A Time For Change

change2Folks, it has come time to change some things here at SUFA.  After much thought, I believe it’s time for my term as administrator  of this site needs to change, a self imposed term limit basically.  It’s only fair that I announce this with all due respect to everyone who reads and posts here.  For the most part, it’s a great site for people to chat about the many issues in our world.  My views, which may be extreme at times,  don’t seem to be welcome much for too many folks, so it’s best that I move on in life and become just a simple reader and occasional poster, as I was in the past.    It’s been fun, but at times it’s also quite frustrating, but, that’s life.  Life isn’t always easy, especially when you have no control over the vast majority if things that surround us.   This however, is something I can control and I have decided to leave the responsibility on keeping SUFA running efficiently to someone willing to take the reigns over.  I will help anyone who volunteers for these duties as much as my knowledge will allow.   With that said, this will be my last article posted as the current Administrator, I would hope that someone will step up and fill the void and keep this site running.  I will continue to chime in on occasions, but life dictates that it cannot be at the same levels I have been able to do in the past.  God Bless All Of You!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    😎

  2. Gman thanks for all your efforts.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thanks T-Ray. you have my utmost respect as an American, keep fighting the good fight!

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Don’t expect sites like this to be around much linger, Big Brother is starting to censure free speech on the net. PROOF: http://www.prisonplanet.com/youtube-censors-major-anti-obama-channel.html

  4. Judy Sabatini says:

    Shows you how much people pay attention to what they’re signing or what the guy is even saying. It’s getting to that point though, you say anything against Obama, & you’re in the dog house. Heck, look at what happened to some of the generals who spoke against him & didn’t agree with him about a lot of things, they got fired for it.But, then, it’s getting to the point, you can’t say anything about anybody or anything without getting in trouble for it, of someone getting offended by it.

  5. Gman, thought I would rub it in a little. Just planted corn and beans. Onions and garlic are up. Planted lettuce, carrots and broccoli last week. Holding off on irrigation since it is supposed to rain this week. Also have cucumbers, cantaloupe, peppers and tomatoes started on the deck.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      No rubbing needed, glad your beginning to see some progress. We likely won’t plant before mid May or early June, depending on the weather. I may get the potatoes, carrots and onions in early, but time will tell. Everything here is about the last frost. We have more snow coming tomorrow night, then a warm up at end of week. Hopefully I can prep the garden once in April. Still recovering from foot surgery, so time will tell on that too, but it’s going very well at this point 😉

      • I have two problems. One will I have enough water this summer and two can I keep the deer away. The deer usually are not a big problem until things start to dry up which may be early this year. So over the next couple of weeks I need to plant some tall fence posts and repair and raise my fence. Lead poisoning is not a option. Also should note my plus cherries, and peaches have bloomed, still waiting for the apples and pears.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          A few deer solutions that may help. Walmart sells a spray that may keep deer away. They also sell those little night light things for 97 cents. Put one at both sides of poles, looks like eyes of a critter to animals. Works great in keeping the chickens safe.

        • One other thing that works…..go by your local barber shop. See if they will let you collect human hair trimmings for about a week. Spread that around the perimeter of your garden….works great on skunks and armadillos as well….keeps coyotes away from your pets. Does not work well for foxes and chickens however,,,,,,,keeps the foxes at bay but chickens do not like it either.

  6. For those that are interested, http://www.sepp.org
    The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) puts out a weekly news letter called TWTW “The Week that Was”. It reviews the literature of the week on climate change and points out all of fallacies.
    .

    • Charlie….no argument here…..Washington handouts, no matter whom are a huge problem. The big boy insurance companies are next. Too big to fail, you know.

      • Good point over the weekend on C-Span. We, the conservative/ libertarian types, should completely stop using the term CAPITALISM. I’ve been feeling this myself for sometime now but have been unable to pinpoint the why. The reality is that capitalism today, as practiced is crony capitalism. Regardless of which party is in power, the deals cut and deals made are for the benefit of the capitalists. Do they care about us, do they care about conservatism no, they do not. They care about themselves only. This in a way reaffirms my old respect for TR. Reading his biographies paints him as a progressive but one far different from his successor. TR saw crony capitalism and struck at it. At the end of his life, during the Bull Moose period, he went over the top but that takes away nothing from his complaints about big business nor his demands for non-hyphenated “Americanism”.

        The nice young fellow delivering the speech, a black conservative no less, made the point that we are about free enterprise, small business and individual initiative. There is no sense in supporting a system which is inimical to freedom and stifles competition. Told you guys for a long tome. Charlie, Matt and Buck that what we are dealing with today is Fascism. Total collusion between big business and the government, any government.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A closer look at your “source” Charlie:

      Americans Against The Tea Party

      “About Us

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

      Questions can be emailed to the administrators at: aattp.noteaparty@gmail.com

      AATTP opposes the Tea Party/GOP ideology and politics, and we fight to expose them and defeat them at ballot boxes everywhere, and in the market-place of ideas. We support freedom and equal rights for all Americans. We support income equality and closing the gap between ultra-rich and poor. We believe that a strong vibrant middle-class is essential to a thriving economy. We believe in a strong social safety net, and oppose any cuts to social programs, or education – but rather, we wish to see them expanded and funded fully – BEFORE tax cuts are given to the wealthy and corporations.

      We reject the idea of Trickle-Down and Austrian economics. We want all tax breaks for the ultra-rich to expire. We demand corporations pay their taxes and we want all government subsidies to corporations raking in record profits to stop. Corporations are not people. We want money out of politics. We believe that diplomacy is the first step toward peace, and we support a pragmatic, and even-handed foreign policy. War is the last resort. We believe the American People should come first, in terms of policy and legislation: especially the young, elderly, weak, sick, vulnerable, marginalized, and exploited.

      If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” -John F. Kennedy

      Mission

      The hatred, division, virulent, unpredictable anger, violent threats and posturing by the Tea-Baggers present a real danger to the lives of President Obama, his family, his administration, Congressional Democrats and liberals and progressives of all stripes. Americans Against The Tea Party is a group committed to exposing the Tea Party’s lies, violence, racism, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and corporatist-fascist efforts to subvert our democratic process – and organizing together to defeat Tea Party/GOP candidates on the ballot everywhere. We support the Occupy movement. WE ARE THE 99%. WE ARE AATTP!”

      This last paragraph is priceless. Their site is filled with hatred and vitriol. While they claim to support freedom for all and stand against the “hatred” of the Tea Party.

      I have to say that they do appear consistent with your views and style.

  7. To those of you whom favor the US pulling back its horns…remember what goes with that. China just devalued its currency again, creating surplus’….which in turn devalues our dollar. When our dollar was strong, currency devaluations, while troublesome, were not drastic. Now they will be. The US has become so dependent upon foreign trade (ie. China, Taiwan)…that devaluations now create hardships on the US economy. Now what China does is create surplus items….overseas trade becomes stagnant and imports become plentiful. Jobs are lost in the US and investment leaves our shores for China, et al. If you are going to drop hegemony as an option, the consequence is that you also must have a strong currency. That is the arrow in your quiver.

    Since our defense industry drives the major portion of our economy, and you slash defense industry items….you are slashing jobs, pension plans, savings accounts and the middle and poor class. You will send those jobs overseas. This administration has killed the coal industry, the manufacturing industry, and now the defense industry ( although manufacturing was leaving before Obama ). When you allow trade imbalances, you invite jobs to leave this country.

    When you create massive give away programs….you create disincentive. Obamacare is killing this nation’s incentive. When you create debt, create greater spending, and have no income…you weaken the dollar. You cannot borrow your way to prosperity. It has proven over and over again…….debt destroys and it creates investment disincentives. The whole premise of Obamacare was to provide health services to everyone….that has been the greatest lie ever invented. There are now over 200 exemptions to this law, missed deadlines and push backs….that it is ineffective. Obamacare puts the control in the hands of the ones that everyone was against….and that is the large insurance companies. Since the inception of Obamacare, premiums have skyrocketed greater than ever before…and now, when people reject it, the insurance companies are crying foul….we need a bailout.

    So, if you cut the one industry that sustains the US….and there is no replacement…..you must also cut the entitlement programs by as much or even more…the more money that you print…..the less our dollar is worth.

    Remember, the economy is the replacement for nuclear deterrent……take both away……beware.

  8. plainlyspoken says:

    Well G, I can understand your thinking.

    🙂

  9. The group the ‘Right Climate Stuff’ says there’s no need to worry about catastrophic global warming
    Posted on March 8, 2014 by Anthony Watts

    New Study; Earth is Safe From ‘Global Warming’ Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon

    The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.

    So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon – in a new report.

    “It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.

    Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.

    During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.

    Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.

    Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.

    Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don’t agree with each other and don’t agree with empirical data.

    Doiron says: “I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not – and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can’t validate the models – and the IPCC can’t – then don’t use them.

    From James Delingpole at Breibart: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/08/Earth-is-safe-from-global-warming-say-the-men-who-put-man-on-the-moon

    http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

    PDF here: ExecutiveSummaryBoundingGHGClimateSensitivityForUseInRegulatoryDecisions140228(1)

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Time for a little counter cultural thought, and some good advice for the “R” leadership.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/should_gop_conservatives_adjust_their_message_for_blacks.html

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    More on “some people in govt. just can’t get over their obsessions”.

    http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-exercise-targets-free-americans-against-socialist-tyranny/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It’s interesting that polls have shown that 20% of those polled think the tea party are violent threats. I’ve yet to see one remote event at any Tea Party event that went violent, or even threatened violence. This is what propaganda and constant brainwashing people with absolute lies has accomplished.

      This exercise falls inline with previous exercises that demonize people who don’t fall for the progressive LIES. What should we expect from a nation of cowards who do nothing about the illegal spying and growing militarization of the cops. If something like a solar storm would knock out power for a lengthy period of time, most of these people will be dead in short time. Sad how this country has fallen so far in so short a time.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Re: the polling data you cited. Remember that about 20% are ALWAYS on the extreme.

        So it may well be a good sign that the number believing this garbage is no more than the usual 20% on the hard core left.

  12. Just A Citizen says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      It’s just a few people who have realized that they are immoral thieves and can’t handle it. More to come.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Not sure they were all involved in thievery. It may be that they have inside information on what’s coming next.

        Or……………………………….. they were “encouraged” to the exit……………… 😉

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    The pendulum swings………….and swings…………..and swings……….

    Apparently that Socialism Thangy aint workin out so well for the French. First they lost Sweden now France. No wonder they want the US of A so badly.

    http://news.yahoo.com/far-expects-surge-french-local-elections-172631351.html

    • Yup, just got back. Way too many people sitting around in France doing nothing. Union rules are over the top and beggars all over the place. If I heard it once I heard it a hundred times in the countryside as well as the cities, “Beware of Pickpockets” . Between the Gypsies and the North Africans who have poured in in droves due to the handouts, the place needs a good shake up. Had several guides on the organized part of the trip. Couldn’t believe their contempt for the socialist government. They just kept going on and on about the tax rates and the wonderful 20% VAT and what it has done to the country.

      As I said before they have started having kids again so, folks who have kids and want to see those kids have a future tend to get a little bit more conservative than childless libertines. Still a pretty place but Paris is way too gentrified now and expensive.

      • Stephen….was in France sometime ago and the tourist guides all gave warnings to the ladies on how to hold your purse and told men where to carry their wallets. In the Louver it was sad to see that you could not get close to the pictures and paintings any longer…everything is caged. And you are quite right about the sitting around….nobody did anything and the only place we got, what we consider good service, was in the tourist areas where tipping was the name of the game. Go to a local cuisine and the service was slow and inefficient.

  14. gmanfortruth says:
  15. gmanfortruth says:

    http://patriotupdate.com/articles/liberals-really-care-people/

    Back to education and the real problems with it.

  16. Interesting factoid……..Texas has just been named by the Health and Human Resources as leading the pack with health care access……….and that is without Obamacare. HHR reports that Texas leads all states with health care access including states with Obamacare exchanges.

    Another factoid…….states drilling for shale oil have the lowest unemployment rates. For example, in Midland, Texas, the unemployment rate is 2.9 percent as are most of the towns that are oil and gas operating. Other states that are allowing shale oil drilling are reporting the same results and are crying for help.

    Interestingly enough…the states that have massive shale oil prospects that have banned shale oil drilling have the highest unemployment rates and stagnant economies. Go figure.

    And then let us go to green energy states and cities…..green energy states are showing the highest rates of unemployment as well….the highest being Yuma, Arizona which boasts total wind power……unemployment rates are…..26%.

    Another factoid…Texas again…..has the highest green energy output of any state in solar and wind generation but combines it with coal and oil and gas production…..in other words….TOTAL energy production.

    And lastly…..it used to be that the health industry in Texas lagged far behind in availability. In other words, doctors were not available. Since tort reform 12 years ago….there have been 31,000 new doctors come to Texas and for the first time in Texas history, the border has a plethora of doctors available for low income families. This is tied directly to tort reform and the elimination of lump sum awards, limits on awards, and loser pays.

    Consider it backwater if you wish…but it works.

    The next thing on the horizon is the elimination of this common core curriculum in public schools.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      D13, seems to me that your stats corralate with destructive democratic policies. If we could just remove the Liberals from Government, we could all be prospering and all but eliminate the welfare state. To bad they can see this, but continue on their destructive path.

    • Ok Charlie…read it….twice. I saw words of climate change….I did not see words of “man made”. Glaciers have been moving and melting and disappearing for centuries.Cyclical changes I concur are happening and will happen and there is nothing we can do about it. Going back to stone age days will not slow it…..never has in the past. My view point, of course.

      • Colonel … a documentary claims that Greenland’s icebergs “dirty ice” is a result of CO and other particles from man made exhaust, etc.; that they have dirtied the ice enough to attract the sun (where in the past it wasn’t as destructive–the sun’s rays on clean ice that reflected rather than absorbed the rays) … anyway, the amount of iceberg slippage has not been going on for centuries … the fact of the matter is, the melting has become part of the ocean (rising) … and according to their prognosis, the situation has already sped passed the critical stage. You and I won’t be around to see it, but several major cities will eventually be under water due to the icebergs melting (which is believed (scientifically) to be from man made particles dirtying the icebergs. Now we need JAC to come in and claim it’s all a fantasy; that the liberals and progressives of the world are seeking to upset the glorious applecart of capitalistic progress by making up stories about the ruination of the potentially wonderful utopia if only we were all Marxists … 🙂

        • Volcanoes Charlie. They do , unlike zombies, exist! They also blow one hell of a lot of crap in the atmosphere.

          Just the other day was watching a show on Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. After that sucker blew its top in the early ’90’s there was global cooling for several years. Led me to wonder if the subsequent re-warming (back to normal) was taken into account by scientists. I’m on the Colonel’s side.

          Otherwise, blame the Chinese for burning all that coal.

        • CO and CO2 are visibly transparent gases. They do not form fine particles that would precipitate or settle on the snow. Soot and ash from volcanoes would however dirty the snow. There are active volcanoes to the east of Greenland in Iceland. Soot could come from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels but most of the combustion is at lower latitudes.

      • And here’s the National Geographic documentary … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgnvbMwRaf8

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Please tell us your aware that at one time in history Greenland was actually GREEN and not frozen? Please tell us that you also understand that floating icebergs that melt will NOT cause the seas to rise?

          • As usual, G, you’re obviously clueless about this too … but always entertaining 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              As usual, I can teach a monkey to give better answers than you.

              • The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

                The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

                Knock yourself out with that monkey, G … by the way, does G really stand for Genius?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                does G really stand for Genius? Why yes, thank your for asking, much like CS stands for Corporal Sophist 😀

              • Just A Citizen says:

                G

                The change was me. You have been doing so well ignoring the hot wind. Wanted to keep your streak alive.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I slipped 😉

          • I guess the Gmonkey didn’t get the sarcasm … “one time in history” he wrote … yeah, 800,000 years ago. What was it like back then, G? Please, tell us. 🙂

  17. And just when you thought Biden made the gaffes….. I am glad to find out that Russia is a minor player and that he is nothing more than a regional thug…..

    • This according to the gospel of Obama…..

    • Colonel, in all seriousness (which eliminates Gman from the conversation, thank you) … what would you have us do regarding Russia and the Ukraine?

      • Absolutely nothing at all. It is a European problem and that is what Obama should do. Leave it alone,,,say nothing. Actually now, he is much worse than Bush II. He is stoking fires….it appears that he wants a chance to redeem himself…..I hope he does not. IT is time to shut up. No fighters, no troops, no money.

        I am pointing out the naive……Bush had a better grasp than Obama and that is not saying much.

        • Good for you, Colonel. I agree … the war of words is pointless and makes him look almost as incompetent as he’s been. I was fearful that you thought he should get us involved. Glad to see you don’t. There’s nothing anybody can do about that mess, I don’t think. Ukrainians will probably have to flee because it’s more than likely they’ll take the entire Ukraine back.

    • http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=russia+threatens+us+with+nuclear+arsenal&ei=UTF-8&fr=chrf-yff24

      Some people in Russia have a different opinion. Heard a remark this AM I thought was noteworthy, it’s not very important that the US doesn’t view Russia as our main Geo-political foe. What is important is how Russia views the US. Makes sense, Russia is the aggressor. If they view us as threat & military foe while we are thinking about trade & economics, could be unfortunate for both…

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    Infowars correspondent Dan Bidondi approached Miller and other lawmakers at the Rhode Island State House where a slew of anti-second amendment legislation was set to be heard later that evening.

    “The second amendment shall not be infringed, you people need to understand that,” Bidondi told Miller.

    “Go fuck yourself,” Miller responded as he smiled, before one of his staffers repeated the insult.

    According to another individual who was with Bidondi, Miller repeated the “go fuck yourself” jibe a further two times after he was told “the majority is outside”. Miller had previously asserted that the majority was inside when speaking to a pro-gun control audience.

    Bidondi asks Rhode Island residents to consider whether they want to re-elect a foul-mouthed individual who responds when challenged in such an unprofessional manner.

    Miller is staunchly pro-gun control, having backed numerous pieces of legislation in Rhode Island that, according to the NRA, “would turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals.” Miller’s major push is for a bill that would tax gun owners on purchases of firearms and ammunition, with the money being handed to ardently anti-second amendment groups such as the Brady Campaign.

    A respondent to the YouTube video accused Miller of acting like a thug, commenting, “Typical mob guys. We used to jail the Mafia, now we let them hold public office.”
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/state-senators-response-to-second-amendment-concerns-go-fk-yourself.html

    The video is in the link. This is what voting can achieve these days. Is this elected official really speaking for those he is supposed to SERVE? Not fucking likely. This is one that needs hanged in public!

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374161/15-dumbest-anti-hobby-lobby-signs-supreme-court-andrew-johnson

    This is an interesting subject that intrigues me. Basically, the company, from my understanding, is not against covering what most women use for birth control, the pill. They have an issue with the day after pill. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s not the issue either. If a woman spreads her legs, that’s a personal decision that NOONE else (except the guy with the pecker) should have to pay anything as a result of that personal decision. What is wrong with these broads? Their sex life is their problem, not their employers. It’s called personal responsibility., try it sometime.

  20. I see you’re down to 10 or so again … with G still making the bulk of the comments (illiterate though they may be) … but just think, 800,000 years ago Greenland was green … now doesn’t that relieve of the fact the ice is melting there (uncovering what was green 800,000 years ago) at a record pace much more comfortable in your denial of global warming? Why, of course it does … because this is SUFA! Stand Up For Anything (that is ass backwards and contrary to common sense) … 🙂 Have a nice day, yo’ll … even you, Gmonkey.

    • Did the Vikings farm and graze stock on the glaciers?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        T-Ray, from about 500 AD till around 1500AD, the Western parts of Greenland had colonies that did indeed raise cattle (early on), then went to sheep and goats before disappearing around 1500 AD. The reasons are still under investigation. There have been some neat historical finds in that region in the last couple decades.

        You mentioned about the dirty ice issue above. I thought it was funny because scientists actually discussed dropping soot over the arctic ice caps to slow Global Cooling back in the 70’s. The above video is also suspect, as it was taken two years ago and most likely in the warmest part of summer (when access is the safest) to show melting that happens every summer. But hey, why not play to the naïve and make more stuff up to continue to attempt to defraud the people on an issue already debunked? 😀

    • The history of Greenland is a history of life under extreme Arctic conditions: currently, an ice cap covers about 80 percent of the island, restricting human activity largely to the coasts.

      The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There is no evidence that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the Inuit Greenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 AD, from northwestern Greenland. While the Inuit survived in the icy world of the Little Ice Age, the early Norse settlements along the southwestern coast disappeared, leaving the Inuit as the only inhabitants of the island for several centuries.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

      Charlie, history & science agree it was much warmer during the Roman era & the Medieval Warm Period. Today’s warming is close to those temperatures. The question is did mankind cause the warming or cooling that has happened in the last 2,500 years? No? Only the last 50 or 100? Why then are we seeing the same warming/cooling today as happened a thousand years in the past? You cannot prove we are causing it nor can I prove we are not. History & science strongly say to me this is natural & mankind’s influence is close to that of cow farts….

      What we can say & prove about mankind’s impact is on pollution, such as China is now suffering from. But no matter what they or we do, it will not change the world’s climate.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Sea level has been MUCH, MUCH, lower and MUCH, MUCH higher than it is now.

      Apparently the melting and refreezing of the Glaciers has had tremendous affect and the trend has been pretty constant since the end of the last Glacial period. That is until the last few thousand years.

      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

      • gmanfortruth says:

        NASA comes up with some interesting reports. Here’s a fun one to consider: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/nasa-models-predict-total-societal-collapse-irreversible_03252014

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          NASA has a serious case of “Mission Creep”.

          By the way, I would be willing to try and run the show but cannot tackle it until June. Can you keep new pages going until then? Meanwhile you can get me up to speed on the “how” of putting up articles, pictures, etc.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I can certainly work with you on that offer. In addition, I will also work with you when you are going to travel and won’t be available. A couple more months won’t kill me suppose 🙂 At least someone is willing to step up, I was getting concerned that nobody wanted the responsibility of keeping new threads going and watching the moderation section, which don’t happen very often.

            Putting up articles is easy, it only takes a couple minutes for a simple Open Mic thread, putting in a picture takes a little more effort, but I have a method that works well for me and isn’t time consuming that I can share with you.

            It will be nice to have a break from this, even for only a few months. I do appreciate it 😀

            • I can help with net threads at least. May or may not have time for articles.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                That’s cool. I think I’m just burned out and need a break. I read every post made, in every thread. It’s impossible to not get involved in discussion when the subjects are meaningful. I will be quite busy and would like my thoughts to be on my work rather than a subject of discussion everyday, if that makes any sense.

  21. plainlyspoken says:

    So if 74% of people believe there should be a requirement for ID to vote, why should the government continue to argue voter ID laws are discriminatory?

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/14/washington-post-poll-nearly-75-of-americans-support-voter-id-laws/

  22. Now this I understand 🙂

    Loud + Weak = War
    China and Russia are no more impressed with empty bluster today than Japan was in 1941.
    By Victor Davis Hanson

    Victor Davis Hanson

    The Roosevelt administration once talked loudly of pivoting to Asia to thwart a rising Japan. As a token of its seriousness, in May 1940 it moved the home port of the Seventh Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor — but without beefing up the fleet’s strength.

    The then-commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral James O. Richardson, an expert on the Japanese Imperial Navy, protested vehemently over such a reckless redeployment. He felt that the move might invite, but could not guard against, surprise attack.

    Richardson was eventually relieved of his command and his career was ruined — even as he was later proved right when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

    Advertisement
    Britain at the same time promoted a loud Singapore Strategy, trumpeting its Malaysian base as the “Gibraltar of the Pacific.” But London did not send out up-to-date planes, carriers, or gunnery to the Pacific.

    Japan was not impressed. It surprise-attacked the base right after Pearl Harbor. The British surrendered Singapore in February 1942, in the most ignominious defeat in British military history.

    By 1949, the U.S. was pledged to containing the expansion of Communism in Asia — even as Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson (who had been chief fundraiser for Truman’s 1948 campaign) declared that the Navy and Marines were obsolete. He began to slash both their budgets.

    A “revolt of the admirals” followed, to no avail. But Mao Zedong’s China and Stalin’s Soviet Union took note of the new disconnect between American bluster and massive defense cuts. So they green-lighted a North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950.

    The common historical denominator is that Asia and the Pacific are always dangerous places, where calling for tough action is not the same as preparing for the consequences of upping the ante. Loud talk sometimes even encourages a thuggish challenge to prove it.

    Unless the United States in any meaningful way backs up its current flamboyant “pivot” to Asia with additional ships, air wings, and manpower, there is no sense in chest-pounding our resolve to our increasingly orphaned allies, who may soon have to choose between acquiescing to China and going nuclear.

    China will not be impressed that we talk confidently even as we cut defense — just as imperial Japan was not awed when aged American battleships were ordered westward to Pearl Harbor as a gesture.

    Nor did the Japanese tremble when the British battleship Prince of Wales and battle cruiser Repulse were sent without air cover to Singapore. Both were seen as targets rather than deterrents and so soon ended up at the bottom of the sea.

    Likewise, in the late 1940s, “containing Red China” meant nothing when the postwar U.S. had canceled new aircraft carriers, even as it still deployed on the cheap vulnerable small garrisons of troops all over Asia.

    President Obama’s pivot has now joined his stable of deadlines, red lines, step-over lines, and “I don’t bluff” and “I’m not kidding” assertions. The problem with such rhetoric is not just that it is empty, but that it is predictably empty. If Obama cannot lead, can he at least keep quiet about it?

    A Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran is not just unimpressed but encouraged, seeing such sermonizing as an assurance of nothing to follow. Obama’s threats are like a gambler’s involuntary tic, which astute poker players read always as a forewarning of a bluffed empty hand to follow.

    A wiser course is to decide in advance where the U.S. is capable of deterring aggression and where it either has no interest in trying or has no power even if it wished to. Then, once our security parameters are established, we should stay largely quiet, consult our allies, keep troublemakers guessing about our next move, and then use force if necessary to stop their aggressions.

    The Japanese, Taiwanese, South Koreans, Filipinos, and Australians are more likely to assume their democracies are safe when they see a U.S. carrier that means business than when they hear the president or his secretary of state lecture an aggressor about its unacceptable 19th-century behavior, the Third World about its homophobia, or the world about the dangers of climate change.

    Consider also Russia. We forget that “reset” in 2009 was a loud Obama attempt to reverse the Bush administration’s efforts to punish Russia for its aggression against Georgia — a Russian gambit itself perhaps predicated on the impression that the United States was bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the Bush administration had been weakened by the midterm elections of 2006. Bush’s efforts to promote new missile-defense initiatives with Poland and the Czech Republic, suspension of nuclear-arms-limitation talks, curtailment of official communications with Moscow, and bolder efforts to isolate Iran from Russian interference were all intended to advise Moscow not to bully its neighbors.

    Yet Obama entered office declaring that it was the Bush administration’s reaction to the Georgia aggression, and not the Russian invasion itself, that had cooled U.S.–Russian relations. The result was a red plastic reset button that presaged loud lectures about human rights in Russia without any real, concrete follow-through.

    Our relationship with Russia is far worse now than during the Bush administration. Vladimir Putin is not just not deterred — who would be, after the U.S. fickleness in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, and in dealing with Iran? — but quite eager in the Crimea and Ukraine to show the world how to deflate American moralistic sermonizing. Putin believes that his amoral show of power impresses others who admire not his strength — for in truth he has little of it — but the simulation of strength that wins him support at home and a sort of sick admiration abroad.

    Being weak is sometimes dangerous. Being loud, self-righteous, and weak is always very dangerous indeed.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374094/loud-weak-war-victor-davis-hanson

    • So, V.H. what would YOU have us do about the Ukraine? I’m not sure if the Colonel ever answered my same question to him.

      • I don’t know Charlie-that is what I’m trying to decide. I just find it eye opening to watch the process. Look at Russia a few years ago they went after Georgia, everyone yelled and hollered, now a few years later, they go after Crimea, everyone is yelling and hollering. So what is he gonna do, wait a few years and go after someone else. Will we sit and do nothing while making all kinds of grandiose promises? WE have some decisions to make-why be part of NATO-why sign agreements-that we have no intention of really following. What is in our national interest-what the heck is our foreign policy?

        • And why is Obama cutting our military so much-I guess the words speak softly and carry a big stick still resonant with me, even if it doesn’t answer the actual policy questions-it’s a good starting point. Speak loudly and carry a nub just doesn’t work for me.

          So anyway the words in the article—“A wiser course is to decide in advance where the U.S. is capable of deterring aggression and where it either has no interest in trying or has no power even if it wished to. Then, once our security parameters are established, we should stay largely quiet, consult our allies, keep troublemakers guessing about our next move, and then use force if necessary to stop their aggressions.” —-seem to be a smart way to move forward in the discussion.

        • V.H.

          I think you laid it out pretty well. It’s difficult for all of us with our viewpoint that is a mash of leftist/rightist BullDookey. Obama seems to think he can be nice to the whole world & they will respond with hugs & kisses. And the world should stop & listen to him when he speaks, (they don’t give those Nobel Peace prizes to just anybody.) But then you have the agitators on the right proclaiming this is all because Obama is so weak. Does that apply to Bush then? They invaded Georgia on his watch..

          Myself, I think the US should express concern & remorse. Urge Russia to withdraw, etc… The main actors should be our NATO partners, those closes to the threat. Let them make their case thru NATO or the UN. If NATO decided to act, then we start talking tough. But that will be because the words are not a bluff.

          • LOI…it applies to anyone that blusters and does nothing. If we open our mouth…..kick ass. If we have no plans to kick ass, veiled threats do nothing more than embolden our enemies.

            • The problem, I think we realize (I hope we realize) is that the only ass that will get kicked by fighting wars on the other side of the world is ours.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Charlie

                It is not the location that determines the outcome.

                It is our own internal Politics. Which includes a very short attention span.

              • It is not the location that determines the outcome………….exactly

              • Charlie,

                I find nothing stated there I can agree with…..The US still has the best military in the world. If we were to take the fight to Russia it would be decided by multiple factors. Do we have an edge in hardware & training? Yes, I think so. Would we face extended supply lines? Duh! I think the real question is would the country just invaded by Russia aid us or them, or stand neutral….. Hence my earlier statement, make it a NATO, not US action. If Ukraine
                has friends in Europe, those friends should be at the front lines.

                For myself, I would advocate the US stay out of it. They were Russian since Catherine the Great or about as long as the US has been independent….Call this round four of their civil war? Why should that be our business?

            • D13,

              Such a simple truth known to almost everyone. Funny it escaped notice by our “red line” president. Funny too out VP is even worse. Amazing how some people are disconnected from reality.

  23. I don’t agree with him on every point but overall a good article. I find these words illuminating “Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” does that sound like it has anything to do with rights or freedom?

    March 25, 2014 4:00 AM
    The Right Not to Be Implicated
    “Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.
    By Kevin D. Williamson

    Today, Hobby Lobby will make its case before the Supreme Court, maintaining that it should not be coerced by federal mandate to use its employee insurance programs to facilitate the purchase of certain birth-control devices that it regards as being more akin to abortion than to contraception. About the legal and technical questions, I have little to add to what Ed Whelan and other legal scholars writing here — all of them far more knowledgeable than I — already have written, except to note that it strikes my non-specialist’s sensibility as being self-evidently true that the Affordable Care Act fails to meet the relevant criterion in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: that in those cases in which the federal government can demonstrate a compelling state interest in burdening the free exercise of religion, it must choose the least restrictive method of doing so. The English major in me has trouble getting the words “least restrictive” to jibe with “federal mandate.”

    One of the finest books ever written about politics is The Once and Future King, in which young Arthur, not yet king, is transformed by Merlin into various kinds of animals in order to learn about different kinds of political arrangements: Hawks live under martial law, geese are freewheeling practitioners of spontaneous order, badgers are scholarly isolationists, and ants live under totalitarianism, with T. H. White famously rendering their one-sentence constitution: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”

    There is a great deal of political and moral real estate between those libertarian geese and totalitarian ants — at least there should be, in a healthy, liberal society. But we do not enjoy, at the political and legal levels, a healthy, liberal society. Rather, we are a society that goes from forbidden to compulsory in record time, and vice versa.

    Consider the case of the legal and social standing of homosexuals. Until just over a decade ago, homosexual intercourse was a crime in many jurisdictions. Then in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned the sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, which was in my view a bad decision with a good outcome. That same year, California considered a civil-union law, which was the source of some controversy. Opponents argued that it was a step toward the much more serious issue of gay marriage, and Democrats rejected that as a red herring: “Nobody is talking about gay marriage,” said John Longville, a Democratic assemblyman, “except the people who are trying to wave it around as a straw-man issue.” Within five years, that straw man was flesh and blood. Along the way the conversation changed from whether states could legalize gay marriage to whether states could prohibit it, and from whether the federal government should recognize same-sex marriage to whether it could refuse to do so. The Democratic governor of Kentucky says that he desires the Supreme Court to “bring finality and certainty to this matter,” which, given his party affiliation, is a way of saying without saying that he wants a national legal mandate for gay marriage. And the matter already has progressed to the point at which we as a nation, having only recently legalized gay marriage, are debating the question of whether bakers and photographers should be locked in cages if they decline, for their own moral or religious reasons, to participate in gay weddings.

    “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”

    It is a perversion of the English language that our so-called liberals are the least liberal faction in our polity. American liberalism is the creed that you are entitled to think as you like and entitled to do as you are commanded.

    I make a pretty poor puritan, though perhaps someday I’ll make a better one. I object to abortion as violence, including abortion actuated via relatively bloodless chemical means, and believe that it should be prohibited as a matter of humane principle. The use of actual contraceptives, such as condoms, and the question of what combinations of consenting adults do what with whom — by which I mean maintaining joint bank accounts and sharing dental plans, of course — may be of acute interest to the bishops but are not properly matters of prohibition by the federal government, the purpose of which is to protect property, thus enabling Americans to organize their lives as they will, rather than to move citizens about like chessmen on the theory that it does so for their benefit. There is not much that I would have be illegal — but any civilized society requires a great deal of breathing room between forbidden and compulsory.

    The Left would not have it that way: Homosexual behavior is not to be tolerated, or homosexual unions recognized under law — rather, homosexuality is to constitute a special class of blessedness, and the failure to celebrate it is to be a sin, which in the liberal mind must be identical to a crime. It is not enough for religious conservatives, such as the ones who own Hobby Lobby, to tolerate the legal sale and use of things such as the so-called morning-after pill — rather, they are expected to provide them at their own expense. Abortions are not to be legal, but legal and funded by the general community, with those funds extracted at gunpoint if necessary.

    This is not merely, or even mainly, a question of economics. A monthly dose of emergency contraception (which seems like a lot) paid entirely out-of-pocket would run less than the typical cell-phone bill. One does not suspect that Americans would find it very difficult to locate gay-friendly firms in the wedding-planning business. The typical first-trimester abortion costs less than an entry-level iPad — hardly an insurmountable economic barrier for a procedure that is, if we take the pro-choice side at their word, absolutely fundamental to a woman’s health and happiness.

    Advertisement
    The economics are incidental. The point is not to ensure that we all pay, but that we are all involved.

    The Left may be morally illiterate, but it is not blind. The effects of the pathologically delusional tendency that once styled itself “the sexual revolution” are everywhere to be seen. In the 1960s and 1970s, our cultural discourse was dominated by the benefits side of that revolution’s ledger; since then, we’ve had sufficient time to have a good long look at the cost side, too, and the tradeoffs are more severe than our bell-bottomed Aquarian prophets had predicted. It reads like an Old Testament genealogy: Sexual chaos begat family chaos, family chaos begat social chaos, social chaos begat economic chaos, economic chaos begat political chaos. And so the generations unfold. The relevant political reality is that those costs and benefits are not distributed equally: The benefits of license accrue mainly to the well-off and educated, who have the resources to make the most of their enjoyment of them; the costs accrue mainly to the poor, who cannot afford to live, economically or morally, beyond their means. Kate Moss can afford to be a single mother in her $20 million London townhouse. Not everybody can. Our so-called liberals find themselves in the queasy position of having created a moral culture that has destroyed millions of lives and many communities among the very disadvantaged people they claim to care most about, but they are incapable of criticizing a culture of license that none of them can imagine living without, even if they themselves are square as houses in their sexual habits.

    The result of that is, if not guilt, at least a nagging awareness that this all turns out to be a great deal more morally complex than our liberationist-latitudinarian forebears had imagined. The way to assuage the collective liberal conscience is to institutionalize and normalize liberal social preferences: There is nobody to be blamed for social anarchy if that’s just the way things are. And if everybody is involved — as taxpayers or as employers providing health insurance — then everybody is implicated. They are a little like those addicts who are uncomfortable in the social presence of abstainers, taking that abstention as a rebuke, whether it is intended as one or not. In the United Kingdom, the government-run hospitals are burning the corpses of aborted children for heat, and we are all expected to get cozy by the fire.

    The Hobby Lobby case is in part about private property and whether we are to have it. If we hold capital only at the sufferance of the politico-sexual whims of those who hold power, then we do not really hold capital at all — we only rent property from our rulers, serfs in the world’s most sophisticated fiefdom. The property right is the fundamental right upon which all other political rights have their foundation. But there is a separate question — the right of conscience, which is, at minimum, the right not to be implicated, to at least stand apart from that which is no longer forbidden but is not yet, as of Tuesday morning, compulsory.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374115/right-not-be-implicated-kevin-d-williamson

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH, the Citizens United case might have a big impact on the Hobby Lobby case. I laugh at the pundits who claim women will be denied contraceptives, which is clearly not the case. The only issue that I have read about is 3 or 4 drugs, like the “day after” pill.

      Maybe it;’s time for women to step up and accept responsibility for their actions instead of ignoring the fact that the Left is trying to remove sexual responsibility as a whole, at the expense of others. I’m sure the YOU do not agree with much of what many Left wing women stand for, but I could be wrong. 😉

  24. Murphy's Law says:

    A hijack here, for a little levity…..

    HEADLINES FROM THE YEAR: 2059

    Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California ..

    White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia’s third language.

    Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.

    Baby conceived naturally! Scientists stumped.

    Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.

    Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.

    France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica . No other country comes forward to help the beleaguered nation!

    Last Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.

    George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2060.

    Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.

    Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.

    85-year $75.8 billion study: Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss.

    Global cooling blamed for citrus crop failure for third consecutive year in Mexifornia and Floruba.

    Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.

    Abortion clinics now available in every high school in United States ..

    Senate still blocking drilling in ANWR even though gas is selling for 4532 pesos per liter and gas stations are only open on Tuesdays and Fridays.

    Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.

    Supreme Court rules any punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.

    A couple finally had sexual harmony. They had simultaneous headaches.

    Average height of NBA players is now nine feet seven inches with only 73 illegitimate children.

    New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2060.

    IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.

    And finally…..

    Floruba voters still having trouble with voting machines.

    Murf

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This one made me laugh till I cried!

      Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.

  25. gmanfortruth says:
  26. Dum…de….dum…dum…….hmmm

    China is waging political warfare against the United States as part of a strategy to drive the U.S. military out of Asia and control seas near its coasts, according to a Pentagon-sponsored study.

    A defense contractor report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, the Pentagon’s think tank on future warfare, describes in detail China’s “Three Warfares” as psychological, media, and legal operations. They represent an asymmetric “military technology” that is a surrogate for conflict involving nuclear and conventional weapons.

    The unclassified 566-page report warns that the U.S. government and the military lack effective tools for countering the non-kinetic warfare methods, and notes that U.S. military academies do not teach future military leaders about the Chinese use of unconventional warfare. It urges greater efforts to understand the threat and adopt steps to counter it.

    The report highlights China’s use of the Three Warfares in various disputes, including dangerous encounters between U.S. and Chinese warships; the crisis over the 2001 mid-air collision between a U.S. EP-3E surveillance plane and a Chinese jet; and China’s growing aggressiveness in various maritime disputes in the South China and East China Seas.

  27. Hey, animal lovers of the world … watch Friday night … James is a good friend of mine … former mob enforcer turned animal rescuer … http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2014/03/this-friday-nightthe-diamond-collar.html

  28. @ JAC … the location plays a very significant role, my friend … we seem to lose the ones that aren’t in our backyard (South America) where we have significant advantages … we picked on the wrong people in Vietnam and Afghanistan … unless we’re willing to drop nuclear bombs … or wipe out an entire population, home field advantage has proved a very big deal. The politics, too, of course … but once you overcommit enough times, you diminish the enthusiasm … and when you clearly lose, forgetaboutit …

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      YOU just made my argument. Thank you.

      • Which was my argument … about time you picked up something … location, location, location … just like real estate … unless you’re gonna go nuclear (and get it back in return), you’re best fighting wars you can win … like the GREAT and Powerful Reagan … send troops into some banana republic to show his strength AFTER selling arms to the contras … 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          NOT location.

          Politics.

          You can scream you are right all you want. It doesn’t make it true.

          You need to do some more research on all these wars and this claim you make that we “lost” them.

          • Someone please point out to me a war we lost…..please do not say Vietnam nor Afghanistan, unless you consider civilian decisions as the reason for losing. We did not lose Vietnam….we were restricted from fighting it. We did not lose Afghanistan….we were restricted from fighting to the end. We had North Vietnam in its knees…then we quit fighting it. We had Afghanistan over…..until we quit fighting it. Both wars were within 24 hours of being over…..so, Charlie, humor this old Colonel and acknowledge it was not the military that lost. It is the problem of a civilian run military that lost…..political all the way.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Colonel,

              While the military may perform and hold military superiority (i.e. winning) any war fought, it is the civil leadership which directs the war, so the outcome (win/lose) is based upon that leadership – not the military.

              Therefore losses in Vietnam and Afghanistan are valid and go in the “loss” category. We tied (and that is being gracious) in Korea as we ended up settling the fight (politically again) where we started (the 38th parallel). Though one could argue it a “win” simply because the North Koreans ended up with no gain.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I should add: hence the old adage – win the battle (military), lose the war (political).

              • Thank you, Plainly. I was purposely ruffling feathers with claims of lost … the Colonel (like most military men — certainly not all) would have liked to fight the war(s) without restraints … and in that case, who needs the military (soldiers) when the ONLY way to assure victory is to wipe out a population. Yes, the politicians were directing the efforts (and tying the hands), but unless we’re going to be run like some military Junta, that’s the way it works. So, yes, we lost both wars … no ifs ands or buts about it.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Plainly, How exactly did we “lose” Afghanistan? The way I see it, we sent the Taliban packing, put in our puppet govt and then maintained the security and control of the poppy fields for 9 years. Now, Karzi just wants the money from the poppies to stay in country, so it’s time for us to leave. All that other “war against Taliban insurgents” is all fluff.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                No G, we did not send the Taliban packing or we wouldn’t have continued attacks ongoing in the country. We beat hell out of them for a while is all. Plus, the “goals” of the USG won’t be met anymore than they were in Vietnam. The “bad guys” will get control in the end. Politically (which is how US wars are won or lost), we lost. We’ve wasted so many lives and damaged so many others in this 12-13 year war.

                Whether or not Karzai wants the income from the poppy fields is irrelevant.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Well technically, no one surrendered or quit, I don’t see that as a loss. You do not see the poppy fields as relevant, so our views will obviously differ as to our reasons for staying so long. Opinions vary my friend. We happen to see the Afghanistan issue quite differently. 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Well, technically we didn’t surrender in Vietnam – but we lost. That we differ in opinion is no surprise G, anymore than arguing with JAC on whether or not we were justified in our “invasion” of Afghanistan in the first place.

                The Taliban were temporarily removed from power (as long as we maintain a military force operating against them), but that isn’t something that will remain since, even now, Karzai & company, are unable to maintain rule over the country without outside assistance (and if they were they wouldn’t be so pushy about negotiating with the Taliban).

                Afghanistan, like Iraq or Vietnam, are not countries with traditions of democratic government and will not be as the peoples have a different thinking than our 200 plus years of government. BTW – Iraq, if not a “loss” already, will be one.

  29. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      I would like to point out that Caldwell is traditional REPUBLICAN territory. Along with neighboring Nampa and the other small towns that are nearby.

      The point being that this PROBLEM is not isolated to towns and cities run by left wing loons., Just LOONS period.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Looking at their justification for their actions ” The Caldwell PD claimed knowledge of “the presence of guns at the premises” First, where did they get their knowledge? OR, is this just going to be the excuse used to further justify these jackboot actions?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          It is looking like EXCUSE rather than actual knowledge. The entire thing was done on hearsay, yet per them “according to procedure and policy. Being as it is Idaho, there is almost certainty that there is a gun somewhere close to any police “visit”.

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    The REAL American Patriots= Gun Owners

    http://eaglerising.com/5354/ohio-homeowner-shoots-intruder/

  31. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      Excellent summary of this most odious affliction.

      • Makes perfect sense to me … social justice is pretty much all inclusive of what might be decreed reasonable wrongs against society … hurts, doesn’t it?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        JAC, I agree. But as usual, thieves will spin it to mean whatever they want, but it still comes down to one thing, theft by force of government. Theft by Force of government is evil to it’s core and is no less wrong than the so called calamities the Left claim exist. The problem is, those calamities will always exist, or they will become far worse (as we are seeing) with government force pretending to fix them.

  32. @JAC and the Colonel … so what’s the excuse for us getting whipped in Vietnam (while bombing a neutral country, Cambodia, and thus being responsible for the Khmer Rouge) and then losing badly in Afghanistan (and ultimately Iraq)? We were held back? If so, then I’m right to suggest the carte blanche approach to war (devastate an entire population) … why not drop a bomb and not risk boots on the ground … Sorry, I think both you guys are kidding yourselves … I understand why (tough to admit it can’t be done the old fashioned way, not anymore) … but it’s true … the location made it a much tougher war to fight in both Vietnam and Afghanistan … not to mention the world was watching with much bigger eyes …

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Our own internal politics. It had nothing to do with the distance from home. If the latter were true we would not have succeeded against Japan or Germany.

      You forgot Korea in your list, by the way.

    • Your history is seriously flawed….the Kymer were around looooooong before we got there, Waaaayyy long before. If I were in charge of fighting the war, I would bomb any country that was giving refuge. However, if you wish to get into a war of words on Vietnam….I would be happy to oblige you….up to and including the talks where the North was in hours of surrendering totally.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    A look at how the police have “militarized” over the years. http://www.activistpost.com/2014/03/the-militarized-us-police-by-numbers.html

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    VH, While I’m not so sure about what the authors says is totally true, it does give an excellent look at the treaties we have when it comes to defense agreements. Very telling that the big boy on the block may not quite be so big anymore, and little can be done.
    http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/385-mjt

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman

      Kind of makes one take pause and wonder. What will the world look like if the USA withdraws to its borders?

      What will happen if we decide to engage in trade with anyone and everyone?

      Can a free nation truly be “friends” with a nation of despots who have no capacity to understand the concept of freedom, let alone it practical applications?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good questions. I think we would HAVE to rebuild our most of our past business infrastructure to support our own country. This could be a good thing in time. We have a horrible trade imbalance due to poor government decisions and bad trades treaties.

        For now, our problems are only going to get worse it seems, as more business’s will be forced to lay off/close down due to the new “Minimum wage” being pushed, that may likely happen. We can’t compete with countries that have much lower wages, which has caused the current trade imbalance.

        Can we be friends with a Nation of Despots? See North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and a few others. So what? I don’t see this as a big loss, versus reversing out trade imbalance.

        My thinking that if we do pull back, whether by choice or just being forced to do so, the petrodollar is toast, and so goes the reserve currency status. That will change everything in this country, until, we can become far more self sufficient. Just some thoughts on your questions. 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          Any discussion of our “taking care of our own” with respect to a more “isolated economy” needs to recognize that we do NOT have the same amount of natural resources available as we did when our great “industrial growth spurt” occurred prior to and following WW II.

          This does not mean we can’t do better. Only that those who think we can put everyone to work buying and selling stuff to ONLY Americans is out to lunch.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I didn’t suggest buying only “American”, just that we can reduce or eliminate our trade deficit by being forced to rebuild as much of our old “industrial” complex. I was using that as a reason to pull back to our borders. Other countries need to trade with us for their benefit as much as we need to trade with them, but we should be more self sufficient was all I was trying to say 😀

            • G MAn……..you said “I didn’t suggest buying only “American”, just that we can reduce or eliminate our trade deficit by being forced to rebuild as much of our old “industrial” complex.”

              Therein lies the problem……we cannot rebuild our industrial complex……that is, there has to be incentive. With all of this global crap going on……why would any company leave a low wage and tax rate…..to come here. There is plenty of labor out there willing to work for 10 bucks a day…..

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Roger that Colonel. Until we are forced to rebuild, with lower wages, the jobs will stay away. Minimum wage and unions will keep the unemployment rate high (which is far higher than reported) and the entitlement class growing. This will only lead to collapse.

    • Well, that was a scary analysis -I found the part about the USSR not really falling interesting.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        VH, sorry it took me so long to reply. You have questioned about the Governments “word” and how important it is. While I agree that integrity is vital, our current group of thieves in DC don’t have any integrity (some do, but not very many). If all the things in the article happened within weeks of each other, we couldn’t do diddly! That should tell you about politicians and the fact they don’t think beyond the next election. 🙂

  35. JAC….you said…”Can a free nation truly be “friends” with a nation of despots who have no capacity to understand the concept of freedom, let alone it practical applications?”…

    The answer to this question is obviously,…….no.

    you asked “What will happen if we decide to engage in trade with anyone and everyone?”
    Nothing would happen except trading. However, you MUST trade on an equal or advantaged basis. For example, if their imports have a higher tax than ours…either match it or cease trading. If we do not keep a military capable of rendering any country in the world to flat, black, and glow in the dark status…..simple trading would not happen. We would immediately be at a disadvantage. It is a cruel world out there.

    You asked :What will the world look like if the USA withdraws to its borders? We would watch the hegemony and shifting of borders in Europe and Asia and the South China Sea.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning/afternoon Colonel. Hope all is well in Texas.

      My question about anyone and everyone was aimed at the anarcho-capitalists and “libertarians” who think trade should be between “individuals”.

      While that is a great “utopian” notion, the reality is that if WE, as in the USA, were to take such a position there is little chance anyone else would go along with the idea.

      So I agree with your statement about “equity”. Free trade? Great, but that means “FREE” and it means for BOTH parties.

      The broader question I was getting to is that how can the USA maintain a solid economy which requires some trade in a world that has been redrawn to favor the new Despot Hegemony??

      If our position on using force is truly in DEFENSE, or retaliation, only then how do we prevent the few new Global Powers from squeezing us, like we have done to others in the past?

      Let me offer up my analysis. WE CAN NOT prevent it. This is the risk we should recognize in taking the Defense Only stance.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Charlie

    Winning a war does not require “nuking” the other guy or “killing the entire population”.

    Such arguments are irrational and have little to do with the dispute.

    You claimed that “location” was the issue with “winning”. It obviously is NOT location or we could not have won in WW II. Those wars involved us having troops in many of the same places they have fought since then.

    If you can maintain your supply lines then you can fight a winning war ANYWHERE.

    You can lose a war due to bad military strategy, tactics and/or execution. You can lose if you are simply overpowered by the other guy. Neither of these have happened since WW II. Even with “bad” strategies, tactics and execution. Even the set back in N. Korea, overwhelmed by superior numbers, was turned around by adding firepower.

    But POLITICS is the one thing that can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ever single time.

    Yes it is politics which usually starts the war, but the issue is whether the loss is due to “location” or the “politics”.

    It is the POLITICS.

    • Winning a war does not require “nuking” the other guy or “killing the entire population”. Such arguments are irrational and have little to do with the dispute. You claimed that “location” was the issue with “winning”. It obviously is NOT location or we could not have won in WW II. Those wars involved us having troops in many of the same places they have fought since then.

      Wrong again, maestro. We weren’t in Europe solo, JAC. In fact, my misguided friend, we were late to the dance (you might want to credit Russia for “winning” that one before us) … or at the least, credit Hitler for trying to battle on 2 fronts and thus “losing” that war, but we certainly weren’t there alone. So, one argument down (i.e., YOU LOSE).

      As for Japan … well, those 2 atomic bombs seemed to have ended that one. (YOU LOSE AGAIN).

      On to number 2:

      If you can maintain your supply lines then you can fight a winning war ANYWHERE. You can lose a war due to bad military strategy, tactics and/or execution. You can lose if you are simply overpowered by the other guy. Neither of these have happened since WW II. Even with “bad” strategies, tactics and execution. Even the set back in N. Korea, overwhelmed by superior numbers, was turned around by adding firepower.

      That might’ve been true in the wild wild west, JAC, but those days are long gone. One would assume there’s a lot more to invading a foreign country (never mind one across the planet) than supplies … there’s knowing the field of battle, for one thing. That certainly mattered in Vietnam. I’m sure it mattered in Afghanistan as well.

      But POLITICS is the one thing that can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ever single time.

      Especially if the politicians realize that to nuke someone (or to overrun an entire population the way it was done here in the good old US&A (the west), and especially with everyone watching, probably isn’t a good way to go. Which is why we don’t leave it up to the military (because they’d almost always opt for greater force and more destruction, even at their own peril (because like the colonel, they believe they’re invicible—I say that with respect, Colonel. I believe too many military men believe we can’t lose, the fact we already have a few times notwithstanding).

      Yes it is politics which usually starts the war, but the issue is whether the loss is due to “location” or the “politics”.

      In the end (same as at the start) it’s politics making the declarations/surrenders, but there’s no negating the effect of having to travel across the planet to fight one … whether the terrain is a jungle or mountainous. Ask the French about the jungle and the Russians about the mountains.

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    OH MY! A sad example of how our President is viewed overseas. http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/newspaper-puts-monkey-faces-on-obamas/

  38. “Well technically, no one surrendered or quit, I don’t see that as a loss..”

    No, but you do see pink elephants almost always just before you comment … if our goal was to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, we lost. If our goal was to democratize Afghanistan, we lost. If our goal was to get a lot of innocent people (i.e., collateral damage) maimed and killed, that was accomplished … poppi fields? Are you serious? Wait, you probably are … always good for another laugh, you are.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      G – as to the poppy production, it has been a problem in Afghanistan long before 9/11. The warlords grew it and it only drastically declined under the Taliban rule (which doesn’t make their rule necessarily good), so if you want poppy production stopped again, give the country back to the Taliban.

      • 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        And your proof of this is………

        • plainlyspoken says:

          lol….really? Try google G. Or start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

          If you think I am wrong, and I am not, and that poppy production just materialized out of nowhere after the US intervention in Afghanistan then, well………you are so wrong as to be incapable of rendering realistic views of Afghanistan and poppy production.

          Sorry, that’s just how it is.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Maybe, we can both be right! 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Maybe you shouldn’t change the discussion in order to support your argument?

            • plainlyspoken says:

              as to the poppy production, it has been a problem in Afghanistan long before 9/11.

              This was the point under discussion – which you wanted proof for. I gave it – so the only “wrong” here is your own.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I think we are once again talking past each other. That seems to have happened before. So to be clear, my opinion is that the US military is only there now, to protect the opium fields, and that was the #1 reason it is still there, as stats show, it’s working.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I don’t think I’ll be drinking any of your koolaid. You might as well say the only reason we fought in Vietnam so long was to protect the Golden Triangle and benefit from the money it generated.

                Sometimes I wish you’d just stick to screaming everyone is a Nazi…….lol

              • gmanfortruth says:

                HEHE! LMAO 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:
          • gmanfortruth says:

            Sorry, seems like I’m not so wrong at all.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            My claim has always been that the US was in Afghanistan to protect the poppie fields and ensure it’s production, which is then sold to OUR people for the monetary benefit..

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Or here:
          The relationship between Afghanistan and the opium poppy has existed for thousands of years. However, it is only in the last three decades that the country has become responsible for cultivating an overwhelming majority of the world’s opium.
          (http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/39)

          Or:
          Afghanistan has been the world’s primary opium producing country since 1991, when it surpassed Burma (Myanmar) in total annual production. Both the Taliban regime and the Karzai government inherited an illicit drug economy that has been stimulated by two decades of war and also fuelled the country’s war economy. However, just as the Taliban government successfully, but counterproductively, prohibited opium production in 2001,
          (http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/February_2006/Pierre-Arnaud_Chouvy.pdf)

          do I need to find you more?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            G – as to the poppy production, it has been a problem in Afghanistan long before 9/11. The warlords grew it and it only drastically declined under the Taliban rule (which doesn’t make their rule necessarily good), so if you want poppy production stopped again, give the country back to the Taliban.

            Based on your first link, : Rise of the Taliban (1994–2001)[edit]

            During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999,.[13]

            In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world’s most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world’s supply of heroin at the time.[14] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002.

            However, some people believe that certain parties benefited from the price increase during the ban. Some even believe it was a form of Market manipulation on the part of certain drug lords. Dried opium, unlike most agricultural products, can easily be stored for long periods without refrigeration or other expensive equipment. With huge stashes of opium stored in secret hideaways. Taliban, and other groups became involved in the drug trade were in theory able to make huge personal profits during the price spikes after the 2000 ban and the chaos following 9/11.[15][16]

            Since 2008 the Taliban insurgency has been supporting farmers growing poppy as a source of income for insurgent operations.[

            I’m not quite sure what your trying to prove? I’m only saying that the US is there for the money from the Opium fields and statistics support that. You claim the that Taliban caused a drastic decline is only true for last 2 years of their 7 year rule. It’s now at record levels, thanks to our occupation and protection. But, on a different note, I agree with you that we should have never invaded Afghanistan. It should have been dealt with differently. One thing that just popped into my thinking, in 2K Taliban bans opium fields, US invades in 2001. Imagine that, and now the opium harvest is at record levels, can you see the common denominator?

            • plainlyspoken says:

              No, I don’t see what common denominator you are pointing at.

              What money is the US getting (I am guessing you mean the USG?)? Are we fighting a war just over monetary greed we aren’t getting (I don’t see it in our US budget, or cutting our tax rates, or funding our activities there, or benefiting anyone other than the criminals who smuggle and distribute it here in the US)?

              Can YOU show and factual evidence we have continued to fight this war just to protect proceeds from poppy production? I mean cmon, if that’s the case why ever leave? Would we just tell Karzai to go to hell and we’ll saty as long as we want?

              • Right, the U.S. got involved in Afghanistan because of the poppi fields … Sweet Jesus, no wonder your numbers are down to less than 10 commentators a day … 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                That’s cool. The budget never includes funding to pay to overthrow rogue govt’s that the CIA has been doing for years (including Ukraine). There is a thing called a “Black Budget” the funds the overthrow and all the other BS out idiot govt gets involved with called “black ops”.

                But fear not my friend, it’s all a conspiracy theory 😀

  39. @Life … “.The US still has the best military in the world.” Probably, but big deal. In a war against another superpower, do you really believe it would be settled on the ground? Any nation possessing nuclear weapons would probably use them when threatened with surrender … we go to war with Russia, we can kiss our asses goodbye (which is a VERY good reason not to go to war with Russia or anybody else possessing nuclear weapons) … and I’m sure they think the same thing. I doubt they’ll try to invade Cuba … or Florida … or Mexico .. and for the same reasons.

  40. gmanfortruth says:
  41. “The brainwashed live!”
    Even when I want to come here just to stir the pot, Gmonkey’s rants (no matter how long/how short) are so damn silly AND ignorant, I have to pass … at least until I’m bored at work again …

  42. gmanfortruth says:
  43. gmanfortruth says:

    Socialism at it’s best, just don’t get sick seems to be your best insurance option, because with socialized medicine, you WILL DIE :

    Obamacare Plans Limit Access to Life-Saving Prescriptions

    http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/27/obamacare-plans-limit-access-to-life-saving-prescriptions/

  44. Very interesting interview on tv a little while ago…….

    North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming…..just put on job fairs in New York, Detroit, Philadelphia…….they are looking for 3500 people to go to these various states to work in the oil fields….starting salaries $70,000 – $110,000. From roustabout to more sensitive jobs. Paid moving expenses- 100%, paid hospitalization…. and paid housing for the first 90 days. Work for three weeks and off for one week…each month. The requirement was to move….full expense paid. A sum total of 330 applicants showed up.

    Boggles the mind.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Why should people in the big cities work? They make plenty sitting back and smoking crack, making babies to abort and getting govt assistance. Shit, they got it made, sex, drugs, booze, the support of the Democrats, what else could they need? 😀

  45. gmanfortruth says:

    WOOHOO! http://www.nationalmemo.com/6-million-signed-health-insurance-obama-says/

    That covers, almost all those who lost their insurance they were promised they could keep (depending on how many actually paid for the insurance). Now, what happened to those 44 million that had no insurance that the left whined incisively about? Where are they and why aren’t the signed up? Answer, because the reasons for the law were a total LIE!

  46. gmanfortruth says:

    WARNING: Female Left Wingers will soon be invading Texas wearing vagina suits!
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/27/us-appeals-court-upholds-new-texas-abortion-rules/

  47. gmanfortruth says:

    This is why Left Wing politicians are morons:

    Jones has even produced signs that read: “Warning, Children entering municipal recreation center may be exposed to strangers carrying concealed weapons.”

    Jones explained his position, stating, “We expect to proceed to Kanawha County Circuit Court to find out whether these recreation centers are, in fact, part of the Kanawha County School System. If we prevail, that would make carrying guns on the property a felony. If we do not prevail, we hope there will be no trouble at the recreation centers. If there are either shootings or shootouts, we hope none of the innocent children that take part in the programs there are hit with any stray rounds of ammunition.”
    http://www.guns.com/2014/03/26/wv-bill-signed-governor-strikes-city-gun-ordinances-mayor-vows-fight-video/

  48. Yes, please, go away …. it’s bad enough you chased most everybody away with your insanity … or maybe it’s just ignorance … but 8 posts in a row? Time to find a life … 🙂

  49. Judy Sabatini says:

    GEEZ LOUISE Charlie, do you ever quit with the badgering? Maybe that’s why some left, they couldn’t take you badgering everybody on here anymore. You ever think G put those 8 postings up, just so they can talk about other things here as well? Give it a rest already why don’t you.

    • Nope.

      • Then maybe you’ll clean it up for me. I went to bat for you, now you took my bat, clobbered me with it, and made me look bad. Now give me the bat back so I can pinch hit for the rest of the team. You owe me.

        • Anita, my love … I do owe you, Anita … but I refuse to ignore the asinine cracks G makes and when you’re the ONLY one who even attempts to back him down, I can’t take those requesting I back down serious … I never noticed JAC speak up against G’s insults aimed at “lefties” (never mind me) EVER. Hey, he can block me (AGAIN) … I don’t like the guy … I used to assume he was only joking … I no longer feel that way. Taking an insult from him is asking too much. He crossed the line with decency a long time ago. He doesn’t like it, let him exercise his precious liberty and block me. It’s a private site, right? Not to worry, I won’t be cutting my wrists over SUFA and/or Gman … it is what it is … I engage with other people here without insults (until they insult first — i.e.,. JAC) … I have no issue with the colonel, even when we discuss touchy issues) … that’s it, I spent enough time on this today … 🙂

  50. Personally verified at the Mexican consulate in Dallas, Texas. HHS is openly enrolling illegal immigrants despite the promise by Obama that non citizens could ever enroll in Obamacare. I am quite sure this is the only way they can meet their target goal…..THIS in my opinion, meets the criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors.

  51. The US 5th Circuit, in a unanimous decision, upheld State’s rights and overturned a lower court ruling that Texas has a right to decide its abortion issue and that the new law “did not undermine nor place restrictions on women’s health”.

    The Court of Appeals noted that Texas did not do away with abortions but had the right to set strict limitations on how they are performed. The Court went on to say that the rule of “requiring doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals” keeps abortions from the back alleys and non certificated doctors and Texas has a right to protect women’s health from the unscrupulous practices of non medical personnel. In addition, Texas restricted the use of abortion type pills requiring them to be prescribed from a licensed physician. The Texas law also requires that all medical facilities that perform abortions are medically recognized and conform to the practices of good medicine in cleanliness.

    Texas also made sure that women who wish to abort, must go through a certificated doctor and recognize the issue of viability and that any late term abortion can only be performed if the health if the mother is doubt.

    The ruling went on to bolster that State’s rights are constitutional.

    • Now before anyone gets their panties in a wad here……this abortion issue was actually about State’s rights and that these items should be left to the State to decide. There is no “one size fits all” mentality here.

%d bloggers like this: