cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon

Russia + Crimea = all bad.

There is no good way out anymore. Putin is an referees.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
cmaldoon wrote:Russia + Crimea = all bad.

There is no good way out anymore. Putin is an referees.


My question is
What would the U.S do if there were an uprising in Bahrain to the extent that the kingdom lost control and unsure of the new government?

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
ERMD wrote:My question is
What would the U.S do if there were an uprising in Bahrain to the extent that the kingdom lost control and unsure of the new government?



I figure you are digging at the whole "oil" thing

Bahrain would be different for several reasons:
1) there is no big Nuclear player near Bahrain (I don't think Iran is there yet)
2) in your example no one has occupied Bahrain so it's not a territorial integrity issue that drives the situation up a notch
3) Bahrain is tiny, no bigger than a large European city, it's neighbors could take care of any policing needed.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
cmaldoon wrote:I figure you are digging at the whole "oil" thing

Bahrain would be different for several reasons:
1) there is no big Nuclear player near Bahrain (I don't think Iran is there yet)
2) in your example no one has occupied Bahrain so it's not a territorial integrity issue that drives the situation up a notch
3) Bahrain is tiny, no bigger than a large European city, it's neighbors could take care of any policing needed.


No, not oil
Our 5th fleet is stationed there.
This kingdom was part of Iran (according to Iran)but has become a kingdom relativly recently. Yes there are "Muslim/Arab Spring uprisings" occuring there but not as large as what has occured elsewhere. So if an uprising occured as it did in the Ukraine in Bahrain, what do you think the US would do?
How about Guam?
GitMo?


rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin

Been way to quiet here, time to stir the pot a bit on an issue we've hashed before; do we need to require ID to register and vote?

N.C. State Board Finds More than 35K Incidents of ‘Double Voting’ in 2012

Same topic, one more link.
And this isn't even touching that third rail of "citizen".

[edit] And, another Fort Hood...

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Been way to quiet here, time to stir the pot a bit on an issue we've hashed before; do we need to require ID to register and vote?

N.C. State Board Finds More than 35K Incidents of ‘Double Voting’ in 2012

Same topic, one more link.
And this isn't even touching that third rail of "citizen".

[edit] And, another Fort Hood...



I typed out a bunch of stuff and then my connection crapped out. Figures.

Summary: need more details. Voter ID infinitely better than digital facial recognition software. How to require ID for absentee voting?

klezman


quality posts: 130 Private Messages klezman

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/opinion/kristof-where-the-gop-gets-it-right.html?emc=edit_th_20140410&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=25119333

Interesting read - tldr version -> Republicans have a lot of good diagnoses for problems that ail us but their solutions leave much to be desired. Discuss.

2014: 57 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2011 Wellington Cab & Merlot, Roessler 2009 Bluejay, 2010 Bell Cabernet
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus

IMO, the problem with the pubs is that they are sooooo disconnected on social issues. And social issues matter, contrary to what pub apologists say. Dems will win over and over again, in spite of the fact that they're policies (outside of social policies) are absurd and largely ineffective. And my criticism re: pubs has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a person's individual rights, particularly when they don't affect others. But the pubs seem to continue to dig in deeper and do more and more absurd things themselves.

Tldr version --> we're F-ed.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin

What's tldr?

CT

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon

Where can I opt in for the democratic social agenda combined with the republican fiscal agenda?

Edit: the MODERATE republican fiscal agenda.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:What's tldr?



Too long; didn't read.

When you find out, cmaldoon, let me know!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
kylemittskus wrote:Too long; didn't read.

When you find out, cmaldoon, let me know!



Here in CA we are more likely to find a Moderate democrat. You near/in OC more than I in the bay.

Once again, you and I need to find time to sit and enjoy a sip or five.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58
cmaldoon wrote:Where can I opt in for the democratic social agenda combined with the republican fiscal agenda?

Edit: the MODERATE republican fiscal agenda.



Been looking for that for 30 years good luck.

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
cmaldoon wrote:Where can I opt in for the democratic social agenda combined with the republican fiscal agenda?

Edit: the MODERATE republican fiscal agenda.

The pubs ~have~ a moderate fiscal agenda?
Since when?
Ok, it does seem better than the alternative, but not by much.

(tldr), tnx, and I did read the whole thing.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:The pubs ~have~ a moderate fiscal agenda?
Since when?
Ok, it does seem better than the alternative, but not by much.



And that is where we are with our current political paradigms. And it sucks. And I'm not smart enough to know how to do anything but participate.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 130 Private Messages klezman
cmaldoon wrote:Where can I opt in for the democratic social agenda combined with the republican fiscal agenda?

Edit: the MODERATE republican fiscal agenda.



Being able to vote for that might even convince me to become a citizen one day!

2014: 57 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2011 Wellington Cab & Merlot, Roessler 2009 Bluejay, 2010 Bell Cabernet
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
cmaldoon wrote:Where can I opt in for the democratic social agenda combined with the republican fiscal agenda?

Edit: the MODERATE republican fiscal agenda.



I think a lot of us would like that. I've been told that the pubs can't ease up on social issues because too many of their voters would stay home. But if they did take a more reasonable stance, maybe some of us could stop vomiting long enough to consider what else they have to offer.

I'm not sure if I know what a moderate Republican fiscal agenda even looks like. I know most of our Republican-leaning wooters have left the building, but if anybody wants to chime in?

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:I'm not sure if I know what a moderate Republican fiscal agenda even looks like. I know most of our Republican-leaning wooters have left the building, but if anybody wants to chime in?

Browsing some news this morning, I came across what looks to be the ugly underbelly of the 1% of the elite on the hill.

CT

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
cmaldoon wrote:Where can I opt in for the democratic social agenda combined with the republican fiscal agenda?

Edit: the MODERATE republican fiscal agenda.



One problem as I see it is that there is no social agenda that is disconnected from the fiscal. You can't do one from column A and one from column B when there's only one real column.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:I think a lot of us would like that. I've been told that the pubs can't ease up on social issues because too many of their voters would stay home. But if they did take a more reasonable stance, maybe some of us could stop vomiting long enough to consider what else they have to offer.

I'm not sure if I know what a moderate Republican fiscal agenda even looks like. I know most of our Republican-leaning wooters have left the building, but if anybody wants to chime in?



Most were more Libertarian leaning than Republican leaning. Where budget wise, the Fed Gov't stays out of social issues and leaves them to local and state gov't.

The main problem is that THEIR (Progressive) social issues are not necessarily OUR social issues. Especially when their social issues conflict with the Constitution.

Your rights do not trump my rights, just as my rights do not trump yours.


Speaking of trampling rights, perhaps if the "Affordable Care Act" (aka Obumacare) had been based more on the President's birth state of Hawaii's Health Care System, it wouldn't be such a massive failure.

Although that could be more on the Dem's for pushing it through without reading it!

As one meme put it, we fought WW2 in 3.5 years, building all those ships, planes, tanks, etc.; fought on two fronts, and defeated both enemies, yet in the same amount of time, the Federal Gov't couldn't build a working web site for the ACA.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Being able to vote for that might even convince me to become a citizen one day!



Not until Canada takes back Beiber!!!!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Most were more Libertarian leaning than Republican leaning. Where budget wise, the Fed Gov't stays out of social issues and leaves them to local and state gov't.

The main problem is that THEIR (Progressive) social issues are not necessarily OUR social issues. Especially when their social issues conflict with the Constitution.

Your rights do not trump my rights, just as my rights do not trump yours.



Yes, I guess we need to define what we all mean by "social issues." Some of them, to me, are very simple. The ACA is not one of them. But for example - it's none of Rick Perry's business whom I sleep with, if I use birth control, get an abortion, worship Odin, etc.

If you want to move on to who's paying for that, we might disagree. I think if my health insurance pays for birth control, that's not a gift, it's one of those benefits that I pay for. I went to the doctor just the other day. I don't consider that my employer paid for that, any more than my employer paid my mortgage this month. The money all originated with my employer, but it was paid to me in exchange for work, so it's mine. That's less of a political point than something that just annoys the hell out of me personally.

Now, the ACA has made a big mess of it, serving us up as a gift to insurance companies and giving employers too much power over employees. That's just my opinion, obviously.

But other than repeal ACA, what would you look for in a moderate Republican fiscal policy?

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:Now, the ACA has made a big mess of it, serving us up as a gift to insurance companies and giving employers too much power over employees. That's just my opinion, obviously.

Most of your points I generally agree with, but...
Employers with too much power over employees!?
You are free to change your place of employment if you so desire, if, for example, you believe they are exploiting you unfairly, but...

Let's discuss true excessive abuse of power; the Federal Government over both the individual States and the populace.

~THAT~ has become an abuse of power that, short of leaving the country, is most difficult to avoid.

Bliss was rather on point with a major accomplice to this madness this morning.


CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Most of your points I generally agree with, but...
Employers with too much power over employees!?
You are free to change your place of employment if you so desire, if, for example, you believe they are exploiting you unfairly, but...

Let's discuss true excessive abuse of power; the Federal Government over both the individual States and the populace.

~THAT~ has become an abuse of power that, short of leaving the country, is most difficult to avoid.



I disagree that it's so easy to leave your place of employment, but that aside...I think we are stuck with employer sponsored health insurance now perhaps even more than we were before, giving employers more power (as well as more obligations and headaches for them). I did not say that the ACA caused no other problems or any other abuses of power. We can talk about those, too. where would you like to start?

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:I disagree that it's so easy to leave your place of employment, but that aside...I think we are stuck with employer sponsored health insurance now perhaps even more than we were before, giving employers more power (as well as more obligations and headaches for them). I did not say that the ACA caused no other problems or any other abuses of power. We can talk about those, too. where would you like to start?

And I didn't say it was easy to leave your place of employment, lest we forget employer sponsored health insurance is a manifestation of excessive federal government policy; from the wiki
The rise of employer-sponsored coverage

Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a direct result of wage controls imposed by the federal government during World War II.[19] The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers from raising wages enough to attract workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased offers of fringe benefits, especially health care coverage, to attract workers.[19]

President Harry S. Truman proposed a system of public health insurance in his November 19, 1945, address. He envisioned a national system that would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury. The proposal was quite popular with the public, but it was fiercely opposed by the Chamber of Commerce, the American Hospital Association, and the AMA, which denounced it as “socialism.”[23]

Foreseeing a long and costly political battle, many labor unions chose to campaign for employer-sponsored coverage, which they saw as a less desirable but more achievable goal, and as coverage expanded the national insurance system lost political momentum and ultimately failed to pass. Using health care and other fringe benefits to attract the best employees, private sector, white-color employers nation-wide expanded the U.S. health care system. Public sector employers followed suit in an effort to compete. Between 1940 and 1960, the total number of people enrolled in health insurance plans grew seven-fold, from 20,662,000 to 142,334,000,[24] and by 1958, 75% of Americans had some form of health coverage.[25]


Excessive and uncontrolled Federal Government control IS the cause.

And I'm spending so much time here today as I'm sick of the taxes I'm currently working on and needed a comic break.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:
Excessive and uncontrolled Federal Government control IS the cause.

And I'm spending so much time here today as I'm sick of the taxes I'm currently working on and needed a comic break.



Yes. And now it's even worse. I'm not sure what's comic about it. What do you think about the Ryan budget?

edit: do you think the Ryan budget addresses the problem of excessive federal gov't control?

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:Yes. And now it's even worse. I'm not sure what's comic about it. What do you think about the Ryan budget?

edit: do you think the Ryan budget addresses the problem of excessive federal gov't control?

I'd need to read up on the Ryan budget to have an opinion. If you have a good link, post it.

Excessive control?
Does it significantly de-fund and/or eliminate DOE (done virtually nothing to promote independence since inception), DoED (latest move Common Core, but infringes on almost all local control), EPA/BLM (totally out of control) are just a few that immediately come to mind.
How many of these agencies do we ~really~ need?

CT

edlada


quality posts: 6 Private Messages edlada

[quote postid="5752986" user="rjquillin"]Most of your points I generally agree with, but...

(snip)

You are free to change your place of employment if you so desire, if, for example, you believe they are exploiting you unfairly, but...

(snip)



You are free to change your country of residence if you so desire, if, for example, you believe the government is exploiting you unfairly, just sayin'.

My dogs like me, that is important.

edlada


quality posts: 6 Private Messages edlada
rjquillin wrote:And I didn't say it was easy to leave your place of employment, lest we forget employer sponsored health insurance is a manifestation of excessive federal government policy; from the wiki
The rise of employer-sponsored coverage

Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a direct result of wage controls imposed by the federal government during World War II.[19] The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers from raising wages enough to attract workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased offers of fringe benefits, especially health care coverage, to attract workers.[19]

President Harry S. Truman proposed a system of public health insurance in his November 19, 1945, address. He envisioned a national system that would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury. The proposal was quite popular with the public, but it was fiercely opposed by the Chamber of Commerce, the American Hospital Association, and the AMA, which denounced it as “socialism.”[23]

Foreseeing a long and costly political battle, many labor unions chose to campaign for employer-sponsored coverage, which they saw as a less desirable but more achievable goal, and as coverage expanded the national insurance system lost political momentum and ultimately failed to pass. Using health care and other fringe benefits to attract the best employees, private sector, white-color employers nation-wide expanded the U.S. health care system. Public sector employers followed suit in an effort to compete. Between 1940 and 1960, the total number of people enrolled in health insurance plans grew seven-fold, from 20,662,000 to 142,334,000,[24] and by 1958, 75% of Americans had some form of health coverage.[25]


Excessive and uncontrolled Federal Government control IS the cause.

And I'm spending so much time here today as I'm sick of the taxes I'm currently working on and needed a comic break.



I hate to dispute such a reliable source as Wikipedia but that is a pretty facile argument for such a complex subject, even if it is one that has been advanced in this very space in the past by the esteemed RPM.

My dogs like me, that is important.

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:I'd need to read up on the Ryan budget to have an opinion. If you have a good link, post it.

Excessive control?
Does it significantly de-fund and/or eliminate DOE (done virtually nothing to promote independence since inception), DoED (latest move Common Core, but infringes on almost all local control), EPA/BLM (totally out of control) are just a few that immediately come to mind.
How many of these agencies do we ~really~ need?



This is what I looked through .

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
edlada wrote:I hate to dispute such a reliable source as Wikipedia but that is a pretty facile argument for such a complex subject, even if it is one that has been advanced in this very space in the past by the esteemed RPM.

Yes, a complex subject. In this case, wiki was convenient and seemed consistent with what I recall.

Are you disputing the accuracy of the information in this case?

CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:This is what I looked through .

All 91 pages!?
[edit]
Ok, it may not be as bad as it initially looked, but did you read the entire thing as well?

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Let's discuss true excessive abuse of power; the Federal Government over both the individual States and the populace.



This idea, espoused by so many, is so easy to agree with. Yet, the allowances for said abuse of power seem to vary greatly, on this board and elsewhere.

I am quite for a more libertarian form of govt. However, I would argue, and I believe, that my allowances for where power should be wielded are consistent across the board and apply to all, not just those whose beliefs or ways of life I agree with.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:All 91 pages!?
[edit]
Ok, it may not be as bad as it initially looked, but did you read the entire thing as well?



I think you meant "tl;dr."

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

edlada


quality posts: 6 Private Messages edlada
rjquillin wrote:Yes, a complex subject. In this case, wiki was convenient and seemed consistent with what I recall.

Are you disputing the accuracy of the information in this case?



No, I am not disputing the facts as stated, what I am disputing is the subject goes far beyond the brief explanation provided there as well as the idea that it is the only reason for the current state of health care/insurance in the US as you seemed to imply. I believe like many issues discussed on internet fora, the subject is far to complex to have any meaningful discussion given the constraints of space and time available here.

My dogs like me, that is important.

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:All 91 pages!?
[edit]
Ok, it may not be as bad as it initially looked, but did you read the entire thing as well?



Noooo. I skimmed through, but I was mostly looking for things which would affect me directly and immediately (as opposed to general direction the country is taking, etc). Looking at it from the perspective of "this is what the pubs would do if they could and how bad is it really?" I saw it as some lofty goals, but taking big chances. Why should we believe that the reforms he proposes would actually accomplish what he says? Ryan himself is fairly well-off and he has everything to gain and nothing to lose with this proposal. edit: the tax reform portion

I admit I dislike Ryan, so I'm probably biased against this thing. I am annoyed as usual with his harping on federal employees. That CBO report he refers to also found that those of us with professional or doctorate degrees receive significantly LESS compensation than private sector counterparts. I don't see him proposing to bring that in line with the private sector. No, he just wants to screw all of us regardless of what we actually do or how well we perform. I'm not complaining about my pay, just get tired of being picked on by these guys. It feels like the dems are always picking on the rich and the pubs are picking on...me.

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
MarkDaSpark wrote:

As one meme put it, we fought WW2 in 3.5 years, building all those ships, planes, tanks, etc.; fought on two fronts, and defeated both enemies, yet in the same amount of time, the Federal Gov't couldn't build a working web site for the ACA.



And what % of GDP was spent on WW2? What % was spent on the website?

It was a flubbed website rollout but your comparison (or rather the Meme you posted )is just as lacking.

Not meant as an attack, just that memes are horribly suspect.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
cmaldoon wrote:And what % of GDP was spent on WW2? What % was spent on the website?

It was a flubbed website rollout but your comparison (or rather the Meme you posted )is just as lacking.

It's not an issue of GDP, it's a issue of competence.


That of the private sector, both now and during WWII buildup, and the government incompetence, waste and fraud in general and of the rollout in particular.

During the war we were committed to winning, something that has been lost in all conflicts since Korea. Three years, victory.

Three years, website FAIL, massive and costly.

I'm not saying the PS isn't afflicted by the same maladies, but the level of effort and success during WWII far outstrip what should have been required to insure a flawless rollout, that was severely botched by the administration and their cronyism, which also exists in the PS. However, unlike the government, the PS is held accountable.

Perform and profit, or fail; standards the government is not held to.

Oh wait, unless you are deemed 'too big to fail', in which case you are allowed to profit from the losses that are then covered by borrowing and taxes.

Both state and federal withholding should be abolished, and we should be required to pay our taxes on the Monday before the Tuesday we vote.

CT

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
cmaldoon wrote:And what % of GDP was spent on WW2? What % was spent on the website?

It was a flubbed website rollout but your comparison (or rather the Meme you posted )is just as lacking.

Not meant as an attack, just that memes are horribly suspect.



There were a lot of BAD decisions made with the website.

I'm not sure that any presidential administration actually understands that you can't make reality though, and that was at the heart of the problems.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 233 Private Messages kylemittskus

The roll out was pathetic. Devastatingly so. This fact has been addressed by the pubs significantly in the media and I think they need to stop using it as a) an attack point over and over again. It was bad. There are other things people care about. And b) as the premise in poor logic. The website roll out was bad =/= the law is bad. That doesn't mean it's good, but the two are not connected, IMO.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen