AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > July > 25 > Entry
Is military service a campaign asset?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The Republican machine may not love their presumptive nominee, but there’s one area in which John McCain tickles their fancy: his military experience. It’s hard to argue with years in a POW camp for guts that deserve glory. It’s already brought him the title of American Hero. Will it bring him the American presidency as well?
The “GOP-at-any-cost” rightwing media sure hopes so. Gen. Wesley Clark’s recent suggestion that McCain’s wartime experience might not translate into presidential aptitude drew howls of protest from Fox and friends. Funny, this same crew had quite a different take on the issue when Vietnam vet John Kerry was running.
Typical of the view then was conservative columnist Thomas Sowell’s query about Kerry: “Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he did all the things he said he did…How does that qualify anyone to be President of the United States?” Columnist Kathleen Parker was even more blunt in her assessment of Kerry: “Given that military service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office…it’s time to dismount this jackass.”
In-the-trenches service doesn’t always correlate to White House accomplishment, even on military matters. Polio didn’t hurt Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ability to contribute to the Allied Victory of World War II. Decades later, “draft-dodger” Bill Clinton fought conventional wisdom in Kosovo by eschewing ground forces, resulting in an air power strike that stopped a genocide in less than three months with only two NATO casualties. On the other hand, Gen. Eisenhower’s application of military strength while in office is still under scrutiny and Kennedy, the heroic commander of PT-109, sowed the seeds for a bloody quagmire in Vietnam.
Our nuanced view of the relationship between military service and the Oval Office was evident in a recent poll: Overwhelmingly, participants saw McCain as more of a “commander in chief.” They then declared that Barack Obama would do an equally good job of turning the situation around in Iraq. A contradiction? Perhaps, but one that shows military service is just one piece of the electability puzzle, even in wartime. McCain may seem more “commander-like” to those being polled. Yet when another type of poll closes in November, we may discover that Obama seems more presidential.
Rebuttal
A 2006 Gallup Poll found that John McCain’s 22 years of military service, including his endurance as a prisoner of war, is what people most admired about him. While never a John Kerry supporter, I personally admire that he volunteered for Vietnam. And at the 2004 Democratic convention, Gen. Wesley Clark lauded that as a presidential qualification, adding “members of our armed forces embody the best of America’s values: service, sacrifice, courage, compassion.” Evidently, Kerry’s service prepared him to be commander in chief, but McCain’s didn’t.
In a superlative article, “The McCain Doctrines,” Matt Bai identified one whispered liberal belief behind that distinction: that since McCain spent five of his military years isolated in a prison camp, he “did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel.” Apparently, five years of torture didn’t qualify.
Most Americans think otherwise. Obama is a likeable candidate, but in a war on terror likeability takes a back seat. Military experience becomes one of McCain’s greatest campaign strengths — and one of Obama’s greatest weaknesses. The June Gallup poll Andy mentioned found that 80 percent of Americans believed McCain can “handle the responsibilities of commander in chief;” only 55 percent believed Obama could.
Obama’s recent Iraq trip was a television bonanza - the basketball clip was a brilliant idea — but also revealed his lack of military acumen. On “Hardball,” Andrea Mitchell explained that, in an unprecedented move, no journalists traveled with Obama, and none of the questions he answered were from the press - she called them “fake interviews.” She explained, “There’s a real press issue here……we’ve not seen a presidential candidate do this…ever before.”
CNN senior analyst David Gergen also criticized Obama for “meddling” with Iraqi policy, saying “We only have one president at a time. He’s the commander in chief and negotiator in chief….I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s underway with another party outside the country.”
When choosing the first new commander-in-chief since 9/11, to protect them from very real threats, Americans will look at someone with years of military experience and someone making rookie mistakes, and will likely realize they simply can’t afford the rookie. No matter how likeable he is.
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this
Can I just say THANK YOU, LADIES, for finally (FINALLY) addressing something that has nothing to do with religion or nekkidness!!! We the board irregulars appreciate it.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
I’m not really sure I understand what Shaunti’s problem was with the Obama military meeting. Andrea Mitchell got her knickers in a twist because there was no press pool or press conference - instead, he focused on actually MEETING members of the service and talking to THEM, rather than having canned media events. Here’s her quote from Hardball in its entirety:
Let me say something about his message management. He didn’t have reporters with him. He didn’t have a press pool. He didn’t do a press conference while he was on the ground either on Afghanistan or Iraq. What you’re seeing is not reporters brought in, you’re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questioned by the military and what some would call fake interviews because they’re not interviews with a journalist so there’s a real press issue here. Politically it’s smart as can be, but we’ve not seen a Presidential candidate do this in my recollection ever before.
ah. I see. so, only questions from teevee journamalists count as important … not questions from the media, itself.
and what exactly does this have to do with Obama’s possible role as CiC? from what I can tell, he’s actually showing them MORE respect by NOT treating them as press props. but, hey, that’s just my opinion.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
I’ll second that!
on topic…I have to agree with certain parts of BOTH views. Military service is certainly deserving of respect but…it doesn’t automatically endow you with the qualities needed to be President. Leadership may be learned in many places, but competence and good judgement are inate.
Is military service an asset? Well, it sure doesn’t hurt. Is not having served in the military a liability? I wouldn’t think so.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this
rats … ah. I see. so, only questions from teevee journamalists count as important … not questions from the media, itself. should read:
ah. I see. so, only questions from teevee journamalists count as important … not questions from the MILITARY, itself.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
I want to hear from a liberal who is a career veteran, who has seen combat in a war zone, state that he/she is comfortable with Obama as their leader. I want to understand how 143 days in the Senate and only experience as a community organizer of entitlement handout programs in South Chicago qualifies Obama for any role in military leadership.
I am a Vietnam veteran and a retiree with 35 years of military service and I would not follow this wonder boy to the latrine. We have a war to fight, a nation to protect against a very resolute enemy who is intent on putting our citizens in harm’s way and a way of life to protect for it’s electorate. What the hell are we thinking?
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Mara -
Military service is certainly deserving of respect but…it doesn’t automatically endow you with the qualities needed to be President.
I couldn’t agree more - I’m related to 5 people who serve(d) in 2 of the 4 branches (no Navy or Marines) and I have 4 people I count as very good friends (all of whom who were in the Marines) … as much as I love all of them and respect their service, there is only one of them that I would consider voting for President … and he’s one of the LEAST “military” of the bunch!
By Chilao
July 25, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Perhaps, but one that shows military service is just one piece of the electability puzzle, even in wartime.
Excellent! Prior military service is certainly helpful, but not the One-All. And can we point out that FDR was A*’t Secretary of the Navy earlier, before becoming President? (re)learned it on PBS just the past few weeks.
I can hardly translate Obama’s meeting with Iraqi leaders as “negotiating a war* regardless of what they may have talked about.
I think the American public wishes to elect a President whose foreign policy preference is something other than Bomb Bomb Bomb so we’ll see.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
As a women who has never served, I have a hard time with this issue. I was “of military age” in the Viet Nam years. First, a long military career shows service and perserverence. In a peace time military, it is just a career choice for many. I am sure it is something other if the person is a combat officer dealing with readiness issues. However, an officer learns first to take orders, not give them. The military is very structured. I don’t see how that prepares a person to lead in the turbulent reality of leading the country. Civilian life is very unstructured. People do not do what you tell them just because you are a superior. A single tour during wartime carries no weight with me. For example, draft doger Bill is just a normal guy in that period. No one wanted to go to Viet Nam, many guys found ways not to go; often less honorable, and most of the general populace did not approve of the war. At least we are not blaming the troops for this war. That others served in “safe” positions also does not bother me. Any parent would have protected their son if they could. Since that period, the military has been one of many career choices.
Note: my personal opinion is that every citizen should serve three years in the military. I think it would strengthen our citizenry dramatically. Those years from high school to about 22 years are wasted on many kids. Three years away from home in a semi-supervised situation would help them mature and allow them to do it without driving parents nuts. I am not saying we would funnel all those kids into combat situations. But the numbers would better allow the military to focus combat specialists on those issues.
Back to the issue of whether military service helps or hinders our candidates; I think not. McCain might have returned to a lack luster career if he had not been shot down. Who knows. Obama steered into politics. I think his leanings make him think of the military as a necessary evil, but something he would rather went away. With an ample dose of Hope, we will all magically get along.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
I agree strongly with Ray that Obama is not qualified to be President. It has nothing to do with whether he has served in the military. If we added a tour of duty, or even acadamy grad to his resume’, he still would not qualify.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
And as stated last week, if you do not have actual top down experience it really does not apply. It may make people feel more secure, but that is a false security.
What matters more to me is someone who can keep an open mind, synthesize information, convey that information to the people and right entities, and be a good PR person here and abroad.
The synthesizing info part is especially important, but now has become a bad thing refered to flip-flopping. Also as stated before: What the heck is wrong with adjusting your position on a subject as you get more info!?! Isn’t that the very essence of what we call learning and learning from your mistakes?
By Fisher
July 25, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
wait, so since the republicans got us into an endless war on terror, we have to vote in someone with military experience? where was bush’s experience? how was he qualified? just being a war hawk does not automatically make one qualified to lead. even being in the military doesnt qualify. mccain was 5th from last in his class at navy (out of close to 900). the only reason he ever advanced in the military was because of the influence of his father and grandfather. never in his military career was in a position of leadership. while his service is definitely admirable, i dont see how it makes him any more qualified than another candidate.
on that topic mccain has shown a horrible grasp of basic facts in the ‘war on terror’ and foreign policy experience, which is supposed to be his strength. he has repeatedly mixed up sunni and shiite tribes in iraq. he has mentioned problems on the iraq/pakistan border (theres not one), hes mentioned issues in Czechoslovakia (which hasnt existed since the early 90s), hes claimed that iraq was the first major confict post 9/11 (Afghanistan anyone?), and hes consitantly made incorrect statements about troop levels in iraq, including stating that the surge started the anbar awakening, which actually began 3 months before the first surge troops got there. You know if Obama had made any of those statements the repubs would hang him for it as showing his weak foreign policy, but since its mccain, its ok. because he was in the military so hes obviously an expert.
By The Snark
July 25, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Ray:
You say you want to hear “a career veteran, who has seen combat in a war zone, state that he/she is comfortable with Obama as their leader.” How about General Wesley Clark? Valedictorian of his class at West Point, shot four times in Viet Nam as a company commander, Bronze Star, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Presidential Medal of Freedom. He’s for Obama.
Or do you have some talk radio excuse for dismissing General Clark’s opinion?
While I admire Senator McCain’s service, it should trouble you a great deal that he doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and S** Muslims, thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border, claims that the “surge” predates Army commanders’ alliances with anti-al Queda Sunnis, and can’t remember that Czechoslovakia was partitioned years ago. [Look it up on Google — and don’t blame the “liberal media” for what you find.] Like the current occupant of the White House, he simply lacks the foundation to make serous foreign policy decisions.
By Chilao
July 25, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Bomb Bomb Bomb
of course there is a significant American population who also share that view of Bomb Bomb Bomb, a variation of shoot-first/ask-questions-later.
By Beretverde
July 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
It sure can’t hurt (ala JFK-HST).
By Ray
July 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Wesley Clark is a politician, plain and simple. Wesley Clark is an opportunist who has his wet finger in the air just like Hillary. He will say and do most anything to promote himself and his agenda. Ever hear of a guy by the name of Alexander Haig? Same kind of person, lots of medals, promotions at the right times and bravado….. just a bit short on integrity and a bit over the top on how important he was.
Clark is from the same mold. He is way out of his league. A lot of us got a lot of medals for our service. With all of them and $1.35, you can get a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
By TrueDat
July 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
I’m sure neither Ray nor Gale voted for Bush 43 since he had no federal government experience, no foreign affairs experience and had served only 1 term as a state governor. I’m also positive they cast their ballot for Mccain’s “experience in the 2000 primary,” like all the other republicans claiming the importance of Experience! Its a wonder that Bush beat mccain in that primary when every republican I speak with or read on this blog talk about how crucial experince is.
it’s called karma…
By Gale
July 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Wrong on my primary choice. I did not vote in the 2000 primary and I am a registered Dem. I figured Bush Jr as a hawk from his previous record. This year, I voted Clinto in the primary. It was a lost cause in GA. I still think she is the strongest candidate of the three.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
Why would the wonder boy go on a tour of the Mid East and Europe during a campaign, dragging along every media prop in existence, making so many PR stops that even he said that he was exhausted? Why would an inexperienced candidate from either party pander to a bunch of foreigners for “approval” and image polishing? Why does his campaign structure all of his “press conferences” so that he doesn’t get asked the “wrong questions?” Even Andrea Mitchell, a decided liberal journalist, stated that his access to the media was so structured that most of them didn’t really know what he stood for. Try talking to the American public off the cuff, Snark, in town hall meetings like McCain has. You might forget a few facts too, regardless of your age. Who is the most real here? Take away Obama’s teleprompter and see what kind of candidate you have. He might just be a little short on facts too.
By ESR
July 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
I don’t think Obama has an once of respect for the military. I think him and his bitter, pompous wife look at people who are in the military as a bunch of losers who were not able to use their race and background to get into lofty colleges and get a headstart in life, to work the system. Bush may have had no prior military experience but he had respect and a deep admiration for the military. I cringed when I watched the ever-so-inarticulate John Lewis following his recent re-election state that his number one goal was to pull the troops out of Iraq and stop the war. Somehow Lewis forgot to watch the news that same day where 6 young males were shot in the same apartment complex in his district of Dekalb Count and 2 more males shot in Clayton County the same day. Lewis, you have bigger issues in the hoods of your district than you do in Iraq, leave Iraq to military leaders who have a brain. This excludes Lewis. Lewis was too uninformed (stupid..okay..I said it) to realize that in one single day more people were shot and killed in the district he represents that in Iraq for almost a month. Lewis is clueless about the military as most democrats are. Most democrats are unpatriotic, bitter, selfish and always ready to make Amercia look bad and some other country look better than us. Obama looks so out of place on his current world tour and you can tell many of the soldiers who are half-heartedly clapping for him in front of the cameras were made to do so by their commanding officers. Military respect and Obama are oxy-morons. It’s good to see with all the hype and press Obama is getting, still McCain is closing the gap in the polls. Voters are getting smarter about Obama day by day, minute by minute.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
it’s interesting to look at the schizophrenic nature of the GOP soldier fetish.
— Some of the most vilified Democrats are/were veterans, including Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale.
— Now look at the Republican leadership. John Ashcroft didn’t serve. Neither did Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Doug Feith, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert, Trent Lott, Richard Perle, Karl Rove, Rick Santorum, nor Paul Wolfowitz.
if military service was the be-all/end-all for leadership and presidential ability, the Republican bench would be really, really weak.
By GOB
July 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
Interesting how this wasnt a concern for repbulicans on 2004. They couldnt dismiss or disparage John Kerry’s service fast enough.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Kudos, ESR, couldn’t have said it better!!
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
Why would the wonder boy go on a tour of the Mid East and Europe during a campaign, dragging along every media prop in existence, making so many PR stops that even he said that he was exhausted?
That is odd. Everything I read proved that the majority of his stops were pretty void of PR setups which bothered repubs.
Why would an inexperienced candidate from either party pander to a bunch of foreigners for “approval” and image polishing?
You call it pander, many others call it building good relations after all the damage done by current administration. Would you really hire a CEO that was hated by companies you partner with? I hope not. Studies have proven that, even if the employee makes the company tons of money, people who are abrasive cause more harm in dollars than they take in.
Why does his campaign structure all of his “press conferences” so that he doesn’t get asked the “wrong questions?”
Once again, I guess you are watching different meetings than I.
By Sarah
July 25, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
By RF
July 25, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Military service is an image issue for candidates. The perception is that a veteran has strength and perseverance that a civvie doesn’t. What hogwash! In this race, as I’m watching and listening, only a green civvie has had the cahunas to go over and actually meet with leaders and discuss issues—without making it a photo op and sound byte time for the campaign. I don’t think military service makes one any more able to sit down with world leaders and work on solutions to problems. I respect military service (especially combat experience), but I don’t think it makes one more intelligent in foreign affairs. We’ve lived too long in the fear of war and the deep-seated belief that we have to have a strong military leader ready to jump on the bad guys and nuke ‘em. How’s that belief working out in Iraq?
Diplomacy and ability to negotiate with leaders isn’t a function of military or political experience. I remember when Reagan was meeting with Gorbachev. When he and Reagan walked off by themselves and got away from the press and all the guvment staffers, they had a real conversation that led to understanding and progress in negotiations. Reagan talked about that as the turning point in discussions which ended the cold war. Carter got Sadat and Begin (sp?) to finally sit down and work our their differences. Did military experience help in that? I don’t see it. Currently, we have little if any dialogue with foreign leaders. Rice is the only one over there talking to them. Does she have military experience? We need a president who can meet with these people in honest discussions without sending his minions to do his work. I bet Obama will, in the end, make more progress in foreign relations than we have seen in the last eight years.
On another topic for a moment, did anyone read the article about the Extreme Makeover Home Edition family in Clayton Co. that is facing foreclosure? New house (5000 sq.ft.plus), no mortgage, 100 grand in cash, and what did they do? Took out a 450,000 mortgage to start a construction business, which is of course failing. Can anyone say STUPID???
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Ray - Why would an inexperienced candidate from either party pander to a bunch of foreigners for “approval” and image polishing?
ever heard of “Ex-patriots” and “military families”? They get to vote, too. Were I an engineer working in Austria or part of a military family who followed their soldier to his post in Germany, I think I’d be flattered and excited that at least one of the men asking for my vote would deign to pander for my vote.
and just out of curiostiy…why does it seem like “conservatives” have such a hard time voicing an opinion that doesn’t use insults and put-downs as talking points?
By GOB
July 25, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
ESR - Did you really complain about Obama using his “race and history to get into lofty colleges and get a headstart in life, to work the system” and then talk about how Bush didnt and had some deep respect for the military? Really? Seriously?
By The Snark
July 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Ray:
You say you want an opinion from a combat veteran, then you get one, and you brush it off as coming from a “politician”? As if Sen. McCain himself isn’t a politician? That’s some pretty lame stuff, bro.
PS My dad was an Air Force pilot too — and he’d be the first to tell you than twenty years of flight checks and living on base housing doesn’t qualify anybody for the White House.
By Sarah
July 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
RF, what in Clayton County does not say STUPID? It’s also full to the hilt of Obama supportrers? A mere coincidence? I think not.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Sarah, how do you explain Obama’s popularity with the “arugela set”? They are not among the unwashed masses.
Personally, I think the Dems screwed up. They should have kept this man on the bench for another term and let him play fund-raiser. He is really good at that.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Jokes On,
Relationships with other countries are made after being elected, not before. If not, it is called pandering. The last time I looked, all of the foreigners are without a vote. Charm school might make you look better to the electorate but it won’t chase away one terrorist. He is not only pandering to foreigners but also to the media, the black community and anyone else he can to make his image acceptable. The media has obviously bought it and is trying to shove this wonder boy down the throats of uninformed and stupid Americans. But we are all not so stupid, Jokes, and the electorate is waking up to what a hollow and naive candidate that he really is. McCain is closing the gap and the more America sees of this doofas, the more the gap will close.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
anyone care to comment on ex-military McCain’s ignoring the invasion of Afghanistan as a military undertaking? In all likelihood, this was a simple mental mistake for McCain, among a litany of others recently. But it does go toward state of mind. Our leaders never saw Afghanistan as a priority regardless of how vital we citizens thought it to be.
(nice of CBS to edit the comment out of their interview though.)
here’s the story…
By RF
July 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
Most democrats are unpatriotic, bitter, selfish and always ready to make Amercia look bad and some other country look better than us
ROFL!!!! Do you really believe that load of bull??? And YOU talk about intelligence? ROFLMAO!!
Dems live and work in the same country, state, and neighborhoods the paranoid repubs do. Stop believing everything you hear on Fox and CBN and realize that we all want to live in a strong, safe country in a world free from terror and war. Dems just see a different route there that doesn’t force thousands of young men and women to be permanently injured or killed. Since the repubs have such a better system, how about explaining the Veterans Administration? For a party that respects the military so much, how about you take better care of the veterans you put in the situation to get hurt? It disgusts me to see how poorly we care for those we so quickly send off to fight.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
ROTFL!!! Ever looked at the actual democraphics? The more educated one is, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. Sorry. It’s a statistical fact.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
ROTFL!!! Ever looked at the actual demographics? The more educated one is, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. Sorry. It’s a statistical fact.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Ray,
Relationships with other countries are made after being elected, not before. If not, it is called pandering.
So we are supposed to just hope who we are voting for can talk with other countries?
I call bs on your statement. Proving you can related to, and be accepted by, other countries is an asset worth proving. Stating it not only means nothing, but that it is a bad thing proves you have blinders on to the good points of the candidate you are against.
The binary judgment is tiring. If you read on the board you will see two trends, the libs acknowledge McCain’s assets but like Obama’s more or find them more important/relevant. the conservatives dis everything about Obama and tout everything about McCain as grand. The frat house mentality is destructive to all - except for the few who are members; and to be a member you have to think and dress…etc exactly like your peers. Not a club I really want to be a part of.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
RF - Since the repubs have such a better system, how about explaining the Veterans Administration? For a party that respects the military so much, how about you take better care of the veterans you put in the situation to get hurt?
I have that tiara around here somewhere…(if kimberly didn’t take it with her) :^)
By Billy
July 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
ESR —
I’m a little curious…Which month exactly was it in which only 6 people were killed in Iraq?
And correct me if my understanding of our political system is off, but I believe John Lewis’s job representation of the people in his district at the Federal level, not local law enforcement.
“It’s good to see with all the hype and press Obama is getting, still McCain is closing the gap in the polls.”
You don’t even have your facts straight.
By RF
July 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
I gotta type this and get out of here for a bit. I’m getting too ‘riled up’ here today.
I’m SICK and TIRED of FEAR, WAR, and the notion that we have to keep going to war to prove that we’re the biggest bully on the block!! I’m done with being afraid of every person I see who looks even remotely Middle-Eastern. I’m tired of the constant litany from the right that we have to close our doors to Hispanics and bomb every country besides Israel and Saudi Arabia. We HAVE to find a way to deal with the world without spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of our citizens as war casualties. I’m disgusted, I’m angry, I’m FED UP with the fear-mongering, which is all the republicans can seem to do anymore. You can’t laud your own candidate and prove his ability. You spend 99.9% of your time talking about how bad the other guy is in hopes that it will make your own foolishness look better. I’m tired of looking at my sons and wondering if they’ll live to have a future or die in some god-forasken desert fighting for oil so our big business monster can be fed. I worry that they will fall into Big Brother’s army of ignorant war machine and blindly go to their deaths so we can say “we’re gettin’ them dang terrorists!” Can’t you find something else to motivate conservatism than fear and war? The scary thing is, there are many in this country who are drinking the Kool-Aid and smiling as they strangle and writhe!
I tell you, the more I read of the paranoid, militaristic, narrow-minded conservative dogma here, the more liberal I become.
By kitty
July 25, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
Has McCain, the great man for CIC and his FP credentials, found Czechoslovakia yet?
By Billy
July 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
I love that we have one poster on the board claiming that Obama impresses the “dumb and uneducated” while another implies elitism by saying he’s popular with “the arugela [sic] set”.
I can’t believe the right gets away with all this crap. McCain criticizes Obama for not having visited Iraq. Obama goes to visit Iraq, and McCain says it’s a political maneuver. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann is the only journalist/commentator to call McCain out on it. The supposedly liberal MSM stays silent, much as they do with every asinine thing McCain does and says.
By RF
July 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
I have that tiara around here somewhere…(if kimberly didn’t take it with her)
Just keep it Mara. It’s impossible to find shoes and a bag that go with it, especially on casual Fridays!! ;-0
By kitty
July 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
ROTFL!!! Ever looked at the actual democraphics? The more educated one is, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. Sorry. It’s a statistical fact.
===========
Mara, keep in mind, the Repubs…more likely to be less educated, voted in GWB…all that needs to be said.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Personally, I think the Dems screwed up. They should have kept this man on the bench for another term and let him play fund-raiser. He is really good at that.
please learn how the system works. the “Dems” - as in the Democratic Party - aren’t a college football team, red-shirting a player for a year so that he can season. the primary system isn’t a political machine - every dem (and evidently, a number of republicans who registered as a dem as a part of Rush’s “Operation Chaos”) voted for Obama to be the presidential candidate.
By Snidely Butright
July 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
kitty, at least he didn’t forget POLAND!
By Gale
July 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
USinUK, agreed. Once the die was cast and Obama was in the primary race, there was little to be done. The DNC would have had to coax him into the back seat very early. They had no problem harping at Clinton to bow out so the golden boy could run unopposed. After Super Tuesday, they would have had a hard time gracefully putting him in the back seat, much less on the sideline. And putting him out of the bus to run next term? His ego would not have allowed it.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
I tell you, the more I read of the paranoid, militaristic, narrow-minded conservative dogma here, the more liberal I become.
I am with RF on that one. Conservatives look good on paper and even their actions performed in the past, but today they are an exclusive frat house.
By Ray
July 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
RF,
Conservatism thrives on individual accomplishment, lack of government support, ingenuity,a will to make it on your own, not wanting your nose wiped by Big Brother every time you get a cold, not waiting on your front porch in NO for the government to come bail you out, LOVE OF COUNTRY, a will to survive despite hardship, not being expected to be treated more special than anyone else regardless of race or gender, hard work, hard work, hard work and the thought that the individual is far more important than the collective. I could go on and on but I wonder if you would understand? I also do not want my children wasting away in some desert protecting our oil reserves but as long as the soccer moms have a vote and need their SUVs filled up, someone has to. If not, politicians would not get elected.
In a perfect world, aircraft do not crash into buildings, rogue countries do not develop nuclear weapons, everyone has respect for his fellow man and borders are not necessary to secure. We ain’t there yet, RF, and probably never will be.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Ray -
you want military endorsements?? here:
John Adams, Brigadier General US Army (Ret), Former Deputy US Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee
Clifford Alexander, Jr., former Secretary of the Army
Susan Ahn Cuddy, first female gunner officer in the U.S. Navy and daughter of Korean Independence fighter Ahn Chang-ho
Wesley Clark, former General, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, 2004 presidential candidate
Tom Daniels, Texas Air National Guard
Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy
Larry Gillespie, Brigadier General (Ret), Assistant Deputy Commanding General, (ARNG) Army Material Command
Scott Gration Major General (USAF-Ret), former Director of Strategy, Policy, and Assessments of the United States European Command in Germany
Donald Joseph Guter, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, current Dean, Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh
Richard D. Hearney, former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
Jeh Johnson, former General Counsel of the U.S. Air Force
Lester Lyles, former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force
David ‘Dave’ McGinnis, Brigadier General (Ret), former Chief of Staff of the National Guard Association of the U.S.
Merrill A. McPeak, four star General (Ret), former Secretary of the United States Air Force during Operation Desert Storm,
John B. Nathman (Ret), former Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Vice Chief of Naval Operations
F. Whitten Peters, former Secretary of the Air Force[186] Hugh Robinson, Major General (Ret), Commander of the Southwestern Division
James Smith, Brigadier General (USAF-Ret), former Commander, Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Joint Training Analysis and Simulation Center
Robert ‘Willie’ Williamson Rear Admiral (USN-Ret), served as military Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition and Director, Office of Program Appraisal.
Ralph Wooten Major General (Ret), former Commanding General of the Army’s Chemical Arsenal, currently the Executive Vice President of Management Systems, Inc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofBarackObamapresidentialcampaignendorsements,_2008#Military
or do you want to dismiss them, as well?? are you SO. MUCH. BETTER. than they are that you can look down your nose and sneer at them, also?
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Once the die was cast and Obama was in the primary race, there was little to be done. The DNC would have had to coax him into the back seat very early. They had no problem harping at Clinton to bow out so the golden boy could run unopposed. After Super Tuesday, they would have had a hard time gracefully putting him in the back seat, much less on the sideline. And putting him out of the bus to run next term? His ego would not have allowed it.
What ARE you talking about??? going into the primary season, Hillary was all but crowned by the media and even the Democratic party? Even after Super Tuesday, it was still a horse race - he gained enough delegates that he should have to take a “back seat” or get “out of the bus” as you put it (VERY poor choice of words, by the way).
He not only beat Clinton in delegates, he thoroughly trounced her in fund-raising WITHOUT the muscle of the DNC behind him - and, as we all saw, the SuperDelegates declared for him in droves as the primary season wore on.
Why, I ask you, should he be required to step aside for Hillary when the will of the people said otherwise?
By Billy
July 25, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Gale, you totally misunderstand things. Obama’s ego? He went in largely unknown, raised record funds, and won early and often. Why would he have quit? If not him, it would have been Clinton, and nothing would have mobilized the GOP base like the prospect of “President Hillary Clinton”. She would not have stood a chance.
No, Obama was and is the best hope for Democratic (and democratic) control of the White House. This supposed deficiency regarding CIC? Please! All the President does is set strategy. He has his military commanders to advise him on tactics, and I believe Obama is far more open-minded in this matter than McCain, who basically wants to bomb anyone and everyone.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Ray, turn off Fox, read David Cay Johnston’s book “Free Lunch”, and then come back and tell us again how conservatism is all about individual accomplishment without help from the government.
Until then, shut up.
By RF
July 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Ray- just so you know, I’m a committed moderate, leaning further left by the day. I have two college degrees, both of which I worked and paid for without financial aid. I am a respected educator who works all year AND all summer to support my sons, who I am raising as a simgle parent. I have worked two and three jobs when necessary to pay the bills. NOBODY wipes my nose by ME! I believe in the power of the individual, but I also believe when the individual forgets his place in the larger society and refuses to see anything but himself, he and his society are doomed. Why is it adamant conservatives preach self-reliance and thump the Bible, which includes the lesson of the Good Samaritan? Like most people in this country, republican or democrat, I’ve taken care of myself and believe in giving a helping hand to those who need it. I became a teacher to help empower ALL kids to become intelligent, hard-working, productive citizens of the world who can take care of themselves and contribute to society. What have you done?
We cannot forget our responsibility to insuring the survival of the needy. One of the greatest ills right now in this country is how quickly we look down on those in need and blame them for being poor and typecast as losers, criminals, and lazy. You should watch “Black in America” on CNN. I’m white, but I want to cry when I see how our society is pigeon-holing even the African-American males who ARE trying to live up to the standard you give. We will pay a big price for ignoring our poor and struggling, and you and the rest of your ilk will suffer just as much as the rest of us.
No, it’s not about the individual. It’s about greed, selfishness, and imprisoning any who don’t look as pale as you do. It’s the embodiment of Hitler’s Aryan race and it’s getting worse in this country, IMO.
Once again, your argument only makes me even MORE liberal in belief. Go ahead and preach it, it’s not helping your cause.
By The Snark
July 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
USinUK:
Impressive research there, but it won’t matter to the wingnuts. Whenever you call them on the facts, they just change the subject or call names.
Hey Ray, what’s your clever answer for the fact that Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran — a conservative Republican, last I heard, who has served in the Senate with both candidates — thinks McCain does not have the temprament to be President. The actual quote is:
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
That was in January 2008. I guess he’s just another politician, huh?
By RF
July 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
but as long as the soccer moms have a vote and need their SUVs filled up
the last time I checked, most of those folks have McCain bumper stickers and live in the majority conservative burbs…
By Copyleft
July 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
ESR, Ray, and Gale: Your arguments have been trounced, soundly, by Mara (at 10:14) and USinUK (at 11:34)… do you have a cogent response to offer?
Because this isn’t going to be much of a blog if the conservative argument is demolished beyond hope of recovery before noon on the very first day.
By RF
July 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
What scares conservatives right now is that many of their own don’t believe in McCain. He scores very poorly among strong right conservatives and not much better among more centered republicans. It scares them that their big business machine may not go so unregulated. They’re deathly afraid that they might be shown for the wolves in sheep’s clothing that they are on domestic issues and foreign relations. They’re very very worried that the lily-white executives making 6 and 7 digit salaries while droves of workers are laid off just might have to pay some taxes for once. It makes them foam at the mouth to think that human rights issues might get more than a verbal discussion and that we might actually give someone darker or differently oriented sexually the same rights and opportunities they have. They’re hyperventilating to think that their psedo-fifties lifestyle just might have to change to a more twenty-first century one where their kids play with and make friends with kids of all races. Oh perish the thought!!
What they fail to realize is that the country will survive and may even improve if they give it a chance. Their lives will be more secure and peaceful without a multi-trillion dollar federal deficit and a war with every country in the Middle East. They might actually be able to buy a house that isn’t overinflated in value. Of course, that means they may have to live with a few of “those people” in the neighborhood, and that just isn’t acceptable.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
The Snark Shark -
Impressive research there, but it won’t matter to the wingnuts. Whenever you call them on the facts, they just change the subject or call names.
well, it darned well better had … I’ve been in meetings all afternoon and am busting my patootie to get all my Friday reports done - but couldn’t let that question stand without an answer.
what I thought was VERY interesting was the number of NAVY people who aren’t endorsing McCain - 37% of the list!
By RF
July 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
USinUK- you mean there’s dissension in the ranks of conservative militants….errrr, I mean military professionals??? I’m shocked to think they might see McCain for the hothead he is. What persecution will they suffer for saying that, I wonder!
By lovelyliz
July 25, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
It’s not so much the military service that matters, as to what the individual does during that matters to me.
When I was in the military, I met a guy who admitted that he was there to do his time and deliberately picked the easiest assignments. Why? Well because he same from a political family, in his case a southern political family, and had plans to run for politcial office. Military service, even if it was spent sitting behind a desk pushing papers, was a must. He was a decent enough man, but his service was nothing special.
I’ve also known people who never served in the military, but for who public service was a true calling. They served the public good in an admirable fashion.
Being in the military can be an example of exemplary service or not.
By lovelyliz
July 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Besides, the last time I checked the US Constitution, no where in the presidential eligibility requirements was military service required.
By lovelyliz
July 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Besides what makes somebody a great soldier (or Marine, Sailor, Airman) does not necessarily make one a great politician.
By lovelyliz
July 25, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
By Ray
I want to hear from a liberal who is a career veteran, who has seen combat in a war zone, state that he/she is comfortable with Obama as their leader
Well, there’s reited General Wesley Clark and last I heard, Colin Powel was cosnidering throwing his support behind Obama.
If combat experience/active duty service was such a must with voters, John Kerry and Al Gore would have been president.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
USinUK, sorry for the delay. Away from my desk a bit. Work happens.
He not only beat Clinton in delegates, he thoroughly trounced her in fund-raising
He would not have won the delagate count early but for the FL and MI debacle. And fund-raising? As I said, he can raise money. He does that well. I am not swayed by a candidate who can buy the election. If the media had been tougher on him from the beginning, I doubt very much he would have won as many votes. How many voters in Iowa really would have voted for him after the Rev. Wright issue?
As for mobilizing the GOP against Clinton, well, I think everyone has been aware of the dirty laundry in her house. We have the goods on McCain too. They have been in the national public eye for a long time. Obama is a relative newbie and everyone has been tiptoing around him, lest we offend someone.
Yes, I know the President sets direction and advisors carry out the plan. I am worried what ‘advisors’ would end up in an Obama administration. His only connections seem to be in Chicago politics. He was not in the Senate long enough to make connections. On the other side of the ticket, I am worried about McCain’s positions on overturning Roe-v-Wade and gay marriage, not to mention women’s issues in general. I guess in that sense, Obama would do less damage to the Supreme court, from my perspective, at least.
By Shaka
July 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
There is really only one word to describe the attitude towards Obama that many present here and in the CONservative circles - JEALOUSY!
I just have to say it. Your image of a man that looks like Obama in one in handcuffs, or pants sagging off his @$$…or slouched back in an Escalade on big rims. Period.
How DARE this man command the respect of other world leaders and have people in this country and abroad excited and egaged about a new and better direction for our country! Come to grips with your seething jealousy and hatred. Last time I checked there were only two qualifications to be “President” of this country natural-born, 35, and 14!
Who in the h3ll are you to determine whether someone is qualified or not?? I guarantee there isn’t a person on this board that could hold a candle to Barack Obama, nor his water for that matter. Most of you probably couldn’t even hold a candle to me - with my “arrogant” @$Z…
By RF
July 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
If the media had been tougher on him from the beginning, I doubt very much he would have won as many votes. How many voters in Iowa really would have voted for him after the Rev. Wright issue?
It’s interesting how that issue has died out, and it hasn’t been because of the money machine churning out slick ads to gloss it over. It simply fizzled out and Wright’s out of that church now. What seemed like a point of controversy that might become an issue simply didn’t. I also haven’t heard any Iowa voters or notable figures shouting for their votes back either. If that issue were going to hurt him in the polls, it would have by now. And he didn’t have to buy his way out of it.
What you have to remember is that Hillary had support from big donors who would have eventually called in their markers if she made the White House. Obama collected the vast majority of his money from small donations given by individuals, not big corporations. Even if I don’t totally agree with his politics, I respect the fact that he isn’t almost totally funded by big donors who will eventually exert influence on his administration. That’s one problem with the White House now and has been a problem in many past administrations. I think it just might be nice to have a prez for a change who isn’t a puppet of Big Oil. While I’m not 100% sold on the guy, I was admittedly more concerned about Hillary’s connection to the Good Old Boys and the probability that they would have had WAY too much influence on her. If we’re going to change the system, we have to start with a fundamental shift from the old ways of funding and influencing a campaign.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
I frankly don’t see how Obama’s advisors could be any worse than McCain’s, who will be basically the same people than set policy now. And Phil Gramm, the man who’s as responsible as a single person can be for Enron, the mortgage crisis, and gas speculation.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Shaka, I don’t deny that Obama is a successful guy. He and his wife are both bright and successful. I doubt that experience is sufficient to run the USA today. I first heard him in the last DNC convention and I thought then we would see a lot more of him. A president needs more than charisma. Even the great Jack Kennedy might have gone down in ashes for his hawkish ways if he had been in office longer.
I live in Atlanta. I have abundant examples of successful, bright black men and women around me. The rappers make the front pages, but what I see are the business men and women. Get the chip off your shoulder.
I’ll tell you one thing I don’t like that is not a requirement for office. I don’t like that I might see a president who has dual citizenship. Sure, other people have dual citizenships. It just doesn’t seem right to me that the president would.
By kimberly
July 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Shaunti’s assertion that we will look to military experience to protect us from “very real threats” is, as usual, a kindergarten-level talking point. (Repeat until you vomit this afternoon’s rainbow sherbet, please.)
Our troops have been in Iraq for FIVE YEARS with no end in sight, and Bin Laden, the guy who actually arranged the attacks on us in 2001, remains free. Setting aside that troops (and money) were pulled from the correctly-invaded country to invade an incorrect (but loaded with oil) country, we still have the utter failure of accomplishment, at least with respect to the amount of tax dollars and lives invested, regarding the frequently-changing “mission” in Iraq. Those of us capable of critical thinking (or at least some measure thereof) might conclude the following:
A purely military solution, without regard to diplomacy and common sense, is not a solution at all! If it were, our troops would long since have returned from Iraq, and the war profiteers, into whose pockets our treasury (past, present, and future) has been emptied, would be busying themselves with something more productive — like development of alternative energies, perhaps? — or at least we could pretend they’re not traitors long enough to imagine they’d do the right thing. McCain = More of the same. Now THAT’s something to be afraid of, Mz. Feldhahn.
By Sarah
July 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
Why try to argue with liberals. Not all liberals all low wage earners but most low wage eraners are liberals. I don’t eat fast food but I am sure most of you libs do, so the next time you’re ordering your heart attack in a bag, ask the counter person who they would vote for if they knew how or had a ride to the poll or if they legally could vote(felon). They’d tell you Obama. Most business owners, your bosses and old money are conservatives. You libs are Hollywood fluff wannabe’s and people who would cut off the nose to spite the face. People who make thirty grand a year and voting Obama are insane. He’ll raise your taxes, you cannot afford Obama on a mere 30K a year. I am by no means a die hard McCain fan but he is a thousand times better than Obama. Ask Jesse Jackson why he hates Obama so. Jackson views Obama as the end of his and many others ‘free ride’. Now that Obama has made it, why can’t anyone? Why grant anymore quota’s, affrimative action headstarts based on race and not socio-economics? With all the press and all the news crews fawning over Obamamania he still can’t get a huge boost in the polls. Just like he could never nail the coffin shut on Hillary. Obama will NEVER be elected president but it’s okay for you dimwits to enjoy this little fantasy for a while longer. It’ll make his defeat that much sweeter. Now, I am off to play golf with my husband and a few conservative friends.
By Mara
July 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Shaka - *There is really only one word to describe the attitude towards Obama that many present here and in the CONservative circles - JEALOUSY! — I just have to say it. Your image of a man that looks like Obama in one in handcuffs, or pants sagging off his @$$…or slouched back in an Escalade on big rims. Period.”
I really doubt that anybody is actually jealous of Obama. Nor do I particularly appreciate the insulting tone of your post. You have every right to voice your opinion, but I think we’re pretty much full up on abusive commentators here.
But thanks for stopping in.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
RF — Though I’m definitely more a leftist than yourself, you 1:19 speaks for me.
Sarah — I’m getting the impression that you’re either (A) a bitter Hillary supporter, (B) an Obama supporter pulling a New Yorker (or is it a New Yorker-er?) and regurgitating the other side’s most idiotic assertions, either for the sake of humor or to fire up fellow Obama supporters, or (C) certifiably insane.
The only taxes that will really go up under an Obama administration will be, I believe, those on people making $200K+ per year. Oh how will they all survive? Meanwhile, the money saved by getting out of Iraq could pay for things like roads, schools, and, just maybe, a decent healthcare system.
By sitlia
July 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
alcotaolor
By sitlia
July 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
alcotaolor
By Corey
July 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
As a military veteran I can honestly say that I served under some officers that I would not follow across the street. McCain was a fighter pilot; he did not command troops on the ground. Pilots do not provide much leadership because of their roles. Pilots who serve a consideable amount time and become senior officer do get leadership experience.
By sitlia
July 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
alcotaolor
By RF
July 25, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
Not all liberals all low wage earners but most low wage eraners are liberals
Depends on where you look. Many fast-food workers are young conservatives working after school to pay for college which costs so much because conservatives have made it too expensive to even think about. They work for minimum wage while their “old money” bosses drive the Mercedes to the golf course and make millions a year riding on the hard-working backs of the minions they employ and give no benefits. Why is it that spoon-fed conservatives have this notion that democrats are mostly poor minorities? Scares you to think there might be some of your own that don’t support the “good, old-fashioned” way of life, doesn’t it? My goodnes, you might have to pay your maid what she’s worth or clean a toilet yourself. Perish the thought!!
Jesse Jackson doesn’t like Obama because he’s not militant enough for Jackson’s agenda. Jackson is JEALOUS because people of all colors are listening to Obama and laugh at Jackson. Most modern African-Americans are embarrassed by Jackson.
While I’m sure it makes you feel better to spew spittle and bitterness all over the burbs as you drive your Lexxus to the plastic surgeon’s office, you might want to actually read the polls and see how many educated, articulate, respected people see Obama as a viable candidate. What will you say when those educated votes are cast? Come on Scarlett, put down the fan, hike up the hoop skirts, and get off the verandah. You’re irritating Rhett, and you wouldn’t want him to assert his male dominance and exert his conservative lifestyle now, would you?
One can only hope your golf score is better than your IQ, Sarah.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
Wow. So, McCain challenged Obama because he had never been to Iraq. So Obama went to Iraq, and then McCain said it was all a political stunt. Then Obama cancelled a planned trip to a military base, according to Pentagon guidelines, because it could be seen as political in nature to visit with wounded soldiers, and, according to his people, would be “inappropriate”. Is McCain happy that Obama’s not using the trip as a political ploy? Let’s see, shall we?
“Barack Obama is wrong. It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in response to the news. — HuffPo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-cancels-military-ban114804.html
Oh, and just to show what a phallocranial-American McCain can be:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/mccain-blows-off-wsj-repon114955.html
By Gale
July 25, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
Billy, “The only taxes that will really go up under an Obama administration will be, I believe, those on people making $200K+ per year.”
mmm-hmmm. So he says. What will be the case when Congress has their say? Don’t get me wrong. I think universal health care is a great thing. There are some really good examples in some other countries. They are tax-funded. Big diff. My insurance comes out of my paycheck now. I don’t think it should be on the backs of the $200+/year earners. I also don’t think there is any way around some people paying more so some people can pay less.
By RF
July 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
RF — Though I’m definitely more a leftist than yourself, you 1:19 speaks for me
Move over Billy, I’m headed that way myself. The more I talk to and read the words of conservatives here lately, the further left on the bench I’m sliding!! I just flat refuse to raise my boys to see the world as the white male-dominated, fat old money world that too many want to keep that way.
Oh my Rhett, whatever shall we do? Prissy and the other darkies are going to rise and they’ll take dear old Tara away from us! Might we have to treat them as, oh dear I can’t say it, equals? How will we ever actually pay taxes on your executive salary and keep Little Tara up in Alpharetta AND the country club membership? What will we do if we can’t send the children to an exclusive private school? I just might die if I have to actually treat them with respect and offer them healthcare. And my lord, we give the men such nice accomodations in prisons. Prissy, get the smelling salts. I think I’ll just swoon right here by the magnolias!
By Billy
July 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Not all liberals all low wage earners but most low wage eraners are liberals
And, RF, even if we did accept this statement as fact, it’d be pretty easy to argue that the reason low wage earners are liberals is that they know how hard it is to, ahem, “put food on your family” when earning low wages. They also know that the Horatio Alger crap of yesteryear was a fallacy and is even more so today. When it becomes increasingly hard to unionize to secure benefits and a living wage, people are definitely going to support the party that is willing to try to help them a little instead of offering up any table scraps than happen to fall from on high.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Why try to argue with liberals.
I have yet to see a decent argument from you. I have read claims that are easily and quickly discredited. Then, instead of having a rebuttal of any sort, you resort to name calling and insults.
Do any of you have more substance then that? If we libs are so stoopid, where are your counter points? If you are so smart, why the 4th grade name calling?
I really am seeing a trend of anyone that was a decent person in your party is leaving out of shame.
By Jack
July 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Oh Kim. We didn’t go into Iraq because of oil. We went in because Daddy Bush didn’t have the gonads to do it in 91. No military service does not qualify one to be prez but it doesn’t hurt. Running a large company would probably give you more qualifications for prez. I’m not for Obama because he will take more of our money to make things “fair”. What is fair about taking more out of my pay to give to someone who doesn’t deserve it? If they took it to care for neglected or abandoned children that’s fine, but we know the money would go for a bridge to nowhere or some other vote buying project.
By Billy
July 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
So I shouldn’t believe what Obama says about Obama’s tax plan, but I should believe what Drunkey McBlogpost says about Obama’s tax plan? I guess he *would know more, huh?
I also don’t think there is any way around some people paying more so some people can pay less.”
I agree if you remove “pay less” and insert “have a place to live and food to eat”.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Everyone should read “Free Lunch” by David Cay Johnston. Buy it. Borrow it. Check it out at the library. Find a pirated version online for all I care. Just read the thing. It’ll make you mad.
By sam
July 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Andrea,
You seem really impressed with Bill Clinton for heroically avoiding a genocide in Kosovo. Too bad he wasn’t so quick to prevent genocide in Rwanda…..
By sam
July 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
I think what bugs some people about Obama is not his lack of military experience. It’s his lack of experience. period.
By Bruce
July 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
Please read the following quote from Col. Jessup in the movie A Few Good Men.
“Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.?
Although this comes from a movie it does ring of truth. We sit everyday at our keyboards and express our opinions about everything and anything under the blanket of protection they (our military)afford us. I really think we should be mindful of what we say about our military and its leadship. After all if it wasn’t for our military leaders do you really think that terrorism would have been as controlled as it has been since 9/11. Seeing someone/something blown up by a terroist used to be what 3 to 4 times a years all over the world? When was the last terroist attack, outside Iraq or Afghanistan, since 9/11? I think it was in London in 2005, I really can’t remember.
By RF
July 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
When it becomes increasingly hard to unionize to secure benefits and a living wage, people are definitely going to support the party that is willing to try to help them a little instead of offering up any table scraps than happen to fall from on high
But Billy, we offer them such nice scraps that fall from our Lenox China so they can eat in the kitchen and thank God for such a nice place to slave, I mean work!!
I’m not sure that unions are the answer. They were at one time, but traditional unions have become selfish ogres who demand higher wages that ultimately benefit only a small percentage of people- Delta Pilots’ Union serves as an example here. There was an episode of “All in The Family” I remember where Archie came home celebrating his union’s success at getting a 15% pay raise. Counterbalancing that was a 20% rise in the cost of living and double-digit inflation which ultimately cancelled out his pay raise and then some. What unions have done beyond creating fairer workplace environments and wages is to create a situation where American manufacturing can no longer compete in the global market. Companies here betrayed their own and began importing good at an astronomical rate in the 80’s and 90’s because the cost of domestic goods was just too high. I worked in wholesale while in college in the 80’s and saw firsthand how quickly we began importing shoes from Taiwan because, even with the shipping and import duties, we could still provide a reasonably priced product. The domestic goods were so expensive that people wouldn’t buy them at the retail end. Unions were an undeniable great thing early on, but couldn’t control their demands enough. They kept demanding more and more beyond reason. Ultimately, the legislation that came about as a result of unions did more to help the working class in the long run.
What we need is legislation to guarantee fair wages and benefits and regulation of healthcare and insurance costs. IMO we can do more to help and protect all workers now through legislative avenues than unions. That’s just my two-cents worth— not picking a fight, I promise.
By Jack
July 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Two married buddies are out drinking one night, when one turns to the other and says, “You know, I20don’t know what else to do. Whenever I go home after we’ve been out drinking, I turn the headlights off before I get to the driveway. I shut off the engine and coast into the garage. Take my shoes off before I go into the house, I sneak up the stairs, get undressed in the bathroom, stick my foot in the toilet and pee down my leg to prevent splashing sounds. I ease into bed and my wife STILL wakes Up, and yells at me for staying out so late!
“His buddy looks at him and says “Well, you’re obviously taking the wrong approach. I screech into the driveway, slam the door, storm up the steps, pee hard into the toilet water, then use the full flush, throw my shoes in the closet, undress in the bedroom, then jump in to bed, slap her on the a$$ and say!, WHO’S HORNY????!!!” and she acts like she’s sound asleep.
It Works Every Time!
By Tuffy, The Airborne Soldier
July 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Good Afternoon,
SGM, US Army (RET). Frankly, the genius who’s in office now was a reservist who failed to report. Yet he is the President. When this story was reported, he claimed that the reported had fabricated the story. Not true. President Bush went to a campaign rather than honor his committment.
It would be nice that ALL persons who serve as President have prior military history, however, it is not a reality. No matter their service, combat is never on the same battlefield. The dying is the same, its the methods that evolve.
As for Sen. McCain, from one warrior to the other, job well done. However, Vietnam was far different than Iraq. We were sucked in to Vietnam. We invaded Iraq. It has been clearly proven that our intelligence was flawed, I prefer to be direct and say that the American people were clearly lied too. Six years later, we are still fighting that lie. Regardless of the Surge. Regardless of fighting to a undefined victory. We have no business in Iraq. None.
We should be in Afghanistan. That is were Bin laden is. If our focus were there, then the 9 soldiers overrun and slaughtered would not have happened. Ask Sen. McCain that. Ask these other “Non-Combatants” how they’ve suddenly arrived at being the New Schwarzkopf’s. Thinking that a war is honorable, is ignorance. It’s not romantic, it’s not poetry. It’s killing. It’s loss.
Unfortunately, this is what is on the table. A candidate who is stuck on war. Maybe to refight the war that was lost in Vietnam. I don’t know, but, if voted President, my concern becomes how many more sons and daughters will die for an undefined objective?
If the other candidate is voted in, the world has displayed its mass appeal. Could peace prevail? Will we reclaim our place as world leaders? The evidence I’ve seen thus far suggests that.
Now the question becomes can our country commit to such a premise? Can we put aside hatred adnd racsim (as many soldiers did on the battlefield) and vote the conscience of our country? I truly would like to beleive that we can.
I now understand what all our sacrifice has been. It has been for a time such as this. It is our time to express our freedom for our freedoms. The whole world is watching as the world crumbles around us. The question becomes, what Phoenix will rise from the ashes. The choice is clear.
I said no candidates name here. I am just an retired American Warrior who has seen enough through my eyes to have lived a 100 lives. I am appealing to all of us to vote sensibly and for the betterment of one another. Move aside from the racism, ageism, and any other inappropraite ism that’s out there. Turn off your radios, tune out the news pundits and vote your conscience. Our country is calling us all to service.
It’s that important. Amen.
By Shaka
July 25, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Yeah Mara, whatever. JEALOUS it is.
All you have to do is turn on Gallagher, Rush and all them other fools and hear them spew the same garbage - the sarcastic “Messiah”.. screams jealousy. Why spend so much time hating on someone else when you have a candidate that you can be elvating or touting??
And it’s okay, I’m sure you’ve determined from my post my probable ethnic persuasion, hence why you would feel an “insulting tone” from my post. How dare I have an opinion??? Years ago, you might have referred to me as “uppity”, but I get it. I’m just “arrogant” now, but that’s your problem.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
Billy, I don’t believe what either/any politician says about tax plans; their own or someone else’s. We all know everyone is out to defend their own money. They say wahat will get them votes. I am no different. I don’t want my taxes to buy bridges to nowhere, or healthcare for a crack adict who doesn’t care about himself/herself. The crack adict and the stupid in our society will squander everything society gives them. It will happen no matter the program and no matter who is president.
‘Food to eat and a place to stay’. yes, that’s important. How do we provide it? By taxing the rich and giving handouts to the poor? People do not value handouts. It has been proved over and over. When someone works for for their own benefit, it is more valued. If I was making the plan, a major plank would be subsidized child care for working people. If we can’t get people to not make babies they cannot afford to raise, we as a society need to help keep the kids safe and fed. Another plank, (If I ran the zoo) would be vocational training and assistance for education. Not everyone is college material. But everyone should be able to contribute to their own welfare. And while I’m on the rant, who ever said minimum wage should be enough to support a family of four?
The thing that gets in our way all the time is that issue of freedom of choice. There are many ways we can help the poor. Many involve making decisions for them. They don’t like it and neither do I.
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
Jack,
We went in because Daddy Bush didn’t have the gonads to do it in 91.
Why Bush Senor did not invade Iraq is right there in his book: No Exit Strategy.
I wish his son would have read it.
By sam
July 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
Hey Shaka,
In reading your posts, it tells us nothing of you “ethnic persuasion” as you call it. It does, however, tell us that you are illiterate. Have a nice day.
By RF
July 25, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
I really think we should be mindful of what we say about our military and its leadship. After all if it wasn’t for our military leaders do you really think that terrorism would have been as controlled as it has been since 9/11
Bruce, we’re only questioning the Commander in Chief. The military leaders below him are trying to do their job within the confines he’s given them. If he’d let them do their jobs, they’d have Bin Laden already and we’d be out of Iraq. If they were allowed to do their jobs, they would have had Hussein in ‘91. No, it’s not the military that has a problem, it’s the guy in the Oval Office who needs to put down the plastic army men set he’s playing on the rug with and actually listen to what the military is trying to tell him before he has his cookies and milk and goes down for nappy-time.
As for ‘defending the wall’, where were the blowhards when intelligence reports suggested an attack in the USA? Where were they when we couldn’t scramble fighters to stop a single one of the jets? Where were they when civvies like you and me had to fight back and die to keep just ONE of those planes from its target? Hmmmmm, seems they were chasing their tails because they IGNORED the information they had and refused to develop a tactical plan for dealing with such terrorism until AFTER it happened, in spite of a devastating previous attack on the UN facilities in NYC.
You’ll find that most liberals respect the military and truly appreciate them being “on the wall.” We just refuse to be as paranoid as they are and sit in awe of them for their constant demand that we “respect” them for ignorning the obvious need to be in Afghanistan actually fighting terrorism instead of believing the lies they used to get us to support the war in Iraq. We might have more respect if they had told us the truth going in. They want us behind that wall, blissfully unaware of their real actions. That don’t cut it no more, compadre. They want to cover our eyes and ears with “the blanket of freedom” and have us cowering underneath screaming “please save us from the boogey-man!!” As my granny would say, “Ahhhnnnt, you cut that out before I whoop you boy!”
We need a sharp, ready, capable military, no doubt. Do we need a multi-billion dollar “war” in a country that is asking us to leave? I don’t think so, and apparently a rising percentage of Americans doesn’t think so either. Let’s go after Bin Laden if that’s our goal. We could have him pretty quickly if we really wanted to. No, he’s allowed to go on making us afraid because then we’ll keep cowering behind the wall and pumping billions into the war machine. He serves a purpose in this world to keep the USA wringing its hands and fighting a war that’s more about oil, money, and the biggest profit-making industry in this country.
Give it a shot, I think we can handle the truth.
By Truth
July 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
Obama’s biggest problem is that he will unleash the worst Congress in the history of our country.
What he will do or what he won’t do has nothing to do with what he is saying in his campaign. As was said by another poster, he should be able to alter his viewpoints with changing circumstances, i.e. lie.
This is a very slick Chicago politician who has been the attorney for a slum lord and who for 20 years supported and attended a religious institution that is simply racist. I make the judgment about his church based on the idea of what a White religous institution would be called if they preached the same kind of hate.
I think he will be our next president and like Bill Clinton, it will be so bad for the first two years that Congress will probably flip back to Republican control, once the country sees more of the economy that non-capitalists in Washington have in store for us.
By Bruce
July 25, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
He told his boss that he was had nausea, the flying squirts, a fever, and just didn’t feel good at all. He said he would try to come in the next day.
The boss told Hung, that when he feels that way, he makes love to his wife and afterwards he feels great. He suggested Hung try it.
Hung called back a couple of hours later and said, “you right boss, I do what you say and I feel great”! I be in, in a little while for work. By the way, you have nice house.
By The Snark
July 25, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
Ray! Ray? What’s happened to you, buddy? It’s 3:06 pm and you haven’t responded to Sen. Thad Cochran’s quote or USinUK’s rather long list of veterans who are supporting Sen. Obama.
Did you accidentally run across those old articles on the “Keating Five” on the internet? Or the reports of young McCain showing up all over town at parties with women who were definitely not Mrs. McCain? Maybe you were researching for ammunition against Mrs. Obama and found out about the current Mrs. McCain’s little legal troubles with those pills she stole from her charity.
Hey, I’ve got an idea. Instead of trying to “prove” one candidate is better than another with dirt and insults … let’s discuss their respective policy positions!
Oh, what a short AJC blog that would be!
By Truth
July 25, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
Good post, Gale.
Do you plan on voting? I know that you supported Hillary.
By RF
July 25, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
Gale- what we need is similar to what FDR did. Give them jobs and temporary housing until they can get on their feet. The problem isn’t the assistance we give the poor. It’s the lack of time limits, job training, and the opportunity to work their way up. Those in generational poverty lack the skills to know the way out, as obvious as it seems to those of us who don’t live in poverty. I used to think most of them were just lazy and didn’t want out. I’ve read a lot about the mindset of poverty and it isn’t as easy to get out as we think. Unfortunately, the more we raise the minimum wage the more it hits our collective pocketbook in prices at the consumer end.
You’re right that education and opportunity are the answer. Budgets have been cut in career ed. programs across the country. Kids can’t get vocational training in many areas, even when they desperately want it. It’s a vicious cycle. We give the poor just enough to survive and then deny them the training and opportunity to get up, stand on their own, and have something different.
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
Gale -
He would not have won the delagate count early but for the FL and MI debacle. And fund-raising? As I said, he can raise money. He does that well. I am not swayed by a candidate who can buy the election. If the media had been tougher on him from the beginning, I doubt very much he would have won as many votes. How many voters in Iowa really would have voted for him after the Rev. Wright issue?
who is to say what would have happened in FL and MI had Obama actually gone there and campaigned. as it was, he knew the 2 states wouldn’t be counted (WHICH HILLARY WAS OKAY ABOUT, until she realized that was the only way she could win). as for “buying the vote” - he’s not spending his own money, he’s doing fund-raising and he’s doing it at the grassroots. Clinton is the one who ended the campaign BADLY in the red because she relied on big-ticket donors.
as for the media being tough on him - criminey, like I said, they were crowning Hillary Queen of the Primaries!!
As for mobilizing the GOP against Clinton, well, I think everyone has been aware of the dirty laundry in her house. We have the goods on McCain too. They have been in the national public eye for a long time. Obama is a relative newbie and everyone has been tiptoing around him, lest we offend someone.
the GOP was voting FOR Clinton in the primaries - that’s what Operation Chaos was all about (I may not have been clear in my post about it earlier) - they WANTED Clinton to be the nominee so that it could be the 1990s all. over. again.
I am worried about McCain’s positions on overturning Roe-v-Wade and gay marriage, not to mention women’s issues in general. I guess in that sense, Obama would do less damage to the Supreme court, from my perspective, at least.
wow. well, I guess I should be happy that you at least found that positive thing to say about him …
let’s not forget … McCain is a guy who called his own wife the c-word AND thought it was perfectly acceptable to make fun of a 14-year old girl’s looks at a GOP fundraiser.
yep. that’s “character”, all righty.
By Truth
July 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
The Snark
Policy positions? Are you actually admitting that you believe what a slick Chicago lawyer tells you?
By Shaka
July 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Yeah OK Sam, “illiterate” it is…
Work within the confines of a 1.5” by 1.5” box and leave out an “e” here and there or whatever (because of fast typing or multitasking) and that makes me illiterate? Yeah, I have 80,000 witnesses that say otherwise.
I can dissect every bit of the HTML or XML that generates this page, and can perfectly tune the database schema that every single one of these comments are written to, yet I’m illiterate. I’m usre that revelation probably burns you up (I misspelled it just for you)… OK, whatever you say dude.
By Truth
July 25, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Operation Chaos, wasn’t about Hillary winning. It was about watching the Clinton Attack Machine turned on another Democrat. You guys worshiped the Clintons and anything they did to the mean old Republicans was A-OK. We deserved it, according to every liberal in the country. No matter how slimy they were, no matter what they did, it was OK.
Democrats forget what they want to forget so she is once again an upstanding person, but for one brief shinning moment, Democrats saw what the Clintons were all about. Operation Chaos just stretched out that shining moment if only for a short while.
By GOB
July 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
As was said by another poster, he should be able to alter his viewpoints with changing circumstances, i.e. lie.
So if I tell you that I think a certain neighborhood would be a great place to live, but 6 months later, when a gang moves in next door, I say it is an unsafe neighborhood and I want to move, I somehow lied?
I mean I can understand your thoughts if it were something like not supporting a bill you wrote and introduced after you saw that your party wasnt too keen on it…
By USinUK
July 25, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Shaka -
I can dissect every bit of the HTML or XML that generates this page, and can perfectly tune the database schema that every single one of these comments are written to, yet I’m illiterate. I’m usre that revelation probably burns you up (I misspelled it just for you)… OK, whatever you say dude.
um. don’t know who you are - haven’t really seen you here before today. but you really should go, sit down, have a PB&J and maybe a glass of milk and chill. out.
it’s friday.
it’s summer.
then, after you’ve taken a deep breath, come on back. most of us here are nice folk who want to hang out and talk about the issues of the day. sans attitude.
as for me, I’m heading downstairs to make myself and my hub some tea, have a little chocolate and watch a little teevee.
hope to see you guys on the weekend - if not, have a good one!!! :-)
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
More good reading:
The Arizona Republican with the maverick reputation finds himself tied to the lobbying industry he once scorned. He’s also short on the big private campaign contributions he used to denigrate and is seeking help from the Federal Election Commission, which he has called despicable.
Despite his well-documented contempt for the usual ways of Washington, McCain is now finding it difficult to get elected president without them. Just last week, he had to impose a new campaign policy — one that’s meant to protect him from the influence of Washington lobbyists.
Less than a month ago, McCain proclaimed in a campaign speech that “we need to close the door firmly on corporate lobbyists.” But by one count, 115 registered lobbyists have been raising money or working for the campaign.
His new campaign policy states that registered lobbyists, registered foreign agents or political consultants with ties to independent political groups cannot work as paid staff or as volunteer advisers. The campaign has acknowledged five departures so far as a result of the lobbying flap — most notably, Tom Loeffler, an old friend and key fundraiser for McCain.
Loeffler lobbies for EADS North America, the U.S. subsidiary of a European-based aircraft manufacturer, which is currently fighting for an Air Force contract. He also counts Saudi Arabia among his clients.
Sounds like an upstanding man, no?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90612823
By Shaka
July 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
“it tells us nothing of you “ethnic persuasion” as you call it.”
Sam you might want to reconsider your own level of literacy before you decide to take swipes at others’..
LOL!!!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!!!LOL!!!!
By JokesOn
July 25, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
So if I tell you that I think a certain neighborhood would be a great place to live, but 6 months later, when a gang moves in next door, I say it is an unsafe neighborhood and I want to move, I somehow lied?
Yes GOB. That is the point that is always being made. To learn from new info being presented is lying, but to omit information in order to deny lying and go to war is “staying the course,” which should be honored.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
Truth, at the moment, I still plan to write in Clinton. If nothing else, it takes the vote from Obama and does not give it to McCain.
Bruce, FDR did a lot of good to speed the recovery from the depression. The work was real and productive for society as a whole. Even the funding for the Arts contributed to society. I think the problem many people have today is a misguided notion that they ‘deserve’ what other people have. What you say is quite true of the generational poverty. I know about getting up every day because I grew up with both my parents and all my aunts and uncles doing that. I read of many people trying to work out of welfare not having the slightest understanding of coming to work every day at the same time. My ex worked with some of these guys in the 80’s who were in some program in Michigan that subsidized employers who hired them. He would have to go to their homes and get them out of bed some days. Some of them tried hard, but most would give up after a few weeks. Welfare was easier, even if it kept them poor.
The problem I saw, was that many of those guys had families with 3-4 kids. The small salary they made was not enough for them to raise their standard of living even a little. I can understand how it would get depressing.
By Shaka
July 25, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
Well, *USinUK *.. I’m out here all the time and am not beholden to any particular screen name (go figure, it’s a BLOG).
But the truth is, a lot of you out here do not want to talk about the issues of the day. I would not even been on this vein if it were not for an idividual who decided to issue a personal attack on me. But it’s all good, I have the wit to respond. Some people just can’t take what they dish out…and they need help, hence you jumping in.
It’s great to have an “attitude” (we call it having “haters”). That’s what you get when people are taken aback by the fact that you actually have an opinion and can formulate a coherent thought. Enjoy your tea and chocolate, I have better things to do.. like carry out project plans.
By kimberly
July 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
SGM Tuffy at 2:40: Thank you for your service to our nation, and thank you for sharing your thoughtful, enlighted words here. I hope anyone who just skimmed will go back and read them carefully.
“How many more sons and daughters will die for an undefined objective?” Indeed! “Could peace prevail? Will we reclaim our place as world leaders? …. can our country commit to such a premise? Can we put aside hatred adnd racsim (as many soldiers did on the battlefield) and vote the conscience of our country? I truly would like to beleive that we can.” I want to believe that too!!!
But first, some of you einsteins need to come off your false premises, like your totally disproven notion that Dems = big govt and Repubs = small govt. The math disagrees and math doesn’t lie. Stop trembling like a chihuahua every time you hear the word “health care” in a policy discussion. Restructuring what’s broken so that Americans don’t die needlessly from curable conditions, or lose everything they ever worked for because they get sick WILL NOT MAKE US FRENCH! I swear, you won’t wake up tomorrow craving Perrier, refuse to go to work, drink wine with your lunch, and scroo your neighbor’s wife before attending a communist march and signing over all your wealth to the state. We’ll STILL BE AMERICANS! Just stronger. Sheesh, already, digest some facts once in awhile, willya?
By Bruce
July 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
You make some good points RF and I can agree to some extent. But I doubt you or I could really handle what really goes on daily around the world. I think it has become pointless to continue to complain about us being in Iraq and how we got there. If you truely respected the women and men on the ground fighting in Iraq you would know that what is being said is getting back to them. They here it, they see it and they are living it. You maybe talking about their CIC but to most of them when you dish the CIC you are dishing them too.
Loyalty runs deep in a true solider and when you disrepect one you disrepect them all… It know its not what you guys mean but if you knew the mind of a military (person) then you could understand what I am saying.
Most of the soliders in Iraq right now believe they are doing the right thing. But then they hear all these negative comments, the first thing that comes to their mind is, here we go again Nam all over. It makes you all sound ungratful to them.
But the fact is you DO need them on that wall, and you really DON’T want to know what they are doing or how they are doing it. Because what they do and how they do it keeps us all safe at night from that boogy-man you Grandma warned you about. That boogy-man is real, and he is out to kill us all rather you believe it or not.
Now for the topic at hand, isn’t the federal governments primary job to protect and defend the US from the rest of the world? Isn’t that why the President is also the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces? Wouldn’t a President with a military background better serve the primary role for the position he is elected to? That being said my biggest problem with the big “O” is his lack of experience with any part of government. You don’t let the greenhorn captian the boat.
Anyone else a Deadleast Catch fan?
By Truth
July 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
GOB
No. You didn’t lie. The lie would be if you told someone else that the neighborhood was safe, knowing that in a few months, the local gang leader that lived next door was due to be released from prison.
Like John Kerry when he promised Universal health care with a total domination of Congress by Republicans. There was no way he was going to give us Health Care, but he said it anyway. That was a lie. Nancy Pelosi promised us cheap gas if democrats ran congress. That aws a really big lie.
These aren’t minor points that those democrats lied about. They were strong points that undoubtedly won votes, that were used by people who knew they were lies.
So what do we believe or not believe? A good way to determine that is to look at the character of the people running for office. So you have a slick Chicago attorney that has been the legal enforcement arm for a slum lord and after setting under the rantings of an obvious bigot and supported the “mission” of that bigot with tens of thousands of dollars and then said that he didn’t know he was a bigot, or a decorated fighter pilot that has served his country his entire life.
Pretty easy choice for me.
By RF
July 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
GOB-well of course you’d be lying because you actually thought for yourself instead of parroting, wide-eyed and lobotomized, the mantra…. “yes I LOVE Big Brother…..he’s all-knowing and right and protects me from the dark-skinned, scary monsters….”
I mean, puh-lease, why would anyone be allowed to change a position on anything? That would mean that we can, gasp, think for ourselves and reform opinions based on new information. How dare we think anything but what those up on ‘the wall’ tell us to think!
That is becoming a tired weapon of the far right to attempt to use former support for the Iraq war as a weapon against the democrats for simply changing their minds. I’m always amazed at the desperate grasping for straws by the less-dominant party. And yes, the dems did it too when they were less in the limelight.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
ooops, sorry RF, it was you that entioned FDR. USinUK, ok I get it. You dislike Clinton and like Obama. I still think Clinton is the better candidate and I still think Obama is not ready for the office of President. I’m not crazy about McCain either. But I try to leave McCain’s treatment of his wife out of it. I don’t think it is pertinent to the question of presidential qualifications. It has been said before; a more upstanding person than Jimmy Carter is hard to find. It didn’t make him a good president.
By Truth
July 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
Gale
Dead on again. The people that were unemployed during the depression had no safety net. they had worked before and desperately wanted to work again. People starved if the bread winner wasn’t working.
Now it is offered as a choice. Work or be supported. Huge difference.
By Character's friend
July 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
I know character. I’ve worked with character. I’ve seen character sacrifice his own desires for the greater good. Character speaks the truth even when it humbles him. Character doesn’t lie to gain the upper hand. Character is not interested in his name being used to stroke your flatulating ego. You Sir, don’t know diddly about character!
By GOB
July 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Truth - By that logic, any campaign promise is a lie. There is no way that any candidate can know exactly how congress will act, or even what their makeup will be during their term.
And back to your original post, why throw in that you thought it would be a lie if someone changes their mind when circumctances change? Dont we want government leaders to be constantly monitoring what is going on in the world, and making their decisions based on that, not on what was going on 3 years ago when they made a campaign promise? I guess I just dont understand the mindset of calling someone a flip-flopper if they change their mind when given new information.
By Truth
July 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this
Kimberly
No one is trembling at health care. I supply my own and the payments are staggering and I have never been sick in my life.
But there were times that i couldn’t afford health care. Hillary just wanted to force everyone to buy health insurance. If everyone could afford it, they would have it. There have been times in my life that it was either drop the car insurance or live under a tree.
Of course my problem is that I wasn’t eligible for public housing or food stamps or any assistance.
At one time, i asked about Grady-Care. I made $500 too much the year before.
So is this the care you are talking about? I’m in better financial shape now, but a lot of people are just above that level where the government takes over. What do they do?
All this talk about care for kids. People start to have problems in their forties but can’t get health insurance because of the cost. Is that going to be considered?
I would love to have Universal Health Care. But not anything that has been offered even approaches fairness for anyone but that low income democratic voting block that we now completely support, anyway.
Make it fair and it would be supported, but that ain’t going to happen.
By Gale
July 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
That is the difference, isn’t it, Truth? In the good old USA today, we cannot stand by and watch while people starve. At least, we find it hard to ignore. But the answer of handing them money, housing and food has not worked. That answer has given us more poverty and cities filled with crime. :: The rest of the rant was deleted.:: Basically, there will always be poor and rich people. There will always be people who make stupid decisions that hurt people who depend on them.
The truth of the matter is one needs to understand that hard work, hard work, hard work is needed to get ahead. (Somebody said it uptopic.) For the folks who point at the trust babies and say, “They didn’t work for it,” I say so what. Go pick different parents. It is what it is. Just because one person has a better life than you, doesn’t mean you should disregard well meant help. What was FDR’s plan called? WPP?
By Truth
July 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
GOB
Not every campaign promise is a lie. Again, the person stating the promise is the answer. Character DOES matter.
What you are talking about is the main argument for leaving Iraq. All the democrats that voted to go, backed out when they saw that we would be there for a while. Now that may be logical to you or me, setting here in Atlanta. But how would you feel as a soldier. How would you feel if you were the leader of one of our ally countries and see that policy can change on a whim.
There are always going to be in stances that a policy should change. But reversing a total military commitment because suddenly war is regarded as wrong is geopolitical suicide. Who will ever trust us to do anything we say we are going to do?
By Truth
July 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Gale
My high school stadium and a big damn was built by the WPA. I guess that is the same thing.
There’s been some movies about the depresion in big cities with bread lines and all, but there has never been one about small towns during the depression. Signs at the edge of town that said : No Work Here, Keep Moving. That had to be a horrible time.
By Archie
July 25, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
My answer to the topic question is No. The last two presidents had no military experience and in fact the last two presidents did what they could to avoid serving.
I hate to do this but I will. I voted for Hillary Clinton because I thought she was the best candidate well she lost so now I support Obama. If you are a democrat and don’t support Obama I have to wonder if it’s because of his race,plain and simple. I mean writing Hillary in for president accomplishes nothing. Obama and Hillary have very similar ideas so if a person was really supporting Hillary’s ideas like I was, it’s not that hard to vote for Obama. I know full well that a grown person can do whatever he/she wants but there are no excuses for some of the reasoning coming from some democrats. Some democrats didn’t vote for Hillary because she is a woman and now some democrats are hedging their vote because Obama is black. Either admit your prejudice or stop calling yourself a democrat because everybody with a brain knew it was possible for their candidate to lose the primary. I mean with all the ideas Hillary had, not one of them concurred with McCain. Sorry for being so blunt but if you care about ideas and you’re a democrat it’s time to support the nominee.
By RF
July 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
Bruce- point to ponder here. Why can’t we know the truth? So far, it hasn’t been all that scary in the end. As a taxpayer supporting our forces and as one who does, in fact, respect them fully without respecting the boob in the Oval Office, I want to know what they’re doing and why. Americans were all too willing to accept the “you don’t want to know” philosophy back when we were scared of everyone around us being a commie. It’s a different world today and people in general are more aware of the world.
What would it have hurt to present all the reasons for going to war to us and allowing Congress to make a sound decision? The administration knew it couldn’t make the case and fell back on the pseudo-fifties fear mongering to persuade everyone. Once caught, all they could say was “oops, we just KNEW those WMD’s were there somewhere!”
As I said, I support our troops, but I most emphatically am not disrespecting them by questioning their CiC. I am proud of them for doing their jobs without question. As a civvie, I reserve the right to question their commander- they can’t. It’s a tired old line to make us feel guilty for questioning The Man. I can respect what soldiers are doing and dying for and still question the choices of the president.
By Truth
July 25, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
Archie
My answer to the topic question is No. The last two presidents had no military experience and in fact the last two presidents did what they could to avoid serving.
How did those two work out? Both had huge issues about their character.
By RF
July 25, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
I would love to have Universal Health Care. But not anything that has been offered even approaches fairness for anyone but that low income democratic voting block that we now completely support, anyway
That’s far too broad a generalization to overlook, Truth. I often agree with you, but as a teacher in a largely poor community, I can tell you there are far too many of my kids whose parent(s) make just enough money NOT to qualify for the supposedly free healthcare that’s out there. Sometimes they can get it for their kids, but they mostly do without. It’s the group you mention just above the federally set poverty line that have nothing, as you said. And many of my kids are white and from Republican families. It’s not as clear-cut a dividing line as you think in poverty.
The supposed “healthcare” that we offer the poor is often atrocious at best. I have a brother who lost his job after battling throat cancer. He can’t work, but because he moved back home to our parents, he can’t get Medicaid either- they make too much on Social Security! We’ve beat the bushes to find healthcare for him and have found some. Several of his doctors are very caring, dedicated individuals. The flip side is that he has to jump through all kinds of hoops, file all sorts of papers, and wait in pain until the mandated time to go back to the doctor. It’s maddening to watch him suffer for the “free” healthcare that supposedly offered out there. It ain’t what you think. The system makes it so difficult to get that many poor people supposedly looking for a free ride just choose to suffer or die.
By Troy
July 25, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this
I served 25 years in the military and am proud to have done so. Having served, I am of the opinion that the President, while Commander-in-Chief, doesn’t sit in a vacuum and make these decisions alone. He has a staff, including the Joint Chiefs, service Secretaries, and the intelligence communities that he relies upon for input. His (or her) decisions are only as good as the information/reports, etc. received. The president has to be intelligent enough to decifer this information and act upon it accordingly. Trying to minimize the chances of a bad decision is why the next president has to ensure he surrounds himself with well versed and qualified individuals. Neither John McCain nor Barrack Obama are qualified to lead us through the remainder of this century alone. Even with the best military minds, best intelligence, and best intentions - mistakes will be made. It is a fact that many of our most effective presidents, including FDR, have had No military service and many others, including Reagan, served stateside during the war. Would they have been more effective if they had been POW’s or war hero’s - who knows. We do know they were some of our greatest leaders. In my opinion, military service isn’t a guarantee of anything other than you deserve to be respected because you were willing to make the “Ultimate Sacrifice” for your country, just like the troops we have over there now.
By chuck
July 25, 2008 9:47 PM | Link to this
Uh, Fischer, this is why conservatives are afraid of liberals getting positions of power. You said:
so since the republicans got us into an endless war on terror, we have to vote in someone with military experience?
Gosh, all this time I thought being ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS got us into the war on terror. I’ll inform all of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 that it wasn’t those Islamonazis…It was the , gasp, Republicans.
Ray - Why would an inexperienced candidate from either party pander to a bunch of foreigners for “approval” and image polishing?
Because Barack HUSSEIN Obama is exactly what the democrat party has become…a party of European style socialists. They want to give the government 70% of their income so they can have 14 weeks of vacation, free healthcare, and hate laws. The mere facgt that he is a “Rock Star” in Germany is enough to make me vote against him.
Billy, as usual, you hit the nail on the head:
When it becomes increasingly hard to unionize to secure benefits and a living wage, people are definitely going to support the party that is willing to try to help them a little instead of offering up any table scraps than happen to fall from on high.
The people who vote for dems are the ones who want handouts, AND the ones who want to take money from the “wealthy” to give it to them rather than helping people themselves.
Sarah said: It’s easy to see why Obama is so popular. It’s easy to impress the dumb and uneducated types of people.
While I would have said this differently, Sarah has a point here. The “POOR” almost universally support dems. The dems have been able to keep this base of supporters because they keep putting policies into place that keep these people from being able to break free from the cycle of poverty that ensnares them. RF, your points about job training and career technical training is right on the mark. The truth of the matter is that dems have made it almost an insult to suggest that someone go into vocational training rather than going to college. There are thousands of students in Georgia who are the proverbial square pegs being forced into round holes. Unfortunately, we have so denigrated “working for a living” in manual labor type jobs that these students are left with no way of achieving dignity through work. If they don’t go to college it doesn’t matter that they can make a good living by working with their hands, it only matters that society doesn’t VALUE working with your hands. It is completely unrealistic.
Billy: You also praised a book by NYT reporter David Cay Johnston (of course we know the NYT has no liberal bias). Apparently the book was even too slanted for his leftwing employers. Here’s what the NYT book review said about “Free Lunch”.
The weakness of the book is its sudden leaps from tight-focus reporting to broad generalizations. The government, in Johnston’s telling, is a tool of the rich: “The net effect of our policies, the evidence for which is overwhelming, is that we are redistributing income up.” In fact, the government’s taxation disproportionately falls on the rich, and its spending disproportionately benefits the nonrich. Johnston documents many of the exceptions — ways in which the rich gain special benefits or shirk their burdens — and considers them the rule.
Finally Billy Boy, you touted Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s “tax plan”. First, who do you think is in that income range? For the most part it is SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. These are the people who create about 75-80% of all new jobs. I love that all of you lefties want to PENALIZE the people that hire you…the ones who provide a livlihood for you and your families. I can tell you that in my family we make about 150K per year. We are NOWHERE NEAR WEALTHY. These small business owners will cut expenses to pay these taxes. It won’t come from their pockets, it will come from the pockets of the people that they lay off so they can maintain their lifestyle in the face of these new taxes.
Hey RF, maybe you can answer this for me. We have about 2 million people in the active military. We have 150k in Iraq. How is that keeping us from having enough in Afghanistan? The problem is that just like any other huge bureacracy, the military is WAY TOO TOP HEAVY. We have too many people sitting at desks in the US and not enough boots on the ground. Hey, here’s an idea. Let’s pull them out of GERMANY.
56,000 soldiers and 15,000 airmen—live and work in Germany. Turkey, Britain, and Italy each host several thousand soldiers, too.
How about the 41,000 we have stationed in Japan?
The 35000 stationed in Hawaii?
The 1,000,000 that are stationed in the continental US?
I’m just saying that it isn’t a numbers problem as much as it is a misuse of the military problem.
To answer the question: NO military service is not a prerequisite for the Presidency, but a deep and undying devotion to and appreciation for the military IS. You and I both know that Barack HUSSEIN Obama doesn’t have that. Like most leftwing elitists, he sees the military as a necessary evil.
Wish I could have posted more this week. Have a great weekend all.
By lireltrocboc
July 25, 2008 10:10 PM | Link to this
bocololetoe
By Billy
July 26, 2008 12:28 AM | Link to this
I want to apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I left the page on when I had to leave this afternoon and I want to respond to a few things…
RF — “What we need is legislation to guarantee fair wages and benefits and regulation of healthcare and insurance costs. IMO we can do more to help and protect all workers now through legislative avenues than unions.”
No, I totally agree. But when TPTB have such a huge collective hard-on for the “free market”…well, it just doesn’t seem like such legislation is likely to even get out of committee, much less be enacted into law. That’s why a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate would be nice. Until we see such laws, however, it seems to me that unions are the best bet for such advances. Their faults aside, they are the reason we got where we are today as far as workers’ rights are concerned, and I believe it may be easier to reform unions than to get reforms passed in Congress.
Regardless, I believe workers have a right to unionize, and were our economy truly a free market there would be no hindrance to such activity. Yet it is incredibly difficult, depending on the state, to form any sort of collective bargaining organization.
Gale — “I don’t want my taxes to buy bridges to nowhere, or healthcare for a crack adict who doesn’t care about himself/herself. The crack adict and the stupid in our society will squander everything society gives them. It will happen no matter the program and no matter who is president.”
A) Nice assumption that the people who benefit from higher taxes on the uberwealthy (read: people other than yourself or anyone else on this blog) are stupid or on drugs. Or are you in favor of denying healthcare to the millions of Americans who work hard and pay their taxes yet find themselves uninsured or under-insured because one in every thousand or so patients may have a drug problem?
B) Before you rant about “the stupid in our society” you’d do well to learn spelling. Now repeat after me: A-D-D-I-C-T…Addict.
“How do we provide it? By taxing the rich and giving handouts to the poor?” — You say handout, I say safety net.
“People do not value handouts. It has been proved over and over.” — Well corporations sure do. Hedge fund managers who pay less, percentage-wise, in income taxes than many middle class families sure appreciate them.
“When someone works for for their own benefit, it is more valued.” — Because the lower and lower-middle classes cannot possibly both “work for their own benefit” and receive government assistance? Since when are the two mutually exclusive? And I’m not necessarily talking about a huge expansion of welfare. I’m talking about shifting the tax burden a little higher on the income ladder. You know, to people who have benefited from our society and can afford to pay what would be asked. The man making $3 million a year can likely survive if a third is taken in taxes. The man making $30K will have trouble making ends meet even if he only pays a tenth. You’ll call it socialism, I know, but I call it social responsibility.
“If I was making the plan, a major plank would be subsidized child care for working people…Another plank, (If I ran the zoo) would be vocational training and assistance for education. Not everyone is college material.” — Are these not handouts? Services provided to the plebes but paid for with taxes on millionaires? Looks like you are a socialist, too!
“But everyone should be able to contribute to their own welfare.” — Once again, here’s the assumption that the poor and near-poor just sit on their asses all day drinking and waiting for a government check. You do realize that social mobility is mostly downward, right? Starting at a disadvantage, with shoddy schooling and no credit or inherited assets, it is nigh on impossible to get yourself to a level anyone would consider financially “successful”. Almost every “self-made man” out there had a huge help somewhere along the line. At the very least, they usually figure out how to cheat the system at the expense of all the peons.
I’ll leave it with this: We have not seen a disparity in income of the uber-rich and the rest of us such as we have right now since the Gilded Age. Right before the Great Depression.
Truth — “…once the country sees more of the economy that non-capitalists in Washington have in store for us.” — Because that capitalist-constructed economy is doing great for everyone, what with deregulation leading to the mortgage crisis and oil speculation, the latter of which has exacerbated the rise in gas prices. Yay, capitalists!
RF @ 3:21 — We had a child hospitalized for several days earlier this year. During that time, both our credit cards had payments due, and we forgot about them during our concern over the 105 degree fever that would not cease. Boom! Interest rates jacked up from a manageable 12 and 14% to and impossible 25 and 29%. Couple that with the facts that I missed that week of work and that we had no insurance (self-employed, and the PeachCare application I had already begun would not retroactively cover his care) and we were up a creek. It’s only through taking an advance on my inheritance from my grandparents that we were able to get back on our feet, but it wouldn’t take much to knock us right back down.
Bruce @ 4:09 — I give our soldiers enough credit to be able to distinguish between criticism of the CIC and of them. — “…Disrespect one you disrespect them all…” Maybe, but Bush is not now nor had he ever been a soldier. Nam all over again? The only civilian/veteran spitting incidents I’ve heard of since the war started involved Jane Fonda, and she was the recipient of the loogie. We’ve treated the soldiers with nothing but the utmost respect, despite what you may believe. I have no ill will toward them; I’d like them out of harm’s way. The fact is that our reasons for war in Iraq were completely fabricated, so we should be out. There’s nothing left to say on the matter, regardless of how much the soldiers believe they are “doing the right thing”. What does that even mean? As far as trying to help the Iraqi people, yes, the soldiers are doing their best and have the best intentions. That said, this has never really been a military job, but one for diplomacy and reconstruction.
By JDavid
July 27, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Odd that the Left can't see the difference in the "time spent in uniform" by John Kerry& the honorable military sevice of McCain. Kerry dishonored his service & spat on his medals on his return to Washington.. Kerry's time in uniform was solely for the purpose of JumpStarting his politcal career. Only the idiots on the left refuse to see the difference.By JDavid
July 27, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Odd that the Left can't see the difference in the "time spent in uniform" by John Kerry& the honorable military sevice of McCain. Kerry dishonored his service & spat on his medals on his return to Washington.. Kerry's time in uniform was solely for the purpose of JumpStarting his politcal career. Only the idiots on the left refuse to see the difference.By JDavid
July 27, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Odd that the Left can't see the difference in the "time spent in uniform" by John Kerry& the honorable military sevice of McCain. Kerry dishonored his service & spat on his medals on his return to Washington.. Kerry's time in uniform was solely for the purpose of JumpStarting his politcal career. Only the idiots on the left refuse to see the difference.By JDavid
July 27, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Odd that the Left can't see the difference in the "time spent in uniform" by John Kerry& the honorable military sevice of McCain. Kerry dishonored his service & spat on his medals on his return to Washington.. Kerry's time in uniform was solely for the purpose of JumpStarting his politcal career. Only the idiots on the left refuse to see the difference.By jay
July 27, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Service in the military shows that a person believes in a higher cause than themself. Military service is a very selfless act. You are put through extreme hardship and danger, give up many of your rights as a civilian, are not paid a lot of money, but yet you willingly do it to serve your country. Military service may not be necessary to run for public office, but it gives voters a good insight into the candidates character.
By DICKY MANN
July 27, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
SINCE THE MAIN FUNCTION OF THE FED. GOV. (SOME WOULD SAY THE ONLY FUNCTION) IS THE PROTECTION OF THE USA, THEN I SAY YES, YES, YES, YES, MILITARY SERVICE SHOULD BE REQUIRED.
HOW CAN SOMEONE BE COMMANDER IN CHEIF AND NEVER EVEN BEEN A PRIVATE???
HECK, JUST TO CUT STINKY TOENAILS ONE MUST PASS A TEST.
ONLY IN THE FED. GOV. CAN SOMEONE BECOME THE CHIEF DOG AND THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THEY BE BORN IN THE USA AND BE OF AGE!!!!!! NO WONDER THIS COUNTRY IS GOING DOWN THE TUBES.
THANK GOODNESS GW BUSH WAS A WAR HERO AND UNDERSTANDS THE ROLE OF THE FED GOV. IS TO KICK TAIL WHEN NEEDED. GW BUSH, GREATEST PREZ EVER!!!
By DICKY MANN
July 27, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
THE ONLY FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOV. IS THE PROTECTION OF THE USA. HOW CAN SOMEONE BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF WITHOUT A DAYS WORTH OF EXPERIENCE OR EDUCATION IN THE MILITARY.
HECK, YOU NEED 3 MONTHS TRAING JUST TO CUT STINKY NAILS. WOULD NOT IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE JUST A LITTLE TRAINING TO BE CIC?
OH, I FORGOT, THE ONLY REQUIREMENT TO THE THE CHIEF DOG IN THE US IS BE OF A CERTAIN AGE AND BE BORN HERE. WOW, WHAT A GREAT SET OF REQUIREMENTS.
GW BUSH, GREAT AMERICAN WAR HERO. YOU GO W!
By Ich bin ein Beginner
July 27, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
The answer is:
Military service is a liability for Democrats since they believe the only use for the military is humanitarian relief (oh, and serving drinks at party functions—see Clinton administration). In the opinion of Democrats, it is much better to have experience as a “community organizer” (whatever that is). It used to be that communities could organize themselves.
Conservatives view military service as an asset in a presidential candidate since one of the major responsibilities for the president is being commander-in-chief. This comes with one caveat: the military experience should be real, not invented, and shouldn’t be embellished. Also, if the candidate has military service but then bashes the military and exhibits great disdain for the service of his comrades—well, that doesn’t work very well. (See Kerry, John, who by the way served in Vietnam.)
By Truth
July 27, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Wow. Someone is obviously off their medication.
Billy
Because that capitalist-constructed economy is doing great for everyone, what with deregulation leading to the mortgage crisis and oil speculation, the latter of which has exacerbated the rise in gas prices. Yay, capitalists!
The United States is a capitalist country. It is the engine for our economy. That is why we are able to maintain single digit unemployment numbers for decades at a stretch. It has been said that greed is a constant while social whims are not. Capitalism isn’t perfect but socialism and communism has some very serious baggage of their own. We could start with the National SOCIALIST Workers Party.
There are some Socialist Countries that work pretty well. But this isn’t one of them. We work very well when capitalism is in full swing. People work, pay taxes, government works, gets out of the way and only the folks that couldn’t make it out of bed that morning is left out. But that’s OK because the capitalist system is strong enough to support them also.
If you really want to live in a socialist country, I’d save my pennies and see about taking a tour of Europe. Once you get over there, get yourself a Euro-rail pass and pick a country.
i’m not being snotty. But you will work your whole life and this country will still be a capitalist country. When the Democrats have total control, it will swing toward socialism, but just like what happened in 1994, the people will speak out and jerk us back. You are going to be a frustrated person here.
Be happy. Live somewhere that you love.
By Truth
July 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Ich bin ein Beginner
Good Post. Isn’t it funny that John Kerry is now the poor victim.
Did he ever explain how he still has his medals considering he threw them away in front of a TV camera?
By chuck
July 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Mara, you said:
Some of the most vilified Democrats are/were veterans, including Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale.
With the exception of Kerry who denigrated his OWN military sevice, none of these democrats were vilified BECAUSE OF THEIR MILITARY SERVICE. They were/are vilified for their POLICIES.
Kerry was his own worst enemy when it came to his military service. He went in to the service as JDavid said “solely for the purpose of JumpStarting his politcal career.” When he got home, the tide of public opinion had turned against the war, so he abandoned his Brothers in Arms to ride the anti-war waves into office. He then turned around and touted his service to try to gain the presidency. I have respect for the service of the OTHER dems mentioned, but zero respect for Kerry. He’s a scumbag coward that epitomizes what the democrat party has become…European style socialist appeasers who are willing to submit the autonomy of the United States to the U.N.
BTW usinuk, I was watching bulls and bears a few minutes ago and one of the analysts confirmed what I wrote about several weeks ago…over 2 TRILLION barrels of shale oil out west. New technology called horizontal drilling is about to make this oil much more accessible to drilling.
Drill here…drill now…pay less.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
chuck -
I was watching bulls and bears a few minutes ago and one of the analysts confirmed what I wrote about several weeks ago…over 2 TRILLION barrels of shale oil out west. New technology called horizontal drilling is about to make this oil much more accessible to drilling
wow. a FOX news program supported domestic drilling. the same FOX news program that had Chris Cannon on in mid-June touting his legislation to allow for drilling shale oil. color me shocked and amazed.
you know what, Chuck - if you’re so hooked on oil rather than finding ways to conserve while you’re developing alternative fuels, go ahead and drill. clean air and water be damned. wildlife be damned. cattle farming and salmon fishing be damned. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9143/index1.html
go ahead. destroy all that is breathtaking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming just so you’ll have “cheap” gas in your 4x4.
btw - it’ll still take 10 years to fully develop: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf. (page 2, the paragraph next to the chart titled, “Areal Energy Density of Selected Resources”
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
go ahead. destroy all that is breathtaking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming just so you’ll have “cheap” gas in your 4x4.
Did you hear this weekend where McCain voluntarily blamed his party for removing the pressures on fuel efficiency of cars?
Do these people not realize that the net effect of increasing efficiency by 25% is like having 25% more petrol in production? Win-win situation there and significantly easier/better/cleaner/etc than drilling 25% more oil in the states.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, ok I get it. You dislike Clinton and like Obama. I still think Clinton is the better candidate and I still think Obama is not ready for the office of President.
evidently, you don’t get it.
I don’t dislike Clinton - I just don’t feel like another 4-8 years of “THE CLINTONS KILLED VINCE FOSTER” and umpteen million “investigations” that lead nowhere. is that her fault? other than the idiotic “oops! I just found the box of Rose Law Firm files under a coffee table” asininity, no, that’s not her fault.
the issues we discussed on Friday had to do with the fact that you don’t seem to understand the process. the “democratic party” didn’t pick Obama - individual voters did. the “democratic party” didn’t do his fund raising, he did. if you have a problem with the fact that he’s the democratic nominee, then I suggest you talk with the millions of people who voted for him.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
USinUk
btw - it’ll still take 10 years to fully develop:
How long will it take to develop windpower that can be converted into power for vehicles? How about solar?
We have to buy oil. It will be the largest transfer of real money in the history of mankind. Money going away from our country to countries that have proven that they will use that same money against us.
i get so sick of hearing about how we will screw up our environment. But when we import oil, that oil is taken from wells that have almost no environmental protections, nothing like the overly sensitive EPA regulations for domestic drilling.
So it is not about the environment. it’s about OUR environment. Screw the rest of the world, Their women and children deserve to die for oil that we can buy.
“We can’t drill our way out of this”. The latest mindless talking point was repeated on all the Sunday morning political shows over and over and over, so you can keep your criticism of FOXNews. When CNN and the big three stop acting as the propaganda arm for the DNC, then your complaints will have some credibility.
It’s the same story. The “Progressive” ones that continue to demand that trillions of American dollars keep going to countries that don’t like us, claim that since some people say that it will take as much as 8-10 years to get oil out of domestic sites, we should drop any idea of domestic drilling. How many trillions will we send to Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t that the country that sent us all of the 9-11 hi-jackers? And you want us to keep looking for the enemy in Afghanistan?
Why do you think it is that the DNC has decided that sending Arabs trillions of dollars is more important than domestic exploration? Don’t give me talking points. Give me real reasons why this money transfer is so important? Of course there is no way to deny that is what is happening. So what do you tell the people that are smart enough to understand that talking points is just hiding the real reasons. Explain to me why drilling is better in countries with almost no environmental protections?
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Oh yeah:
Add to this equation that US refineries are working at near 100% and any more oil acquired is kind of moot.
By Archie
July 28, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Good job at 9:14 am USinUk. A number of people need to read that.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Do these people not realize that the net effect of increasing efficiency by 25% is like having 25% more petrol in production? Win-win situation there and significantly easier/better/cleaner/etc than drilling 25% more oil in the states.
LOL!! Brilliant. I guess oil is simply not used for petrochemicals or home heating anymore. It’s ALL for gas. LOL!!
Which of the progressives on here drive an electric car?
Anybody? Anybody?
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Which of the progressives on here drive an electric car?
I take the train and walk. is that good enough for you?
How long will it take to develop windpower that can be converted into power for vehicles? How about solar?
wind and solar power ARE currently being converted to electricity, so it should take relatively little time - and substantially less damage to the environment - to find a way to use them to power electric cars.
Jokes -
Add to this equation that US refineries are working at near 100% and any more oil acquired is kind of moot.
as my Marine friend, Big Tim, used to say “true dat”: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oilgas/petroleum/datapublications/refinerycapacitydata/current/refcap08.pdf
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
i get so sick of hearing about how we will screw up our environment. But when we import oil, that oil is taken from wells that have almost no environmental protections, nothing like the overly sensitive EPA regulations for domestic drilling.
Tell that to the communities that just got hit by the latest oil spill, including the slowly recovering New Orleans.
Calculate the costs of clean-up/already hurting fishing economy versus the gains of that said oil and get back to us.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
hey Archie!! :::waving:::
haven’t seen much of you this week - hope work isn’t driving you too nutty.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Out of all the things that the Clintons have done, just the Rose Law Firm records have bothered you? Wow. How do they do that?
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Geez, how long will it take these bitter 60s conservatives to die off?
Because that’s the only way we’ll ever move past their endless bitterness about the left being, y’know, RIGHT in opposing the Vietnam War. They’ve never forgiven us for being RIGHT, and they never will.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Jokes -
Did you hear this weekend where McCain voluntarily blamed his party for removing the pressures on fuel efficiency of cars?
no way! that took some serious Balzac!
Truth - this has been bugging me since Friday:
There’s been some movies about the depresion in big cities with bread lines and all, but there has never been one about small towns during the depression
um. you’re in video - you should know better than that:
Grapes of Wrath. Paper Moon. All the King’s Men. Ballad of the Sad Cafe. Cross Creek. Of Mice and Men. Cannery Row. They Shoot Horses Don’t They. Seabiscuit. Places in the Heart. Journey of Natty Gann.
and that’s just the tip of the proverbial …
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Out of all the things that the Clintons have done, just the Rose Law Firm records have bothered you? Wow. How do they do that?
way to completely miss what I said.
what I said was: were all of the investigations and the “they killed vince foster” allegations Hillary’s fault? no. pretty much the only thing that was was the Rose-Law-Firm-files-under-the-table incident.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Jokes -
Tell that to the communities that just got hit by the latest oil spill, including the slowly recovering New Orleans.
don’t forget the fisheries from Alaska that were thoroughly destroyed by the Valdez oil spill … thanks to the courts, they will get a pittance of the original damage award.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
LOL!! Brilliant. I guess oil is simply not used for petrochemicals or home heating anymore. It’s ALL for gas. LOL!!
Do you have any idea what the ratio of gas consumption to petroleum base products is? How about the alternatives that already exist for those products and home heating? How about which grade of oil is used for those solid products?
Get back to me when you have a valid and informed response, instead of “LOLs.” (FYI - LOL is not really a informed response.)
By Truth
July 28, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
The Mississippi will recover quickly. Rivers do. The number of refineries world wide that pump pollutants into the air completely dwarf the amount of oil that is spilled. That air pollution in third world countries effect the population for generations.
I’ll tell the people in the Mississippi Valley that the river will be nastier than usual for a few weeks if you will go and explain why our politics is more important than the health of women and children that just happen to be in the distinct disadvantage of not being born Americans.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
The number of refineries world wide that pump pollutants into the air completely dwarf the amount of oil that is spilled. That air pollution in third world countries effect the population for generations.
thank you for making our argument for alternative fuels for us.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
I’ll tell the people in the Mississippi Valley that the river will be nastier than usual for a few weeks if you will go and explain why our politics is more important than the health of women and children that just happen to be in the distinct disadvantage of not being born Americans.
You know, I do not understand what point you are trying to make. I suspect it is just arguing for its own sake.
Or are you suggesting that we screw up our country a little more to relieve theirs (maybe)? That seems unrealistic: like if we did suddenly triple our oil production here, they would reduce theirs.
And, Gary LaGrange, executive director of the Port of New Orleans said that a recent economic impact study by the port showed that this kind of shutdown could cost the national economy up to $275 million per day.
Yeah, $275mil/day just in lost money from slowdown. That is nothing. Lets not forget the war which is costing us 1billion/36 hours…
By Truth
July 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
This took about 30 seconds to compile.
I can’t wait to hear how they are going to synthetically produce asphalt.
Petrolium is used for ,
Diesel fuel (petrodiesel), Fuel oils, Gasoline, Jet fuel, Kerosene, Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Alkenes (olefins) which can be manufactured into plastics or other compounds, Lubricants (produces light machine oils, motor oils, and greases, adding viscosity stabilizers as required). Wax, used in the packaging of frozen foods, among others. Sulfur or Sulfuric acid. Bulk tar. Asphalt. Petroleum coke, used in speciality carbon products or as solid fuel. Paraffin wax. Aromatic petrochemicals to be used as precursors in other chemical production.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
Because that’s the only way we’ll ever move past their endless bitterness about the left being, y’know, RIGHT in opposing the Vietnam War. They’ve never forgiven us for being RIGHT, and they never will.
Truman (D): Sent forces into Hanoi to support French.
Eisenhower (R): Withdrew American forces and agreed to pressure from democratic Congress to allow non-combative advisers.
Kennedy (D): Sent in first combat forces since Truman.
Johnson (D): Escalated the war
During the 1968 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION IN CHICAGO, the worst of the anti-war riots occurred.
Nixon: After fighting the Democratic Congress for almost 5 years, he finally is able to withdraw troops from Viet Nam.
Now what “liberals” were you talking about that was “right” about the war?
By Truth
July 28, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
USinUk
what I said was: were all of the investigations and the “they killed vince foster” allegations Hillary’s fault? no. pretty much the only thing that was was the Rose-Law-Firm-files-under-the-table incident.
Do you really believe that is all she knew about? Do you understand her participation in Travel Gate? The FBI investigation was on her, not Bill.
If you want to believe that Hillary Clinton only knew about the good stuff, there’s not much I can say to change your mind. You saw how they worked together against Obama. Do you think that is a new found cooperation?
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
Almost all of those “products” (not the energy items) can use chitin.
I should have added that before and saved you 30 seconds of looking.
Asphalt is really a political game, for concrete can be altered for uses/areas and is therefore equal in all aspects.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
USinUk
thank you for making our argument for alternative fuels for us.
Our argument for alternative fuels? So only democrats want alternative fuels, huh? Do you really believe that? The problem is we don’t have that technology yet. once we get it, then we will start converting. Cars will not be replaced over night once that happens. 8-10 years for just a change in the way we power our automobiles would be blindingly fast. And then there is this:
Diesel fuel (petrodiesel), Fuel oils, Jet fuel, Kerosene, Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Alkenes (olefins) which can be manufactured into plastics or other compounds, Lubricants (produces light machine oils, motor oils, and greases, adding viscosity stabilizers as required). Wax, used in the packaging of frozen foods, among others. Sulfur or Sulfuric acid. Bulk tar. Asphalt. Petroleum coke, used in speciality carbon products or as solid fuel. Paraffin wax. Aromatic petrochemicals to be used as precursors in other chemical production.
How long before we replace asphalt with an alternative?
We all want alternatives. Some of us don’t listen to the same politicians that for some reason keeps insisting on sending our national treasury to other countries. Some of us would like to have real alternatives that will not cripple our economy.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
The FBI investigation was on her, not Bill.
and they found … niente! Starr found nothing. Ray reported that he wouldn’t be pressing criminal charges.
which is pretty much what they found in every other investigation during the Clinton administration.
in fact, the only person found guilty of anything was Henry Cisneros - and only because he admitted paying a girlfriend, but he got the amount wrong.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Your original statement said:
Do these people not realize that the net effect of increasing efficiency by 25% is like having 25% more petrol in production?
I’m not going to argue about what can be done that isn’t being done. in your own snotty little words, get back to me when they replace these petrochemical uses to the point that their use no longer affects the production of petroleum. Until then, you were wrong about that 25%, weren’t you?
By Truth
July 28, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
You know, I do not understand what point you are trying to make
i know.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Our argument for alternative fuels? So only democrats want alternative fuels, huh?
touchy. I was talking about me and Jokes, not the whole wide world. and the point still stands - you made the argument for us.
How long before we replace asphalt with an alternative?
while that’s a good question, a better question would be what is the percentage of non-transportation products out of the entirety? In other words, if we were to find alternative fuels for our transportation needs, how long would oil reserves last if all they were used for is making asphalt, styrofoam, etc … in other words, how much time would that buy us to find alternatives?
and, as per my earlier post - we already have the technology for wind and solar power conversion to electricity. It will take LESS time and cause FAR LESS damage to the environment to tailor that use for cars than it will to start new drilling.
By rick
July 28, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
let’s give a shout out to Max Cleland. A true hero that alot of Georgians (mostly conservatives) treated like trash. Saxby Chambliss, one of he biggest chicken hawkes in the senate pursued this strategy with a fervor that disgusted alot of Americans, but not the people of Georgia. We can all be proud of how Max Cleland was compared to Osama Bin Ladin by republicans. I was fortunate enough to meet up with Mr. Cleland at the Jimmy Carter Center and was able to shake the hand of a true patriot and hero. Shame on all Georgians who voted for Saxby Chambliss as he has proved to be a do nothing mouth piece for the George Bush.
By Billy
July 28, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
“So only democrats want alternative fuels, huh? Do you really believe that? The problem is we don’t have that technology yet. once we get it, then we will start converting.”
The difference is that liberals want the government to give incentives for the development of that technology (which does exist, by the way) while conservatives want to wait for the market to change things.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Keep rational and lets not get emotional.
Explain to me what you meant if it is not: Or are you suggesting that we screw up our country a little more to relieve theirs (maybe)? That seems unrealistic: like if we did suddenly triple our oil production here, they would reduce theirs.
You able to do that?
And again: concrete, concrete concrete.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
I’m not going to argue about what can be done that isn’t being done.
Well, that is kind of the discussion: Doing the same old thing versus using the tools that are out there.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Jokes -
Almost all of those “products” (not the energy items) can use chitin.
chitlins can be used for asphalt? I always knew they were nasty …
;-)
By Truth
July 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
UsinUk
in fact, the only person found guilty of anything was Henry Cisneros - and only because he admitted paying a girlfriend, but he got the amount wrong.
Like I said last week. You saw what the Republicans knew since 1992 all this year. Like I said last week: Democrats have short memories.
i have played the game of find the Clinton wrongdoing. if you saw what you saw all year long and still defend them, there is nothing I will say that can deter you. i just wish i knew how they get this kind of loyalty.
Also. Do you or your husband not own a car? Electric cars are a disaster. They emit more damaging radiation than spent nuclear fuel. Would you put your family in one of those styrofoam cars and drive in Atlanta?
i’m for all of this. The technology just isn’t here. Honda just released a natural gas powered vehicle. That might be a great alternative. You could fill up at home and it is much cheaper, but it still requires drilling.
Electric is the only variation liberals are giving us and that is a disaster.
By Mara
July 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
chuck - to recap: Mara, you said “Some of the most vilified Democrats are/were veterans, including Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale.”
and you said “With the exception of Kerry who denigrated his OWN military sevice, none of these democrats were vilified BECAUSE OF THEIR MILITARY SERVICE. They were/are vilified for their POLICIES.”
you completely missed the point didn’t you?! You conservatives talk a good line about respecting the military, but the most hated men in the Democratic party seem to be men who, if they were conservatives, would be held up as heroes and patriots.
You represent the Republican party, and conservatives in general, as more patriotic and supportive of our soldiers than liberals even though very few of your leaders have served, and a good number of ours have. And then you have the gall to accuse liberals of hostility toward the military?
I’m surprised that you can’t see the irony of conservatives vilifying ex-soldiers as “America haters” and “appeasers” when they support liberal policies but lauding them “patriots” and “heroes” when they toe the conservative line.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Billy,
The difference is that liberals want the government to give incentives for the development of that technology (which does exist, by the way) while conservatives want to wait for the market to change things.
Good post and more-over, stop giving incentives to keep using the same destructive technologies, like subsidies for making suvs, removing the MPG benchmarks, and drilling for more oil to make it cheaper (failed premise anyways)! Like having cheap fuel will entice any of the industries to move away from using them.
By Gale
July 28, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
This is very delayed. I am sorry if the conversation moved on. But I wanted to reply to this post.
By Billy July 26, 2008 12:28 AM You certainly seem defensive.
“A) Nice assumption that the people who benefit from higher taxes on the uberwealthy (read: people other than yourself or anyone else on this blog) are stupid or on drugs. Or are you in favor of denying healthcare to the millions of Americans who work hard and pay their taxes yet find themselves uninsured or under-insured because one in every thousand or so patients may have a drug problem? People do not value handouts. It has been proved over and over.” — Well corporations sure do.”
I assure you I do not think people who have less than I do are automatically aDDicts or stupid. Universal coverage would prevent situations like RF’s. A family should not lose all they have and go into bankruptcy because of illness. I remember reading that was the biggest cause of bankruptcies today. I am not against insuring the poor and indigent, or even drug addits. I merely said I don’t want my tax money going there. You read too much into that. There ar many things my tax money goes to that I don’t approve of. That is why I choose my charities carefully. And I am certainly not among the well-heeled. I grant that the government hands out far to many subsidies to many entities that don’t need them. That is what happens when money and politics are too closely aligned. ” When someone works for for their own benefit, it is more valued.” — Because the lower and lower-middle classes cannot possibly both “work for their own benefit” and receive government assistance? Since when are the two mutually exclusive? And I’m not necessarily talking about a huge expansion of welfare. I’m talking about shifting the tax burden a little higher on the income ladder. You know, to people who have benefited from our society and can afford to pay what would be asked. The man making $3 million a year can likely survive if a third is taken in taxes. The man making $30K will have trouble making ends meet even if he only pays a tenth. You’ll call it socialism, I know, but I call it social responsibility.
It may be socialism in some books. I call it Communism; “To each according to his need from each according to his ability.” I may not have that quote exact. I really don’t care if the rich person CAN pay more tax, I don’t feel that person should pay any more percentage of his income than I do. The rich will always get richer if they are smart about it. I can only hope they also develop a social conscience. (There is that idealist bent I have.) The poor will stay poor if they don’t use the sense they were born with. Granted, a multigenerational poor environment will not help. As for working and still need assistance, see below. “If I was making the plan, a major plank would be subsidized child care for working people…Another plank, (If I ran the zoo) would be vocational training and assistance for education. Not everyone is college material.”
“But everyone should be able to contribute to their own welfare.” — Once again, here’s the assumption that the poor and near-poor just sit on their asses all day drinking and waiting for a government check.
There is that defensiveness again. Consider (the much maligned) Jimmy Carter’s home building endevor, The recipiants contribute to their own welfare. The (also much maligned) Clinton plan to cap welfare so that people had to work at something. Bill and Hillary at least tried to move universal health care forward. There are many many things people can do with little schooling or training if they have the right program aroundd it. We cannot just throw money at the problem. For example, Aid to families with children would GIVE a place to live and child subsidy to 15 year old dropout single moms. We know how that usually helped. We now provide better training and assistance to help the young mothers finish school.
“I’ll leave it with this: We have not seen a disparity in income of the uber-rich and the rest of us such as we have right now since the Gilded Age. Right before the Great Depression.’ Yeah well, I still do not think taking from the rich and giving to the poor will solve the problem. The rich earned their money just like I do. They just do a better job than I do.
By Truth July 27, 2008 12:38 PM “There are some Socialist Countries that work pretty well. But this isn’t one of them. We work very well when capitalism is in full swing. People work, pay taxes, government works, gets out of the way and only the folks that couldn’t make it out of bed that morning is left out. But that’s OK because the capitalist system is strong enough to support them also.” *America doesn’t have a tradition of socialism. I think that is the problem with socialist programs here. We still belive in individual acheivement.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
USinUk
Transportation? All I have heard is replacing cars with electric cars. When I put $72 in the Volvo and $55 in the Nissan, every trucker is filling up his 2,000 gal tanks every day. Have you been on an Interstate highway lately? There has to be s many trucks as cars. They are burning hundreds of times more fuel So how long until electric long haul trucks?
OK, so we get that straightened out. Airliners are next. Anybody working on electric airplanes? How about biofuels for a General Electric turbofan? The technology is not even being considered.
This converting our cars to electric is just politics. We are decades from having batteries that do not emit harmful radiation. Imagine the stack of batteries that it would take to push a 40 ton truck? Then what about airlines?
This is not around the corner. I wish it were, but it is not.
The petrochemicals are not being replaced with non-oil products. Why? If it were economically feasible, they would be replacing them. concrete for asphalt? Doesn’t work in colder climates. Also doesn’t work wherever there is any flexibility needed in the substrate. Concrete highways usually have asphalt bases.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Now what “liberals” were you talking about that was “right” about the war?
there were a number of very high-ranking Democrats that were against Viet Nam:
J. William Fulbright, Albert Gore, John McClellan, George McGovern, and Stuart Symington, to start.
In December 1963, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield wrote Johnson that the administration should cooperate with international officials seeking to find a settlement. “What national interests in Asia would steel the American people for the massive costs of an ever-deepening involvement?” he asked. Conservative Democratic Senator George Smathers reported to the president in 1964 that he was having trouble finding legislators who thought “we ought to fight a war in that area of the world.” According to New York Times reporter Max Frankel, “It is beginning to look as if the Democrats plan to be their own most vigorous critics in this year’s election debate.”
The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia — Lyndon Johnson’s mentor in the Senate. In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not be won and how unimportant the conflict was to the outcome of the Cold War.
On May 27, 1964, President Johnson called Russell to ask him for advice on the “Vietnam thing.” Russell called the situation the “damn worse mess I ever saw” and warned it would lead to a difficult war against the North Vietnamese and Chinese in the jungles. Russell said the U.S. position was “deteriorating” and that it looked like “the more we try to do for them [the South Vietnamese government], the less they are willing to do for themselves.” Russell said Americans were not ready to send troops to do the fighting. If it came to the option of sending Americans or getting out, Russell said, “I’d get out.” When Johnson asked him what was at stake, Russell responded that the territory was not important a “damn bit” to the United States. Russell also said he was concerned that McNamara was not as “objective” as he needed to be and that he didn’t understand the “history and background” of the Vietnamese. Although Russell publicly insisted on using as much force as possible after Johnson committed the United States to the conflict, privately he continued to express his fears.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12438
as for “the whole world is watching” riot at the Democratic National Convention, that didn’t happen in a vacuum any more than the Kent State shootings did. MLK, Jr was killed a few months prior (during which, Mayor Daley issued “shoot to kill” orders during the Chicago riots), Bobby Kennedy had just been assassinated, then a protester was killed before the convention even started. tensions and fear about the future were already running high.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
usinuk, please tell me how you figure this:
wind and solar power ARE currently being converted to electricity, so it should take relatively little time - and substantially less damage to the environment - to find a way to use them to power electric cars.
go ahead. destroy all that is breathtaking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming just so you’ll have “cheap” gas in your 4x4.
I’v been out west and I’ve seen these modern day wind mills (also in Hungary) and some of the solar panel farms. Tell me please how a 300 foot tall windmill takes away LESS of that breath taking beaty than a 30-40 foot tall oil derrick. Most of the oil wells that we saw we didn’t even notice until we were right on them. The windmills on the other hand were visible from MILES away.
I’m not AGAINST alternative fuels as you know I have said COUNTLESS TIMES. Your repeated assertions to the contrary are disingenuous at best and downright LIES at worst. You are extremely dishonest in this debate in 2 regards. First, as an seemingly intelligent woman, you KNOW we will still be using petroleum in 10 year, 20 years, 100 years. The difference is whether or not we are still paying exhorbitant prices for a product that costs about $2.00 a barrel to produce and whether or not that money is being spent here in America, creating AMERICAN jobs OR financing the lavish lifestyle of “sheiks” in arab countries (not to mention terrorists). If you deny this you are either stupid or a liar. Second, you act as if we can’t do BOTH. You frame the argument, dishonestly I think, as an either OR proposition when you know that the 2 are not mutually exclusive. I would love to send you pictures of the caribou that are OVERRUNNING the oil facility at Prudhoe Bay and the absolute DESOLATION of the area of proposed ANWR drilling (postage stamp sized by comparison). I would love for you to see the pictures of wildlife that I took out west in 2004 within yards of oil derricks.
Your arguments against drilling are downright lies and if you don’t know that then you are extremely naive and incapable of seeing beyond your blind allegiance to the party line.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
chitlins can be used for asphalt? I always knew they were nasty …
Too funny.
Chitin can be used for nearly all solid petroleum products and is one of the most abundant compounds on earth.
Concrete is only slightly more expensive than asphalt (300 miles of roadway: asphalt = $16.5mil and concrete = $17.5mil on a I-75 like roadway, both lanes) and arguably more effective and resilient. So, the minor extra cost is recouped in lack of resurfacing needs.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Mara
Because a person is in the military does not give them a criticism-free political career. Why would you think that it would?
Supporting our troops and blindingly supporting the policies of an ex-soldier are two different things.
By Gale
July 28, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
One more catch up. USinUK, But there were millions that voted for Clinto too. We know the skeletons in her closet. We are still trying to peek into Obama’s. You are right. Obama is the candidate and I don’t like it.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
concrete for asphalt? Doesn’t work in colder climates. Also doesn’t work wherever there is any flexibility needed in the substrate. Concrete highways usually have asphalt bases.
Totally wrong. I worked for a national/global engineering consultant firm for 7 years awhile back and they are interchangeable, cold climates and all.
By NYer
July 28, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
The only taxes that will really go up under an Obama administration will be, I believe, those on people making $200K+ per year.
It is highly unlikely that this is correct.
As is referenced, Obama has already said, and you can find it on his website that he’s planning to increase marginal tax rates on the high end to their pre-Bush levels.
What this ignores is much of what Obama has said, some of which is not specificially referenced on his website (at least not that I can find):
1) FICA: This is mentioned on his website, but in every debate I watched, and every time I’ve seen him asked this, he has said he’s strongly inclined to raise, or eliminate altogether the earnings cap on the social security tax. It currently ends for those making over $102K. That is a 6% marginal tax increase for every dollar over that threshold.
If Obama goes through with this, it would be a substantive tax increase for many in the middle class - and, I doubt most people would expect it. It is unclear if its impact would be mitigated by the “Making Work Pay” tax credit he proposes.
2) Capital gains tax: Obama mentioned in at least two debates with Hillary that I watched that he is giving strong consideration to raising capital gains rates beyond the current 15% long term rate. I believe over 50% of people in this country own stock either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, and while a lot of money is tied up in tax deferred vehicles like 401(k)’s and their cousins, a lot of middle class wealth is outside qualified plans and would be subject to higher taxes when securities are sold.
3) Dividend tax: In the same discussion as cap gains, Obama mentions that he’s inclined to raise dividend taxes as well. Lots of people own dividend paying stocks outside a qualified vehicle.
4) Corporate taxes: In some of the interviews I’ve seen with Obama, he has mentioned a desire to raise corporate taxes. In general, I think most people ignore the impact that an increase in corporate taxes would have on capital gains and dividends received by individuals who are shareholders of the corporation. Further, it should seem that at least some portion of an increase in corporate taxes will be passed on to consumers.
And while it’s clear from his website that Obama is (IMO wisely) trying to curry favor with small businesses, I think at the end of the day, the things he would do would cause far more harm than good to small biz.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Also. Do you or your husband not own a car?
yep - need it for weekend stuff and emergencies. however, the majority of our travel is done using our own 2 and via the fab UK rail service.
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
Supporting our troops and blindingly supporting the policies of an ex-soldier are two different things.
Ahh, but no they’re not, Truth—at least, not according to your own arguments! Just last week you were explaining (in between poor-little-me whines about being a picked-on victim of left wing abuse, of course) that “Supporting the troops ABSOLUTELY requires supporting whatever mission they’re on.” And those missions are chosen by… guess who? The policies of an ex-soldier (to put Bush’s record charitably).
Geez, you gotta learn some basic logic someday. (Like the difference between Democratic presidents and the liberal anti-war BASE of Americans during Vietnam.) Debates work better when you argue with your opponent, not yourself.
By Gale
July 28, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
NYer, ::applause::
For the insistance that people professing conservation should all buy electric cars. One, they are expensive. Two, the design just isn’t there yet. Three, there is no cost of ownership track record for them. Four, I need a pickup and mine is paid for. For what it is worth, I get about 17mpg in the summer because of AC and at least 22 in winter. I am sure I would do better on long hauls, but my M-F commute is Atlanta rush hour traffice.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
chuck -
I’v been out west and I’ve seen these modern day wind mills (also in Hungary) and some of the solar panel farms. Tell me please how a 300 foot tall windmill takes away LESS of that breath taking beaty than a 30-40 foot tall oil derrick. Most of the oil wells that we saw we didn’t even notice until we were right on them. The windmills on the other hand were visible from MILES away.
you’re conflating 2 different things. I wasn’t talking about putting wind mills or solar farms in CO, WY or UT. you obviously didn’t check the 2 articles I posted to - which both talked about environmental concerns with drilling (including air and water quality)
First, as an seemingly intelligent woman, you KNOW we will still be using petroleum in 10 year, 20 years, 100 years
10- I’ll give you. 20 - I hope not. 100? I absolutely disagree. If, for no other reason that we’ll have run out by then.
Second, you act as if we can’t do BOTH. You frame the argument, dishonestly I think, as an either OR proposition when you know that the 2 are not mutually exclusive.
sadly, I think history is behind me on this one - when gas was cheap, what happened to CAFE standards? when OPEC lowered their prices, what happened to fuel conservation? it’s called holding one’s feet to the fire - the more oil we produce, the longer we put off the inevitable. CAN we look for alternatives while we drill? of course we can. WILL we? history says no.
I would love for you to see the pictures of wildlife that I took out west in 2004 within yards of oil derricks.
lastly, to repeat what I said when we were discuss ANWR - it’s not just the drilling, it’s the infrastructure. it’s the roads that have to be built. it’s the electricity and water that have to be run. it’s the phone lines/mobile towers that have to be erected. ALL THAT disturbs nature - and, I’m sorry, but I’d like to keep SOME of this country pristine.
And, again - read the link … 10 years to full production.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Gale -
But there were millions that voted for Clinto too. We know the skeletons in her closet. We are still trying to peek into Obama’s. You are right. Obama is the candidate and I don’t like it.
sadly, this isn’t like youth leagues - not everyone is going to walk away with a trophy. and, while millions of folks voted for Hillary, more folks voted for Barack. that’s how primaries work.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
Are you saying that because I believe that we should not send soldiers into battle with the promise that we will support them as long as it is OK with Salon.com, that I have to support anyone who has ever served in the military? That doesn’t make sense. My argument was that we can’t expect soldiers to die for causes d’jour. That has nothing to do with whether or not Bush served in the military. And that has nothing to do with whether I support old solder’s, no matter how idiotic their statements are.
Like the difference between Democratic presidents and the liberal anti-war BASE of Americans during Vietnam.
LOL!! So the anti-war base were all people like you, huh? THAT WORKS GREAT!!!
I’m going to start saying that: Everybody who has done the good thing is like me. LOL!!
Did you support Nixon? Did you support Johnson? Are you old enough to even know who Nixon and Johnson were? Do you really believe that Congress had nothing to do with the continuing escalation and the stalemate of Viet Nam?
If you supported the democrats during the Viet nam war, you supported our involvement. I have a Nixon campaign hand-out that promises to get us out of Viet Nam. He won. We left Viet Nam. Now what about that contridicts what I have said?
You are reaching deep to find a contradiction that doesn’t exist. So why are you trying so hard and still getting it wrong?
By NYer
July 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
On the subject (for once):
I think military service is definitely a campaign asset. No doubt about it. But it’s certainly not a prerequisite for the job, nor an overwhelming factor in being a “good” President.
At the end of the day, I believe military service overwhelmingly stems from one overarching thing: love of country and the willingness to sacrifice some (or all) of yourself for the greater cause of country.
As for our two candidates today, (IMO of course) McCain’s service answers questions that Americans have about the character of their President. Obama’s lack of military service, doesn’t necessarily hurt him, he just needs to find another way to get voters comfortable with his character.
I think Obama’s biggest hurdle to winning the election is getting people comfortable with him as a leader.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
Mara:
I’m surprised that you can’t see the irony of conservatives vilifying ex-soldiers as “America haters” and “appeasers” when they support liberal policies but lauding them “patriots” and “heroes” when they toe the conservative line.
There’s no irony here BECAUSE THEY ARE PROMOTING APPEASEMENT. I don’t call them America “haters”. I may call them delusional European-style socialists who are perfectly willing to give up our SOVEREIGNTY to the rest of the world, but I don’t call them America haters.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Gale
They ignore so many facts. Electric cars have been around for years. They are toys. There is a Zapmobile that is a few blocks from my house. Two people can pick it up. You are setting on a stack of high output batteries. Then there are trucks. Then Airplanes. Then trains. Then replace all the uses of oil with other materials. We are talking decades before even the electric car is ready. And then it will need to be accepted by the American People.
They built my kid’s car, the Honda Insight so that it would get 70 mpg. It does. They don’t even make it any more. They used that technology to make SUVs get 24 mpg. That’s where the technology went.
But you see where the discussion goes: to the DNC talking points. 8-10 years for production. Drilling will destroy the environment. The oil companies already have land to drill on that they are not using. Because California doesn’t want offshore, then nobody gets offshore.
And massive amounts of US currency is transmitted daily to a culture that encourages beating women and bombing Americans.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
usinuk, you conveniently left off the the REST of that comment:
First, as an seemingly intelligent woman, you KNOW we will still be using petroleum in 10 year, 20 years, 100 years. The difference is whether or not we are still paying exhorbitant prices for a product that costs about $2.00 a barrel to produce and whether or not that money is being spent here in America, creating AMERICAN jobs OR financing the lavish lifestyle of “sheiks” in arab countries (not to mention terrorists).
I would suggest that you left it off because you can’t argue that point.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
NYer
I think Obama’s biggest hurdle to winning the election is getting people comfortable with him as a leader.
I was pretty comfortable with him when he was a liberal. That makes sense. He has always been a liberal and has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. But now he is claiming to be a conservative. Faith based initiatives? Give me a break. He will say anything to get the votes.
I will never be comfortable with the fact that he will unleash the most unpopular Congress in the history of our country.
Being comfortable means that they will need to trust a very slick Chicago lawyer/politician that has refuted the church he supported for 20 years after he found out that it was racist. His Chicago mob connections have a strange smell and his connections with a slum lord are well documented.
Comfort means trust. I have never seen the media bias I am seeing now, so the propaganda arm of the DNC just might make enough people forget his life altering decisions he made in the past. They may be able to make enough people remember what McCain said or some slip of the tongue over LIFE CHOICES of Obama. Remember that propaganda changed the most educated and cultured country in the world into NAZIs in just a few years. Making America forget Obama’s past shouldn’t be a big problem.
By Mara
July 28, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
Truth - Because a person is in the military does not give them a criticism-free political career.
I don’t expect anyone not be criticized for their policy views by those who disagree with them. If you think Ted Kennedy is wrong about drawing up a time table to leave Iraq, fine. But that’s not what conservatives say. They say “Ted Kennedy hates America” even though he volunteered to defend us with his life, if necessary.
The point you and chuck seem to be avoiding is that for all their lip-service about the military being the epitome of honor and patriotism, conservatives not only seem to be very averse to having such patriots in their leadership, they see nothing hypocritical about calling Democratic veterans all kinds of nasty names and impugning their love of country. Not a criticism of policy, a criticism of person.
chuck - There’s no irony here BECAUSE THEY ARE PROMOTING APPEASEMENT
and who exactly do you think they would be “appeasing” by pulling most of our troops out of Iraq and re-deploying them back into Afghanistan? At what point after “Mission Accomplished” can we re-evalute our stratigic missions without it being “appeasement”?
By chuck
July 28, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
BTW, usinuk, a couple of questions. You said:
it’s not just the drilling, it’s the infrastructure. it’s the roads that have to be built. it’s the electricity and water that have to be run. it’s the phone lines/mobile towers that have to be erected. ALL THAT disturbs nature - and, I’m sorry, but I’d like to keep SOME of this country pristine.
First, What is the point of keeping ANWR, “pristine”, if not for the “wildlife”? You can’t get there to see it without “infrastructure”. What is the benefit of that…just to say it is pristine? That’s ridiculous. Once the infrastructure is in place, it has virtually ZERO impact.
Second, As I drove through the west taking pictures of wildlife that was doing just fine by the way, what do you think I was on? I was on a road that enabled me to see the ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS WESTERN US. The oil derricks didn’t spoil the view or my enjoyment of the trip. I can say that neither did the windmills, though they were much more intrusive as far as the scenery goes.
My guess is that you have never even SEEN any of these things that I’m talking about. That reduces you to just sticking with those democrat talking points that you love so much.
By Reason
July 28, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
“The difference is whether or not we are still paying exhorbitant prices for a product that costs about $2.00 a barrel to produce and whether or not that money is being spent here in America, creating AMERICAN jobs OR financing the lavish lifestyle of “sheiks” in arab countries (not to mention terrorists).”
Starbuck’s coffee is $45 per gallon, do the math.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
and who exactly do you think they would be “appeasing” by pulling most of our troops out of Iraq and re-deploying them back into Afghanistan?
Let’s see:
Al Quaeda in Iraq
France (can you say Vichy?)
Iran (can you say nuke Israel?)
UK lefties like USinUK (can you say Chamberlain?)
The truth is:
Appeasement allowed the British and French to ignore an imminent threat and produced a fake peace which led to many deaths. They let Hitler rebuild the German army and navy, occupy the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. If they had put up a fight at the beginning, perhaps Hitler would not have kept pushing until the situation turned into a World War.
HERE IS THE KEY: If we let this slip away in Iraq, we are going to have to deal with it when we haveto go back in to repel the Iranians. We need to deal with it NOW and finish the job. We can’t afford to be sqeamish right now.
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Your persistent attempts to define “the left” by the action of specific Democrats will always fail, Truth… but I understand why you’re doing it. Your only hope of discrediting liberalism is to claim that it must always, unequivocally support the actions of any public official with a D after his name.
But that’s right-wing thinking. The real world, unsurprisingly, is different. “The left” was against the Vietnam war, no matter what congressional and White House Democrats said and did. And the left was (and is) against the Iraq debacle, no matter how many Democratic fools in Congress voted for it. And—surprise, surprise!—we were right, both times.
The contradiction you keep trying to invent is entirely in your head. The liberals have always been on the right side of illegal, pointless wars… and the conservatives have never gotten over being proven wrong on that issue, time and time again.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
Mara
I want to know where these conservatives are that are saying all this stuff. The biggest problem i have with Uncle Teddy is that he was the cause of a woman’s death, but because of his family ties, he was never charged with anything. I would still be in prison and so would you.
There are people from both parties that blather that someone does not love their country. But that isn’t the problem that conservatives have with democrats. If you read MoveOn.org or Salon.com, this claim will dominate any discussion. That makes it easy to look like conservatives have nothing to complain about; that their problems with democrats are all in our heads; that it’s about liberals not loving their country. It’s just not that easy.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
BTW Mara, Let me shed some light on why SOME conservatives think you lefties hate America (let me be clear here, I don’t believe that you hate America. I just believe that those of you on the left are just naive about how the world works.):
Look at this blog as a microcosm. How many on the left here actually EVER have anything positive to say about our country (Unless of course it is used as a preface to say something negative)?
When you see so much hostility directed toward something, you make certain assumptions. I can see why some would say that about you guys. Maybe some of you might try ACTING like you love America sometimes and you wouldn’t get so much flack.
By Newzwyre
July 28, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
turns out the shooter in Knoxville just really hates liberals.
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — An unemployed man accused of opening fire with a shotgun and killing two people at a Unitarian church apparently targeted the congregation out of hatred for its support of liberal social policies, police said Monday.
Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV said a signed, four-page letter written by Jim D. Adkisson, 58, was found in his small SUV in the church parking lot. Authorities said he was an apparent stranger to the Tennessee church where gunfire punctuated a children’s performance based on the musical “Annie.” Two people were killed and seven wounded Sunday.
“It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that and his stated hatred of the liberal movement,” Owen said at a news conference.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008076035_apchurchshooting.html
By Truth
July 28, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
Mara
who exactly do you think they would be “appeasing” by pulling most of our troops out of Iraq and re-deploying them back into Afghanistan?
Explain to me why Afghanistan is now the “good war” and Iraq is now the “bad war”. Actually, this is a good question for anyone. Remember, I am saying “now”.
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
Adkisson was putting every conservative’s fantasy into practice. And you wonder why we view them with such contempt? Because they’re bitter, hateful little losers, that’s why.
Don’t pretend Adkisson hasn’t become your personal hero, Chuck. He shot up liberals who claimed to be Christians! Isn’t that what you’ve always wanted to do? Didn’t you do a little terrorist fist-pump in the air when you heard the news?
THAT’S the conservative “mind” at work, folks… irrational hatred, sociopathic violence, and utter disregard for the welfare of others. Chuck says he’s never heard liberals say anything good about America. Well, I’ll say something good about America right now:
We’re shaking off the nightmare of neoconservatism and returning to our proud, sane, liberal roots. And not a moment too soon.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
I think I understand you now. You voted for democrats but you didn’t support them. You actually supported the policies of the Republicans. And apparently, so did enough anti-war democrats who kept Johnson in office for eight years. So who voted Nixon into office? And were you against the pull-out or for it? Because that was all Nixon.
Do you still always vote for the party that is against what you support or has the “real world” caught up to your reality?
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
Explain to me why Afghanistan is now the “good war” and Iraq is now the “bad war”. Actually, this is a good question for anyone. Remember, I am saying “now”.
Wow, I can’t believe even Truth is this deliberately thick. I’ll try to use small words for ya, Truthie:
Because Afghanistan is where Osama bin Laden (remember him? the guy who actually attacked us?) has been operating from. Iraq, home to Saddam Hussein (who DIDN’T attack us and who we know was no threat to us whatsoever), is not Afghanistan.
Get it? Now write “Iraq /= 9-11” a hundred times on the blackboard after class, dunce.
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Silly, silly Truth… I’ve always voted for the LIBERAL candidate, regardless of what letter comes after their name. When a Democrat favored the illegal war in Vietnam, I voted against him. When a Democrat (Hillary) voted for the illegal war in Iraq, I voted against her too.
Blind party loyalty is YOUR department, not mine. The candidate with the smart, liberal position always gets my vote. If any modern Republicans were capable of that, they’d be at the top of my list.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
NYer, very good comments today. All I would say about Barack HUSSEIN Obama, is that you have to actually accomplish something to gain respect and confidence of the THINKING electorate. Let’s face it, his legislative “career” has been less than effective. If as a member of the Senate he can’t get his ideas implemented, how does that change if he becomes president? Of course I would be against him BECAUSE of his liberal agenda even if he had executive experience, but I really don’t understand how someone who has NEVER been in charge of anything can expect to be allowed to take charge of arguably the most important office in the world.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Copyleft, I hope they fry his sorry butt. BTW, BITE ME.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
Don’t you mean AFGHANISTAN=9/11 dipstick?
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Second, As I drove through the west taking pictures of wildlife that was doing just fine by the way, what do you think I was on? I was on a road that enabled me to see the ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS WESTERN US. The oil derricks didn’t spoil the view or my enjoyment of the trip.
Would someone please explain he saw the wild life that remains.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
Have a bad weekend? Looking forward to the days that America will once again have gay marriage and only atheists will be free to worship whomever they don’t believe in?
I have heard that “get back to the days” for quite some time now. It must be a major talking point.
Our shaking off the neoconservative nightmare has so far resulted in a doubling of gas prices and inflation approaching the levels of the Carter Administration. This brilliant Congress that promised us cheaper gasoline is about to get their “yes man” for president. Any conservative that thinks that Obama has any reason to consider any conservative viewpoint is an idiot and gets what they deserve.
Enjoy your commute. Enjoy that inflation and those gas prices. They are really coming down now (rolling eyes). Almost back to $4/gal. Enjoy what you are about to bring on the US with a wimp of a president and a far left leaning congress that is more concerned with the caribou than about gas prices, inflation, your rights and YOUR job.
Maybe you can blame it on Bush.
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
No, the “/=” indicates NOT EQUAL, dimbulb. Didn’t you get that far in fifth-grade arithmetic? Or was math declared sacrilegious by then?
By chuck
July 28, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Or maybe joke, someone should explain to you, that those derricks have been there FOR DECADES. There was no shortage of wildlife at all. But then, we wouldn’t want to confuse you with FACTS.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
ACTUALLY, when the slash goes THROUGH the = sign it means NOT EQUAL to. /= just looks like a typo to me. BTW, BITE ME.
By USinUK
July 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
Let me shed some light on why SOME conservatives think you lefties hate America (let me be clear here, I don’t believe that you hate America. I just believe that those of you on the left are just naive about how the world works.): … Look at this blog as a microcosm. How many on the left here actually EVER have anything positive to say about our country (Unless of course it is used as a preface to say something negative)?
what a load of bollocks.
first of all, chuck, most of us on this blog work in the “real world” - NOT closeted in a middle school - but out here where we see what the credit crunch means to businesses, out here where we see what happens when companies decide to lay off 20% of their staff, out here where we see what happens, out here where we see what happens when the government makes decisions that impact businesses. you like to chit-chat about it, but we actually LIVE IT
secondly, last time I checked, this message board isn’t about getting together and singing “God Bless America” - it’s about debating problems - whether they are problems - how to fix them (or not). if you’re looking for flag-waving and choruses of “I’m Proud to Be An American”, go to Stone Mountain any summer evening after 8 and watch the laser show
(that is, assuming they still do the laser show … you know what I mean)
that doesn’t mean that I don’t love my country (and don’t you effing dare suggest otherwise). Nothing made me prouder than when I lived in DC and would drive down the GW parkway and see the monuments by moonlight. Nothing makes me prouder today than when I think about the Constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (the UK has an “unwritten” constitution - which drives my nit-picky side crazy - either you have one or you don’t … but that’s another matter).
as for your allusions to Chamberlain … Chuck … this is what I picture whenever anyone like you flings the word “appeasement” around like monkeys flinging poo:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-0CO53jQd60
was Chamberlain wrong to stand by and let Hitler take Europe in bits and pieces - of course he was. does that have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the current situation in the middle east. absolutely not.
By Mara
July 28, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
chuck - We need to deal with it NOW and finish the job
at what point is the “Mission Accomplished” then? All the excuses for invading have been dealt with. We’ve deposed and destroyed a vicious tyrant, freed the Iraqi people, mid-wifed a fledgling democracy, proved that Iraq no longer has WMD’s, and “Al Qaeda in Iraq” is on it’s last legs (per Maj Gen Hertling US commander of northern iraq, and Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander among others).
What do we have left to finish that the Iraqi’s can’t do themselves? Hasn’t Israel demonstrated (over and over again) that they’re more than capable of repelling even the combined might of the entire Arab world without our help, even though we are standing ready just in case? At what point does staying just out of spite, just to save face so it doesn’t look like “France” is telling us what to do…at what point does that become untenable?
By Truth
July 28, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
Because Afghanistan is where Osama bin Laden (remember him? the guy who actually attacked us?) has been operating from.
Really? So you know this for a fact? This man is worth 300 million dollars and you think he is running things from a cave. I see. There’s not much I can say about that, because unlike you, me and the US military don’t really know where he is. If they did, they would kill him.
Iraq, home to Saddam Hussein (who DIDN’T attack us and who we know was no threat to us whatsoever), is not Afghanistan.
Saddam is dead. It was in all the papers.
If we pull out of Iraq, the second largest oil producer in the world will be subject to the same people that blew up all those bombs this morning. Al Quida in Iraq is one of the main enemies that is already jockeying for power.
Of course there are always those vast riches of goat cheese that we need to protect in Afghanistan.
They are telling you what to think. Bin Laden would have to be the dumbest guy in the world to still be in Afghanistan. I think we need to protect both countries, but imagine what will happen if we pull out of Iraq. We could pull out of Afghanistan tomorrow and no one would notice. Afghanistan was the training ground that the Saudis used to attack the WTC. You know, the Saudis, the country that you guys are insisting that we buy our oil from.
Dare to be the liberal that asks why is Afghanistan so much more important than Iraq. Bin Laden is gone and Saddam is dead. Remember the word NOW. What do we do NOW?
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Or maybe joke, someone should explain to you, that those derricks have been there FOR DECADES. There was no shortage of wildlife at all. But then, we wouldn’t want to confuse you with FACTS.
Like I said, would someone explain to Chuck that he was looking at what wildlife was not affected, since the life that was affected is not there?
i know you would rather resort to name calling, which, ironically, always starts with the xian advocates. Not to mention the “kill em all” and “our troops are paid for, lets send them in somewhere!” mentality.
By Gale
July 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
USinUK, UK does not have a written constitution? Is that a normal monarchy thing?
By Truth
July 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
So you voted for Nixon.
Me too.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
USinuk, again you intentionally misstated what I said. I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT I DON’T THINK YOU HATE AMERICA.
BUT:
was Chamberlain wrong to stand by and let Hitler take Europe in bits and pieces - of course he was. does that have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the current situation in the middle east. absolutely not.
The situations are absolutely analagous. If we fail to finish the job in Iraq, the Islamic world will abosultely see it as appeasemengt and they (over 1 billion of them) will see it as weakness on our part and try to use it to further spread their hate and control around the world. They have already seen that we don’t “care” what they do in Africa and they are spreading like wildfire there. Look at what is happening all over Europe right now…ESPECIALLY FRANCE. The muslims have practically OVERRUN that country because the French are afraid to be politically incorrect and put limits on them. They are going to lose their culture and way of life if it continues, much like what is happening in America with hispanics. As much as I love my Mexican brother in law, I don’t want us to become Mexico. I love AMERICA.
So forgive me for speaking the truth, but your side’s policies SUCK and are BAD FOR MY COUNTRY, the one YOU ABANDONED BY THE WAY. AND, considering the fact that you LEFT, forgive me if I don’t respect your opinions as much as I might otherwise.
By Mara
July 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Truth - Explain to me why Afghanistan is now the “good war” and Iraq is now the “bad war”
for me, the Iraq war has always been a bad war. I, like many other liberals, believed that the war in Afghanistan at least was just and required. Why do you think that thousands of us were marching in the streets screaming about “No War in IRAQ” instead of just saying “No War”?
Most liberals I know still support our mission in Afghanistan and will never see the Iraq war as anything other than a costly distraction in the hunt for those who attacked us.
By NYer
July 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Last Week: Deregulation always backfires, and it always winds up costing the consumers and taxpayers the most. It’s time to rein in corporate America and put them back under government oversight, where they belong.
This Week: THAT’S the conservative “mind” at work, folks… irrational hatred, sociopathic violence, and utter disregard for the welfare of others.
Conservatives are wrong and liberals are right.
Are you serious? These are inane comments that demonstrate: (i) little to no grasp of our economic system, and (ii) a complete lack of understanding of the mindset of your political opponents.
It is a shame to see such a myopic, black and white worldview.
Thank you, Copyleft. You have provided prima facie evidence that those on the extreme left can be just as close-minded as those on the far right, in case anyone believed otherwise.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Chuck
Pssst. It’s dinosaurs. There were dinosaurs there before the oil derricks and now they are all gone. Shame on you xians.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
These are inane comments that demonstrate: (i) little to no grasp of our economic system, and (ii) a complete lack of understanding of the mindset of your political opponents.
(i) Check out the deregulation that was key to the mortgaged crisis.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
BTW usinuk, I can readily see how your sitting in a little cubicle in LONDON makes YOU more knowledgeable about what is going on in the US and the world than someone who studies it everday so that I can TEACH it. I’m sue your ability to crunch numbers might easily surpass mine, but beyond that you are pretty much just another European-style socialist singing “we are the world” and saying, “can’t we all just get along?”
The truth is WE CAN’T all get along as long as there are people out there trying to destroy our way of life. Do I think that our way of life is SUPERIOR to that of Europe and of the rest of the world for that matter? ABSOLUTELY. The difference is, YOU DON’T.
Mara, the bigger question is “Why is it so “untenable” NOW? Because YOU SAY SO?!?! I personally would rather listen to General Petraeus who actually KNOWS what is going on rather than that great military strategist Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Petraeus says it isn’t time to even LOOK AT a timetable for leaving. Maybe our politicians need to get on board with the person we sent to run the operation rather than the one the dems sent to RUN IT DOWN.
Joke, can you name even one animal facing extinction because we are drilling for oil in Texas? As usual you bring NOTHING to the convo except trite little jabs.
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
If we pull out of Iraq, the second largest oil producer in the world will be subject to the same people that blew up all those bombs this morning…. Of course there are always those vast riches of goat cheese that we need to protect in Afghanistan.
Thank you for admitting what BushCo won’t… that invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with oil.
Unlike Bush, I’d like to see us actually bring the perpetrator of 9/11 to justice. But I guess that doesn’t matter much compared to getting cheaper oil, huh?
By chuck
July 28, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
I forgot Truth. If you think about it though, the dinosaurs are still there. The democrat party just wants to keep them underground. We conservatives want to let them out. Nothing like that Dino power to run our hummers.
Excellent point again NYer.
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
NYer: If you can point to counterexamples… situations where deregulation HAS worked to the benefit of consumers and workers, I’d love to see them. Until then, my comment stands. Deregulation = less public accountability and control = always a bad thing for America in the long run.
As for my contempt for right-wingers… why should Ann Coulter and Michael “ADD” Savage have all the fun? Sometimes it’s cathartic to let the cowards and traitors get what they deserve—which is exactly what they’ve been dishing out for so very long.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Mara
You answered my question, but your answer was dated 2003. This is 2008. Radical Islam is trying to take over villages in Afghanistan so they will rule goat herders and farmers. Radical Islam is trying to take over cities in Iraq so they will rule oil refineries, oil wells, banks and industries.
My contention is that there is a “good war”, “bad war” propaganda going on within the DNC. By saying that the Afghanistan war is a “good war” you are saying that we need to fight a war on terror, but Afghanistan means very little in the geopolitical system.
Personally, i don’t think you fight ANY war on terrorist using tanks. You make it completely overt and you have people in line with the stones to make the hard decisions. When the NYT reveals a secret that compromises our efforts, we put people in prison.
This is not a war on terror. It is an energy war. We are protecting our sources. Why aren’t we in the Sudan? How many war lords are going crazy and we aren’t there?
i’m for pulling out of everywhere. Let’s all just come home and wait. We will know they are getting close when USinUK no longer answers. (Sorry USinUK) We’ll need to figure out how to get our own energy and that will probably really screw us up for ten, maybe twenty years, but hell, we won’t last that long, anyway.
The point I am trying to make is that we are running very low on options. We need oil and unfortunately, we will need it for a long time. Iraq is the ultimate prize right now and Saudi Arabia is holding on by a hair to a Monarchy that is our only ally in that country. Afghanistan is nothing. Terrorists are planning attacks in Dearborn Michigan. They don’t need Afghanistan.
I don’t believe this is a war on terror. It’s a war for control of the most oil rich region in the world. If we walk away from there, we better be ready to start drilling.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
Joke, can you name even one animal facing extinction because we are drilling for oil in Texas? As usual you bring NOTHING to the convo except trite little jabs.
I am not the one calling names or mis-naming posters with intent to be insulting.
Well, the prairie dogs were lost, which led to black footed ferret being lost and only recently reintroduced because of liberals. How many of those cool guys did you see? I am guessing none since their numbers are still dismal.
And my point stands, you claim that since you saw some wildlife, that translates to none is missing. Very uneducated and flawed premise.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama
Even your candidate calls using his middle name to call negative attention to him is racist. Those are not my words, but the guy’s that you are for. You out yourself more each time you come on here.
By Copyleft
July 28, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
So you voted for Nixon.
Nope. Eugene McCarthy in ‘68, and McGovern in ‘72. Smart, anti-war liberals both times. America rejected them to our great cost and regret.
And sadly, it seems we have to learn that lesson all over again with Iraq.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
copyleft, that “bring Bin Laden to justice” line is a load of crap. You don’t want us in AFGHANISTAN any more than you want us in Iraq. You would be perfectly happy if we ran from both with our tails between our legs because of your irrational hatered of all thing BUSH. In fact, I believe you would be perfectly happy to lay down American sovereignty to make it subservient to the U.N. Then you could get everything you want in a government…a CHECK.
By NYer
July 28, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
JokesOn,
I invite you to read the response I made to Copyleft’s original posting last Thursday at 4:25. It is still on the prior thread.
Specifically I would point to: there are degrees of de/regulation. While the US is, overall, a more-lightly regulated economy than others, I can’t think of a single industry where there is complete deregulation. So corporate America is already under government watch. The question is the degree of that oversight, which is something we can all debate.
Despite the recent occurrences, and whether you know it or not, the mortgage industry is not “deregulated”. In fact, it has significant regulation. In this case though, the existing regulation was not able to prevent the problems.
Secondly, to provide one example of what you believe to be failed (de)regulation in no way proves a point that deregulation ALWAYS backfires, which was Copyleft’s original statement.
There are plenty of examples where deregulation has been beneficial. So to say that it always backfires is rather silly.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
What a conundrum. A conservative arguing that it is an energy war. Now what do you do?
Like I just told Mara, let’s all come home. We will be ready when they beach-head in Miami, but their problems aren’t ours anymore. Screw em. We will make do back here without their oil. I filled up the Volvo three weeks ago. I took the Nissan to get it washed yesterday and it took less than ten bucks to fill it up and I have no idea when the last fill-up I had on that one. i’ll be fine. How about you?
We are going to have a president that will insist on our refineries producing the same amounts they produced in the 1950s so we will need to get ready for some hard times until they can figure out how to make electric cars, trucks, planes and trains.
If this isn’t the future, tell me what is?
By Truth
July 28, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
McGovern? LOL!! You voted against pulling out of Viet Nam.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
Chuck
LOL!! if it gets to the point that you can see prairie dogs or black footed ferrets from a speeding car, there are waaaay yonder too many prairie dogs and black footed ferrets.
By chuck
July 28, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
BTW, usinuk, I have actually owned and run successful businesses in my past, not just as a “drone” like you but as a “decider”. I do know my way around a spreadsheet.
AND
You never answered these questions. Hard time focusing today?
BTW, usinuk, a couple of questions. You said:
it’s not just the drilling, it’s the infrastructure. it’s the roads that have to be built. it’s the electricity and water that have to be run. it’s the phone lines/mobile towers that have to be erected. ALL THAT disturbs nature - and, I’m sorry, but I’d like to keep SOME of this country pristine.
First, What is the point of keeping ANWR, “pristine”, if not for the “wildlife”? You can’t get there to see it without “infrastructure”. What is the benefit of that…just to say it is pristine? That’s ridiculous. Once the infrastructure is in place, it has virtually ZERO impact.
Second, As I drove through the west taking pictures of wildlife that was doing just fine by the way, what do you think I was on? I was on a road that enabled me to see the ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS WESTERN US. The oil derricks didn’t spoil the view or my enjoyment of the trip. I can say that neither did the windmills, though they were much more intrusive as far as the scenery goes.
You also avoided this one:
First, as an seemingly intelligent woman, you KNOW we will still be using petroleum in 10 year, 20 years, 100 years. The difference is whether or not we are still paying exhorbitant prices for a product that costs about $2.00 a barrel to produce and whether or not that money is being spent here in America, creating AMERICAN jobs OR financing the lavish lifestyle of “sheiks” in arab countries (not to mention terrorists).
If you aren’t willing to answer the tough questions then…you must be a Barack HUSSEIN Obama supporter.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
You don’t want us in AFGHANISTAN any more than you want us in Iraq.
Telling someone what they think, although they already made their point clearly, really brings something to the table.
By NYer
July 28, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
NYer: If you can point to counterexamples… situations where deregulation HAS worked to the benefit of consumers and workers, I’d love to see them. Until then, my comment stands. Deregulation = less public accountability and control = always a bad thing for America in the long run.
Come on, dude, are you serious?
Look at what’s happened in the communications industry since the massive deregulating that took place in 1996. Tons of companies and jobs were created, consumers got more and better choices for telephony. Prices went down - who pays for LD anymore? It paved the way for bundled services of long distance, local dial tone, internet service, cable, etc.
By Mara
July 28, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
chuck - “Why is it so “untenable” NOW? Because YOU SAY SO?!?!
no, not because I “say so”. I have never supported this endeavor, nor do I now. Not JUST because I believed Afghanistan was more important, but because it doesn’t seem like it is now, nor ever has been, worth the costs -
$800 BILLION dollars - including $1B that just disappeared, $10B mismanaged or wasted, and $3.2B of the $20B payed to Haliburton that was deemed questionable and unsupported.
Over 4,000 dead American soldiers. Over 30,000 wounded. More than 30% of deployed troops expected to develop serious mental health issues within 3-4 months of returning home.
Over 180,000 “private” support personnel killed. 130 Journalists killed. More than 8,000 Iraqi policement and soldiers dead. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed.
2.2 million Iraqi’s displaced within Iraq, another 2.2 million find refuge outside the borders.
some of these are older statistics, so the casualties and wounded are probably higher. We are slowly bankrupting ourselves, damaging our military capabilities, and damaging our moral authority by the lengths we have gone to in the name of “security”.
By GOB
July 28, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
The muslims have practically OVERRUN that country because the French are afraid to be politically incorrect and put limits on them. They are going to lose their culture and way of life if it continues, much like what is happening in America with hispanics. As much as I love my Mexican brother in law, I don’t want us to become Mexico. I love AMERICA.
Chuck - Good thing for you that the Native Americans didnt have a strong immigration policy…
Truth - Pssst. It’s dinosaurs. There were dinosaurs there before the oil derricks and now they are all gone. Shame on you xians.
No, Noah had dinosaur eggs on the ark. Just ask Chuck, he’ll explain it to you. Dinosaurs and humans all living happily together.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
Despite the recent occurrences, and whether you know it or not, the mortgage industry is not “deregulated”. In fact, it has significant regulation. In this case though, the existing regulation was not able to prevent the problems.
There was significant deregulation that led up to this crisis. That is a fact. It also was nearly an exact mirror of the deregulation that occurred before the depression.
Secondly, to provide one example of what you believe to be failed (de)regulation in no way proves a point that deregulation ALWAYS backfires, which was Copyleft’s original statement.
I agree regarding levels/gradient and that this is not a binary issue. that was not my point, and I was not clear about that - sorry.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this
LOL!! if it gets to the point that you can see prairie dogs or black footed ferrets from a speeding car, there are waaaay yonder too many prairie dogs and black footed ferrets.
See. It is not whether we affected a species. It is that you really do not give a crap.
You simply want your cheap gas.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
You simply want your cheap gas.
I’m soooo ashamed. Because i want my cheap gas, all the prairie dogs are dead.
There are some parts of the west where prairie dogs are considered endangered in that particular area. This is the result of extermination by farmers. They eat their crops and they are a constant danger fpr horses because of broken ankles. They are rodents and considered vermin by the people who live there. If I were king, they could all live at your house.
But my cheap gas had nothing to do with the problems concerning the prairie dogs.
Man, that was a great liberal whine, though: See. It is not whether we affected a species. It is that you really do not give a crap. You simply want your cheap gas.
I think I will get a picture of a big nasty wolf rat and put that slogan on a yard sign.
By AGF
July 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I have been extremely busy the last four days, so I wasn’t able to respond to your post from last Thursday about the media’s reporting of the Iraq war.
You said: I’m sure there are good stories going on, but if my brother-in-law was killed and the Nightly News decided to spend their time on a fluff piece about a new hairdressing school that had been set up, I would be furious.
And if one of my friends died and the Nightly News reported only his death without mentioning that his platoon wiped out 47 insurgents, then I would be MUCH more upset. We aren’t honoring those who have given their life in this conflict by simply reporting their deaths; we must list their accomplishments (military or otherwise) so that we TRULY honor their service.
Then you stated: good grief. I can’t believe we even have to HAVE this conversation.
We have to have this conversation because the PEN IS INDEED MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD. When young men like Michael Johnson speak up about the media’s unfair reporting of the war, it is a good thing and we need to take notice. Yellow journalism played a significant role in the start of the Spanish American war, and now the same tactics are being used to end the conflict in Iraq. Even if the Iraq conflict is unjust or is not in America’s best interests (and every day I am beginning to believe a little bit more that it is unjust and is not in America’s best interest), the media’s attempt to end the war through unethical reporting is not justified. The ends do not justify the means.
I must also say I was disappointed with the pejorative comments about “setting up a hairdressing school” and JokesOn making a remark about “passing out candy”. Reporting those types of stories are fluff and have no need to be reported in the news. However, I have grow weary of reading in bold print on page 1A that 8 soldiers were killed, and then having to turn to page 15D to find out their unit killed 24 enemy troops and captured another 12.
Finally, after I reread some of my own comments from Thursday, I can see that they were indeed offensive. My apologies. And, as BOR would say, you have the last word!
By AGF
July 28, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
GOB: Chuck - Good thing for you that the Native Americans didnt have a strong immigration policy…
And just exactly how did their immigration policy work out for them? Methinks not too good.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this
Truth,
Nice how when proven wrong today you make jokes about the subject as though it never existed.
See: Asphalt, alts for petroleum solids, extinction, the wars and the truth of why they were started (you now admit one was to secure “our” resources) and where they ended up, your selfish need of cheap gas versus pushing for an alternative, that liberals/progressives vote for policy and you vote party lines, dinosaurs were not around a few hundred years ago….to tired to keep going.
You two keep proving the only thing you really care about (do not even say you care about our troops after your statement that they are paid for and should be shipped somewhere to fight) are your selfish issues, not the greater good of any, much less all.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
One last time: $1 billion/36 hours to be in iraq. The current total is $2000 for each american in taxes, not counting the interest to be paid to the Federal reserve for the loan - and no end in sight.
Yet you want to state that you want cheap gas at that cost, and the costs not figured in as a result, including the lives lost because they were paid for.
That is highly irrational even IF you were going to get your $2/gal gas. How one cannot see that is only explained by dogma behavior based on binary thinking, scare tactics, and blind loyalty.
By GOB
July 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
AFG - That’s the point. The hypocritical nature of someone complaining about the Mexicans taking over when only some 400 years ago, not a word of English was spoken on this continent is tremendous.
Countries and societies evolve and change. Until we are able to understand and accept that, we are going to have racism and xenophobia. As a rule, the right is fighting this evolution with everything they have, while the left tends to be more open to it, with the understanding that you cant stop it, so you might as well do your best to make it the best possible society for everyone, not just those that used to be in charge.
By GOB
July 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
AFG - That’s the point. The hypocritical nature of someone complaining about the Mexicans taking over when only some 400 years ago, not a word of English was spoken on this continent is tremendous.
Countries and societies evolve and change. Until we are able to understand and accept that, we are going to have racism and xenophobia. As a rule, the right is fighting this evolution with everything they have, while the left tends to be more open to it, with the understanding that you cant stop it, so you might as well do your best to make it the best possible society for everyone, not just those that used to be in charge.
By JokesOn
July 28, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this
Finally, after I reread some of my own comments from Thursday, I can see that they were indeed offensive. My apologies. And, as BOR would say, you have the last word!
Very big of you. Thanks.
As for “passing out candy;” please see that it was a chain of events that are in fact important. This is part of the new strategy that proves restraint in many of these situations is more valuable that striking back. This is something the liberals stated WAY back before the war(s), but was considered sympathizing, and one of the first “unpatriotic” actions/statements.
By Truth
July 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
See: Asphalt, alts for petroleum solids,
What was i wrong about? My contention was that you were wrong in what you said about a 25% gasoline efficiency increase would mean a 25% less consumption. I was correct. you were wrong. Your assumption would mean that there are no other uses for petroleum. You were wrong. i was right.
You listed a alternative for asphalt. What did that have to do with anything? You haven’t posted a fact, all day. You have proven nothing. You know, a normal day for you.
extinction, the wars and the truth of why they were started (you now admit one was to secure “our” resources) and where they ended up,
Please point out where I have said anything but Iraq was an energy war. Use those tools for anything other than stalking others and see if you can find where i said anything about that … ever. You’re a dang computer genius aren’t you. If you can find my flicker site, you can surely find where i said anything different about why we are in Iraq.
*your selfish need of cheap gas versus pushing for an alternative, *
What? Show me where I said that.
that liberals/progressives vote for policy and you vote party lines, dinosaurs were not around a few hundred years ago….to tired to keep going.
How long were you gone for lunch? I need you to prove all of what you are claiming.
You two keep proving the only thing you really care about (do not even say you care about our troops after your statement that they are paid for and should be shipped somewhere to fight) are your selfish issues, not the greater good of any, much less all.
Now you are making me cry. LOL!!
Nice try today, though. Be sure to post well after 5 PM to show what a dang genius you are. BTW. How’s my flicker site? Remember, the Alpine Ninja is EVERYWHERE!!!
By Truth
July 28, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this
I told you that I wasn’t going to let you lie any more without confronting you.
My last post did exactly that. You won’t answer a single confrontation because you can’t. You lied and i called your bluff.
Prove me wrong by posting my original quotes that you are claiming or simply understand that everyone will know you are once again: lying.
Here’s my last one”
do not even say you care about our troops after your statement that they are paid for and should be shipped somewhere to fight)
Use those tools that you use to stalk others and post where I said that. That should be easy for a dang genius like you. After all, you found that Flicker site in less than a commercial break.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this
In no particular order and minus the childish crap you would love to get back into:
Hey Pal. we have something in common. I like to tweak self righteous liberals who insist on trying to make others feel bad about their faith. It’s more than justice.
There you go. And before you say that you qualified the statement, I will interject that you have stated that you believe all liberals are self righteous and make others feel bad about their faith because of our belief that religion should be separate from the government.
do not even say you care about our troops after your statement that they are paid for and should be shipped somewhere to fight)
Use those tools that you use to stalk others and post where I said that.
Right here: By Truth
July 22, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this No it isn’t. It’s illogical to train people to do a job and leave them at home.
What was i wrong about? My contention was that you were wrong in what you said about a 25% gasoline efficiency increase would mean a 25% less consumption. I was correct. you were wrong. Your assumption would mean that there are no other uses for petroleum. You were wrong. i was right.
Do these people not realize that the net effect of increasing efficiency by 25% is like having 25% more petrol in production? Petrol, petrol, petrol. Not, oil.
Can you read it if I type it three times?
Here is the definition of PETROL: Gasoline (gas) or petroleum spirit (petrol) is a petroleum-derived liquid mixture consisting mostly of aliphatic hydrocarbons, enhanced with iso-octane or the aromatic hydrocarbons toluene and benzene to increase its octane rating, and is primarily used as fuel in internal combustion engines.
You typed: I can’t wait to hear how they are going to synthetically produce asphalt.
And now state: You listed a alternative for asphalt. What did that have to do with anything?
And here are the facts that you say were not posted: Concrete is only slightly more expensive than asphalt (300 miles of roadway: asphalt = $16.5mil and concrete = $17.5mil on a I-75 like roadway, both lanes) and arguably more effective and resilient. So, the minor extra cost is recouped in lack of resurfacing needs.
*your selfish need of cheap gas versus pushing for an alternative, * (pushing, not hoping while doing nothing)
What? Show me where I said that.
Here: I’m soooo ashamed. Because i want my cheap gas
and your argument to keep drilling versus pushing (there is that word again) the alternatives we have and that can be developed IF made a priority, which won’t happen if things go your way:
“We can’t drill our way out of this”. The latest mindless talking point was repeated on all the Sunday morning political shows over and over and over, so you can keep your criticism of FOXNews. When CNN and the big three stop acting as the propaganda arm for the DNC, then your complaints will have some credibility.
Please point out where I have said anything but Iraq was an energy war. Use those tools for anything other than stalking others and see if you can find where i said anything about that … ever.
Your previous argument was that we were all (dems and repubs) for the war based on the same information. That info being that there were WMDs. And when we, the democrats, found out that the info was not valid and actually a guise to secure, as you put it “our oil,” you said it was inappropriate to change our position. Nowhere in your argument did you raise the issue that you alone had privy info that it was always about oil. No, you backed the administrations lies and call to “stay the course.” Now you want everyone to believe, which is actually quite a bit more repugnant, that sacrificing our troops in order for you to have cheap oil has always been your premise - and an ok one! And since they are already paid for (remember the firefighter analogy that blew your premise out of the water) we should use them for that purpose. I see where the “no blood for oil” came from: it was in rebuttal to folk like you.
Each time your position gets clarified, which is after exhausting circular arguments and incorrect statements regarding our premise. It is revealed to be as un-american as it gets and, moreover, obscenely morose.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
AGF -
good to see you back! in no particular order:
1) I wasn’t offended by anything you said last week, but thanks for the apology, anyway :-)
2) Talk of hairdressing schools or giving out candy wasn’t derogatory - when other bloggers/commenters talk about how they want to hear the good news, that’s exactly what they mean. They don’t mean how many killed/captured - they mean schools, facilities, etc.
3) I don’t know what outlets you’re reading, but in every account I’ve read about Iraq, they do talk about insurgents killed and/or captured when they talk about servicemen and -women killed … unless they’re just doing a profile piece. (and don’t we want them to do profile pieces??)
Even today, the AP and major papers are doing a story on a big push in Diyala: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072900280.html?hpid=moreheadlines
4) Yellow journalism played a significant role in the start of the Spanish American war, and now the same tactics are being used to end the conflict in Iraq. and irresponsible journalism let the country be cheerled (cheerleaded?) into Iraq - journalists should have been FAR more critical of what they were being spoonfed than they were. However, I don’t think they are being irresponsible when they report on waste (this is MY money, too) or when they report on how the Iraqi government wants US forces out. Better late for critical journalism than never.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Let’s all just come home and wait. We will know they are getting close when USinUK no longer answers. (Sorry USinUK)
I’m the canary in the coalmine? does that job come with benefits and vacation? just as long as I don’t have to wear a funny hat …
you’re forgetting one thing: the 7/7 bombings in London weren’t done by external terrorists. they were homegrown - born and raised in the UK and living all over the country. just because you’re “fighting them there” doesn’t mean that you don’t already have people born and raised in the US, outside major cities, who would gladly be the next Timothy McVeigh.
just my £0.02.
By HeeHee
July 29, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
Is TRUTH from Knoxville? Got a brother there?
By Copyleft
July 29, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
Or Jim Adkisson. Further proof that right-wing religious zealotry is the true enemy, in ANY country.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
USinUK can fend for herself, but I think calling her a drone who’s abandoned her country is a little over the top.
Frankly, I would leave the US and live abroad for any number of reasons.
I applaud her for at least one thing: she identifies herself with the US part first, unlike many.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
jokesOn
Thanks for taking the time to prove I didn’t say a single thing you said I did.
I’m glad you took the time, though. At least you weren’t stalking anyone while I was taking up your time. Thanks for that.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
USinUK
If you read what I was saying to Mara, you will see that I am also saying that they are planning attacks in Dearborn Michigan. They don’t need Afghanistan. I was commenting on the fact that the DNC is now claiming Iraq to be a bad war and Afghanistan to be the good war.
I thought you always wore a funny hat.
By HeeHee
July 29, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
Poor me. I was stupid enough to say it, but when asked to prove it, I looked like a fool, so here I am, back again. You can always tell when I am really frustrated at being caught in a pack of lies because HeeHee appears. Today, many of my bots will be here. I’m not really smart enough without their help.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
chuck -
USinuk, again you intentionally misstated what I said. I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT I DON’T THINK YOU HATE AMERICA.
no, you just did the “Some Say” Spineless Two-Step of “well, I don’t think you hate America, but other people do … and this is why, which is something I’ve noticed and agree with.” Please. You specifically said “Look at this blog as a microcosm. How many on the left here actually EVER have anything positive to say about our country (Unless of course it is used as a preface to say something negative)? So, yes, you are saying that I hate my country - you’re just too danged cowardly to admit that’s what you’re saying.
The situations are absolutely analagous. If we fail to finish the job in Iraq, the Islamic world will abosultely see it as appeasemengt and they (over 1 billion of them) will see it as weakness on our part and try to use it to further spread their hate and control around the world. They have already seen that we don’t “care” what they do in Africa and they are spreading like wildfire there. Look at what is happening all over Europe right now…ESPECIALLY FRANCE. The muslims have practically OVERRUN that country because the French are afraid to be politically incorrect and put limits on them.
no, the situations aren’t analogous - the only country that is taking over anything in the middle east is the US. WE are the ones who invaded a sovereign nation. WE are the ones who are granting no-bid drilling contracts. and, please, please, PLEASE learn what Chamberlain’s appeasement policies were before you start slinging the word around. Really, you sound like the Kevin James from the video.
the French Muslims came from what were French colonies - just as the UK has a huge Indian/Pakistani, Jamaican, (etc) contingent living in this country that came from former British colonies. As for not clamping down on their Muslim population - again, you’re speaking from your nether region and are completely wrong. The French have actually passed laws against wearing the hijab in schools back in 2004.
I can readily see how your sitting in a little cubicle in LONDON makes YOU more knowledgeable about what is going on in the US and the world than someone who studies it everday so that I can TEACH it. I’m sue your ability to crunch numbers might easily surpass mine, but beyond that you are pretty much just another European-style socialist singing “we are the world” and saying, “can’t we all just get along?”
Yes, actually I am more knowledgeable about what’s going on in the US economically than you are and definitely moreso about what’s going on in the world. I do live it - I analyze global economics for my job. Part of that is understanding what’s going on geopolitically so that we can better predict what’s happening with the markets.
Not to mention, I see a little more of international news/views than you do.
So forgive me for speaking the truth, but your side’s policies SUCK and are BAD FOR MY COUNTRY, the one YOU ABANDONED BY THE WAY. AND, considering the fact that you LEFT, forgive me if I don’t respect your opinions as much as I might otherwise
yep. that’s me. I knocked the country up then packed my things and left in the middle of the night.
hate to disappoint, but I married a Brit so “whither he goest” and all that. but, I still pay my US taxes and vote, so your charges of abandonment are like most other things you spout - completely unfounded.
and, frankly, the only thing I’ve ever seen you “respect” are your own blinkered opinions.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Have you heard about the Honda that burns natural gas? It gets 250 miles per fillup and you can fillup at home. This could be something. We have plenty bof natural gas and the infrastructure is already in place to put outlets in most service stations.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
JokesOn,
There was significant deregulation that led up to this crisis. That is a fact.
Could you be a little more specific about the “deregulation” that you believe led up to the crisis? Is there a specific change that you are talking about or are you referring to the more broad changes that occurred as new mortgage products (zero down payment, no-doc closings, adjustible mortgages, interest only products) became more commonplace?
By NYer
July 29, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
GOB,
The hypocritical nature of someone complaining about the Mexicans taking over when only some 400 years ago, not a word of English was spoken on this continent is tremendous.
Your post, headlined by this comment, made for some interesting reading. I would point out to you that Spanish appeared on this continent not long before English, but I doubt that is the main thrust of what you are saying. Nevertheless, why should we allow the Spanish speakers (to use your phrase) “take over” this land today just because the Native Americans were overrun by the Europeans 400+ years ago?
Would you classify the descendents of all conquerors hypocrites for wanting to hold onto (what is for them) their homeland? Personally, I fail to see how it is hypocritical to want to defend your homeland, culture, heritage and society. Ethnocentric perhaps, but not hypocritical. Surely you and I did not ruin things for Native Americans; we were born into the status quo long after the damage was done. Many are willing to defend their nation when they perceive a threat - most cultures have behaved similarly over the course of time.
Lastly, if we can’t stop “this evolution” and should do as you suggest - try to make the best society for everyone, why have national borders or an immigration policy? Unfortunately your advice sounds dangerously like Bobby’s Knight’s advice to women being raped: if you can’t do anything about it, just lay back and try to enjoy it. Surprisingly, that doesn’t work for most people.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
NYer -
thanks!!
Truth -
I was commenting on the fact that the DNC is now claiming Iraq to be a bad war and Afghanistan to be the good war.
Iraq was completely unnecessary - as subsequent reports have confirmed. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job - instead, we have a resurrected Taliban and still no end to Al Q in sight.
I thought you always wore a funny hat. only when I garden (you can take the girl out of the south … )
Have you heard about the Honda that burns natural gas?
there are LOADS of vehicles that use natural gas (when I lived in DC, most of the mass trans used it as did a number of companies) - however, I thought it required a different form of natural gas than the kind we have in our house … ??? (something about it being a liquidized form or some such … can’t remember the specifics)
By Copyleft
July 29, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
By the way… have Coulter, Hannity, and O’Reilly, the Terrorist Trio, taken credit for their boy Jim Adkisson’s violent outburst yet?
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2008/07/28/tenn.church.shooting-MUG.jpg
I know Chuck’s putting up this picture in his bedroom to kiss goodnight before turning in each evening, but I was wondering if the hate-spewing right wingers who encouraged this nut have the courage to accept responsibility for him.
By Copyleft
July 29, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
Of course, I’m sure these noble right-wing media drones are appalled by Adkisson’s violent attack on a peaceful congregation of liberal churchgoers… so I’m SURE they’ll condemn Adkisson’s actions loudly and at great length on today’s shows and columns, right?
Don’t hold your breath, folks. Michael Savage is probably organizing a defense fund for Adkisson as we speak.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
You are welcome.
Copyleft,
I see you are here - are you planning to respond to me at all or were you just going to toss a few more grenades about the horror of the right? It’s OK with me if you want to be the comedy guy that equates all conservatives with Hannity, Rush, Coulter and Savage; it will just be near-impossible to take you seriously when you talk about other things.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
NYer -
Unfortunately your advice sounds dangerously like Bobby’s Knight’s advice to women being raped: if you can’t do anything about it, just lay back and try to enjoy it. Surprisingly, that doesn’t work for most people.
fwiw … I don’t understand why-why-WHY more isn’t done to clamp down on employers. If you dry up the job supply, you’ll diminish the number of illegals. And, I’m sorry, but ANYone who drives by the HD and picks up a “day laborer” knows that the guy is here illegally.
sorry, but between the hoops my husband jumped when he lived/worked in the US and the hoops I have jumped to live/work here in the UK, I have absolutely NO TOLERANCE for people who go the illegal route. I don’t know how “ship-em-back” would work, but I DO know how well “fine the he!! out of ‘em” works on folks who knowingly hire illegals.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
NYer
Strong post at 9:24. I, like a lot of Americans am part native American. My ancestors lived in the swamps. Call me White, but I like the air conditioning.
Red Cloud, the great Souix Shaman made the Seventh Generation Prophecies which basically predicted the baby boomer Indians would figure out the casino loop hole and Native Americans woould become rich, taking money from non-Indians. Hunting buffalo with sharp sticks, sleeping in the woods or living in mansions and picking out new cars? Decisions, decisions.
Unfortunately, some tribes can’t take that advantage. the Laramie Treaty of 1872 prevents the Souix from doing pretty much anything to improve their own plight. And the US government broke the treaty by 1900.
The Arawaks in the Caribbean were hunted and eaten by the Carribs. The Apachi were fierce worriers. Who did they fight before the Wihite man got here? Lesser, more peaceful tribes.
It was horrible that the natives were treated like they were, but they weren’t all the peace loving people that Hollywood likes to depict them as. But the “Native American Whine” is a good liberal whine. it’s their: you don’t have the right to your land” whine.
But you know: being a large enough part Seminole to be able to claim status, I can’t find a single liberal that is willing to sign over their “stolen” land to me. i’m pretty sure that GOB isn’t ready to sign his over either. it’s only wrong if someone else does it.
By GOB
July 29, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
NYer - I still do think that there is a great deal of hypocrisy involved in the view that we have to keep everyone (well, not everyone, just those damn Mexicans!) out when a large number of us are only a generation or two removed from being immigrants ourselves.
So many in this country want so badly to believe that we can go back to the Leave it to Beaver society of the 50’s (which in reality never existed) and in doing so are willing to throw any perspective out the door. We now live in a truly global society. We can’t isolate ourselves and just hope that the rest of the world will leave us alone. Societies ARE going to change and evolve. I challenge you to find any large-scale society in history that didn’t. Why should we assume or expect to be any different?
In my opinion, much of this discussion is an ethnic and class issue. I would be willing to bet that if Chuck meets someone with an Australian or British accent he doesn’t even give their immigration status the first thought. Do you think that is true when he meets someone who is Hispanic?
I am fully aware that just about every society in history has had “an enemy” to mobilize the masses (and don’t kid yourself that the immigration debate isn’t about scaring the right wing straight to the polls), but shouldn’t we try to be more logical and civilized about how we treat others? Almost every society in history subjugated women, but we have been able to become better than that.
I also think borders are important, but not so much to keep people who only want a better life for themselves out. They are important from a national security standpoint in just knowing who is here and what is being brought into the country. To call America and beacon the hill for the rest of the world, and the land of opportunity seems trite when in reality, it is only the land of opportunity for a select few.
As for your last point, you could make that analogy about anything that is inevitable; death, taxes, Tech losing to UGA, etc.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Your comments about Iraq might have been true in 2003-2004. What do we do now? If we leave Afghanistan, whole villages of goats will be lost. If we leave Iraq, the second largest oil producing country will be open to whomever wants it. And Afghanistan is where we need to stay? Tell me why. But here’s the challenge: use present tense as much as possible.
The Honda will burn home gas. i guess that’s the big deal. MARTA has a lot of NG buses.
Those socialists let you have a garden? Do you need to report your crops?
By Copyleft
July 29, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Oh, you’re still using the Telecomm deregulation as your example? I thought that was already addressed.
Yes, telecomm deregulation was a disaster for consumers. Sure, the technology was already exploding (which had nothing to do with regulations and everything to do with the publicly-created and funded Internet). But it resulted in instantly shoddy and unreliable service, lack or loss of coverage in many areas.
And—as we can now see, with AT&T gobbling up BellSouth and moving in on Verizon—the effects are now trending toward the inevitable result, a new monopoly. Google “concentration of media ownership” sometime to see what deregulation in telecomm gets you. Consolidation, not cheaper prices, was the main result of the bill.
I should also point out that the vaunted “Deregulation Act of 1996” also included some new regulations, which have worked as intended—preserving at least some semblance of public accountability via forcing local carriers to share their lines with competitors, at regulated rates. But the relaxation of restrictions on media ownership has been a disaster for the public’s right to know.
By Copyleft
July 29, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
P.S. Sorry if I seemed distracted by the latest example of right-wing terrorism. The deaths of innocent people tends to annoy me. (I know, I know… why should I care unless oil was involved, right Truth?)
By Mara
July 29, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
NYer - Look at what’s happened in the communications industry since the massive deregulating that took place in 1996.
The deregulation of the communications industry was triggered by the virtual monopoly of that industry by Ma Bell. How interesting to note that the “new” AT&T has now managed to stitch all those disparate pieces back together as well as expansion into other information media like internet, etc. Ma Bell died in ’84…long live the new Ma Bell.
Truth - Personally, i don’t think you fight ANY war on terrorist using tanks
I couldn’t agree more! Terrorists have been around since the beginning of time and they’ll be around til the end of time. When a disgruntled minority is angry or desperate enough to attack a well armed opponent, “terror” will always present itself to them as a reasonable tactic. Our best bet, IMO, is to keep an eye out for these kinds of situations and try to keep them from getting out of control…even if that means cooperating with international peacekeepers and being polite to those who we don’t particularly respect.
I do, however, disagree with your characterization that because I support the action in Afghanistan, I must then support the so-called “War on Terrah”™. That is a misunderstanding of my view. I support the Afghan invasion because we MUST not allow those who attack us to believe that they can get away with it. The Taliban gave safe harbor to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They provided him with aid and comfort and refused to give him up to face justice. We had to depose the Taliban to reach Bin Laden, which ultimately meant we would have to help the people of Afghanistan build a strong enough nation to resist falling back under their control. That Bin Laden is still free, still making propaganda video’s and still able to influence the world is the biggest failure of the entire endeavor.
By GOB
July 29, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Truth - Where did I ever mention that we should all just give back our land? The point I am making is that I have a problem with people changing the rules mid-game once they have an advantage. Here’s a sports analogy for you. A baseball team wins a game with a homerun in the bottom of the 9th. The next day, however, when they are winning after 5 innings, they change the rules to say that baseball games only last 5 innings now, and hey, looks like we win again.
When it was mainly white Europeans coming to the US, the policy was pretty open. Now that those who want in tend to come from the “undesireable” parts of the world, well, we need to drop the numbers who get in and make it very difficult for anyone without a great deal of resources to even begin to understand the process.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Truth, You get a bonus for being especially obtuse today. But of course you are unable to admit any wrong.
You cannot even admit that there was a challenge made regarding asphalt, alts for petroleum based solids, and the %25 increase of efficiency in using petrol, which were all met and defeated.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
Truth -
What do we do now? If we leave Afghanistan, whole villages of goats will be lost. If we leave Iraq, the second largest oil producing country will be open to whomever wants it. And Afghanistan is where we need to stay? Tell me why. But here’s the challenge: use present tense as much as possible.
you want present tense? you got it:
you do realize that the Taliban has gained in strength, don’t you. you do realize that Al Q is still operating (and doing quite well) between the Afghani and Pakistani border. in fact, they’re doing SO WELL, they were able to attack a prison and help some 1000+ Taliban prisoners escape. you do realize that, if you’re trying to fight a war on TERROR, that it’s probably best to go where the TERRORISTS ARE.
what’s going on in Iraq right now is sectarian violence between the Sunnis and Shia (perfect example - the bombings that happened yesterday). this has about as much to do with the WoT as the 2 pairs of shoes I bought yesterday. lastly, but not leastly, the Iraqi government wants us out.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
USinUk
My Sweety is trying to get her sister over here. She is someone that we could use. She is a registered nurse, who is very close to getting her MD. (Here, not so much the MD), but she speaks perfect English, she is well educated, no children, young, smart and wow, what gams.
The Olympics have everything screwed up so it will be this fall before she can even visit again.
They are having all sorts of problems trying to get her a work visa. You are right about the guys at Home Depot. This needs to be fixed, but not nearly enough people care. And the dreaded “racist” claim has now been attached to any legislation. If we could stop the influx, I say figure out how to grandfather the ones here already and start teaching them English.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Those socialists let you have a garden? Do you need to report your crops?
no, they leave my fabulous tomatoes alone, thankyouverymuch (although, maybe that’s because I call them to-MAY-toes and they’re confused)
;-)
By Mara
July 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
GOB - I also think borders are important, but not so much to keep people who only want a better life for themselves out. They are important from a national security standpoint in just knowing who is here and what is being brought into the country.
And yet you sound like you’re defending the “right” of illegal aliens sneaking into the country. Though I suppose they exist, I don’t know anyone who opposes legal immigration. When most people start complaining about being “over run” they’re usually talking about the illegals who DON’T respect our borders, our laws, or our right to decide who we trust to live among us.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Is your sweetie sponsoring her sister? why are the Olympics holding things up? I’d make a joke about her being a gymnast, but I don’t think we want to go down that road ;-)
They are having all sorts of problems trying to get her a work visa. You are right about the guys at Home Depot. This needs to be fixed, but not nearly enough people care.
I disagree. Obviously, people DO care about immigration and would support this idea if it was widely promoted (frankly, it’d be far more effective and far less expensive than any stupid fence/wall/moat)
And the dreaded “racist” claim has now been attached to any legislation. If we could stop the influx, I say figure out how to grandfather the ones here already and start teaching them English.
teaching English? meh. such a non-issue. My grandmother spoke Italian and VERY broken English until she died at 102 (bless her). She still managed to pay her taxes, raise 3 boys (2 served in 1 war, 1 served in 2) and be a good US citizen. Most immigrants DO learn how to speak English - which is why ESL classes are so hard to get into.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
USinUk
if you’re trying to fight a war on TERROR, that it’s probably best to go where the TERRORISTS ARE.
But they are everywhere. Why are we sending our children to die for goats? They are in the Sudan. They are all over Africa. Hell, they are at the Publics at East Lake. Why Afghanistan? Why are we letting the most precious resource in the world out of our sight while we are sending our children to die for stinky cheese?
i know that you are going to go nuts here, but what is the thing about oil to the DNC? What is the thing about energy? Everyone wants to change how we power our cities and cars, but why do liberals want to switch off civilization until we build a whole new infrastructure?
We have more coal than anywhere, but liberals hate coal. We have more oil than anyone. Liberals hate oil. We led the world in nuclear research and the world is powered by nuclear, except the US.
So we have wind and solar. Presently, if there is a steady 10-15 knot constant breeze, that can be a wind farm that will generate approximately 1/100th of a coal burning generator. 10-15 knots. That’s like Aruba where walking on the beach is an experiment in sand blasting your skin.
Solar? Atlanta can’t use it. That’s right HOTLANTA is not HOT enough. Too much haze.
Give me a realistic option. Anything that would actually work. Not in the past. not in the future. Tomorrow, if we pull out of Iraq and we lose that source of oil. What do we do?
Then what do we do if that region destabilizes even more and the Saudi monarchy crumbles. No oil from the Middle East.
What if we pull out of Iraq and the result is losing 40% of our oil. Say that happens March 1, 2009. What would Obama need to do on March 10, 2009?
By GOB
July 29, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
When most people start complaining about being “over run” they’re usually talking about the illegals who DON’T respect our borders, our laws, or our right to decide who we trust to live among us.
The problem with this is that the laws have been written in such a way that we have effectivly said, if you havent had at least a decent life in your home country (ie. been educated) then you have no chance of getting into the US legally? What kind of land of opportunity is that?
I do believe that there should be some way for those who want to come here and make a life for their families to do so without being made criminals in the process. Perhaps setting up stations along the border to gather information of those wishing to come into the US would be a better way to go than simply telling them to fill out this stack of forms and send them to DC.
Link up a computer network with the police records of the Mexico and other Central American countries, and deny entry to felons.
The bottom line is that I have with calling someone a criminal because they want to work a legitimate job to better support their children. Their crime is being born a few hundred miles too far to the south.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Copyleft,
Certainly when markets are altered significantly by the amount and kind of regulations, there is displacement while market participants and consumers adjust to the new rules.
But a disaster for consumers? Over what time? I highly doubt you would want to go back to your choices of telephony prior to the Telecom Act.
You didn’t get reduced prices? Sorry, but long distance went from 25c/minute for most consumers to 10c, 5c, and for some, free. My monthly local dial tone went from $40/month to $20/month. The bundling of services has definitely helped prices, and given rise to far more competition.
I should also point out that the vaunted “Deregulation Act of 1996” also included some new regulations.
Well, of course - when you totally change the market and open it up significantly, there were some new rules established. Still, overall, the market was more open for competition than prior to the Act’s enforcement.
Let me ask you a more basic question - are you disappointed Clinton approved the Act and passed it into law?
By Truth
July 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
USinUK
It’s not hard to confuse a Brit. Just don’t try to drink with them. Russians, either.
I don’t know who is sponsoring who. A lot of her family is here and the subject came up at a dinner with lots of her very passionate relatives. Lots of non-English there. She was here last year when I first met my girl. Much younger, though. I think she is 28-29 and my sweetie is over 40.
i’ll try to find out. Do you have a plan? They could use one.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Mara - do you not agree that your choices for technology got better, the rate of change of technology provided to the consumer improved, and that overall, costs have come down?
Despite some of the consolidation in the industry, we have more choices today for all of media than we ever did prior to 1996.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Why are we sending our children to die for goats? They are in the Sudan. They are all over Africa. Hell, they are at the Publics at East Lake. Why Afghanistan? Why are we letting the most precious resource in the world out of our sight while we are sending our children to die for stinky cheese?
You’re right - terrorists are everywhere. Which, strictly speaking, is why you can’t have a “war on terror”. (the Publics at East Lake? is there something about the produce that causes fundamentalist angst?) However, if we’re after Al Quaeda (which is the group that attacked us on 9/11 and attacked the Cole and attacked the embassies in Africa), then Afghanistan and Pakistan is where we should be to sniff out their training camps and destroy their “headquarters” (as much as you can call a cave a HQ).
As for stinky cheese, I’d definitely make sacrifices for a good gorgonzola.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
What if we pull out of Iraq and the result is losing 40% of our oil.
First, it is not our oil.
Second, It gets traded (bought) at the global rate. Any “discounts” that may apply are easily outweighed by the billion dollar/36hours deficit that it takes to be there and more importantly american lives. Lives of americans that went into the national guard and did not sign up for this type of work or terms, and received little training for. Forced labor by our own fellow americans is what you are advocating.
By Atlanta Lady
July 29, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
That woman’s visa request should be denied.
Atlanta is already filled to capacity with beautiful, smart, well educated women with great legs. Fifty two weeks a year these women are in Olympic-level competition for the hundred or so decent unmarried straight men who still live here, as well as trying to survive an unstable, highly-competitive job market. I don’t know where your sweetys sister is from, but she would bring no special skill and fill no special need here. Are you suggesting she get special treatment because she’s pretty? Unless she wants to pick onions in Vidalia, close the flood gates, we’re full.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Solar? Atlanta can’t use it. That’s right HOTLANTA is not HOT enough. Too much haze.
Not true:
1. MYTH: Solar energy and solar designs work well only in warm, sunny climates. REALITY: Solar technologies and passive solar design can work efficiently and cost-effectively anywhere in the United States, even in cloudy communities. Solar energy electrifies message signs and flashing arrow boards on roadways in every state in the country. Solar water heating systems are providing hot water economically for a swimming pool in Aurora, Colorado, and a Transportation Agency building in Boston. Solar energy pre-heats ventilation air in Fort Carson, Colorado and Ontario, Canada. A dozen small lighthouses off the New England coast run on solar power while large lighthouses are being converted to solar power off the shores of Washington State and lower Alaska. Passive solar design illuminates a nonprofit health facility in Frederick, Maryland - an area that receives 25 percent less sunshine than the national average. Energy storage systems make solar technologies in less sunny regions possible. Some photovoltaic systems store electricity in batteries so that energy can be retrieved later - even after up to 30 consecutive days without sunlight. Solar water heating systems typically are linked with conventional backup heaters which need to be fired up only during periods of cloudiness or excessive demand.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
In case anyone has not read about it:
MIT opens new ‘window’ on solar energy Cost effective devices expected on market soon
Elizabeth A. Thomson, News Office July 10, 2008
Imagine windows that not only provide a clear view and illuminate rooms, but also use sunlight to efficiently help power the building they are part of. MIT engineers report a new approach to harnessing the sun’s energy that could allow just that.
(http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/solarcells-0710.html)
By Truth
July 29, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
GOB
There is a system in place that makes a often used door into the Land of Opportunity. Legal immigration. Unless you are a native American, chances are, that is how your ancestors got here. Were your ancestors rich? Mine weren’t.
Are you advocating just throwing open the doors? If not, what would you like to see happen?
By NYer
July 29, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Copyleft,
Since, in your opinion, deregulation is always bad, I would be curious for your thoughts regarding some of the more well-known deregulating activity that’s taken place in:
The trucking industry, the airline industry, the bus industry, the food industry, the natural gas industry (specifically here in Atlanta), power generation (but not distribution or transmission) among utilities, the freight forwarder industry.
I’m on record as saying I’d take the more lightly regulated communications industry of 2008 over the more heavily regulated industry prior to 1996.
For you to be right that deregulation is always bad, you’d better have some pretty good answers for all these various industries. I look forward to your response.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Truth -
sorry - hit send before I meant to …
We have more coal than anywhere, but liberals hate coal.
yes, we do - in a word: pollution. in 2 words: acid rain.
We have more oil than anyone. Liberals hate oil.
we don’t have more oil, but we do use more than anyone else. we don’t hate oil, we just hate what it does to the environment.
We led the world in nuclear research and the world is powered by nuclear, except the US.
I’m with you on this - I think far more should be done to make nuclear safer and more effective. part of the problem is NIMBY - after 3MI and Chernobyl, no one seems to want it in their neighborhood.
So we have wind and solar. Presently, if there is a steady 10-15 knot constant breeze, that can be a wind farm that will generate approximately 1/100th of a coal burning generator. 10-15 knots. That’s like Aruba where walking on the beach is an experiment in sand blasting your skin.
Well, the wind farms in western PA power Philly, so I think they are very effective (and, actually, they’re quite striking to look at).
Solar? Atlanta can’t use it. That’s right HOTLANTA is not HOT enough. Too much haze.
I’ve never heard anything about haze affecting solar power - got a linkee?
By Truth
July 29, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
help power the building they are part of
The operative word here being HELP.
The discussion is about whether solar can replace other sources. Please waste several hours trying to find a single source that says that Atlanta can be powered only by solar or wind power.
Read it again: Atlanta can be powered ONLY, (get it?) ONLY by wind and solar.
One more time: Atlanta can be powered ONLY, (get it?) ONLY by wind and solar.
But thanks for taking the time to once again, prove my point.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
Truth -
i’ll try to find out. Do you have a plan? They could use one.
well, if she can find a company that would sponsor her, that’s the best way (they usually cover the fees)
otherwise, if she wants to stay in the US, tell her it’s a long-haul process. when I left DC, my neighbors were waiting on their final greencard paperwork to arrive - a process that took them more than 3 years.
By GOB
July 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
Truth - Not sure if you are aware, but the days of showing up at Ellis Island and changing your name are long gone. That is what used to constitute legal immigration. Not so much anymore. The laws have now been changed so that unless you have resources, you will not likely be able to get to this country legally.
Now, many of our politicians are scared that their base is going to be overrun by people who wont vote for them. How do you solve that little dilema? You change the laws to control who is allowed in, so that those who may not vote for you cant get in in the first place.
I already said what I think might be a workable solution. Put stations along the border (sort of like mini-ellis islands) for those wishing to immigrate to go through. Create a system that allows access to the Mexican and Central American police records, and if a person is deemed dangerous, then they arent allowed in. If it is someone wanting to work, and support their family, great, come on in. Then we can use the border patrol and the immigration courts to go after the truly bad people trying to come in, not the mother and her 2 kids. Is that really a good use of our resources?
We have made seeking to better your life a crime for much of the world. Of course there are bad people who want to come in illegally to do bad things, but the vast majority of illegals are just like you and me, with the exception of where they were born.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
GOB,
NYer - I still do think that there is a great deal of hypocrisy involved in the view that we have to keep everyone (well, not everyone, just those damn Mexicans!) out when a large number of us are only a generation or two removed from being immigrants ourselves.
But we’re not trying to keep the Mexicans out. I welcome Mexicans who immigrate to this country legally with open arms. We’re trying to keep the ILLEGALS out. Big difference.
And if your ancestors immigrated to this country legally to begin with, I see no hypocrisy in any position that demands that others do the same thing. Rather, that is consistency.
I also think borders are important, but not so much to keep people who only want a better life for themselves out. They are important from a national security standpoint in just knowing who is here and what is being brought into the country. To call America and beacon the hill for the rest of the world, and the land of opportunity seems trite when in reality, it is only the land of opportunity for a select few.
So what would you prefer? An open border where anybody who wants to make a better life (and isn’t a felon) can come in? If all these people want to be here, why can’t they respect our laws and do it legally? We are a sovereign nation with borders and laws and an immigration policy.
As for your last point, you could make that analogy about anything that is inevitable; death, taxes, Tech losing to UGA, etc.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean you surrender. I will die but that doesn’t mean I don’t take care of my body, eat right, work out and go to regular doctor visits.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
I’m with you on this - I think far more should be done to make nuclear safer and more effective. part of the problem is NIMBY - after 3MI and Chernobyl, no one seems to want it in their neighborhood.
That is not the main reason it is not used. The cost to built a facility is so much that it is not cost effective by a large amount.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
NYer -
So what would you prefer? An open border where anybody who wants to make a better life (and isn’t a felon) can come in? If all these people want to be here, why can’t they respect our laws and do it legally? We are a sovereign nation with borders and laws and an immigration policy.
saaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-LUTE!
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
The discussion is about whether solar can replace other sources. Please waste several hours trying to find a single source that says that Atlanta can be powered only by solar or wind power.
I do not know anyone that is saying that atlanta or anywhere else has to ONLY be powered by one or two sources besides you. And, that is your argument to make it an impossible issue to resolve.
But, that was not what you stated. You stated absolutely that: Solar? Atlanta can’t use it. That’s right HOTLANTA is not HOT enough. Too much haze.
Atlanta CAN’T use it. Which is wrong, again.
By GOB
July 29, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
NYerr - See the post above where I was talking to Truth about how immigrating legally now isnt the same thing as it was for our ancestors.
But we’re not trying to keep the Mexicans out. I welcome Mexicans who immigrate to this country legally with open arms. We’re trying to keep the ILLEGALS out. Big difference.
Except that the way the laws are written, keeping Mexicans (and other poor Hispanics out) is exactly what they do. It has become a political strategy that works on two fronts. The laws effectively control who can vote in the election (and potentially vote the politician out) and by blaming illegals for all the ills of the country, it drives their supports to the polls.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
Jokes -
That is not the main reason it is not used. The cost to built a facility is so much that it is not cost effective by a large amount.
out of curiosity - is Plant Vogtle still around? if so, is it operating at capacity?
I understand what you’re saying and agree that it is a HUGE amount of capital outlay for Ga Power. But, bottom line: can you picture the protests if they decided to build a new one in Kennesaw? in Macon? in Augusta? the hew and cry would all boil down to NIMBY - and what would they use as AV props? pictures from Chernobyl.
By Mara
July 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
GOB - if you havent had at least a decent life in your home country (ie. been educated) then you have no chance of getting into the US legally
sigh…You do NOT have to be educated to get into this country legally. Yes, you do have to be persistant and patient and not easily discouraged, but education is NOT a requirement. In fact, we accept more refugees and displaced persons, more students, asylum seekers and temporary residents than any other nation in the world. It isn’t an easy or simple process but I think that’s okay. We want people who’re dedicated to becoming Americans and willing to make the effort to do so, not those who only want to milk the opportunities and then leave.
Their crime is being born a few hundred miles too far to the south.
No…the illegal alien whose ONLY crime is unlawful entry is a myth. Their crimes are entering the country without permission, identity theft, document fraud, credit fraud, and probably tax fraud/evasion. They also drive on our roads, ignore municiple housing codes, subvert our wage and labor laws, and enable/abet unscrupulous employers in using unfair business practices.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
USinUK
well, if she can find a company that would sponsor her, that’s the best way (they usually cover the fees)
You may have something there. I just called her at work. They hadn’t tried that. (At least that she knew of) I’ll let you know what happens.
The biggest wind farm in PA is Waymart 64.5 MW. That’s about 6,000 homes. There are six farms in PA. Their outputs are 24 MW, 9 MW, 16.4 MW, 30 MW and 15 MW. A coal burner will genaerate about 1,000 MW.
Wind and solar are helping, but they are not doing the whole job, or even a large part of it.
By Mara
July 29, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
and BTW…we accept a far higher number of HISPANIC immigrants than any other ethnic or racial group. Legal hispanic immigrants.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
I understand what you’re saying and agree that it is a HUGE amount of capital outlay for Ga Power. But, bottom line: can you picture the protests if they decided to build a new one in Kennesaw? in Macon? in Augusta? the hew and cry would all boil down to NIMBY - and what would they use as AV props? pictures from Chernobyl.
I agree there would be protesters. It is just that the protesters are not the reason it is not even mentioned. The price is an exercise in futility, unfortunately. We are talking bankrupt proportions.
out of curiosity - is Plant Vogtle still around? if so, is it operating at capacity? I do not know.
As you stated, solar, wind and retro fitting all the high-rises with the new technology from MIT would reduce the power needs by %50 - being conservative with that number. The new tech alone can subsidize a buildings power by %25 if it has more than 10 floors and is windowed.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Wind and solar are helping, but they are not doing the whole job, or even a large part of it.
early days, early days.
as for your girlfriend’s sister - tell her to be glad she’s not English. they have the hardest time emigrating to the US (funny that - they speak the language and EVERYthing).
By GOB
July 29, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Mara - This is one we wont ever agree on. Plain and simple. No need for either of us to spend all day talking to a wall that we cant convince.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
But thanks for taking the time to once again, prove my point.
Only point being proven is your resistance to any solutions that exist. You have to keep narrowing the conversation every time someone disproves your position that kids need to die for your suv.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
Jokes -
As you stated, solar, wind and retro fitting all the high-rises with the new technology from MIT would reduce the power needs by %50 - being conservative with that number. The new tech alone can subsidize a buildings power by %25 if it has more than 10 floors and is windowed.
I think you and I are in complete agreement on the alternative fuels.
goodgodalmighty would I hate to see shale oil drilling - read an article this morning that production of it releases 8x more CO2 in the air than regular oil and that there other negative by-products as well.
like I said yesterday, once we start drilling here, we will have lost the impetus for finding and funding alternatives - we will just delay the inevitable.
By Archie
July 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
Off topic, Did you know that 16 percent of Portland,Oregon residents commute on bicycles. There’s a report that says Portland has 270 miles of biking lanes. Now get this you have people cycling drunk. Drunk people riding a bicycle. That should really drive home the point that once people get consumed by a vice there is no common sense used by said person.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
GOB
Not a bad solution. I am and have been very close to some people who were fighting to stay here legally. it is hard and it is amazing how much time a Fed agent will spend on a law abiding person to ride them to leave the country. Seems like they would have more important work to do.
And that’s the problem. There just aren’t enough people directed to do the more important things.
By Gale
July 29, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
You know, other countries have tightened their imigration policies. Why is the USA so bad if we want to do the same thing? I think it is completely in our interest to keep out uneducated, poor people who will only be a drag on the system. We have a glut of low level services, landscape and construction workers. Often, those folks have to desire to stay in the states. They want to make money and send it home. Then they want to bring family here so they can do the same thing. They fully expect to go ‘home’ some day with lot’s of money. Those who do want to stay, often use the ‘born here’ loophole in the Constitution that is interpreted as ‘if you were born on American soil, you are American’ regardless of the legal status of your mother. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. I might grant provisional citizenship to the child, but only at age 18. C’mon, mom comes over the border for a visit with dad, who may or may not be legal and stays long enough to have a child. Now she and the child get to stay. Sorry for them, but we really do need nurses and doctors. Send that nurse to CA instead of Atlanta. They are seriously recruiting there.
I am not opposed to allowing work permits. Our agribusiness needs seasonal labor. But we have to keep better track of work and student visas. It is apparently Very easy to slip out of sight.
I also have a BIG problem with people from anywhere sneaking into the country when we don’t know their medical history. What inoculations have they ever recieved? Several diseases that were all but gone have resurged in the USA.
We focus on our southern neighbors because that is the most open border and it is easier for them to get in. You know, there are other countries where they could go instead. I remember reading about Spain or Portugal where they needed these folks and the language is already closer to what they know. Sure harder to slip across an ocean border though.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, UK does not have a written constitution? Is that a normal monarchy thing?
sorry for the long-long-LONG delay … meant to address this when the forum opened up today.
it’s not a monarchy thing - I think it has more to do with the fact that England is just old and its government has evolved (as opposed to the US which actually had a date of birth, if you see what I mean). Obviously, the Queen is the Head of State as well as the Head of the CofE, but Parliament runs the country.
of course, the irony is that the UK is a “constitutional monarchy” without a written constitution. maybe it should just be called an “understanding” …
anyhoo … hope that helps clear that up!
By Gale
July 29, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Truth, the INS will ride a law-abiding person who overstays because they can find them. It is the ones they lose track of that are the problem. They are picking the low hanging fruit to make their numbers look better.
I am sure I will take flack for my imigration views, but I am still going to lunch now.
By Gale
July 29, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
USinUK, “an understanding” That sounds very British. Very civilized. I like it.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
*Only point being proven is your resistance to any solutions that exist. *
i’m not seeing a viable solution being offered. If I go by your posts, i would be fine if I wanted to take a swim in two buildings in Boston, but the heavy lifting is still being done by coal and oil powered power plants. Get mad and stomp your feet all you want but the largest wind farm in PA produces enough power for 7,000 homes. That’s 64.5 MW. A coal burner can produce 1,000 MW. Let me help you with the math. It would take 151/2 of the largest wind farms in PA to replace a single coal burner. And this is a solution?
Not that it is any of your business, but I don’t drive an SUV. I don’t want any kids to die. That’s why we need to drill here so we don’t have to fight for other people’s oil.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Gale
Short term management. It is ruining our country. Everyone wants good numbers for their bio. They stay at a job for a year or two and then move to another position. Then the next guy can clean up the mess.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, “an understanding” That sounds very British. Very civilized. I like it.
give me written-in-black-and-white any day! as a lawyer friend of mine once said, “a verbal agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”
By Felicia B.
July 29, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
“And that’s the problem. There just aren’t enough people directed to do the more important things.”
Financial woes have caused our government to cut back on services, like securing our homeland, border, ports, infrastructure, education, food supply safety and clean water management. There just are not enough employees to handle these things! Perhaps we should make tax cuts for the rich permanent and borrow a few more billion with interest from the Chinese and Saudis to dump into the offshore bank accounts of the war profiteers - those hundreds of thousands over there building and securing things in Iraq, at three-to-eight times the salary of our soldiers. That would fix so many things! Please vote Republican again because change just isn’t necessary.
By Copyleft
July 29, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
are you disappointed Clinton approved the Act and passed it into law?
Yes, very much so. Clinton was WAY too conservative-corporate in his policies, favoring business lobbyists (like the health insurance industry) to the detriment of the people he was supposed to serve.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
NYer,
Federal and state governments alike are increasingly hands-on in their effort to deal with failing businesses, plunging house prices, worthless mortgages and soaring energy prices. The steps add up to a major challenge to the movement toward deregulation that has defined American governance for much of the past quarter-century since the “Reagan Revolution” of the early 1980s. In fact, some proponents today of a bigger oversight role for government are Republican heirs to the legacy of President Reagan
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/reagan-revolution-out-ofn114910.html)
If you google “deregulation of mortgage” you will get tons of hits. NPR had a great program describing the whole lot of it this weekend…hence the lack of a link until now.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
GOB,
NYerr - See the post above where I was talking to Truth about how immigrating legally now isnt the same thing as it was for our ancestors.
Two points: one - weren’t you the one arguing that societies and cultures evolve? Of course immigration today is different than yesteryear - our immigration policies evolved over time. That should hardly be surprising.
Secondly, and I can’t emphasize this point enough: We, as the citizens of this country, have every right to direct our elected officials in determining how many people we let immigrate each year. We have the right to manage the finite resources of our government in the provision of government services to ensure that they are not stretched too thin. We have that same right in managing finite private resources to ensure that, taken as a whole between the public and private sector, our standard of living isn’t unduly compromised. Foreigners don’t have the right to tell us that we must let them in, that we must let them vote, that we must give them health care, education and social security.
We have the right to manage our own immigration. I hate sounding so absolutist, but IMO it’s as simple as that.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
Archie,
Off topic, Did you know that 16 percent of Portland,Oregon residents commute on bicycles. There’s a report that says Portland has 270 miles of biking lanes.
Heard a good program on that too (NPR).
They actually have rush our bike traffic;)
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
Truth,
i’m not seeing a viable solution being offered. If I go by your posts, i would be fine if I wanted to take a swim in two buildings in Boston, but the heavy lifting is still being done by coal and oil powered power plants. Get mad and stomp your feet all you want but the largest wind farm in PA produces enough power for 7,000 homes. That’s 64.5 MW. A coal burner can produce 1,000 MW. Let me help you with the math. It would take 151/2 of the largest wind farms in PA to replace a single coal burner. And this is a solution?
Not a single solution to the complex mess we got into and that you want to keep us driving into.
Not that it is any of your business, but I don’t drive an SUV. Actually, I know, you drive a convertible.
I don’t want any kids to die. That’s why we need to drill here so we don’t have to fight for other people’s oil.
Flip/flop/flip/flop/our oil/others oil/the kids are paid for/i don’t want them to die/war is messy a few thousand die and people freak out: more of you inhuman words.
You have no position. You just go where the wind takes you to argue.
We provided many solutions that if combined would make a huge difference. but, you look at each one separately and discount them. The short sighted stupid mans view that one vote/recycled can/etc makes no difference, but you are wrong.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Felicia B.
We send more US money to Saudi Arabia for oil payments than we send to Iraq.
I’m with you. let’s pull out of Iraq and watch the oil reserves being controlled by Islamic extremists. that should do the trick for the radicals that make up the vast majority in Saudi Arabia, so that oil is also gone.
What do we do? 40% of our oil just went away. What is the new president going to do? Start wind farms?
By Truth
July 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
We provided many solutions that if combined would make a huge difference
I gave you the numbers why your solutions are band aids. The only two solutions that you have offered that are “liberal approved” is solar and wind. I would love it if they could replace oil, coal and nuclear, but they aren’t even a fraction of the power that is needed.
Those are facts. You can blather. You can continue to make up things that you wish i had said, but all of those child-like tantrums will not make solar and wind replace coal, oil and nuclear.
Am I mistaken? Do you offer another alternative other than wind or solar? USinUk agreed with me on the nuclear end, but you are much too busy trying to make up things I have said.
So how about it, dang genius? What is your solution(s). Do you agree with me that nuclear is the answer? Can you tell me how wind and/or solar will replace the current infrastructure? Can you do anything except whine like a little kid?
My position is what it always has been. You don’t seem to be able to cut a paste back a single statement I said yesterday that you claimed I had said, So you obviously have some serious reading comprehension issues. Sorry, I just don’t have time to teach you how to read.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
Truth is lying again:
*40% of our oil just went away. *
Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S. During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels Venezuela 20.2 million barrels Nigeria 19.3 million barrels Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels Algeria - 1.2 million barrels
Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:
Canada 46.2 million barrels Mexico 53.8 million barrels United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels Norway 4.5 million barrels
That is before the invasion and durring its most stable period. Currently the output is more like 300K barrels! Not even on the radar.
By Mara
July 29, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
NYer - Mara - do you not agree that your choices for technology got better, the rate of change of technology provided to the consumer improved, and that overall, costs have come down? Despite some of the consolidation in the industry, we have more choices today for all of media than we ever did prior to 1996.
I have to admit that when MaBell broke up in ‘84 I was still a young ‘un, so I can’t really say much about rates back then as compared to now. ;^)
I will say that I believe most of the technological advancements had/have more to do with progress in computer technology and microprocessors than in the deregulation of the media giants. From our little TRS-80 the internet to fiber optics to VoIP…little would have come about without the computer industry.
By GOB
July 29, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
NYer - Of course our policies have evolved over time, and that evolution is why the argument that our ancestors came here legally doesnt work.
As for your discussion about what we have the right to do and control, I havent ever said anything to the contrary. What I believe is that the government should find a better way. To me, it is a matter of priorities. Finding and deporting people who just want to work and support their families seems like a poor allocation of resources when we have ports that are unsecured.
What I advocate is an intelligent, comprehensive look at our policies. What is the true benefit, and what can we do better. I think there needs to be some way to decriminalize those that are already here and working. The standard channels of government are the ways I think this should be done. It is simply a policy discussion.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
2002? Check a calender. Saddam was still in charge in 2002 and gas was 1.75/gal.
But I was giving a hypothetical. Put in whatever percentage you want. Our PRESENT imports from Iraq and Saudi Arabia goes away. What do we do? that’s the question. Stop whining and answer the question.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
GOB
What I advocate is an intelligent, comprehensive look at our policies.
We all want that. But we are stuck with Washington and politicians.
Mara
Imagine the advances that were accelerated because of the competition in the phone industry. We would have cell phones, but they would all be through Ma Bell.
Occasionally, I get a guy at the door telling me I need to hook up a ground line with BellSouth. I tell him to tell BellSouth that I am giving them back the respect they gave their customers when they closed their service centers and put them, in check cashing dives.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
2002? Check a calender. Saddam was still in charge in 2002 and gas was 1.75/gal.
Yep. Should I write everything twice for you?
That is before the invasion and during its most stable period. Currently the output is more like 300K barrels! Not even on the radar.
But I was giving a hypothetical.
You were being incorrect.
Our PRESENT imports from Iraq and Saudi Arabia goes away. What do we do? that’s the question. Stop whining and answer the question.
That is your hypothetical (see “wrong” above) question that has no answer or basis in reality. Also see: strawman
By Truth
July 29, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Currently the output is more like 300K barrels! Not even on the radar.
According to this site (Department of Energy)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oilgas/petroleum/datapublications/companylevelimports/current/import.html
We imported 583 K barrels of oil from Iraq in MAY of 08. That’s in one month.
You blather about me lying, and I post facts proving that you are lying.
I like the way this is going.
By Felicia B.
July 29, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
If the occupation of Iraq is about oil now (who was it that said it wasn’t about oil, it’s about spreading democracy, or was it 9-11, or was it something about an imminent mushroom cloud, I forget….) then what was the point of taking out Saddam when we had $1.75 gas, and spending all our money on whatever it is we’re doing there? Is it true that $$$ from the sale of Iraqui oil (the exportation of 2 million barrels per day) is NOT paying for this war/occupation? Why not? If it is to our benefit, how are we benefitting? Do Americans have to apply for a job with Blackwater, Parsons, KBR, or Hallibuddies to actually benefit?
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
What do we do?
Everything that we can, which includes solar, wind, conservation through more efficient use of petrol, and geothermal energies.
What we do not do is get the oil companies richer while fooling ourselves since, at the least, our refineries are at max capacity.
Even in the fake reality you propose, one where we could drill the heck out of our soil and get tons of oil, the price will be determined by the global market.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
*We imported 583 K barrels of oil from Iraq in MAY of 08. That’s in one month.
Our figures are 300 barrels off….WOW! Could they be different estimates? No way!LOL
You blather about me lying, and I post facts proving that you are lying.
Your link does not even work. You know how to cut/paste?
I like the way this is going.
Only idiot would see 300k barrel/month versus 11+ million/month as a winning point to pay out $1billion/36hrs + american lives.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
I bet it was a hypothetical link!
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Felicia B.,
Your bewilderment is right on.
And this guy advocates every dollar of that $1Billion/36hrs that we are there and the lives of forced american labor(see: stop-loss program) for cheaper gas.
Currently every american will have to pay $2000 to make a significant dent in the cost of being in iraq, and it is growing insanely each day.
The current administration released a doctored (once again) deficit, breaking our own laws again, but he will still say they are stand up people.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
Mara,
I have to admit that when MaBell broke up in ‘84 I was still a young ‘un, so I can’t really say much about rates back then as compared to now. ;^)
To be clear, I’m really talking about pre and post 1996.
Certainly there have and were advances in technology over that period. The telecom companies knew all about the technologies for DSL, ISDN, cable modems, etc., etc., that we enjoy today and they knew about them well before we ever got them. But until these companies had to fight for their customers, the rate of change of the technology - the true improvement for the customer in terms of getting a better product - was occurring at a snail’s pace.
The heavily regulated telecoms were under no real pressure to give you better products and services because there was no competition.
Step back for a second - Isn’t this a corollary to the argument so many make regarding big oil? What reason did big telecom (big oil) have to invest in alternative technologies (energies) if there was no competition (or overwhelming consumer and political demand) forcing them to do so?
By Truth
July 29, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
So you don’t have an answer. I see.
Those efforts wouldn’t begin to make up for 22% of our oil disappearing overnight. (That is actually the real number of the amount of imports that came from the top two oil producing countries in the middle east, Iraq and Saudi Arabia).
How is solar or wind going to power my Volvo, or anyone’s car? Please don’t tell me that your grand solution is to replace every car in America with an electric car.
This is the problem. You just don’t seem to understand that mobile energy is what is in jeopardy. You can’t make a car go with a windmill. We will need to keep getting oil until we replace our national fleet. And we haven’t even decided what we are going to use, yet.
We can’t afford to lose 2,150,000 barrels of oil a month. Most cities are not powered with oil. They are powered with coal. You (don’t feel bad, neither does the entire democratic party) don’t seem to grasp that it is transportation fuel we need. We will need that this afternoon.
This “oil company richer” thing says volumes. Do the smart thing. Get some stock in oil. Instead of complaining about someone who has more than you, figure out how to get what they have. That’s what we do here in America. Well some of us. Some would rather whine about being a victim and how all rich people are mean. I hate the oil companies. But I like the dividend checks.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
JokesOn,
I wasn’t neglecting you. If you google “deregulation of mortgage” you will get tons of hits. NPR had a great program describing the whole lot of it this weekend…hence the lack of a link until now.
That’s why I asked you the question I did this morning. There’s any number of specific items to talk about.
IMO, mortgage originators are the biggest, but not the only culprit in this mess. And clearly they have been outside the reach of regulators. But I will say again what I said last week - industry tends to stay ahead of regulators. Implicit in that is the concept that some will behave and others will take advantage of diminished or non-existent oversight.
Perhaps it all comes down to a difference in risk profile: I’m more comfortable trading the occasional mess for the advances that competition, innovation and a more open market provide, rather than the products and services provided in a slower, more stodgy, less innovative heavily regulated environment.
By Gale
July 29, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
I can’t run my car on solar or wind power. But I think it would help power the heating, AC and other auxiliary systems that pake power in my car. AC costs me a few mpgs in the summer. What would it cost to put a solar panel on my roof and hood. That ( in my non-engineering mind) should not be that hard or costly.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Those efforts wouldn’t begin to make up for 22% of our oil disappearing overnight. (That is actually the real number of the amount of imports that came from the top two oil producing countries in the middle east, Iraq and Saudi Arabia).
I see. Fudged numbers by adding in the Saudis.
How is solar or wind going to power my Volvo, or anyone’s car?
See, as mentioned before, the increased MPG standards that Reagan removed. Also see: the US postal office already has the largest fleet of hybrids and natural gas vehicles.
This is the problem. You just don’t seem to understand that mobile energy is what is in jeopardy. You can’t make a car go with a windmill. We will need to keep getting oil until we replace our national fleet. And we haven’t even decided what we are going to use, yet.
Simply tell me when the largest advancements in MPG has taken place because there is your answer.
Also, explain to me why the new cars that are made by a collaborative effort has to built and promoted in India. People like you fight it if it is not exactly perfect to your ever changing narrow band of hoops. You must secretly work for the oil companies and auto industry.
Get some stock in oil. Instead of complaining about someone who has more than you, figure out how to get what they have. That’s what we do here in America. Well some of us. Some would rather whine about being a victim and how all rich people are mean. I hate the oil companies. But I like the dividend checks.
I make nearly 2k a month in stock without touching oil companies. Not much of a feat to boast about there.
We can’t afford to lose 2,150,000 barrels of oil a month. Hypothetically but realistically wrong and a lie. Or are you lying by using your fudged numbers again.
Anyone, right now, can buy a smart car (as did I) and get 40mpg (double your convertible) saving enough to make up what I lost on my previous car. That is what can be done by you or anyone else right now and make a difference.
But, it is you that whine that it is not enough to change or doesn’t fit your image - and besides, as you said, the troops are paid for, lets use em!
(double mpg here and +50% there/15% from wind/25% from solar/etc all added up IS significant, but as your whine “it will take effort….waaaa”)
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
NYer,
There was specific pressure early under the current administration on lenders to get more creative and lend to people of less income. Some of that worked, but most of them were scams. For example, the VA loans allowed you to borrow on 75% (near that if not exact) of their income.
Again, I was educated recently by the hour long NPR program that illustrated it better than what I could find. If you podcast, you might be able to d/l it.
IMO, mortgage originators are the biggest, but not the only culprit in this mess. And clearly they have been outside the reach of regulators.
I agree mortgage originators were a substantial part, but Florida put in regulations in early 1900s regarding those as well. Yet, they found that 25% were convicted felons. Many who quit selling coke because this was more lucrative and easier to get away with. Others were convicted bank robbers as well.
Many time it was missed and a nearly equal number of them simply passed because of Jeb Bush following admins recommendation to deregulate informally.
By Copyleft
July 29, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
Isn’t this a corollary to the argument so many make regarding big oil? What reason did big telecom (big oil) have to invest in alternative technologies (energies) if there was no competition (or overwhelming consumer and political demand) forcing them to do so?
Yes, it is analogous—but not in the way you think. Remember, corporations are interested ONLY in expanding and protecting their profits, doing what benefits the shareholders.
If serving the public good made them money, they’d do it. But conversely, if screwing the public by establishing monopolies, squashing and gobbling up competitors, and stifling alternative development made them money (and it does)… they’d do that too. And they have been doing just that.
You mention “incentives”—what, exactly, is the “incentive” for an oil company to help develop ways to put themselves out of business, when it’s so much easier (and faster, and cheaper) to ensure that energy alternatives are all stillborn and they get an even bigger next-quarter return from their stranglehold?
Corporations are like fire. They CAN be very useful when properly harnessed and controlled. But you should never, EVER let them range out of control, where the damage they can cause is almost irreparable.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Gale,
What would it cost to put a solar panel on my roof and hood. That ( in my non-engineering mind) should not be that hard or costly.
The hybrids are already adding those. Add in the new solar windows, and even more can run without using your alternator.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
You just keep blathering, don’t you?
See, as mentioned before, the increased MPG standards that Reagan removed. Also see: the US postal office already has the largest fleet of hybrids and natural gas vehicles.
OK. So are you saying that the post office give us rides to work?
Simply tell me when the largest advancements in MPG has taken place because there is your answer.
Huh? That’s going to fix our oil problem? Pay attention.
Also, explain to me why the new cars that are made by a collaborative effort has to built and promoted in India. People like you fight it if it is not exactly perfect to your ever changing narrow band of hoops. You must secretly work for the oil companies and auto industry.
Narrow band of hoops? LOL!! I need gas. You do too. You need a lot more than I need.
Anyone, right now, can buy a smart car (as did I) and get 40mpg (double your convertible) saving enough to make up what I lost on my previous car.
Or they can get a smart job, drive what they want and not have to buy a cracker box. My Volvo gets 24 MPG and I fill it up about once a month. My convertible is supposed to get 18 but it has never been even close. But it is a year old and has 3,000 miles on it.
That is what can be done by you or anyone else right now and make a difference.
Why would I want to do what you do? I use much less gas and drive what i want to drive.
But, it is you that whine that it is not enough to change or doesn’t fit your image - and besides, as you said, the troops are paid for, lets use em!
I never said that. I can always tell when youi are really really frustrated. You start blathering. The sentence above is a blather. That is where you are claiming I said something that you thought I said, but I didn’t. It’s part of your little hysterics you go into every week. Poor baby, Just looked like a fool again today.
(double mpg here and +50% there/15% from wind/25% from solar/etc all added up IS significant, but as your whine “it will take effort….waaaa”)
See what i mean?
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
Copyleft,
I do agree with deregulation where it works also. Just look at the internet for an example of something with no structure and nearly zero regulation. But, because of that freedom, it became a major tool and industry.
By Copyleft
July 29, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
As for Truth’s arguments… It seems he’s abandoned the whole “Saddam was bad and maybe he really DID have WMDs” excuse, passed through the “Democrats in Congress voted for it too!” excuse, and is now at the naked truth of the Iraq War: “I want their oil, and cheap!”
In a warped way, the right-wing pundits are right; we HAVE forgotten 9/11. We’ve certainly forgotten the guy who was behind it, and have moved on to more urgent concerns, like how to preserve our supply of cheap oil by spending $1 trillion on an illegal and unnecessary war. Brilliant strategy, that one.
For the life of me, I can’t tell which right-wing loons are more dangerous: the homegrown terrorists with guns who like to shoot up children’s plays, or the corrupt slimeballs who never served and decide to start phony wars for money.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this
The hybrids are already adding those. Add in the new solar windows, and even more can run without using your alternator.
Are you talking about this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9988923-54.html
Solar windows are just tinted windows. The article talks about MIT developing windows that act as solar panels. It is dated, July, 08.
Gale
But I think it would help power the heating, AC and other auxiliary systems that take power in my car.
I’m not an engineer, but that’s not a bad idea. The problem is that electricity is abundant in a gas powered car. Active solar power can produce electricity but you already have plenty of electricity. Radio, nav syustem, even the headlights use what is already generated by the alternator.
It could help if you could take the strain of the air conditioner off the engine.
The problem with air conditioning a car is that it takes a compressor. I had an Acura that had a 1 hp compressor, ie, they claim that to run the air, it only required 1 horse power of the 240 horses the engine produced. An electric drill is about 1/4 horse power so you would need to generate enough electricity to run four electric drills with a solar panel small enough to go on a car hood or top or both. it could be done, if you drove in direct sunlight a lot.
There may be other ways to cool air but I don’t know of it. Like I said, I am not an engineer.
I built a passive solar panel for my pool that worked pretty well. It gave me another month in the spring and another month in the fall so it was worth the effort. Of course the pump that pumped the water through the panel cost a fortune to operate 12 hours a day.
By Archie
July 29, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Off topic again but check this out and please note you can find the full story elsewhere on the internet: Sen. Ted Stevens, the nation’s longest-serving Republican senator and a major figure in Alaska politics since before statehood, was indicted Tuesday on seven counts of failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in services from an oil services company that helped renovate his home.
That’s just a little smoke that points to greed more than anything causing high oil prices.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
OK. So are you saying that the post office give us rides to work?
No. Get off you lazy butt, stop complaining about something other countries have dealt with successfully, and do something yourself instead of waiting for it to come to your door with flowers.
Narrow band of hoops? LOL!! I need gas. You do too. You need a lot more than I need.
3gallons a week gets me everywhere I need to go, and besides that I bike. You do what? Ohh yeah - whine about $4/gal gas.
Or they can get a smart job, drive what they want and not have to buy a cracker box. My Volvo gets 24 MPG and I fill it up about once a month. My convertible is supposed to get 18 but it has never been even close. But it is a year old and has 3,000 miles on it.
As suspected, lazy to the point of sacrificing our kids and economy for your luxury. You think money should make everything easy for you = selfish.
I never said that. I can always tell when youi are really really frustrated. You start blathering. The sentence above is a blather. That is where you are claiming I said something that you thought I said, but I didn’t. It’s part of your little hysterics you go into every week. Poor baby, Just looked like a fool again today.
Like “the come on and fight me!” rant you freaked out on? Not even close. No one has had as many freak out sessions as you or name changing: Jack, Dog, Corporate dog, TOJ, Truth. Each time because you were, and should be, ashamed.
I never said that. Lying again. Firefighter analogy was all over your sick premise.
Again, concrete, chitin, solar,etc won arguments against you. All will make a difference whether you are smart enough to see it or not.
By NYer
July 29, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
If serving the public good made them money, they’d do it. But conversely, if screwing the public by establishing monopolies, squashing and gobbling up competitors, and stifling alternative development made them money (and it does)… they’d do that too. And they have been doing just that.
Do you not think the telecom industry was screwing you prior to the Act? Do you not think your prices were too high, your service choices too weak, and your choice of competition too sparse?
You mention “incentives”—what, exactly, is the “incentive” for an oil company to help develop ways to put themselves out of business, when it’s so much easier (and faster, and cheaper) to ensure that energy alternatives are all stillborn and they get an even bigger next-quarter return from their stranglehold?
You’re making my point for me - corporations aren’t going to give us better prices, better choices and better products until they are forced to do so either by the competition, the government, or some combination thereof. Until the Telecom Act, the market was stodgy and the pace of technological change (from the consumers standpoint) stank. Even with all of the consolidation in the industry I still have way more choices today than I ever did before.
It is the same with oil. As you correctly point out - they won’t change on their own.
Yes, it is analogous—but not in the way you think.
Copyleft, based on the prior paragraph, frankly, I haven’t a clue what you think I think.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
As for Truth’s arguments… It seems he’s abandoned the whole “Saddam was bad and maybe he really DID have WMDs” excuse, passed through the “Democrats in Congress voted for it too!” excuse, and is now at the naked truth of the Iraq War: “I want their oil, and cheap!”
No Saddam was bad and I and most of the democratic members of congress knew that he had WMD, But I have said since day one that this was the 21st century energy wars that my high school chemistry teacher warned us about. If you guys were as interested in reading my posts as you are in rifling through them to find something to whine about, you might actually get something right once in a while.
In a warped way, the right-wing pundits are right; we HAVE forgotten 9/11. We’ve certainly forgotten the guy who was behind it, and have moved on to more urgent concerns, like how to preserve our supply of cheap oil by spending $1 trillion on an illegal and unnecessary war. Brilliant strategy, that one.
So you want the rightous war. The DNC approved war The war that will free entire villages of goats. To hell with the second largest oil producing country in the Middle east. To the BANDWAGON!!! It’s Afghanistan that is the real war. Damn. Could you be more of a sheep. You explained why we should be in Afghanistan and it was no more than I thought it would be: Just dumb talking points that haven’t made sense since 2003. You seem really p**. I would be too, if I were you. You have been taught to repeat some very foolish things. Let’s go to Afghanistan and catch Osama Bin Laden. We’ll catch him with our tanks. LOL!!
For the life of me, I can’t tell which right-wing loons are more dangerous: the homegrown terrorists with guns who like to shoot up children’s plays, or the corrupt slimeballs who never served and decide to start phony wars for money.
Name a real war that you approve of.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
Solar windows are just tinted windows. The article talks about MIT developing windows that act as solar panels. It is dated, July, 08.
You cannot even read. They use dyes to conduct the energy to the sides where there is an added strip which is the collector. Baby steps with you each time:
By borrowing laser technology, the MIT researchers said they adequately direct and concentrate light to the point where they can boost solar cell output ten-fold.
The technology, which uses off-the-shelf dyes used in car paints, promises to be cheaper than traditional solar concentrators because it eliminates the need for mirrors, lenses, and trackers, said Marc Baldo, an MIT professor of electrical engineering who led the work.
Active solar power can produce electricity but you already have plenty of electricity. Radio, nav syustem, even the headlights use what is already generated by the alternator.
Without the use of an alternator you can get 2-3 MPG more. You never heard the debate about opening windows versus using the AC? AC uses about 2-3 more MPG where-as opening the windows causes enough drag to reduce your MPG by up to 10MPG. No, you are not an engineer by no means. Leave that to us.
An electric drill is about 1/4 horse power so you would need to generate enough electricity to run four electric drills with a solar panel small enough to go on a car hood or top or both. it could be done, if you drove in direct sunlight a lot.
Or let it charge an oversized normal car battery.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
Archie,
That’s just a little smoke that points to greed more than anything causing high oil prices.
Alaska repub in cahoots with oil companies? Say it ain’t so!
By Truth
July 29, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
Hay pal. i’m not married to you so this nagging needs to stop. Act like a nagging shrew around your boyfriends. i’m not one of them.
i knew you would go ape. You do this almost every week. You send me 20 times more posts than anyone else on the board. It doesn’t matter whether i answer them or not.
You need to get over me, Pal. You need to stop looking me up on the internet. I told you that I would be glad to tell you where you could meet me. I never said a word about fighting. Seems you are a little afraid of answering for some of the things that you have pulled.
You need to stop using this forum as your personal mailbox to me. Why don’t you just do this in the flicker site. I’m sure everyone here would appreciate it.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
More nagging about being wrong.
Hey Einstein. MIT is currently developing it. You said they have it on new Hybreds.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
I told you that I would be glad to tell you where you could meet me. I never said a word about fighting.
You freaked out in ways we never have seen on here;)
Of course your not married. The things people have sacrificed to be away from you says loads. No wonder you are such a mad old man.
You do this almost every week.
Wasn’t me that cried every week and returned under a new name. It has been me that addresses you without name calling, just to get called childish names because you have no argument.
By USinUK
July 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
And, meanwhile, BP and other oil companies continue to make record profits:
BP PLC reported a 28 percent rise in second quarter net profit Tuesday on surging energy prices and vowed to fight for its troubled Russian joint venture, TNK-BP.
*BP, Europe’s second biggest oil producer behind, posted net profit of $9.47 billion for the three months ending June 30, up from $7.38 billion in the same period a year ago. *
Revenues jumped 49 percent to $110.98 billion as the price for a barrel of oil rose by around 35 percent over the quarter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/aponbige/earnsbp_6
but, yeah, we need to drill in the west to bring prices down. like the oil companies will EVER reduce their revenues voluntarily.
By JokesOn
July 29, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this
No Saddam was bad and I and most of the democratic members of congress knew that he had WMD, But I have said since day one that this was the 21st century energy wars that my high school chemistry teacher warned us about.
More lies, or can you show where that was ever a premise before a week ago? Dimwit.LOL
By chuck
July 29, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this
Jokeson…another ridiculous statement:
Anyone, right now, can buy a smart car (as did I) and get 40mpg (double your convertible) saving enough to make up what I lost on my previous car. That is what can be done by you or anyone else right now and make a difference.
I have a PAID FOR 2003 Impala that is COMFORTABLE and gets about 23 mpg in town. If I travel 1000 miles a month, which is about what I do, I would save about $73.00 per month. Why in the WORLD would I trade in a car that seats 6 and that I own free and clear, to make a $250.00 a month car payment on a car that seats 2, in order to save $73.00 per month?
It is not a solution for the vast majority of people for other reasons as well.
Many people can’t afford a car payment
Many people have forclosures and CAN’T get a loan to buy one.
Smart Cars are not readily available in large numbers in all markets.
Some people can’t fit in those little bitty things.
PLUS, what are you going to do with all of those “old” cars? Landfill? Junkyard? What about all of the money people have in those vehicles? NOT TO MENTION, if you have a perfectly good car, isn’t it WASTEFUL to use additional resources AND energy to produce a car you don’t need?
PLUS, how “smart” is this smart car that only gets 40 mpg? I had an air conditioned Geo Metro in the early 90’s that got 49mpg and that would hold 4 people. I had a 1984 Tercel that got over 50mpg. WHERE ARE THOSE KINDS OF CARS?!? I actually enjoyed driving those and they had pretty good get up and go. I’d buy one of those again IF THEY WERE AVAILABLE AND I NEEDED A CAR. If you really wanted to make a difference, you would walk or ride a bike.
GOB, your lack of logical thinking on the issue of immigration scares me to death. I can only hope that there are not many of your ilk out there. How long do you think this would REMAIN THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY, if you had your way? I can tell you it would not last long. I’m sure it is nice to let yourself be totally controlled by emotions. I hope our legislators will be cognizant of the fact that most of us want polies made using BRAIN POWER not EMOTION. When it comes to immigration, we have WAT TOO MUCH at stake to let people like you in charge.
Some things for you to think about:
“The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access,” said Edwin Rubenstein, reporting on the National Research Council’s new book: “The New Americans: Economic, Demographics and Fiscal Effects of Immigration.” The Social Contract Winter 2007-08. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/www.thesocialcontract.com
“Immigration has a profound impact on education,” Rubenstein said. “Immigrant children are poorer than native-born children, and their numbers have increased far faster. At least 19 percent of all K-12 enrollments are the result of immigration. In excess of 9.2 million are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Because of their lack of language abilities, they take 25 percent of funding. Out of $499.1 billion in the 2005 school year, $125 billion was spent on foreign born children.”
Immigration will account for 96 percent of the future increases in school populations over the next 50 years-if current legal and illegal immigration maintains the current inflow into the United States from 2.0 to 2.5 million annually.
In 2001, nine million students could not speak English. “In the Rand Corporation’s final analysis, the added costs for language assistance for illegal alien children and (anchor babies), costs American taxpayers $3.8 billion annually,” Rubenstein said.
In California, students speak over 100 languages. Connecticut features 140 languages. What happens in the classroom? Answer: total breakdown of education for American students as well as billions of dollars spent on educating children from foreign countries that live illegally in the United States.
“Kansas state universities currently have more than 9,000 students enrolled who are identified as non-U.S. citizens,” Rubenstein said. “During the fall of 2004, illegal alien students received taxpayer-subsidized tuition reductions of more than $3,000.00 in three of the states’ major collegesthus Kansas expressly rewards aliens who have violated federal law by giving them a taxpayer subsidy that is denied to lawful American citizens or legal immigrants.”
As to the ‘sinking’ of American education, California proves the bow of the Titanic. Illegal and legal immigrants flood into that state with such speed, California taxpayers must build one new school and staff it with teachers every day, seven days a week-in order to keep up with the flood of immigrant children. Result? Dismal failure of education for California children. Jay Leno illustrates that failure with his simple questions to our nation’s youth.
To place this human flood into perspective, on average, the United States government allows 182,000 legal and illegal alien immigrants into this country every month. They total 2.2 million added people each year, year in and year out. None of them possess jobs when they enter this country. The illegal alien migrants cost U.S. taxpayers $346 billion annually as shown in this report.
At the same time, 14 million Americans stand in unemployment lines weekly. Thirteen million American children live below the poverty line. Twenty-eight million Americans live on food stamps. This year 1.5 million Americans remain homeless on our streets. Home foreclosures from job losses impact hundreds of thousands of Americans this year. The average American credit card holder runs a $9,240.00 balance. H-1B, H-2B and L-1 visas given to foreigners displaced 1.0 million American workers in the past five years. Additionally, over three million American manufacturing jobs exited to overseas countries while the Rust Belt starting in Detroit, Michigan loses 1,000 manufacturing jobs a week.
By Truth
July 29, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this
You need to just get over me, Pal. You need to stop trying to track me down on the internet.
I’ll tell you right now what I calmly told you on Thursday. I’ll be glad to tell you where to meet me. If you are afraid that is a threat, then that is your problem. If you believe that me wanting to take your obsession with me out of these other people’s lives is “freaking out like we have never seen”, that is also your problem.
I know you love to preach, but look how many people have left since 2PM. You need to leave me the hell alone. You try to have a civil argument for a post or two and then you go crazy for the rest of the day. Just paragraph after paragraph after paragraph talking about things I have never done.
You win. You are much crazier than I could ever be. But people are tired of this. You have no idea who I am. Stop showing people that you are constantly thinking of me in all these scenarios that you post on here. “The things people have sacrificed to be away from me”? What the hell is wrong with you? You don’t know anything about me. You don’t know the people around me. You don’t know anything, Pal.
You are crazy. Get it. Mental problems. You should not be obsessed with a stranger. That is good sign that you are crazy.
Get over me.
Give the blog a break.
Leave me alone.
By Truth
July 30, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this
I have said all along that the Iraq war was the energy wars my chemistry teacher warned us about. Yesterday, two of the less “gifted” posters questioned my voracity about that statement. This morning, I searched only the months of June and July in the W2W archives and found a post from each month from me saying the same thing:
This was in a post I wrote to USinUK on June 17, 08:
inflation will be astronomical and we will be fighting the energy wars for the rest of our lives.
Then on July 1, I wrote this:
Democrats have said for several years now that the Iraq War was about the oil. I agree. I don’t think we went into Iraq to steal their oil ($4.35/gallon. we OBVIOUSLY are not stealing it.) but we are there to protect one of our main sources. We are now fighting the energy wars of the 21st century that my old chemistry teacher used to go on and on about back in 1969. Robot guided planes and tanks really are fighting in the Middle East over oil. The old SOB was right.
As the wolves will become hungrier and hungrier for the last pieces of meat, I would rather this wolf have it’s own meat. If current trends continue with countries like China and India becoming more and more industrialized, the world will be fighting in more and more energy based wars. How crazy would it be for us to be setting on our own supplies while we are sending our children to die for foreign oil. How crazy would it be for China to have oil derricks in Cuban waters, literally in sight of Key West while we are fighting for the last drops of oil in the Middle East?
Nuff Said.
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this
Well, color me shocked … it looks like W was wrong and Kerry was right, after all:
The Bush administration’s terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda’s capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies.
The study by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. also contends that the administration committed a fundamental error in portraying the conflict with al-Qaeda as a “war on terrorism.” The phrase falsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists, it said.
“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors,” authors Seth Jones and Martin Libicki write in “How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al-Qaeda,” a 200-page volume released yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902041_pf.html
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this
Truth -
voracity has to do with eating large amounts of food (as in a voracious appetite)
vEracity has to do with truth
jsyk :-)
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this
Also from the article on the Rand report:
Addressing the U.S. campaign against al-Qaeda, the study noted successes in disrupting terrorist financing, but said the group remains a formidable foe. Al-Qaeda is “strong and competent,” and has succeeded in carrying out more violent attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than in all of its previous history. Moreover, its organizational structure has adapted and evolved over time, “making it a more dangerous enemy,” Jones and Libicki wrote.
The authors call for a strategy that includes a greater reliance on law enforcement and intelligence agencies in disrupting the group’s networks and in arresting its leaders. They say that when military forces are needed, the emphasis should be on local troops, which understand the terrain and culture and tend to have greater legitimacy.
In Muslim countries in particular, there should be a “light U.S. military footprint or none at all,” the report contends.
“The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity,” it said, “but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment.”
By Truth
July 30, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
UsinnerU
voracity has to do with eating large amounts of food (as in a voracious appetite)
LOL!! Thanks. Maybe they were talking about my eating habits, OK? smart ellic.
Big news. Bush is declared wrong.
That doesn’t mean that Kerry was right. I think they should be regarded as targets. I don’t think we fight them in a war. I think we use drones and snipers and roadside bombs that are highly controlled to kill and or maim the big dogs.
I used to work with a guy that seemed to be pretty well educated on the most current military technology. He said they had live Sat links to people in the field where they could dial up a survey of an area. So a soldier can get a bird’s eye view of his enemy from live cameras in the sky, huge advantage.
But think about this. Say you have a Sat watching an area of say, Northern Baghdad. It is setting and watching a high problem area. Someone sets off a car-bomb. Why couldn’t they use the same technology that we use for TeVo, and wind the disk back that was recorded from the sat, and see where the car came from?
They have to be using that technology. If I can think of it, they have thought it up years ago. I just don’t get the tanks and the fighter jets and the boots on the ground thing. We should be terrorizing the terrorists. Make it completely covert and let the boys play with their new toys. I AM saying that if we are paying for the TOYS, let’s use them, especially, if they will save our lives and take theirs.
I’m telling you, Eisenhower had it right. The Military Industrial Complex is in charge. And girl, it ain’t just the Republicans.
By Gale
July 30, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
Sheesh! I’m glad my connection was down last night. School yard pi##ing contest, looks like. It would be better to discuss issues without the denegrating language.
Truth and Archie, I think, thanks for the info about solar panels and cars. I didn’t realize the car engine produced so much electricity. Maybe the answer would be improved battery efficiency? I agree with the gas milage on the smart cars. That would be an ok car for my daily commute and double the mpg of my pickup. But the pickup is paid for and I still want to own a pickup. The gas savings on a smart car would factor out to a more than 5 year ROI. And there are no reliability ratings on these. Not a sound decision unless someone is already in the market for a new car.
Oh, and Truth, I had no idea a pump would cost so much to run. I thought things that generate heat were lots more expensive than things like pumps and fans.
By Gale
July 30, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
USinUK, regarding US troops in conflict situations in Muslim countries. I’d say that applies to direct conflict is any society so different from the typical Euro/American cultures we Americans are used to. We don’t think the same since we don’t have the same societal backgroud. We make critical mistakes because of it. The 911 bombings had been posed by the think tank folks, for example, but the average American was completely shocked.
By Truth
July 30, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
UsinnerU
The authors call for a strategy that includes a greater reliance on law enforcement and intelligence agencies in disrupting the group’s networks and in arresting its leaders.
I agree with the more emphasis on intell gathering, but we don’t need cops looking for terrorists. For one thing, they have huge jurisdiction problems. Covert, special ops guys don’t.
I don’t want to fight a nice war with these guys. Cops can’t kill people. I want guys with 50 cal sniper rifles that can hit a target at 3,000 yards.
I want when a person decides dance the Mohamed polka, that it becomes common knowledge that for the rest of their short lives that whether they live or die is no longer in their own hands.
By Truth
July 30, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
Gale
The cost of the pump wasn’t nearly as much as running a big butane heater for the pool. The solar panels worked great. And the pump was simply because of the fact that I was experimenting. If I had done it right, I would have routed the filter pump to also pump into the solar heater. That would have been easy, but I couldn’t find a cheap regulator valve that would tap off some of the pumped water from the filter. If I just ran all the water from the filter through the panels, it would be moving too fast and wouldn’t be in the panels long enough to heat the water.
I had it for two of the 10 years I owned the home. If I would have kept it, I would have done it right. A solar heater for a pool is a great investment. But get stuff off the shelf. I built my system because I wasn’t able to find anything else at the time. So I needed to use a separate water pump. Sorry to get so complicated.
By Gale
July 30, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Truth, boy do I agree on the covert ops guys versus lots of boots on the ground. We don’t train our general military to perform in the environment we put them in over there. It may have something to do with the high incidence of PTSD. We train them to kill, then put them in a police situation. I’ve thought for a while it would be best to drop the troop level way down and let specially, highly trained professionals look for the baddies. IMO, that would have been much, much better for taking Sadam down, not that that really needed to happen. We could have controlled that situation without blowing away so much of the infrastructure that we now feel honor bound to help put back, having destroyed the economy in the process.
In general, I think we make our mistakes having so many troops. It is expensive to keep that many ground troops trained and ready. I suppose many Americans would balk at the idea of special forces going into hostile areas to take out specific targets. There is a lot of room for subjective choice of targets. It would keep the less trained troops from so much hazard though.
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Truth -
LOL!! Thanks. Maybe they were talking about my eating habits, OK? smart ellic.
for all your spelling needs, you can count on me!
That doesn’t mean that Kerry was right.
well, yeah, it does. it is exactly what he proposed during the 2004 race (one of the things he was strongly criticized about for being “weak” on terrorism).
I don’t think we fight them in a war. I think we use drones and snipers and roadside bombs that are highly controlled to kill and or maim the big dogs.
one of my favorite lines from the West Wing was during the much-maligned “why they hate us” episode after 9/11. CJ Cregg basically says that the only thing that’s going to really get these guys is someone dressed as a waiter carrying a silencer. (no, I don’t do the line nearly enough justice)
my only problem with drones and random air attacks:
An Afghan government investigation has concluded that 45 women and children and two men were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan last Sunday.
The nine-man investigation team appointed by the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, found that only civilians were hit during the airstrike.
-snip-
The incident in Deh Bala came two days after another claim that US forces killed 15 civilians during an airstrike on two vehicles in the province of Nuristan. A charity, the International Medical Corps (IMC), reported the deaths of three of its medical workers in the incident. A statement on the IMC website said that they died with local villagers while trying to flee fighting in Waygal Dstrict after US forces issued a warning to local people to evacuate the area. US military officials said an investigation into the incident was still ongoing.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4315724.ece
too much “collateral damage” (god, how I hate that expression)
I’m telling you, Eisenhower had it right. The Military Industrial Complex is in charge. And girl, it ain’t just the Republicans.
I agree with you, there …
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, regarding US troops in conflict situations in Muslim countries. I’d say that applies to direct conflict is any society so different from the typical Euro/American cultures we Americans are used to. We don’t think the same since we don’t have the same societal backgroud.
I agree - I think we learned a lot from our first deployment in Gulf War I regarding how to behave in Middle Eastern countries … however, the longer we are there and the more “collateral damage” we cause, the more enemies/new terrorists we are breeding.
The 911 bombings had been posed by the think tank folks, for example, but the average American was completely shocked.
The average American was … but those in charge should not have been - especially since there was that oh-so-prescient memo back in August “Bin Laden Determined to Strike the US” (and the USS Cole had been attacked only months before using an similar aquatic version of that method)
By Gale
July 30, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Not too complicated, Truth. I enjoy the details. I lived a lot of my life with handy guys and sometimes it is a bit hard for my female household to figure stuff like that out. It is the only thing I miss about not having a guy in the house. Well, that and getting stuff out of high cupboards. My skill set is slowly building. My dad was the type that didn’t allows the girls in the garage. I am glad I learned a lot from watching and listening though. If you know something is possible, it is easier to find a solution.
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I agree with the more emphasis on intell gathering, but we don’t need cops looking for terrorists. For one thing, they have huge jurisdiction problems. Covert, special ops guys don’t.
good gravy - imagine if we took all the $$$ we’re spending in Iraq right now and split it evenly between our police forces and intel agencies. criminey, I think that would help them “take a bite out of crime” - including terrorism, drugs, prostitution, double-parking, jay-walking and crimes against fashion.
By JokesOn
July 30, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
Seeing as you want to argue the point:
This was in a post I wrote to USinUK on June 17, 08:
inflation will be astronomical and we will be fighting the energy wars for the rest of our lives.
Then on July 1, I wrote this:
In the last month and a half hardly equals “all along I have said…” as I pointed out. Compare a month and a half to posting about the war for nearly a year, and what do you get? Flip-flopping.
By Truth
July 30, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
UsinnerU
The collateral damage is going to happen. At least until we calm them down a bit.
As far as the money that is being spent on the war, I have a question. Why did WWII pull us out of a depression because the money for war went back to the US industries that supplied the war. Now, is that money not going back into the private sector? We aren’t buying tanks and planes from China. Kevlar vests are made in PA. (I think)
But the question about cops vs. specialized soldiers remains. It would be better if they felt fear of us when they are at home. Make them afraid. US bound cops will not do that.
By Truth
July 30, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
Gale
Murphy Brown used to say about men: Fix the stereo and get out!!
Cops arrest. Soldiers kill. Once they are here, the cops would be in charge. But in their snug little huts where they think they can plot to kill us in safety? BANG!
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Why did WWII pull us out of a depression because the money for war went back to the US industries that supplied the war. Now, is that money not going back into the private sector? We aren’t buying tanks and planes from China. Kevlar vests are made in PA. (I think)
WWII pulled us out of a depression because: 1) we ran a VERY distant way behind the air power of Germany, Britain and even Russia before the war then threw tons of $$$ behind efforts to catch up, and 2) we weren’t just supplying US forces, we were also supplying the UK, China, Russia and France, as well (hellooooo Lend/Lease)
as far as the money being spent/wasted now:
BAGHDAD — In the flatlands north of Baghdad sits a prison with no prisoners. It holds something else: a chronicle of U.S. government waste, misguided planning and construction shortcuts costing $40 million and stretching back to the American overseers who replaced Saddam Hussein.
-snip-
In the pecking order of corruption in Iraq, the dead-end prison project at Khan Bani Saad is nowhere near the biggest or most tangled.
Bowen estimated up to 20 percent “waste” _ or more than $4 billion _ from the $21 billion spent so far in the U.S.-bankrolled Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. It’s just one piece of a recovery effort that swelled beyond $112 billion in U.S., Iraqi and international contributions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072800693.html
while the US helped Europe get back on its feet after WWII, we were paid back when they bought our materials and products (since we were pretty much the only country with a manufacturing base that hadn’t been bombed off the map), thus contributing to our explosive growth in the 1950s.
and, of course, now the US manufacturing base is mostly dead and buried and the country is primarily a service economy - not something that most Iraqis are in the market for
By Mara
July 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
in case anyone wanted to help -
The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), in association with the UUA Thomas Jefferson District, has launched the Knoxville Relief Fund, to bring ministry, spiritual care, and practical financial assistance to those affected by the tragedy in Knoxville, Tennessee.
—-snip——
No more than 5% of the funds raised will be used to cover administrative costs, including fees for credit card processing, before being directed to the Thomas Jefferson District. For more information on the Knoxville Relief Fund, including a link for online donations, please visit UUA.org > Giving.
By Truth
July 30, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
in case anyone is interested, my credibility is important to me. When someone starts screaming about how I have changed position, it is important that i prove otherwise.
More lies, or can you show where that was ever a premise before a week ago? Dimwit.LOL
I posted two posts that i had made, both of which were, as asked, before a week ago. Now the hysterics have already set in. That person now changes the rules and still claims that I am lying.
I hope this clears this up for the sane people on the blog. Sorry folks. this will be all the time I spend on this.:
From November 28, 2007
November 28, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this
Archie
Sorry. I meant to put all of this in one post.
Protection of our energy sources is what the war is all about. Unfortunately, those energy sources are still in the Middle East. That is a fact of life. The fact that we need to engage in energy wars is partly because so many here insist that we protect our environment while in other parts of the world, where the actions of the oil companies are not controlled, the environment is being disseminated, people are dying by the score from the pollution of unregulated refining and drilling.
Sorry about this.
By Gale
July 30, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
Thinking about the stated topic, I don’t think military service is an asset. But a sense of history is a big asset for all our leaders. We repeat too many mistakes. Also, an understanding of the Constitution and why it exists in its current format. It is and was always meant to evolve. Also, a basic understanding of economics at a macro level is an asset. So, why do we let our politicians run an American Idol campaign and let them get away with it?
By JokesOn
July 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
TOJ,
I see you are correct.
I do apologize.
By chuck
July 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
USinUK, These statements were made by YOU and others on the blog this week:
We just refuse to be as paranoid as they are and sit in awe of them for their constant demand that we “respect” them for ignorning the obvious need to be in Afghanistan actually fighting terrorism instead of believing the lies they used to get us to support the war in Iraq.
We should be in Afghanistan. That is were Bin laden is.
Because Afghanistan is where Osama bin Laden (remember him? the guy who actually attacked us?) has been operating from. Iraq, home to Saddam Hussein (who DIDN’T attack us and who we know was no threat to us whatsoever), is not Afghanistan.
you do realize that the Taliban has gained in strength, don’t you. you do realize that Al Q is still operating (and doing quite well) between the Afghani and Pakistani border. in fact, they’re doing SO WELL, they were able to attack a prison and help some 1000+ Taliban prisoners escape. you do realize that, if you’re trying to fight a war on TERROR, that it’s probably best to go where the TERRORISTS ARE.
what’s going on in Iraq right now is sectarian violence between the Sunnis and Shia (perfect example - the bombings that happened yesterday).
However, if we’re after Al Quaeda (which is the group that attacked us on 9/11 and attacked the Cole and attacked the embassies in Africa), then Afghanistan and Pakistan is where we should be to sniff out their training camps and destroy their “headquarters” (as much as you can call a cave a HQ).
SO NOW HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING:
The Bush administration’s terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda’s capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder, which is it? It seems to me that IF Bush lowered the number of troops in Afghanistan, he was AHEAD of the Rand study. But then, the troop numbers ARE UP. Over 70,000 international troops are in Afghanistan now, about 36,000 of them are AMERICANS.
I also found this little item from that same RAND CORP:
“What has become clear as the insurgency has picked up steam over the last year or two is that an increasing number of forces are needed to clear and hold territory,” said Seth Jones, an analyst who follows Afghanistan for the RAND Corp. “In fact, I think a significant number more are needed. I would like to see those U.S. numbers come up.”
Gosh, I guess they just can’t make up their minds. Troops not needed, troops NEEDED…which is it?
By chuck
July 30, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Gosh jokeson, it seems you’ve been wrong a LOT this week. Maybe you should try a blog where the people aren’t so intelligent like the daily kos or huffington.
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
chuck -
Hmmmmmm. I wonder, which is it? It seems to me that IF Bush lowered the number of troops in Afghanistan, he was AHEAD of the Rand study. But then, the troop numbers ARE UP. Over 70,000 international troops are in Afghanistan now, about 36,000 of them are AMERICANS.
yeah. because Bush was bringing the troops home and employing more covert intel operatives in Afghanistan, instead … oh, waitaminnit … no, he wasn’t … he was just sending troops to Iraq for an unnecessary war and leaving Afghanistan to the Brits.
As for Seth Jones, try reading his actual Foreign Policy op-ed:
Above all, Karzai needs a police force he can trust. The police are the government’s frontline force in any counterinsurgency. Unlike the army, the police have a permanent presence in cities, towns, and villages. The police should be Karzai’s eyes and ears on the ground. But the Afghan National Police are more of a hindrance than a help right now. Its officers are corrupt, incompetent, under-resourced, and often loyal to local warlords rather than the central government. As one Afghan official told me on a recent visit, “Forget about the Taliban; our biggest problems are with the police.”
Recent Western training efforts are a good start. Local police are temporarily removed from their districts and replaced with Afghan National Civil Order Police units, which are trained to deal with urban unrest, civil disorder, and national emergencies. After several weeks of intensive training by U.S. and other NATO tutors, they return to their districts accompanied by embedded mentors. But these efforts remain woefully inadequate. Only about one third of the international police mentoring positions have been filled, an embarrassing figure compared with recent NATO efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, and even Haiti.
-snip-
Solving Karzai’s Pakistan problem requires accepting that the war cannot be won militarily there, at least not by U.S. and NATO forces. Pinprick strikes by unmanned drones or quick cross-border raids won’t do the trick, since Counterinsurgency 101 suggests that territory held by insurgents needs to be cleared and held. Moreover, the current U.S. strategy toward Pakistan’s insurgency is not synchronized across military, political, and economic fronts, and it relies too heavily on building up Pakistan’s Army and paramilitary Frontier Corps. It has also failed to address key political issues, such as better integrating the Federally Administered Tribal Areas into Pakistan’s federal system. A feeble NATO military response inside Afghanistan may sink Karzai, but only a much broader regional effort can save him.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4392
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
chuck -
Gosh jokeson, it seems you’ve been wrong a LOT this week. Maybe you should try a blog where the people aren’t so intelligent like the daily kos or huffington.
nice display of manners, chuck.
By chuck
July 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
USinUK, Seth Jones also advocated sending 500,000 TROOPS to IRAQ.* In fact, that’s where he first gained notice in His field. Still agree with him?
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
chuck -
so, in 2003 he suggested sending 500,000 troops. ya think things have … oh, I dunno … CHANGED IN THE LAST 5 YEARS???
considering the article I cited was from THIS MONTH and not FIVE YEARS AGO, I think what he’s saying today is a leeeeeetle more relevent.
By Mara
July 30, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Troops not needed, troops NEEDED…which is it?
Troops are needed in Afghanistan for two reasons.
1) to help track down and capture Bin Laden and as many Al Qaeda leaders as possible so that they can be turned over to the proper legal authorities to face justice for their crimes.
Though many refer to the Afghan invasion as “the War in Afghanistan” it really is (and pardon my Korean War reference) a “police action”, the purpose of which is to capture an international criminal, who happens to also be a terrorist, and destroy his criminal network.
2) to support the anti-Taliban government, teach the Afghans modern police and judicial processes, help rebuild infrastructure, and encourage respect for human rights and international norms. Which in turn lessens the likelyhood that extremists will once again find safe haven there.
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
some mid-week afternoon fun:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7533129.stm
a 007 Bond Theme Song quiz
By JokesOn
July 30, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
Gosh jokeson, it seems you’ve been wrong a LOT this week. Maybe you should try a blog where the people aren’t so intelligent like the daily kos or huffington.
Not true chuckie. But, I do have the integrity to admit when I am wrong. Something for you to work on there.
By JokesOn
July 30, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this
Something Truth and I can agree on, as well as most of the rest of the blog:
Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use The U.S. should stop arresting responsible marijuana users, Rep. Barney Frank said Wednesday, announcing a proposal to end federal penalties for Americans carrying fewer than 100 grams, almost a quarter-pound, of the substance. “The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government’s business,”
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
chuck -
and alan “what housing bubble” greenspan said 4 years ago that ARMs were a great idea. do you think THAT still holds, as well???
“American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage,” Greenspan said.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-02-23-greenspan-debt_x.htm
things change. the situation changes. the climate changes. the environment changes. opinions and recommendations need to change with them.
but, then, I imagine you’d rather be intransigent like The Decider and drive right off a cliff because, well, there USED to be a bridge here …
By Copyleft
July 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
“Times change. People change. Hairstyles change, interests rates fluctuate…”
—Hillary Flammond, Top Secret—
By USinUK
July 30, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
last example to shoot a few more of chuck’s fish in his incredibly leaky barrel:
in 2003, the Brain Trust at the American Enterprise Institute said “regulation of the subprime market??? meh. who needs it?”
“Subprime” mortgage lending—to borrowers whose credit history or income renders them ineligible for conventional mortgages—has blossomed over the past decade. Advocacy groups, led by AARP, are agitating against the “predatory” terms and marketing of subprime loans, and states and cities have begun to crack down. The activists view state predatory lending laws as a template for aggressive federal intervention. The affected industries, for their part, are looking to the federal government to choke off state and local experimentation.
Both sides are wrong. In this corner of the economy, federalism is working more or less as intended. Let’s not screw it up.
-snip-
The demand for higher federal standards is seriously misguided. But so is the industry’s demand for federal preemption. Warts and all, the existing regime is far preferable to any uniform federal scheme that Congress is likely to enact.
-snip-
Existing federal regulations have caused considerable harm, and possibly more harm than good, in the subprime market. In that light, the industry’s demand for additional restrictions is unlikely to prove beneficial for efficient markets, for consumers, or for the lending industry itself.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19271/pub_detail.asp
hrm. you think THAT still holds, as well??
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this
Hey AGF -
how’s this for the media reporting good news coming out of Iraq:
July 31 (Bloomberg) — The number of American military members who died in Iraq dropped to 12 in July, the lowest monthly total since the 2003 invasion, as the U.S. said Iraqi forces were increasingly effective in combating militants.
The deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq was November 2004, when 147 members of the military died. The toll for June was 30. The monthly figures were calculated by Bloomberg News from the Defense Department’s daily totals.
“The continued reduction in coalition and U.S. casualties is an encouraging indicator of the continued stability throughout Iraq and the increased capacity of the Iraqi security forces to engage in increasingly complex operations,” U.S. military spokesman John Hall said today in an e-mailed statement.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRC0FBlAglqU&refer=us
does that help put a smile on your face?? :-)
(if things are going so well and the Iraqi security forces are doing so well, NOW can we start to pull out???)
By Gale
July 31, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
USinUK, * ” The activists view state predatory lending laws as a template for aggressive federal intervention. The affected industries, for their part, are looking to the federal government to choke off state and local experimentation.” *
This actually seems like a place where state government should be the juristiction. The federal gov likes to point to ‘states rights’ when it is something they don’t want to pay for or be on record for. Think of all those voters they woul pi## off if they voted publicly to keep low paid workers or folks with bad credit from achieving the American Dream? What I hate is when they, the feds, apply the same states rights argument to civil rights issues.
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Gale -
bank and lending regulation is a federal role - specifically done by the Federal Reserve
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_5.pdf
there SHOULD be strong regulation of lending practices and banking at the federal level - just take a look at the bank and subprime meltdown that’s going on right now if you need a reason why.
By JokesOn
July 31, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
bank and lending regulation is a federal role - specifically done by the Federal Reserve
You probably know thins, but others may not: The Federal Reserve is not part of the Federal Government. It is a private venture that collaborates with the Federal Government.
By Gale
July 31, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
I guess my comment is actually aimed at the mortgage brokers. I read the states had trouble regulating those.
By JokesOn
July 31, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
this*
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Jokes -
um. you’re sorta right.
it IS part of the Federal Government, but it’s independent. The board of governors and the fed chairman are appointed by the President and approved by Congress and it sets monetary policy as well as oversees its banks. bottom line, though, it is accountable to Congress.
to get back to Gale’s issue about Federal oversight - this is from the Fed website about one of its primary roles.
*supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
oh, now this is interesting …
back at the end of April, the message board erupted in an argument about whether or not we were in a recession with some folks sticking to the 2-quarters-negative-growth definition.
this just in.
Q4 GDP has been revised downward into … guess what? … NEGATIVE GROWTH due to lower-than-estimated consumer spending. Q1 GDP has also been revised downward to less than 1% and, if Q4 is any indication, should be revised downward some more.
Additionally, growth for 2005, 2006 and all of 2007 was also lower than previously reported.
so, for all you riding the denial-a-whirl (and you know who you are), are you STILL going to insist that it’s just a media fabrication? or will you finally acknowledge that the economy has gone off the cliff?
By Gale
July 31, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
I think a major Federal Reserve challenge is that it’s poliies are based on a science as strong as astrology. From my limited classes of years ago, it appeared economics was based on observable cause and result observation, much like astrology evolved, or even psychology, if you prefer. None of these have much basis in empirically proven fact.
By Gale
July 31, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
Sorry, that should have been policies.
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
Gale -
I think a major Federal Reserve challenge is that it’s poliies are based on a science as strong as astrology. From my limited classes of years ago, it appeared economics was based on observable cause and result observation, much like astrology evolved, or even psychology, if you prefer. None of these have much basis in empirically proven fact.
???
I think you need to expand on that theory, please.
By Gale
July 31, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Hard to say if anything real from DC will improve the financial horizon until after the election, isn’t it? Republican president is a lame duck. The Democratic congress wants him to be the fall guy, but they are just as much to blame. Each wants the other to look bad for the voters to improve their own chances.
By Gale
July 31, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
Lest I further damage my credibility, I studied astrology as a serious student for more than ten years. It is based on several thousand years of observation of planets and people. I have not been real active with it lately. However, about the same time, I was studying for a business degree and it seemed to me that economics was also based on many years for observed data, potential cause and possible effects of the many conditions that effect economics. Likewise, most of non-chemical psychology is based on years of observed behavior. In all cases, there are many, many variables involved and it is difficult to pinpoint a specific factor that effects a specific behavior. That help? If not, it isn’t particularly relevant and I won’t be offended if you shout, “What bunk!” I have often declared that astrology does not require you to believe in it. I suppose economics is similar. It pretty much does what the experts say, even though they often disagree.
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
The Democratic congress wants him to be the fall guy, but they are just as much to blame.
where do you get that? Bush has inhabited the WH since January 2001. The Dems have had the Capital since January 2007. 7 years vs. 18 months. And they’re “just as much to blame” ?????
now, they’ve made some boneheaded decisions, I’ll grant you.
but “just as much to blame”, no. sorry, Gale, but just NO.
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Gale -
That help? If not, it isn’t particularly relevant and I won’t be offended if you shout, “What bunk!” I have often declared that astrology does not require you to believe in it. I suppose economics is similar. It pretty much does what the experts say, even though they often disagree.
I gotta say, it’s an interesting theory. Not one I subscribe to, but interesting, nonetheless. (and, no, I’m not going to shout “what bunk!”)
By Truth
July 31, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
UsinnerU
If we are in downward growth for another quarter, we will be in a recession. The entire Democratic arm of Congress is rejoicing: WE ARE FINALLY APPROACHING DISASTER! And isn’t that good for the DNC!! Congratulations.
I am in the perfect storm of projects right now, end of one, starting another, finishing another, finishing yet another and setting up the second shoot on the haunted Inn. I will sleep again, someday but I don’t know when.
You go, Gale. Obama is endorsed by our enemies. I think they see someone that they will be able to manipulate. Europe went crazy over him. Europe has never been known to have our best interest in mind. And then there is George Soros. The arms dealer that has tried to break the back of the economy of France and England. He makes Dick Cheney look like Mr. Rogers. The fact that he is pouring millions into the Obama campaign says more than anything else to me. Do you think this international criminal is interested in the betterment of America? He is not a stupid man. He is spending millions for some reason.
Talk to you guys next week.
By Gale
July 31, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
My phrasing is way off this morning and I am sorry if I am misstating things. I am taking a drug for a bad case of poison ivy that has an insomenia side effect. Two hours a night for several nights has me a bit flakey. I will try to be careful what I post today.
I think the fault of the Dems goes back before they took control of Congress. It has been a close majority either way for a while. It has resulted in partisan bickering and has not provided solutions for many years. I find it sad that even when they have control, they cannot agree on direction. On the other hand, I think the republican tendency to prod their members to toe the party line is wrong as well. It is that idealist in me that wants elected officials to get together and find solutions. Instead, the priority always seems to be getting reelected and keeping control.
By JokesOn
July 31, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Gale,
Did your studies talk about the parallels of astrology and Christianity?
Like Moses rejecting the praise of the golden bull just as we were leaving the sign that corespondents? And Jesus’ birth during the procession of the fish, which included the three brightest stars in a constellation often referred to as the three wise men?
Neat stuff.
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
oh, Truth … you and your obsession with George Soros … what are you like? well, besides WRONG, what are you like?
Soros has only donated $2,100 to Obama for America. in fact, since 1979, he’s donated only £3.5M overall, including $2.6M to special interests.
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionairepoliticaldonations/George_Soros.php
so, over the course of nearly 30 years, that makes roughly $0.43M each presidential election. but, of course, that doesn’t include the house and senate elections, so we’re talking far less.
now, please keep in mind that Obama has spent $267M and has $71.6M cash on hand. so, I’m sure Soros’s $2,100 is REALLY going to come in handy. http://www.newsmeat.com/
Obama is endorsed by our enemies … oh, really? please, to cite. with reputable news sources.
By Gale
July 31, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
JokesOn, there is quite a lot written about the astrological significance in Jesus’ birth, as well as many other historical events. Some will point to the bull story you mention as an indication of the scholarly bent of the story creators, remembering of course, that astrology was once a respected field. I didn’t read much about the theories revolving around CHristian stories because I don’t care about them. I was always much more interested in early counselling for young adults and adolescents. And counselling myself, of course.
By Truth
July 31, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
UsinnerU
if you want to believe that Soros is showing up at all of Obama’s fund raisers and he is only donating $2,400, that is not my problem. The armored limo ride from his private jet to the affair probably costs more than $2,400.
I just don’t have time to look up the endorsements. Maybe next week. But would you really care? What would it take for you to vote for McCain over Obama? I don’t think there is anything that would sway you.
You dims. You like those good looking glamor queens. Man, he looked like a movie star over in Europe. McCain will always just be on old statesman.
Obama is a state-of-the-art product of a combination of Hollywood and Washington. It doesn’t matter what he has voted for in the past, it doesn’t matter how racist his own church turned out to be, it doesn’t matter about his Chicago mob connections. He flashes that smile and strikes that “Presidential” pose that his trainers worked so hard with him on and it is all over. Women are screaming and swooning and liberal men are certain that he is going to change their lives.
The Nixon / Kennedy debate has come full circle. The Hollywood/Washington President is upon us. You don’t get no slicker than Barack Obama.
By Truth
July 31, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
Usinneru
Oh yeah. And man, can he make a speech.
Yes, we can!! Yes we can!!
It is reminiscent of some of the other really magnetic speech makers of the last century …
… unfortunately.
By Truth
July 31, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
UsinnerU
If the producers of American Idol decided to do an American Politician, tell me that Obama would not walk away with it.
The man is Hollywood inside and out.
Unfortunately.
By NYer
July 31, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
Soros has only donated $2,100 to Obama for America. in fact, since 1979, he’s donated only £3.5M overall, including $2.6M to special interests.
Umm, no. Not even close.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Soros or his entities donated over $23,000,000 to various 527 Groups dedicated to beating GWB during the last Presidential election cycle.
Open Society Institute, an entity that Soros formed, and sits as Chairman, spent $74mm in US projects in 2006.
He also is a big hitter in the Democracy Alliance, which requires everybody to pony up over $200,000 to support democratic causes over the course of the year.
He also gave something like $5mm to Moveon.org, and has made other multi-million dollar donations to other left-leaning organizations.
It might be factually accurate to say that Soros has only donated $2100 to Obama, but it would be ignoring reality to say that Soros isn’t one of the single biggest backers of the Democratic Party and uses his financial might to shape public policy to fit his personal agenda.
By JokesOn
July 31, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
I love that McCain inappropriately compares Brittany Spears and Obama, and all of a sudden those simple sound bites become part of the repubs talking points. Talk about people not being able to think for themselves, or discern inappropriate remarks.
When Obama flashes his nads getting out of a car for attention I will listen to those repubnant (intentional misspelling) comparisons.
Adding that they take good traits, like being able to pronounce words correctly and being generally liked across the world, and put a negative spin on them like they are a bad thing makes me want to hurl.
I guess they are just to used to GWB destroying the spoken English language.
By NYer
July 31, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
Obama is endorsed by our enemies … oh, really? please, to cite. with reputable news sources.
Ahmed Yousef, one of the talking heads for Hamas had this to say in April: “We like Mr. Obama and hope that he will win the election”. This was carried on WABC in New York.
Our little buddy in Libya also gave Obama a qualified endorsement last month…something to the tune of “Africa and the Arab world are ready to back and finance Barack Obama”. That was carried by just about every periodical in the english speaking world.
Back to reality…it is one thing for these people or groups to endorse Obama. That in no way means that he endorses them. Somehow I imagine that “nuance” will be lost on many on the fringe right.
Nevertheless, I can’t h elp but wonder how Americans would have reacted thirty years ago towards a candidate if the Soviets had endorsed him/her. Or the Ayatollah.
By NYer
July 31, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
I love that McCain inappropriately compares Brittany Spears and Obama, and all of a sudden those simple sound bites become part of the repubs talking points. Talk about people not being able to think for themselves, or discern inappropriate remarks.
JokesOn,
Please don’t tell me that you’ve somehow misjudged the lengths that the Republicans will go to in order to get their fodder. Did you honestly believe that the Republicans were any more civilized, or less willing to parrot dumbed-down talking points than their cousins in the Democratic Party? LOL!!!
You mean to tell me that Obama hasn’t shaved his head, run around smashing cars with an umbrella and hasn’t locked himself in the bathroom with one of his kids? What do you mean that didn’t happen? <>
By Truth
July 31, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
NYer
The two biggest problems I have with the DNC is their disturbing control of the media and their powerbase of supporters. I’m pretty sure that most democrats love their country, but I’m afraid that a large part of the supporters of their party may not. Soros is a very bad dude. He is part of a seven or eight man consortium that make up one of the world’s largest arms dealers. And Democrats keep yelling about Haliberton. LOL!!
Soros does bad stuff, like selling to African War Lords. He is one of the world’s most brutal speculators and has been caught in some really bad schemes.
I have seen photo after photo of him at Obama fund raisers. He is right in the middle of it.
He donated 5 Mil to start MoveOn.org, but has since given them millions to stay afloat. A million to him is like 20 bucks to you or me. It’s a good tip for services rendered.
The crazy thing is the McCain/Fiengold Bill gave people like Soros much more power.
Crazy world.
By Snidely Buttright
July 31, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
The man is Hollywood inside and out.
Not like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Ahhhhnold. Or Fred Grandy, Sonny Bono, and Clint Eastwood. And I didn’t hear any Repuglicant’s crying about Hollywood when The Rock made his speech at the ‘04 convention.
Bunch a hypocrits. You people loooove Hollywood when it suits you, and pretend to be holier than thou when it don’t.
By Copyleft
July 31, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder how Americans would have reacted thirty years ago towards a candidate if the Soviets had endorsed him/her. Or the Ayatollah.
With jingoism and partisan hysteria, of course. Just like today.
By JokesOn
July 31, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
Please don’t tell me that you’ve somehow misjudged the lengths that the Republicans will go to in order to get their fodder. Did you honestly believe that the Republicans were any more civilized, or less willing to parrot dumbed-down talking points than their cousins in the Democratic Party?
I will retain my hope for less adolescent behavior, even if it is unrealistic.
I found all of McCain’s comments pretty tame until he hired GWBs agent. Then, these comments started.
I would not vote for McCain, but respected him before this started a few weeks ago. Now, if this continues, I am afraid I will lose any respect what-so-ever.
By NYer
July 31, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
Truth,
And Democrats keep yelling about Haliberton. LOL!!
Everybody has skeletons in the closet. Anybody who tells you that the GOP = Good guys and Democrats = Bad guys (or vice versa) is full of it, IMO. The black and white absolutism from both sides of the political aisle today is frightening.
By NYer
July 31, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
Copyleft (or anybody who has strong liberal leanings),
Does it concern you that Hamas endorses Obama? Do you ever stop to wonder why an organization like Hamas endorses him?
By Gale
July 31, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
All campaign behavior and rhetoric should be taken with a pound of salt. They say what they want to get votes and take the votes from the opponent. If the average American would look at the facts, eg. the voting records, instead of the glitzy ads, we would get better candidates and cheaper campaigns. Ain’t gonna happen.
By Gale
July 31, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Out of curiosity, since I have never noticed and it seems some folks watch these things closely; Is it common for foreign leaders to state a favorite in an upcoming US election?
By JokesOn
July 31, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
NYer,
The black and white absolutism from both sides of the political aisle today is frightening.
What is really frightening is there are people in Washington that are beginning to embody those absolutism. For example, the with us or against us notion is actually being used as a litmus test.
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
NYer -
It might be factually accurate to say that Soros has only donated $2100 to Obama, but it would be ignoring reality to say that Soros isn’t one of the single biggest backers of the Democratic Party and uses his financial might to shape public policy to fit his personal agenda.
wow. you mean someone with money is trying to influence politics? NO!! where are my pearls so that I may clutch them!!
do you honestly think he’s the first person to do so? do you honestly think that other media moguls, Masters of the Universe and Captains of Industry haven’t done the same???
the only reason George Soros is such a boogeyman is because he donates far more to the left than the right.
tough noogies.
By USinUK
July 31, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
NYer -
Ahmed Yousef, one of the talking heads for Hamas had this to say in April: “We like Mr. Obama and hope that he will win the election”. This was carried on WABC in New York.
they probably DO look forward to someone being involved and engaged in the peace process in the Middle East rather than someone who just slaps a name on it like “Road to Nowhere” but doesn’t actually DO anything
Our little buddy in Libya also gave Obama a qualified endorsement last month…something to the tune of “Africa and the Arab world are ready to back and finance Barack Obama”. That was carried by just about every periodical in the english speaking world.
funny - I thought Qadaffi (his friends just call him Mo) WAS our friend these days …
By AGF
July 31, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
USinUk:
*Q4 GDP has been revised downward into … guess what? … NEGATIVE GROWTH due to lower-than-estimated consumer spending. Q1 GDP has also been revised downward to less than 1% and, if Q4 is any indication, should be revised downward some more.
Additionally, growth for 2005, 2006 and all of 2007 was also lower than previously reported.
so, for all you riding the denial-a-whirl (and you know who you are), are you STILL going to insist that it’s just a media fabrication? or will you finally acknowledge that the economy has gone off the cliff?*
Maybe, but 2nd quarter grew at 1.9%. Granted, a good portion of that growth could be attributed to the stimulus checks and it was still below what was expected. The fat lady is warming up, but she hasn’t started singing just yet.
By JokesOn
July 31, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
NYer,
Does it concern you that Hamas endorses Obama? Nope. For it to bother anyone, they would have to speculate beyond normal reasoning. Once you open that box, one could speculate for positive reasons or negative; which would come from what one would want to believe. ie. it would originate from their biased POV
Do you ever stop to wonder why an organization like Hamas endorses him?
See above. But, as a baseline judgment call, I would also think that any person from any organization would want a prez that is at least willing to talk.