Comments Posted By KenGirard
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 32 Comments
COULD WE WIN IF WE HAD TO FIGHT WORLD WAR II TODAY?
I think that if you gave us a stright forward, black-n-white enemy as we had in WWII, America would rise to the occasion. But that was the last war in which we did.
Cold War? If we have completly won this, then why do we still have so many troops in Europe?
Korea? We are still fighting it, or else how can you explain the troops we have there? It is just a long term truce.
Vietnam? We were there why?
Iraq 1991? We went, we kicked ass...but even if we had sat at home they would not have been a threat to us. Why did we go? To show that nobody puts Baby in the corner. We told them to jump and they said no.
Afganistan? We justifiablely went and took out their goverment... and then discoverd that they are so disorginized there is no one to hand it back to. But even if we had done nothing there was no chance they could have ever taken over the US. I think if we had not wasted all of our time and energy on Iraq we could have really made this something to be proud of.
Iraq 2003? The US population was lied to, and knows it. There is less reason to have had this war then any other the US has ever been involved in.
Mexican War? Spanish American War? Either of those two unnecessary wars ring a bell? Especially the S-A war where the USS Maine probably blew up herself because of defective boiler.
ed.
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 20.11.2009 @ 14:44
'V' FOR VILLIFICATION: LIBERAL PARADISE, OBAMA NIGHTMARE?
And here I thought it was a parody of Columbus when he first ran into the American Indians.
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 6.11.2009 @ 14:49
"Umm... Hi there Mr. Indian! We come in peace. Got a lot of great stuff to offer you. Check out these glass beads. Our doctors can cure you of some of the things that make you sick, and we got this nifty religion you are going to love! Say, you mind if we set up a little town over here? Might bring a couple of more of our folks over in a bit. Don't worry, we will not be any problem at all."
WAR ON FOX OR BUSINESS AS USUAL?
Every time I talk to Bill he waits till I am out of the room and then calls me bad names and then tells people partial truths and outright lies about some things I have said and done. I am going to make sure that people know I do not trust Bill, and call him out in public on his actions. Does this make me an idiot?
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 26.10.2009 @ 13:32
BUCHANAN AND HIS 'WHITE MAN'S LAMENT'
"take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on – then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship."
Does it change any that not that long ago it would have said:
"take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on – then carry Irish/Italian/Dutch flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship."?I have a co-worker whose desk is a shrine to his Irish heritage, and he can't stand 'foreigners' coming to this country and taking jobs from hard working Americans...
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 21.10.2009 @ 15:32
SHOULD THE PRESIDENT DECLINE THE PEACE PRIZE?
obamathered: You mean the 4 page thing the GOP showed the world in June? http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
That is about the equivalent of saying that the plan for D-Day was "Get'em!".
Um...no. He meant this 248 page bill introduced in May: "The Patients Choice Act"
http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/
The CBO said it would have insured more people who currently don't have coverage after a decade then the House plan. It proposed insurance pools at the state level to take care of those with pre-existing conditions. It granted tax credits (not big enough for families) for individuals an families to buy insurance. It took down barriers so insurance could be sold across state lines. It eliminated mandated comprehensive coverage so that the "young invincibles" could choose to buy catastrophic insurance only. It reformed Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals pretty much the way the Democrats want to. It called for significant tort reform. It accomplished everything the Democrats want to ram down our throats at half the cost and was revenue neutral.
Yes, there are flaws in it - not near enough a tax credit for families. Questionable Medicaid policy that I think would allow too many poor people to fall through the cracks. But it would have eventually gotten employers out of the business of giving their employees insurance, significantly reformed Medicare (although more savings would need to be realized), been much more patient friendly, and done all of this without creating 53 new boards, panels, and agencies.
Go suck an egg.
ed.
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 9.10.2009 @ 15:28
jackson1234: If what you are saying is true, then where are the "real" politicians' answers to what you claim are the obvious mistakes Obama is making? I don't mean the folks screaming "You are wrong!", I mean people with detailed plans that, if the choice had been theirs, would have solved the problem?
Has McCain pointed out and given detailed instructions on what we really should have done to reverse the recession?
Does Palin have a 200+ page explanation of how to get GM & Chrysler back to being fully fuctioning with out any government funding?
Where is the Conservative health care plan that all the experts look at and say "Oh, of course! It is so obvious that this is what we need to do".
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 9.10.2009 @ 14:12
WHERE ARE ALL THE 'GOOD GOVERNMENT' LIBERALS?
@Travis Monitor (#21) So by your thinking if the competition is down to the top four, the President should not do anything unless it is already guarantee that the US is getting the contract.
That is kind of like saying that unless you know for a fact that you are bringing home Super Bowl rings, then you shouldn't put your best quaterback on the field. Don't want to risk his getting hurt or anything, you know.
As to no one on the Right going: Does this mean that none of them care enough about America to go and try and get the countless jobs that this would have spurred? To try and get the money that would have poured in from the rest of the world? Why didn't they try to do something? Or are you trying to suggest there was some vast conspiricy that stopped them from going?
Do you think that maybe the fact that we are in the midst of two wars, and constantly worrying about terrorist attacks, might have had a little to do with it? That Brazil was not impacted as hard by the recession, and looks like it is already starting to come out of it, meaning that they have the money to spend on building stuff, might also have had a small bit of influence on the subject.
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 5.10.2009 @ 13:21
<em>SEVEN DAYS IN MAY</em> MEETS <em>COME NINIVEH COME TYRE</em>
Every time I hear someone babbling about Obama raising up to take power/guns/round up the right wingers/whatever, I always wonder if these folks really think that the mostly conservative and evengelical military is just going to say "Sure, no problem. We will get right on that" (When I mentioned this to one wacko he suggested that it was fear of the military that was behind Obama sending more troops to Afganistan & Iraq. I was half expecting for him to say that the wars were started by Obama for just that reason).
I don't think that the military wants to take over the country, nor do I think they would allow anyone to take over the country.
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 30.09.2009 @ 13:24
IS 'THE END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT' REALLY SO BAD?
Does not every generation say something like "Not like back when I was a kid"? America is constantly ending and beginning. The way we do things today is not the same as they were done 200, 100, 50, 20, or even 10 years ago. Nor will we be the same country we are today 10 years from now. We must continue to grow and change to match the new world that we find ourselves in.
Part of that change is realizing that what worked in a world mostly populated by farmers with animal drawn wagons, where 90% of the population never got more then 25 miles from their birth place, where news from other countries (or even other states) was weeks old when you first heard it, might not still be the best way of doing something.
@Charles - Which programs would you like to cut: The military, education, roads, something else? Would not these same programs then have to be picked up by either local government or private sector? Personally, I'd like to avoid going back to the days were the fire department would let your house burn down if you were not a paid up subscriber of their service.
@Door Hold - In what way is Obama stopping those who doesn't agree with him from speaking? Are they rounding up Birthers, or folks who call him a Nazi or Racist, and I am just kind of missing it? At the same time is someone taking the guns from "A well regulated Militia"?
@Jimi - Personally, there is a part of me that likes the idea of a person who is willing to sacrifice everything they have in the hopes that it will create a better world for their children to grow up in. And, if as you seem to think, the democrats wind up out of power in the next 4 years, then can the next people in charge not shut the programs down? Or is health care reform some kind of perpetual motion machine we have to destroy the world to stop?
@ken.mcloud - So you think that a literal translation of the Consitution is the only thing that works, even though all of the lawyers can't seem to agree on exactly what each part of it means. For example "bear arms" - Back when it was written anyone with money could equip themselves with weapons matching or even surpassing those that the government had. So, should this still apply? Should I, a citizen, be allowed to own a .50 BMG, 155mm howitzer, battleship, atomic bomb, if I have the money to buy or build it? If not then please explain why not.
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 25.08.2009 @ 16:10
THE PUBLIC OPTION: NOT A SLIPPERY SLOPE -- JUST PLAIN LIES
It looks to me like what we are going to get is a compromise between one side desiring a 300+mph 1/4 mile dragster, and the other side desiring an off road pickup that can tow 35,000lbs.
Neither side is going to be happy, it will not be a world class system, but still each side can point at the other side and say it is their fault that the damn thing doesn't do everything everyone wants it to do.
How about a real compromise: A 100% for-profit system for everyone who wants that, and a public option for those who want that, and a piece of paper to sign that says the rest of don't have to cover any medical expenses for those who decide that they don't want any medical insurance. Let Joe Sixpack and Suzy Soccormom pick what works for them.
Comment Posted By KenGirard On 19.08.2009 @ 14:16
