The Alaska Chat Thread (Fox: military, budget, debt)

[Karla with a K]

rance
ok cold is when it is 40 degrees here in Fla
I would use a few different words to describe those temp and probably most would be censored here

as far as needing a vacation Florida in February is very nice !!!!!!

[Xa'at]

Yikes, those negative temps are looking awful. It's a balmy 30 degrees F here... It's actually cooled down, because when I got up at like 6 it was raining pretty hard.
Just read this, though...

HEAVY SNOW WARNING IN EFFECT FROM NOON TODAY TO MIDNIGHT AST TONIGHT
UNTIL 12:00PM AST
Urgent - Winter Weather Message National Weather Service Juneau AK 445 AM AST Sun Jan 13 2008



Eastern Chichagof Island- Juneau Borough And Northern Admiralty Island- Including The Cities Of...Hoonah...Juneau

...Heavy Snow Warning In Effect From Noon Today To Midnight AST Tonight...

The National Weather Service In Juneau Has Issued A Heavy Snow Warning...Which Is In Effect From Noon Today To Midnight AST Tonight. The Winter Storm Watch Is No Longer In Effect.

Snow Will Develop Late This Morning And Become Heavy At Times This Afternoon And Evening. Snowfall Rates May Reach 2 Inches Per Hour Late This Afternoon And Visibility Will Be Reduced To A Half Mile Or Less. Total Snow Accumulation Through Tonight Will Be 6 To 12 Inches. In Addition...It Will Become Locally Windy With Northeast Wind Increasing To 30 Mph Out Of Taku Inlet And In Downtown Juneau. Blowing And Drifting Snow May Further Limit Visibility In The Those Areas.

A Warning Means That Heavy Snow Is Already Occurring Or Imminent. Heavy Snow Could Pose A Threat To Life And Property.

Motorists Should Be Prepared For Winter Driving Conditions. All Travel Should Be Done With Extreme Caution.

Please Stay Tuned To Noaa Weather Radio Or Your Favorite Local Weather News Source For Updates On This Winter Storm.

This Statement Will Be Updated By Noon AST Today Or Sooner If Conditions Warrant.

Well, the Eaglecrest folks will be happy. And I was wanting to go nordic skiing...

[DannyL]

I want it to snow...please snow,snow,snow.
This goofy ****/snow mix we have been getting turns to ice at night. It's starting to get old.

[Sweden]

LOL! Karla, don't you know, Ranceo looooves winter (So do I, but I don't seem to get any this year... The birds were singing yesterday!)

Ok, I'm just going to warn you guys: msn is NOT for preparing a group task in school. We are going nowhere and we've been at it for almost 2 hours... Sigh...

Rance, I just realised, it's January 13th! The ice hotel in Jukkasjärvi is open! Wanna come over again? (Oh, and don't you dare do commercial for the Norweigan copy of our Swedish tourist pride!)

Ok, now I am leaving you. I am having problems with Swedish now that I've spent so much time on here and with Ranceo and others. I don't know prepositions anymore! I am lost! Lost, in a language limbo, trapped between three languages!
(Yes, I am a drama queen along with bossy biatch)

[Karla with a K]

sweden
you also need to experience Florida in Feb hint hint

[Xa'at]

Originally Posted by DannyL

I want it to snow...please snow,snow,snow.
This goofy ****/snow mix we have been getting turns to ice at night. It's starting to get old.

It's pretty typical Juneau fare, though. I'm so bummed, I left my xtra-tuffs in Idaho... now I have to have them shipped back.

Originally Posted by Sweden

Lost, in a language limbo, trapped between three languages!

English, Swedish... what's the third?
I know how it feels, though. There are times real late at night when a little French creeps in there unnoticed. My next language is ASL, looking forward to that.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

We began giving aid to the South Vietnam's military in 1950.



You might want to research the Truman Doctrine. It didn't directly start the war, but laid the groundwork for it through foreign policy revisions.

From 1950-1953, the US was in korea, where we lost 142,000 soldiers trying to stop the North from taking South Korea.

The French surrendered Vietnam in 1954. The same year, the US sent a 12-man team of advisors to Saigon. And later on, the US aided South Vietnam with $250-million per year.

In 1960 President Kennedy took office. In 1961, Kennedy agreed to provide the funds necessary to increase the South Vietnam forces to 170,000 members. By 1962, there were 12,000 US military advisors in Vietnam. Also, 300 helicopters were donated to the South Vietnam forces. The US pilots and advisors were ordered not to engage the North.

After the assassination of President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson took office temporarily. In 1964, Johnson won the presidency. In 1965, the US officially became engaged in the Vietnam War. The war officially anded in April 1975, and I was very happy because just before it ended I was on stan-by to go to Vietnam
Vietnam War Overview

[Rance]

Originally Posted by Sweden

Rance, I just realised, it's January 13th! The ice hotel in Jukkasjärvi is open! Wanna come over again? (Oh, and don't you dare do commercial for the Norweigan copy of our Swedish tourist pride!)

Yes...unless you want to come here and do Chena Hot Springs and the ice hotel. Let me know by tomorrow eve!

(Yes, I am a drama queen along with bossy biatch)

Hey I thought you mentioned previously you were going to quit lying for New Years resolution! You are not a drama queen!

Ok your not a biatch either.

[User 2]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Now i can address the rest:

I'll make this a two' fer..

Here's the first part.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

1. Carter was not prohibited for monitoring elections. He was personally monitoring elections in those places I mentioned above.

It's the Carter Center that monitors elections in foreign countries. The decision making within the Carter Center is controlled by it's board and Carter has a voice, but he personally can't direct what the Carter Center does if his is a dissenting voice. Again, it's not Carter personally monitoring elections, though it was through his creation that the Carter Center does such good work. And yes, Carter does take part in many aspects, promoting and fronting for the work the Carter Center performs.

The Carter Center has a number of provisions it insists on before they will agree to monitor any election in any country. They don't just show up and help count ballots, they insist that certain minimal standards are implemented by the countries they agree to work with. They start long before an election, the begin to analyze election laws, assess voter education and registration processes, and evaluate fairness in campaigns. After that, they require access to monitor all processes and require unlimited access to all processes to monitor the results all the way through the tabulation process. The Carter Center has promoted and helped to create a process acceptable throughout most of the world in building consensus on a common set of international principles for election observation.

When requests were made to the Carter Center for them to help monitor elections in the US, the government would not implement even the minimum standards for fair elections based on that common set of international principles as required by the Carter Center in other nations before they will agree to monitor elections.

To take that even further, subsequently, Carter got involved in a private commission to recommend changes to improve US election problems. The Carter Baker Commission recommended free, but even tougher voter ID requirements than the various state photo ID laws. They recommended sharing lists of voter registration to ensure no multiple registrations were occurring. The commission also recommended paper trail verification of all electronic vote, and open access to tabulation processes.

Despite those various recommendation being commonly adopted throughout most of the democratically elected governments in the world, the US has yet to implement even the barest standards.

So the question remains, the Carter Center cannot monitor US elections because the US government refused to meet the minimum accepted standards for that monitoring to take place.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

2. The No Child Left Behind, regardless of the parties involved still is another social program, and as such, with close ties to liberals like Ted Kennedy.

A social program is not inherently a liberal program.

The perception pushed by so called conservatives and Republicans is that social programs are exclusively 'liberal' constructs, or that they are the product of Democrats. (often characterized as a form of socialism, which should be despised by all)

Trouble is, it's only social programs the Republican conservatives don't like that get labeled like that. Socialistic programs Republican conservatives like aren't ever mentioned in that light.


But what are police forces, fire departments and the military? They are a form of socialized service for all. What of the government mandated insurance programs, but more socialist notions?

Ah, but one may say look at 'welfare'. Let's look at welfare, if it's welfare for individuals, the conservatives say it's unacceptable, but what do they say about corporate welfare which spending vastly eclipses the costs of individual welfare? Not a peep.

No, conservatives and Republicans have no problem with social programs, all they have trouble with is who is going to benefit. If it's not primarily serving their interests or the interests of their cronies, social programs are anathema, ....but that doesn't apply to any social program they benefit from.

You can try to equate Ted Kennedy with George Bush's NCLB, you can falsely claim Democrats or liberals designed, proposed or pushed for the current form of NCLB. But, it's not true.

The current form of NCLB is so far removed from what was once proposed, changes mandated and legislated and changed through edict, so that the current form unable to be compared.

But it is widely known to be a failure as policy, and what do Republicans do when their ideas fail? They blame someone else. Whether there's any basis in reality doesn't matter a whit. They repeat the lie, they get their supporters to repeat the lie, they lie until the lie becomes myth.

And for some, myth is all they need. Some are content to accept the myth as it enforces their belief in the other myths they've found themselves believing in.
.
..............

Continued in next reply..
.
..

[User 2]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

You will also notice that nowhere in my post did I mention Republicans nor Democrats. I was talking about Bush being "liberal."

I will notice that the common perception is that Democrats are commonly viewed liberal and Republicans are supposed, or commonly held to be conservative.

No amount of obfuscation at this point can save your analogies by claiming you didn't mention Repubs or Dems. By calling Bush liberal, which he is not, you attempted to assign Bush's failed policies as liberal policy.

Again, neither those policies, nor any action by Bush are liberal.

You might not be able to bring yourself to call it what it is, but it's not liberal and your allusion that there's any question between which of the parties is associated with which descriptive is not credible.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

3. Amnesty for illegals: again, I was not talking about Republicans nor Democrats, but "liberals." The Amnesty to illegals is in fact a liberal program, regardless of who created it. The answer to this point is in Congress' hands, and the President. Who are the ones backing this program? Conservatives, or liberals? All you have to do is to look at the Congress' voting records. Both Bush and the liberal portion of Congress want this program. Haven't you watched the last debates?

Ah, back to calling Republican policy, once that policy fails, or is rejected, something it's not and never was. Only when Republican proposals are finally rejected as failed policy, that's when those policies instantly become not a creation of conservatives. No, suddenly that policy is now 'a liberal program'. Like I said before, it was a social program that conservatives dreamed up and they liked it because it served the needs of their corporate cronies, and it was supposed to expand their base.

Only when their policy was shown to not be in the best interest of their base was the policy attempted to be described as 'liberal' and only after it is shown to be a form of corporate cronyism at the expense of the American people is that policy suddenly tried to be attributed to someone other than who created it and proposed it.

The benefactors of Reagan's Amnesty were the corporate cronies who wanted the exploitable cheap labor and they wanted to improve Reagan's stature with Hispanic voters. Bush's amnesty and guest worker program, was also tailored to benefit the same corporations, and similarly,as a way to entice Hispanic voters to support his election ambitions.

The voting record is clear, the proposals origins are clear, Amnesty was a Republican creation, pushed and passed into law by a commonly perceived conservative Party and conservative Republican presidential administrations.


Again, neither of those two constructs were 'liberal' or Democratic Party proposed solutions to immigration reform.

Those failed policies belong to the conservatives and the Republicans who created them.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

4. Uncle Ted has been quite a liberal for a lot of years now. He was not so long ago, but he is so nowadays. He has done quite a lot of good things for Alaska, I understand that. These days, with all the investigations going on, Uncle has to walk on thin ice. It would not be wise to antagonize the majority in Congress. Lisa has voted for all sorts of liberal programs already, and I considers her another liberal Republican.

Ha ha ha ha ah, yes, the rubber stamp Congressional Republican conservative legislators are now liberal. Of course there is nothing in their voting record or their press releases or their sponsorship of legislation to indicate that they are now suddenly liberals.

Good gawd, ......I do see where you might be attempting to take this.

Both Ted and Lisa have been caught in unethical if not downright legally corrupt practices. Both are finally being seen for the failures they are and now that they are a liability, ....voila, ...it's because they're really liberals.


Ha ha ha ahaa........

Originally Posted by RayinAK

5. Political affiliation has nothing to do with conservatism, nor with liberalism. President Bush is conservative in a couple of issues, but liberal on the rest.

Preznit Commander Codpiece is an ass. He's a Republican Party lackey, who just happens to concurrently also be a megalomaniacal fascist tool.

There is nothing liberal about Preznit Pedals Pissypants.

Bush is not, never was, and won't ever be liberal, and none of his policies or believes are liberal.

Despite your attempts to ascribe his failure, the Republican party failure and the failure of the conservatives aligned with him, as some liberal construct, your attempts are like as trying to sweep mistakes under a rug and when caught blaming your little brother for the mess you made.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

6.

Ah...You have forgotten the Vietnam War. Who brought us into this war? A Democrat or a Republican? How was that war financed? Was there a tax break signed by John Kennedy, or not? If John Kennedy was alive today, he would be a conservative in regards to the rest of the Democrats of today. He signed tax breaks, and was quite involved in conducting wars.

Have you no knowledge of history?

Have I forgotten the Vietnam war?

As if invoking the Vietnam war somehow might somehow lend credence or validates the other disingenuous, wholly imaginative, up is down, down is up confabulations?

Yes, ray I remember the Vietnam war, evidently you've forgotten, or never learned very much about the Vietnam war.

US involvement in Vietnam started covertly immediately following WWII, the first overt act was when the OSS stepped in and an OSS Major Archimedes Patty had made contact with the Vietminh. Patty himself was at Ho Chi Minh's side when the latter proclaimed Vietnamese independence on 2 September, 1945. U.S. endorsement of Ho Chi Minh, played a crucial role in swinging popular support behind the Vietminh.

The first American death in Vietnam was an OSS Lieutenant Dewey, killed in Saigon, Vietnam on September 26, 1945.


(the US propping up Ho, .....kind of reminds one of that long list of all the people we've propped up when they were beneficial to us, who later were declared our enemy when our interests changed.)

US involvement continued throughout the rest of the 40's until then Truman's National Security Council decided to provide military aid for the French war in Indochina.

In 1950, The U.S., recognized Boa Dai's regime as legitimate, and began to subsidize the French in Vietnam, and on August 3, 1950, the first advisors, the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group, (also known as MAAG), consisting of 35 men, was sent to Saigon.

By the end of 1950, the U.S. is spending on Vietnam, just as much as what it cost France, in their war effort in Vietnam.


The US continued to send military and economic aid both to the French and to the Vietnamese through the rest of the fifties and after the French defeat and the splitting of Vietnam into north and south, we continued to support and prop up the South Vietnamese.

After 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower announced to the world the United States was fully committed to maintaining South Vietnam's independence. That included military aid, economic aid, and our first military personnel.

Our first US regular service military personnel were killed in Vietnam in July of 1959, not four months following Eisenhower's announcement.

By the end of 1959 the US had over 900 troops in Vietnam.

Kennedy still had not been elected.

Eisenhower was a conservative, a Republican.

Kennedy, a democrat, not only instituted policies to pay for the US involvement, he tried to pass an executive order that would prohibit borrowing to fund war, and he proposed to have all US troops out of Vietnam by 1965.

He was gunned down in 1963, before he could follow through with his promise to pull out all Americans from Vietnam.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

A true conservative is a whole different thing. For example, such a conservative is pro smaller government, strong military, tax breaks, etc.

smaller government tied to tax breaks for the wealthy is a neo-con construct and had nothing to do with old time Republican conservatism,

....and neither party and no liberal democrat has ever advocated for a weak military.

Myth and reality, though people will try to mix the two, they don't mix, and your efforts aren't going to hold any water either.
.
..