Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
shasolenzabi wrote: I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.
I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.
Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.
All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.
You are lost in the sauce. First off.
What year did we go in Afghanistan? What year was all the mineral resource that was valued in Afghanistan?
My link mentions a very detailed and concise geo-report by the Soviets who were there up until 1989. That is one of the surveys they had to work on, our guys went in to make sure the soviets were accurate, turns out they were. We dove into Afghanistan late 2001/early 2002
we stormed Iraq in 2003. So pre-9/11 was at least the soviet report showing how rich the country was in mineral wealth as they were trying to actually help Afghanistan become a modern state. Thanks to us, they slid backwards under the Taliban.
Had Bin Laden not been hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, would we still have gone after him via that nation? We had to have justification to get in there. Wars are about resource grabs and corporate interest, "Freedom and Liberty" is a cover for the empire of the Corporate States of Oligarchia
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?
Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.
Thune is an Idjit based on that tweet alone. Seriously politicians playing on twitter like teenagers is showing immaturity
Since I was there in 2010 so have a good idea how this went down
WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.
While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.
“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”
The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.
“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.
American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.
So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.
Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.
The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.
“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.
At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”
With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”
The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.
The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.
“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”
Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.
Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.
The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.
The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.
But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.
Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.
So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.
Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.
For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.
“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”
When that hit the news RC North plus up big time. Another 401st Battalion was formed up there and "Surge" units incoming to Afghanistan were re-routed to the North.
Edit
The US team was from Provisional Reconstruction Team in Northern Afghanistan. They attached themselves to a Combat Engineer unit that was well drilling for FoB's up there.
With all of that information, and I do like how they timed that news report, but with that news, can you see us pulling out of Afghanistan any time soon?
And China is already making acquisitions over there. Pretty messed up considering Our boys and girls spilled blood over there, just so China can move in and scoop up mineral rights.
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
It's entirely DIFFERENT when you use money that OTHER people donated to YOUR charity.
Private foundations are a type of charity, yes, but they do not directly do charitable work. Instead they make contributions to other 501(c)(3)s (and sometimes 501(c)(4)s) principally on the basis of an existing endowment. They do not use other people's money, they use their own. You're confusing organizations like The Clinton Family Foundation with a public charity, which is entirely different.
Granted the Clinton Foundation does not work this way, but the Clinton Family Foundation does and did.
Where was this during the IRS' refusal to grant exemptions for those Tea Party groups?
Where was what? My knowledge of the NPO segment of the 501(c) section of the tax code, and how it works?
Anyway, you're conflating two separate issues. The tax code governing 501(c)(3) private foundations and 501(c)(3) public charities have very little in common, and the standards for being granted either status are very different. And, of course, neither has much in common with 501(c)(4)s.
Moreover, there is a massive difference between being granted tax exempt status, and having it revoked. In general it is fairly difficult to gain tax exempt status, but even harder to lose it. This is doubly true of 501(c)(3) private foundations due their negative definition.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote: Well... it is utter and complete rubbish ya know.
The legal doctrine for the PPACA is that only the STATE that created the exchange is eligible for subsidies. There's no ambiguity there... and it took the Obama IRS administration to :wave hands: come up with an interpretation that basically says "when we say state, we mean federal too".
There's no doctrine there. It was a goof by the Democrats, who late in the day realised that Republican led states weren't going to play ball and set up their own exchanges, and so rushed through the Federal exchange option, but failed to change the wording on that piece of the legislation.
I've given up on predicting what the SC will do...
I’m trying to give up on predicting in general. I’ve just read about an interesting experiment that I’ll summarise and post here when I’ve got a chance.
An on this case in particular, well I not only have no idea which way they will rule, I’m not even sure I know which way I want them to rule. On the one hand, it’s obviously just a goof and we know how it was meant to operate, but on the other hand the rule of law is pretty damn important – if there’s a flaw in the legislation then the answer should be found in amending the law in congress, not in asking a court to accept what you really meant the first time around.
That said, given you and I both know this won’t end with a nice bi-partisan amendment rushed through congress to allow subsidies for the Federal exchange, this becomes very clearly a total dick move by the Republicans.
And if it was just that dick move, well politics is a mean game and so be it. But to go beyond that dick move, and try and somehow claim that the Republican plan to take ACA away from people proves that ACA is bad… well that’s barking mad.
******
And here's a summary of that economic experiment. It's not directly related to anything being discussed here, but it doesn't really warrant its own thread.
When it comes to politics people believe a lot of stupid things. Everyone who’s ever had a Christmas dinner with their extended family knows that. There’s an argument that floated around for a while that all that nonsense isn’t actually because people are really that stupid, it’s just that when being factually right or wrong doesn’t impact you, then you will choose to believe whatever makes you feel good, even if it’s some really stupid nonsense.
To test this, a bunch of economists devised an experiment. They split their test group in two. The first was asked a bunch of standard factual questions relating to politics. Sure enough this group got lots of questions wrong, and individuals in the group showed lots of partisan bias, much the same result as these surveys always produce. The second group was asked the same questions, but they were offered a chance to win a prize, with their chance of winning increasing for every question they got right. The errors for the second group dropped by 55%. Where they were able to admit they didn’t know instead of making a guess, the error rate dropped by 80%.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/55494.html
This sort of thing has been observed in the real world as well. Noah Smith, who writes the economic blog that put me on to this survey mentioned a real world example - across Wall Street there was no shortage of very smart, very informed people predicting that quantitative easing would lead to rampant inflation. But that was just offering up free opinion, and whether that opinion was right or wrong didn’t impact the speaker at all. But when those same people were putting down their money they weren’t betting on any inflation at all, the TIPS spreads were predicting very low inflation, which of course is exactly what happened.
As for what this all means, well I don’t know. On the more fanciful end, I wonder if we could improve the standard of betting on the internet by requiring anyone who wants to contribute to actually commit money to their position. Anyone who wants to claim they know where the market is turning has to put actual money down to bet on their position. There would be a tax on bs, to use Noah Smith’s expression. But that isn’t all that practical, and is probably just about me wishing I could have made a lot of money off that derekatkinson guy.
I guess the practical end is if you hear someone giving their opinion on politics, economics or anything else really, before deciding whether you’ll just accept what they’re saying, ask yourself if they really have any motivation for being right. Do they have any skin in the game, and is the opinion being given here consistent with how they’re really betting? And on a personal level, maybe we all need to spend a bit more time asking ourselves if we actually, really need to have an opinion? Do you actually have something at stake? If you don’t, isn’t it likely that you’re just going to form an opinion that makes you feel better about yourself?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/10 08:13:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Jihadin wrote: When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?
And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...
I do not think you understand what folks like Jihadin and myself mean when we say adjust the ROE.
Right now, pilots are exposed to enemy fire, long hours in the air, dangerous carrier take offs and landings, and the vast majority return without dropping weapons on bad guys.
A large part of that is due to how the strikes are coordinated and controlled. Our ROE prohibits JTACS/TACP types from going forward and providing terminal guidance. It prevents our guys from certain ISR tasks which feed the targeting process and develop more timely hard intel. The ROE also puts a burden not required by the laws of warfare onto our forces. If DaIsh uses a school/mosque/hospital/office building etc as any type of facility it removes the legal protected status from that facility, and DaIsh are the sole responsible party, NOT anyone striking the facility. Any innocents killed are the legal responsibility of those using those innocents basically as human shields, NOT the guys striking the valid target shielded by those innocents.
Our targeting process currently matches ordnance to target, not based primarily on proper weaponeering, but on reducing risk of collateral damage. That leaves some targets which are engaged with a reduced but not destroyed capability, and ensures some targets just plain get away/are not engaged.
We are blessed with technology that allows us the luxury to minimize collateral damage, and that is truly a great thing. Having said that, to not engage targets we legally can is morally wrong as it prolongs the conflict and in the end increases civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction (not at our hands).
CptJake, I hate to bring up past conflicts, but I'm reading about the Vietnam war right now, and your points are exactly what Pilots flying over North Vietnam were complaining about.
You know better than me this is not a new experience for the American military.
Wo did you just diss root beer. I am outraged!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
An on this case in particular, well I not only have no idea which way they will rule, I’m not even sure I know which way I want them to rule. On the one hand, it’s obviously just a goof and we know how it was meant to operate, but on the other hand the rule of law is pretty damn important – if there’s a flaw in the legislation then the answer should be found in amending the law in congress, not in asking a court to accept what you really meant the first time around.
That said, given you and I both know this won’t end with a nice bi-partisan amendment rushed through congress to allow subsidies for the Federal exchange, this becomes very clearly a total dick move by the Republicans.
And if it was just that dick move, well politics is a mean game and so be it. But to go beyond that dick move, and try and somehow claim that the Republican plan to take ACA away from people proves that ACA is bad… well that’s barking mad.
Yeah, the more I'm seeing of all this, the more I get pissed at Republicans sitting in office.
Personally, I would like the SC to simply get the ruling "right". If that means it's back to the drawing board, then it's back to the drawing board... BUT!!!! Leave those fed. exchange plans and health plans in general alone while the new plan is drawn up!! Personally, I think the US should have gone with the German or Swiss model with a single-payer system, but typical to most politicians they obviously know what they are doing
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: Well... it is utter and complete rubbish ya know.
The legal doctrine for the PPACA is that only the STATE that created the exchange is eligible for subsidies. There's no ambiguity there... and it took the Obama IRS administration to :wave hands: come up with an interpretation that basically says "when we say state, we mean federal too".
There's no doctrine there. It was a goof by the Democrats, who late in the day realised that Republican led states weren't going to play ball and set up their own exchanges, and so rushed through the Federal exchange option, but failed to change the wording on that piece of the legislation.
I've given up on predicting what the SC will do...
I’m trying to give up on predicting in general. I’ve just read about an interesting experiment that I’ll summarise and post here when I’ve got a chance.
An on this case in particular, well I not only have no idea which way they will rule, I’m not even sure I know which way I want them to rule. On the one hand, it’s obviously just a goof and we know how it was meant to operate, but on the other hand the rule of law is pretty damn important – if there’s a flaw in the legislation then the answer should be found in amending the law in congress, not in asking a court to accept what you really meant the first time around.
It was NOT a goof.
It was done on purpose, because the democrat anticipated that the states would rush and setup their own exchange.
Subsidies was the fething carrot for the states to play ball, see this comment:
...Gruber clearly states that what the government says is absurd is actually the precise outcome intended by those who designed the law: the federal government wanted all 50 states to establish exchanges. What better way to coerce them into doing that than by making federal subsidies contingent upon the establishment of a state exchange? What the Obama administration’s legal briefs say is absurd is exactly what the law’s architect said was the end goal.
...
Guess what? The Democrats done feth'ed up and they've been spinning this furiously.
That said, given you and I both know this won’t end with a nice bi-partisan amendment rushed through congress to allow subsidies for the Federal exchange, this becomes very clearly a total dick move by the Republicans.
Good. And let them know that it's all Obama/Democrats fault.
And if it was just that dick move, well politics is a mean game and so be it. But to go beyond that dick move, and try and somehow claim that the Republican plan to take ACA away from people proves that ACA is bad… well that’s barking mad.
Again... Thume doesn't speak for Republicans.
What I'd do, if I were the Republicans is this:
1) Don't fething *fix* it. If they tried to do that, watch the incumbent get primary'ed.
2) Pass an adendum that ALLOWS for subsides on Federal exchange for current year only on contigent that the entire law is repealed.
3) That'll bring us back to pre-PPACA, which is loads better than what we have now.
4) Then it's up to the public to engage BOTH parties to come up with a bi-partisan plan.
5) Will this happen. Nope. We're fethed.
Spoiler:
******
And here's a summary of that economic experiment. It's not directly related to anything being discussed here, but it doesn't really warrant its own thread.
When it comes to politics people believe a lot of stupid things. Everyone who’s ever had a Christmas dinner with their extended family knows that. There’s an argument that floated around for a while that all that nonsense isn’t actually because people are really that stupid, it’s just that when being factually right or wrong doesn’t impact you, then you will choose to believe whatever makes you feel good, even if it’s some really stupid nonsense.
To test this, a bunch of economists devised an experiment. They split their test group in two. The first was asked a bunch of standard factual questions relating to politics. Sure enough this group got lots of questions wrong, and individuals in the group showed lots of partisan bias, much the same result as these surveys always produce. The second group was asked the same questions, but they were offered a chance to win a prize, with their chance of winning increasing for every question they got right. The errors for the second group dropped by 55%. Where they were able to admit they didn’t know instead of making a guess, the error rate dropped by 80%.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/55494.html
This sort of thing has been observed in the real world as well. Noah Smith, who writes the economic blog that put me on to this survey mentioned a real world example - across Wall Street there was no shortage of very smart, very informed people predicting that quantitative easing would lead to rampant inflation. But that was just offering up free opinion, and whether that opinion was right or wrong didn’t impact the speaker at all. But when those same people were putting down their money they weren’t betting on any inflation at all, the TIPS spreads were predicting very low inflation, which of course is exactly what happened.
As for what this all means, well I don’t know. On the more fanciful end, I wonder if we could improve the standard of betting on the internet by requiring anyone who wants to contribute to actually commit money to their position. Anyone who wants to claim they know where the market is turning has to put actual money down to bet on their position. There would be a tax on bs, to use Noah Smith’s expression. But that isn’t all that practical, and is probably just about me wishing I could have made a lot of money off that derekatkinson guy.
I guess the practical end is if you hear someone giving their opinion on politics, economics or anything else really, before deciding whether you’ll just accept what they’re saying, ask yourself if they really have any motivation for being right. Do they have any skin in the game, and is the opinion being given here consistent with how they’re really betting? And on a personal level, maybe we all need to spend a bit more time asking ourselves if we actually, really need to have an opinion? Do you actually have something at stake? If you don’t, isn’t it likely that you’re just going to form an opinion that makes you feel better about yourself?
You know why? Because there is no solid evidence to support that they are overtly political in nature.
My brain just broke dogma...
Where was this during the IRS' refusal to grant exemptions for those Tea Party groups?
Eh?
My brain just broke from the disconnect...Your arguement basically boils down to the equivalent of 'Ray just got accused of murder so obviously Dan just killed someone.'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 15:35:14
You know why? Because there is no solid evidence to support that they are overtly political in nature.
My brain just broke dogma...
Where was this during the IRS' refusal to grant exemptions for those Tea Party groups?
Eh?
My brain just broke from the disconnect...Your arguement basically boils down to the equivalent of 'Ray just got accused of murder so obviously Dan just killed someone.'
Anyone else laughing at the attempt to smear Rubio?
4 Speeding tickets?
Student loan debt?
His mega "yacht?"
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Another 500 military advisors from the US going to Iraq.
Why is is whenever I hear the word advisors, my mind turns to south-east Asia?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Why is is whenever I hear the word advisors, my mind turns to south-east Asia?
because you have a brain and see how well these things always end.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Could non-military people have a translation please?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad, officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
I guess somehow setting up another training site when this one is doing so spectacularly must make sense in a way I cannot quite comprehend.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad,officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
Just a quick note on the bolded/underlined part. We have over 3k trainers in Iraq. Think about that.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad, officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
I guess somehow setting up another training site when this one is doing so spectacularly must make sense in a way I cannot quite comprehend.
We know from past experience that corrupt elements in the Baghdad government were creating phantom divisions, billing the American taxpayer for cash for wages and equipment etc etc and then pocketing the money themselves. There could be an element of that going on, again!
Also, I'd like to point out that I made a mistake earlier. I've had another look at that article - it's 450 advisors, not 500.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad,officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
Just a quick note on the bolded/underlined part. We have over 3k trainers in Iraq. Think about that.
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad,officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
Just a quick note on the bolded/underlined part. We have over 3k trainers in Iraq. Think about that.
Trainees not trainers...and 2601 is under 3k.
Read what I wrote a bit more carefully.
We have just over 3k trainers in Iraq. They are currently training just 2.6k Iraqis.
And we are sending more trainers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In contrast, back in 1967 MAJ Shelton and an ODA sized element along with a couple CIA augmentees trained up 650 some Bolivians into a solid Ranger Battalion which hunted down that Icon of the left, Ernesto Guevara. And 'Pappy' Shelton did not have the infrastructure or existing facilities, he built from scratch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 18:30:55
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
whembly wrote: It was done on purpose, because the democrat anticipated that the states would rush and setup their own exchange.
Not quite, the Democrats started with an assumption that there would be 50 state exchanges, and when they realised most Republican states weren't going to do that out of spite, they modified the law to include a Federal exchange, but missed editing one piece of law. That's a goof.
I can tell you one thing - no-one involved intended for people to not get subsidies to healthcare based just on what state they were in.
Guess what? The Democrats done feth'ed up and they've been spinning this furiously.
Yes, of course it was a Democrat feth up... or a goof as I already put it. The question from there is whether the Republicans will then try to exploit that to dismantle a functioning law that's given health coverage to millions, or whether they'll work to quickly resolve the issue.
Good. And let them know that it's all Obama/Democrats fault.
That's just partisan hackery. You're better than that.
Again... Thume doesn't speak for Republicans.
Nor does he exist in a bubble.
What I'd do, if I were the Republicans is this: 1) Don't fething *fix* it. If they tried to do that, watch the incumbent get primary'ed. 2) Pass an adendum that ALLOWS for subsides on Federal exchange for current year only on contigent that the entire law is repealed. 3) That'll bring us back to pre-PPACA, which is loads better than what we have now. 4) Then it's up to the public to engage BOTH parties to come up with a bi-partisan plan. 5) Will this happen. Nope. We're fethed.
For that to be at all viable there'd have to be a Republican healthcare position that's anything more than 'ACA sucks for reasons we're mostly making up'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If that's a luxurious boat... wtf is Kerry's?
Kerry's yacht is paid for, as part of a controlled financial plan that's seen Kerry built a substantial personal estate.
On the other hand, Rubio is selling a house for less than he paid for it because he isn't making the payments, and liquidating a retirement account costing himself thousands in penalties, just because he needs the money now. The issue isn't who's boat is nicer, but who can afford the boat they bought, and who can't.
Now, none of this means he's a bad person, nor does it even mean he's necessarily bad at his job. I've got friends who are excellent at their jobs, but who's personal finances are an absolute shambles. And to some extent the mistakes he's made have been the mistakes of the noveau riche, and so it actually reflects in quite an interesting way on Rubio's climb from working class parents to where he is today.
But the issue is if you're going to stand up and say you're for fiscal responsibility and effective money handling, well then your own financial management is decent test for that. And it's a test that Rubio has failed hard enough that Romney's team cited it as a major concern when they vetted him for VP.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/11 02:55:42
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: It was done on purpose, because the democrat anticipated that the states would rush and setup their own exchange.
Not quite, the Democrats started with an assumption that there would be 50 state exchanges, and when they realised most Republican states weren't going to do that out of spite, they modified the law to include a Federal exchange, but missed editing one piece of law. That's a goof.
I can tell you one thing - no-one involved intended for people to not get subsidies to healthcare based just on what state they were in.
That's the spin. It's a "goof".
But, you're ignoring the fact that the subsidies was MEANT for state exchange only. Period. It's meant to be a brute force carrot.
It. Was. The. Plan. All. Along.
Guess what? The Democrats done feth'ed up and they've been spinning this furiously.
Yes, of course it was a Democrat feth up... or a goof as I already put it. The question from there is whether the Republicans will then try to exploit that to dismantle a functioning law that's given health coverage to millions, or whether they'll work to quickly resolve the issue.
"functioning law"??? Dude... I work in the healthcare industry. Event *if* the subsides were legal for Federal Exchange, it's STILL a fethed up law. Repealing the ACA immediately make things better. The insurance industry would go through massive correction, in a good way.
Good. And let them know that it's all Obama/Democrats fault.
That's just partisan hackery. You're better than that.
It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?
Please answer me that.
This current batch of Republicans were largely elected in opposition to the PPACA.
Again... Thume doesn't speak for Republicans.
Nor does he exist in a bubble.
Sure.
What I'd do, if I were the Republicans is this: 1) Don't fething *fix* it. If they tried to do that, watch the incumbent get primary'ed. 2) Pass an adendum that ALLOWS for subsides on Federal exchange for current year only on contigent that the entire law is repealed. 3) That'll bring us back to pre-PPACA, which is loads better than what we have now. 4) Then it's up to the public to engage BOTH parties to come up with a bi-partisan plan. 5) Will this happen. Nope. We're fethed.
For that to be at all viable there'd have to be a Republican healthcare position that's anything more than 'ACA sucks for reasons we're mostly making up'.
And you've conviently ignore multiple proposals.
You seem to argue from the standpoint that the ACA is "as good as it's going to get" and anything else is just hackery.
Seb... I love you man... but, the following is nothing more than anti-Republican criticsm by "otherizing" him...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If that's a luxurious boat... wtf is Kerry's?
Kerry's yacht is paid for, as part of a controlled financial plan that's seen Kerry built a substantial personal estate.
The point, was that the NYT labeled Rubio's boat as "luxurious". Which, is laughable. Two things: 1) If you want to play this petty game, this is the same Kerry boat that he docks in Rhode Island, to avoid taxes in his home state massachusetts. 2) Rubio lives in coastal Florida... you either own a boat, or someone close to you have a boat. It's that fething common.
On the other hand, Rubio is selling a house for less than he paid for it because he isn't making the payments, and liquidating a retirement account costing himself thousands in penalties, just because he needs the money now. The issue isn't who's boat is nicer, but who can afford the boat they bought, and who can't.
Now, none of this means he's a bad person, nor does it even mean he's necessarily bad at his job. I've got friends who are excellent at their jobs, but who's personal finances are an absolute shambles. And to some extent the mistakes he's made have been the mistakes of the noveau riche, and so it actually reflects in quite an interesting way on Rubio's climb from working class parents to where he is today.
But the issue is if you're going to stand up and say you're for fiscal responsibility and effective money handling, well then your own financial management is decent test for that. And it's a test that Rubio has failed hard enough that Romney's team cited it as a major concern when they vetted him for VP.
Wow... it's like you (and the NYT!) is trying really hard to prove that Rubio is just like the common middle/upper-middle income class American.
I don't see how this is a bad thing for the Rubio campaign.*
*Full Disclosure: I do like Rubio, but I'm not voting for a non-Governor in the Primary.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/11 03:12:48
It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?
The fact that you believe Republicans had nothing to do with how ACA turned out marks you as a partisan hack. Their blatant refusal to cooperate, despite attempts at compromise most assuredly impacted the nature of the final bill.
You seem to argue from the standpoint that the ACA is "as good as it's going to get" and anything else is just hackery.
I highly doubt that is his position.
Regardless, there is no reason to start by repealing ACA. The sensible thing to do is amend the existing legislation, while also working to develop a replacement system. This nonsense "all or nothing" approach to politics is what turned ACA into the mess that it is.
Seb... I love you man... but, the following is nothing more than anti-Republican criticsm by "otherizing" him...
I don't think you know what othering is. Seriously, simply pointing out facts about a person is not to other that person. You also have to emphasize how those characteristics make the person separate from the mainstream. Hell, Sebster outright stated that Rubio's poor financial choices are farily typical of the nouveau riche, which is about as inclusive as it gets.
Wow... it's like you (and the NYT!) is trying really hard to prove that Rubio is just like the common middle/upper-middle income class American.
I don't see how pointing out the Rubio's personal finances are a shambles makes him like "...common middle/upper-middle incomes class..." Americans, unless you believe that same category of people generally does a poor job of managing their finances.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/11 04:49:16
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Anyone else catch we're using a FoB as a training site near Ramadi?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
But the issue is if you're going to stand up and say you're for fiscal responsibility and effective money handling, well then your own financial management is decent test for that. And it's a test that Rubio has failed hard enough that Romney's team cited it as a major concern when they vetted him for VP.
Strangely, I've known a number of people who volunteered or were hired to work at various non-profit organizations in a major financial way. In some of these instances these folks were the sole handler of the group's money, and strangely some of these folks could handle other people's money extremely well, but were absolutely crap with their own funds.
Personally, while I think that personal finances can be an issue in politics, I'd much rather look at how they handle other people's money because again, some folks do better with another man's wages than their own.
Jihadin wrote: Anyone else catch we're using a FoB as a training site near Ramadi?
As a matter fact I did
Al-Jazeera does some good journalism. I was watching a feature about the Iraq army this morning. I seen new recruits being trained in using mortars by US instructors. The instructors did not look impressed. Not one bit.
Also a good discussion about ISIL - these guys will not disappear overnight. In areas they control, they are adopting many functions of local government - education, tax collection, social welfare etc etc. They are more than a terrorist group. They're starting to come across as a Sunni version of Hezbollah.
Washington will need a master-plan to defeat them. A military victory is not enough.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I am outraged! 
