Jump to content

Countrydave55

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    3,791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Countrydave55

  1. Congratulations. Will there be wedding cake?
  2. Yes we know a developmental psychologist, a physician (MD), speech and language pathologist that works with Gulf War vets and is faculty at the UCLA. & happy holidays to her & you.
  3. Well perhaps Shakespeare's plays, ballet, Oedipus, or any musical performance would would better fail the action test Verb test. Fortunately Movies and television are nouns and meet Noun test.
  4. Mona Lisa smiling isn't art? George Washington crossing the Deleware isn't art? Michael Angelo's Creation isn't art? Rodin's The Thnker isn't art? They all show action. I guess I wasted 2 semesters in art class. They never explained it so simply.
  5. Safety in a battle zone comes from armor and speed. You need to trade one for the other. Unarmored Humvees were made top move quickly out of harms way not to patrol slowly in the presence of RPGs and mines. That is why there are armored troop carriers. They move relatively slowly but are protected by armor. The problem is that the Humvee was employed in a role and environment it was not designed for. As for risking loosing the rich in battle and the loss to our economy. I can pick a lot of wealthy people that don't contribute and would be no great loss. I am sure that their money w
  6. "Please note, proposal of discussion of a draft is not proposal of a draft anyway. So lets not embellish too much. " I am not sure who is embellishing. I didn't say lets drat and I didn't say he said there would be a draft. I asked about other options. I really don't see any so far but that is just me. In any event I don't see where I have insisted upon a draft. "There will be a variety of opinions even among the general and it does not imply that any of them are inept. Why do you insist on such language? There are many ways it can be done, they can all submit their opinions, so what? "
  7. Chopdoc writes "My point is that the plan is clear and in motion. It isn't any mystery and there isn't anything cryptic about it. I am suggesting nothing about the generals. If they need more troops then we should send more. We can more than double the troops there without going to the extraordinary measures of a draft. Are any of them calling for more than double?" I don't know that any are calling for more than doubling the troops but the point is that the Generals are proposing considering a draft. If this is taken care of then why did the General in charge of recruitment propose
  8. "Then you missed one. I made only one suggestion." Then I apologize. "Regarding your lengthy discourse on redeploying noncombat troops as combat troops, just where did I say to redeploy them all? You speak as if I would propose such a thing. Why? Is it to be confrontational? Do you really think you need to explain to me that not all can be redeployed? What is the accepted minimal ratio of support personnel to combat troops in a modern army? THAT is the real question." I did not mean to imply that 100% would need to be deployed to combat only that one could not convert 100% to combat troop
  9. Chopdoc writes "You ask what the otions are and then refuse to hear any options. " I looked over the posts to this thread (again) and I don't see any alternatives proposed. The responses are characterized as 'there will be no draft' and 'incentives will be increased'. Surely you recognize that 'there will be no draft' is not an answer. As for 'incentives will be increased' I asked which and how much. Tripling sign up bonuses has not been effective. Chopdoc writes "The premise is there will be no draft. Don't propose a premise and then change it." I was not aware that I had done
  10. "The low grade smart alec remark made about the command structure demonstrates a lack of serious concern for this subject." This is uncalled for. You may disagree with the content but I caution you not to attack the writer. This is a violation of the forum rules.
  11. Perhaps the democrats proposed a draft because they are able to see reality and can see that more troop needs plus fewer troops available leaves few options other than the draft. As for the republicans supporting a draft. I agree that they cannot support a draft. They campaigned on the claim that the war was going well and more troops were not needed. They can hardly go "Oops my bad". On the other hand they have spent the last 30 years claiming Democrats can't stand up and will run from a fight. Can they now say "democracy is restored" and leave? I know Nixon did it in Vietnam but
  12. As of 24 months ago the military would accept and a physician if they were licensed in any state in the US and were 49 years 11 months old at the time of enlistment. So I would say go for it. As for "there won't be a draft" that is what the republicans keep saying but of course that doesn't answer the question. The Reserves have already acknowledged that increasing the sign up bonus by 300% did not significantly improve the number of recruits. How much do you have to pay somebody to go into a war zone where you can't tell friend from foe and the sec of Defense thinks you are a
  13. Now that Bush has been re-elected the military are talking about recruitment short falls and the need "to discuss a draft". Discuss a draft Lots of Republicans made the talking heads news programs over the weekend to say "there will not be a draft". I think that is great but my question is if you need more troops as the generals say, we are loosing troops to attacks and retirement, recruitment is less than needed to sustain current troop levels then how does the military maintain troop strength. Bush says that he opposed to cloning. What are the options?
  14. Let me remind everyone that there are rules about attacking other members. Please stop these petty attacks. I do not want to have to close this thread
  15. I have looked everywhere I can look and I can't find any source which indicates 50% of US residents pay no taxes. I frankly don't see how this is possible unless you live in the woods (that you don't own). Otherwise you will pay property taxes. If you live in a homeless shelter and don't buy anything I guess you could pay no taxes. Even people in jail and prison pay taxes on canteen purchases. Still I wouldn't think 50% of people in America live in homeless shelters. I am sure this may be a Bush goal but has not yet been realized.
  16. Looks like we are already beginning pay. Inflation is higher than predicted in October and inflation in September has been revised upward. With the Feds borrowing heavily the cost of money will go up and inflation will increase.
  17. This country/relied upon charities in the past and some poor countries still do. Charities did not and do not have the resources to take care of the needs of the needy. The plight of the poor and elderly is why Medicare and Social security were implemented. That is apart from the higher overhead costs most charities have compared to Medicare/social security. That is apart from issues of social injustice maintained by charities in the past. It was not uncommon for some religious charities to support people with their own beliefs and ethnicity while ignoring other needy individuals. I am not
  18. How did the elderly care for themselves before Medicare and Social security. As stated they didn't. Medicine until about the 1940s was surgery and a few crude antibiotics. If you it couldn't be cut out or cured with bed rest you died. Now people live longer and more people live longer (two separate thing). They live longer because medicine is better. So not only do you have people alive that may be too old to work but they are consuming medical services at a markedly increased rate. It is chronic consumption and the cost is high. As for Residents relying on Medicare for money. I s
  19. I agree that the Federal budget needs to be much smaller. What do think should be cut? Defense? It is only 18% of our budget (well more during this war of course). Maybe Social Security and Medicare? That is the biggest chunk 41% of the budget. We could always stop paying interest on the debt. That is 12% and going up since the debt is going up and interest rates are rising. None of those good places? There is still 30% left paying govt. employees, FBI, ATF, Homeland security, air traffic controllers. Which of those should be cut?
  20. I am not sure the insanity plea is going to cause the down fall of society. The insanity plea in some form appears to have been used as long ago as 1400 AD.
  21. I agree it would be helpful to know the proposal. Is there an official website or report from the media. I have a friend that owns 3 Rolls Royce Automobiles but no Lamborghini. I guess he isn't rich yet. I will tell him next time I see him. So a couple with an income of about 27,000 less 7.25% for Soc Sec, less any state and local income tax, Spending an average of $5 per person times 2 people, times 365 days (about $3650 for untaxed food) leaves about $23000 non food and tax related expenses to spend. Looks like that would be the tax free spending range for 2 people. Anything over
  22. "No rich person purchase's minivans or $20,000 sports cars. " I think it depends upon how you define rich. For what it is worth I know at least one person whose net worth is over $5,000,000 (which many people would say is rich) that bought a minivan. Therefore I think you are wrong. "And there is a discussion on luxury tax, that's what we've been debating for the last couple pages. If you go back and read, you'll see that I proposed a luxury tax on luxury items (that which the wealthy buy) and a 9% tax on "normal" goods (that which the poor and middle class tend to buy)." Yes I apologiz
  23. I fail to see how a sales tax " would give the power to the individual". This clearly is not the case. Rich or poor anyone not living on a self sustaining farm would have to buy food, water and sanitation at a minimum. While the poor would always be taxed on this (i.e. no control) the rich could eat and drink at their work place (which under some proposals is a business expense and not taxed). Even if it were taxed the wealthier could fly to Europe or drive to Mexico and buy whatever they wanted and bring it back without paying sales tax. As for dividing everything into two groups l
  24. I agree that you cannot start making exceptions. Is a branded medicine a luxury and a generic not? Are birth control pills, and viagra luxury items? Shouldn't antibiotics be considered luxury items? After all people get infections all of the time and recover without the "luxury" of an antibiotic. Granted for some people or some infections it is a necessity but not for most. What about food. It seems to me that except for rice, beans, and potatoes everything else is a luxury. Certainly we can agree that anything prepared is a luxury (hamburger helper, prepackaged salads, $.99 b
×
×
  • Create New...