(V):    I'm not sure what that has to do with what I've said.  All states have had their problems from time to time.  But as Vikings pointed out, the liberal policies of California have bankrupt the State.   So goes the US.  The current rate of spending under Obama cannot be sustained.  Make no mistake, Bush made plenty of mistakes with his fiscal irresponsibility.   The whole of the Republican party lost it's way.   Tax and spend will break the US economy.  California did just that.  They are an example of what NOT to do but Obama is following their lead. 

Joe Biden told a group of students that when they grow up they will get a free college education.  Really?  Free?  The colleges are going to allow students to come to their college for free?  Wow, that's sweet.  I had to pay for mine.  Now colleges are offering free tuition. 

What?  Oh, taxes are going to pay for it?  Like my taxes?  So my taxes are going to be used to pay for someone's college education and for all their health costs?  What's next?  

So it's not free then is it?  

This is how California failed.  Give give give but then take take take at the same time.  

Notice how politicans don't say "We're going to take money from those of you who work hard to earn it and give a little to everybody else regardless of their work ethic.  From the lazy to the industrious, all will qualify for "free" college and health care." 

No, they say they're going to offer free health care for everyone.  But it's not really free is it?

And they spend more than they can take in.  I don't know about you but I don't run my home that way.  Which is why I have lots of money saved in the bank and don't live beyond my ability to pay.  On a teacher's salary no less.  But the government is going to take more and more of my money to give it to others (even those who refuse to work).  

Exactly how California went bankrupt.   They can't even honor their tax refunds to those who overpaid!  They've sent out IOU's.  

Maybe I'll send an IOU to the IRS this year.  Yeah.  I'll tell them I'm doing what California did.  ;)

Czuch:  I wonder how long it will take people who voted for Obama to see through his ideas for what they really are?  More and more jobs are being lost.  We are in debt up to our eyeballs and they are talking about another stimulus package.  Really?

Millions on millions of stimulus money went to building a bridge that hardly anyone uses.  Even the locals were scratching their heads.  And it created 30 jobs.  Jobs that end when the bridge is completed.  Yeah, that will help the economy. 

Millions more went to the study of the manufacture of warm beer.  Yeah, that's an emergency.  Let's take care of that right away. 

congress is now passing bills to comply with the dictates of the EPA.  Excuse me?  the EPA? 

Global warming is a farce. There is no such thing as a carbon footprint.  Idiots.  It's all about power.   More and more scientists are beginning to sing a different song about global warming.  They see that the reality is the trend is not global warming as temp have declined in the past ten years.  It's the cycle folks.

Remember back in the seventies?  The scare was global cooling.  It was an emergency.   Now it's global warming.  A farce.

Think not?   Consider this:  Homeowners will have to retrofit their homes to meet EPA standards.  So when you sell your home, you have to meet certain environmental criterion.  And who is to thank for that?

Obama.

Health care?  It's also a farce.  There's no money to pay for it.  All our taxes will go up and up and up. 

Look at California.  That's where the US is headed. 

And were not the only country facing this kind of stupidity. 

And the beat goes on  ;)

Vikings:  True.  That's what someone else said on the news.  The far left blogs are nudging out the liberal press.  And the press is jealous.

Still, it was fun to see Helen Thomas get feisty and bite the hand that feeds here. 

Vikings:  It's another conspiracy theory.  I've started working on a blog and no, it's not on politics.  It's about teaching art to children.  My plan is to blog about everything I do in the classroom, including lesson plans, step-by-step instructions, and pictures.  Also a web site is in the works.  Art galleries.  That and the work with my band, yard work, grand children (I get asked to babysit a lot in the summer) plus the every growing honey do list, keeps me busy.   And the chest pains are back but it may just be from acid reflux.  I see the cardiologist on the 21st.   

I've had fun modding this board and I think I've even been modded myself once.  But it is the right time for me to move on to other things.  I appreciate all the support I've been given by the globals, and it's been a lot.  I leave on good terms and appreciate being allowed to moderate board (despite the baggage I still carry around a bit).   As I've said to someone else, I'm a reformed twerp.  I know my history.   It says a lot to me that I was allowed to moderate three boards. So for that I say thanks to all the powers that be. 

Ok, my official (off topic) goodbye is done.  The decision was mine.  No one asked me to resign etc.  I leave because it's time to move on and give the reins to another. 

Now, how about that Helen Thomas and how she grilled Obama's press secretary and held his feet to the fire on the White House's town hall meeting procedures?  Whoa!  That gal's got spunk for a old lady.  Anybody else see how she pointed her pen at the press secretary and after he said they'd "talk about this at a later time," she piped back, "No, we'll talk about this now!"   Yeah, and she's a liberal!  That's what the press should be doing, holding the President and  politicans accountable. !!!

Vikings:  That's how I see it.  It's irresponsible behavior on both adults.  So sad.  My granddaughter is 2. 

Vikings:  Link fixed. ;)

Python Kills Baby After getting out of its cage

So should the owner be held liable?  Should he go to jail?

Jim Dandy:   I guess I get double.  I thought it was double or nothing and they said no, it's double OF nothing.  I guess that means I owe the pot. 

Czuch:  Are you surprised?  I did nothing wrong.  It was time to move on and give the helm to another.  I'm a reformed twerp.  Just ask.    Be sure to ask the right people though.

I have stepped down from my moderating duties here on BK.  It's been fun but time to move on.  All the best to Vikings as the new moderator of the board. 

I've enjoyed the many conversations here and like the back and forth point counterpoints.  I'll still participate were the topic interests me. 

Happy debating  ;)

gogul:  You've lost me. 

As this is the politics board (not the politics of religion) check this out:  Debate Club - Religion

We need to breath life into the fellowship. :)

gogul:  I think we get the BBC here but I don't watch it.  I only watch a few things on Fox and also some on the networks.  I'm a huge fan of Glen Beck.  Cept when he cries on tv.  I wanna slap him 

(V):  ^{Being in the news doesn't make something a fact.  ;)}

(V):  So you're saying that you're not going to defend your earlier assertions?  Interesting. 

(V):  All your other statement here are mostly assertions.  You're dodging.

(V):  I can tell that you agree with me that all your other statements are merely opinion. 

I said:  "Much of what you state as a fact is really opinion. To prove it, name three "facts" regarding the US and see how they stand."

Focus on what you've already stated. 

(V): And world history, especially over the last 60 years is significant. We got caught in a spiral of fear, mistakes were made. Paranoia ruled.

No, Iraq became a calling point as the USA put it's soldiers in a position where they destabilised the region and had no plan for the aftermath of the invasion.

they made it so Iraq's borders were weak and anyone can just walk in..

As for the birth of the USA as we know it today.. yes it was the civil war, otherwise your country would be split in two. Independence is just a conception point, as many have found, not the birth.

No outside power has the right to interfere with a democratic process within a country, unless called in to make sure (as per UN observers) that the election is fair.

Over the last 50 years or so, the USA and USSR have interfered so much that the world is mixed up, all over power games and a believe that their is no room for the opposite side.

Easier to deal with for whom? The USA and the thirst for oil, or for the population of those who A, B or C is now been put in power over?


and on and on and on. these are ALL opinions. They are not arguments. They are assertions on your part. You could be right or you could be wrong. They are all debatable points. Like many here, including myself, your posts contain mostly opinion. And most of the time you offer no formal argument to support your assertions. That's fine with me. To be expected in a forum such as this. But I know the difference between fact and opinion and much of what you say is simply your opinion. Not fact.

Oh yeah, that's a fact.

(V): More to the point. I was saying that no matter the scenerio, critics of the US would find something to blame on the US. Not all critics, but many.

Facts are often in the eye of the beholder. Much of what you state as a fact is really opinion. To prove it, name three "facts" regarding the US and see how they stand.

(V): I wasn't discussing the history of the world. That has nothing to do with the thesis of my post. If you want to discuss another topic, then don't refer back to my original post because honestly I don't know what you're talking about with respect to my original comments.

(V): None of the above.

(V): You've still missed the point of my post. Not that it matters. I wasn't talking about Iraq specifically. You brought that into it. Mine was simply an observation. I wasn't speaking specifics, but in general terms. You either agree with my thesis or you don't.

Übergeek 바둑이:   Great post.  I only take small issue with a few things.  I think it may amount to perspective.  Truth gets muddled in opinions and bias.  I admit a bias toward the US and consider its intentions in the world noble.  Not always, but more often than not.

"We get to the heart of the matter. We MUST do something. What if we
didn't? The thugs would run over things. Yet to stop the thugs we must
become thugs ourselves."

Thugs or knights in shining armor?  Here it's a matter of perspective.  If we oppressed the people or ran over them to get to the thugs, then I'd fully agree.  But generally speaking, the US does not act in this way.  The US policy is to go after the thugs and kill them.  When we vacate Iraq we will leave it with better hopes for the future and freedom from the trannical dictator that murdered his own people.  That's called liberation.  Yet the events in Iraq are often characterized as an invasion.  Again, it's perspective. 

The US is often like the guy in the store who witnesses a robbery.  A man in a mask points a gun a the clerk, pistol whips a customer and threatens everyone.  The "US guy (well call him gUS) sees an opportunity to deal with the thug and jumps him.  There's a fight.  gUS gets away the gun and shoots the guy (who was still fighting) five times - point blank.  gUS wanted to fully end the threat.  gUS was just in the store to buy some gum.  He likely saved the lives of people in the store.  But the press (the world) reports the story, not as gUS being a hero, but as gUS being a thug.  The world complains that gUS acted reclessly putting everyone at risk.  And gUS, while in possession of the only weapon, fired point blank into a "defensless" man, killing him.  gUS is now a villan.  The hero is the thug (this is exactly what is happening with captured terrorists). 

" We want to save the world, and use force to do
it."

Because that's often the only way to do it.  

"We want to have it both ways. Go to war and impose our system on
others, but we want to be called lovers of peace and democracy at the
same time. Our politicians know this and they try their best to
convince us that the idelogical justifications are what matter. The
ulterior motives (like oil and power) should be ignored."

or

We don't want to have it both way.  We go to war, sacrifice our lives to give other nations the opportunity to develop a system of freedom.  We are loves of peace and often the road to true peace is at the end of a gun (can you name any long lasting peace that hasn't required a threat of some kind?). 

As for the comment on politicians:  I don't trust most of them. 

On oil:  I'm not convinced that it's all about oil.  But I'm also not convinced that oil isn't on the table.  But it's not the only thing.   World conflicts are often far too complicated to boil down to any one thing.  There are many factors and suggesting it's this thing or that thing is mostly guess work. 

(V):  The point I was making wasn't about the US's internal policies but the perception many in the world often have of the US.   If you disagree with that point, say so and give some evidence  as to where I'm going wrong.  I don't suggest it's always the case, but generally speaking, yes.  Even some nuts on the far left blame the US for everything.  And of course when Bush was in office, they salivated at the prospect of discrediting his administration.  But even now with Obama in office, their true colors show.  It's blame the US first, ask questions later. 

(V):  Like I said, you've proven my point. 

History records the birth of the US in 1776 not1864

(V):  and it was not a civil war that birthed the US.

(V):You're proving my point.  Blaming the US seems to be the answer to everything.  Terrorists and suicide bombers kill innocents in a market place and the US is blamed because they "invaded" Iraq.  Odd.   That's like blaming the bank for the robbery simply because they had lots of money on the premises.  ;)

(V):  That rather misses the entire point of the post. 

In an oil rich middle eastern country, two rivals are waging a civil war in a fight for power.  US officials meet and decide to support tyrant A because they think he will be easier to deal with in the long run and will have a more stabilizing effect on the region.  They supply him with arms.  A defeats B and then goes and kills millions of his supporters.  Many of them women and children.  The US gets blamed for interfering.

 Or

US officials meet and decide to support tyrant B because they think he
will be easier to deal with in the long run and will have a more stabilizing effect on the region.  They supply him with arms.  B defeats
A and then goes and kills millions of his supporters.  Many of them
women and children.  The US gets blamed for interfering.

or

In an oil rich middle eastern country, two rivals are waging a civil
war in a fight for power.  US officials meet and decide to do nothing.  A defeats B and then goes and kills millions of his
supporters.  Many of them women and children.  The US gets blamed for NOT interfering.

or

In an oil rich middle eastern country, two rivals are waging a civil
war in a fight for power.  US officials meet and decide to do nothing.  B defeats A and then goes and kills millions of his
supporters.  Many of them women and children.  The US gets blamed for NOT interfering.

Notice that tyrant A and B rarely get the press for their horrible crimes against humanity.  They fire the guns, blow up the bombs that kill the people, and the US gets to shoulder the blame. 

It's a small world after all.  And it's getting smaller.  The US must do something, along with the international community, to stop the thugs of the world.  N. Korea is a good case in point.  You people feel safe with these thugs having nuclear arms?  Forget who else has them.  You ok with N. Korea getting nuclear bombs and long range missles? 

If you say no to that question, then what's to be done?  Diplomacy has the word "dip" in it.  You'd be a dip if you thought diplomacy would work.  These folks don't think like you think.  

Many of the arguments one here assume a far less complex world than actually exists. 

(V):  Because the world is complicated and sometimes the choice is for the lesser of two evils.  ;)

(V):   What are your thoughts on the current situation in Iran?

Jim Dandy: Nor the needed experience. I don't like the progressive movement and find it a frightening prospect for the future of the US. But then maybe I watch too much Glen Beck.

Jim Dandy: That post was addressed to Czuch and he likes it when I talk that way.

If it makes you feel any better I now think Bush was an idiot.

Czuch:  If this were any Republican President it would be a different story.  But Obama is the darling of the press and inspite of the fact that he's running this country down the toilet, consider that those politicians who fully support Obama have been floating in that same toilet, waiting for someone to flush it. 

Czuch:  Biden isn't a good barometer simply because he speaks with his foot firmly planted in his mouth. 

Bernice: I'm the only one that can remove them (besides the original poster) and I've not removed any.

(V): I agree about the party thing. I don't think we'll get any help from the Democrats on that one and certainly the Republicans haven't been much help either. I think the best bet is the independents and there's lots of them (and the numbers are growing - me for example).

(V):  Wish we could get rid of a few (lots I mean) or our knuckleheads. 

(V): What's going on?

GTCharlie: <---laughing cheaply

Bwild: On October 3, 2002, PayPal became a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay.<sup>2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal</sup>

Czuch:  The current crisis in the US AND the UK is a direct result of the wonderful government taking care of things.    We wouldn't be in this mess but for the government (dems and repubs).   That's a fact jack.

(V):   I hope our Reps will start to fear the people as well.  Too many politicans are in it for themselves IMO.   Both sides of the isle.  I hate our two party system. 

GTCharlie:  PU on the environmentalists too.  ;)  May they all have a breakdown in their septic systems. 

PU on the Republicans. Double PU on the Dems!

I'm a Libertarian now.

(V): or maybe masters of perniciousness ;)

Pedro Martínez:Thanks, I gotta start paying attention  ;) 

(V):   Could you explain again the MPs?  Im too lazy at the moment to look it up but to me MP means military police?