Andy9o8

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    24,277

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Andy9o8

  1. Quote

    I don't see an ulterior motive for depositing checks after the event was cancelled. If you wonder why that was done, I'd suggest you contact Jen.



    My apologies if I'm being obtuse, but I'd like to know the answer to Why.
    In fairness, I'll leave it as simply an open question, without commentary, until I hear more.

  5. Quote

    Quote

    Wait a minute, guys. 25 posts in, and nobody's mentioned a Sig. Besides, Leroy Jethro Gibbs uses one, and he's almost as cool as Chuck Norris.



    Actually, I mentioned Sig in my first post.



    Ah! So you did. I guess given the choice between Shit and Go Blind, I chose the latter.

    But you can't deny that Gibbs is cool.

  8. Quote

    I was only responding to the "limited advisor" idea.
    I do not think a "President McCain" would follow that path, I think he would be "all in".



    Except (to continue our dream sequence..), that to be "all in" (post-December 2011) would be an outright abrogation of the SOFA, which even if it might be sustained legally, might be politically untenable; whereas to re-classify troops into "non-combat" roles* would technically comply with SOFA and therefore have greater political (as well as legal) cover.

    (* I shouldn't have used the word "advisors" in my earlier post; I should have simply said "non-combat designations".)

  9. Quote

    Quote

    Good advice - IRAN is geating sat supply from North Korea - they - as the bad guy want to second stage throw cast probe - to brake up small stages communication on our state side - they think dollar falls in U.S. door way for war - - false glory plan



    What?????????
    I don't understand a single thing you are trying to say with this post.



    Oh, don't mind Aarco. He generally tries to blame the fact that English is not his native language as the reason why his rambling incoherences are ramblingly incoherent. He's like the kid in the back of the room who makes fart noises with his armpit - we give him a cookie, and he's quiet for a while, until he wants another cookie. Otherwise, like the charming protagonists on Chimp Eden, he flings his poop.

  16. Quote

    Disagree - McCain would have been bound by the SOFA Bush signed just like Obama was.



    Maybe, but maybe not. The SOFA was not a treaty formally ratified by the Senate under Article II of the Constitution (in fact, only a small minority of US international agreements treaties are of the "Senate-ratified treaty" version nowadays). Instead, the SOFA is more properly classified as either a Congressional-Executive Agreement, or a Sole-Executive Agreement. That alone gives a president some wiggle room to unilaterally breach or modify the terms of such an agreement.

    Additionally, in 1979 the Supreme Court declined to hear a case where Congress challenged President Carter's authority to unilaterally abrogate a defense treaty. The federal courts also declined to intervene to prevent President Bush from unilaterally withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty in 2002.

    The effect of all this is that if a President McCain decided that he wanted to act in conflict with the SOFA, there is some precedent that the federal courts would probably let him get away with it. Plus, I don't see McCain as the kind of guy who backs away from a fight (usually) when he feels strongly principled about something. Plus-plus, the SOFA applies principally to combat troops, not to troops technically classified as non-combat advisors. Which means that troops can be justified in being there if they're re-classified to non-combat designations. In December 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates predicted that the US would still have upwards of 10,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq after December, 2011.

    So on this basis, I still think there's support for my "historical what-if" prediction.

  19. Quote

    I think [McCain] felt that withdrawing US troops before Iraq was capable of providing their own security was a big mistake.



    I think that's a fair way of describing his position. I doubt that McCain as president would have felt that was accomplished during his first term.

  20. Quote

    I don't think personally that the seat belt will help much in an accident, but it might keep the bodies from all ending up in one small spot. Maybe make it easier for the EMS to locate everyone or if it just a slight bump ( is that possible?) keep everyone from landing up on top of one person.



    I'm pretty sure that in the Frontier Skydivers plane crash in 2010, the single fatality was the only person not strapped-in at impact.

  21. Quote

    Quote

    Quote


    Tampering with evidence charges are being considered



    Good, please let us know if they proceed.


    The main officer in this story is the mayor of another town close by

    It has been about 6 weeks since this all happened
    It has just gotten very quiet



    Local news outlets have a way of disrupting that kind of quietude; and reporters are always looking for a story. Hint, hint.

  22. Quote

    Why do you think McCain would have us deeply involved in Iraq?



    Because McCain is more of a mission-oriented thinker than a deadline-oriented thinker.

    Obama subscribed to the school of thought that, after a period of time in Iraq, enough is enough, and one way or another, it would be time to leave.

    McCain as President would have been continuously assessing whether the US/UN mission in Iraq had been successfully accomplished. That's rather abstract, though, since the mission was subject to "mission creep", i.e., the constant re-defining of what the mission is. The logical result is that McCain's mission-oriented approach would very probably have extended the withdrawal farther down the time-line than Obama's time-oriented approach did.

    Put simply, Obama's approach was essentially to say "We're leaving because it's time to go", whereas a President McCain would likely have set the policy "We're leaving when the job is done"; and the latter approach would probably have taken take longer.

  24. Quote

    And the MOMENT the supreme court gave companies the same legal rights as citizens.....we fucked ourselves HARD!



    Perfect illustration of my point!

    And the 5-justice majority that decided the case was Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts, each of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. Of the 4-justice minority, only Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican, that was President Gerald Ford, who was not an ideologue, back in 1975, when appointing moderates to the SCOTUS was a lot more commonplace.

    Regardless of how one feels about the Citizens United decision, I guarantee you, had there been one more justice on the court that had been appointed by a Democrat, the decision would have gone the other way.

    And yet everyone keeps on repeating the same tired, old cliche. Whatever; I've made my point, and I've backed them up with plenty of details.

  25. Quote

    For POTUS? Not in the least.
    It's really sad how we're under the impression that it does.



    There's a huge difference in the SCOTUS justices appointed by Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes, versus those appointed by Clinton and Obama.

    I do think a President Gore would have gone after al-Quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I seriously doubt he would have invaded Iraq.

    President McCain would still have us deeply involved in Iraq. Ironically, he might have had the guts to shut down Guantanamo by now, a promise Obama reneged on, to the deep chagrin of those who voted for him.

    On the other hand, in Justice Department policy re:, say, civil liberties, police powers, etc., I haven't seen a whit of difference since Obama took office.