Is North Korea becoming a new land of Freedom and Democracy ?

I really fiercely hate half of you as much as I foundly love the other half of the american people, a moderate, intelligent, open-minded, not arrogant half I won't never abandon whatever could happen in the future.

You don't even understand that with your lies, your maskirovska, you increase deadly risk chances for your own people.

I'll add, to finish, that if Chirac isn't the brightest and most honest president in France, he lived and knows what war and guerrilla means, as he was officer in a fighting unit, in Algeria, during their indepeance war...

... unlike your dear president and his service in a "champagne" air reserve unit.

[ralphwiggum 6]

this is absolutely disgusting.

maybe I can bulldoze some of those justices's houses when I become mayor of their city.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]THEN WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE IN SYRIA OR SAUDI ARABIA?

Your logic (or lack there of) really confuses me.

I'm not sure why were not in Syria, Sec Of State (never could spell her name) has been hastling syria but its likely we'll just give them the "evil eye". Saudi Araibia is a country that is VERY touchy. if you recall Osama Bin Laden made himself know for what reason... oh yes WE SET FOOT ON SAUDI SOIL. unless were able to take on the muslim world without stepping on any european toes, then were good to go. Wich is imposible since Saudi Arabia hold most of the worlds oil. so we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot for losing a big oil contributor. You have to be a good polotician for everything to make scense. believe me there has been times were politics confused me. but thats politics for you.

Quote[/b] ]THat is not "infiltration". Those numbers can easily be gotten by overflights and satillite.

so we can see through solid objects now? garages, hangers, storage buildings. how do you think we found out what was below the roofs. also, where underground systems lead (ie bunkers). we had to have someone go there and check stuff out. We knew there was something there but we had to have someone go in and find out what. as i sai the bunker systems was one of the first things struck durring "shock and awe"

Quote[/b] ]Ummm. You don't say. Then why did we go in?

i'm just going to act like you didn't say that, you've been in this topic for a while to see what i said. i'm not going to waste time repeating myself.

Look

back to June 08 2005,13:17

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure why were not in Syria, Sec Of State (never could spell her name)...

R-I-C-E

Quote[/b] ]unless were able to take on the muslim world without stepping on any european toes, then were good to go.

So this is just a "crusade?"

Quote[/b] ]You have to be a good polotician for everything to make scense. believe me there has been times were politics confused me. but thats politics for you.

Well you obviously aren't a good politician since you make absolutely no sense.

Quote[/b] ]so we can see through solid objects now? garages, hangers, storage buildings. how do you think we found out what was below the roofs. also, where underground systems lead (ie bunkers). we had to have someone go there and check stuff out. We knew there was something there but we had to have someone go in and find out what. as i sai the bunker systems was one of the first things struck durring "shock and awe"

We obviously didn't since everything we said was in "bunkers" wasn't. I won't even mention the huge air conditioned underground bunker that the US stumbled across containing huge amounts of weapons and bunks.

Quote[/b] ]i'm just going to act like you didn't say that, you've been in this topic for a while to see what i said. i'm not going to waste time repeating myself.

So Iraq is just a front of the WoT?

And how do you reconcile the fact that there were no terrorists or terrorist activity BEFORE we went in?

[Sophion-Black 0]

I wasn't the one who lied about it, it was TBA.

Quote[/b] ]And you dare, YES YOU DARE, present yourself and your "tribe" as symbols of VIRTUE, MORALITY, HONESTY, HONOUR, carrier of the messages of love and peace of Jesus Christ himself  

i don't claim Bush in my "tribe"  

Quote[/b] ]I really fiercely hate half of you as much as I foundly love the other half of the american people, a moderate, intelligent, open-minded, not arrogant half I won't never abandon whatever could happen in the future.

i just hope you're talking about the (lack of) leadership of America

Quote[/b] ]I'll add, to finish, that if Chirac isn't the brightest and most honest president in France, he lived and knows what war and guerrilla means, as he was officer in a fighting unit, in Algeria, during their indepeance war...

... unlike your dear president and his service in a "champagne" air reserve unit.

I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU STOP RIGHT THERE! YOU DO NOT START ATTACKING THE US AIR FORCE OR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE US!!! this is a US politics thread, NOT a "I hate TBA" or "Flamefight #372"

Quote[/b] ]You are pathetic. I also have a bible at home, I received too the teachings of Jesus.

YOU present yourself as a christian?

"Salt does not come from the same fountian as water"

("you cannot curse thyne brother and praise thy father with the same mouth")

overlooked that in the bible huh

I'll use a word used in the bible more than once "Hypocrite"

but enough about that. this is not the "Religios discution" thread either.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU STOP RIGHT THERE! YOU DO NOT START ATTACKING THE US AIR FORCE OR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE US!!!

And why is that? Because they are doing such a bang up job?

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]R-I-C-E

no, her first name. its kinda funky

Quote[/b] ]So this is just a "crusade?"

Laden thinks it to be so, but i don't  

Quote[/b] ]Well you obviously aren't a good politician since you make absolutely no sense.

I never said i was. but you have to look at all the peices on the board, thats what i'm getting at, for it to make sense.

Quote[/b] ]We obviously didn't since everything we said was in "bunkers" wasn't. I won't even mention the huge air conditioned underground bunker that the US stumbled across containing huge amounts of weapons and bunks.

but we did find and strike many bunkers Saddam though was a "secret".

Quote[/b] ]So Iraq is just a front of the WoT?

BREAKTHROUGH  

Quote[/b] ]And how do you reconcile the fact that there were no terrorists or terrorist activity BEFORE we went in?  

because Iraq was a "side effect" of invading Iraq you could say (I know it sounds wierd but its like we were hoping more for something else to happen), to exploiting and stoping terroist inside Saudia Arabia.

Like i suggested, read "America's Secret War" it will help you out in understanding a few things.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU STOP RIGHT THERE! YOU DO NOT START ATTACKING THE US AIR FORCE OR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE US!!!

And why is that? Because they are doing such a bang up job?  

Bcause im IN the Air Force, and I have to follow the US leadership (eventhough i hate bush being the head).

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]"People" meaning "Republicans"

People has in the independent voter and etc.

Quote[/b] ]So it is now ok for the city to grab your property and hand it over to a corporation as long as they hide under the guise "tax revenue."

Guess who dissented... Rehnquist, Scalia,Thomas and O'connor. Anyway, if you want to make a difference (try), start writing to your state legislators.   This isn't the first time that the Court allowed the state to take ones property but that was for public use.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]People has in the independent voter and etc.

Yes. You have your fingers on the pulse of the independant voter.

Quote[/b] ]Guess who dissented... Rehnquist, Scalia,Thomas and O'connor.

So?

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, if you want to make a difference (try), start writing to your state legislators.

Yes that will make a difference. You forget that I live in a state where the Gov. is trying to grap thousands of acres from farmers for his I35 tollway (under the guise of "economic development").

Quote[/b] ]This isn't the first time that the Court allowed the state to take ones property.

First time I recall the court said its ok to grab private land to give to private developers.

EDIT: Grab...not Crap

EDIT2: Eek!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes. You have your fingers on the pulse of the independant voter.

*Checks my pulse*, yes.   Tons of polls point to that people like the likeable guy and one who is not *can't think of the word but how Dean is acting*. You notice that the established democrats try distance themselves when Dean says something not of the norm. Why would they do that?

Quote[/b] ]So?

The more conservative "wing" dissent while the more liberal "wing" vote in favor. So, it is hogwash to say Thomas and co. are going to steal your rights and etc just because. (various crap by others in the world)

Quote[/b] ]Yes that will make a difference. You forget that I live in a state where the Gov. is trying to grap thousands of acres from farmers for his I35 tollway (under the guise of "economic development").

You can try!!!

Quote[/b] ]First time I recall the court said its ok to grab private land to give to private developers.

You didn't let me finish editing...

Quote[/b] ]EDIT2: Eek!

Quote[/b] ]

Nevertheless, a few recent court cases may signify a trend toward stricter scrutiny of local government decisions. "Courts are getting involved because they are seeing abuses," says Scott Bullock, an attorney at the Institute for Justice. "A fundamental lesson of history is that power is abused. First it’s urban renewal as a part of an effort to redevelop cities. Soon it becomes a way for developers to get land on the cheap and well-connected developers to do projects in their particular area."

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]This isn't the first time that the Court allowed the state to take ones property but that was for public use.

Yes. Public Use.. The important part...

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A definition:

The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest.

So how does an office complex benefit the public welfare or interest?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So how does an office complex benefit the public welfare or interest?

Quote[/b] ]"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice

That is very risky because you got to have people to come to the place. I know of one mini-shopping mall (supermarket and etc.) near where I live that failed because of this. They thought if they build it near a large neighborhood (middle class), people from that 'hood would come but they didn't. The people simply went to the places they usually went to after a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berman_v._Parker

Quote[/b] ]

Berman v. Parker (case 348 U.S. 26) was the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision that redefined the clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court ruled that private property could be taken for a public purpose with just compensation. This case opened the door for later cases ruling that condemnation of property needing economic improvement is a public purpose and therefore constitutional. Critics of the recent spree of eminent domain uses trace what they view as property rights abuses to this case.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU STOP RIGHT THERE! YOU DO NOT START ATTACKING THE US AIR FORCE OR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE US!!!

And why is that? Because they are doing such a bang up job?

Bcause im IN the Air Force, and I have to follow the US leadership (eventhough i hate bush being the head).

Holy fuhrerprinzip batman!

[llauma 0]

Bcause im IN the Air Force, and I have to follow the US leadership (eventhough i hate bush being the head).

Holy fuhrerprinzip batman!

Haha, nice one Robin. To be honest, that statement is scary.

[Sophion-Black 0]

what do you mean by "To be honest, that statement is scary"

[Grim_Fandango 0]

what do you mean by "To be honest, that statement is scary"

He's comparing you to the SS officers who claimed they were just following orders, and therefor saw them selves as not being responsible for their actions.

And by the way, I think Bush used the term "crusade" before Bin Laden.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU STOP RIGHT THERE! YOU DO NOT START ATTACKING THE US AIR FORCE OR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE US!!!

And why is that? Because they are doing such a bang up job?

Bcause im IN the Air Force, and I have to follow the US leadership (eventhough i hate bush being the head).

Being in CAP is not the same as being in the USAF. So please dont pretend to be what your not. Plus your 16 years old,thats not even old enough to be in the USAF. I rest my case.