Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 397 Comments
IF REAGAN TOLERATED MODERATES, WHY CAN'T TODAY'S CONSERVATIVES?
Another way to put this is why can't today's moderates tolerate conservatives. As the leaders of the Republican party, the Moderates should try to find a way to work constructively with conservatives.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 5.05.2009 @ 07:59
INDEFENSIBLE: OBAMA FAILS HIS FIRST BIG TEST
I think we should set up a tribunal of some sort to try all American actions in South and Central America. Anyone who feels they have a claim against America can register a complaint and the cases can be tried individually on a case by case basis. Also, the Americans can bring cases against folks from South and Central Aemrica who have wronged it. I could turn out that most if not all of American actions within the region are/were fully justified. Perhaps not. In any even, it seems unlikely that these things happen in a vacum.
The main problems I see with the tribunal approach is two fold. 1.) Its hard to imagine a scenario where Aemrica or its government can get a fair trial. As it stands right now, this court would simply be a kangaroo court designed to try and convict the American government or its officials. 2.) If the court finds that the United States owes reparations to one or more Central or South American countries the Americans would have no choice but to live up to these obligations even if they wanted to not live up to them. Media scrutiny on the United States and its government is always intense. As such, the United States would have no choice but honor the terms decided by the court. Countires in South and Central Aemrica do not face the kind of scrutiny that the United States faces. As such, it is unlikely there would be any mechanism in place to ensure their compliance with any obligations the court may impose on them.
Until these issues are addressed, I would find it impossible to support the tribunal approach. As soon as a way is found to ensure the United States gets a fair trial and to ensure compliance of South and Central American countries with any findings by the tribunal, I think we can go ahead with this approach and justice for all can finally be achieved.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 21.04.2009 @ 19:41
OBAMA'S AFPAK PLAN JUST ABOUT RIGHT
Busboy33,
It is my understanding that there are two types of nuclear war heads. There are those that rely on atomic fission and those that rely on fusion. As I understand it, the fusion bombs are the hydrogen bombs. The ones that rely on fusion have a useful life of about 15 years or so. The ones that rely on fission will last much longer. After the Cold War the United States got rid of most of its fission bombs. The primary ones it has left are the fusion bombs. In contrast, the Russians kept most of their fission bombs. The United States government has shown no interest that I'm aware of in either upgrading the nuclear arsenal or in replacing the fusion materials in the current arsenal. In contrast, the Russians, the Chinese, and others have been busily modernizing their arsenals as well as the means of delivery.
The reason for the large stockpiles during the Cold War is because both the United States and Russia utilized hardened facilities. Large arsenals were needed to be able to ensure all of these targets were eliminated.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.03.2009 @ 19:43
busboy33,
You asked a serious question. I'll give you a serious answer. Nuclear weapons have a limited life. Ours have not been upgraded in a long time. We don't even have the manufacturing facilities for new ones right now. Not only have they not been upgraded in quite a while. The weapons and their delivery systems have not been tested in quite a while. In contrast, the Russians, the Chinese, and even the Pakistanis have been busily modernizing and upgrading their nuclear arsenals in recent years. Given these factors, there is much doubt as to whether these weapons will work should we need them.
Upgrading the nuclear arsenal will be an expensive undertaking. With economy deeply struggling right now and a massive national debt I'm not sure we can even afford to do this right now. The bottom line is the United States is largely finished as a major world power right now. It lacks the technology, the finanical wherewtihal, and the training to compete with the dominant powers on earth right now of Russia and China.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.03.2009 @ 14:53
I did not include number 8. This would be to upgrade and expand the nuclear arsenal. We may not have the resources to do this right now but it is vital to the long range interests of the United States.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 28.03.2009 @ 16:00
The strategy may be a good one, however, I don't think we have the resources to implement a viable military strategy there or anywhere else in the world for that matter right now. The United States military is worn down almost to the breaking point, the economy is deeply struggling, and the national debt is massive. The massive national debt was a huge problem even before the Obama administration and his allies in Congress piled on even more debt. In other words, even before the new debt added by the Obama Administration the nation lacked the resources to implement a viable military strategy for Afghanistan or any where in the world for that matter.
Given the above issues, the United States does not have the man power, the financial resources, or the equipment to fight effectively in Afghanistan right now. Maybe our brave troops and brilliant generals can pull off the impossible again, as they seem to have done in Iraq, however, I would not bet the survival of the United States on such miracles repeating themselves.
Our best option and perhaps the only one with a realistic shot at success would be to do the following: 1.)Immediately pull all troops and advisors out of Iraq and Afghanistan. 2.)Secure the Northern and Southern borders. 3.) Place a moratorium on immigration from Islamic countries for an indefinite period of time. 4.) Place a moratorium on immigration from all countries for a minimum of ten years or until we can fix our immigration system. The ten year moratorium will give those immigrants already here a chance to properly assimilate into America. 5.)Closely monitor the mosques. 6.)Develop all of our domestic oil and gas resources. 7.)Build more refineries.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 28.03.2009 @ 15:57
I WILL MISS THE LEFT'S BUSH DERANGEMENT
I would not get to depressed. The incoming president faces huge problems. 1.) The economy is struggling badly. 2.)The national debt is massive. 3.)The military is worn down from continued deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorism. Because of 1 and 2 it is going to be impossible to implement many of the social programs that Mr. Obama and his team wish to implement.
This will lead to much frustration on the part of the Aemrican people. Whether it is deserved or not does not change the fact that much of the electorate hates Preeident Bush. Given the fact that so many people hate President Bush, I think it is very likely that President Bush and Dick Cheney will be tried for various crimes and will likely spend the rest of their lives in jail. This will give the left and opportunity to vent some of their frustration at being unable to get much of their agenda passed. Also, the American people are extremely frustrated. By sending a wildly unpopular President and his even more unpopular Vice President to prison for life, the left can redirect some of the frustration of the American people away from them and toward a common enemy.
Did Bush or members of his staff do any thing worthy of prison time? It does not really matter. The people dispise him and his political enemies control the Government. Bush Derangement Syndrone is not over. It is just getting started. It will come to full fruition when the trials start and it will culminate with President Bush and Dick Cheney spending the rest of their lives in prison.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 19.01.2009 @ 13:57
The main issue of the thread is that Bobby Jindal is not the answer. I meant to address that in the previous post but forgot to do so. Maybe he is. Maybe he is not. It is to early to tell. The next presidential elections are four years from now. All candidates including Mr. Jindal should be thoroughly examined. It is premature at this point to make judgements as to whether he or any one else will be good for the party's prospects in the next election cycle.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.12.2008 @ 11:03
I agree that we should not pollute. All reasonable people will agree to that. This is not the issue. The issue is are the actions of humans causing the global tempature to rise? I don't know. If so, maybe we really do need to destroy our economy and place our national security in even graver peril than it already is. It does seem clear that if the problem really is as big as the alarmists would have us believe that American actions along will not solve the problem. China, Russia, and other major powers will have to be on board. Right now they aren't and with the global economy struggling, for better or worse, alot of people including leaders of nations are saying "to hel! with global warming, our economy and our people are hurting."
Realizng that our obession with global warming is hurting our economy and our national security interests is not short sighted at all. It the government's primary duty to work for the defense of the nation and to try and ensure that the country is not placed at a competitive disadvantage. Our obsession with global warming has badly hurt our national security and it has placed American business interests at a competitive disadvantage. It is only prudent to recognize this.
I propose the following: 1.)Secure the borders. 2.) Place a moratorium on immigration from Muslim lands. This moratorium may need to be extended to all immigration until we can fix our immigration system. 3.)Develop all of our own oil and gas reserves. 4.)Build more refineries. 5.) Maintain our nuclear detterence. This will mean expanding and upgrading the nuclear arsenal. With a resurgent Russia and expansionist China this of paramount importance. Doing these five things will give us greater marginal utility for our national security interests than invading Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other middle eastern country ever could have or ever would have.
While doing this we should continue to study global climate changes. If it turns out that humans are a major factor, we can make changes but before we destroy our economy and place our national security in an even graver position than it already is we need to be absolutely certain. Simply declaring the "debate over" arbitrarily and sliming skeptics of human caused global warming does not cut it.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.12.2008 @ 10:55
It does seem clear that species do adapt and change genetically over time, however, do we get new species from spontaneous genetic mutations. Maybe or maybe not.
I think it does seem clear that the earth is over 6,000 years old. That has pretty much been refuted along with the flat earth theory. I don't think it is relevant to a discussion of ID. Intellegent Design may or may not refer to the God of the Christian Bible, Allah, or any other one of the other religons.
I'm not sure when the marketplace rejected the the theory of ID. It's not been given a fair debate. I'm not aware that anyone is using force of law to get this discussed, however, force of law does seem to be being used to squelch debate. Maybe ID is right. Maybe its wrong. I think it should be properly debated. We debate any number of strange things. There is no reason for any one to fear ID or to be uncomfortable discussing it.
The beginning of wisdom is to admit that one does not know. I don't know all of the answers. It seems unwise not to explore all possibilities.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.12.2008 @ 10:01
