Nope - I think he's right. I could never wrap my mind around "neo-con" until I saw Bush in action - now I know what it means.AndyMarquisLIVE said:Did you forget to insert?
But what does gluconate mean?
U.S. Helicopter Crash in Iraq Kills 13
- Thread starter forestal
- Start date
But what does gluconate mean?
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
vraiblonde said:Nope - I think he's right. I could never wrap my mind around "neo-con" until I saw Bush in action - now I know what it means.
But what does gluconate mean?
Gluconic acid is the carboxylic acid formed by the oxidation of the first carbon of glucose and has the chemical formula C<SUB>6</SUB>H<SUB>12</SUB>O<SUB>7</SUB>. When dissolved in water, it forms the gluconate ion C<SUB>6</SUB>H<SUB>11</SUB>O<SUB>7</SUB><SUP>−</SUP>; the salts of gluconic acid are also known as gluconates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconate
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
CNN said they believe the plane crash is an accident so again forsh!tal is wrong.
I don't even read his posts anymore - I only like opinions based on fact, not senseless drivel and figments of imagination. Some day he'll have something worth my time, so you all let me know if that happens, m'kay?AndyMarquisLIVE said:
Kerad
New Member
forestal said:
This sort of thing is nothing to try to score political points over. Yes...we can argue to the ends of the Earth about "Iraq"...but this story is not anything anybody should parade.. These heroes (and their families) have given more than anyone here has. The discussion is still valid...but not necessary to discuss it with this sort of news.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
Kerad said:
Forestal is a piece of $hit. Plain and simple. If soldiers die, he praises it to fit his cause. He's a fu©king terrorist-lover.
No. Most conservatives did not like the way Bush and the Republicans in Congress behaved. They acted more like Democrats, so many conservatives did not vote this time around. The Republicans forgot their conservative base and played too far to the "liberal" side. This election was used as a "wake up" call. Whether they get it or not is another question. They are politicians and lawyers; not the most common sense group of people.AndyMarquisLIVE said:Did you forget to insert
No, we are not.Kerad said:
You guys have a defeatist attitude and will hand the U.S. the next Vietnam. Is war terrible? Yes. I'm glad it is; makes people reluctant to go to war. I rue the day when war is completely fought by remote control with no human intervention or consideration for the cost of human lives. But war is necessary at times and the time to disagree about going to war is before hostilities start. After they start, it is the wrong time to wring our hands and say people are dieing. Yes, they are, but it is a war.
The problem with Iraq is we are fighting by rules the other side is not bound by and by rules that are imposed by a Congress that has no idea how to fight a war. You do not fight by committee. Our troops are having their hands tied by the press and Congress. Let them have their head and do what they are trained to do. This will be over sooner and with a win. Keep second guessing and restricting them and your doom and gloom about Iraq will be self fulfilling.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Good AM 2A...
...and I would argue that there are three major issues the GOP has failed not only its conservative base on, but the nation as a whole as well;
1. Our borders.
2. Massive expansion of the federal government.
3. Foreign adventurism, specifically Iraq and Afghanistan.
I know you agree on the first two. Would you agree that what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan has run far afield of conservative principles?
2ndAmendment said:
...and I would argue that there are three major issues the GOP has failed not only its conservative base on, but the nation as a whole as well;
1. Our borders.
2. Massive expansion of the federal government.
3. Foreign adventurism, specifically Iraq and Afghanistan.
I know you agree on the first two. Would you agree that what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan has run far afield of conservative principles?
I support the idea of withdrawing our troops from Iraq.
Upon leaving, we need to turn the entire region into a burning, glowing hell that won't be survivable for at least a thousand years.
Same goes for N. Korea, China, Half-Dozen or more other places.
No more troop loss for us, no more problems with those nations/hell-holes... If the Democrats are truly loyal citizens and concerned only for our troops, they should be happy.
Oh.... And roast those skeezy little Frenchies too.
Upon leaving, we need to turn the entire region into a burning, glowing hell that won't be survivable for at least a thousand years.
Same goes for N. Korea, China, Half-Dozen or more other places.
No more troop loss for us, no more problems with those nations/hell-holes... If the Democrats are truly loyal citizens and concerned only for our troops, they should be happy.
Oh.... And roast those skeezy little Frenchies too.
Pete
Repete
Let me take a crack at these.Larry Gude said:
1. Huge failure. Not only does it undermine the unwritten "fairness doctrine" in the fabric of America. It has virtually destroyed the economic security of entire sectors of American business leaving many American small businesses teetering on the edge of collapse. This administration has left a very large cross section of American feeling betrayed. American voters will deal with a wide variety of political slights but it does not tolerate feelings of betrayal.
2. Not so much a failure. The massive government expansion in my opinion it incorrectly linked to the massive reorganization and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. 9/11 and the war on terra were significant events and government must, must, must react to changes in the geopolitical playing field even if it costs.
With regard to the run away spending the hypocritical left seems to have an issue with now, that they never have issue with when they are the ones happily riding down the social road throwing cash to the masses themselves the answer is yes and no. In coping with the threats now apparent spending is a requirement. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq must be supported and they are expensive. Has the military infrastructure not been systematically dismantled in the previous 2 decades it would not be so painful but you play the cards dealt to you. The establishment of the TSA is a necessary evil and justified. The expansion of the Border Patrol, Coast Guard again are necessary expenses.
With regard to earmarks the GOP has betrayed the people. I believe this is due to years of being in power and becoming drunk with power. In addition the environment on capital hill became such that earmarking became the norm during many years of Democrat abuses as well. Under the Democrats pork barrel projects became standard operating procedure, Robert Byrd being the master. When the Republican came to power the SOP was earmarking so they partook in this case in excess.
3. Iraq and Afghanistan cannot in my mind be linked. Afghanistan was 100% necessary, Iraq was not. In Afghanistan we did what we had to do in reaction to the changed geopolitical landscape. Instead of reacting to terrorist who have become more and more bold through years of half assed responses or no response at all, we had to take the fight to them and eradicate them and governments who sponsor them.
Iraq has been arguably different. While we were not necessarily directly threatened by Saddam, there was potential in that he never complied with the UN Inspection terms. The left likes to wave the WMD flag and giggle but the simple fact is Saddam never allowed unfettered access, expelled the inspectors countless times, fired on coalition aircraft, violated the no-fly zones, acted purposely deceitful and suspicious, leaving any logical person to believe he was anything but truthful in his statements that he had destroyed all the WMD's. He played a silly game and it got his neck stretched.
Now Iraq as a larger issue is a matter of perspective. If you read a story of a nation that moved 3 Divisions 6,000 miles, took on a formidable Army on their home turf, toppled a dictator who was responsible for killing tens of thousands of his own people, invaded a neighbor, developed and used WMD's, threatened the stability of a region that supplies massive quantities of the life blood oil to the WORLD, thumbed his nose at UN directives, occupied the nation, oversaw the drafting of a constitution, set up a parliament, oversaw elections, and created the bud of a new democracy in the course of 3 years with just over 3,000 casualties you would typically think it a noble nation and a noble cause. However our media and polarized political state have effectively build Iraq into a horrible failure all by themselves. You can compare it to battles of the American Civil War all you want but the list of accomplishments we have effected in Iraq is impressive yet get very little traction in the fire hose media. They rather like to play up Abu Grab and the death count and negatively editorialize instead of report. If you have the media telling you everyday "It is bad, it is bad, it is bad" it does not take long for most to believe it.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
My bad...
FY 2000 outlays; $1.7 trillion
FY 2005: $2.5 trillion
Not to mention DHS, TSA et al.
I consider 1/2 again in under 6 years pretty big.
MMDad said:
FY 2000 outlays; $1.7 trillion
FY 2005: $2.5 trillion
Not to mention DHS, TSA et al.
I consider 1/2 again in under 6 years pretty big.
Support the troops. Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Orioles or Redskins, we assume it means you want them to win.forestal said:
But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."
Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
MMDad
Lem Putt
I didn't know which numbers you were selectively using to try to prove your point. If you are talking growth in spending, just say so. If I told you that my family had expanded by 25% in the last 5 years, would you assume I had gotten a raise or had a kid?Larry Gude said:
DHS was mostly a reorganization of existing functions, so there was low net growth. TSA is all new, but even with that, the overall numbers still declined.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Pete...
We got hit by 19 zealots with box cutters. Very, very rudimentary operation on their part. There is NO justification for spending this kind of money and expanding the breadth and scope of government to stop 19 guys with box cutters. Please don't follow up with fear mongering about suitcase nukes or bio attacks as you certainly know this new leviathan isn't going to do anymore to stop one now than it would have 5 years ago, especially when you consider the original attack was aided by simple law enforcement and intelligence doctrine failures that could have and should been changed with a few pages and a few votes and a relative handful of dollars.
You and I both know the Border Patrol and Coast Guard got peanuts to TSA's wasted caviar.
C'mon. Don't we also know that the Talibans leadership could have been eradicated at the push of a few buttons, including al Queda? There was no need to invade and try to affect regime and culture change. None.
Same goes for Iraq. We tried to play imperialist and it's not working very well and it was a mistake.
My point is none of this stuff happens under conservative leadership. Hell, even the left calls this 'neo' conservatism.
We got hit by 19 zealots with box cutters. Very, very rudimentary operation on their part. There is NO justification for spending this kind of money and expanding the breadth and scope of government to stop 19 guys with box cutters. Please don't follow up with fear mongering about suitcase nukes or bio attacks as you certainly know this new leviathan isn't going to do anymore to stop one now than it would have 5 years ago, especially when you consider the original attack was aided by simple law enforcement and intelligence doctrine failures that could have and should been changed with a few pages and a few votes and a relative handful of dollars.
You and I both know the Border Patrol and Coast Guard got peanuts to TSA's wasted caviar.
C'mon. Don't we also know that the Talibans leadership could have been eradicated at the push of a few buttons, including al Queda? There was no need to invade and try to affect regime and culture change. None.
Same goes for Iraq. We tried to play imperialist and it's not working very well and it was a mistake.
My point is none of this stuff happens under conservative leadership. Hell, even the left calls this 'neo' conservatism.
flomaster
J.F. A sus ordenes!
The reason we went to Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be changed and the way politicians do business, I believe there is right on both left and right sides. We know that WMD were used in Iraq at one time because any Kurd can tell you about it. If you think for one second I don't believe that they had and have them you are seriously mistaken. Of course its not all about that. I have flown in those deserts and finding anything there is like looking for a particular grain of sand in a Cat 5 tornado. Can't be done.
We voted people into the position they are in whether we like it or not. They make the call whether its right or wrong. Our brothers and sisters and as a veteran, my brothers and sisters, are out there for us and for themselves.
It is our duty to support them regardless of why we should or shouldn't be there. Those Military men and women took and oath and some of them have good and bad views of the war but they swore to uphold the constitution and they are there regardless of personal opinion. They are there so we can bad mouth people who put them there but they do the job while we sleep in our beds and take our kids to school and type in these forums as I am right now.
Lets support or troops regardless of what we think and stop bad mouthing those folks who are trying very hard to make the right decisions so our troops can come home.
God, I sure do miss Ronald Reagan!!! God bless those that serve and have served.
Semper Fi
We voted people into the position they are in whether we like it or not. They make the call whether its right or wrong. Our brothers and sisters and as a veteran, my brothers and sisters, are out there for us and for themselves.
It is our duty to support them regardless of why we should or shouldn't be there. Those Military men and women took and oath and some of them have good and bad views of the war but they swore to uphold the constitution and they are there regardless of personal opinion. They are there so we can bad mouth people who put them there but they do the job while we sleep in our beds and take our kids to school and type in these forums as I am right now.
Lets support or troops regardless of what we think and stop bad mouthing those folks who are trying very hard to make the right decisions so our troops can come home.
God, I sure do miss Ronald Reagan!!! God bless those that serve and have served.
Semper Fi
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I said...
...'massive expansion of federal government'. You selected a part of that, number of people. I clarified I meant expense dollars. If your family expanded in numbers it would be a pretty simple guess to say your expenses expanded as well. In fact, it would have been easy to presume your expenses has expanded anyway even if your family size had not. Having said that, I'd be stunned if your outlays went up 50% in 6 years.
But that's just me. I didn't even mention SS/Med which are not included but you and I would both consider expenses non the less.
MMDad said:
...'massive expansion of federal government'. You selected a part of that, number of people. I clarified I meant expense dollars. If your family expanded in numbers it would be a pretty simple guess to say your expenses expanded as well. In fact, it would have been easy to presume your expenses has expanded anyway even if your family size had not. Having said that, I'd be stunned if your outlays went up 50% in 6 years.
But that's just me. I didn't even mention SS/Med which are not included but you and I would both consider expenses non the less.