Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 51 To 60 Of 397 Comments
THE ROLE OF RACE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT
I don't think racisim is much a factor at all. It is perhaps .0000000000000000000001% of the opposition. In fact, I see very little hatred of Obama at all. Sure some are opposed to his policies because they don't think they will work but hatred of the President at least from Conservatives is virtually non existent.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 20.08.2009 @ 13:08
You're correct. This did get a large amount of coverage on the news. Sarah Palin was and is but one voice in this debate. A number of people expressed concern over this issue. Palin's statements are but one small part of this. I agree with yuo that this is an opportunity lost. This bill can be stopped on its bad merits without resorting to the kind of rhetoric that Ms. Palin engaged in.
My point was and is that she did not play more than a nominal role in this. When we attribute more power to someone than they actually have it makes them much easier to vilify.
A great deal of what you have written about the flaws in her policies I can agree with. We have to understand that she is but one politician, actually a retired one right now. About the only thing the leaders of the Republican party and the Democrats agree on right now is they don't like Sarah Palin. As such, she has virtually zero chance of getting the Republican nomination for President.
She has a small but devoted following within "Conservative" circles. Her followers are small in number and largely disorganized. I simply see no way that she could have influenced the debate to the level that you give her credit for.
To sum this up, the end of life consultation provision probably would have been scrapped even if Sarah Palin stayed in Alaska and said nothing on this issue. There were simply too many people expressing concerns about it. Did she contribute to the scapping of this provision? Possibly, in some small way, when a number of people express dismay over what a politician is doing it sometimes gets their attention. I think this is what happened here. In my opinion, atttributing influence to Ms. Palin that she does not have obscures the issue.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 14.08.2009 @ 10:49
If this provision got scrapped, it was not because of Sarah Palin. She is but one voice without any real power over Republican policies. Her enemies tend to attribute more power to her than she actually has. If we attribute more power and influence to someone than they actually have, it makes them much easier to vilify.
I disagree. This thing got absolute saturation coverage on the cable nets. It even appeared as an item on those celebrity gossip shows like Inside Edition.
Opportunity lost in my opinion.
ed.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 14.08.2009 @ 10:26
WHAT'S THE RUSH TO MARS, BUZZ? IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S GOING ANYWHERE
I meant to write it is clear humans will go to Mars by 2030 rather than the moon. I was referring to Mars not the moon.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.07.2009 @ 19:33
Someone will be going to Mars by 2030. it might as well be us, however, I think it is more likely to be the Russians or the Chinese who will get there by then. Both of those countries have the technological capabilities and the financial resources to be capable of doing it. unfortunately we have neither right now.
We could turn to the private sector to try and close the huge gap the Russians and the Chinese have over us with regards to planning and executing a Mars mission. As I understand it, this is being done to try and find a replacement for the Shuttle before 2015. Maybe we could extend the life of the Shuttle some how. I shutter at the thought of what the Russians will demand in compensation to transport our people into space. hopefully it won't come to that.
Private sector solutions to the Shuttle issue or Mars issues will work best IF the government will stay out of the way. At this time, I'm not optimistic that this government can resist the urge to meddle.
It is clear humans will go to the moon by no later than 2030. a permanent human presence will likely be established by 2035, at the latest. While I certainly would like for us to get there first, it probably won't be us. We don't have the technological capabilities or the financial ability to do it right now. Both the Russians and the Chinese do. If I were going to bet on which country will get there first, the smart money would be on the Russians.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.07.2009 @ 19:29
PROSECUTING TORTURE AS A DISTRACTION FROM THE ECONOMY
I would have no problem with a full investigation that might lead to prosecution of Bush Administration officials, as long as national security secrets are not disclosed and we can ensure that President Bush and members of his administration get a fair trial. Frankly at this time I don't think it is likely they can get a fair trial. Also, we would have to ensure that this is a serious investigation and not a witch hunt.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.07.2009 @ 20:42
MORE ON THE HONDURAN 'MILITARY IMPEACHMENT'
Russia and China have not disarmed and they don't necessarily do what the UN says on any given matter and yet most of the world pretty much likes them. I don't see why it would be necessary for America to completely disarm for the world to like us more.
As for the situation in Honduras while it is deplorable for any one to be supporting a Chavez stooge and the actions of the government seem to be quite correct in ousting Zeyala, the best approach for the American government would have been to completely stay out of this. In other words, don't condemn the actions of the government nor praise it. There is precious little we can do any way.
As to sending in the Marines to restore Zeyala, why should we? Even if we wanted to our military is stretched thin right now and it is worn down from continuing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in Global War on Terrorism. Hugo Chavez certainly has the means to send in forces to restore his man if he wants to. His country is also closer making it easier logisitically. Why should we do it when he is in a bettr position to actually do so.
As to withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, this sounds like an excellent idea. Withdraw these troops to defensible positions along the US borders and develop more of our own oil and natural gas reserves. These actions will give us greater marginal utility for our national defense needs than having troops in Iraq or Afghanistan likely ever could.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.06.2009 @ 08:58
I would hope that the US has spies deep within the major factions within the Iranian Government who can give Aemrican decision makers a good idea at what is going on here, however, I'm not opptimisitic. Given the massive failures by Aemrican Intellegence on Iraq, its hard to put much faith in any thing Aemrican intellegence might say with regards to Iran. If I were Mr. Obama or a major American decision maker, I would treat every thing from our intellegence services with skeptiscim. Surely the Israelis have good intellegence on Iran. Maybe they will share it with us.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.06.2009 @ 21:17
A PREVIEW OF OBAMA'S TRIP TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND EUROPE
"...especially after the Netanyahu government is seen as destroying US-Israeli relations over the settlements and falls as are result." It really isn't America's business to be meddling in the Arab-Israeli conflict with regards to the "settlements." It is definitely not in America's interests to work to topple that government either. If the US worked to topple an Arab government through covert means or even overt means, the American and world media would howl with rage over the actions the "imperial" United States government. Our best bet is to stay out of this issue all together. Issues like this are none of our business.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 2.06.2009 @ 22:23
General Petreaus apparently believes that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will weaken Aemrican adversaries and improve American security. I have to say I'm a bit skeptical of this line of reasoning, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is but one small part of the equation and it is unrelated to the situations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and elsewhere.
Also, America's chief adversaries or potential adversaries are Russia and China. Resolving the Israeli=Palestinian conflict does nothing to address the threats posed by these two countries and their allies.
With that said perhaps the good General might be correct IF a settlement leads to a stronger Israel. If the settlement leads to a weaker Israel, then Aemrica's adversaries will be strengthened and America's security situation will be much more precarious than it already is. Israel acts as a very important buffer between America and ots Middle Eastern adversaries. Any settlement that weakens Israel would weaken this buffer and would make it much more costly and difficult to defend America.
Unfortunately the current "peace plans" being considered would very likely result in a weaker Israel. As such, these are not plans that a supporter of America or Israel should support. For any peace plan to work, Hamas would have to be destroyed or at least neutralized. The same things applies to Fatah as well. It needs to be destroyed or at least neutralized as well.
While I can certainly get behind the notin that Mr. Reynolds proposes if you mess with us you get your cities burned down, this may not be a viable option for the early 21st century. At no time since the end of WWII has America been weaker relative to its enemies and potential enemies than it is now. In other words, many of them are fully capable of burning our cities down as well. Also due to the declining economic situation and the massive national debt that was started under President Bush and has continued unabated under President Obama, the United States will likely have to make steep budget cuts in future years. The first programs to be cut are likely those pertaining to national defense and intellegence gathering.
As such, the American military is likely to be only a shell of what it is now within the next five years. This comes at a time when potential adversaries are making major upgrades to their militaries. Given this situation we may not have a viable military action to deal with some adversaries in the coming years.
Our best option would be to: 1.)withdraw all men and military equipment from the middle east as soon as they can be withdraw, 2.)these forces should be redeployed to the borders, 3.)open up all domestic oil and gas sources for extraction, 4.)build more refineries, 5.)cloesly monitor the mosques, and 6.)place a moratorium on all immigration for a minimum of ten years. This moratorium would be indefinite for immigration from Islamic countries. Some type of Visa for foreign workers might be acceptabel but they would need to be closely monitored. I think other countries do this. Doing this would have greater utility for our national security interests than burning anyone's cities down would and it would give us some space to develop the so called "green" alternatives for our energy needs that are all the rage these days.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 2.06.2009 @ 17:51
