When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
You have to look at it from Obama’s point of view. He is winning on this one. Another step DOWN for the USA on its way to surrendering ALL of our freedoms.
OT, I worked for a straight man in his fifties today, one of the few in my group. He was born in Mexico City, his father was groom at a stable for jumpers, so he had early exposure to horses. he rode in a Wild West Vacquero group and traveled all over the world performing trick riding like the old time wild west shows. At some point he became a US citizen and has been self-employed as a trainer ever since. One of my friends.
He quoted a poll today that stated that over 40% of Americans don’t know the difference between Washington DC and the state of Washington. He was indignant, he maintained that this was his adopted country and he made an effort to learn a great deal about the country, but these natural born Americans went to school here and yet they were so stupid. I had to admire the man and yet feel ashamed at the state of our natural born and educated (so-called educated) citizenry.
These people vote like sheep being led to the abattoir killing floor.
Anyway, when I have been snowed in, I always tried to make the best of the situation. A few shots of good Irish Whiskey will help you see the brighter side and I am sure there are a few cigars available at the Hotel.
There’s a lot of work that needs to be done back home, not only at the ranch, but in the rest of the country as well. The words of OT are always held in high regard. The snow will clear and the planes will fly. Sit back and enjoy the Montana weather in Brussels. Best Regards, Skook.
Smorgasbord: When you are on your knees, you are vulnerable to say the least. Your best punch is an uppercut right to the groin. I promise to let some loose.
I don’t understand how someone can be born in Illinois, go through Illinois schools, listen to Illinois radio and TV stations, but don’t know how to pronounce their state’s name.
One time on The Carol Burnett show, when she was taking questions, one person started out with, “I’m from Illinoissss….” Carol interrupted him and very seriously said, “That’s Illinois.” The crowd erupted in laughter for some time, and he didn’t finish his question.
Mr. Aye Chi: I’m well aware we live in a global economy…but we are far beyond the point where we are financially capable of absorbing tariffs for our exports, and allowing imports from the same countries to flood thru the door tariff free.
I have never counted you as part of what I would call the “Protectionist” camp either.
The position that you have taken, a position that I hold as well, is that trade agreements must be as advantageous to us, the US, as possible. We must do what we can, where we can, to make sure that the interests of the US are preserved. We must tilt the balance back in our favor rather than just giving away the store.
Unfortunately, we’ve got our asses in a financial crack with China now…so we don’t really have much leverage with them on trade issues at the moment.
Ivan, on the other hand, seems to be in the “swing the door shut and padlock it” crowd.
That position is not going to serve us well which is what the crux of my comment was in #48.
Another thing we need to address is the quality of stuff we send overseas. Many years ago I had a milk route and one farmer told me he had to buy equipment to filter the grain so the elevator only got grain, but the elevator could add 10% dunnage to the grain and ship it overseas. This is how some got rid of their rotten grain, or they would add rocks and other junk.
Japan got tired of it and started coming to the USA and buying up elevators so they could buy and ship their own grain so they would get only what they paid for. I don’t know if the 10% dunnage rule has been changed, but American business is known to get whatever they want from the politicians.
It used to be that if it said “Made In USA” on it, it was the best you could buy. Now, foreign countries are known for the best quality of a lot of products. One thing we should do is make it mandatory that we give the customer what they paid for.
That’s kind of like Des Moines radio, some pronounce the the s. Or, in Missouri some say Missourah. Being from Illinois and moving to Missouri, it’s a little jolt when hearing it pronounced differently. Another one…… “Eye”talians. 😉
About the eclipse, next one is in 94 years, we missed it last night, will have to wait for the next one. 😀
You have an idea what it was like for me traveling all over the country as a truck driver. The ones I felt sorry for were the immigrants who came here, learned the language, then moved to a part of the country with a different accent and took their accent with them.
I grew up about 45 minutes from Des Moines so I heard how it was pronounced and was surprised when I started hearing others mispronounce it. By the way, Des Moines was a famous Indian Chief, and a lot of towns and counties have Indian names. I guess they want to be called Native Americans, so I try to oblige.
I had to deliver in Eau Clare WI and found out I was pronouncing it wrong. It is French, and the Eau is pronounced “oh.”
I had to pick up a load in Louisville IN. When I called for directions I mentioned I didn’t know there was a Lou–e–ville Indiana. The man politely but strongly said, “That’s louis–ville.” A river separates the two different pronunciations.
I missed the first part of the eclipse, but I am a night owl, so stepped out often to watch the rest of it. Even if I make it to 159 years old, I doubt that I will know what is going on around me, let alone outside.
B-Rob
13 years ago
Just as I have always said, it is quite easy to talk about cutting spending in the abstract, but much tougher to do it in real life. Reporters are finally acknowledging the obvious: GOPer cons like to spend lots of money!
KansasGirl
13 years ago
Smorgasbord, not only have you and me never seen this before, we will never see it again. On a serious note, Merry Christmas to what I consider friends.
Now there’s a very tired, overused, but telling phrase.
That verbiage lays bare and betrays an ego in constant need of approval, that actually never gets it, so has to “provide” its own recognition of nimble cleverness, allthewhile pleading for attention.
What follows the use of such desperate utterance, is almost always meaningless, is never original, and rarely solicits the attention is craves.
. . . Insightful addition to the dialogue, . . . thanks.
ya know, @Billy Bob, I’ll agree that the GOP are also spenders. But when it comes to the mother (fill in the blanks here) spending party of all time… most especially the political party architects of the social welfare justice nanny nation with SS and Medicare ponzi schemes today… I will accept no lectures from you.
Ivan
13 years ago
Hmmm…looks like we have many proponents of “Free Trade” here on FA. Interesting….let’s see what Karl Marx had to say about Free Trade, shall we?
Under the freedom of trade the whole severity of the laws of political economy will be applied to the working classes. Is that to say that we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon a greater extent of territory, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where they stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians.
Engels, To Free Trade Congress at Brussels (1847)
So, yeah, I’m a bit surprised that FA would be home to the very philosophy that Karl “Communist” Marx advocated.
And of course Palin just echos him by supporting the failed religion.
Lawdy, Ivan… your spin is not only tiresome, you don’t even have a clue as to the hip talking points you bandy about.
Free trade, by definition, is where goods are imported, exported, stored etc without government imposition of tariffs for duties. Whether it’s our government, or the trading partner’s government.
This, of course, means there really are no “free trade” agreements. Instead, the buzz word has been morphed to mean that either/both of the trading partners agrees to to lift most or all tariffs, quotas, special fees and taxes. Therein lies the devil in the details in all treaties. Which trading partner is lifting “most or all” of these fees? And is it a balanced agreement?
That you wish to play games with what is really a non existent entity, and then blanket all the rest with the same buzz word, indicates you aren’t much worthy of paying attention to in this field. But we’ll all get a laugh that you PaulBots consider us “marxists” when we do decide to look at that details for each agreement, instead of accepting your hip phraseology.
Ivan
13 years ago
I love this quote, so prophetic. Especially when one looks at the terrible decline of the US since we’ve adopted all these free trade agreements in the 1990s.
What is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. …
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
Marx & Engels, On Free Trade (1848)
Still for “Free trade” FAs?
GaffaUK
13 years ago
@Ivan
Isn’t that oldest trick you are using from the poor logic thinker’s book?
Karl Marx favoured free trade
Karl Marx epoused communism
Communism is evil
Therefore free trade is evil
I supposed therefore all vegetarians are meglomanics because Hitler didn’t eat meat?
This, of course, means there really are no “free trade” agreements. Instead, the buzz word has been morphed to mean that either/both of the trading partners agrees to to lift most or all tariffs, quotas, special fees and taxes.
Ha! Just keep telling yourself that over and over and eventually even you’ll begin to believe it.
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive.
Ivan, maybe you should spend less time studying what seems to be your mentor, Marx, and more times studying American History. We’ve never had a “free trade” agreement in our life as a Republic. Early days, it was tariffs. Later we had reciprocal trade agreements… most of which favored the burgeoning American businessman. And, in fact, up until WWI, it was the largest source of federal revenue, and a Constitutional power.
After that, it was the libs, who controlled both the chambers of Congress for the majority sessions, who were giving away the American farm with badly constructed trade agreements. As I said, we’ve been on the losing end of the reciprocal terms for decades now.
Only an idiot (ahem…. if the shoe fits, in reference to you) would assume that all trade agreements are equal or identical in terms, or genuinely “free” in the absolute meaning of the phrase. Therefore if you want to discuss what part of the SK or Columbian treaty is “free trade”… ala where either the US or trading partner is actually lifting their tariffs and duties on a particular product… you might have a conversation and a debate. Other than that, the devil lies in the details, and you’re just playing silly “the meaning of is… ‘is’… “ games. Obviously you know of no specifics on either treaty to dispute, so you merely find marxist quotes to lift…. which really isn’t anything constructive in it’s foundation. You fool no one here. But you do bore us to tears…. LOL
I believe that it would be seriously beneficial for the FA readership if it could be gifted with a single example of free trade between the U.S. and any serious trading partner.
We might then learn something of the meaning of free trade in its absolute definition.
So, yeah, I’m a bit surprised that FA would be home to the very philosophy that Karl “Communist” Marx advocated.
Look at the Marx quote you used. You only bolded part of it, I am assuming because you think it made your point.
Your quote with your emphasis:
Under the freedom of trade the whole severity of the laws of political economy will be applied to the working classes. Is that to say that we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon a greater extent of territory, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where they stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians.
Now if you bother to read the entire quote and try to understand it, Marx was calling for anarchy. He wasn’t really interested in the “emancipation of the proletarians.” He was endorsing the break down of all governments so that his precious communism could take hold.
And you pride yourself on quoting him??
Really?
Ivan
13 years ago
Anti said:
Now if you bother to read the entire quote and try to understand it, Marx was calling for anarchy. He wasn’t really interested in the “emancipation of the proletarians.” He was endorsing the break down of all governments so that his precious communism could take hold.
And you pride yourself on quoting him??
Really?
Open your eyes, Anti. All these free trade agreements have brought the chaos Marx predicted they would.
Did you forget the part I highlighted where he said that Free Trade was destructive???’
Marx was prophetic, an ass, but he understood revolutionary forces and what has happened to our nation since the “Free trade 90s” has been nothing less than destructive.
Ivan
13 years ago
Obviously you know of no specifics on either treaty to dispute, so you merely find marxist quotes to lift…. which really isn’t anything constructive in it’s foundation. You fool no one here. But you do bore us to tears…. LOL
So tell us, have these “free trade” agreements been constructive or destructive to the US economy?
Do you prefer the America during Bush’s tenure, with NAFTA, GATT, WTO and the , or the America under the protectionist era of Ronald Reagan?
Who here can argue that the US had a better economy in the 2001-2009 era over that of 1981 to 1989???
Ivan
13 years ago
Mata said”
After that, it was the libs, who controlled both the chambers of Congress for the majority sessions, who were giving away the American farm with badly constructed trade agreements. As I said, we’ve been on the losing end of the reciprocal terms for decades now.
Wait, NAFTA was passed only because REPUBLICANS wanted it! Come on Mata, don’t let the facts get in the way of you telling a good lie now. 🙄
From wiki:
the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement’s supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[2][3]
So yeah, the libs “controlled” both chambers, but it was due to the Republican internationalists that NAFTA became law.
So these “badly conducted” trade agreements were passed due to REPUBLICAN sell-outs.
So, care to admit you didn’t know it was due to the Republicans? Or, were you just spinning?
So tell us, have these “free trade” agreements been constructive or destructive to the US economy?
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, we’ve not had a “free trade” agreement in American history. We imposed tariffs, to our fiscal advantage all the way up to WWI. After that, we’ve engaged in “reciprocal trade agreements”…. where both trading parties agreed to waive or less taxes/duties in the agreement.
My suggestion is you take up James Raider’s challenge in #76, and give us an example of any “free trade” agreement the US has been a party to in our history. Other that that, what we have is lots of badly negotiated “reciprocal trade agreements”.
Now, while you’d like to attempt to bait me with what you believe is a “gotcha moment”, I might remind you of, again, my repetitive comments… reiterated below:
#14: The US has taken the losing end on trade for a few decades now.
#30: Doesn’t much matter because either party is going to give away the American farm… as they’ve been doing for decades.
#49: This is actually somewhat amusing because I’m probably the prime person here to be closest to your protectionist PaulBot personality on these issues. But then, you may have gleaned that I’m not a fan of these one way trade agreements when I said to you, what “free trade”? It’s “free” for other countries, but cost this country quite a bit.
#75: As I said, we’ve been on the losing end of the reciprocal terms for decades now.
Perhaps, with it all in your face in one combo comment, you might figure out that I’m no fan of most of the “one world global” type reciprocal agreements that have transpired over the decades. Nor to I confine them to just the treaties you mention, since I’ve watched the exodus of steel mills, aluminum, brass and textile industries since the 70s. Why? Friendlier corporate digs elsewhere.
But I’m not so uninformed to assume that because any pundit or pol uses the hip phrase, “free trade” (much to their own ignorance), that all these agreements are equal. Nor do we get much of a say in what’s going in there…. same beltway arrogance as usual.
INRE my comment about Dem domination historically over Congress… even you might be able to wander over to Wikipedia and learn what years what parties controlled Congress. And in 1993, they controlled both chambers… as they’ve done thru most of the period from 1950.
Will there be GOPers who sign on to badly negotiated reciprocal trade agreements? But of course. Do they have the numbers to stop them, or hold out for better terms? Nope. And of course I know that there are members of both parties that vote, at any given time, across party lines. Not only for treaties, but for all kinds of legislation. What a stupid argument. You really must deal with amoebae in your daily life…..
And one more time… did I think it was better that some GOPers voted for a bad agreement? Nope. Because, as I said, both parties will continue to give away the American farm, as they’ve done for decades. Do try to read that, and my other comments above slowly. You might get a clue.
Now… where’s that example of the US engaging in a “free trade” agreement?
“The bourgeoisie…has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”
Did you see that part in bold there? “Free Trade” is a “single, unconscionable freedom”.
Calling it an “unconscionable freedom” doesn’t sound like a supportive position to me…
Hmmmmm….it seems that Ivan and Marx agree.
Yeah, I’m a bit surprised that Ivan would be espousing the very philosophy that Karl “Communist” Marx advocated.
@Ivan: Who here can argue that the US had a better economy in the 2001-2009 era over that of 1981 to 1989???
This deserves it’s own comment response. Because again, like you prefer to use a blanket label of all “reciprocal trade agreements” as “free trade”, despite the fact that the details in each treaty differ, you now compare two economic eras as if they were apples to apples.
In the 1980s, we were recovering from not only Carter economic policies, but beginning to feel the serious effects of the nanny Medicare ponzi scheme that started adding seniors to the benefits in the decade before. In other words, using small words for you, we were attempting to climb out of a recession, and just embarking on the inevitable spiral down for Medicare spending.
On the other hand, Clinton enjoyed two bubble economies. First the dot com, that was beginning it’s burst near the end of his 2nd term, and the onset of the housing bubble ramping up at the same time. In other words, again using small words, the wind was in his economic sails.
Despite that, Clinton’s tax policies still resulted in a declining trend of federal revenue loss as compared to the GDP, where Reagan’s tax policies were a slow upward trend in ratio to the GDP. You might want to say that Reagan played a tennis match against a pro, in fit condition, and fared quite well despite losing, while Clinton played a match against a blind tennis player, having every advantage, and still lost the game. He left us in a recession…. albeit more mild than Carter’s.
The magic fiscal era of Clinton was the result of dangerous bubbles, combined with a GOP Congress who actually did reign in spending. And as we all know historically, all bubbles are doomed to burst. And virtually every Congressional session always results in increased spending and expansion of government.
Thus it becomes notable that, since 1950, the control of both chambers of Congress have been overwhelmingly Democrat controlled. Whether a slim majority, or supermajority, they are still a majority with the power of the nation’s purse and further expansion of federal authority in their pockets.
Ivan, your using Marx as your whipping boy to make your insipid point is bad enough. But then you point to a Democratically controlled Congress passing NAFTA with STRONG bipartisan support and yet you say that the GOP pushed it through.
I guess Ivan finds himself siding with the anti-NAFTA progressive Dems, the unions, etal. Problem is, with Clinton furiously pushing it, after adding his environmental and labor supplements, the progressive/union wing of the Dem party weren’t going to be able to wield control over their Blue Dog peers. The big 2008 election talking point was to attempt to renegotiate the enviro and labor agreements. Of course, forcing both Mexico and Canada to adhere to US union and enviro standards would pretty much make them just as uncompetitive as we are, and all of us would turn to China and cheaper labor countries for affordable product.
What really becomes interesting, in retrospect, is that it really didn’t make that much of an economic impact, nor reverse the trend of declining US industrial power. While it did add manufactuing jobs, automation was already limiting that growth anyway. Plus increasing overhead and US corporate taxes were driving industry to other more competitive conditions. All in all, as a CFR analysis from 2009 notes, neither the pro or con forces really win the debate as to it’s effectiveness. Yes, NAFTA accounts for about 80% of Mexico and Canada’s trade, and about a third of the US trade. But did the treaty actually encourage that? Or would it have happened anyway?
Elaine Donnelly Dec 19th 2010 at 3:59 pm in Featured Story, Justice/Legal, Soldiers | Comments (347)
On Saturday the United States Senate voted for legislation that will impose heavy, unnecessary burdens on the backs of military men and women. They are the ones who will pay a very high price for Congress’ reckless decision to help President Barack Obama deliver on political campaign promises to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activists.
Sixty-five senators voted for the no-amendments-allowed “privileged” bill in a lame-duck session. History will note that the outgoing 111th Congress acted with needless haste allowing no time for substantive hearings to examine findings and controversial recommendations in the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group Report.
Liberals in Congress knew that the report could not withstand informed scrutiny, so Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) persuaded others to join her in breaking their word on legislative priorities—a betrayal that belied her own previous statements calling for full and open debate. Full hearings and informed oversight probably would have halted this controversial bill.
Adding insult to grievous and possibly irreversible injury, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) celebrated “victory” for his legislation by praising the results of First Amendment rights enjoyed by well-funded, mostly-civilian LGBT Left groups. The remark was a thoughtless affront to concerned combat troops who tried to express support for the current law through the Pentagon’s Working Group process.
Without providing quantitative data on the results of focus groups nationwide and overseas, the Working Group conceded, “Our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal.’” (p. 49) Not only were these opinions disrespected, Adm. Mike Mullen has already stated more than once that anyone who disagrees with the LGBT law no longer will be welcome to serve.
In addition to involuntary personnel losses due to Adm. Mullen’s “zero tolerance” of dissent, cross-tabbed data displayed on the 2010 DADT Survey website indicate that among Army combat arms personnel, 21.4% would leave sooner than planned, and 14.6% would think about leaving–a total potential loss of more than a third (36%) of those valuable troops. (DADT Survey Appendix J, p. 53)
Marine combat arms would be weakened even more, with 32% of Marines saying they would leave sooner than planned, and 16.2% considering an early end to their careers, totaling almost half. (DADT Survey Appendix L, p. 47) The gradual loss of so many combat troops and what the report described as “only 12%” of families likely to decline re-enlistment could put remaining troops in greater danger, and break the All-Volunteer Force. (CRWG Report, p. 4)
Such findings should make it impossible for President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen to “certify” that no harm will be done by implementation of their own plans for repeal. The president’s political promise to LGBT Left groups has been assigned highest priority, at the expense of Army and Marine combat troops whose voices were heard but ignored.
Senator James Webb (D-VA), who rationalized his vote by relying on such a promise from Secretary Gates, has played the same role that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) did when he accepted worthless assurances from the administration in exchange for his vote on the health care bill.
Some media commentators are asking—belatedly─what repeal of the 1993 law would mean. All should consider the self-inflicted problems presaged in the CRWG Report, and proposed “mitigation” strategies advocated in the Support Plan for Implementation. To mention only a few, they include:
A mandate to “prohibit the creation of separate bathroom and shower facilities based on sexual orientation.” (p. 18) Such a policy, tantamount to forced cohabitation of men with military women, would disregard normal dynamics of human sexuality. Local commanders dealing with unprecedented problems would be, essentially, on their own.
Mandatory “three-tiered” education program, focusing on resistant combat troops, to change attitudes and opinions on LGBT issues. (pp. 25-26) The plan does not suggest ways to get personnel accustomed to routine personal exposure to others who may be sexually attracted to them, in conditions of “forced intimacy” offering little or no privacy.
Punishments for “resistance;” i.e., zero tolerance of anyone who disagrees for any reason, including “moral or religious beliefs.” (pp. 50-51) Senate testimony confirmed that an undetermined number of chaplains having moral conflicts with LGBT policies would be lost to the service. The report concedes that on the issue of religious freedom for chaplains, “boundaries are not always clearly defined.” (p. 16 and p. 80) Litigation is guaranteed, but Congress has surrendered decision-making power to unelected bureaucrats or federal courts.
Repeal of certain personal conduct provisions in the UCMJ, eliminating or lowering some standards to accommodate consensual homosexual conduct. (p. 18) Congress has just voted to repeal statutory findings that rules of conduct apply both on- and off-base.
Unresolved issues involving marital status, including disparities in benefits and access to family medical care in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages, plus access to military family housing for opposite- and same-sex unmarried couples. (pp. 19-21) Again, the courts will likely decide, at the behest of administration who will cite LGBT Law in the military to accomplish repeal of the DOMA.
Unresolved questions about morale and costs related to the retention of HIV+ personnel, who must be retained in non-deployable status under current regulations. (p. 22)
A thorough reading of the entire report and its recommendations reveals not a single point or argument showing consequences that would benefit the All-Volunteer Force. Instead, the document recommends “mitigation” of expected problems, and downplays risks by making the absurd claim that all will go smoothly if the Working Group’s recommendations are followed, no matter how unrealistic or potentially harmful they are.
The elitism and arrogance behind these flawed recommendations will cause years of harmful consequences, which our troops did nothing to deserve. History will hold accountable every legislator who voted to make it happen.
If the amount of troops lost to DADT is accurate, we will no longer be a military power by the end of 2011. Was it worth it?
Hard Right
13 years ago
Don’t put those around your ankles Ivan or you defeat the purpose.
Nan G
13 years ago
Skookum
86
I know there were some in the military saying, if you can’t deal with homosexuals beside you in the service then you can leave, BUT I wonder if that is really going to be an allowable reason to quit the service?
There are stop-loss rules that kick in if not enough men and women sign up, forcing soldiers to stay extra time.
I just can’t believe they would let anyone who wants to leave go.
Nan, Adm Mullen was responsible for that declaration on several occasions; however, he can make the option extremely distasteful by using Bad Conduct and Dishonorable Discharges. That will slow the expected loss of trained troops and still allow him to pontificate like a true politician. It is undeniable that it will slow enlistments, especially if young men are going to be considered gay if they enlist. Don’t laugh, it is hard to anticipate the social fallout from this move and one of the main reasons for young men to enlist is to find the true meaning of manhood. When you take that away with the vision of serving and sleeping with homosexuals, the dynamics will change very quickly.
Democrats have been anti-military for decades, Liberals and Progressives even more so, this is another means to weaken our military and take away the pride of service and esprit de corps.
They are killing more than one bird with this stone. It Allows BO to fulfill his campaign promise to the Gay Machine and contributes to the weakening of the US military; thus there is a win win situation for the Democrats as they begin to reform their coalitions for 2011. They have now managed to impress the Gays and the Socialists who always seek to weaken the military.
ATD: At The Doctor’s
BFF: Best Friend Farted
BTW: Bring The Wheelchair
BYOT: Bring Your Own Teeth
CBM: Covered By Medicare
CUATSC: See You At The Senior Center
DWI: Driving While Incontinent
FWB: Friend With Beta Blockers
FWIW: Forgot Where I Was
FYI: Found Your Insulin
GGPBL: Gotta Go, Pacemaker Battery Low!
GHA: Got Heartburn Again
HGBM: Had Good Bowel Movement
IMHO: Is My Hearing-Aid On?
LMDO: Laughing My Dentures Out
LOL: Living On Lipitor
LWO: Lawrence Welk’s On
OMMR: On My Massage Recliner
OMSG: Oh My! Sorry, Gas.
ROFL… CGU: Rolling On The Floor Laughing… And Can’t Get Up
SGGP: Sorry, Gotta Go Poop
TTYL: Talk To You Louder
WAITT: Who Am I Talking To?
WTFA: Wet The Furniture Again
WTP: Where’s The Prunes?
WWNO: Walker Wheels Need Oil
Old Trooper 2
13 years ago
A VERY ZOMBIE HOLIDAY (Instructional video)
Sent to me by some folks from my old Unit outside Kandahar
A couple of Fine NCOs from the J-2 Shop, Air Force and Navy Intel Anylists that don’t own
a Flash Drive. Both Female. One from Casper,Wyoming the other from Spokane, Washington.
Priorities…too much time on their hands most likely…but they love Skookum’s ‘tells’ of Life in the Real World.
Water Wings on the ankles can be tricky, for sure they aren’t for the faint heated or weak minded among us. Nerves of steel and a steady hand are required, if you intend on leaving the wading pool and hanging out in the deep water. It really isn’t all that tough, if you are ready to face what life has to pass out. If you can swim in the deep water with the water wings around your ankles and survive, you will be accepted in a small fraternity of ankle water wing survivors; opportunities will open up for you and you will rarely need to buy your own whiskey.
I say go for it, the worst that can happen is that you will be buried at the deep end of the pool.
I was off of the computer to have a free Christmas dinner with my brother. It only cost me fuel for 2,400 miles round trip, tolls, and motel room. Pretty good deal.
The eclipse is like other events that my kids were too young to remember. I try to remind them sometimes that they were alive when they happened. Haley’s Comet is an example.
@Skookum: #52
You have to look at it from Obama’s point of view. He is winning on this one. Another step DOWN for the USA on its way to surrendering ALL of our freedoms.
Old Trooper 2 “Stuck in Brussels,”
As you patiently submit to the Belgian version of Global Warming, here’s a little more music to endure the blizzard with:
Driving Home For Christmas . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uey6VktC5ms&feature=fvw
And, . . . can’t help it, a classic – The Road To Hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZlWqVeLzg&feature=fvsr
. . . Just some of the gems I was listening to as I was writing. Safe travel.
@KansasGirl: #54
I’ve been watching it too. One advantage of being retired and a night owl. I think this is the first one I have seen.
OT, I worked for a straight man in his fifties today, one of the few in my group. He was born in Mexico City, his father was groom at a stable for jumpers, so he had early exposure to horses. he rode in a Wild West Vacquero group and traveled all over the world performing trick riding like the old time wild west shows. At some point he became a US citizen and has been self-employed as a trainer ever since. One of my friends.
He quoted a poll today that stated that over 40% of Americans don’t know the difference between Washington DC and the state of Washington. He was indignant, he maintained that this was his adopted country and he made an effort to learn a great deal about the country, but these natural born Americans went to school here and yet they were so stupid. I had to admire the man and yet feel ashamed at the state of our natural born and educated (so-called educated) citizenry.
These people vote like sheep being led to the abattoir killing floor.
Anyway, when I have been snowed in, I always tried to make the best of the situation. A few shots of good Irish Whiskey will help you see the brighter side and I am sure there are a few cigars available at the Hotel.
There’s a lot of work that needs to be done back home, not only at the ranch, but in the rest of the country as well. The words of OT are always held in high regard. The snow will clear and the planes will fly. Sit back and enjoy the Montana weather in Brussels. Best Regards, Skook.
Smorgasbord: When you are on your knees, you are vulnerable to say the least. Your best punch is an uppercut right to the groin. I promise to let some loose.
@Skookum: #58
I don’t understand how someone can be born in Illinois, go through Illinois schools, listen to Illinois radio and TV stations, but don’t know how to pronounce their state’s name.
One time on The Carol Burnett show, when she was taking questions, one person started out with, “I’m from Illinoissss….” Carol interrupted him and very seriously said, “That’s Illinois.” The crowd erupted in laughter for some time, and he didn’t finish his question.
@Skookum: #59
If you haven’t got any specific targets for those uppercuts, I have a list you can start with, but you will have to get past the Secret Service first.
@MataHarley:
I have never counted you as part of what I would call the “Protectionist” camp either.
The position that you have taken, a position that I hold as well, is that trade agreements must be as advantageous to us, the US, as possible. We must do what we can, where we can, to make sure that the interests of the US are preserved. We must tilt the balance back in our favor rather than just giving away the store.
Unfortunately, we’ve got our asses in a financial crack with China now…so we don’t really have much leverage with them on trade issues at the moment.
Ivan, on the other hand, seems to be in the “swing the door shut and padlock it” crowd.
That position is not going to serve us well which is what the crux of my comment was in #48.
@Aye: #62
Another thing we need to address is the quality of stuff we send overseas. Many years ago I had a milk route and one farmer told me he had to buy equipment to filter the grain so the elevator only got grain, but the elevator could add 10% dunnage to the grain and ship it overseas. This is how some got rid of their rotten grain, or they would add rocks and other junk.
Japan got tired of it and started coming to the USA and buying up elevators so they could buy and ship their own grain so they would get only what they paid for. I don’t know if the 10% dunnage rule has been changed, but American business is known to get whatever they want from the politicians.
It used to be that if it said “Made In USA” on it, it was the best you could buy. Now, foreign countries are known for the best quality of a lot of products. One thing we should do is make it mandatory that we give the customer what they paid for.
@Smorgasbord:
That’s kind of like Des Moines radio, some pronounce the the s. Or, in Missouri some say Missourah. Being from Illinois and moving to Missouri, it’s a little jolt when hearing it pronounced differently. Another one…… “Eye”talians. 😉
About the eclipse, next one is in 94 years, we missed it last night, will have to wait for the next one. 😀
@Missy: #64
You have an idea what it was like for me traveling all over the country as a truck driver. The ones I felt sorry for were the immigrants who came here, learned the language, then moved to a part of the country with a different accent and took their accent with them.
I grew up about 45 minutes from Des Moines so I heard how it was pronounced and was surprised when I started hearing others mispronounce it. By the way, Des Moines was a famous Indian Chief, and a lot of towns and counties have Indian names. I guess they want to be called Native Americans, so I try to oblige.
I had to deliver in Eau Clare WI and found out I was pronouncing it wrong. It is French, and the Eau is pronounced “oh.”
I had to pick up a load in Louisville IN. When I called for directions I mentioned I didn’t know there was a Lou–e–ville Indiana. The man politely but strongly said, “That’s louis–ville.” A river separates the two different pronunciations.
I missed the first part of the eclipse, but I am a night owl, so stepped out often to watch the rest of it. Even if I make it to 159 years old, I doubt that I will know what is going on around me, let alone outside.
Just as I have always said, it is quite easy to talk about cutting spending in the abstract, but much tougher to do it in real life. Reporters are finally acknowledging the obvious: GOPer cons like to spend lots of money!
Smorgasbord, not only have you and me never seen this before, we will never see it again. On a serious note, Merry Christmas to what I consider friends.
#66,
Now there’s a very tired, overused, but telling phrase.
That verbiage lays bare and betrays an ego in constant need of approval, that actually never gets it, so has to “provide” its own recognition of nimble cleverness, allthewhile pleading for attention.
What follows the use of such desperate utterance, is almost always meaningless, is never original, and rarely solicits the attention is craves.
. . . Insightful addition to the dialogue, . . . thanks.
ya know, @Billy Bob, I’ll agree that the GOP are also spenders. But when it comes to the mother (fill in the blanks here) spending party of all time… most especially the political party architects of the social welfare justice nanny nation with SS and Medicare ponzi schemes today… I will accept no lectures from you.
Hmmm…looks like we have many proponents of “Free Trade” here on FA. Interesting….let’s see what Karl Marx had to say about Free Trade, shall we?
Under the freedom of trade the whole severity of the laws of political economy will be applied to the working classes. Is that to say that we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon a greater extent of territory, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where they stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians.
Engels, To Free Trade Congress at Brussels (1847)
So, yeah, I’m a bit surprised that FA would be home to the very philosophy that Karl “Communist” Marx advocated.
And of course Palin just echos him by supporting the failed religion.
Lawdy, Ivan… your spin is not only tiresome, you don’t even have a clue as to the hip talking points you bandy about.
Free trade, by definition, is where goods are imported, exported, stored etc without government imposition of tariffs for duties. Whether it’s our government, or the trading partner’s government.
This, of course, means there really are no “free trade” agreements. Instead, the buzz word has been morphed to mean that either/both of the trading partners agrees to to lift most or all tariffs, quotas, special fees and taxes. Therein lies the devil in the details in all treaties. Which trading partner is lifting “most or all” of these fees? And is it a balanced agreement?
That you wish to play games with what is really a non existent entity, and then blanket all the rest with the same buzz word, indicates you aren’t much worthy of paying attention to in this field. But we’ll all get a laugh that you PaulBots consider us “marxists” when we do decide to look at that details for each agreement, instead of accepting your hip phraseology.
I love this quote, so prophetic. Especially when one looks at the terrible decline of the US since we’ve adopted all these free trade agreements in the 1990s.
What is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. …
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
Marx & Engels, On Free Trade (1848)
Still for “Free trade” FAs?
@Ivan
Isn’t that oldest trick you are using from the poor logic thinker’s book?
Karl Marx favoured free trade
Karl Marx epoused communism
Communism is evil
Therefore free trade is evil
I supposed therefore all vegetarians are meglomanics because Hitler didn’t eat meat?
🙄
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Mata said:
This, of course, means there really are no “free trade” agreements. Instead, the buzz word has been morphed to mean that either/both of the trading partners agrees to to lift most or all tariffs, quotas, special fees and taxes.
Ha! Just keep telling yourself that over and over and eventually even you’ll begin to believe it.
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive.
K. Marx, On Free Trade
Ivan, maybe you should spend less time studying what seems to be your mentor, Marx, and more times studying American History. We’ve never had a “free trade” agreement in our life as a Republic. Early days, it was tariffs. Later we had reciprocal trade agreements… most of which favored the burgeoning American businessman. And, in fact, up until WWI, it was the largest source of federal revenue, and a Constitutional power.
After that, it was the libs, who controlled both the chambers of Congress for the majority sessions, who were giving away the American farm with badly constructed trade agreements. As I said, we’ve been on the losing end of the reciprocal terms for decades now.
Only an idiot (ahem…. if the shoe fits, in reference to you) would assume that all trade agreements are equal or identical in terms, or genuinely “free” in the absolute meaning of the phrase. Therefore if you want to discuss what part of the SK or Columbian treaty is “free trade”… ala where either the US or trading partner is actually lifting their tariffs and duties on a particular product… you might have a conversation and a debate. Other than that, the devil lies in the details, and you’re just playing silly “the meaning of is… ‘is’… “ games. Obviously you know of no specifics on either treaty to dispute, so you merely find marxist quotes to lift…. which really isn’t anything constructive in it’s foundation. You fool no one here. But you do bore us to tears…. LOL
I believe that it would be seriously beneficial for the FA readership if it could be gifted with a single example of free trade between the U.S. and any serious trading partner.
We might then learn something of the meaning of free trade in its absolute definition.
Statement: America has no Free Trade partner(s)
Counterclaim: . . . . hmm, not so much
Now, back to Marx and Engels…….
@Ivan: You said:
Look at the Marx quote you used. You only bolded part of it, I am assuming because you think it made your point.
Your quote with your emphasis:
Now if you bother to read the entire quote and try to understand it, Marx was calling for anarchy. He wasn’t really interested in the “emancipation of the proletarians.” He was endorsing the break down of all governments so that his precious communism could take hold.
And you pride yourself on quoting him??
Really?
Anti said:
Now if you bother to read the entire quote and try to understand it, Marx was calling for anarchy. He wasn’t really interested in the “emancipation of the proletarians.” He was endorsing the break down of all governments so that his precious communism could take hold.
And you pride yourself on quoting him??
Really?
Open your eyes, Anti. All these free trade agreements have brought the chaos Marx predicted they would.
Did you forget the part I highlighted where he said that Free Trade was destructive???’
Marx was prophetic, an ass, but he understood revolutionary forces and what has happened to our nation since the “Free trade 90s” has been nothing less than destructive.
Obviously you know of no specifics on either treaty to dispute, so you merely find marxist quotes to lift…. which really isn’t anything constructive in it’s foundation. You fool no one here. But you do bore us to tears…. LOL
So tell us, have these “free trade” agreements been constructive or destructive to the US economy?
Do you prefer the America during Bush’s tenure, with NAFTA, GATT, WTO and the , or the America under the protectionist era of Ronald Reagan?
Who here can argue that the US had a better economy in the 2001-2009 era over that of 1981 to 1989???
Mata said”
After that, it was the libs, who controlled both the chambers of Congress for the majority sessions, who were giving away the American farm with badly constructed trade agreements. As I said, we’ve been on the losing end of the reciprocal terms for decades now.
Wait, NAFTA was passed only because REPUBLICANS wanted it! Come on Mata, don’t let the facts get in the way of you telling a good lie now. 🙄
From wiki:
the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement’s supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[2][3]
So yeah, the libs “controlled” both chambers, but it was due to the Republican internationalists that NAFTA became law.
So these “badly conducted” trade agreements were passed due to REPUBLICAN sell-outs.
So, care to admit you didn’t know it was due to the Republicans? Or, were you just spinning?
Ivan still stubbornly sez:
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, we’ve not had a “free trade” agreement in American history. We imposed tariffs, to our fiscal advantage all the way up to WWI. After that, we’ve engaged in “reciprocal trade agreements”…. where both trading parties agreed to waive or less taxes/duties in the agreement.
My suggestion is you take up James Raider’s challenge in #76, and give us an example of any “free trade” agreement the US has been a party to in our history. Other that that, what we have is lots of badly negotiated “reciprocal trade agreements”.
Now, while you’d like to attempt to bait me with what you believe is a “gotcha moment”, I might remind you of, again, my repetitive comments… reiterated below:
Perhaps, with it all in your face in one combo comment, you might figure out that I’m no fan of most of the “one world global” type reciprocal agreements that have transpired over the decades. Nor to I confine them to just the treaties you mention, since I’ve watched the exodus of steel mills, aluminum, brass and textile industries since the 70s. Why? Friendlier corporate digs elsewhere.
But I’m not so uninformed to assume that because any pundit or pol uses the hip phrase, “free trade” (much to their own ignorance), that all these agreements are equal. Nor do we get much of a say in what’s going in there…. same beltway arrogance as usual.
INRE my comment about Dem domination historically over Congress… even you might be able to wander over to Wikipedia and learn what years what parties controlled Congress. And in 1993, they controlled both chambers… as they’ve done thru most of the period from 1950.
Will there be GOPers who sign on to badly negotiated reciprocal trade agreements? But of course. Do they have the numbers to stop them, or hold out for better terms? Nope. And of course I know that there are members of both parties that vote, at any given time, across party lines. Not only for treaties, but for all kinds of legislation. What a stupid argument. You really must deal with amoebae in your daily life…..
And one more time… did I think it was better that some GOPers voted for a bad agreement? Nope. Because, as I said, both parties will continue to give away the American farm, as they’ve done for decades. Do try to read that, and my other comments above slowly. You might get a clue.
Now… where’s that example of the US engaging in a “free trade” agreement?
Hey…I see that Ivan is still desparately splashing about in the deep end of the pool.
Remember when Ivan told us that Marx loved the idea of “Free Trade”?
Turns out that’s not all that Marx had to say on the matter….
Did you see that part in bold there? “Free Trade” is a “single, unconscionable freedom”.
Calling it an “unconscionable freedom” doesn’t sound like a supportive position to me…
Hmmmmm….it seems that Ivan and Marx agree.
Yeah, I’m a bit surprised that Ivan would be espousing the very philosophy that Karl “Communist” Marx advocated.
This deserves it’s own comment response. Because again, like you prefer to use a blanket label of all “reciprocal trade agreements” as “free trade”, despite the fact that the details in each treaty differ, you now compare two economic eras as if they were apples to apples.
In the 1980s, we were recovering from not only Carter economic policies, but beginning to feel the serious effects of the nanny Medicare ponzi scheme that started adding seniors to the benefits in the decade before. In other words, using small words for you, we were attempting to climb out of a recession, and just embarking on the inevitable spiral down for Medicare spending.
On the other hand, Clinton enjoyed two bubble economies. First the dot com, that was beginning it’s burst near the end of his 2nd term, and the onset of the housing bubble ramping up at the same time. In other words, again using small words, the wind was in his economic sails.
Despite that, Clinton’s tax policies still resulted in a declining trend of federal revenue loss as compared to the GDP, where Reagan’s tax policies were a slow upward trend in ratio to the GDP. You might want to say that Reagan played a tennis match against a pro, in fit condition, and fared quite well despite losing, while Clinton played a match against a blind tennis player, having every advantage, and still lost the game. He left us in a recession…. albeit more mild than Carter’s.
The magic fiscal era of Clinton was the result of dangerous bubbles, combined with a GOP Congress who actually did reign in spending. And as we all know historically, all bubbles are doomed to burst. And virtually every Congressional session always results in increased spending and expansion of government.
Thus it becomes notable that, since 1950, the control of both chambers of Congress have been overwhelmingly Democrat controlled. Whether a slim majority, or supermajority, they are still a majority with the power of the nation’s purse and further expansion of federal authority in their pockets.
Ivan, your using Marx as your whipping boy to make your insipid point is bad enough. But then you point to a Democratically controlled Congress passing NAFTA with STRONG bipartisan support and yet you say that the GOP pushed it through.
Mata was right. You spin like a drunken DJ.
@Ivan:
For those days when you find yourself in over your head:
Very colorful water wings there, Aye… LOL
I guess Ivan finds himself siding with the anti-NAFTA progressive Dems, the unions, etal. Problem is, with Clinton furiously pushing it, after adding his environmental and labor supplements, the progressive/union wing of the Dem party weren’t going to be able to wield control over their Blue Dog peers. The big 2008 election talking point was to attempt to renegotiate the enviro and labor agreements. Of course, forcing both Mexico and Canada to adhere to US union and enviro standards would pretty much make them just as uncompetitive as we are, and all of us would turn to China and cheaper labor countries for affordable product.
What really becomes interesting, in retrospect, is that it really didn’t make that much of an economic impact, nor reverse the trend of declining US industrial power. While it did add manufactuing jobs, automation was already limiting that growth anyway. Plus increasing overhead and US corporate taxes were driving industry to other more competitive conditions. All in all, as a CFR analysis from 2009 notes, neither the pro or con forces really win the debate as to it’s effectiveness. Yes, NAFTA accounts for about 80% of Mexico and Canada’s trade, and about a third of the US trade. But did the treaty actually encourage that? Or would it have happened anyway?
Was it worth it?
http://bigpeace.com/edonnelly/2010/12/19/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-congress-ignores-combat-troops/
If the amount of troops lost to DADT is accurate, we will no longer be a military power by the end of 2011. Was it worth it?
Don’t put those around your ankles Ivan or you defeat the purpose.
Skookum
86
I know there were some in the military saying, if you can’t deal with homosexuals beside you in the service then you can leave, BUT I wonder if that is really going to be an allowable reason to quit the service?
There are stop-loss rules that kick in if not enough men and women sign up, forcing soldiers to stay extra time.
I just can’t believe they would let anyone who wants to leave go.
Nan, Adm Mullen was responsible for that declaration on several occasions; however, he can make the option extremely distasteful by using Bad Conduct and Dishonorable Discharges. That will slow the expected loss of trained troops and still allow him to pontificate like a true politician. It is undeniable that it will slow enlistments, especially if young men are going to be considered gay if they enlist. Don’t laugh, it is hard to anticipate the social fallout from this move and one of the main reasons for young men to enlist is to find the true meaning of manhood. When you take that away with the vision of serving and sleeping with homosexuals, the dynamics will change very quickly.
Democrats have been anti-military for decades, Liberals and Progressives even more so, this is another means to weaken our military and take away the pride of service and esprit de corps.
They are killing more than one bird with this stone. It Allows BO to fulfill his campaign promise to the Gay Machine and contributes to the weakening of the US military; thus there is a win win situation for the Democrats as they begin to reform their coalitions for 2011. They have now managed to impress the Gays and the Socialists who always seek to weaken the military.
Texting code for Seniors:
ATD: At The Doctor’s
BFF: Best Friend Farted
BTW: Bring The Wheelchair
BYOT: Bring Your Own Teeth
CBM: Covered By Medicare
CUATSC: See You At The Senior Center
DWI: Driving While Incontinent
FWB: Friend With Beta Blockers
FWIW: Forgot Where I Was
FYI: Found Your Insulin
GGPBL: Gotta Go, Pacemaker Battery Low!
GHA: Got Heartburn Again
HGBM: Had Good Bowel Movement
IMHO: Is My Hearing-Aid On?
LMDO: Laughing My Dentures Out
LOL: Living On Lipitor
LWO: Lawrence Welk’s On
OMMR: On My Massage Recliner
OMSG: Oh My! Sorry, Gas.
ROFL… CGU: Rolling On The Floor Laughing… And Can’t Get Up
SGGP: Sorry, Gotta Go Poop
TTYL: Talk To You Louder
WAITT: Who Am I Talking To?
WTFA: Wet The Furniture Again
WTP: Where’s The Prunes?
WWNO: Walker Wheels Need Oil
A VERY ZOMBIE HOLIDAY (Instructional video)
Sent to me by some folks from my old Unit outside Kandahar
A couple of Fine NCOs from the J-2 Shop, Air Force and Navy Intel Anylists that don’t own
a Flash Drive. Both Female. One from Casper,Wyoming the other from Spokane, Washington.
Priorities…too much time on their hands most likely…but they love Skookum’s ‘tells’ of Life in the Real World.
Ivan, who did you vote for in 2008?
Water Wings on the ankles can be tricky, for sure they aren’t for the faint heated or weak minded among us. Nerves of steel and a steady hand are required, if you intend on leaving the wading pool and hanging out in the deep water. It really isn’t all that tough, if you are ready to face what life has to pass out. If you can swim in the deep water with the water wings around your ankles and survive, you will be accepted in a small fraternity of ankle water wing survivors; opportunities will open up for you and you will rarely need to buy your own whiskey.
I say go for it, the worst that can happen is that you will be buried at the deep end of the pool.
Kansas:
I voted for McCain/Palin.
@KansasGirl: #96
I was off of the computer to have a free Christmas dinner with my brother. It only cost me fuel for 2,400 miles round trip, tolls, and motel room. Pretty good deal.
The eclipse is like other events that my kids were too young to remember. I try to remind them sometimes that they were alive when they happened. Haley’s Comet is an example.