d16842

The real problem is the sheer number of people convicted of felonies and sentenced to prison for drugs, any drugs, the non-dealers and non-violent offenders I mean. Over half of inmates' first terms were for this, and I think it clear that jailing them often leads directly to them learning to be greater criminals in later lives of crime. Exactly how is this helping us, when we are turning dangerous prisoners out for lack of space? Most of all, how can putting an 18 year old drug-only offender in an adult prison right, knowing what happens there. By law we say he is not adult enough to buy a beer, but he is adult enough to go to jail? And with mandatory sentencing, it can be for quite a while sometimes. How does this help us? And how does mandatory sentenancing for any non-violent crime help us? Tom B

Nothing would have come of Vietnam, except the possible loss of the Laos and Cambodia, and that happened anyway. But Iraq? Yes, imagine . We are completely dependent on the world's oil supply. Saddam twice invaded other critical oil supplying nations to take theirs, and planned a third. He used WMD on enemies, and Iraq citizens, and subjugated the Shi under him to brutal torture and murder. He thwarted the UN sanctions and was about to bribe his way free of them. He had 550 tons of enriched uranium, and his previous attempts to create a bomb program are documented. His two son's were at least as bad as him, with one torturing, perhaps even killing athletes who didn't win in competitions. The other was like a mafia boss. Yes, Bill, you are perfectly right in assuming all would have gone just fine if we had done nothing... Where we screwed up was not in going to war there, but doing a lousy job of it. The insurgency could have been largely avoided/averted. Tom B

So you say. Bayes showed us that subjective feelings are real and measurable. Like believing in the Force, how we found the lost bomb off Spain, and knowing some Austrailian posters are not what they wish to appear. Tom B

Really? Because Nixon acted almost immediately after office, with the first of the US troop withdrawals happening in June. The 540,000 US troops were reduced by 25,000. Another 60,000 left by December. Most wer out by 72, giving him the biggest election margin in memory. Tom B

Let me throw in the critical difference. A war can be ended by an incoming administration, and its spending stopped. For better or for worse, the health care bill will become a PERMANENT entitlement program. No Congress or President will be able to stop it once passed. I was in the Army at the end of the Vietnam War, and the start of the volunteer Army. Draftees were necessary to field a large army like then, three times the size of today's, with only 65% of the population. Imagine that scale. But grabbing people who don't want to be there simply doesn't make for a quality soldier. It hasn't since the late-60's. We proved that in later Vietnam. Yes, none of the families of our volunteers care. It would have saved me a lot of sleepless nights the two times my wife went if I had known I didn't care. But I am glad you brought it up before my active duty son goes. And none of the Democrats cared when they nearly defeated Bush in '04, and did defeat McCain in '08. Tom B

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options. They attacked our ships? Note that was AFTER we had blantely violated both the spirit and internationl rules of war by first selling war material to the Brits, then Lend Lease, and then even by having our Navy escort the ships and material half of the way to Great Britain. Any of these were just cause for being included in another's war, any war. And before you say it, we had to get in that one regardless. But the most sad result of our doing so and eventually being on the winning side the war, is that our economy surged, and the Brit's crashed, and we ended up with John Kallend here. Otherwise he might be in Munich. Tom B

So that is is your way of saying you can't cite any of the many recent examples you claimed, where Presidents ignored Congress, and used unilateral powers that don't exist, to make extended war without Congressional approved funding for it. Though so. It has been entertaining, but you are full of it. Tom B

So you refute the findings of nano thermite in the dust in manhattan on 9/11? did you look for it? did nist look for it? On what grounds would you call the steven jones and richard gage idiots? You can read right? Because the grounds were explicitly stated in the section of my post you included above. Your question was answered before you asked it. Did I ask you if you could read? But to repeat it just for you, the numbers of people who would have had to have been in the loop to pull the events of 9/11 are imense, and knowing our government as I do, especially the Bush administration, somebody would have told all and named names by now. It just couldn't be hidden this long. Care to explain how Bush arranged for the terrorists to come here, take flight training, board the flights, take them over, and fly into the building on the right day, and hit the correct floors? All without being noticed in the long series of events, with all participants silent the whole time and especially since. And since you are sure the cabin doors didn't open, they must have talked American pilots into hitting the Pentagon. I don't claim to be the brighest candle on the planet, but the chances of that are about zero. Which is more likely? All of the above happening, or somebody spiking the sample, or just contamination from something else, assuming it really exists that is. Occam's razor, again. Or you could just read this. Boiler Down! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070612152114.htm Tom B

Well I welcome you back, but all those plastic thingys you earned, and the imputed income and bartering... you are supposed to pay income taxes on them. Try it next time. Tom B

Cite your examples where we had troops in the field more than 60 days in sufficient numbers and tempo where the cost exceeds his already Congressionally approved slush funds for minor incidents. Without the cash, it can't happen. Sure we have had smaller issues, but even the president can't move money from a Congressionally designated purpose to another without their approval. The courts would block it if Congress squeeled. I agree with your concerns of the Constitutionality of the War Powers act, but where does the cash come from for a war like Iraq, without Congress granting it? The tooth fairy? Tom B

On what do you base that -- both the assertion of the policy position and the assertion of fact? Marg, sorry for the long answer, but it is a major pair of questions. Chemical weapons are indeed considered relics by the major powers as you describe, thank God. But that is NOT because they don't not have tactical and strategic military value in certain applications, but instead because of how bad they are considered socially & morally. We came to our senses. Also, a large driver in their elimination was just how dangerous they were to store in peacetime. Chemical weapons certainly had tactical advantages, especially if your foe didn't have them, or protection from them. As best as I can tell, the Soviet war plan against Western Europe included significant use of chemical weapons, especially on our weapons depots there, where the working civilians didn't have good protection. These would soft targets, making it very difficult for us to mate soldiers being flown in with equipment. It makes sense, except that the exchange would have grown out of control. For a tactical use example, take the Korean DMZ. That is the best example I can think of, or was before the North became a nuclear power. If war broke out there it would be massive, and we would be greatly out-manned, and even out-gunned in some categories, especially artillery. The North Koreans didn't have nearly our capability in terms of chemical agent protection. Like the Soviets, if we used chemical weapons there, on their marshalling areas north of the DMZ, it would at least partially offset their numbers, even if they used them too, for our forces had better protective equipment, at least after 1985 or so. Please note I don't wish for that, no sane person would, but it is senseless to deny their utility. I am glad they are gone. When the US did away with chemical weapons and stated it had no biological weapons, it reaffirmed the policy and doctrine that if anyone used WMD on America or American forces, it would be met with WMD of our own. They didn't state it explicitly, but since we have only one remaining one, nukes, that would have to be the reply. But if we didn't have nukes, I really wonder if the US would have gotten rid of its chemical weapons, especially if other nations did have nukes. For that reason I suspect many nations have stockpiles they don't admit to having. I am very glad that the world came to its senses and gotten rid of the massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. A side note, there are several commercial chemicals, some shipped all over the nation in railcars, that are just about as deadly as nerve agents. Bhopal, India, and the disaster at the Union Carbide plant there is just one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Chemical weapons could be used in a terrorist attack I suppose. Come to think of it they were used in one in Japan in the 80's perhaps. But they can't be massively used as such. And with the major powers having sworn off of them, they are mostly no longer a major world threat. But biological weapons could be a disastrous weapon of terror, if they could initiate a growing cycle of disease. And nukes still remain as a major threat between the large powers. But the growing concern is as a weapon of terror, because of the command and control concerns with the new nuclear powers, who have not experienced the bad side of the learning curve we luckily got through, and perhaps even the weak controls in Russia. Especially now with North Korea, Pakistan, India, and soon to be Iran with them. Hence both nukes and bio being front and center in the report you referenced. . I really would not be surprised to see Iran take out Tel Aviv in my lifetime. Or one in the US. I suspect the Ft Hood shooter would have happily used one. Thanks for the reply. Tom B

Sorry to have to correct you yet again, but this time I will include the background documentation so you can understand the reason. I was quite correct when I wrote: Practically speaking, his unilateral powers are only really for a small period of time, That time period is only 60 days without approval from congress. I suggest you read up on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution Here is the first paragraph: This was a US Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization (a Congressional authorization) of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.War Powers Act There was considerable debate about this law in 2001. There was no doubt that forces in Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11, (except within the minds of a few who believe Bush wired the twin towers, and the Pentagon and killed over 4,000 Americans.) So Bush was free to immediately deploy significant forces to Afghanistan. But there was a much weaker case with respect to Iraq. They had not attacked us, but the question of if they were a threat to us was a hot debate topic. Initially Bush argued that he didn't need Congressional Authorization to attack Iraq, as they were a threat. But they ultimately acceded to the point that the Iraq war might actually take longer than the 100 hour ground attack in Desert Storm, and perhaps even longer than the 60 days provided in the War Powers Act to complete, and thus Congress would have to approve the action sooner or later. That led to the presentations to Congress so hotly debated ever sense. Specifically that Saddam was trying to establish a WMD capability, or already had one. Ultimately, despite the head in the sand view of the left who still believe we found no WMD, we found that Iraq did indeed possess a very large amount of partially enriched uranium, specifically 550 tons of it, enough for a large nuclear weapons program, similar to Iran's. This material was shipped to Canada two years ago. Just as we are facing in Iran today, there really can be only one reason for such an oil rich nation as Iraq and Iran to have such a large amount of uranium. Having already approved the deployment of troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan under the War Powers Act/Resolution, I am not sure that Congress can revoke its action. But most certainly they can choose not to fund it in the next fiscal year, starting October 2010. Tom B

I hear the claims about evil investors, but I have not seen compelling evidence that they made a big difference. The negative stereotype seems to be someone who buys multiple houses hoping to quickly turn them for profit. I don't think these guys make a big difference in the market, except in one short of houses, where they quickly pounce upon good deals. But there aren't tight markets today. In this market, the houses they purchase are duplicated many-fold by others available. For every home they purchase, someone apparently wanted to sell it, for a variety of reasons from forclosure avoidance, to just wanting a different one, a good thing. Unless they somehow add new homes to a flooded market, or quickly take under-priced homes off a tight market, I just don't see the impact. But there is one investor group that has incredible impact, and that is home builders. They build homes in the hope that the market will return, flooding it and depressing prices, making our national problem much worse. They are doing it here in great numbers, for reasons that baffle me. In this market, I think builders are a much greater problem than other "investors". John that is a point I strongly disagree with. While I know it happened to some degree, I believe it is overwhelmed in impact by mortgage discrimination laws Two close friends are mortgage brokers and have. described the mortgage discrimination laws they work under. It is NOT just a racial thing. Just about anyone in any group, except possibly a white male between 20 and 40, can claim mortgage discrimination, and even he can if he is poor. It can become a huge problem for the lending institution. After several discrimination claims, brought about by their honestly believing the customer was way over their head in the loan amount, they stopped trying to apply even common sense. If the customers even came close to meeting the rules set by mortgage underwriters, ones with limits they all believed way too high, they approved the mortgage. So I don't see greed as biggest problem in initiating loans. Stupidity was certainly a factor, as in 17% of sub-prime loans, the first payment was never made. But greed most certainly drove what happened AFTER loans were made, in terms of how the banks created loan derivatives, sold them, and even bought them, knowing how bad the ones they sold were. The leveraged their banks well beyond any modern standard. And I am convinced that many banks knew exactly what was coming and proceeded anyway. It was a win-win for them. If the economy improved, they would have made incredible fortunes because they were so highly leveraged. If it failed, they would get a bailout in all likelihood. Tom B

I certainly didn't mean to imply that, and hope nobody took it that way. Most of the defaults around here are middle class. The poor who bought houses just don't exist in enough numbers to have had major influence on the whole market. The problem is that the same stupid standards created in blind zeal to help the poor, were applied to all. I blame the elected and appointed officials who yet again ignored working standing market practices, and twisted them in an ill-advised attempt to help the poor. And my personal opinion is that they did so as much for political gain as anything else. But that an opinion, not a fact. Of course it was the middle class. We already covered the poor, and the rich generally have enough assets to ride out a bad housing market. Their home typically does not represent the vast majority of their net worth. Only the middle class remains. Tom B

You mean exactly like Bush being left with the two bad choice options of pulling out of a war in a losing position, a real disaster for the US as about anyone who remembers post-Vietnam knows, or continuing to pursue the war while enduring a daily beating by the press and senior Democrats, who were all the while applying incredible political pressure to withdraw? Let's look at this from an integrity perspective. Bush believed we should be there and stood by his belief despite incredible pressure to pull out in 2007, Congress didn't believe we should be there, had the power to not fund it, but were unwilling to take the political heat it would have caused. The same heat Bush stood up to willingly and knowingly. If they believed what they are proclaiming to anyone who would listen, Congress shirked their duties. I would have respected them far more if they had actually followed their statements. At least I could trust them to act with integrity. Personally, I think the majority of them knew damn well that a pullout would be a disaster, and thus it was a political stunt to embarrass the President. The problem is that actions like this embolden our enemies. The surest way I know to lose a war, especially an insurgency war, is to tell the enemy how long you plan to stay. Name even one insurgency war that any nation has ever won, after telling the enemy when they are leaving. I strongly believe the greatest political contribution made in turning Iraq into a "victory" of sorts, was made by John McCain projecting that under his administration, we would stay as long as necessary. At the time he out-polled Obama. McCain was then tied with Clinton, and she more or less agreed on the public timeline thing, and more privately the surge. They heard that unified voice, and got the message. What is Afghanistan hearing now? Tom B

Right, and you qualify based upon teh PITI, as the I falls, the P can climb and you still have the same payment with a higher P amount, hence housing cost escallation. I agree with your math, but if we had some housing price escalation today, we could far more easily get out of the crisis Buyers determine the market price. That was the problem last year, when builders kept putting houses up. In my small town they are again building in every neighborhood. It is nuts. I agree that the banks didn't look as well as they might have at the credibility of the buyer. But why should they, if their intent was to immediately sell the loan? All they needed for their safety was to see that it met the newly relaxed standards of the underwriters and secondary market. Everyone got over-leveraged. If they had maintained the historical down payment percentages and percent of take home earnings that could be applied to a loan, homeowners would have bee in much better shape. Even a modest price rollback would not have put owners in the hole. I am not big on government regulation in general, but they threw all control out to get in this mess. OK, I'm just asking what act, law or whatever was it that proposed that, required that, etc? That is the problem. I don't know of a law. Call it more continuous head slapping by members of Congress, applied to the heads of many banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA, etc. They kept dragging them to "testify", really just to slap them around, pointing out to them that current regulations and limits didn't allow everyone to buy a home. After enough years of it, the agencies caved and reduced the requirements so that just about everyone with a pulse could qualify. This was led by Rangle, Dodge, Franks, Kerry, and others. And lest you think I blame only Democrats because I listed only them, for much of this time Republicans controlled the house and senate, and sat silent on their asses as this all happened. So long as they got their pork, whatever the Dem's did was fine. One more point. Why the hell are Fannie May and Freddie Mac making political donations at all? Am I the only one that see's the likelihood of a too close relationship problem. Congress is their oversight body. Tom B

The pres can claim we are being attacked and send us to war; unilaterally. Hell, he doesn't have to say we are attacked. But as I stated above, he is limited to the budget that Congress grants him, and in the case of the current wars, they have granted pretty much everything asked for many years. Practically speaking, his unilateral powers are only really for a small period of time, as the budget won't permit more. Really? Did he want even bigger cuts? Are you talking Bush 1 or 2? You must have misread what I wrote, for yes, Congress didn't give Bush II the tax cuts he wanted, especially making them permanent. And yes, I think he wanted even more, but that was a non-starter. Bush I signed a tax increase, and paid for it on election day. Obama probably won't initiate a tax increase per say, but instead just let the existing cuts expire and say he didn't raise taxes. Same thing except in election years. I never said Obama was stupid. Tom B

If you don't understand what people are saying, you make yourself an ass by stating you do. Are you an engineer? I am. I looked at the "proof" right up until it got so stupid that I stopped. I understand WHAT they are saying. I just think they are wrong, and complete idiots for thinking with so many digging that the cover up would have held for eight years with none of the participants ratting. Or did Bush personally kill them and have them dumped at sea, with all record of their existence removed from earth. THAT is what this drivel sounds like, including yours. But he was smart enough, as the left claimed, to manipulate the world's oil prices, in fact lead a global conspiracy on lots of things. And to participate in a cover-up on this, which is 10X harder. Do you have any idea how many people would have had to have been in the loop to do what is suggested? Bush could not take a piss without somebody letting the NYT know within ten minutes. And you suggest that we have had eight years of total silence by the participants on this? Bullshit. Peer review... you mean like the peer review with the global warming thing last week? Peer review itself is the subject of a lot of "review" right now. Because as has been detailed in science journals that I continue to read, in my wife's medical journals, etc. recently, the peer review process clearly has real problems. I leave you to your rant. I am sure your buddies love it. But it is pretty meaningless, in fact you sound a lot like Glen Beck's mirror image. Perhaps you should go into radio. I think he is a nut, and you are too. Tom B

I did not work for money. I was compensated with plastic tags. I traded plastic tags for jump tickets, food, drink, and money. I arrived in the USA with +$20k and left with nothing. I don't know what he was implying, but the IRS would count those tags as bartered or inputed income. Did you pay income tax on it? At the least you should file the forms, so that they never nail you on a return visit. Unless it became considerable income, it wouldn't be taxed, but they are pesky about the forms. Tom B

According to this logic, we should also reserve the right to use chemical weapons, correct? Who knows when we might need them? Of course, we have subscribed to several Chemical Weapons Conventions, the most recent being 1997. Turns out, we don't really use them in modern warfare and they typically do more harm than good in peacetime. Do you understand what our policy is on weapons of mass destruction? It sure as hell is not that chemical weapons are not useful in modern warfare, as they most certainly are. The policy is that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction will be met with nukes. Since I have personally done render safe proceedures on chemical weapons, I think I have a handle on the hazard they represent in peacetime. I am glad they are gone. But take that minefield out of the DMZ, and nukes will be the only thing that will keep the North Koreans from taking Seoul, Inchon, and much of the nation. And even if we did use nukes, they have them too. Now that you know the real stakes on that DMZ, a war we could not win, leading to the loss of tens of thousands of Americans, probably a million Koreans, and a good chance of expanding to thermonuclear war, perhaps those landmines may not seem so bad to you. And no, I am not just sitting here making this up. I have been in the DMZ. Comparing that to the US planning to scatter land mines in third world neighborhoods and other similar bullshit is just stupid as is anyone who suggests it. Tom B

No you haven't. You've said they are necessary at the Korean border, but I already stated in my first post that I had heard that. No one said why they are necessary, other than speculation that they are cheap. I discount that because we already spend billions of dollars a year to not use them. Can you explain why landmines are superior to modern warfare techniques? I can, and I DID. But to repeat, North Korea has a 1.2 million man army, about 75% of which is permanently positioned just north of the DMZ. They are commanded by a national leadership that let millions of its own people starve, literally, while they kept that army in place and built nukes. Without that minefield, they can attack within hours of command with virtually no warning to us, on a 155 mile front. They might choose to attack on such a wide front because they have the numbers to do so, and because the relatively broad dispersal along the front greatly dissipates the power of our "modern warfare techniques". With the minefield there, they have to clear lanes through it, which slows them down, and concentrates them, which makes our modern weapons, air and artillery far more powerful. Korea is unique in the world today. But that doesn't mean that some other idiot nation will not go there. Tom B

Every soldier who get money for his service( don't forget that they are countries where you have to join the army even if you don't want) is more expendable than any civilian who die as a "collateral damage".Can you tell me how many soldiers lost their lives because of not using landmines to protect themselves ?And I will tell you the statistic for the civilians.About 3000 every year.Mostly in the third world countries,and 0 in USA. How many people have to die,so 1 soldier can stay alive???One,two....ten?!Or doesn't matter,as long as they are from the third world countries. Ofcourse you are for the landmines.There's no any single landmine that your son or daughter can step on the next time they are walking the dog in the forest. Just think about that. My son? My son is on active duty and may damn well be saved by land mines on the DMZ, and yes he could be harmed by them to. As a former EOD specialist, I have thought more about land mines than you might otherwise guess. My immediate family, i.e. me, my wife, and my son have nearly 40 years of military service, and growing. I don't think our soldiers are one bit more expendable than those who don't serve. They are trained, and we need them and must used them, but that hardly makes them more expendable. Neither are our police officers. Any of them. In fact there are plenty of REMF's I would love to send in their place, were it not for the fact they would get good soldiers killed. Tom B

No, more like Cato and the Heritage Foundation so many of the neo's like to cite. So apparently you agree then, these RW rags are often BS. So what's your point? I am a conservative, and registered Republican and fully admit some of the stuff is trash. But surely you don't think the sources the far left uses are any better? Like the ones that document that Bush took down the twin towers on 9/11, Michael Moore's serious documentaries, or MoveOn's immense library of nothing but vetted facts. Or my personal favorite, Pelosi's versions (plural) of how she was deceived, and never told what was going on. Tom B

Other than having the satisfaction of finding the son of a bitch and peeling his skin off an inch at a time, I sometimes wonder if we are not better off to not have killed him. If we had, he would be a martyr, even more popular in developing Islamic nations than he was after 9/11. Instead he has spent the time since hunkered down in a miserable cave somewhere, always looking over his shoulder. We wiped the floor with Al Qaeda everwhere they met us in battle, (at great cost I know) He has been marginalized greatly. With him alive or dead, Al Qaeda will remain a dangerous organization. I don't know if he makes a difference in that at all. But from what I understand, he is far less revered now because of how things worked out. Maybe it is better than a martyr. Tom B

That's easy to say from your perspective, sitting in your comfy chair in front of a computer in Florida. It's not so easy to say if you're a soldier patrolling the Korean DMZ, under threat of invasion at nearly any time. It's so easy for you because you don't have to deal with them,right? I don't know about Ron, but it is damn easy for me to say they need mine fields on the DMZ, and I HAVE had to deal with them, and just about every other kind of unexploded ordnance that exists except nukes. Meaning what, that they are expendable? They get money for the risk? That is one of the most disgusting and insulting comments I have ever heard about our young men and women in the military. There isn't enough money to pay for what we ask them to do in our name, and to pay for what so many of them give up for us. And saying that they are "volunteers" they way you did is akin to saying that a thirteen year old girl gives informed consent to a forty year old perv. Yes, they volunteer. But most 18 year old Americans literally have no clue what they are signing up for when they "volunteer" for the military. How the hell can they imagine the unimaginable. At that age they are all immortal, they have visions of being a hero, saving the world, etc. They are matched up one-on-one against an often very skilled and experienced recruiter, who has a selling package put together by some of the best advertising firms in the nation. By the time they really realize what they have gotten themselves into, there is no turning back. Not that many of them would turn back, for by that time they are joined in a bond with their teammates, and would not leave them, or let them down. Don't even begin to pretend they are paid enough for what we ask them to do, or can possibly understand the reality of what they will face when they sign the paper and take the oath. An eighteen year old is not even trusted to buy beer for three more years, and you think they are mature enough to give informed consent for war? Tom B