Wow, your old member retention rate is pretty high. pb, lacerda, demo, cat, detta, joe, on and on. Even the google translate queen jlmr makes an appearance.

Speaking of, it's been a good seven years now. Did we ever find out what pb stands for? I've been convinced for the better part of a decade that it was peanut butter even though he said it wasn't.

I like pie.

Quote from: Lacerda

I keep getting the impression that his handlers aren't letting him say a lot of the things he wants to for fear of alienating fencesitters...

I wish they'd just let him already.

And to the rest that are having issue with Kerry's quiet campaign:

I read an article where he said that he really wasn't interested in asserting himself in policy debates until the election gets closer. Basically he said that anything he says now means virtually nothing to anyone but those that will pick it apart without any attempt at context. Closer to the debates, he said he's really gonna let loose with policy thoughts, trying to set the debate tone.

I think it's a smart move.

I think Supremos should be required to forgo their freedom of association, and severly limit their freedom of speech (which they already to do a point). They are the only branch not voted on, and with the added burden of applying justice in its strongest form in this country, there must be clear lines. This self-policing policy they have in place currently is crap. A fuckhead Supremo in the modern era like Scalia has been a long time comin.

I know that's harsh, but I think the level of trust their position demands requires extrordinary circumstances. Ginsburg is a heavy NOW proponent and I have issue with that, even as a NOW member myself.

Your assesement of Scalia is dead on, reimero. What he personally feels about the issue of conflict of issue is a moot point.

as a side note, I understand that asking for a limit on freedoms is a serious issue, not one to be taken lightly. But barring outside regulation, I don't see any othe equitable way. I would have no problem with an ombudsman group taking charge of it, but that's about as likely as ... well it's not likely.

I mean in a legal sense, not just political grandstanding by House Democrats.  

In this place in time, is there any honest way Democrats could do so without being lambasted for political grandstanding? In this place in time, is there virtually anything Democrats can do or say as the opposition party that won't be lambasted for political grandstanding?

I think Demo's right. On top of it, paying for bases on foreign soil can't be cheap.

I know I got paaaaaid while in Korea.

The older generation adores American soldiers, and the younger generation detested us (for the most part). I was offered free food by old folks, then yelled at two seconds later by a college student. Bit of a Jekyl and Hyde social situation.

I believe that they honestly didn't. I think they had been thinking about it for so long that it became a panacea in their heads. Life was going to be roses and puppy dogs and parades down Baghdad main street.

When the Army Chief of Staff says that it's going to take a coupla hundred thousand soldiers to hold Iraq and Rumsfeld comes on the next day, undercutting him with a "far off the mark", you just hope and pray that they're that fucking stupid.

I believe they are that stupid. It only takes two men in agreement to get something like this through, and obviously neither are the president.

This is where having a president that, instead of identifying with him cause he BBQs and wears fucking bucket hats, actually has an ounce of worldly understanding.

It was actually a smart tactical move.

When faced with an opponent who:

• Has technical superiority
• Mobility superiority
• Logistical superiority
• Training superiority
• Firepower superiority
• Intelligence superiority[/list:u]
  
  You don't stand and fight.  You RUN.  Then fight from the shadows.  From the streets.  From the alleyways.  You nickel and dime them one and two at a time.  You draw it out, wage a long, slow, protracted war of attrition.
  
  A handful of even moderately-trained fighters with good tactical leadership can wage a guerilla war on an enemy that's superior in almost every way for a nearly indefinite period.
  
  It's actually pretty easy.  All you do is continue to harrass them and eventually they go away.

You'd think no one would know that better than Americans.

We'll start with the obvious. Absolutely no money exchanged without a title in working form. His name and everything checks.

Take it to a mechanic. Tell him you want a complete rundown on the sucka. It's worth every last fuckin penny. You shouldn't spend more than $50.

All receipts. You want oil, tunes, the works. If he doesn't have the paperwork, it never happened whether he says so or not. Bargain from there.

Ask for the VIN number and carfax.com it.

Check sites like Autoweb and Consumer Reports. Here's one on it:

http://www.autoweb.lycos.com/content/research/reviews/index.cfm/action/ListCTD/Make_vch/Ford/Model_vch/Explorer

Personal advice? It's a domestic. If it didn't come before '72, I wouldn't touch it. If I had $6k and wasn't concerned about gas guzzling (Explorer?), I would buy a pre-70's car that should give back at least some of the money you invest when it's time to sell it. You keep that thing for 3 years, it won't be worth dick. A loyal little honda, toyota, or old school car will still be worth something. I bought a 91 toyota last year for $900, drove it 15k miles, and sold it for $1100. Something to think about.

Hope this helps.

2. Yes. Having to re-up would be a bummer, but I'd feel better about it if the letters that were fired off last week weren't threatening. Since Congress hasn't released the IRR to Rumsfeld yet, the DoD decided to not sit on their hands and the letters basically shake out to "re-up now and you can get a unit that's not going to Iraq". Again, there's a valid point here somewhere about how my not wanting to work for these scum would make me... something or other.

Army does about-face on call-up readiness
An erroneous order for veterans to pick a Reserve or National Guard unit by Monday produces a flurry of enlistments
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
RON SOBLE

SALEM -- Thousands of recent U.S. Army veterans nationwide were told to choose by Monday a new assignment in the Army Reserve or National Guard -- meaning a potential return to active duty -- or the military would decide for them. The Army now says the order was a mistake.

The consequence of the error appears to be a sharp increase in enlistments in Oregon and elsewhere by reservists who feared being assigned a unit without their consent. They now face possible deployment to the Middle East.

Army Reserve officials said the order issued in early May prompted a flood of calls from confused veterans, who are among the estimated 118,000 reservists on inactive status. The Pentagon is not yet forcing re-enlistments but is "screening" inactive reservists for possible call-up, a spokeswoman said.

Nonetheless, e-mails and phone calls from military recruiters went out this month warning veterans that they could be involuntarily placed in active Army Reserve units. That shocked some Oregon reservists.

oops.

Well, apparently obvious conclusions can't be drawn. I don't quite see why, though maybe it has something to do with the difference between being in the service, and being in the service and understanding what's happening around you.

Which might have been why I put "DEMO" in the tagline, but hey, I got a minute. Coffee's brewin.

I'm thinking that this "very valid point" goes something along the lines of "OMGLOLZ i had teh werk with that whiny guy!!1!! hate dem fuckas!!11!!!lolzlol"

1. I have no interest in fighting a war in which all command and control is not being done by my military superiors, but by politicians. This is not a political issue, this is a military issue. I don't think I need to provide past examples of wars past and how horribly this has done. Clearly, this time, it's happening.

INACTIVE STATUS reserves, whose mobilization requires not just an act of Congress, but certification by the Secretary of Defense that there are insufficient numbers of ACTIVE STATUS reservists within specific categories to meet National Security needs.

"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, responding to the Army chief of staff, who told the Senate that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to occupy Iraq, "Far off the mark"."

Superceding your Army chief of staff for political reasons. Great. On top of it, he's so goddamn wrong that IRR is being talked about. Anyone that wants to fight for this outfit right now (in a strictly military sense) has a fucking screw loose.

As a final post script, Shinseki was the greatest Army Chief of Staff of the last two decades at least. His vision and attention to detail were stunning. He was my Chief, and William Cohen was my DoD. I'd fight for those men in a heartbeat.

2. Yes. Having to re-up would be a bummer, but I'd feel better about it if the letters that were fired off last week weren't threatening. Since Congress hasn't released the IRR to Rumsfeld yet, the DoD decided to not sit on their hands and the letters basically shake out to "re-up now and you can get a unit that's not going to Iraq". Again, there's a valid point here somewhere about how my not wanting to work for these scum would make me... something or other.

3. I don't think I need to go into our (the Army) piss poor handling of Iraq to this point. The force in the field right now is not this man's Army. This man's Army did the right fucking thing every time.

4. And pay attention to this one. With the Army usually being nothing more than a community college dropout center filled with kids that couldn't change a fucking tire without step by step instruction, much less actually think intelligently about subjects around them (such as this one),  I already had to spend four years with complete dumbfucks, I'd rather not do it again.

Did I miss anything?

Proving my point exactly, bobo. I already had to spend four years with complete dumbfucks, I'd rather not do it again.