Free Republic

Partly disagree with your disagreement, re - falling for that trick..."Some" will always fall for it, an important qualifier. I don't, do you?

As to the article as a whole, I think she does well to identify a growing swell of support, I just don't think the "seas" will break right for it. The RINOs are clearly strong contenders for any "middle 3rd" party. And most here (FR) would likely love to see their backs.

The problem is twofold, they like it just fine where they are, because they draw independents and moderates to them, yet enjoy the support of conservatives faced with no other choices. And, the most vociferous types about needing a resolution (whether going elsewhere or getting rid of RINOs) appear to be folks found here (FR), and there's simply no indication there are enough of us to create a "Right 3rd" party.

Ya beat me to it. But I was interrupted by the phone....

Uh, folks, Kalashnikovs (sp?) remain a decent weapon, IMO. US troops are picking them up in Bagdad for personal use.

In the big scheme of things, if I were an independent, objective consultant for the Venezuelan govmint, I would heartily favor building an AK factory over a Colt/M16 one.

Ease and cost effectiveness of manufacture, ease of maintenance, sturdiness, and dependability without depot support all make it a favored choice. In short, AKs remain the ideal choice for third world nations. Have been ever since we went to M16s.

Well, other than, if we use it today, it won't be there tomorrow.

Cheeze...talk about piling on. What, my response in #8 wasn't good enough for you?

I stand corrected on the issue of Alaskan oil exports. Dunno where I got the erroneous data, but since the majority of my eddification was over 30 years ago, gawd only knows.

Interestingly, my research indicates the market distortion I mentioned was in fact real (but very dated). It depressed California production for years (in the 80s?) and the 5% number (foreign exports) may be a bit low. Apparently, some 25% of products from the Alaskan crude oil cannot be used in the California markets for which the refineries involved refine, significant amounts of this residual oil also "escapes" the US market. But "some" of 25% is still way lower than I thought.

Mea culpa.

I read just fine. How you? "... problems generated by the North American economy can no longer be contained in the United States or Mexico or Canada."

Now, according to my dictionary, North America is the contiguous land mass from Panama, north. While I will admit Canada joins us in the plus side of the equation, we're the economy driving the rest of the continent. Long before there was NAFTA or anything resembling it, Mexico has been a corrupt government, effectively run by rich robber baron types (although the same charge might be laid in our direction 100 years ago or so).

Our economy remains the strongest in the world. How that ostensibly (according to Pastor) generates problems for the rest of the continent remains puzzling to me. NAFTA, if anything, would seem to spread some of that wealth around. Indeed, if we accept Hedge's claims, we're "propping" up the others - don't see how you can do anything resembling that, for "free."

Now, Hedge doesn't (directly at least) make the claim I've heard others make - that by allowing Mexican poor to enter, we are serving as it's escape valve, relieving Mexico of the need to reform. But the essential need to reform remains the fault of Mexico. It does not trace its roots to NAFTA.

I remain, I fear, highly dubious and suspicious of Pastor's rationale.

Look, I heartily disagree with the Bush/Senate plan on immigration. To my mind, the House plan (lock down the border) plus forcing employers to ascertain legal status before hiring (reversing the current law) is the way to go.

But the idea that US prosperity, since NAFTA if you like (but why not since 1980?! or 1960, etc...), has caused this problem is standing matters on their head. Our success has "forced" Mexico and Latin America to have failing, often corrupt governments and economies, "forcing" illegal immigration? I would have to see a lot more argument and less hyperbole before I would even consider such a position as having any basis in fact. And no one else even thought it worth comment.

I don't disagree with much of what you said. (I'm witholding judgement on your witholding your vote for the guys still fighting the good fight.) But I am reminded of WFB's line: "you can logically win an arguement, yet lose the audience."

If you're going to mail this, I would recommend extracting the different issues and make separate, stand alone letters, i.e. one on immigration, another on Rep Jefferson, etc. With subject lines.

Assuming one or more recipients even begin to care, some staffer will undoubtedly be assigned the task to determine what your angle/gripe is, log same, maybe issue a response, and move on.

The lack of a subject line, the multiple issues, and the length will all handicap that process. Most likely to the point it will be ignored or simply classified as "other." IMO.

"Robert Pastor, former Latin American adviser at the National Security Council, says the problems generated by the North American economy can no longer be contained in the United States or Mexico or Canada."

Obviously, it's all the USA's fault, and by logical extension: Bush's fault. Again. Too. Once more. Yet again. /sarcasm

I agree that we do seem to "need" same. However, it is entirely feasible to fly a drone over a ship at sea without - in a variety of ways. Radio beacon, trailing a ship(s), or even being hand-launched from one, et cetera. Never assume technology is limited to what we have done with it (or how). Especially in the hands of tyros.

I concur with you on messing with original intent, but regrettably, this appears to be wholly legal. I see no illegal compact. Each state/legislature decides how its electoral votes are distributed.

I daresay that the first time these electoral votes are cast against any state's internal results, some citizen will prosecute a suit over lack of representation and all hell could break out. Especially with a close vote, a la 2000, and some 13 states have similar bills in effect with different means of computing.

Hummm, p'raps you're unaware that the Israelis developed the first practical "UAVs" during the 73 war? (When exactly did GPS go up?) True, they were little better that a closed circuit camera on a model airplane, but they were responsive to the local commander and showed him what was over the next ridge with minimal risk.

The US military proceeded to spend about a billion dollars and fifteen years or so proving what the Israelis had accomplished was impossible (Aquila et al).

Without more details or a US response, frankly, it is impossible to tell how much of this report is fiction and how much is fact.

I'm hardly an environmentalist, but I believe that there are a couple of good (conservative) reasons as to why we should not expand drilling/access to US fields.

First, contrary to what the good congressman claims, simply opening Anwar will not produce a single drop of oil for domestic consumption. And if it did, it would only increase the cost of gas.

Check out where the Alaskan oil already being produced is going. Japan and China. Once pumped, it enters the global marketplace and goes to the highest bidder(s) that can be supplied the cheapest (the highest delta/profit, dontcha know).

To divert any of this or future Alaskan oil for purely domestic consumption would, therefore, be cost inefficient (more expensive). It would also require legislated interference in the marketplace. We're simply not that bad off, yet.

On the other hand, in the future, there may well be a time at which the issue becomes one of national security and/or economic survival. Wouldn't it be nice to have these reserves still waiting to be tapped, then?

Rather than rushing to tap these potential "life boats," we should be pushing nuclear energy plants.

Re- commanders. Reportedly some 3-4 officers have been relieved/fired. Official version of matters seems to be that none of them had to do with the incident, directly, but supposedly "dereliction of duty."

Interesting. Didn't know of "drownproofing" outside the military. We were told that drownproofing was the academy's response to losing a graduate to drowning during ranger school. Problem being, he had been the swim team captain. Really a different skill set from true "swimming."

The class focus was, learning to cross deep (10-15 feet) water without swimming, disrobing in the water (laced boots et al), and inflating clothing. Each considered essential skills to survival around the water.

For our final (as I recall it), we had to swim a longer lap with boots in a backpack, with a "rifle" complete with lead filled barrel. And, separately, after walking off a high dive board in uniform and boots, we had to swim a short length.

"What the movie and the book said … it’s all lies. It’s very offensive." Talk about confused. A lie requires knowledge of a falsehood, intent to deceive, and a deliberate communication of said falsehood, holding it forth as truth.

As others have pointed out, this is fiction - and held forth purely for entertainment. It is plainly labeled and portrayed as such. It takes a peculiar twist of literary-luddite logic to be offended.

What else is available? They've had Reagan, the Buckleys, and to a lesser degree Goldwater if they need educating. They asked us to trust them in '94. They stayed on the farm until they thought they didn't have to (contract actually was largely successful and now ignored).

Today's GOP is way, way off the "conservative homestead:" not adequately insisting on/fighting for conservative judges; spending money hand over fist (both in the area of pork and government); growing government faster than the dems dreamed they could; and now, unwilling to stand together and defend the terminal deal, border security, or much of anything else..."let them hang separately" is sounding better and better.

This prez and Congress, together, have squandered an opportunity it could be said took 25 years to bring about. The odds are, after this debacle, it will be another 25 years before it happens again. Shame on them and/or shame on me, because I voted for them, letting them do it to me(us).

Frank, apparently you missed the point of my mentioning Pancho and BJP. You claimed no prez had ever sent any military to reinforce the border. I did not attempt to draw any parallel beyond the fact that we not only have reinforced the border militarily, we have taken the offensive across the border to ensure it, so I fear my postion stands, correctly.

To disagree with a particular position/issue is hardly grounds for - Make it a landslide. Go vote for the Democrats in your state and district so you can feel really good about driving the GOP out of office. You should be happy. You have delighted in trashing Bush and the Republicans, so indulge yourself and vote Democrat.

On the other hand, failure to respond to repeated demogoguery (sp?), endorsement/acceptance of profligate spending (see No Child... and Medicare Drug for direct personal responsibility), failure to adequately(successfully) go after SS/IRS reform, and explosive growth of central government...so much for "compassionate conservatism."

At some point, serious conservatives will become disenchanted. Some sooner than others. What action they take will determine whether they believe in "enabling" or tough love. I'm definitely of the latter persuasion and getting there, faster and faster.

Only someone brain dead can't understand that and accept it.