Comments for H&I Fires* 8 JAN 2008

H&I Fires* 8 JAN 2008

2008-01-09T05:03:00Z

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).

*********************************

The Blogging Caesar over at Election Projections got Iowa correct - let's see how he does with New Hampshire. He's got McCain winning for the Republicans and Obama for the Democrats at 34% and 41% respectively. To see the rest of his view of the field - click here.

Over at Stop the ACLU, a video of Duncan Hunter taking on the media...

Over in Britain - a WWI soldier... blogs, live from the trenches. And yes, I'm very busy this week. -the Armorer

********************************

Speaking of trenches, sorta - how kewl is this? The Maisy Battery is found! H/t, BCR! -the Armorer

*******************************
Despite some determined attempts to make me one, I'm not a Paulista - but I gotta admit, Derbyshire's rant here in The Corner appeals (and I'm not that big a fan of the Derb):

The Man in the Suit [John Derbyshire]

Mark: I agree, it's a shame that the Ron Paul camapaign contains a higher than normal proportion of loonies. (Normal, in my experience of political activism, is around 20 percent. Paul's campaign looks to have around 40 percent.)

The fact remains that Paul himself is plainly not nuts. Even if he did have the odd patch of nuttiness, I doubt it would compare with Mitt Romney's apparently devout belief in golden tablets, magic spectacles, etc., etc.; or for that matter, with Mike Huckabee's stated belief that he has been chosen by God.

And Paul remains the only candidate talking about limited constitutional government. The others are all: "I'll make the federal government do this! I'll make the federal government do that!" Paul seems to be the only one who is aware, as millions of ordinary citizens are aware, that the federal government does almost nothing well, and most things excruciatingly badly: and that this is to be expected from a vast and ossified bureaucratic extravaganza. Paul is the only candidate telling us, as a previous president told us, that "self-government means self-support."

When I look at the line-up on a GOP candidate debate, I see one guy in a modest business suit, and a bunch of other guys in Santa Claus outfits. I'll go with the suit.

I'll distance myself from Derb's comments regarding Romney's faith - but I will sign up for having a problem with a man running for President who says he was chosen by God for the job. I didn't get the memo, and you'd think that might have been shared around. And, as a former working member of the Federal governement, who makes his living helping the government try to do it's business, at least in Defense, I've got great sympathy for this comment: Paul seems to be the only one who is aware, as millions of ordinary citizens are aware, that the federal government does almost nothing well, and most things excruciatingly badly:

Perhaps not most, but certainly many.
-the Armorer

********************************
Update to the above: Jonathan Adler points out that SWWBO's man, Fred Thompson, is on the right side of the issue:

Paul's Not the Only One [Jonathan Adler]

Derb — You are right that too many of the GOP candidates neglect to discuss limited constitutional government, but Ron Paul is hardly the only candidate to make this a theme of his campaign. This is a staple of Fred's pitch, and he reiterated the need for the federal government to operate within constitutional limitations in the weekend debates.

There isn't a Democrat within 8-10 AU's of that position.

Hmmmm. Thompson-Paul, anyone?

-The Armorer

********************************

WTH? Via the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

CREDIT CARD PROCESSING COMPANY REJECTS FIREARMS INDUSTRY

REFUSES TO PROCESS TRANSACTIONS . . . Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. are refusing to process any credit card transactions between federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers -- a move which will severely limit available inventory of firearms and ammunition to military, law enforcement and law-abiding Americans.

The first company to be affected by this decision appears to be firearms distributor CDNN Sports Inc.

"We were contacted recently by First Data/Citi Merchant Services by a June Rivera-Mantilla stating that we were terminated and funds were being seized for selling firearms in a non-face-to-face transaction," said Charlie Crawford, president of CDNN Sports Inc. "Although perfectly legal, we were also informed that no transactions would be processed in the future, even for non-firearms. I find this very frightening."

To voice your concern to Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp., please contact June Rivera-Mantilla at 631-683-7734 or her supervisor Robert Tenenbaum at 631-683-6570.

If you're a dealer affected by this policy change - aside from registering your complaint - click the link to the NSSF website above to get information on how to get into an NSSF-affiliated credit card processing program.

What, Citi and First Data interpret the rules as saying that *all* firearms transactions must be face-to-face, over the counter, even for wholesale? Clearly, they are unclear on the concept of the purpose of the Federal Firearms License. Anybody with more detail, do please jump in. -the Armorer

]]> *A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone."

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-11

2008-01-11T14:57:19Z

This has been fun! Indeed, this has, and it's time to shift the discussion to a new post. So, I'm closing this post, and moving the discussion to this post.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-11

2008-01-11T06:56:11Z

Where to start? Baby you are driving me crazy with your ADD and your conspiracy whispers. Nevermind owing me a drink, you owe me a whole meal for helping you out with this. First. Maggie's original point:"How can we do that without a strong military presence around the world? Our military is out there protecting our interests abroad." Kevin's response: And what interests would those be, the Clinton interests, the Bush interests, bankers’ interests and/or corporate interests? What interests? I'm not too enthused about militarily intervening to protect nebulous, ever changing, never specified 'interests'. Maggie's response:

American interests are just that AMERICAN interests. A part of our economy depends on importing/exporting and foreign investment. Many Americans benefit from those businesses. I don't know the Clintons to even have interests abroad. I do not believe that "W" became president and then made certain foreign policy decisions to advance his own personal wealth. Not only do I not believe that, I also think the claim that many anti-Bush people make (not you, but others) that Iraq is about Cheney's "friends" is simply laughable. The idea that someone would struggle to become president for personal gain is just ridiculous. There are so many more ways to enhance your portfolio that would take a fraction of the effort. People run for president for many reasons, some altruistic, some venal but not for money. As far as *banker's* interests or *corporate* interests......we live in a capitalist society. there is nothing dirty about corporations making money. When corporations make money, they create jobs.

Next Maggie's original point:"I wouldn't characterize it as afraid. Yes, we are isolating Cuba and that will stop soon enough. We should be isolating North Korea and Iran. They are run by mad men. China, the Soviet Union, they may have been enemies, but they were pragmatists. They knew they had to give to get." Kevin's response: I'll adopt a wait and see on Cuba as it directly impacts my biz. But in reality, Castro is irrelevant; it's his Generals and apparatchiks who have to fall from power for the system to change. In world affairs, Cuba is irrelevant. Maggie's response:

Castro is and he isn't irrelevent. The idea of Castro is still powerful. It's kind of like Barnett (Pentagon's New Map) saying that Cold War ended far sooner than most people realized. Castro is no threat to the US, but the idea of Castro could be. I do not believe we have anything to fear from those who will follow him. His brother and the generals have all been enjoying the benefits of capitalism on the sly.

Kevin: Why is it that of all the nations in the world, only Americans can't have contact with Cuba? That makes no sense. Not that I have a burning desire to visit, except perhaps to see the cigar factories and antique cars... But, everybody else in the world can have contact with the workers paradise, just not us ‘free’ Americans... hmmmmm. Masggie's response:

I very rarely base my opinion of what America should do on what other countries are doing. Guess it's left over from my Mum responding to my longing to stretch curfew with my friends "If Lynn and Cheryl jumped off the Mystic River Bridge....." So what the rest of the world does with Cuba doesn't hold that much sway.

Kevin's response: China and the Soviet Union pragmatics? Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao.... pragmatics? Those guys have a higher body count than just about anyone since Genghis Khan and I'd don't think pragmatic really describes them well. Madmen perhaps, oh wait; does that moniker only apply to tin horn dictators like in Iran or N. Korea? How about Mugabe in Rhodesia, er, Zimbabwe? Pragmatic? Lawdy save us then from pragmatism. Maggie's response:

First, we are talking about the current landscape, aren't we....not Mao, etc. You tend to do this in our little debate. You are backing Ron Paul because he represents a change from how things are going now, right? You are backing him because you feel he is the best of the current batch of candidates, right? Well then, Mao is irrelevent. Mugabe is not. There is no one answer to every situation. The answer in Iraq was to go, the answer with Mugabe is a different path. How and when we chose each path is the result of many factors. It doesn't mean that we value Zimbabwe any less and NO, it's not because of oil in and of itself.

Ok, now I am exhausted and up even later than last night. I'll get to the rest.

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-10

2008-01-11T01:13:41Z

Yu-ain “Well, Kevin you claim that the constitution demands that legislation declaring war be titled "Declaration of War", then cite your sources.” In the interest of brevity, not my strong point… “Some legal scholars maintain that all military action taken without a Congressional declaration of war (regardless of the War Powers Resolution) is unconstitutional; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the matter.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States You can cite your sources and I can cite mine. Obviously we disagree. Federalist, Anti-Federalist. I choose to err on the side of a small, limited Federal government as defined by the Constitution and only committing troops to battle if they have the support and backing of our representatives as specified in a declaration of war. Unless our military has clearly defined objectives, they will never be able to ‘win’. And, I don’t like losing Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen or Marines for no good purpose. Somalia and Lebanon are two excellent and unfortunate examples of this. The troops were sent in and then left hanging by our craven politicians. We died and no one was held accountable in our government. Where does the buck stop? War is the most serious undertaking a nation can do. Therefore it is incumbent on we the people to ensure that our elected representatives give the effort their full support. By allowing them to weasel word it, they betray our men in uniform. The bodies of our brethren litter the world and VA hospitals because of their failings. Declare the war, mobilize the national effort, steel the national will, set the objectives (Commanders, destroy the enemy) and give the military what they need to win it in as short a time as possible! Kill people, break things and then come home to an appreciative nation, ticker tape parades and loving families. Our military men deserve no less than our governments full support and to do anything less is IMHO reprehensible. Limited escalation my *ss! “Progress is only evil from a perfection perspective. You cannot logically claim to not require perfection and then call progress evil.” If your definition of progress is less freedom, the continued growth of government socialism, the degradation of our American ideals and the destruction of our inalienable rights, then I call that sort of ‘progress’ evil. I’ll take a statesman who will honor his oath and vote ‘no’ to all this socialist crap anytime over a finger-in-the-wind politician who will disregard the Constitution when the first lobbyist farts. “Next, it is this entire issue of "Blowback" that does, basically, boil down to "deserving it". It is no different that the position that if "Wee Wifey" would just be a good girl and not antagonize her husband, he wouldn't beat her.” I’ve never said that we deserved it. I have stated some of the possible reasons behind the motivation for the attack. What you suggest is that they just happened to pick the Twin Towers in the United States, totally at random and for no reason at all. The terrorist perpetrators of the attack on 9/11 listed the reasons they struck the United States and not some other nation. “Lastly, on "Non-Interventionism": Let's take a look at that abusive husband. When you see him beating on her, do you sit there and do nothing because, "They have their own sovereignty. What right do I have to interfere in how she lives her life"?” Apples and Oranges, you are comparing a domestic situation/policy vs. a foreign situation/policy. And yes, they are different. If my neighbors were being attacked, yes, I would help them. If the Communist Chinese invade, rape, pillage, fold, spindle, mutilate, conquer and subjugate Tibet…. Do we send in the 82nd? Or perhaps for a more relevant topic, do we go to war to defend Taiwan if/when the Peoples Liberation Army invades? Why or why not? “Where it is immoral is to interfere with someone who does have their rights protected, but choose to exercise those rights differently than you do. There are a great many democracies in this world, and they protect their citizens rights (to a large extent anyway) and if you look, you will notice something. We don't interfere in their affairs.” How about the Democratically elected Governments of say… Algeria, Lebanon, ‘Palestine’, Chile, Iran, Vietnam, take your pick of Central American Countries etc. The sad reality is that we interfere all the time in other nations internal affairs; militarily, diplomatically, covertly or overtly. We DO meddle in other nations business, friendly or not, all the frickin’ time. BTW. I used to work in our embassies, so I have a little background in this stuff…. It happens more than you will ever know. You and I may disagree on some policy, but I think we can at least we can agree that our military deserves the full support of our nation. Especially so when they are sent in to war, declared or not.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-10

2008-01-11T00:58:20Z

Kevin - Now it is you who will have to wait. It's "Girl's Night". I would say that you are driving me to drink.....but I am the designated driver, so I can't. "Irish too I bet!" Yeah, take a chance and guess that the fresh girl named BostonMaggie is Irish.......that's a real shot in the dark...not! Of course I am Irish! I will be back to pick you apart. Meanwhile, respond to Yu-ain.

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-10

2008-01-10T22:48:17Z

"How can we do that without a strong military presence around the world? Our military is out there protecting our interests abroad." And what interests would those be, the Clinton interests, the Bush interests, bankers’ interests and/or corporate interests? What interests? I'm not too enthused about militarily intervening to protect nebulous, ever changing, never specified 'interests'. "I wouldn't characterize it as afraid. Yes, we are isolating Cuba and that will stop soon enough. We should be isolating North Korea and Iran. They are run by mad men. China, the Soviet Union, they may have been enemies, but they were pragmatists. They knew they had to give to get." I'll adopt a wait and see on Cuba as it directly impacts my biz. But in reality, Castro is irrelevant; it's his Generals and apparatchiks who have to fall from power for the system to change. In world affairs, Cuba is irrelevant. Why is it that of all the nations in the world, only Americans can't have contact with Cuba? That makes no sense. Not that I have a burning desire to visit, except perhaps to see the cigar factories and antique cars... But, everybody else in the world can have contact with the workers paradise, just not us ‘free’ Americans... hmmmmm. China and the Soviet Union pragmatics? Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao.... pragmatics? Those guys have a higher body count than just about anyone since Genghis Khan and I'd don't think pragmatic really describes them well. Madmen perhaps, oh wait; does that moniker only apply to tin horn dictators like in Iran or N. Korea? How about Mugabe in Rhodesia, er, Zimbabwe? Pragmatic? Lawdy save us then from pragmatism. "Of course it is. Unfortunately, it's not always an option and when it isn't you need a strong military, preferably where they can be most effective." Never have stated that we don't need a strong military. I'm a staunch advocate of being the best-trained and equipped SOBs on the block. Some nicer housing, better pay and medical care would be pleasing as well. It's the proper employment of said military that is the issue here. I'd prefer to husband our regiments and save our bayonets until truly needed. Not fritter them away in 3rd world crapholes on endless, non-objective wars. The era of gunboat diplomacy is over and it's time we realized it. The fuzzy-wuzzies have more than “sharpened bits of fruit” to fight with now. H/T to Blackadder Goes Forth. 'No blood for oil' has to be the stupidest slogan of all time. What are they even talking about? The Hopper, the Port Royal, the Ingraham, were out there making sure those shipping lanes are safe and accessible to everyone. Our Navy is in the Gulf stopping smugglers, rescuing foreign sailors in distress, and keeping the peace. Someone has to do it. No one else is equipped to do it. Protecting American interests abroad is an extension of protecting America. Well, you were the one gritching about the cost of gas at the pump. What was the price of fuel before we invaded? All of what you stated above is laudable, but it's not defense now is it? As for someone has to do it, I fail to see where it's an American responsibility. Don't those nations have territorial waters and Navies of their own? Don’t they have a desire and need for THEIR economies to stay afloat (pun intended) and therefore it’s in their best interests to keep the flow of oil going? But why should they as long as we foot the bill in bodies and treasure? "Yeah, but we aren't. We have to deal with the situation on the ground today as it stands." And you totally skip over the reasons why we aren't energy independent. So, we should trade blood for oil... is that what you are agreeing to? Sure sounds like it. And when the bobbleheads in DC talk about preserving the 'free flow of oil'... that's exactly what they are saying as well. “I don't think "short-term pain" comes close to describing what would happen. Our economy would suffer enormously.” And it's not now? What do you think lies ahead for our economy? How do you think we as a nation are supposed to pay off the incredible debt our irresponsible hacks in DC have rang up? We have to borrow from the Communist Chinese and the House of Saud to fund our Federal government operations for goodness sake! The Chicoms then use those funds to build up THEIR military and support their economy! They become stronger and we become weaker! We've already seen an inkling of a dollar war because of the amount of debt we owe the Chicoms. Economic warfare or blackmail? Call it what you wish, but we free Americans owe billions, if not trillions to the Communists. Ain't that grand? Madison and Jefferson would be so proud! Because of our foolish policies at home and our attempt at imposing 'Pax Americana', we are in serious financial trouble. Look at the value of our currency and our national debt! This is the financial reality that we have bequeathed unto future generations! ‘Hi kid, welcome to America, here's your bill!’ American children are born into debt! Oh lawdy, thank you no! "Of course it's the primary reason we are in the Gulf, why would I say otherwise? The GULF, not Iraq." Now you are admitting that we are militarily involved in the Gulf for energy resources. "Our bases in Saudi are between us and the Saudi's. He isn't Saudi and they threw *him* out. It's a red herring. We did nothing to *cause* 9/11. I know what "Blowback" is. You can't live a life devoid of blowback. That was also in those reports. That there was little we could have done, short of become dhimmi that wouldn't have caused some "blowback". I was referring to our aggressive foreign policy, not OBL in particular. And why do we have bases in the freedom loving land of Saud? Oil perhaps? OBL isn't Saudi? News to me and I expect to his family. Dhimmi? Please, that isn't gonna happen here. It is a possibility in Britain, France and Holland thanks to their foolish immigration policies, and most certainly will occur in Kosovo thanks to Clinton and Bush. The Islamic boogeyman... "The greatest threat our nation has ever faced." Oh please. The Caliphate is only a wet dream of the loonies. The only nations that are capable of destroying us (besides ourselves) are the Russians and thanks to Clinton giving them the targeting technology, the Communist Chinese. "When Paul talks about "blowback" it's a straw he is grasping at." I guess the CIA and our intelligence services that wrote the AA reports were merely grasping as well? “ObL has two problems with us. One - we are the only legitimate threat to his Caliphate.” Nonsense. Other Muslim factions would happily kill him and his movement. The Sunnis hate the Shia and vice versa and then you can throw in all the other lil' splinter groups as well. They've been happily slaughtering each other for heresy almost since their religion arose. We merely provide a unifying focal point and divert them from their history of butchering one another. If you were being serious and take the blinders off, the greatest threat of jihadi Islam comes from our great friends.... The Saudis. They are the financiers and exporters of Wahabism. They finance the majority of the extremist madrassas and terrorists. And, let's not forget, the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi and I also believe comprise the majority of ‘foreign fighters’ in Iraq. "He and his kind are taking Europe like a slow moving cancer." The result of their foolish policies, not ours. Let’s learn from their mistakes and not emulate them. "Two - Our defense of Israel. Which is the right and proper thing for us to do." Yes and no. Yes, they resent our support of Israel. And, no. Israel has more than enough conventional and nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Why is it right and proper to defend Israel and not say... Lebanon? Or for that matter, any other nation in that region? Isn't Jordan an ally of ours? "We aren't going to SUBMIT and we aren't going to abandon Israel.....so ObL and his mad followers/sympathizers/fellow travelers can blow this." Nobody said a thing about submitting. "What are we talking about here? Enforcing the terms of Iraq's surrender?" Iraq's surrender? Enforcing the terms? Would that be the United Nations sanctions including that incredibly successful UN administered food for oil program, among others? Which terms? For that matter, has North Korea surrendered yet? How about Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? Serbia? Grenada? Panama? Lebanon? Somalia? The Banana Republics? On and on.... yep, them undeclared wars worked out pretty well didn't they? Well, Grenada perhaps. "That was morally right. Hamstringing Saddam before he got up & running again? That was morally right." I thought we were enforcing their non-compliance with UN resolutions, or was it because we thought he might have WMDs? The reason and rationale given keeps changing. Iraq didn't present a threat to us in the first Gulf War and most certainly didn't in the second. Remember, Saddam was our ally… And again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. As for 'morally right', so then you are morally advocating we attack the Sudan, Burma, North Korea or (insert here) any nation that the current administration deems immoral? Pick and chose? What are your criteria? Which nation should we attack to 'hamstring' next and for what reasons? Does your list ever end? I'm not disputing that there are many, many repugnant horrid regimes in power throughout the world. But, we aren't and can't be the world’s cop. We haven't the manpower, we haven't the finances and frankly, we don't have the national will. "Having bases in Kuwait & Saudi to protect them from predators with the consent of their governments? That was morally right." Oh yes, those great friends of ours, those pillars of democracy and respecters of human rights, the Sheiks of Kuwait and the Princes of the Royal House of Saud. Those same fine fellows who called our troops mercenaries and khaffir slaves. Who for the most part sat it out with our military serving as their cannon fodder. Wake up; the House of Saud are NOT our friends. If you loathe tyrannical repressive regimes, at least be consistent. Saudi Arabia is right up there with the worst of them. "Who did "W" assasinate? For that matter, who did that nitwit Clinton assasinate?" I was speaking of our long term, vs short term policy and what we have done with our policies over the years. Oh and as for the nitwit, well Ron Brown, Vince Foster and 83 men, women and children burned alive at Waco.... oh wait those were only Americans, never mind.... You might also want to check out the Friends of Bills body count sometime.... but, I digress. /snark off. “Yeah, so they can find a suspect, charge him and successfully prosecute him. We already have a confession. Do you doubt ObL when he tells you he did it? the police don't look for motive because they *care* and want to appease the next homicidal maniac. They know that's not possible.” So now you give credence to what OBL has said? Make up your mind. As I stated before, OBL and his host nation state sponsors are no longer in power. But, OBL is still out there, somewhere and with more manpower now than before we invaded Iraq. The effort to catch him was diverted into deposing an enemy of his, Saddam. “Very funny! Gee, could it be that the Swiss and the Swedes are safe because.......umm....I don't know....maybe.....because everyone knows that West would have risen as one in their defense had they been attacked? “ Actually, the Swiss learned from their continuous wars that war is NOT the health of the state and they along with the Swedes now wisely pursue a policy of armed to the teeth neutrality. Not isolationism, but non-interventionism. Big difference. "When you find us a big brother to watch out over America, then I guess our military can start playing with knives and gadgets." We don't need a big brother, what happened to the old American principle of self-reliance? We are more than capable of taking care of ourselves and we would be far better able to do so if we husbanded our resources and put our own house in order. Physician, heal thyself. "I agree 100% percent that our borders need to be secured and our government has failed us in that respect. However, having all our military here, protecting our borders only works if we all stay home and never need anything from abroad." Need? Do you mean, that if we can't get whatever it is we need through peaceful means, such as diplomacy or trade that we should go to war to take it? "So is the man we should all be listening to, my Dad. My Dad would go over there and have them all polishing table legs on Saturday mornings and ironing their burkas and hajibs with light starch." And, they would perfectly within their rights to tell your dad to buzz off and mind his own business. You've said you don't want them forcing their lifestyles on you, so why do you think it's okay for you to tell them what to do? You wouldn't like it and neither would they. Do unto others….. “My darling Kevin - that is complete and utter bullshit. (I know the Armorer will be peeved, but I can think of no otherway to describe it). We helped and trained the Northern Alliance, they were the enemies of ObL. ObL killed their leader Massoud practically on the eve of 9/11. However, I will humor you and tell you that even if it were true, I wouldn't care. Situations and circumstances change. “ Sooooo of all those monies, munitions and support, OBL and his merry, murderous laddies got none of it eh? *snort* We, and those great lads the ISI of Pakistan supported the Taliban and most of the rest of the Muj, so of course he got our goodies. Remember the hysteria over the missing Stingers? “You don’t care, circumstances change.” Our ally and our puppet one minute, our demonized, archenemy the next; Saddam, Noriega, Diem, etc….. not exactly rational policy now is it? Well, to be fair, Diem didn’t live long enough to morph into our latest, greatest threat to American… interests. The Brits and the Russians have played the Great Game over Afghanistan for centuries, the Brits more or less quitting once the sun set on the Indian Raj. Teaching point. Empires fail! Usually because they over extend their militaries and over tax their budgets…. Hint, hint! But, aside for the Taliban harboring OBL, they would STILL be in power or fighting it out with other Muslim/tribal factions as they have done for time immemorial. Again, so much for fear of a great Caliphate... "Again, it's not a motive, it's a manifestation the psychosis displayed by ObL and his Islamic terrorist goons. We have only "reaped what we have sown" in their sick twisted minds. Like when they stone rape victims. Muslim fanatics will tell you that the rape victims have reaped what they have sown." Like the sort of things that happen in Saudi Arabia? Again, speaking over the long term of our policies all over the world, not just in this area. And, yes, there are injustices all over the world, but what justifies our continued military intervention into this country vs. that country? "You can disagree, but I believe in a Pax Americana where any American should be able to walk anywhere in the world unmolested. I believe it is our right. I also don't mind admitting that while I am happy to help anyone in any nation, my first priority is my fellow Americans." What you are advocating is empire and endless war. All the disastrous policies that we were warned about by the Founders. No thanks. Your vision of Pax Americana, if enforced and continued, will/would doom us all. History repeats itself, so why make such a mistake? You speak of your rights as an American overseas? From where do you derive those rights in another nation? When in Rome..... And, if you truly believe so strongly in your 'rights', let's put them to the test. Take a visit to our friends the Saudis and see what happens with your rights. I recommend carrying a Gideon Bible, wearing a crucifix necklace, show lots of leg and cleavage and have a few bottles of Scotch in your carry on. Have fun. But at least we can agree, America first! "We are the world's policeman." Not only no, but hell no! Show me the papers and the authorization. That's utter BS as well as being totally impractical. As the favorite Naval Consort said to me just this afternoon "We can kill you or rescue and feed you. *snip* Translation; Do as we say, or we will kill you. We are from the government and we are here to help. Carrot or stick. That's a choice? Almost sounds like those friendly fellas of the ATF or IRS agents are at the front door. So, that's utter BS. Unless there is a clear and present danger and legal authority is granted by the Congress and Presidency, we should not be doing any of this. Fight a war or do not. If you do, then declare it, fight it, win it and come home. If America does find the situation so dire that we must go to war, then it's really gonna suck to be you! And no, we’re not picking up the mess after we leave. No Grand Duchy of Fenwicks here! Courtesy of The Mouse That Roared, highly recommended reading btw and a great movie with I believe Peter Sellers. As Rome did to Carthage, so will we do to you. Don't f*ck with the US, because if we do go to war, we mean it. But, that hasn't been our policy since WW2 and the results are sadly obvious. "We aren't the ones who don't understand the Golden Rule. We take no spoils. We subjugate no people. All we ask is that you play nice and follow the rules coming out of Turtle Bay." Um, er, ah... wow... where to begin? Shall I burst a few bubbles? How about looking up our campaign of liberation in the Philippines after we conquered it from the Spanish? We've got quite a few military bases and forts named after folks who would by todays standards, be judged as 'war criminals'. This was a brutal campaign of conquest and subjugation. History isn’t always pretty, even if you acknowledge the different time and context. You might also want to examine our policy towards the aptly named... Banana Republics. No subjugation? No spoils? Unfortunately, that simply isn't true. "..didn't wantcha to feel ignored and neglected"Not to worry, love. I have a Rotation. Wow a harem in reverse! Why am I not surprised? Irish too I bet! And with this post, I expect them Irish eyes are flashing!

Comment from Yu-ain Gonnano on 2008-01-10

2008-01-10T20:21:46Z

Well, Kevin you claim that the constitution demands that legislation declaring war be titled "Declaration of War", then cite your sources. I made my claim and cited my source, now it's your turn to pony up. I guarantee you won't be able to. Why? Because everything you've cited already about what did happen only proves that such was common procedure, not required procedure. Just because something was often done one way, does not mean that it is required to do it that way. Even the founders themselves fought a war without a "Declaration" as you defined it. So if these founders were so brilliant in their wording as to preclude doing what they actually did, how do you explain it? Seems to me that the founders were actually pretty smart people. That if "Congress shall have the power to declare war" meant "Congress shall have the power to declare war only by passing legislation titled 'Declaration of War'" they would have. The fact that they left the method open suggests they intended to leave the method open. Secondly, the phrase 'The lesser of two evils is still evil' is one of those phrases like 'Love means never having to say "You're Sorry"'. They sound nice, but they're completely foolish. Love means having to say "You're Sorry" a hell of a lot, and often for things that aren't even your fault. Progress is only evil from a perfection perspective. You cannot logically claim to not require perfection and then call progress evil. Next, it is this entire issue of "Blowback" that does, basically, boil down to "deserving it". It is no different that the position that if "Wee Wifey" would just be a good girl and not antagonize her husband, he wouldn't beat her. It completely ignores the consequences (or pretends there are no negative consequences) for doing nothing. This is a position that cannot be supported. Lastly, on "Non-Interventionism": Let's take a look at that abusive husband. When you see him beating on her, do you sit there and do nothing because, "They have their own sovereignty. What right do I have to interfere in how she lives her life"? I hope not. You call the police. You intervene! It doesn't matter what contract, compact, or social arrangement/agreement they have. He does not have the right to violate her rights. And as a libertarian, those rights are not dependent on who "rules" over her. To argue that you should not intervene on her behalf requires you to take the position that you only have the rights you yourself can defend. This is the equivalent to "The rule of the sword". The strong rule over the weak, simply because they can. This is a very unlibertarian viewpoint. Gov'ts are no different than people. A Gov't no more has a right (since groups never have more rights than the individuals in them) to abuse the rights of their subjects than anyone else. It may not be practical to intervene, but you can't claim it's not moral. Where it is immoral is to interfere with someone who does have their rights protected, but choose to exercise those rights differently than you do. There are a great many democracies in this world, and they protect their citizens rights (to a large extent anyway) and if you look, you will notice something. We don't interfere in their affairs.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-10

2008-01-10T15:18:06Z

*koff* a-HEM! This is a *blog* not a *board*. Much more fun. Span-Am the first war of empire? If we restrict ourselves to this definition from Wikipedia:

An empire (from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government) is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power.

And we further restrict ourselves to post-founding, vice the campaigning we as peoples did while subjects of the English/French/Dutch/Spanish Crowns, then pretty much all of the Indian campaigns and the Mexican War qualify. The Span-Am is the first time we went overseas to do it.

Comment from Cricket on 2008-01-10

2008-01-10T07:50:40Z

*hands bowls of hot buttered popcorn around* Maggie and Kevin, you both did well.

Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2008-01-10

2008-01-10T06:30:56Z

I love "Constitution Pissing Contests". But too often interpretations are interpreted as fact. Cheers

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-09

2008-01-10T05:51:05Z

Wow! Look at all those spelling errors! Sr. Corita and Sr. Ursula would be so disappointed in me. In my defense, Kevin kept me up well past my bedtime with no heavy breathing (or something better) to show for it. P.S. I am Princess Crabby. You need to learn to click the links, baby. [Fixed yer typos. I do that sometimes.]

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-09

2008-01-10T05:40:51Z

"He wants us to be able to talk, trade, travel and have economic and diplomatic exchanges with all nations. Again, this follows the advice of our founding fathers." How can we do that without a strong military presence around the world? Our military is out there protecting our interests abroad. "How is it that we could talk to and have relations with Communist China, the Soviet Union, The Warsaw Pact et al, but now we are afraid of and forbidden contact with lil’ pissants like Cuba, North Korea or Iran? That’s nonsensical and that’s an isolationist policy." I wouldn't characterize it as afraid. Yes, we are isolating Cuba and that will stop soon enough. We should be isolating North Korea and Iran. They are run by mad men. China, the Soviet Union, they may have been enemies, but they were pragmatists. They knew they had to give to get. "Diplomacy is a helluva lot better and less expensive than shooting." Of course it is. Unfortunately, it's not always an option and when it isn't you need a strong military, preferably where they can be most effective. "I hate the slogan, but in this case, your statement just made the lefties point for them when they chant their ‘no blood for oil’ mantra" 'No blood for oil' has to be the stupidist slogan of all time. What are they even talking about? The Hopper, the Port Royal, the Ingraham, were out there making sure those shipping lanes are safe and accessible to everyone. Our Navy is in the Gulf stopping smugglers, rescuing foreign sailors in distress, and keeping the peace. Someone has to do it. No one else is equipped to do it. Protecting American interests abroad is an extension of protecting America. "We SHOULD and COULD become energy independent" Yeah, but we aren't. We have to deal with the situation on the ground today as it stands. "I’d gladly settle for some short-term pain for a long-term gain. Americans are soooo impatient." I don't think "short-term pain" comes close to describing what would happen. Our economy would suffer enormously. "Energy independence is a national security issue and if you can with a straight face give me any other reason why we are militarily involved in the Gulf, I’d be glad to hear it." Of course it's the primary reason we are in the Gulf, why would I say otherwise? The GULF, not Iraq. "If you poke somebody in the eye enough times, eventually they will poke you back." We didn't poke ObL in the eye. For pity's sake! ObL isn't the Outlaw Josey Wales! Our bases in Saudi are between us and the Saudi's. He isn't Saudi and they threw *him* out. It's a red herring. We did nothing to *cause* 9/11. I know what "Blowback" is. You can't live a life devoid of blowback. That was also in those reports. That there was little we could have done, short of become dhimmi that wouldn't have caused some "blowback". When Paul talks about "blowback" it's a straw he is grasping at. ObL has two problems with us. One - we are the only legitimate threat to his Caliphate. He and his kind are taking Europe like a slow moving cancer. Two - Our defense of Israel. Which is the right and proper thing for us to do. We aren't going to SUBMIT and we aren't going to abandon Israel.....so ObL and his mad followers/sympathizers/fellow travelers can blow this. "If you apply the golden rule standard of do unto others… By what right do we meddle in the internal affairs of other nations? It’s not morally right and certainly not Constitutionally ‘legal’". What are we talking about here? Enforcing the terms of Iraq's surrender? That was morally right. Hamstringing Saddam before he got up & running again? That was morally right. Having bases in Kuwait & Saudi to protect them from predators with the consent of their governments? That was morally right. We wouldn’t tolerate other nations running covert military ops in the US, assassinating our leaders or leading coups to replace them with a more malleable puppet of their choosing. Who did "W" assassinate? For that matter, who did that nitwit Clinton assassinate? "Finally, consider this, if a person is murdered, do the police not look for motive?" Yeah, so they can find a suspect, charge him and successfully prosecute him. We already have a confession. Do you doubt ObL when he tells you he did it? the police don't look for motive because they *care* and want to appease the next homicidal maniac. They know that's not possible. "Yep, them damned Swiss, our belated Sister Republic gets attacked all the time, same with the Swedes" Very funny! Gee, could it be that the Swiss and the Swedes are safe because.......umm....I don't know....maybe.....because everyone knows that West would have risen as one in their defense had they been attacked? When you find us a big brother to watch out over America, then I guess our military can start playing with knives and gadgets. "So, why aren’t our Federal assets defending OUR borders instead of being sent overseas? We’ve sent elements of our Border Guard to Iraq!" I agree 100% percent that our borders need to be secured and our government has failed us in that respect. However, having all our military here, protecting our borders only works if we all stay home and never need anything from abroad. "Dr. Paul as a veteran" So is Wes Clark. So is John Kerry. Shall I go on? What's you point? So is my preferred candidate, John McCain. So is the man we should all be listening to, my Dad. My Dad would go over there and have them all polishing table legs on Saturday mornings and ironing their burkas and hajibs with light starch. "Also, remember that OBL was one of our ‘allies’, we trained and supplied his movement." My darling Kevin - that is complete and utter bullshit. (I know the Armorer will be peeved, but I can think of no other way to describe it). We helped and trained the Northern Alliance, they were the enemies of ObL. ObL killed their leader Massoud practically on the eve of 9/11. However, I will humor you and tell you that even if it were true, I wouldn't care. Situations and circumstances change. "We’ve reaped what we’ve sown. Doesn’t mean that we ‘deserved’ it, but if you are objective, you can certainly understand the motive." Again, it's not a motive, it's a manifestation the psychosis displayed by ObL and his Islamic terrorist goons. We have only "reaped what we have sown" in their sick twisted minds. Like when they stone rape victims. Muslim fanatics will tell you that the rape victims have reaped what they have sown. You can disagree, but I believe in a Pax Americana where any American should be able to walk anywhere in the world unmolested. I believe it is our right. I also don't mind admitting that while I am happy to help anyone in any nation, my first priority is my fellow Americans. We are the world's policeman. As the favorite Naval Consort said to me just this afternoon "We can kill you or rescue and feed you. Your choice. We can send helos full of Soldiers or Marines to break everything you own. Those same Soldiers and Marines will also bring you disaster relief supplies like food, medicine and blankets when nobody else can or will. We can send ships and planes to completely erase you from the planet. Those very same ships and planes can save you, your children and your livestock" We aren't the ones who don't understand the Golden Rule. We take no spoils. We subjugate no people. All we ask is that you play nice and follow the rules coming out of Turtle Bay. "..didn't wantcha to feel ignored and neglected"Not to worry, love. I have a Rotation.

Comment from Justthisguy on 2008-01-09

2008-01-10T05:36:28Z

Kevin, I voted for Dr. Paul the last time he ran for Prez, and am somewhat sympathetic with his ambitions this time, but as to what you have written here, all I can say is TL;DR.

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-09

2008-01-10T02:25:30Z

Yu-ain, I can read the Constitution as well as you can, and I can also (and have) read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, etc, etc, etc. To give your position any serious merit, you would have to conclude that our Founders were blithering idiots not to precisely word our founding documents the way they did. That specifically enumerated powers part might be of interest. You would also have to disregard the actions of past Congresses who actually did declare war in accordance with the Constitution. Historically of interest, the last time we 'won' a war was the last time Congress actually declared war. Since then, going to undeclared war has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of American lives, countless billions of taxpayer dollars expended and not a single 'win' to show for it. Our military would win the battles and the politicians, by not being held to their declarations, lost the wars. To what good purpose? Look at the pathetic excuses now being offered regarding Iraq. They are able to do that because they didn't actually vote to go to war. They are not bound by their votes. Weasel, weasel, weasel... Fug them. I didn't sign up to fight for the morally repellent United Nations and the idea of going to war to enforce UN resolutions is repugnant to me. Yet, look at the reasons our politicians have used to send us into undeclared war. I also didn't enlist to protect the interests of corporate fat cats who lobby their paid whores in DC to send us off to fight and die for their pocketbooks. You might consider finding a copy of Commandant Smedley Butlers book about how the Marines conquered Central America for the United Fruit Company..... "War is a racket" is a great article and can be found on the net. It's a bit dated, from the 30's, but it is still relevant today. Weasel word it all you wish, but I hold my faith in the Constitutional requirements to declare war before I put my trust in feckless politicians who would send our military into war. Finally, as regards to perfection in politicians, fat chance. However, I've been involved in politics long enough to know that by voting for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil. Take your poison, slow or fast, it's still poison and it's killing our country. I'd prefer a statesman over a politician any day. And while there is certainly no such thing as a perfect candidate, I can look at what is being offered and select the most principled among them. I've made my choice. He ain't perfect, but he's a helluva lot better than the tweedledee/tweedledum alternatives being offered. He's consistent, his record shows it and he is the candidate who most respects the Constitution and his oath of office. You may choose to settle for less, however, I place a higher demand and expectations on who gets my precious vote. If nothing else, on the two issues the are of most concern to this nation, he's been correct on both of them. Our economy and the war. No other candidate can honestly say that. "You may fire when ready Gridley!" From arguably our first war of Empire.

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-09

2008-01-10T01:50:12Z

Princess Crabby, "Clearly, Kevin's silence conveys his acquiescence. There could be no other way to explain his lack of response." Actually, running my own small biz gives me a very good reason. Gotta pay the bills to be able to offer myself up as a target for the snipers on this board. Silence or the lack of an immediate response does not convey acquiescence. As I stated above, Americans are sooooo impatient.

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-09

2008-01-10T01:42:48Z

Maggie, Not sure if all this will post. But here goes. “Kevin - While Paul has some valid points on certain parts of his platform, his isolationism kills it for me.” He is NOT an isolationist. He advocates a return to our original principles of NON-Intervention. There is a huge difference between the two. He wants us to be able to talk, trade, travel and have economic and diplomatic exchanges with all nations. Again, this follows the advice of our founding fathers. How is it that we could talk to and have relations with Communist China, the Soviet Union, The Warsaw Pact et al, but now we are afraid of and forbidden contact with lil’ piss ants like Cuba, North Korea or Iran? That’s nonsensical and that’s an isolationist policy. Diplomacy is a helluva lot better and less expensive than shooting. If you truly want Castro gone, drop the blockade/embargo and he’ll be gone in a few short years. He and his ideology simply can’t compete with freedom and capitalism. We've isolated him for 40+ years, yeah, that's been effective... “If there were no American ships on the Gulf ensuring safe passages for oil tankers, what do you think my tab would have been?” Energy policy in a 30 second sound bites? M’kay… I hate the slogan, but in this case, your statement just made the lefties point for them when they chant their ‘no blood for oil’ mantra. We have enough various energy resources here in the US to be independent of the OPEC thugs. Sooo, why aren’t we? For your answer, look no further than our very own Babylon by the Potomac and the special interest whores, er, lobbyists who infest it. Our political critters are to blame for our energy situation and subsequent military involvement in that otherwise blighted region. Case closed. We SHOULD and COULD become energy independent, then form a food cartel and tell those OPEC kleptocrats that the American broccoli cartel just raised prices $10.00 a bushel. Let them then eat their worthless sand and resume happily butchering each other in their 7th century theocracies. As for the price of fuel; supply and demand, coupled with government policies and taxes result in what you pay at the pump. Check out the amount of taxes you pay per gallon next time some politician starts grandstanding about ‘price-gouging’. Never see them offer to give us peons a tax break do you? “Yeah, it would be better if we all drove cars that ran on alternative fuels, but if you aren't ready to do that yesterday, and you are not....then you can't leave the Gulf.” Perhaps. But the AGRI-business corn producers sure love mandated ethanol and the taxpayer-funded subsidies don’t they? BTW. Notice how the prices of corn related products have gone up? *damned bacon prices* Cause and effect, cause and effect…. As for leaving the Gulf, why not? They still need to sell their oil don’t they? I’d gladly settle for some short-term pain for a long-term gain. Americans are soooo impatient. If we could put a man on the moon within 10 years using 1960’s technology, surely we could become energy independent in that same amount of time. The question is, why aren’t we? Cue the pictures of Babylon again. Energy independence is a national security issue and if you can with a straight face give me any other reason why we are militarily involved in the Gulf, I’d be glad to hear it. “Next, the fact that Ron Paul believes that we (the USA) *caused* 9/11 on *any* level tells me that he has a problem. It tells me that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the real world works.” If you poke somebody in the eye enough times, eventually they will poke you back. History is a bugger, esp in hindsight. But the sad fact is that our foreign policy is not loved by many the world over and in some cases, with very good reason. If you apply the golden rule standard of do unto others… By what right do we meddle in the internal affairs of other nations? It’s not morally right and certainly not Constitutionally ‘legal’. We wouldn’t tolerate other nations running covert military ops in the US, assassinating our leaders or leading coups to replace them with a more malleable puppet of their choosing. So what makes you think the peoples of other nations would behave any differently than we would if this happened in America? Don’t you think these actions breed resentment, anger and hate? Wouldn’t a palace coup led by a foreign power overthrowing our government galvanize you into action? Our actions and policies do have consequences, and sometimes not very good ones either. Finally, consider this, if a person is murdered, do the police not look for motive? This does not in any way excuse the horrific attack on 9/11, but why attack the United States and not Switzerland, Togo, or Uganda? “The first job of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. Having all our military within our borders, is an indefensible position. I have never been in the military. I am a glorified camp follower, but I know that is really bad strategy.” Yep, them damned Swiss, our belated Sister Republic gets attacked all the time, same with the Swedes. We did pretty well before our belated entry into the race for Empire in 1898. Our entangling alliances and interference in other nations internal affairs was minimal. Since we’ve decided to become the world’s policeman with our military scattered all over the globe, are we any safer now? Don’t think so. As for indefensible, we have a Navy, an Air Force, an Army, the Marine Corps and Coast Guard along with their reserve components and the Border Patrol. This is all on the Federal level and does not include State resources. So, why aren’t our Federal assets defending OUR borders instead of being sent overseas? We’ve sent elements of our Border Guard to Iraq! Why aren’t OUR borders secure? Again, look no further than to Babylon and the moneychangers in the Temple. There is no good reason as to why we still have troops in South Korea or Japan, much less Germany. It’s a waste of manpower and tax dollars. It helps their economies and drains ours. Let them step up to the plate and shoulder the burden of their own defense on their dime. Bottom line is, the authors of the Constitution were far, far wiser men that what we have been plagued with for the last century. Turns out, their advice was pretty good; too bad we haven’t followed it. BTW. Dr. Paul as a veteran is pro-military and anti-war, not anti-defense. There is a important distinction. He is for a strong military, but wants it properly restrained to protecting the United States and not being committed to undeclared wars for fuzzy, unobtainable goals. The military always ‘loses’ and pays the price for our politicians failures. “So.....that's a big "No" to Ron Paul. I know he touts his support among the military and I know I don't know a lot of people in the military, but I can't find any military person who supports him.” I’m one and according to the FEC reports, he does rake in the most donations from military, active and retired of any of the candidates. There are also lots of videos from the military supporting him on the net. BTW. Most of the vets I know DO support Dr. Paul. This board being a possible exception…. 8) “Do you believe our bases in Saudi Arabia caused Bin Laden to attack us and therefore, some of the blame is ours? I watched Ron Paul say that in a debate, I am not putting words in his mouth.” Dr. Paul was quoting our very own CIA and intelligence reports, that whole ‘Blowback’ thingy and the writings of OBL himself. He’s merely telling you what the other candidates don’t want you to know. You may not care for the information, but that doesn’t invalidate it. Last I checked, despite a supposed resurgence, the Taliban are no longer in power and OBL is hiding out in the tribal lands of our unstable, nuke capable ‘ally’ Pakistan. GWB diverted our war effort away from actually getting OBL in order to depose a former ally of ours (who had nothing to do with 9/11), Saddam in Iraq. AQ had no base of support in Iraq before we invaded. Also, remember that OBL was one of our ‘allies’, we trained and supplied his movement. Consider that. We’ve reaped what we’ve sown. Doesn’t mean that we ‘deserved’ it, but if you are objective, you can certainly understand the motive. Hope that clears some of that up. Now back to attempting run my business... didn't wantcha to feel ignored and neglected..... 8)

Comment from Princess Crabby on 2008-01-09

2008-01-10T01:23:34Z

***tap tap tap*** ***arms crossed*** ***eyebrow raised*** Clearly, Kevin's silence conveys his acquiescence. There could be no other way to explain his lack of response.

Comment from Yu-ain Gonnano on 2008-01-09

2008-01-09T16:54:00Z

But at least you sorta, kinda, backhandedly admit that he votes in accordance with the Constitution. How is that a bad thing? Philisophically, it isn't a bad thing. But results wise, it certainly can be. Let's work on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being perfectly in accordance with the Constitution. Say the situation today is at 5. The Dems propose to take it to 4 the Rep propose to take it to 6. Dr. No votes against the Reps because it isn't 10. This no vote defeats the Reps and ensures Dem victory taking us from 5 down to 4. You may consider this a victory for Dr. Paul, but I don't consider it a victory for the US. Do I like being at 6. No, but from 6 I can reach 7, from 7 I can reach 8. And so on. But sinking to 4 doesn't get us any closer to 10 unless your desire is to force a second armed revolution. I don't ask for perfection in a FUBAR, I ask for improvement. What's the saying? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions? Dr. Paul may have plenty of good intentions, but I'd prefer not to go to hell in the first place. Insisting on perfection is fine from a pundit, but a President must deliver results. And Dr. Paul hasn't. And by insisting on perfection, can't. As for the war in Iraq. The constitution only says that congess has the power to declare war. It does not state how that declaration has to be worded. Let me repeat that: There is nothing in the Constition that says that the title of legislation that declares war to be "Declaration of War". When the congress passes legislation authorizing our military to be taken onto foreign soil to depose a foreign goverment that is a declaration of war. That was done. You can make the argument that the Iraq war was a bad idea, but that it is unconstitutional does not hold water.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-09

2008-01-09T15:55:51Z

John - Are you insinuating that Kevin has not responded to me in a serious fashion because I am female? [No, I was *resisting* doing that...]

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-09

2008-01-09T15:04:27Z

However, I must note, there has been no serious response to my original comment on Kevin's candidate. *Stuffs arm in mouth up to the elbow to keep from being henpecked to death by the gurls.*

Comment from Cricket on 2008-01-09

2008-01-09T14:15:49Z

Romney. Because he actually GOVERNED the Bay State and by golly, are the people of MA better off? He upheld his oath of office and kept his word with them. This is a state with Ted Kennedy and John Effing Kerry as Senators. Both of the former are excellent at telling the peasants they are above the laws they ratify. Romney has had extensive experience in Turning Things Around and Making A Lot Of Bad Stuff Go Away without a body count.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T04:59:05Z

You have some time though......I am off to bed.....savoring my McCain victory.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T04:57:25Z

Patience is a virtue.........do I seem all that virtuous to you? Heinz?

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T04:49:56Z

"However, I must note, there has been no serious response to my original comment on Kevin's candidate." Wait for it... I have a biz to run. Response will be forthcoming. But, in the meantime, perhaps your answers could be found at Dr. Pauls website. Beats me re-typing everything. But, that being said, a response will be delivered. Rhett wasn't acceptable? Okay, then Heinz.. and I'm not talking the Kerry brand neither.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T04:32:36Z

This is all well and good. Everyone knows I am always up for a comment party. However, I must note, there has been no serious response to my original comment on Kevin's candidate.

Comment from BillT on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T04:20:13Z

Slow, smooth, easy... mmmmm. Fantasizing about ultralights again, eh, Neff?

Comment from Neffi on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T03:39:32Z

".....supposedly more genteel sex." I for one have found genteel sex to be far more satisfying than I would have thought some twenty years ago. Slow, smooth, easy... mmmmm. In fact, I... wait- what we talking about here? Um, gotta go- laters! ;)

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T03:35:15Z

"Heh. He even looks like a mountain... fair bit of snow on top." Um, yeah, er, ah... Well, like there's like snow on top and like, but still fire in the furnace and like, um.... Oh hell, who am I kidding? There's no good to be revealed by continuing this line of thought. And my hair is a shining silver dammit, not a dead, dull, lifeless gray/corpse white! A nice, soft, glossy, shiney, $400 Edwards haircut worth of silver and conditioners I tell you! Bah!

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T02:47:22Z

It's true Kevin. Just throw her some cyber beads, and she'll show you... Why, does Kevin need help with math? Kevin, I was never a Rhett Butler fan.....I'm more of a Rock Torrey girl.

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T01:50:28Z

"Very cynical!" Not cynical at all. The wimmin folk here aren't afraid of nasty, ol' boomsticks and actually desire the company of men in uniform. Armed, patriotic and prepared. Not your stereotypical cowering metrosexual loving, Alan Alda desiring flighty bimbos as depicted by the MSM. Cynical? Naaaah.... Realistic, if perhaps a bit pie-in-the-sky idealistic. Just call me Rhett.....

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T01:47:50Z

It's true Kevin. Just throw her some cyber beads, and she'll show you... But he's right, Maggie, Kevin looks down on most people. Heh. He even looks like a mountain... fair bit of snow on top.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-09T00:17:12Z

".....supposedly more genteel sex." Very cynical! Regardless, others here will tell you, the Jolly Green Giant couldn't overlook me!

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T23:49:01Z

"Well, I like to think it's hard to overlook me." Posted by Maggie With my stature, it's hard not to overlook most of the supposedly more genteel sex.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T22:54:54Z

Well, I like to think it's hard to overlook me.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T22:20:05Z

Well, he *mentioned* you... trust me, Kevin's had enough gurl trouble in his life he doesn't need to take you on!

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T22:19:52Z

Yu-ain “I agree that Paul has certainly voted his philosophy (except for that pork issue) consistently over his career.” 30 second sound bites don’t explain the ‘pork’ issue and if you truly cared, you could find the explanation on his website. But at least you sorta, kinda, backhandedly admit that he votes in accordance with the Constitution. How is that a bad thing? “The problem I have is that by only voting the perfect he has obstructed the good, which often delivers the bad.” Do you mean, voting in accordance his oath to uphold the law of the land? That pesky, inconvenient document called the Constitution? Either it means what is written or it doesn’t. Don’t cherry pick. If you don’t like it, then amend it or abolish it. The process regarding prohibition and its repeal are but one example. But, either it is, or it isn’t the law of our nation and it is binding. It’s not just what whomever currently residing in DC says it means. Otherwise, the Constitution as our founding document is meaningless and governments at all levels are free to do as they please with us poor ignorant peons. Are we a ‘nation of laws’ or not? “Paul can sit on his moral high horse while the rest of us are marched off to hell and feel superior for it, but then don't expect me to like it.” Lawdy forbid we should have high morals and integrity in the White House, never mind the House of Representatives. Have we as a nation really deteriorated so badly as to have set our standards so pathetically low for the office of the President? As for “being marched off to hell”, well, Dr. Paul is also among the highest rated supporters of the 2nd Amendment…. But, quite frankly, our nation is at a precipice and he is the only candidate I see who would turn us back from the disastrous policies; domestic and foreign, which if uncorrected, will plunge this nation over the edge. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution for a reason, so why is it such a novel concept to actually follow their advisements and expect an elected official to adhere to their oath of office? We deserve and should demand better of our elected officials.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T21:57:28Z

*pouting* Kevin answered Yu-ain and not me! Stomp! Stomp! Stomp! I should be the center of attention! Teasing - I wouldn't engage the rabid McCain Girl either.

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T21:45:00Z

Yu-ain. "Maggie, Paul doesn't think we *caused* it. He (basically) believes that we *deserved* it." Totally inaccurate, I suggest a fact check time. Dr. Paul has repeatedly stated that we did not deserve to be attacked. He also voted to go after and punish those who actually did the dirty deed, that is OBL and his thugs. He voted against the Iraqi ‘War’ v.2 for several reasons, among them that is was/is not an authorized war as required by the Constitution, as well as because the Iraqis did not attack us. Pre-emptive war is not a good precedent to set, as well as being against the advice of the actual authors of the Constitution.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T21:21:49Z

Either way.....I wouldn't let him bye me a drink *wink*

Comment from Yu-ain Gonnano on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T21:13:42Z

Maggie, Paul doesn't think we *caused* it. He (basically) believes that we *deserved* it.

Comment from Yu-ain Gonnano on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T21:08:26Z

I agree that Paul has certainly voted his philosophy (except for that pork issue) consistently over his career. The problem I have is that by only voting the perfect he has obstructed the good, which often delivers the bad. Paul can sit on his moral high horse while the the rest of us are marched off to hell and feel superior for it, but then don't expect me to like it.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T20:58:14Z

Kevin - While Paul has some valid points on certain parts of his platform, his isolationism kills it for me. How is pulling all of out troops back to our borders going to help in a situation like the SOH incident Sunday? What do you drive? I drive a beat-up 12 year old Saturn with 200K plus on it and I just put in 6 gallons of gasoline this morning. Thankfully, I only paid $3.19 per gallon. If there were no American ships on the Gulf ensuring safe passages for oil tankers, what do you think my tab would have been? Yeah, it would be better if we all drove cars that ran on alternative fuels, but if you aren't ready to do that yesterday, and you are not....then you can't leave the Gulf. There are other reasons not to pack up our military bases and come home, but that's one. Next, the fact that Ron Paul believes that we (the USA) *caused* 9/11 on *any* level tells me that he has a problem. It tells me that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the real world works. The first job of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. Having all our military within our borders, is an indefensible position. I have never been in the military. I am a glorified camp follower, but I know that is really bad strategy. Further, anyone who thinks that Iraq and our involvement is what makes your gasoline expensive has been hyp-no-tized by the MSM. The three leading factors in high gas prices are a) reports out of OPEC showing they will not meet their projections in the future, the first harbinger of peak oil b) unrest in Nigeria, someplace we may well have to go and c) weather in the Gulf and instability in Mexico. Things happening in Iraq factor in so far down the line they are laughable. A funnier guy than me (Chris at Military Motivators) put best when he said "It's all about the oil? If all we really wanted was their oil, trust me, we would have already had it." So.....that's a big "No" to Ron Paul. I know he touts his support among the military and I know I don't know a lot of people in the military, but I can't find any military person who supports him. As a matter of fact, I don't know any rational person who backs him with the exception of you, Kevin. And that's only because the Armorer vouches for you. Do you believe our bases in Saudi Arabia caused Bin Laden to attack us and therefore, some of the blame is ours? I watched Ron Paul say that in a debate, I am not putting words in his mouth.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T20:35:01Z

I told ya, there have been some determined attempts to turn me into a Paulista...

Comment from Kevin on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T19:44:16Z

When comparing candidates, I propose a simple litmus test. How do the candidates voting records stack up against the others in accordance with their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution? Actions, not words. Especially those platitudes currently being spoon-fed to prospective voters on the campaign trail. If you are gonna talk the talk, did, or will you walk the walk? That being, is what you say, how you vote? There's only one candidate who can honestly claim he does both and hasn't deviated from his 30+ year message of voting for limited Constitutional government and promoting personal liberty. That would be, Dr. Ron Paul. And, while he didn't approve this message, he has my vote.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T18:37:36Z

McCain by 5 tonight. Obama by 9. Hehehehe! I'm driving my sister crazy. If the incident with the Iranians on Sunday had received the attention it should have, those numbers would be much, much different. The vast majority of Americans do not realize the but for the restraint of the SOPA we would be looking at $5 per gallon gasoline. That would change a few votes.

Comment from KCSteve on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T18:12:06Z

If you have any 'Citi' cards you might want to call up Ms. Rivera-Mantilla and let her know that you'll be cancelling those cards - and letting the bank / merchant involved know it's because of her decision. As far as I can tell none of my cards track back to them, but I'll do some more checking just to be sure.

Comment from AFSister on 2008-01-08

2008-01-08T17:21:47Z

WOW... that Maisy Battery story is INCREDIBLE. 40 acres, 2 years, and an entire battery uncovered. unreal.