Comments Posted By mannning
Displaying 341 To 350 Of 475 Comments
TOP TEN THINGS THAT CREEP ME OUT ABOUT OBAMA
For me, the creepiest things, perhaps echoing part of Moran's ten, are: 1) how he was able to get where he is, baggage and all; and 2) how he can garner such worshipful support from the crowd.
As I posted months ago, he is almost exactly the AntiChrist of the "Left Behind" series, Nicholas Carpathia, in his every act.
When so much emotion FOR a candidate is generated, the rise of the often dangerous AGAINST segment of the population is inevitable.
Comment Posted By mannning On 27.07.2008 @ 19:36
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE <em>FUHRER</em>
sknbt: Unfortunately, those who feel as we do still have the vote, and will surely exercise it in November--against Obama.
Comment Posted By mannning On 28.07.2008 @ 17:08
McCAIN IS TOO OLD TO BE PRESIDENT
Granted we have two gaffers running, one old and the other young. I suggest that many people will take the position that with age comes wisdom, instead of brash, unprepared withdrawal or meeting adventures in foreign fields such as Iraq and Iran.
We have invested our treasures in lives and fortune to see Iraq through to stability, but the job is not done yet. McCain sees this picture clearly as he wrote in the NYP, while Obama only sees the leftist mantra--stop the war!
That McCain needs a strong running mate is true. My hope is that Romney and McCain can come together.
Comment Posted By mannning On 23.07.2008 @ 14:14
THE CONSERVATIVE'S SHAMEFUL DEFENSE OF GRAMM
Why so he did, Busboy! He chopped Americans that whine. And which Americans whine the most? The MSM and liberals, as was verified by Pew surveys, the American National Election Study, and the World Values Survey. Seems that whiners on the left are about twice as numerous as whiners on the right. They are more angry, too, whether they need to be or not. This puts Obama squarely in the whiner camp.
Such whining can only make things even worse. The Chicken Littles are at it yet again, and are also looking for a scapegoat upon whom to vent their anger. Phil Gramm won't do--he is out of it--though he will continue to draw fire.
The next message will be from Obama, claiming that his tax increases will solve all of our problems--just wait and see! He just might add a few tens or hundreds of billions to his tax ideas on the off chance that some of it might trickle down through layers of leftist managers and foundations to the needy. What we need, he will say, is a heavy stimulous from the government(meaning we rich taxpayers that make over $50,000 a year).
There is dumb, and there is dumber--on the voter side as well as the political side.
Comment Posted By mannning On 15.07.2008 @ 13:04
I did not read Gramm's comments in full, but the squib I did see simply said in effect that we are making things far worse through fear than they need to be. There is a ring of truth to that. Not that the downturn is benign, but that it is accelerated further by the fears of many. That is what makes a panic. That is what causes runs on banks that are in fact quite able to survive, but for the instant demand for cash not on hand.
If Gramm mentioned that liberals are the biggest whiners going, he is merely stating a proven fact. That accounts for a goodly percentage of the population. This has been shown to be so by at least one study that I know about.
Put the two things together, add the real difficulties we are in for a host of reasons, and you have a volatile mixture that is self-reinforcing.
If this is the full substance of Gramm's remarks in essence, then this post is one huge maudlin overkill, and, it is also true that neither Gramm's nor Moran's comments are very helpful in this hour of stress.
I said "IF".
Comment Posted By mannning On 14.07.2008 @ 22:26
Will someone patch up my rusty physics? I keep thinking that any signal that we propagate over vast interstellar distances will disperse, downshift in frequency, and gradually fade out to unintelligibility. Probably, this would happen long before any residents of far flung planet systems try to pick the signal up.
Comment Posted By mannning On 13.07.2008 @ 15:38
We have been surprised at the start of just about every conflict in the last 100 years by the technology and the products of our enemies.
We had to buy fighters from France in WWI because we didn't have anything near as good. We were surprised in WWII by all manner of innovation by Germany, and even by the UK. In Korea, we were very surprised by the Mig-15s capabilities. In Nam, we were not really ready for the type of battles we were in, which carried over to Iraq in many ways.In these cases, we had the time to react with our production capabilities, but not without real pain in battle until we had better weapons. We did not have a decent tank till about the end of WWII. The Sherman was literally cannon-fodder.
If we are not to dismantle our military and industrial capabilities, there must be many programs for them to work on, many men recruited and trained, and many really fine weapons developed, tested and fielded, in my opinion. That is the price we must pay.
Comment Posted By mannning On 7.07.2008 @ 20:49
Your points seem true for now, but I was carefully projecting out ten or more years, where enough time has elapsed for our potential enemies to field new rounds of weapons equal to or superior to what we currently rely upon. They have the revenues now, and the will.
I am quite aware of the state of our forces versus current threats, but I do not have direct insight into what Russia or China might field in 10, 15, or 20 years. They are capable of building top-level weapons systems in such a period of time, I believe, especially if they acquire our technology, plans and data via a vigorous spy campaign, as they have done in the past.
Further, with the democrats in power, I would not be surprised to see our forces drawn down and not renewed as they should be, thus leaving us with a sham for an armed forces by comparison in the out years. Clintonism again, or Obamaism.
The real point is, we need both kinds of capabilities to be worked upon and ready for production and deployment in the fairly near future. We should choose wisely, of course, but this does not mean gutting the F-22, new fighting vehicles, The Virginia class subs, etc. We are replacing carriers to maintain a modern force at a slow pace, and the navy has invested in the super hornet to go with the carriers. among other things...
We seem to be aware that we need updated tankers! A pity it had to be influenced away from Boeing--so far.
Comment Posted By mannning On 7.07.2008 @ 20:25
It seems that many generals tend to fight the last war they were in, or the war they are in right now. Few seem to be able to project the types of warfare we will be drawn into in the future, as is clearly illustrated by the many deficiencies we have had in the Iraq/
Afghanistan conflicts.So what can be concluded about our weapon and C4I developments? That obviously depends heavily on the possible conflicts we may face, and in what timeframe. We have fought several classes of warfare since WWII, including insurgencies and large-scale land engagements.
In the near term, it appears that insurgencies, or minor land engagements leading to insurgencies are the main threat. This leads to the need for trained manpower, small-scale weapons, transport, power projection, and good C4I capabilities.
However, in the intermediate and long term, say ten years out and longer, we may well be faced with major conflicts with our usual cold war enemies--Russia and China--singly or in concert. Both appear to be rearming with upgraded weapons systems of all types at a rapid pace, in conjunction with their growing economic power.
They are also equipping their client nations with some first-line weapons systems, notably aircraft. Their manpower pool is certainly significant. So is their nuclear capability, which negates our nuclear advantage.
It seems to me that this argues for continued development of major weapons systems at a well-planned pace in order to: 1)stay competitive in the armament field; and 2)to be able to ramp up production of superior weapons in the event of need downstream. We also need to maintain the volunteer army at an increased level and maintain ready reserves as well.
Since major weapons of the F-22, F-35, Virginia Class Subs, Carriers, and fighting vehicles require many years to conceive, develop, test, and field, the time to start is yesterday, as we have indeed been doing.
At the moment we are using weapons systems that in some cases are much older than the men manning them (B-52Hs and F-15s, for example), and one can argue that the useful life of such equipment is running out quickly, in particular when compared to newer items being fielded by our potential enemies.
We should not complacently be dismantling our weapons industries for a short-term "peace dividend" either. We are still suffering from the Clinton reductions on force that Bush only belatedly began to reverse.
Are we heading in the Clinton head-in-sand direction once more? What does military history tell us about being prepared?
Comment Posted By mannning On 7.07.2008 @ 13:28
I wonder why Reynolds picked 1968? Many, if not most of the conservative ideas date back to perhaps 100 BC (for you youngsters, that means Before Christ). That these ideas have survived over 2 thousand years attests to their enduring strength and relevance.
It is the liberal democrat that wishes to push hedonism, relativism, and the rest of their "do what feels good" agenda, abortion, and on and on...to the detrement of our society. They should be ashamed to claim 50 million baby killings as one of their "legacies".
Talking about tired ideas, holding up secularism as a positive position merely tags one as missing the better part of the spiritual, religious experience in life, and shows one to be a deadender.
(See comment #1 for a more complete list of liberal nonsense--the second item per line)
Comment Posted By mannning On 6.07.2008 @ 12:10
