Open forum, August 6-12

Published:

 

ATTENTION

Hello, everyone. I have been contacted by a few of you about some "technical difficulties" we are experiencing with commenting on the open forums. I have been in contact with the vendor whose system we use as a comments engine so to speak. The engine is temporarily down while they do some work behind the scenes. I have asked when it will be back up but they have not yet given me an answer. My hope is that it'll be operational again today at some point. My sincere apologies for the inconvenience.

-- John Hill, web editor

The forums are moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply. To participate, login with your Columbian.com ID or register for an account at Columbian.com.

Columbian staff members create new forum threads. Don't see a forum topic here that fits your comments? Email Web Editor John Hill -- john.hill@columbian.com.


170 comments

Comments

**10 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Paid Average Tax Rate Of Just 9 Percent Last Year: Report**

While some of America's biggest corporations may complain that they pay too much in taxes, a recent analysis shows that many are actually getting off pretty easy.

According to the financial site NerdWallet, the 10 most profitable U.S. companies paid an average federal tax rate of just 9 percent last year. The group includes heavyweights Exxon Mobil, Apple, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and General Electric. (Hat tip: Barry Ritholtz.)

Some of these companies paid more than 9 percent -- JPMorgan earned $26.7 billion in 2011, for example, and paid $3.7 billion of it, or 14 percent, to the federal government -- and some paid less, like Exxon Mobil, which only sent 2 percent of its $73.3 billion earnings to the IRS.

But the 10 companies all paid much less than the nominal corporate tax rate of 35 percent -- a number that investor and tax-the-rich advocate Warren Buffett has dismissed as "a myth," but one that presidential front-runners Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both proposed to lower.

The effective corporate tax rate has been on its way down for decades, recently hitting a 40-year low even as corporate profits have reached an all-time high. Many of the companies that have seen their tax rates fall in recent years -- including Exxon Mobil, Verizon, General Electric and AT&T; -- are among the biggest spenders when it comes to lobbying, according to a recent analysis by the Sunlight Foundation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/most-profitable-corporations-tax-rate_n_1746817.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hello folks. My apologies for creating and posting this week's open forum so late in the day. As you may or may not have heard, social media coordinator Matt Wastradowski is no longer at The Columbian. He left two weeks ago to take a job in Seattle. For now, that means you'll want to direct your questions and concerns to me at the email address given above. I'll do my best to respond promptly but I am shorthanded with Matt's departure so please bear with me if I'm a bit tardy in getting back to you. Thanks everyone for your patience.

John Hill (Columbian Staff) — August 6, 2012 at 9:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


No problem John. We would have had a going away party for Matt had we'd known. Avatarially speaking.

Good luck!

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 9:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Assuming Matt will check the forum once in awhile (as soon as the forum nightmares stop)...**Good Luck Matt!** I wish you the very best.

I wonder if Matt will experience "Post" Traumatic Stress Syndrome after leaving.

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 9:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift-

You are right, I will not be convinced. Just as most who see it differently will not be convinced. But if one will indulge me one moment.

I beleive that at the heart of the matter regarding abortion is:

At what point is this thing growing inside of a woman to be considered a person that is entitled to rights and protections that every other person is entitled to.

I have given my take. Others have expressed their opinion (except basil, he just tries to pick apart the opinion of others). Someone even posted documented opinions of a religion that no one has stated they subscribe to.

No one has posted any scientific opinions to support their claim, myself included. I believe that you will find the scientific community as divided as the rest of us.

While many may find some of my comparisons extreme and invalid because you think I am comparing apples and oranges. To me it is the same.

I think we can agree that we will disagree.

No, I am not conceding anything. If anyone wishes to continue discussing this, I am game. We could spend a long time poking holes in each others arguments.

Sounds like fun to me.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 9:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Now as far as killing in a time of war. For all in the audience who are not aware, let me enlighten you. To wage a war is to kill the enemy.

Sometimes, noncombatants get killed. I cannot speak for the opposite side of the conflict, but for us, these noncombatants are not targets. To intentionally target them is a violation of international agreements and US law.

If a Soldier recieves an order from a superior to commit a criminal act (ie kill a noncombatant) that Soldier is obligated to disobey said order. The claim of just following orders is not a valid defense in a court of law.

The reality is that when you are a soldier engaged in a firefight, you, the individual, must make judgement calls. These decisions must be made considering different things (orders, objective, law, situation, personal safety). Sometimes the decision turns out to be the wrong one. That individual must accept the consequences of that decision. You may not be found legally liable for wrong doing, but you have a memory to contend with.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 9:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal



**DANA**

perhaps you're the person who can speak to something that's been on my mind lately.

every soldier swears to uphold the constitution of the united states. the commander of the military is the us president.

what would *REALISTICALLY* happen if the president were to give an order that violated his powers as defined by the constitution?

DeeLittle — August 6, 2012 at 10:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Dee-

To be honest, just such a possibility falls outside of my pay grade (as some would say). But truthfully I also don't see that I am qualified to make the determination whether or not such a violation of power has taken place. I may have an opinion, but not the appropriate background in law.

What I am qualified to comment on is that the constitution is written to design our government in a way that is supposed to be able to prevent/stop just such an event. I am not wanting to insult anyone's intelligence by stating the obvious, but...

We have three separate but equal branches within our government. Each branch has it's own part to play in the governance of the nation. This is also to provide a balance to ensure no one person, or group of people, gain absolute power.

While I will agree that the actuality of things doesn't always match the intention, I would say we could return to the original design. Unfortunately, we need the right elected officials, and a willing public to put them in office.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 10:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


three branches, agreed.

hypothetically, congress is once again democrat. prez is democrat. their party decides the prez doesn't have to follow the constitution as generally defined, that they can interpret the intent of the founders ('living document' argument) better than the words in the document do.

prez then violates the restraints placed on the office. congress doesn't act.

would the military intervene?

DeeLittle — August 7, 2012 at 12:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Dee-

Shortly after the Revolutionary War, soldiers organized a protest to complain about pay they had not recieved. This organization was becoming increasingly unruly and plans were being laid out to revolt against the government they had fought to establish with the independence of the nation.

In response, GEN George Washington went to talk with these soldiers. He managed to convince them that while they hadn't been paid, he would see to it the fledgling government honored its commitment to them. He also urged against revolt, explaining that while the government had a commitment to them as soldiers, they had pledged a commitment to that government.

This established the precedent that keeps the military from intervening in political matters.

In the situation you describe, the fact is, sadly, the fix wouldn't be immediate. At the next scheduled election, the people would have to remove the offenders from office via the ballot box.

Now, if any elected official were to more blatantly violate the Constitution (such as refusing to vacate office at the prescribed time as dictated by law), that would be a gross disregard, and possibly interpreted as abandoning the constitution.

I do not have every oath taken by service members upon entering committed to memory, I do know the Oath of Enlistment for the Army. The first allegiance we swear is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"

My opinion would be that an elected official taking an action that abandons the Constitution would justify military intervention on the grounds of defending the Constitution.

danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 1:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 10:28 p.m.

Not too sure the point you are trying to make with this link. Since I saw my intials added, I assume you were directing to me. While I could respond to the piece, to do so I would have to make many other assumptions.

In order to direct my response, and to better organize my thoughts onto screen, if you could just tell me what the point is you are trying to make.

Thank you.

danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 1:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


OK. Now I will have to admit, I have failed to keep myself current on all medication that is available out there. I was not aware of the approval of Marinol in the US. So I guess the question would be to doctors. If you have this medication that would produce the desired effects without the long term dangers associated with smoking the med, then why would you prescribe the smoking?

Regarding your extensive medical knowledge you present. I did look up some of the things you present (not all, due to the fact that I am in no way an expert in anything physiological or medical, and to try to read any of this in entirety would not really mean much to me, and most likely inspire self harm). What I found is conclusions that THC is effective in the treatment of cancer, but not identified as a cure.

Now, regarding everyone I have spoke to before on this subject who, like Drift, can quote all kinds of physiological info (though no one can source it like you Drift) I have a question. Did you at some point wish to be a medical researcher and just dropped out of school for whatever reason? Or was all of this research conducted for the sole purpose to have a knowledgable argument to justify your choice to ingest the drug in question?

Drift, you also failed to address the part about recreational use that points to the legality. I know how you feel about scheduling. But have you no argument to justify recreational use in defiance of the law?

danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 3:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — August 6, 2012 at 8:37 p.m. (last week's forum)

Nice post...couldn't agree more with you. We DON'T need to continue down the road of spewing the pollutive garbage into the atmosphere, the water or the ground. We also don't need special-interest groups capitalizing on the process as we have witnessed in recent history. We all just need to do the right thing and reduce our fossil fuel consumption. There's nothing we can do to reduce our carbon footprint in the manner speaking of population growth, but our modern technology is advancing in the correct direction. One problem is...the costs incurred in the process. Another problem is...while the end product such as with hybrid vehicles, it's what it takes to make the products and how much pollution is generated in order to make that "cleaner" vehicle. Yet another problem...manufacture of products such as ethanol and biodiesel. How much of the nation's farm land goes into production for the corn and soy to make that biodiesel, how the drought has affected production of that...cutting off much of the products grown to feed the world, only to have the world food supply in a critical situation...

The last comment...production of corn and soy...to me, is incurring a cost far beyond any monetary denomination. Are we at the point where millions will continue to starve to death in order to produce non-fossil fuels? Is this unintended(?) genocide part of the natural course of life on our planet??? What can we as individuals do about it??? Well...in my opinion...as one person alone, I wouldn't be able to make the most remote dent in the carbon footprint of the world but together en masse, I believe we could.

goldenoldie — August 7, 2012 at 6:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


(continued from post at 6:19 am to Drift)

In my case, I do not work outside the home. We have 3 living in our household. We don't need 3 cars. Living with 2...we manage fine but could do well with 1 vehicle would be manageable. Any traveling I would need to do around and about the county would be by carpooling, by bus or by walking shorter distances.

What else am I doing? It begins with my landscape in my yard. Reduction of "lawn" grasses is a start. Incorporating more native vegetation is another. Any vegetables grown are blended in with the landscape, reducing topsoil erosion. No pesticides or herbicides used. Working with the what the environment has to offer has reduced those pesky critters. Also...reduction of meat in my diet is another step. Sounds kind of crazy...but you figure the amount of pollutants coming from each head of beef, each portly pork in this world is reduced if the production of meat products is reduced as well as the manure ponds. Finally...growing my own fruits and vegetables (from seeds I've collected) in a landscape dotted with native vegetation and composted from my kitchen scraps and yard debris...less fossil fuels generated with the lack of need to drive to the garden store for every little thing. In last week's post, I touched on reduction of energy through heating water, thanks to that giant bright orb in the sky. Yes, our public energy might not be totally generated with fossil fuels...but our energy is set on a grid which coal is still used in some parts of the country.

So to end my little speech...do I believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change??? You bet your sweet bippee I do. It has become a hobby of mine, trying to figure out where I can reduce my carbon footprint...and share it with others.

Warning to all, though...it can become an addicting lifestyle, lol.

goldenoldie — August 7, 2012 at 6:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


John Hill...thanks for the explanation (and yes, it's obvious I've returned to the forum. It seems a bit more congeniel these days). It's too bad nobody was told publicly that Matt had left. We would have been able to wish him well before he left.

goldenoldie — August 7, 2012 at 6:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


wow...guess I'm not fully awake yet. Need to take a break from the computer and go water the garden.

At 6:20 am, first paragraph...I meant to say *"In my case, I do not work outside the home. We have 3 living in our household. We don't need 3 cars. Living with 2 cars...we manage fine but could do well with 1 vehicle which would be manageable. Any traveling I would need to do around and about the county would be by carpooling, by bus or by walking shorter distances."*

My apology

goldenoldie — August 7, 2012 at 6:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


No, I'm not a med school drop out, DB. I've always had an interest in science. When "The Malady" came upon me I quickly discovered I've a biological intolerance to most pharmaceuticals. I'll never accidentally O.D. on an opiate because I can't inadvertantly reach the lethal dose.

I had read cannabis has properties effective in relieving pain and spasm. I wondered of the modality. I began to study... I'm particularly interested in the nervous system - my peripheral has been compromised.

In my studies I've learned quit a bit about human biology and cannabis. Cannabis, by the way DB, does not need to be smoked for administration. I also use it orally (in a capsule form) and topically (a spray).

Tangential to my medical research I became exposed to the legal aspects of the plant. Some believe the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was driven by corporate interests. Some say it was based on racism. And some say Harry Anslinger simply wanted to keep his job - alcohol prohibition having been repealed.

The more I learned the more I became aware of the absolute absurdity of the current classification of cannabis. Did you know meth is scheduled as a II (under the CSA) while cannabis is a I? Jumping back to that tax act just a moment; idustrial hemp was lumped in with psychoactive cannabis. That's sort of like making cotton illegal, DB. Something here doesn't pass the smell test.

Did you know the alcohol beverage industry is one of the largest contributors to the cannabis prohibition lobby? Do you have any idea what the pharmaceutic industry spends annually in lobbying? This year they will spend nearly 200 million dollars.

Cannabis laws aren't about "protecting society," DB. Cannabis laws are about protecting the interests of Corporate America.

I choose to do battle with them.

Drift — August 7, 2012 at 7:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Thank you for clarifying one thing Drift. I had noticed from earlier posts that you were a recipient of a medical prescription, but am relieved you were causing further damage through smoking it.

I see you have done research into the history of the law concerning marijuana (sorry, that is how I constantly hear it referred to, even by those lobbying for legalization). I honestly have never done research into the topic. I have never really had a reason for in depth study.

I hope you were not insulted by my question regarding your motivation into the physiology involved. I just hear so many claims from the legalization crowd with no explanation of what motivates the research. Especially when a majority of those I hear it from fell short of even recieving a GED much less a HS Diploma and moving toward higher education.

On the issue of marijuana, in a nutshell, this is where I stand:
Medical: smoking causes further damage to the body. No one can give me an effective argument to justify this "medicine". Administration through another form to produce positive affects, I can better accept.

Recreational:
I understand personal freedom. I disagree with breaking the law as a way to protest the law. Change it, then enjoy.

danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 7:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 7:39 a.m.

Marijuana prohibition is not in keeping with our foundation of government. Unlike your assumption we are not a country of laws, we are a country of people. The Declaration of Independence states "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,". Marijuana prohibition does not come from the people, it is forced on the people by an oppressive government, therefore it is invalid. The very point of this document is the natural right of people to govern themselves.

frobert — August 7, 2012 at 8:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A quick shout out to Goldie (her 6:19 post). I've heard it said beer was created because drinking "raw" water was hazardous to ones health. Hmm, and that was how far back? We've been pooping in our own backyard for far to long.

Now back to DB and cannabis ;^)

I don't have a prescription. A schedule I drug cannot be prescribed. I've a "recommendation." My cannabis use is, still, in violation of the law. Prior to 2011 The Compassionate Use Act merely afforded me an affirmative defense in the event of arrest and prosecution (see RCW 69.51a http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A) The Washington State Legislature made a change last year. I should no longer be subject to arrest, even though I am violating the law. It gets sort of complicated, DB.

As far as smoking cannabis goes; there's a method called "vaporizing." Many folks with nausea issues utilize the method. With vaporizing the material is heated to the point where the cannabinoids and terpenes gas off, without burning the material.

Marinol was originally prescribed for nausea associated with chemotherapy. How the heck is a person going to keep a pill down when they can't even keep water in their stomach? Orally ingesting has a few other drawbacks as well. It can take more than an hour to have any effect. Titration can be difficult to assess, too.

Inhalation provides results much faster. Also, a person can gauge the required amount almost immediately. People say a person can't over dose on cannabis. That isn't quite true. A person can't -lethally- O.D., but they can darn sure do too much. I've done it. It's terribly uncomfortable.

Hey, DB, did you know during alcohol prohibition a doctor was able to prescribe booze? Oh, and veterinarians, too. ;^)

Drift — August 7, 2012 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Not too sure the point you are trying to make with this link*

Not sure myself. Your comment- *Sometimes, noncombatants get killed. I cannot speak for the opposite side of the conflict, but for us, these noncombatants are not targets.*

I found to be .. off target.

*Since I saw my intials added, I assume you were directing to me.*

They were on the link, I had no part in putting them there.

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


'New Approach Washington' Launches Pro-Marijuana Legalization Ad In Evergreen State

This law legalizes the possession of marijuana for adults age 21 and older. The only marijuana that would be legal to sell in this state would be grown by specially-licensed Washington farmers and sold in standalone, marijuana-only stores operated by private Washington businesses licensed and regulated by the state. There would be a 25% sales tax, with 40% of the new revenues going to the state general fund and local budgets, and the remainder dedicated to substance-abuse prevention, research, education and health care. Advertising would be restricted. A new marijuana DUI standard that operates like the alcohol DUI standard would be established.

A recent survey found broad levels of support for I-502, with 55 percent approving, 32 percent opposing, and 13 percent saying they were still undecided. A similar poll in January found lower levels of support, leading some to believe that the initiative is still gaining momentum heading toward November.

Medical marijuana is already legal in Washington, but advocates claim the measure could provide a $560 million annual windfall with new taxes on marijuana-related commerce.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/new-approach-washington-marijuana-ad_n_1751291.html

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 8:43 a.m.

You may have found my statement off target, so you posted the link to demonstrate otherwise?

There is one flaw, this is no longer 1945, or 1955, or 1970.

Unless there are some super secret inside dealings deep in the forgotten halls of the pentagon, I know what I have been taught in my training. I know them because I recieve training on the Law of Land Warfare annually. I know that if I intentionally target a noncombatant, I am subject to homocide charges.

danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 9:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- Your statement leaves me in Shock & Awe.

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 8:55 a.m

Interesting concept. However the possibilities of complications boggle the mind. I can just imagine border patrols between Washington and everywhere else as long as it is still illegal everywhere else. Or, it could cause a flowing effect in legalizing pot everywhere else. Washington could be the "seed", so to speak. I wonder how long it would take to get across the country.

hawkeye — August 7, 2012 at 9:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye- *Or, it could cause a flowing effect in legalizing pot everywhere else. Washington could be the "seed", so to speak.*

That's what I'm thinking!

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


There are currently legalization initiatives in three states; Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

You'll notice, DB, those are "initiatives." The citizens are putting the question on the ballot, not the state legislatures.

Drift — August 7, 2012 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye- Check out the sponsor/endorsement side. Where is the GOP? :))

http://www.newapproachwa.org/content/sponsors

http://www.newapproachwa.org/content/502-endorsements

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 9:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nail, I saw the ad on TV last night on the news. It looked good, low key and very smooth. They said it wouldn't be broadcast here but they are working it in Seattle.

hawkeye — August 7, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk- Let's play it in the forum!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXfIteCae4w

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 10:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail- From yesterday

Sarah Palin could lead it, Ron Paul could endorse it, and Michele Bachman could run on it. (my bad, she already does)

They could call it the party of Fiscally Uneducated Crony Kings.

Or......

You could have commie Shetchy Congress Member Barabara Boxer introduce it, Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) ram rod it thru his henchmen, Harry Reid say the senate will pas it, Joe Biden say it won't negatively impact the US, then Have Obama Sign it then passing the cost along to US citizens saying it will be better for the 99%.

These Folks could be called the knucklehaeds/Financial wizards of the Democratic Party and you want 4 more years with this Gang...What are we at now 17 trillion in debt, no Balanced budget, decreased credit rating, all time low Presidential approval rating, and a president who is railing for even more divisity in our country..No thanks....

vanwadreamer — August 7, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit --- I don't know if you saw this in 2010 but it seems timely. It's got a little prohibition, a little Abramoff, and Rachel Maddow speaking to the 2010 Smith College graduating class. She lives near there.

from Wikipedia for those who aren't familiar w/Maddow:
A graduate of Castro Valley High School[16] in Castro Valley, California, she attended Stanford University.----[clipped] Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford in 1994.[18] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.[19] She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University.[clipped] Maddow was the 2010 commencement speaker and was given an honorary Doctor of Laws (LLD) degree at Smith College in Northampton, MA in May 2010.[69]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgQ_WQ...

I included this in case you haven't heard her talk about her book, "Drift". It's about the military as you know but this might be new for others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiIr72...

langenthal — August 7, 2012 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal! Thank you! These vids are a wonderful contribution to the basement.

The commencement address is as good as it gets. I wasn't aware of governments poisoning of citizens during prohibition, as well as a few other items. Rachel's great! For some reason it cuts out at 16 minutes. I'll search the net for the last few. Inspirational!

I've heard her talk about "Drift" before, and know it has been lauded on both sides of the aisle as groundbreaking, more than insightful, and a great read. I confess I was gifted "Drift" a few weeks ago and have let it gather dust. No more! Your vid has rekindled my spirit! I thank you for that. Great Q & A, in particular when she is asked about the Republican party @ about 20 minutes.

Thanks again.

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yeah, me an' Ol' Rachel go waaay back. I remember back in '83, we were at Bobby Dee's new place. Everybody had had a few and then...

Uh, maybe that's not a story I should recount in a public forum?

What?

Seriously, I enjoyed the commencement thing, langenthal, thanks. I started to watch the Drift vid (ya' think?), but I lost interest when the question period came. I'll try it again. I don't need to move the lawn sprinkler for at least twenty minutes. I've got the time.

Drift — August 7, 2012 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwa- I wasn't aware United States Senator Boxer was affiliated with the communist party. Really sad when folks throw around this type of stuff. It has no place in the arena of civil political discussion. You sound like Allen West! :)

Concerning the economy. I've asked you many times what Romney specifically offers that will improve our economy over Mitt Romney's proposed policies. Still no answer. What's up with that?

Do you prefer the Ryan Plan/measures of austerity, in part, to pay for tax breaks for the uber wealthy? If so, why?

You have a "throw the bums out" at any cost attitude which put this current House in power in 2010. This mindset of not understanding cause and effect has devastated our politics in Washington. It's the "do nothing and block everything" mindset/actions of the Bagger movement who were put in power.

Do you really think returning to Bush policies, the very policies which caused this recession, is the right way to go?

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Obama Allies Ready To Target Paul Ryan**

"Governor Romney has not only fully embraced the Ryan budget, but he has introduced a budget plan that is a carbon copy -- it makes seniors pay thousands of dollars more each year for their health care and severe cuts to programs essential to the middle class in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires," LaBolt said. "Mitt Romney is campaigning on the flawed assumption that we can just cut our way to prosperity."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/obama-super-pac-mitt-romney-paul-ryan_n_1751054.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&utm;_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 4:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Jon Stewart at his best!**

There's nothing quite like Jon Stewart taking a hypocritical media figure down a couple of notches, and that's just what he did with Fox News' Judith Miller on Monday night's "Daily Show."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/jon-stewart-jabs-fox-news-judith-miller-video_n_1750987.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 4:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal



crazytrain — August 7, 2012 at 5:16 p.m.

...and Romney believes in funding most of the same big government programs as Obama. I have no problem condemning Obama for current spending levels, but what has Romney offered that is any better?

Romney was chosen by the press, early in this election cycle, and without any substantive differences, he can't win. If by some chance he does win, we four more years of undeclared wars, expanding government authority and trampled individual liberties. Not much of a choice, personally, I won't vote for either of them.

frobert — August 7, 2012 at 5:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 9:40 p.m.

Matt got a job as social media director (some such title) with Univ WA. If he thought he had a hard time keeping this place under control....

roger — August 7, 2012 at 8:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Just saw one of the news talk shows - Greta - with a clip of the CEO of Papa Johns discussing the health care act. He was talking with their investors; the gist of the conversation was that the company would continue to make a profit and protect the investors. The cost of health care is going to be passed on to the consumer - higher cost for a pizza. Greta and guest then went into a sidebar on numbers of employees that require a plan (50 full timers), and that restaurant chains will lay off or not hire to fill vacancies to get below 50 if the impact is too high or if sales drop as a result of increased prices.

My only real response is "And was anyone really expecting anything else?"

roger — August 7, 2012 at 8:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, time for some random thoughts generated by a variety of things that I see in the news.

Candidate tax returns:

I will say, this is a good thing to see. Let the people who will hire you a chance to see what you do regarding the tax laws that you write/pass/approve (as appropriate). People are forgetting, however, that they aren't legally required to do so.
I hear the argument of, "If you don't have anything to hide, then why don't you release them". This same argument can be used regarding drug testing for welfare benefits. A lot of people wanting to see returns are against this testing as a constitutional breach. Double standard?
I offer this challenge. I would suggest Mitt Romney agree to release tax returns immediately after DOJ releases F&F; documents. No one seems to be complaining about what DOJ is trying to hide. (Let's revisit the argument of "If you have nothing to hide...)

danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense, nobody is talking about using government force to make Romney show his returns. If he wants to get elected, he will release them. I also don't see what him giving up any chance of being elected has to do with Holders contempt.

I have maintained from the start that the tax return issue was just a distraction, but nobody is forcing Romney to release them, therefore it has nothing to do with the unrelated issues you stated.

frobert — August 7, 2012 at 9:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I will agree that the issues are unrelated. I will agree that the government is not trying to force him to release them.

But for it making no sense? When the same argument can be used for contradictory positions?

Your right it makes no sense.

I am not trying to advocate one way or another (except maybe to say that DOJ should release the requested documents). I am just trying to see if anyone can explain the double standard that people are displaying.

danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 9:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 7, 2012 at 9:41 p.m.

Government force is the difference, it is not a double standard. The issues are unrelated, Romney does not have to release his tax returns, but if that is what the people want, he will do it or lose.

frobert — August 7, 2012 at 9:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger @ 8:10 Thanks for the info.

roger @ 8:20 *My only real response is "And was anyone really expecting anything else?"*

No. The blowhard is a diehard Romney supporter that doesn't pay his employees squat to begin with! Let him raise the prices and cry. Domino's much better! Greta? Fox News? PaPa John? LOL

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 9:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Matters of drug testing, hypocrisy, and political pissing...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 10:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- Given your comments tonight, you must know someone to avoid random UA's.

Time to own up! Take this cup and tinkle soldier!

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 10:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal



DWB- If Romney is really serious about being President, he needs to show his tax returns for the last 10 years. It makes him look like he's hiding something, which he is that he doesn't want to get out. It could be just embarrassing or go all the way to criminal or somewhere in the middle. I don't trust the guy, he has flip/flopped on so much stuff I'm not sure HE knows where he stands.

As far as Papa John goes, any advertising is good advertising.

hawkeye — August 7, 2012 at 10:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Speaking of UA's, I guess money can buy ya love. At least an election. It ain't over yet!

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/au...

nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 11:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit --- 15,000 votes left. Expect to have results by Thursday. All 15K won't come from that district, of course. Fingers crossed. Hope Tanner can pull it out when it's all county voting in November. I'm in Stuart's district so didn't get to vote in either of these this time.

langenthal — August 7, 2012 at 11:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I am not trying to disagree about the tax returns. He should release them for public scrutiny.

F&F.; Weapons are missing, and people are dead. Yes it is the government trying to force the realease of documents. But if you did nothing wrong, why invoke "executive privilege"? Just like we deserve to scrutinize an applicant, we have a right to answers from officials we already have in place.

Testing for welfare. It is a matter of fraud. True, if it is discovered we can stop the case and prosecute (assuming the powers that be wish to do so). But will we, realistically, get recouped for what was already paid? Wouldn't prevention be a better option?

You claim the issues are unrelated. I believe that the double standard connects them.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 12:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 12:07 a.m.

How is positive drug test proof of fraud? Somebody having drugs in their system is not in any legal way, proof of how they got them. In the United States we have legal standards that we cannot deviate from. Do you propose that we trash the entire Constitution just because 1.3% of them may be drug users?

The drug testing is not only unconstitutional, it doesn't work, it cost huge money, and yields no savings.

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 12:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Not proof of fraud? Maybe I am overanalyzing, but if you apply for assistance, you need help with living necessitiies. If you can buy illegal drugs, then why can't you get your basic living needs?

I looked up the reports about the testing program cost v. savings defeciency. It didn't specify conditions to calculate the savings figure. How much aid, for how long, per case was used in the calculation?

Maybe the figures were realistic, and the costs did overrun savings. I still contend that if public money is used, the public deserves some assurance it isn't being used for illicit purposes.

I did take a look at the ruling you posted before. The determination of what constitutes symbolic as opposed to necessary is quite subjective. If such a test is unconstittional for one instance, it should be for all.

So once you can convince me how my regular testing is legal by your standard, then I may rethink my position on welfare testing.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 1:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And 1.3% may be drug users? But we can scrap the Constitution for 1% of the population serving in the military?

Looking for that logic.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 1:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 10:39 p.m.

And yes, I have known people avoid giving samples. Sooner or later, though, the sample will be given and tested. And if you are using, you will be found.

Having been a UPL (the person administering the test, giving instructions to observers, and sending the samples to the lab) I was able to learn a lot about drug use in the Army. That included methods people will use to avoid/alter testing. Everyone I had a suspicion about, but no proof, at some point slipped and got caught.

The only problem I see is that the Army needs to relook at how it responds to the positive results. Yes we try to get the Soldier treatment, but 95% of the cases I have witnessed, the Soldier had no real desire to quit and returned positive again. We administer legal consequences, but in a nonjudicial way (meaning the Soldier doesn't officiality admit guilt, pays a fine, extra work, restricted movement [but not confined] and isn't stuck with a conviction on record). This is regardless of what is found in the test (THC, PCP, cocaine, whatever).
If we would stop giving a slap on the wrist before putting them out of the service, maybe some might consider their actions before indulging in an illegal activity.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 1:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues-144204378.html

Heard about this, but took a while to find on a source that I wouldn't consider biased to either side (questionable I know).

Let's hear the shouts of a war based on lies?

Disclaimer:
Though a veteran of OIF, I personally thought going in at that time wasn't smart.

But again, I consider one thing that made even less sense to me. The UN passed multiple resolutions against Hussein's Iraq, making demands that he allow inspectors and stop agressive actions. How many times did he violate these? If a person, or government is going to defy the UN, then what is the UN going to do about it? If no direct action outside of diplomacy (which was already a demonstrated failure) is even possible, they only waste time and oxygen with the resolutions.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 2:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DB, explain to me why responsible recreational use of drugs should be forbidden. Now, please let's not get tangled up in legalities. I'm aware of your opinion on law breaking.

My question is: Do you believe responsible use should be considered a crime, and if so, why?

Drift — August 8, 2012 at 5:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK. I know that most of my posts happen during what most of you see as the middle of the night. Because of this, I get a lot of posts one after the other. This leads to some of you will see a post that will spark a thought, inspire a response, and perhaps you don't go back to look over the other posts I have left. I pray everyone will take a moment to read this post and please leave a response.

Now this may not been seen as a major issue to be worthy of discussion during an election year, but it is an issue that can certainly impact 1% of the population, and potentially the entire population.

There has been recent discussion by well known key people about reinstating the draft. I can personally relate with arguments on both sides of this issue, but that isn't what I want to get from this conversation.

There is another percentage figure in this country of note that doesn't involve income or net worth. 1% of the US population are serving in the military (all branchs, active, guard, and reserve). The remaining is either unable (for a variety of disqualifying factors) or unwilling (for whatever reason) to serve.

I would like to hear some input from all willing to contribute. I am curious as to what reasons Americans have that make them among the unwilling. Either your own personal reason, or a reason someone you know has expressed.

I have a hypothosis that I will share at a later time. First I would like to hear from others.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 5:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift-

Honestly, in recent years I have been mulling that question over. As stated, I can see the argument in regards to personal freedom. And I am aware of the comparison to the legality of alcohol and tobacco.

The best answer I can give you right now is:

I do not know.

Part of me is ready to say to change the schedule immediately. Another part is concerned of what may happen if we do.

I understand that to legalize, and regulate would take the business out of the hands of the underworld (organized crime), but won't they just find another cash crop?

Some may call this a cop out, but it is true. I cannot give a definitive answer one way or another.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 6:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DB - "Some may call this a cop out, but it is true. I cannot give a definitive answer one way or another."

Good. That means you are open to dialogue.
Last year 1.6 million people were charged with drug violations. Of those around 1/2 were for simple cannabis possession. I'm not speaking of peddling, trafficking... I mean a bag of weed in a pocket.

It's been estimated 42% of Americans have used cannabis at one time or another.

Currently 50% of the population are in favor of legalizing cannabis.

Just something for you to chew on, DB.

Drift — August 8, 2012 at 6:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Draft (not Drift) -

In order to have an opinion I'd need to know the reasoning behind reinstituting it.

Myself, I enlisted, did my time and then went on my merry way (USN '76-'79).

I'd guess the reason most are hesitant to enlist are due the personnal constraints the military imposes. But I'm just guessing.

Drift — August 8, 2012 at 6:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I went through the draft in 69/70 and I have to tell you, it was a little nerve racking. Of course there WAS this little conflict that had some of my friends coming home in body bags and other coming home with all kinds of other problems, so you might be able to understand my reluctance to want to visit Southeast Asia. When my draft number came up 361, I was relieved to say the least.

I can't say if it would be good or bad right now. I know they need a strong fighting force but I'm not sure a large ground force is necessary any longer. Isn't it all drones and remote control now? Maybe they can go after high school dropouts, that would be a way to keep them in school.

hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 7:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawk-

I hear ya, but my question was what are the reason people have for being unwilling to serve in this all volunteer force?

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 7:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DB, I do believe hawk mentioned bags. That could well be a deterrant.

Just as folks had reservations about Vietnam many question our current activities over in the Sand Box -
I suppose risking death and mental stability is a bit more acceptable when one believes they are protecting their friends and family. Doing the same for the sake of corporate interests... maybe not so much.

Again, I'm merely taking a guess.

Drift — August 8, 2012 at 8:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh, and, when you say only 1% of the (adult?) population enlist and you mention reinstating the draft it sounds as though there is concern about not having adaquate numbers in uniform. Is this the case?

Or are you questioning the patriotism of the population?

Drift — August 8, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks DBW, I'll have the test results shortly.

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


This guy is giving Mormons a bad name. Sleazy is as sleazy does.

**Ron Haskins, GOP Welfare Reform Architect, Blasts Mitt Romney Ad**

Mitt Romney's latest television ad attacks the Obama administration for announcing a "plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements." It's a strong allegation, but according to a former Republican congressional aide who was key to crafting welfare reform in the 1990s, it's also not true.

"There's no plausible scenario under which it really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform," Ron Haskins, who is now co-director of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families, said in an interview with NPR that aired on Wednesday.

Haskins spent 14 years on the staff of the House Ways and Means Committee's Human Resources Subcommittee, first as welfare counsel to the Republican staff, then as the subcommittee’s staff director. In 2002, he was President George W. Bush's senior adviser on welfare policy.

Haskins noted that the requirements states have to meet in order to receive the waivers are quite rigorous.

As The Huffington Post's Arthur Delaney has pointed out, this waiver policy was sought out by Republican governors. In a release defending its waiver request from conservative backlash last month, the office of Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) said, "Utah's request for a waiver stems from a desire for increased customization of the program to maximize employment among Utah’s welfare recipients."

In 2005, as Massachusetts governor, Romney also signed a letter in support of a waiver policy -- a fact left out of his new TV ad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/ron-haskins-welfare-reform-mitt-romney_n_1755653.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Bill Pascrell Reacts To Sikh Temple Shooting: DHS Report Warned Of Right-Wing Extremism**

WASHINGTON -- It’s been almost two years since Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), as a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, watched conservatives blast Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for a report warning right-wing extremists threaten American security. But after Sunday’s shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, killing six and critically injuring three, Pascrell is calling on lawmakers to reconsider the report.

The nine-page document, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” was released in April 2009. It found that deep-rooted frustration across right-wing extremist groups may push individuals toward violence. "If such violence were to occur,” the report said, “it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.”

Reaction from the right was furious. Former Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, asked for an investigation around the DHS report for "unsubstantiated conclusions and political bias." Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin called it a “piece of crap” and “one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda” she had ever seen.

“People just concluded that if it didn't involve al Qaeda, it wasn't a case of terrorism, which was absolutely foolish,” Pascrell said in an interview with The Huffington Post. But "this was part of the Homeland Security’s responsibility to look at domestic terror. It existed in America -- it's not something people made up or manufactured.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/bill-pascrell-sikh-temple-shooting_n_1753750.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal



nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.

How do they associate a political party that promotes a socialist dictatorship with the extreme right? National Socialism is center left, they had a huge increase in social programs, and promoted government control but private ownership of business. Not Marxist socialism by any means, but in no way associated with the right.

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


***Anybody seen this one??***

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - Attorneys for Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union want a federal appeals court to rule that clicking "Like" on the social networking site is constitutionally-protected free speech.

The case revolves around six employees who were fired by Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts after they supported his re-election opponent in 2009.

The workers sued, saying they should not have been fired and that their First Amendment rights were violated. U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson ruled against them. The workers are appealing to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond.

1 of the workers 'liked' the Facebook page of Roberts' opponent. Jackson wrote that clicking the 'like' button isn't a substantive statement that warrants First Amendment protection.

Facebook and the ACLU filed arguments in support of that worker.

***Un Friggin' believable. Welcome to a Right to Work State. ***

hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail-

Sir, I was just trying to demonstrate that "BOTH" parties have their own Knuckleheads..And these I mentioned above have been the most vocal and least admired even by their own Party. I vote a more independent way. I vote and BTW did actually go to the school last night to cast my vote, unlike what 70% of our local registered voters... That is what is really wrong with America..

I actually do my due diligence prior to casting my one vote... I didn't say I approve of the Ryan plan, actually I don't approve of it.

The house rep majority. from 2010. The President had control over the Senate and House when he took office.. It just took 2 years for many in the country to realize where this president and congress where taking them.. It wasn't where most want or wanted to go so they voted.. People spoke and this is where we are.. A president without Leadership and merely wants to spew venom around and stir the pot... He can't lean on his record the past 4 years so he has made it his mission to tell people that Romney only pays 14% taxes when most of Americans pay more.. What he is forgetting he isn't paying much more and in fact he has educated many to the fact the way Romney has earned his money he is paying what he is suppose too.. Oh and then to say he doesn't re invest back in the US.. He gave 10Million to US charities last year... Obama can't say one thing during this election where he can hang his hat on that improved the everyday person... Gas prices may be up over $4 or $5 a gal here soon.. I could go on and on but why...
You know as well as I do Romney lowered unemployment in Mass, has been avery successfull large business company person, and has employed more people than our president has...

vanwadreamer — August 8, 2012 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Analyzing urine, posting vids, countering conservative talking points, promoting the general welfare and now this. Plate is full at the moment. Let me direct you guys to another department.

Subcommittee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis, and Counterintelligence
**Republicans** **Democrats**

Chair: Sue Myrick (NC-09) Ranking Member: Mike Thompson (CA-01)
Mike Conaway (TX-11) Dan Boren (OK-02)
Peter King (NY-03) Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Thomas J. Rooney (FL-16)

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm pretty sure trying to make a claim that a Weimar Republic party is equivalent to the "white supremacist and militia movements" that are the subject of the report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" would be yet another textbook example of the semantic games and lack of logic that is the basis of many of your arguments.

mr_basil_seal — August 8, 2012 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm still waiting for:

Proof that republicans aren't republicans.

List of historians "rolling over in their graves.

Proof that a president needs legislative approval to reschedule marijuana.

And you think you have room to talk about baseless arguments?

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 11:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And then we get three more examples of your fallacious attempts.

Thanks!

mr_basil_seal — August 8, 2012 at 12:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 8, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.

Just simple questions to your statements, no fallacies here. You made the claims, you should support them.

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 12:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 8, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.

Thank you for posting such a great example of an ad hominem fallacy. Maybe you are getting the whole fallacy thing figured out.

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey Fro, "Revolutionary Republicanism was centered on limiting corruption and greed. Virtue was of the utmost importance for citizens and representatives."

Show me THAT in today's Republican party.

hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


" Revolutionaries took a lesson from ancient Rome, they knew it was necessary to avoid the luxury that had destroyed the Empire.[15] A virtuous citizen was one that ignored monetary compensation and made a commitment to resist and eradicate corruption. The Republic was sacred; therefore, it is necessary to serve the state in a truly representative way, ignoring self-interest and individual will. Republicanism required the service of those who were willing to give up their own interests for a common good."

How do you think Romney measures up here?

hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- God news! It's treatable!

**Evaluation**............**.Normal Range**.....**Results**

RWTP.............................9 >14......................417

RWE...............................48>714...................3,013

SUBSTANCE...................16>46......................0.420

COMMUNICATION.........12>48......................oqZny.?

POL. ACUITY.................17>25......................0.3

BLOVIATION..................16>46.....................134

CONSERVATISM.............24>50.....................35

[further testing obstructed due to unknown conservative subject mistaking remaining sample as beer sampling]

DBW- Apologies for incomplete test. Someone from the Paul camp stumbled in and...

All in all, I'd say your testing matches with most republicans.

Diagnosis- Republican

Prognosis- Staying on continued path will further lead to frustration, anxiety and a propensity to cloud others vision with non-sensical values/talking points.

Suggested remedy/cure- Stop watching Fox News. Commit to watching the Rachel Maddow Show. Stop reading/listening to right wing nut jobs/blogs. i.e. Glenn Beck/Limbaugh/Huckleberry. Read Huffington Post daily. Upon finishing your Military career, PCS to the local med clinic and smoke a bowl of high grade bud (sativa indica mix). Continue to do so on a daily/weekly basis. Pop a brew and watch season 5 of the X-files.

My assessment's are free to all military members. (btw thanks for your service)

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 12:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 12:54 p.m.

Have I ever claimed to be a republican? My point is that original republicans more closely resemble today's republicans than today's democrats. Political revisionists try to associate today's democrats with original republicans, but the platforms show a different story. The only thing the democrats of today have in common with the republicans of 1856 is anti slavery a value still shared by republicans.

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 12:57 p.m.

I will not vote for Romney or Obama, they believe in expansion of government authority over citizens.

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Fro, no, you have always said you weren't either. I heard a new one the other day. This guy on the FB side called himself an "insurgent Libertarian". From the way he talked, he sounded like a bagger to me.

hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*I will not vote for Romney or Obama, they believe in expansion of government authority over citizens.*

I'm hoping you reflect the majority of conservative opinion.

OBAMA 2012

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 1:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 1:34 p.m.

More undeclared wars than Bush.

More limitations on liberties than Bush.

More government assassinations of citizens than Bush.

More oppressive policy towards medical marijuana than Bush.

If you look farther than the letter following his name, he is no better than Bush.

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 1:28 p.m.

What exactly does a "Bagger" sound like?

frobert — August 8, 2012 at 1:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey Fro...check out YouTube clips of a "Harley Bagger." Maybe that'll be the type of bagger which Hawkeye is referring (tease ended).

goldenoldie — August 8, 2012 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Eh, son? :)))))

soapbox4u — August 8, 2012 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal



When Mittens isn't stepping on his own two feet his campaign is doing it for him. LOL!

**Andrea Saul, Romney Spox, Gets Pilloried For Mentioning Candidate's Most Important Achievement**

Sigh. Here's what happened. This week, Priorities USA Action, a super PAC run by former Obama advisor Bill Burton (who is surely not "coordinating" his efforts with the Obama campaign, because that would be tsk-tsk illegal!) put out a brutal attack ad. It tied the activities of Bain Capital to the death of a woman who lost her health care coverage as a result of her husband losing his job at GST Steel, one of the celebrated casualties of Bain's business practices. As Alex Burns reported:

The commercial casts Mitt Romney’s business background in a severely negative light, but it's not a typical slash-and-burn attack ad. Instead, it features former GST Steel employee Joe Soptic speaking to the camera about what happened when the plant where he worked shut down.
"I don't think Mitt Romney understands what he's done to people's lives by closing the plant. I don't think he realizes that people's lives completely changed," Soptic said. “When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care and my family lost their health care. And a short time after that my wife became ill.”

In 2006, Soptic's wife passed away, and a future attack ad was born.

In the immediate aftermath of the ad's deployment, the Romney camp issued a relatively standard response, referring to the ad as dishonest and accusing the president and his allies of using such attacks to distract from economic issues. And nothing more might have come of this had Romney's team stuck to that story.

But on Fox News this morning, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul went "off-script," and amid a larger declaration about the ad being despicable and some pushback on the facts of the ad, she offered this statement in Romney's defense: "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."

After that came the deluge of conservatives savaging Saul for getting lost on the road to Damascus, essentially accusing her of giving away the election.

The fury, in this instance, was led by Red State founder Erick Erickson, who earnestly tweeted: "OMG. This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election. Wow." Ever since then, he's been blogging about Saul's statement as if it were a massive disaster, assuring his readers that "Mitt Romney’s ardent supporters are fit to be tied today." Rush Limbaugh has since piled on, telling his listeners that "Andrea Saul's appearance on Fox was a potential gold mine for Obama."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/andrea-saul-romney-health-care_n_1757550.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Jerome Corsi, Tea Party Activist, Claims Obama May Be Gay And Previously Married To A Man**

Corsi, who is also the author of "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," claims in the video that Obama was seen wearing a wedding band in photographs that were taken years before marrying his wife Michelle. "He's not married as far as we know, unless of course this is a love affair with Pakistani male roommate," Corsi notes.

Saying that Obama's life contains "lies, mysteries" and other "disinformation," Corsi states, "Obama had all these roommate pictures [where he] seems to be sitting about on the guy’s lap. I’ve not seen a lot of roommate pictures where two guys are that chummy!" He then asks, "Was he married to a guy, I mean, what’s the deal?"

Corsi also penned an extensive blog on the so-called "wedding ring mystery" on his website, 1776 Nation.

Earlier this year, Corsi gave a presentation to a New Jersey GOP group in which he reportedly used Adobe Illustrator software to separate the layers of Obama's birth certificate in an effort to reveal inconsistencies and revive the so-called "birther" theory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/barack-obama-gay-jerome-corsi-tea-party-activist_n_1757046.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir;=Politics

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 4:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Mitt Romney Started Bain Capital With Money From Families Tied To Death Squads**

Romney was worried that the oligarchs might be tied to "illegal drug money, right-wing death squads, or left-wing terrorism," Strachan later told a Boston Globe reporter, as quoted in the 2012 book "The Real Romney." But, pressed for capital, Romney pushed his concerns aside and flew to Miami in mid-1984 to meet with the Salvadorans at a local bank.

It was a lucrative trip. The Central Americans provided roughly $9 million -- 40 percent -- of Bain Capital's initial outside funding, the Los Angeles Times reported recently. And they became valued clients.

"Over the years, these Latin American friends have loyally rolled over investments in succeeding funds, actively participated in Bain Capital's May investor meetings, and are still today one of the largest investor groups in Bain Capital," Strachan wrote in his memoir in 2008. Strachan declined to be interviewed for this story.

When The Huffington Post asked the Romney campaign about Bain Capital accepting funds from families tied to death squads, a spokeswoman forwarded a 1999 Salt Lake Tribune article to explain the campaign's position on the matter. She declined to comment further.

"Romney confirms Bain had investors in El Salvador. But, as was Bain's policy with any big investor, they had the families checked out as diligently as possible," the Tribune wrote. "They uncovered no unsavory links to drugs or other criminal activity."

Nobody with a basic understanding of the region's history could believe that assertion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 5:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal





nailingit — August 7, 2012 at 9:50 p.m.

For someone who trumpets how wonderful dear holier than thou Rachel is, I'm guessing you don't like to see what the other side considers an issue and what they think about it. (Guess what - she even had a clip on Rush calling some group of people idiots. But I changed the channel, so....) If I want the extreme left view, I usually put Ed Schultz on.

ANYHOW, now that we got that out of the way - My point is that what Papa Johns is going to do is what any business is going to do - pass the costs of doing business on to the customer in the form of higher prices. When they reach a point where the public won't pay any more, they've got a couple of choices. One is to operate at a lower profit than determined necessary. Another is to downsize, in some manner or other. Most businesses will choose the latter, if they plan on being around for a while.

The health care bill is written to penalize businesses that employ over 50 people and fail to provide health insurance. At $2000 per uncovered employee over the first 30 -- $40000 penalty for a 50 person employer. That's a bit steep. Guess what? Someone is going to join the unemployment roles. Because - people run businesses to make money!!! Not to keep adults off the street and healthy.

And most fast food operations work the majority of their employees as part time and minimum wage. I doubt that many are any better than this guy.

And all fast food pizza sucks. Here's a little secret - ANYONE can make their own favorite pizza with minimal effort; you just need to learn to knead dough and know when it's at the proper consistency. Fleischmann's makes a yeast especially for pizza; you don't have to let it rise. Follow the directions on the packet; I keep the flour about 4 cups. Use olive oil. Takes less than 10 minutes kneading. Contadina's squeeze bottle pizza sauce is passable. Toppings are your choice - just avoid the temptation to overload. Buy a pizza stone at Target; this is better than on a pan or the rack. Use corn meal on the stone to keep it from sticking. And in less than an hour from start, you've made a pizza that's far better than any of that greasy crap they push at the chain stores.

roger — August 8, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- Thanks for the recipe!

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 7:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 1:52 a.m.

It's been a while, but my memory says if you piss hot on a test, then the chain has to submit you for an administrative separation. For a while there, NCO and officers had to go; SPC and below could get a second chance. Then they changed the rules, and left the separation decision for a first offense to someone further up the chain - maybe the first GO or someone at that level. I recall reading complaints that units like 82nd and 75th had a "no breaks" policy, while pogues in the garrison units could get over. (Same as anything else UCMJ related!)

There's a couple of problems from my perspective.

Reference pot - when we started piss testing in the early '80s, in some locations use was widespread. MG Elton was 9th ID CG at Ft Lewis. His initial guidance was to get hard on users. I saw a few documents from concerned subordinate field grade commanders going through my boss in the routing upward - estimates were 50% plus users in some units. Never heard anything official, but people that I knew for a fact were dopers were still there when I PCSd to Panama some months later. And they didn't start piss testing there until about '83, so you can bet use was widespread (pot and coke; the Columbian hookers at the GI bars were notorious for putting it in drinks, wink wink). But, as a side note, the people I knew were dopers were just like those who probably weren't. Some were very good at soldiering, and some sucked. All about attitude.

Nowadays, we drug soldiers with some heavy duty pain killers - same as the civilian world. None of the old trying something light, and moving up only if needed. Instead, straight to the dilaudid. Then we have to deal with addiction. But this is only the surface. We've also got them on anti-depressants and all kinds of other stuff. A little bit of counseling, and toss them back to the grind.

My prediction, going beyond just drug dependency (legal or otherwise), is that the fallout from the past ten years and counting will be worse than what we've encountered before. (Suicide numbers are already at an all time high, and that's just the start.) This probably has a tie to the all volunteer Army, and the no mistakes mentality we grew through the '90s. Soldiers are afraid to address issues; there are too many stories about shipping them straight to the Warrior unit and then out the door.

Maybe smoking some weed - while on leave or otherwise away from duties requiring full attention to the task at hand - might not be a bad call. Better than getting drunk and angry.

roger — August 8, 2012 at 7:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 5:59 a.m.

OK, and who of any relevance wants the draft reinstated? GEN McChrystal and Sen Charlie Rangel don't exactly fit the "well known key people" category. I think they both came out with this a couple of weeks ago, but since then just a lot of OpEds in the NY Times and a zillion internet sites opposed to the military saying to refuse to register.

The military needs more people if we're to stay engaged with Moslem world issues; that's no secret. But I've yet to hear the JCS change their position on wanting to stay with the professionalism of the volunteer force. I suspect they'll try increasing recruiting goals (currently very low compared to recent years) and reinstating all the enlistment bonuses and other incentives that dried up in the past year or so. And we'll see more GED and other CAT 4 waivers, and more of the moral waivers - these have also all but disappeared.

Pres Obama has a real problem here - there is no right answer (unless you believe packing everyone up and bringing them home - let the rest of the world settle it's own problems - is the right call). He'll have to win a second term before even considering a draft as an option; it would be political suicide within his own party... just wonder if Queen Nancy would take the first cut, or if they'd call Big Al Gore back for a guest appearance to perform the honors.

I mentioned this many months ago - Robert Heinlein used to promote the idea that to be able to vote or hold public office, you first had to serve. Not necessarily in the military - for example, medical professionals could serve a tour in an area in this country with an extreme shortage of care (e.g., Indian reservations). Too bad we didn't have this before; Dick Cheney, among others, would never have had the opportunity to excel at what they did best.

roger — August 8, 2012 at 8:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 5:08 p.m.

El Salvador wasn't pretty in the early '80s. (Somehow, the writer forgot to blame the Jesuit nuns who were raped and murdered on Bain.) Neither were Guatamala, Panama, and a couple of other places in that neighborhood.

And how does any of this differ from Vietnam?

We also need to look at our dear friends in Saudi Arabia.

We saved the Croatians from extermination; their history of atrocities over the past few centuries could lead one to wonder why.

You know, our country has a bad habit of getting involved with some pretty sleazy people.

And maybe you forget, but our country was heavily involved in El Sal back then. Congress had to impose a limit on the number of military advisors in country, after the Seals being killed in San Salvador led to questions being asked.

So, in light of this, Romney and Bain were just doing business with allies of our country. If we're going to moralize on this, then better get out the history books and start making a last of all the companies who did business with bad people. It will be a long list.

Hmmm... Didn't Henry Ford support Adolf Hitler? Let's start there.

roger — August 8, 2012 at 8:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


McChrystal and Rangel may not, in your mind, be important enough to inspire a change to this policy, but they are key enough that the discussion was sparked.

And I am, in no way shape or form, going to try to argue in favor of the draft. Like I said, I see merits on both sides, and areas that need to be fixed if it did come to a draft.

But my question still remains, what make people unwilling to serve? I see the point of the past 10 years of war. But what about before that? In the '80s and '90s. In 1992, the view of the military being a negative thing was widespread enough that long term friendships ended over someone raising their right hand.

So I have one vote of body bags.
What other reasons do people have?

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 9:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger-I thought it was an interesting article concerning a man who could be our next President. Especially since his only platform is business experience. Relevant to some, not so with others.

Henry Ford, Companies, Croatians aren't running for the U.S. presidential office in 2012.

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 9:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 9:06 p.m

Some might suggest Robert Kennedy illegally used the power of the Justice Dept to pursue a personal agenda against organized labor. And then he ran for Pres.

Companies like Ford and Standard Oil didn't run for Pres - they tried to buy them. Kind of set the pattern for today's standard practice.

But you are right in one respect - the article was very well researched. I hadn't heard a lot of those names in years.

And I did make a mistake - the nuns weren't Jesuits, they were sisters of Mary-something-or-other. Either way, they were there agitating against the gov't, and got told to leave. I sort of recall that we might have sent someone to talk sense to them; told them they were pissing off some rather bad people. They refused. Bad call.

roger — August 8, 2012 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.

At first, your post was humorous. Your use of test result, showing normal range and tested range was quite cute.

You do realize that the potential conditions you listed should I choose to stay on the path could also be said of liberals.

And you suggested treatment plan? OK, by the numbers-

Yes I do watch Fox. Also CNN. And ABC. And CBS. And NBC. (shall I continue?)

I have, on occasion, tuned into Ms Maddow's program. I will not say she never has a valid point, but I found it to be very one sided.

Now all those conservative commentators you listed, I don't watch/listen/read any of them. (sorry to disappoint) There is one that I believe you would probably include in that list I do watch as often as I am able to, and that is O'Reilly. Yes, he is right leaning, but he does bring opposing viewpoints onto his show to make their case.

HuffPo? You cannot be serious. Again, one sided, and agenda driven. I have perused the site before and found myself disgusted with how it tries to present itself as "news".

And then you suggest that I indulge in an illegal activity on a regular basis (smoke a bowl....on a daily/weekly basis). I believe I have stated before that I have tried it in the past and found it wasn't for me. For you to suggest such a thing I find insulting to me on a much more personal level outside of political view.

This also suggests that the liberal line of thought can only be perpetuated through a drug induced haze.

All that being said, I realize that this stems from the question of the constitutionality of testing. While my usual testing I currently undergo is apparently perfectly legal, I also recieve a thorough brief of the reason for the test and what is being tested for. I did not recieve such information from nail. Does this affect the legality of the test?

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 9:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 9:01 p.m.

Reference your question, some of us older guys who were there - Drift, Nails, Hawkeye and I - we know because we lived it. But to simplify the answer to fit this forum is difficult.

There have always been people who refused to serve, but they were relatively few. Vietnam changed a lot. Google and read the Port Huron Statement, which was key to the subsequent upheaval on the college campuses. Go back and read Senator J. William Fulbright's "The Arrogance of Power", which he put out when he became the first important gov't official to openly oppose Vietnam. Read a book called The Greening of America, mandatory reading on the college campuses in the early '70s, which extolled the individuality of the counterculture. You have to be a student of, or have lived, the '60s and '70s to understand the people who grew up to lead the liberal side of the country, and to know who groups like the Young Republicans were in constant conflict (intellectual type) with. Read the Watergate Papers. Read a book that was being carried in the professional development reading section in clothing sales about 10 years ago - Dereliction of Duty, by H.R. McMaster.

You can blame it on whoever you like - the existentialists like Nietzche and Sartre are as good as any. Or another favorite scapegoat was Dr. Spock. Or maybe it was just those dirty dope smoking hippies.

But what happened is that America started learning that our gov't wasn't as perfect as we'd like. In fact, we've done a whole lot of down right despicable things. And at the same time we were being taught to think for and about ourselves. Just because a bunch of people in Wash DC said something - well, that was no longer enough justification. Why had to make sense.

And that also answers why the volunteer Army is the better option. If someone is there in uniform, hopefully they don't have these personal conflicts interfering with what they've got to do.

roger — August 8, 2012 at 9:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- *For you to suggest such a thing I find insulting to me on a much more personal level outside of political view.*

Thank you for "enlightening" me. You take yourself more seriously than anyone whose ever posted here before. It's amusing to say the least. In my opinion. :)

My post was intended to be humorous. You're quite easily "offended" and "insulted". Not the first time someone has done so in your brief time posting here. I in no way intended to disrupt such a fragile psyche.

Now go fire one up for the ol' Gipper!

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- *Reference your question, some of us older guys who were there - Drift, Nails, Hawkeye and I - we know because we lived it.*

I was employed through DOD, never the military per se. I thought you knew. Please don't respect me less than you already do. :)

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Un Friggin' believable. Welcome to a Right to Work State.

hawkeye — August 8, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.

I will agree that these employees were fired without sufficient cause. The Sherriff got butt hurt because people don't agree with him. I believe they are due some justice for this case.

I do not agree that this can be used to condemn the Right to Work Law. So you find a job, that you qualify for, decent pay, suitable other benefits, ability to provide for yourself and family. There is a kicker... Union shop.

You make a choice that you do not wish to be a union member. So you can work there, but are obligated to pay the dues. This makes no sense to me. If you do not pay these dues, you aren't allowed employment.

So you take a job and support an organization you don't wish to or you don't work. Where is the persons choice?

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 10:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Some on here would tell you, if you serve in the military you have a low IQ. They view those who do serve as low class scum.*

Care to reference that? I've been posting here for awhile and can remember no such assertion from anyone.

Sounds kinda...cRaZy

nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:09 p.m.

I get insulted because my convictions and beliefs run deep. I have a sense of humor, but it has limits.

I can see the validity of the argument for legal recreational marijuana use. But I have opinions that are very personal that lead to the cutting of your statement.

So I will try this. Please, make no references to me smoking marijuana.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 10:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Stephen King: If You Don’t Read, ‘You’ve Got the Army, Iraq’
posted on May 5, 2008

Author Stephen King made an appearance last month at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., where he discussed, among other things, the importance of literacy. As King put it: “I don’t want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don’t, then you’ve got, the Army, Iraq, I don’t know, something like that.”

Nail-

Here is an example of the low IQ opinion of the military. Though IQ isn't mentioned, he is basically saying the Army is only for the illiterate.
I was even working in Bangor at the time of this statement, as a recruiter no less. If our job wasn't already difficult, this didn't help.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 10:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I thank all of you who are providing input. Unfortunately, some regular voices I am interested in hearing from have yet to chime in.

The question is, what reasons do people have for being unwilling to join the military?

Someone mentioned my use of the 1% figure.

That is the total population. The 99% fall into two categories. 1) unable to serve. This could be because of age, medical condition, criminal record. 2)unwilling to serve.

This 1% is the entire military. Active, Guard, Reserve, enlisted, and commissioned.

danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 10:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 10:40 p.m.

You seem to have missed an important category. According to news accounts hundreds of thousands enlisted in the days following Pearl Harbor, these people were not unwilling or unable.

frobert — August 9, 2012 at midnight ( | suggest removal


Fro-

This isn't the 1940's. I am talking about here and now.

The reality is that in recent years, when additional people were needed in uniform, then you saw an increase in people getting waivers to join. They were previously unable, but were willing. The requirements changed, and there were not enough people that were able and willing, so we adjusted to allow the willing to be able.

This leads to the figures that exist and some criticize. More waivers granted for criminal records.

What I am looking to find out are the reasons why people who are able, are unwilling. I would also like to avoid the obvious one that exists right now. (being at war since 2001)

danabwoodley — August 9, 2012 at 2:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 8, 2012 at 10:15 p.m.

Wasn't really referring to military service; I meant living through the time period I was referencing. And you can't deny your age, buddy!!!

Never any disrespect intended. I just like to point out that too much one-sided learning makes the brain mushy - you've got to give all sides a serious listening. Even the blond girls on FOX News. And, though it pains me, yes - even your girl Rachel.

roger — August 9, 2012 at 5:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 9, 2012 at 2:47 a.m.

OK - So you're apparently fishing for a certain answer. Care to share it?

And again (though stated differently) -

Dick Cheney; he's already answered this question.

It's all about me!!!

roger — August 9, 2012 at 5:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Fishing yes. Not for a specific answer though. As I said I have a hypothesis. I will share, but will take a little time to place fingers to keys (to update an old saying).

Perhaps it is time I share it to recieve feedback from the group.

Right after I eat. It is meal time. I am not one of those that lives to eat, but I recognize its importance in my daily routine.

danabwoodley — August 9, 2012 at 6:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Now my ideas why so many in the population are unwilling to serve. And I will put fault, at least in part on the media.

What do we hear about on the news about veterans and service members?

The veteran unemployment rate is higher than the national rate. Veterans having difficulties with adjusting back into society after deployment. Service members committing criminal acts (Death Squadm SSG Bales, MAJ Hasan). Suicide rates are up among service members. Service members having difficulty getting professional help when they need it.
Occasionally you hear of exceptional heroism recognized with a Medal of Honor. Most often the service member was killed in the action cited.

Do we hear about veterans who serve, discharge, and go on to successful lives? Perhaps they learned a skill in the service, and went to work in the field afterward? Or used education benefits and went on to a successful career?

But to hear it in the media, all veterans are unemployed, suicidal/homocidal, drug addicted, and mentally ill, assuming they survived the service.

Do young people see that the service could be a viable stepping stone to success?

My thoughts on this. I was asking to see if anyone possibly saw it this way.

danabwoodley — August 9, 2012 at 7:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


BIG BIG sigh..........................!!!

State AG Rob McKenna...*PULEEEEASE* Do your homework before discussing the I-5 Bridge and Columbia River Crossing! You were quoted by the Columbian Newspaper at a Rotary Club Meeting at the Quay and stated (in part) *"That corridor is too vital to allow it to fall into the river, so we have to figure out what the right replacement looks like, what we can afford, when it needs to be done — all of that."*

First of all, sir...you are feeding the fearmongers with the words "to allow it to fall into the river." The only...yes ***ONLY*** ways the bridge would fall into the river is by an act of terrorism or if we had a 9.0 earthquake with rigid side-to-side motion. If the latter were to ever happen, I am 100% positive that the bridges would NOT be the first concern of the folks of this region. Secondly...if you are going to discuss the project at any capacity...your generalized statement "all of that" only allows the voters to assume your lack of interest to SW Washington and the negative impact of increased taxation to voters (as well as tolling).

To conclude my little public lecture to you Mr. Washington State Attorney General...if you are truly interested in approval by Clark County voters...the fifth most populated county in Washington State...then please do your homework before making a speech. It would be greatly appreciated.

goldenoldie — August 9, 2012 at 7:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Danabwoodley, you had asked a question wondering why anybody would be unwilling to serve. Well my fellow forum dweller and honorable member of the service...maybe I could explain it from my vantage point. In the case of this person...who is obviously too old to join the US Military at 54, I speak from the heart and from my memory of years gone by. As a member of the Baby Boomer era, I witnessed a horrific war...the Vietnam War...from the time I was able to understand the news reports and through my impressionable years till I was 16. I saw the devastation...not only to the landscape of the land scorched by Napalm and Agent Orange...but to the people and their families of the nations who fought for what they had to fight. I saw the division of our nation...the hatred for those who didn't believe in killing their fellow man JUST because they would dodge the draft.

The forcible US draft brought many to their knees, even seeking refuge in other nations...turning their backs on the US due to their deep disregard for killing and dismembering their fellow humans. For many who served...unwillingly through the draft and had no choice, the battles were hard and long...not only with machine guns and firepower...but with the need to escape the mind-numbing mental battles of knowing they had to kill or be killed themselves and witnessed many buddies die...even in their arms...some witnessing their own relatives dying; and in doing so, the only way to escape the horrific act of war...it was through the use of narcotics.
(to be continued)

goldenoldie — August 9, 2012 at 8:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


(continued from 8:14 am)

Once the Vietnam Vets who were "hooked" had returned, they were caste upon as dope heads...losers and users. Nothing but degenerates. They weren't offered the needed help to get off the crap they'd use to numb themselves from what they witnessed. They had nowhere to turn and the American People for the most part looked at these veterans as nothing but trouble. It took many long and painstaking years for our nation to open our eyes and begin to help these heroes...some far too late.

So in a nutshell, Dana...it is for this reason and the experience for which I have witnessed as have many other Baby Boomers who were either too young to fight or weren't drafted who witnessed the same...that refused to step up to the plate and enlist. Remember this as well, Dana...folks such as myself have discussed the very same subject with our children, even trying to explain why wars such as the Vietnam War were necessary. It is no offense to you as I have a high regard for what you have done as well as our other servicemen and women who have had the constitution to do so...but not everybody is cracked out to do the job that you have had to do. I know I wasn't and to this day if I could...I still wouldn't...but I thank each and every one of you who have stepped up to the plate for upholding our freedom today.

Also Dana...just because folks such as myself would never enlist and would hope the draft never returns, that doesn't mean we are unpatriotic. Quite the contrary. Just as the people did during WWII, I would do my part to help the fighting brave in whatever capacity we could...if that meant helping their families, conserving on certain materials so that our military would have the necessary equipment, raising donations to pay for protective gear...donate our volunteer time at the local veteran's administration hospital, giving blood or volunteering at the American Red Cross...I'd do it.

I hope you have a better understanding from my perspective as to why some are unwilling to serve at the capacity of the US Military.

goldenoldie — August 9, 2012 at 8:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 8, 2012 at 10:21 p.m.

Being in a union shop is not what it used to be. I worked in a union shop for 25 years and was glad I did. The union backed you up when the company (your supervisor) tries to pull a fast one on you. I had times when a new supervisor would be put into your department and they had an immediate chip on their shoulder, they were going to "shake things up" and "make things better". When in fact they made things much worse. (I'll bet that NEVER happens in the military). The union rep would remind them that they had to go by the rules and if they were going to take someone out of their job, it had to be the lowest senior person. Also, in a union shop, you know what is expected of you because it is all written out in your contract. As for dues, we had some guys that did not pay dues. They weren't allowed a say in contract negotiations and didn't have a vote but they were still under contract like the rest of us.

I enjoyed my time on that job and now I'm enjoying the "fruits of my labor" in a decent pension and medical insurance for me and my wife. To me, that's a lot of benefit for the small amount of dues I paid.

hawkeye — August 9, 2012 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


“one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/questions-about-romneys-sons-and-military-service/

“Some people are blinded by their experience. Soldiers know how important war is. Owners of slaves learn every day how inferior subject peoples are.”
― William Stafford

mr_basil_seal — August 9, 2012 at 10:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It.

Thirty-seven thousand conscientious objectors performed alternative service during WWII. They volunteered for tasks that few others were willing to perform. As medics on the battlefield, medical guinea pigs, smoke jumpers, attendants in mental institutions and workers in Civilian Public Service (CPS) camps, they served their country in dramatic and dangerous ways.

CPS Camps
Civilian Public Service was the product of a unique and conflicted collaboration between the U.S. government's Selective Service and the traditional peace churches: Mennonites, Church of the Brethren and Quakers. It was a response to the first peacetime draft in U.S. history, initiated more than a year before Pearl Harbor. It was also the first time conscientious objectors to war were offered legal alternative service under civilian command. The churches' goal was to protect COs from the torture they suffered in WWI and allow them to do "work of national importance" as an alternative to military service. The government's interest was primarily to keep the COs out of sight, so they would not have a negative impact on wartime morale. CPS men were not limited to members of the peace churches; they represented over 200 religious groups and others without church affiliation. Their only shared philosophy was the rejection of war.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/thegoodwar/camps.html

mr_basil_seal — August 9, 2012 at 10:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The Civilian Public Service Story
Living Peace in a Time of War

http://civilianpublicservice.org/

mr_basil_seal — August 9, 2012 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- At times I wish my body would deny my age! I get it with listening to all sides.

Like I tell my kids at times, you've got a right to be wrong! :)

nailingit — August 9, 2012 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil...your timing was impeccable on the CPS. Thanks for sharing it...excellent links, btw.

goldenoldie — August 9, 2012 at 1:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Wow...that was weird. I posted something...it even said "comment posted" and nothing showed up. Let me try again...

Basil, thanks for sharing those links. You're timing is impeccable. Good links to visit for sure.

goldenoldie — August 9, 2012 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Paul Smith, Tea Party Rally Attendee And Elected Official, Held Sign Depicting Obama's Head On A Spike (VIDEO)**

After carrying signs suggesting President Barack Obama's decapitation and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's hanging at a Tea Party rally three years ago, Sterling Heights, Mich. Councilman Paul Smith has been asked by his colleagues to resign his post.

A video from a 2009 Tea Party rally in Troy shows Smith holding graphic signs condemning Obama, Granholm and Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi before his 2011 election to Council.

The least offensive text reads, "she turned Michigan into Detroit," referring to the former governor, with other slogans reading “Extreme left b*tch,” on the Pelosi sign, and "He changed America into Uganda” on the sign with Obama.

In the YouTube video, shown below, Smith tells the cameraman: "We've let a Communist in the White House. He’s not just a Socialist, he’s an out-and-out Communist. He’s taken over the auto industry, he’s taken over the banks."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/paul-smith-tea-party-sterling-heights-michigan_n_1760160.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir;=Politics

nailingit — August 9, 2012 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Basil-

While your input is appreciated, I was looking to get the personal opinions of those who post here, not reprinted words of others.

Goldie-

I do appreciate your perspective, and I will admit that such thoughts have crossed my mind. I know there was a major shift in thinking in the years between WWII and Vietnam. It seems as though the ill flavor of Vietnam takes longer to cleanse.

All-

I hope you don't think I am in anyway trying to paint the military as a perfect lifestyle, and I am not petitioning to reinstate the draft. I do believe that many have a picture in their mind of what the service is, but have no first hand, or even second hand, knowledge. I believe memories of Vietnam cloud many a judgement.

Do people die in the service? Yes. Are some wounded? Yes. Do some have psychological problems connected to service? Yes. Does this commit you to a life of pain, suffering, debauchery, or immorality? That is up to the individual.

Some of the good things about the service has changed in the past 10 years. I hope that the powers that be can see them and find a way to return to them. Some things have changed for the better, and I look forward to seeing how they positively impact us in the coming years.

I will ask of everyone, should anyone ask you about serving, explain to them truthfully about what you know. Encourage them to research it. Service isn't limited to putting on a uniform. Find out the pros and cons. Bounce these things off your personal goals. Make a decision.

In closing, let me throw this out. None on here have said so, but I have heard it before. Service does change you. For better or worse? Up to you. Brainwashing? Only if you let yourself be so easily led. (yes, I know several) And it may sound cliche but, you will get out what your put in.

OK, I think I am done with my soapbox for now.

danabwoodley — August 9, 2012 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The French got their butts whooped in Vietnam and then we got a taste of pooh ourselves. The Russians got their lunch served to them in Afghanistan. And yet there *we* are... Why did we do the Iraq thing? Don't tell me it was to liberate a downtrodden people. Please. You'll be insulting my intelligence.

Have you any idea the cost in human lives? And I'm not speaking of simply death. At that book signing the other weekend there was a 12-year-old girl who spoke. She was talking of her father. A man she loved. A man that wasn't "right" after he came back from the Sand Box. When her tears began to fall I had to walk away.

Why the hell would someone volunteer for that?

To protect ones family and friends? You're darn tootin'. At the whim of the corporations that currently own and operate this country? I don't think so.

Don't you have high school buddies that didn't enlist, DB? Have you asked *them* why? People no longer trust the government, man. It's the government that tells our people to go kill others and be killed themselves.

Some would rather not give their all for a corporation.

I lucked out. The closest I came to combat was mooning a Russian trawler. Upon separation from the Navy I went to the community college on the G.I. Bill (geology and psych). My mortgage is V.A. backed. The V.A. is my health care provider.

It worked out pretty good for me (shrug).

During the '76-'79 time frame Corporate America din't see a need to go to war. The Cold War was enough to keep the stock holders happy.

Drift — August 9, 2012 at 9:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal



...

nailingit — August 10, 2012 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Where did everybody go?

hawkeye — August 10, 2012 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Testing, testing. One, two, three.

John Hill (Columbian Staff) — August 10, 2012 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm jonesing without my daily dose of Nails!!!

roger — August 10, 2012 at 7:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**DANA**

if an order came down the chain of command to take over a US city and install martial law, would anybody question it?

DeeLittle — August 11, 2012 at 12:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


...

nailingit — August 11, 2012 at 12:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Still down?

roger — August 11, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


...fixed yet...?

DeeLittle — August 11, 2012 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


.

nailingit — August 11, 2012 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


TEST

hawkeye — August 11, 2012 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We been kicked to the curb?

Drift — August 11, 2012 at 9:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


test

hawkeye — August 11, 2012 at 9:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


finally! it's fixed :)

DeeLittle — August 11, 2012 at 11:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


is this working yet?

danabwoodley — August 12, 2012 at 7:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


...

nailingit — August 12, 2012 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


still?

hawkeye — August 12, 2012 at 5:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


WTF is going on?

danabwoodley — August 13, 2012 at 5:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


...

nailingit — August 13, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*While your input is appreciated, I was looking to get the personal opinions of those who post here, not reprinted words of others. danabwoodley — August 9, 2012 at 8:49 p.m.*

Just quoting someone wiser than you or I.

“Some people are blinded by their experience. Soldiers know how important war is. Owners of slaves learn every day how inferior subject peoples are.” ― William Stafford

mr_basil_seal — August 13, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login