packsaddle

Eamonn, "...they both posted blow by blow accounts of what was going on and both were out to score points by trying to hurt the other as much as they could." They're just practicing for future divorces.

True, If that system is perfected we may have a lot of really expensive floating bullseyes. Ain't technology wonderful! We have 11 carriers in service and one in reserve. Only Italy and Spain have two in service. Everyone else who even has one only has one in service, and none in reserve. The one the UK has is basically a toy in comparison. I can only imagine what kind of archaic bucket of bolts Argentina has. And we're still building them.

Basementdweller, the US in 2011 represented more than 41% of the entire world's defense spending. China represented 8%. Their technical abilities are far more troubling with respect to their business acumen...they're already kicking butt in the marketplace. That aircraft carrier was an old Soviet ship that the Chinese bought at a Ukraine yard sale. It doesn't even have any planes yet. The place to really consider China's prowess is in the geopolitical realm of world politics and economics.

I agree.

Exactly, and when Reagan created CENTCOM, that was also an expansion of one of Carter's creations. The doctrine wasn't put to the extreme test until Desert Storm. But put it there, we did. And sowed the seeds for so much that has happened since. Edit to add: I'll go further and say that Carter recognized what that oil meant, just like every President before him back to Roosevelt at the end of WWII, and after we lost our surrogate in the Shah, Carter headed us in the direction of putting our forces in the region to protect the Saudi Kingdom. But Reagan didn't repudiate that doctrine. Instead he fully embraced Carter's doctrine, expanded it and formalized it with CENTCOM.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Nor by you, Beavah.

Sorry, I failed to mention that nearly everything I wrote in that previous message consisted of direct quotes from either Dick Cheney or George H.W. Bush. I'm merely reporting what they said with respect to the Gulf War. Now I agree that oil is not the ONLY reason we choose to go to war. But if you read my first two lines, I said that we have demonstrated that we are willing to go to war for oil. And THAT contention, backed by direct quotes from Cheney and Bush, has not been refuted by a single thing you wrote in reply. Edit: Moreover, I'll also contend that oil is the MAJOR reason for the creation of CENTCOM.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

You guys can throw around all the high-minded fantasyland reasons for military action you want. But this country has demonstrated empirically that we are willing to go to war for a reason that can be summarized with a single word: oil. It's that simple. Our strategic interests in the Persian Gulf region I think are well known but bear repeating today. We do of course have historic ties especially to the Saudis and other governments of the region that hark back with respect to Saudi Arabia to 1945 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz on the USS Quincy towards the end of World War II and affirmed at that time that the United States had a lasting interest in the security of the Kingdom. Before the first Gulf War, Iraq controlled 10% of the world's oil reserves prior to the invasion of Kuwait and once Saddam Hussein took Kuwait he doubled that to approximately 20% fo the world's known oil reserves. He was clearly in a position to dictate the future of the worldwide energy policy and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most of the other nations of the world as well. This is why we went to war in the Gulf. It's about our own national security interests and insuring the peace and stability of the entire world. We sent forces to defend Saudi Arabia. The integrity of Saudi Arabia, its freedom, are very, very important to the United States. Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom, and the freedom of friendly countries around the world would all suffer if control of the world's great oil reserves fell into the hands of that one man, Saddam Hussein. So we declared war.

Well, since the other thread on politics started to evolve toward issues surrounding disenfranchisement of voters, I decided to bring this one back to life. I have heard this claim several times and this article seems fairly thorough: http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/ The claim is that only about a dozen actual cases of impersonation voter fraud have been proven nationwide since 2000. That seems like an outrageous claim until you read the research that led to the conclusion. Basically they focused on THAT particular type of voting irregularity because that is the type which voter ID laws are said to be designed to prevent. In that type, a person attempts to vote by impersonating a registered voter. The photo ID would ostensibly prevent this. So I checked with our voter registrar. Keep in mind that nearly every official in the government of this state is Republican. The registrar stated clearly that yes, we had no such instances of impersonation fraud since they started to keep records. There have been numerous other irregularities such as voting in the wrong precinct, or voting by ineligible persons. When I asked how an ineligible person could vote without a registration card, you know what the answer was? Answer: The ineligible voter was allowed to vote BECAUSE THEY HAD A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT-ISSUED PHOTO ID, namely a driver's license. And some feckless precinct person let them vote. But even those were 'caught' on challenge. So I called the local Republican party HQ and asked why, then, such a sense of urgency for voter ID laws? The answer was: to make sure this exceedingly rare event doesn't happen. When I asked about fake photo IDs, they answered by saying there is NO WAY to prevent all voter fraud. Now even conservative officials admit that a photo ID law is likely to prevent at least 1000 legally registered voters in this state from being able to vote. The vast majority of them are black, elderly, and poor. Does anyone think maybe the true intent of these laws might possibly be something other than preventing voter fraud?

Around these parts it's not only bacon but also all the bar-b-que places that are concerned. But really, it's just a matter of price and what we're willing to pay. If we like pork that much, whoever has a good farm with a lot of pigs is going to make a nice profit. Good for them! The alternative is to eat like you're Kosher or Muslim...or else cultivate a craving for, say, potatoes and cabbage. Yum! Me, I'm headed for a diet with lots of fish. Catch most of them myself for free. As far as I'm concerned (and this comes from someone who really loves bacon and bar-b-que) really good fried fish is just as delectable any day. I'll do just fine.

pchadbo, I agree about those two wars. That was one of the lies that I didn't buy...that Iraq would be a cakewalk of sorts. I also remember Bush, during the first campaign, criticizing Clinton/Gore for "nation building" and promising that he wouldn't engage in such things. That's another big laugh.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

NJ, heh, heh, I'll look for a silver lining wherever I can find it. In this case one of the good things about living in a solid red region where Romney has it wrapped up already is that we don't have to suffer through the political ads that someone in, say, Florida must be suffering through right now. I can only imagine, lol. Around these parts, Obama only puts in a token spot once in a while, I guess to remind us that he's still President, if only for a little while longer. Thanks JoeBob, I have to think that Beavah is just trying to jerk our chains on that. At least I hope that's what he's trying to do. And I agree with you about the contradiction that arises from letting the abortion issue hijack what otherwise ought to be a 'keep government out of our lives' approach. It really is frustrating.

If you want to argue that the entire thing was a pack of lies, I'm good with that. But Bush said there was "no doubt". And THAT is an absolute statement as far as I'm concerned. There WAS doubt. Plenty of it. And Bush and his cabinet knew there was doubt. And THAT constituted a lie.

As the leader of the party, one way Romney could do that, once in office, is to basically instruct Republicans NOT to undo that part of the ACA...or any other part Romney agrees with. Assuming the Republicans undid it anyway, Romney could then veto their bill. Fehler, I too am glad for you and your daughter. Edit: Eagle732, as I've written before, businesses or employers should NOT be paying for health insurance for employees. Period. Instead employees should be paid a wage or salary that allows THEM to make the insurance choices they decide to make.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I was, just a moment ago, staring at a "Michele Bachman for MN" banner at the bottom of the page. Talk about simple pleasures... OGE, I was hoping that was the case but you DID spell it correctly once in that post AND when I type, the 'n' is on my right hand and the 'q' is the little finger of my left hand. I just wasn't sure this wasn't some kind of Freudian thing expressing itself. The Iraq war was really about oil. WMD was the Flavor Aid that we (me included) drank.

Moosetracker, what happened in 1880? SeattlePioneer, did you just warp in from 1880?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Did I miss a war somewhere? Did we actually go to war with Iran?

I stand corrected. "Teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" just one of many such 'complete sentences' by Bush. If one wants to make the argument that he intentionally said these things in order to better connect with a barely-literate public, I guess I have to admit that possibility. Edit on Bush being average: "To those of you who received honours, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say you, too, can be president ..." TT, I was also hoodwinked by Bush. I actually believed his claims of WMD, etc. I react badly to being hoodwinked. I don't forget. I don't forgive. It's one of the reasons I'm going to try to give Romney a chance instead of Obama (he had his and failed)...although I guess I should also consider Gary Johnson.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Sometimes I like to warm things up before a class by asking them something like, "How many of you believe in gun control?", followed by "How many of you believe in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms?". I'm in the South so I know what to expect and it almost always happens to be a huge majority on the side of guns. So I move on. "How many of you think you should have the right to own a fully automatic weapon?" Almost all of the 2nd Amendment people remain faithful to this as well. "How many of you think you should have the right to own an RPG (sometimes I use Howitzer)?" Hands still up. "How many of you think Iran has a sovereign right to defend itself?" Hands tremble, but a few more rise up from the gun-control group. They see where this is going now. "How many of you think Iran has a sovereign right to whatever weapon it needs to defend itself?" A few hands down now but most still up. "How many of you think Iran has the right to its own nuclear weapons?" Faithful to the very end. They mostly think it's just fine for Iran to have nukes. I suggest that the logic that some of us apply to guns, that if everyone was armed we'd be safer on the streets, can also apply to nuclear weapons among nations. It's a twist on the MAD strategy. But it would be interesting if someone DID pull that trigger.

Since no one from New England has responded, I'll note that I know several young persons who have health insurance because of the law, and wouldn't otherwise. I also know of one case in my neighborhood for which the lifetime cap probably would have ruined the family if it had still been in place. Some aspects of the law have certainly been beneficial. But don't forget...this was ROMNEY'S idea, not Obama's.

Sentinel947, oh how I dearly wish that instead of Clint Eastwood...it could have been 'W' warming up the crowd at the RNC. THAT would have been poetic compared to Clinton at the DNC. Reconsidering Obama in that light, I have to admit that I have indeed enjoyed having a President who could compose and speak using complete sentences. I note that Romney is up to that as well, a welcome change for the Republicans. Edit: Lisa, I stand corrected. You're right, in 2000 and for 6 years, the Republicans had every branch of government. It was due to the Republican majority in both houses that we did that.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Yeah, that part of his policy is something I disagree with too. Has Obama changed it? Has it been renewed? What did Obama sign on 17 December 2010? What about the Bush energy plan? Yep, it's pretty much still in play. What about the Patriot Act? You guessed it. What about Gitmo? Yep. Do I need to go on? I guess if I really wanted to punish the American people (and we surely deserve it) I'd vote to keep Obama (Bush warmed over). But I'm willing to give a new guy a chance to see if, like Beavah pathetically mused at the beginning of the Obama administration, maybe he can come up with some kind of novel plan to get us out of all this mess...what a laugh!

While I soundly condemn Clinton for some personal failings, I give him credit for being more realistic in the fiscal sense than anyone since. He also had the benefit of fiscal restraints and policies that were put in place by previous administrations, but at least he carried through with them. I also have to admit that the first (but not the last) huge transgression I credit to Bush (W) was to exploit what he convinced most of us was going to be a big surplus by cutting taxes rather than using it to pay for the wars or the debt. As a fiscal conservative Bush was a fraud. But then, most of the country drank that Flavor Aid as well. I fault Obama and agree with Romney. It might have caused some pain for families but I would have allowed the auto industry to restructure rather than bail them out. If I wanted to support the auto industry it would have been better to use the money to replace the old fleet vehicles of various governments rather than lending cash to the incompetents who led those companies to ruin in the first place. I fault Obama for not having put bankers in jail and instead, raining money on them as well. And I'll write this again, I see great merit in Romney's lack of passion or perhaps even empathy. It is what would (hopefully will) allow him to make hard decisions dispassionately, rather than kicking the whole shebang down the road for our children's children's children. I support Romney's approach because I think it will be better to bear this pain now and have most of it borne by the people who created the problem...than to put all that off on innocents who have yet to be born. Yes it would be very painful. We brought it on ourselves. Now I could be wrong and Romney might just follow the same failed path that Obama is following. But if that's the case, it doesn't matter who's in the oval office does it? Same outcome. But if there's a chance that Romney will rein in the spending and make the hard decisions that need to be made, I say give him a chance. As for medicare, if that's insurance then it should be capable of sustaining itself without going broke. If that's insurance, the let it really be insurance as opposed to the deception that it actually is, and a costly one at that. If it's insurance, let the beneficiaries pay the full cost of the insurance. Anything less IS a welfare handout. Same for social security. If it can't stay solvent without adjustment, then make the adjustment. Means test it. Remove the income cap. And yes, cut the benefits if people haven't contributed enough to justify them. I just can't figure out why it is that we protect old people like they are holy and let children go hungry and remain ignorant. It doesn't make any sense. If resources are limited, focus them on the young. That is where the future is, not in elderly people who are going to do little other than gobble up resources in their last year of life. I'm angry with Obama about Simpson/Bowles! Even that tepid attempt at fiscal responsibility was quietly ignored. I'm willing to give Romney a chance to show something better than that response. If Obama is re-elected, be prepared for a lot more of the same. He's already taxing us and we don't even see it. Every time there's a QE round, that's a stealth tax on all kinds of investments and savings. The inflation will eventually come. And that will be that. I don't agree with everything Romney promotes. I don't support the low tax rate on long-term investments. To me people who do real work for their incomes ought not to pay a higher rate than people who don't work for the income. It's a matter of ethics. If anything, people who work hard to make a living ought to be the ones who pay a lower tax rate, as opposed to those who made so much they can sit back and play with investments. But here I also know I'm at odds with the so-called 'conservatives' and others who support their government subsidies in the form of lower taxes. What I can't figure out is why the wage earner who puts in hard hours every day doesn't agree with me. I guess that's another round of Flavor Aid. At least I'm not the one drinking it.

As I read the article, the parents got letters announcing the policy and have the right to opt out. Am I wrong? "...unless the parents opt out of the program after receiving a school letter informing them of the new policy."

Calico, did you not hear Obama just admit that he was a mediocre student until college? Were you and others in these forums just a bunch of 'Stepford' children in high school? I know I sure did plenty of incredibly stupid things back then. I can't say how I'd respond if I was running for office and I was asked about some of those things. And luckily for the rest of the public, I'm NOT running for any office and never will. But Romney's a human being too. I'm fairly certain that if I cherry picked the life of any politician I could come up with a list of things that, standing alone, would be embarrassing and damaging. And I know I could be wrong about Romney...you're reading the words of a person who voted for Nixon. But when I look over his life I see someone who is basically good and decent. I see this in Obama too. But Obama had his chance and he failed. HE failed. Romney, I think, deserves a chance at the helm as well and I'm ready for the 'change' and I 'hope' it happens. The only chains I'd like to jerk are the ones that the Tea Party has wrapped around the Republicans. I'd like to jerk them free of those dying and failed ideas. I fear that the weight of those chains is going to take Romney down, maybe the other Republicans as well. Again, just like yesterday, I find that I'm having to pinch myself. These forums used to have numerous persons who claimed conservative values and ideas. Where the heck are they now? Has 'Mother Jones' or 'The Nation' taken control of the forums?