Posted on 07/28/2011 11:47:15 AM PDT by seekthetruth
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Amendment requires that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment numbered 38 printed in House Report 112-88 to require that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protects their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
On agreeing to the Mica amendment (A018) Agreed to by recorded vote: 260 - 160 (Roll no. 354).
(Excerpt) Read more at thomas.loc.gov ...
“Another 9/11 = Economic collapse.”
The first one didn’t.
I would hate to think what an attack like 9/11 would do now.
Here is a link to learn about the dangers we face with National Security:
9/11 didn't cause those things. The CRA and the DemocRATS did.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com
Did you expect them to be non-Democrats?!?!
Sorry, but just because they were smart on this doesn’t mean I’m going to start thinking that much of what they do is right.
Plus, there were many who crossed party lines.
I don’t see “economy” on ol’ Abe Maslow’s pyramid... could it be that it’s not there, and that it’s just a means to obtaining the others?
And that without an economy, you have no security?
And heck, you can’t even meet physiological needs without a sufficiently strong economy.
I would think that “Economy” would be in the next layer after safety, in “social needs”, but you DO have a point.
"In actual fact, it is the State, i.e. the taxpayer, who has become responsible to private enterprise. In Fascist Italy the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise. As long as business was good, profit remained to private initiative. When the depression came, the Government added the loss to the tax-payer's burden. Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."
[. . . discussion of bailouts of banks, auto manufacturers, etc. . . .]
"In December 1932 a Fascist financial expert, Signor Mazuchelli, estimated that more than 8.5 billion lire had been paid out by the Government from 1923 to 1932 in order to help depressed industries (Rivista Bancaria, December 15th, 1932, p.1,007). From December 1932 to 1935 the outlay must have doubled."--Under the Axe of Fascism, by Gaetano Salvemini (1936).
First, you buy your food. Then safety. Without those, you don't hit the bar and socialize. Etc.
Makes sense. However, in a primitive society, one still has to feed oneself, either as a hunter-gatherer or as a farmer. And this even simple life becomes impossible if your life is plagued by thundering hordes of marauding barbarians on a regular basis. Only when you are safe from these raids, can you start thinking about developing an economy that is more advanced than the subsidence level.
That was the basis of my thesis.
However, hitting the bar and socializing sounds like a good idea at this point! LOL!
And then of course, there are the hermits and ascetics who aim right for the tip top of the pyramid without bothering with those pesky lower layers! LOL!
Ok, I see where you're coming from -- and prolly where you're going.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com
Here in Florida, our 6 US House members lead by Debbie Schultz voted NO.
Only 2 of our 19 Florida Republican US House members voted NO. They are Congressman Ander Crenshaw and Congressman Dan Webster. I will be contacting them soon to find out why.
No. It's the same economics used by FDR, and as Salvimini points out, just because FDR was using this framework of economics, he wasn't a fascist. Similarly, George W. Bush isn't a fascist despite using Corporatist economics.
But the terrific failure of them for FDR's America and Mussolini's Italy should have been a warning.
I checked into all the NO votes, and of the 160 NO votes, 143 were Democrats and 17 were Republicans. And as far as I am concerned, 17 Republicans crossing party lines to vote NO is TOO MANY!
Pinging Virginia Freepers here so they can see their members of Congress who voted against our Military. Sure they will want to call them and ask them why they think our troops should not be allowed to defend themselves if they feel their lives are in danger!
Virginia US House Members Who Voted NO:
Moran, James D - 202-225-4376
Scott, Robert C. D - 202-225-8351
Pinging my list of Maryland Freepers so they will know about the US House members who voted against our Military.
Sarbanes, John P. D - 202-225-4016
Edwards, Donna F. D - 202-225-8699
Hoyer, Steny H. D - 202-225-4131
Van Hollen, Chris D - 202-225-5341
Cummings, Elijah D - 202-225-4741
AKA “The Usual Suspects”.
[can Western MD *please* secede, now?!?]
And this list is a surprise, why, exactly?
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.