Republican controlled senate means...?

It wasn't completely unreasonable, its foundation was Romney's plan. It's not like a centrist insurance law would've been impossible, but there was no reasonable hope of any centrist Republicans ever crossing the floor.

There was a mandate to fix health insurance. In 2008, nearly 98% of voters chose a candidate who promised some pretty sweeping reforms. And, there was a lot of opportunity to mix-n-match between their two strategies. But, seriously, the party opposing Obama wouldn't have given an inch.

Please expand your reservations about the populous in general.

They're not wild concerns.
Right now, the oil is being sold on a buyer's market, at a significantly lower price than we see in International Prices. The pipeline will be shipping that oil straight to where it can be refined and sold at international prices.

Obviously, there will be job created. And this will be a very good deal for those who own the oil. As a shareholder, I can assure you that I'd like to get a higher price at a greater demand.

The Greenies don't like it because it makes it easier to suck oil out of the ground, which gives the entrenched interests even more political sway. We're quickly running to the point where we have to stop expanding the amount of oil we're going to take out of the ground. There's a buffer being consumed, but it's being consumed by addicts

I'm curious. What do you mean by "The count-down on the American entitlement system"?
Both SS and Medicare need to be tweaked. SS, not so much, but Medicare is going to increasingly consume more than its budget. Right now, the gov't is just hiding that it's being subsidized, but that cannot exist in perpetuity. Like with oil, it's much harder to stop overconsumption once people are used to it.
 
Hey, only took two tries and you actually answered. So, mark you down as 'no conscience, killing by direction without concern for who gives the order is fine and I recommend the job to all and sundry'. Still a tooth pulling exercise that wasn't worth the effort.

Ahem.

Noting that as usual you have not supported your position with anything but insults and bluster

Apparently you had some issues in keeping the part of your oath of service which states ' ...I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me...'.

I was taught long and hard on what a lawful order was and wasn't and my own conscience dictated that I keep the oaths I give. But that's me.
 
Ahem.



Apparently you had some issues in keeping the part of your oath of service which states ' ...I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me...'.

I was taught long and hard on what a lawful order was and wasn't and my own conscience dictated that I keep the oaths I give. But that's me.

Apparently what?

I didn't break any oaths. I did my time under C-in-C Ronald Reagan without a qualm. However I did not see sufficient safeguards in place to keep that C-in-C position in the hands of people who would not misuse it, so I got out. GHW Bush made me think I may have been wrong. GW Bush proved me right.

No one should put themselves in a position where keeping their word involves supporting the demonstrably failed democratization by invasion policies of that wing of the Republican party, and since no corrective action has been taken to prevent that happening again I never recommend joining the military. If someone really wants to be a paid thug of no conscience there are people who will pay better for it than the US military.
 
Apparently what?

I didn't break any oaths. I did my time under C-in-C Ronald Reagan without a qualm. However I did not see sufficient safeguards in place to keep that C-in-C position in the hands of people who would not misuse it, so I got out. GHW Bush made me think I may have been wrong. GW Bush proved me right.

No one should put themselves in a position where keeping their word involves supporting the demonstrably failed democratization by invasion policies of that wing of the Republican party, and since no corrective action has been taken to prevent that happening again I never recommend joining the military. If someone really wants to be a paid thug of no conscience there are people who will pay better for it than the US military.

Wait a second. You're actually trying to claim that you left service because you were concerned about who would be the future president?

:lol:

Good one.

I've heard a lot of reasons for soldiers leaving service over the years. But that's a new one right there. Most servicemen leaving from that period were being forced out due to tightening standards dictated by manpower reductions, and base closures. I know, I was there.
 
Wait a second. You're actually trying to claim that you left service because you were concerned about who would be the future president?

:lol:

Good one.

I've heard a lot of reasons for soldiers leaving service over the years. But that's a new one right there. Most servicemen leaving from that period were being forced out due to tightening standards dictated by manpower reductions, and base closures. I know, I was there.

I've been called a liar by plenty of people for plenty of things...you I find the funniest because you are go so boldly where you have no knowledge. If you were seeing a lot of people get forced out maybe you should have been hanging around where the useful people were. ;)

Far from being forced out, I turned down a 35K reenlistment bonus. That was common for nuclear trained personnel, though most guys bailed for the money available in civilian nuclear power at the time, which made the 35K one shot (actually half up front, half in annual installments) easier to refuse. I just didn't want to get caught in a war I didn't believe in because I did take that oath business seriously. You know, the business you gloss over when you recommend the military to people as 'a good job with training and benefits' and leave out the killing on command.
 
I've been called a liar by plenty of people for plenty of things...you I find the funniest because you are go so boldly where you have no knowledge. If you were seeing a lot of people get forced out maybe you should have been hanging around where the useful people were. ;)

Far from being forced out, I turned down a 35K reenlistment bonus. That was common for nuclear trained personnel, though most guys bailed for the money available in civilian nuclear power at the time, which made the 35K one shot (actually half up front, half in annual installments) easier to refuse. I just didn't want to get caught in a war I didn't believe in because I did take that oath business seriously. You know, the business you gloss over when you recommend the military to people as 'a good job with training and benefits' and leave out the killing on command.

Oh, I didn't call you a liar. But I do find your given reason quite exceptional in comparison to all I've heard over 26 years of service. Definitely a outlier.

You also apparently left one of the more safe, secure and lucrative jobs in the entire military service.....for that reason? Ok.

And come on...its not like you were going to see much 'killing on command' as a nuclear tech. :lol: Nor a lot of war, given that most of that was fought out in the desert during that period and given that you said you were in the pacific.

And...after 14 years of Iraq and Afghanistan...you cant gloss over anything about risk in service. It's impossible to gloss over these days. There is significant risk to be had by anyone serving in the US Army these days - even for those 'rear echelon' types you tried to disparage earlier. I know more than a few of those that paid with their lives despite their supposed 'rear echelon' job.

All vets that served honorably deserve respect. They certainly aren't 'paid thugs' as you say, but people who signed up fully knowing it could cost them their life in that service.
 
Oh, I didn't call you a liar. But I do find your given reason quite exceptional in comparison to all I've heard over 26 years of service. Definitely a outlier.

You also apparently left one of the more safe, secure and lucrative jobs in the entire military service.....for that reason? Ok.

And come on...its not like you were going to see much 'killing on command' as a nuclear tech. :lol: Nor a lot of war, given that most of that was fought out in the desert during that period and given that you said you were in the pacific.

And...after 14 years of Iraq and Afghanistan...you cant gloss over anything about risk in service. It's impossible to gloss over these days. There is significant risk to be had by anyone serving in the US Army these days - even for those 'rear echelon' types you tried to disparage earlier. I know more than a few of those that paid with their lives despite their supposed 'rear echelon' job.

All vets that served honorably deserve respect. They certainly aren't 'paid thugs' as you say, but people who signed up fully knowing it could cost them their life in that service.

Desert? What desert? The one between Europe and the Pacific that we managed not to make? There were no desert wars in my time.

I get that you don't grasp the issues of lucrative job versus issues of conscience from being part of an apparatus whose function was incinerating millions of people should one man decide it was necessary. I'm sure it's not something that comes up in the legal aide office very often.

As to 'paid thugs'...that's the job. You sign on to do the job and trust the leadership you are signed on to follow. I followed Reagan; no hesitation. Had I not gotten out when I did I'd have followed GHW Bush because I believed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait called for it. I'd have followed GW Bush if I had given my word to do so, and lived with my conscience...but I'd have felt cleaner in the mafia.
 
Desert? What desert? The one between Europe and the Pacific that we managed not to make? There were no desert wars in my time.

That would be the war you feared would come. Context remember? Next one after you left service was the First Gulf War.

I get that you don't grasp the issues of lucrative job versus issues of conscience from being part of an apparatus whose function was incinerating millions of people should one man decide it was necessary. I'm sure it's not something that comes up in the legal aide office very often.

Rofl, wow. That sounds more like a Hollywood movie script than real life.

Also sounds more than a bit paranoid to be honest. Nah, we didn't live in daily fear of incinerating millions of people...we actually thought about doing our daily jobs and training to the best of our ability to be honest.

But I think I understand now. The pressure of working with nukes/etc. got to you it seems.

As to 'paid thugs'...that's the job. You sign on to do the job and trust the leadership you are signed on to follow. I followed Reagan; no hesitation. Had I not gotten out when I did I'd have followed GHW Bush because I believed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait called for it. I'd have followed GW Bush if I had given my word to do so, and lived with my conscience...but I'd have felt cleaner in the mafia.

Might be true for some, but those are the exception, not the rule. By far the vast majority of servicemen and women I knew served with honor. They certainly aren't 'paid thugs', but rather professionals of the highest degree.
 
Off topic, but I think the fix to SS is to change the retirement age, but that is politically unpalatable.

The only President to work on SS successfully (survive his next election) is GW Bush. BH Obama is already past that point.

That said, there seems to be broad support for raising the retirement age. The questionis how to phase it in.

J
 
Nah, we didn't live in daily fear of incinerating millions of people...we actually thought about doing our daily jobs and training to the best of our ability to be honest.

That would be because in the legal aide office your daily job didn't have anything to do with incinerating millions of people. On my boat even the cooks considered the implications of our purpose. For them getting out was a much tougher decision since cooking for killers pays better than Denny's.

If you can get a 'military' job as a paper shuffler I suppose conscience might never enter into it, but since there's no guarantee that someone signing up will get to be an overpaid uniformed office worker I still don't recommend it. Congratulations on soaking the taxpayers though bub.
 
The only President to work on SS successfully (survive his next election) is GW Bush. BH Obama is already past that point.

That said, there seems to be broad support for raising the retirement age. The questionis how to phase it in.

J

Yeah, it's not easy. The second it's not bipartisan, it's sunk though.
 
Congratulations yourself and thanks for your service.

J

Thanks for yours as well. And for the record the soaking the taxpayers thing was not directed at you, as you don't seem to fit the 'uniformed office worker' profile at all.
 
To return to politics, though not the Senate, something from the post election reviews. This is Vox's Ezra Klein:

5) Hillary Clinton is arguably also a winner here.
A more Democratic year could have led to some new stars who might have been able to challenge her in 2016. Instead, some potential challengers were cut down. Gov. Martin O'Malley, for instance, saw Anthony Brown, his lt. governor and handpicked successor, defeated in Maryland. That's not going to help him make the case that he can appeal to voters she can't.​

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/5/7159145/9-takeaways-from-the-2014-election

J
 
Big picture wise I really think this will help democrats. Judging by the crazies like Cruz already foaming at the mouth it seems unlikely Boehner or McConnell are going to be able to rally the troops to get anything practical done, which means the democrats will easily be able to run on a "see they are a party of no ideas" platform.
 
Top Bottom