but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal (eg upgrade it to semi automatic...
"semi automatic" actually isn't illegal. It's also mostly impossible to convert a non-semi-auto to semi-auto. Not entirely, but mostly. Perhaps you meant "fully automatic"? Semi-autos can be converted to full auto, though it's not so trivial as an amateur might think.
Though I used to own a rifle that would go full-auto if I let too much gunk build up around the firing pin. Very annoying to have to clean the damn thing after every magazine I put through it....
A bit misleading that. Article DOES mention "two very unfriendly vehicles" and "Two vehicles later drove on property, first truck with two rifles or shotguns in plain sight."
It doesn't seem to mention an encounter with the owner of the vehicles/guns, though. Perhaps because they apparently wet themselves and fled at the sight of the gunrack in the pickup (where my family lives, gunracks in pickups are so much a part of life that the only time you notice them is when the pickup does NOT have one)/
I do, however, agree with this statement by one of the geohashers - "in the future, we should respect property owners". A lot of trouble can be avoided by following that guideline.
It took 5 fucking hours to read it into the record. Are you saying he should've done this while everyone was present?
Well, if he was serious, he'd have just proposed it as a Bill. Then he'd no more have had to read it into the record than the author of the DoD budget has to read that into the Record. It'd have been included automagically.
Alternatively, he could have stood up at the appropriate committee meeting and said "Mr. Chairman, request to add this document to the Congressional Record?", and LO, it would be so. Unless he was too much a nutcase for the Chairman to take him seriously, of course.
As is, he was so effective at getting his point across that my local newspaper (friendly to the Democrats, to the extent that any newspaper is) didn't even mention that he'd done it.
Note that there are procedures in the House for bringing a matter up for a vote. Reading a five-hour indictment isn't part of ANY of those procedures. Presenting ANYTHING to the whole House is pretty much meaningless, unless all you want is a (meaningless) Resolution of the House.
What this accomplished was to waste his time, and make him look like a lunatic to anyone who actually knew how things worked in the House. Which includes pretty much everyone who's going to have to vote on this, if he can even get it to a committee vote, given the way he misused the system.
NAFTA has been used to fuck over the American worker.
You are aware, are you not, that previous to NAFTA, US trade barriers to Mexican/Canadian goods are essentially the same as they are now. But that Mexican/Canadian (mostly Mexican) barriers to US trade goods were considerably more restrictive, right?
What NAFTA did, in large part, was make it easier to sell things in Mexico and Canada, NOT easier to buy things made in Mexico and Canada.
Exodus of jobs to Mexico didn't happen BECAUSE of NAFTA, but in spite of NAFTA - we were already exporting jobs to Mexico when NAFTA was ratified.
This wasn't a tirade, but a list of the treasonous crimes of the current administration.
I admit to not reading this iteration, but his last attempt but one to get Bush impeached included a lot of things he called treasonous. Alas, treason has a definition in the Constitution, and none of his "treasonous" charges actually met the definition.
I'd be intensely surprised if he's found anything "treasonous" this time around, though no doubt a lot of people who don't bother to look the definition of "treason" up will believe that he has.
Was it a waste of something to do this? Is there something else you want him to work on?
Yes, it was a waste. Unless something is put before the appropriate committee for a vote, it's meaningless babble.
Is there something else I want him to work on? Let's see...how about virtually anything that he's serious enough about to put before the appropriate committee for a vote.
If he'd taken his five hours worth of babble before whichever House Committee handles that sort of thing, and the vote of the committee had been "shut up and don't bother us with this again", I'd have some slight respect for him (not much, since it's been pretty clear for years that he's not going to get Bush impeached, and wasting time is not respectable), but I've none at all for a man who puts something into the Congressional Record just so he can say "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen!" later.
They never would have been caught because no one would have CARED.
Well, no. Remember, this was a result of a Sexual Harassment Lawsuit against Clinton. Remember that the Supremes had recently ruled that someone's past sexual history WAS RELEVANT in a sexual harassment trial.
Based on the Supreme's Ruling, Clinton might very well have lost the case if he'd told the truth. Which makes the perjury a moderately serious issue, legally speaking.
Which latter makes it, arguably (only arguably, I'd have voted to Impeach if I'd been in the House then, but not to convict if I'd been in the Senate), an Impeachable offense.
By contrast, if Clinton had just screwed Monica, it would still have qualified as Sexual Harassment, by the standards of the leaders of the Feminist Movement, for anyone but Clinton. But it would NEVER have come to trial, since there would have been no underlying perjury to get things rolling.
Also, where are you getting "nutcase"? Kucinich saw an unidentified flying object once. If he had said he thought it was an angel people would have been happier I guess.
I think he's a nutcase because he actually believes that having that read into the Congressional Record means more than when Daniel Webster put a chowder recipe into the Congressional Record.
Imagine, if you will, that everyone actually decided that his little speech was worth considering for real. They'd have spent a month or six discussing whether to Impeach. Then another month or six trying the case in the Senate.
By then either McCain or Obama will be President. The Senate doesn't actually have authority to do anything to Bush once he's out of Office, so the whole thing'll be moot.
And all that is assuming that you can convince enough Representatives and Senators to vote to impeach/convict. Which you won't, unless you hold guns to the heads of every Congresscritter.
Regardless of whether he is booted out of office or not it is now a stain upon his much anticipated "historical legacy".
Two things:
1) Clinton was the one with the historical legacy fixation, and...
2) THIS is a stain upon his legacy?!? A nutcase like Kucinich doesn't even bother to make a speech to the House, but has it read into the record after hours??? The Congressional Record is full of dreck read into it after hours by people who wanted things on record (usually for their reelection campaign). You DO know that the Congressional Record includes a couple of good recipes for chowder, right? That's the sort of thing the Record is full of....
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren't actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
Always loved this quote. Of course, the premise is entirely incorrect - "every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment" is simply not true. Which is why there are boom and bust cycles in the non-human animal kingdom. Lemmings, anyone?
In fact, the primary limiter to animal populations is that they consume "every natural resource" if they get the chance. Which they don't often, since we're generally higher on the food chain than they are. But they're trying, just as hard as they can, to expand to the very limit of the load-bearing capacity of the land and beyond.
He is actively hurting his cause. The Bean Free Library proves it. http://www.baen.com/library/ I have actually purchased books I started reading free. And they keep adding books, so I would guess it is not driving them out of business.
As have I. In addition, I have bought Hardback editions of about 40 books as a result of reading some writer's works on the Baen Free Library.
So, a few dozen titles put up for free have generated at last $1000 revenue JUST FROM ME. So far. When those authors write more books, I'll buy them too.
And NONE of that revenue would have been garnered without the free titles - books cost enough that I don't spend money on new authors all that often. And I'd seen all the authors in question in bookstores and decided they didn't look interesting enough to spend money on before I discovered the Free Library.
I am criticizing the neocon machine that has run from Reagan through two Bushes, not defending democrats as ideal and infallible. Conversely, you are dismissing high crimes by saying others have done wrong previously. My position makes sense, yours does not.
No, you are carefully focussing in on the wrongs of the Reps, while overlooking the wrongs of the Dems.
Note, by the way, that FDR did far more to make a police state than Bush Jr has. Suspension of Habeus Corpus, moving American citizens by the tens of thousands into Concentration Camps (the Japanese-Americans of the west coast - and no, I don't think that was quite his intention, but it certainly was the result of a decision), fighting an undeclared war in violation of international law (WW2 before Pearl Harbour. Sound familiar?
Do I believe that what FDR did was wrong? In hindsight, it's pretty clear that his decisions got the job done with the least amount of pain possible (though the Concentration Camp thing is still a bit over the top - even if it was intended to protect the Japanese-Americans from possible lynching).
Is Bush wrong? I'll let you know in 50 years, when we've had a chance to evaluate the long-term effects. Any analysis much earlier is just noise from the Left and the Right, with neither side listening at all. And if you think that YOUR side is rational on the subject, think again. Your side is just as irrational (if not more so) as the other side. Whichever side you claim is "your side". Just like the two sides were irrational about Clinton....
So, just out of curiousity, what would YOU have done to deal with the issue, were you in control?
Myself, I'd have ignored it entirely, but then I'm a right bastard sometimes.
Note, by the way, that your argument is that:
1) spending the stimulus check is a bad thing.
2) NOT spending it is a bad thing.
Which implies that you think having an extra $1200 dollars is a bad thing. If so, let me know, and you can save yourself the evil of having it by sending your's to me....
Note, by the way, that I'll accept tax refunds from anyone who thinks they shouldn't be getting refunds when we're running a deficit.
Plus, if you believe that you didn't pay enough taxes this year, just send a check to me in the amount that you think you should've paid, and I'll make sure it gets put to good use.
Yes, obviously it is possible that such a statement could be true, but such a statement requires that you actually examine the evidence. You see, the Repugs keep bringing out this tired meme every election, without respect to who is running. If Attila the Hun somehow became the Democratic candidate (the Dems foolishly trying to be "bipartisan" and all that), the Repugs would *still* brand him "the most leftist presidential candidate ever."
Counterexample: noone said Harry Truman was leftist, much less the "most leftist ever". The Reps say it because it's generally true in recent decades - basic tenet of the electoral process is that each party panders to its base during the Primaries, and then runs for the center in the general election.
Guess what? The Democratic base is leftist. Well, technically, the part of the Democratic base with the money to finance a Presidential campaign is leftist, not the whole party. Thus, the Reagan Democrats. But that's the way the Dems campaign in their Primaries, and that leaves them open to charges that they're leftist. Just as typical Reps campaign to make themselves look right of Attila the Hun during their primaries. McCain is actually refreshing for NOT doing this. Much.
(it'll be a bloodbath if we leave now, we're told, as if Iraqi are so busy laying roses at our soldiers and mercenaries' feet).
For reference, we've been in Iraq for five years now, with just over 4000 killed. Averages 800 per year.
Vietnam had an average of more than 5000 per year (any year in Vietnam saw more casualties than this last five years has).
Korea had an average of about 13000 per year.
WW2 had about 75000 per year.
WW1 about 70000 per year.
Spanish-American War about 800 per year.
Civil War about 70000 per year.
Mexican-American war about 4000 per year.
The earlier wars (Revolution, 1812) we have incomplete data on, but a good guestimate is comparable to the Spanish-American war.
Note that almost every war we've ever been in, we had FAR higher casualties than we've had in Iraq. Note that the only people alive who've seen a war with casualties this low are over 100 (Spanish-American war survivors, if any).
Note also that I'm only considering US casualties. If we include allied casualties, this war looks even better in camparison (we were a small fraction of the casualties of the Korean War, not the large fraction here, as an example). And I don't consider enemy casualties to be particularly relevant in warfare.
I keep hearing this canard. The rest of the sentence is against Hillary Clinton. Do you honestly suppose that after the last eight years that those groups are going to flock to McCain in the general election?
Women? No, though some will vote against Obama out of pique.
Blue-collar workers? Yes. Exit polls pretty much say that 20+% of them voted for Hillary because of Obama's race. That group isn't going to vote for him now just because he's running against a Republican (white) guy.
Hispanics? There's a certain amount of recism in that community too, so some will go McCain for that reason. Plus McCain is from Arizona, which should get him a few more hispanic votes. The rest? No idea at all.
What makes YOU think that racism won't trump Party affiliation?
and then you have Reagan's legacy of illegal attacks on sovereign countries, followed by Bush's.
You forgot "followed by Clinton's". As well as "preceded by Carter's".
And a few dozen other Presidents. Including FDR. Since using the US Navy to deal with German submarines before 7 DEC 1941 was illegal under US law and under international law.
Then there are those two evil Republicans, Kennedy and Johnson. Or does "Vietnam" not ring a bell? Wait, my bad, Vietnam was caused by Nixon, right? He subtly convinced two Democratic Presidents to invade Vietnam so that he could look good for pulling out of Vietnam 12 years later, right?
Look at the economic stimulus check which didn't do jack because everyone is so in debt that they just spent the $600 or so on gas or food.
We just spent that on gas or food? Oh, my! Silly me! I didn't notice the extra $1200 I spent last month - it looks like the $1200 is still collecting interest in my bank account.
Wait a minute, I thought it was John Kerry who was the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party ever. Oh, wait a minute, that was Al Gore. No, wait a minute, it was Bill Clinton. Seriously, why do you Repugs always bring out such asinine and demonstrably false crap *every* *single* *election* and somehow think no one will notice?
Not that I believe Clinton was particularly leftist (though trying to nationalize 1/7 of the economy makes one wonder), but...
You DID learn enough elementary thought in school to understand that ALL of those statements could be true, right? All it would take is that Clinton by more leftist than annyone who had gone before him (hard to do with FDR in the list, but possible), then for Gore to be MORE leftist than Clinton, then for Kerry to be MORE leftist than Gore, then for Obama to be MORE leftist than Kerry.
You see, we humans (most of us) are bound in time - we do not see the future, only the past and (sometimes) present. So in 1992, it would have been essentially impossible to say that Obama was the most leftist presidential candidate ever, SINCE HE WASN'T A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE then. This limiting factor in out perceptions would be true even if he WERE the most leftist Presidential Candidate ever today.
Note that it would be just as true if the next Democrat to run were left of Chairman Mao - he would then be the most leftist presidential candidate ever, and it would still be true that in 2008 Obama were the most leftist Presidential candidate ever.
NOTE: All of the above assumes that Obama is, in fact, the most leftist Presidential candidate ever. I do not beleive this to be so, though he is certainly the most leftist Democratic candidate in MY lifetime.
Personally, I'm curious whether the Dems who voted for Hillary will be willing to vote for Obama. Exit polls from various Primaries indicate that Obama will lose a significant part of the Democratic base due to the racism of the Democratic Faithful, though this is by no means certain.
I also find myself wondering if Hillary hasn't conceded yet because she's hoping Obama gets assassinated before the Convention. Or because the guy she hired to do that hasn't finished the job yet. Yes, I don't like Hillary. I've got no real objection to Obama - he could turn out to be the next Kennedy (what he's aiming for), or the next Carter (what he's aiming to avoid). If the former comes true, good for him. If the latter, well, "good" doesn't come into it.
Don't like answering myself, but it occurred to me that "Port and Starboard" was not self-explanatory.
Used in that way, it refers to watchstanding. Normally, a Sailor stands one watch in three. Occasionally, for whatever reason, you find yourself standing one watch in two. Which means you are Port and Starboard with the other guy who stands your watch while you sleep.
The Thresher and Scorpion are on a Port and Starboard watch at the bottom, waiting for someone to come along and put them on a three-watch rotation...
There were several factors that sank her, too many for here.
Realistically, it reduces to two things:
1) When the Main Seawater Pipe shears, the boat sinks. Period. The engine room has too much volume to be lifted to the surface by any combination of blowing ballast and driving up, even ignoring that you lose the main engines when the MSW shears.
2) The High Pressure Air system iced up. The air in the tanks wasn't dry enough, and when it expanded, it froze out until the pipes were blocked. Which pretty much prevented blowing ballast.
One soul actually called the depth every 50 ft as they sank, no panic just steady data. He knew what was coming!
Everyone who goes down in one of the boats knows. There's always the chance of taking the Thresher and Scorpion out of Port and Starboard when you go down, and any sane sailor knows it. Any experienced sailor knows how many times his boat has come closer than he'd like to doing it (mine, once while I was on it, once before that), and worries every time he goes down.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see...murder is unlawful killing. Execution is done in accordance with law, and therefore, by definition, NOT unlawful.
QED.
"semi automatic" actually isn't illegal. It's also mostly impossible to convert a non-semi-auto to semi-auto. Not entirely, but mostly. Perhaps you meant "fully automatic"? Semi-autos can be converted to full auto, though it's not so trivial as an amateur might think.
Though I used to own a rifle that would go full-auto if I let too much gunk build up around the firing pin. Very annoying to have to clean the damn thing after every magazine I put through it....
It doesn't seem to mention an encounter with the owner of the vehicles/guns, though. Perhaps because they apparently wet themselves and fled at the sight of the gunrack in the pickup (where my family lives, gunracks in pickups are so much a part of life that the only time you notice them is when the pickup does NOT have one)/
I do, however, agree with this statement by one of the geohashers - "in the future, we should respect property owners". A lot of trouble can be avoided by following that guideline.
Well, if he was serious, he'd have just proposed it as a Bill. Then he'd no more have had to read it into the record than the author of the DoD budget has to read that into the Record. It'd have been included automagically.
Alternatively, he could have stood up at the appropriate committee meeting and said "Mr. Chairman, request to add this document to the Congressional Record?", and LO, it would be so. Unless he was too much a nutcase for the Chairman to take him seriously, of course.
As is, he was so effective at getting his point across that my local newspaper (friendly to the Democrats, to the extent that any newspaper is) didn't even mention that he'd done it.
Note that there are procedures in the House for bringing a matter up for a vote. Reading a five-hour indictment isn't part of ANY of those procedures. Presenting ANYTHING to the whole House is pretty much meaningless, unless all you want is a (meaningless) Resolution of the House.
What this accomplished was to waste his time, and make him look like a lunatic to anyone who actually knew how things worked in the House. Which includes pretty much everyone who's going to have to vote on this, if he can even get it to a committee vote, given the way he misused the system.
You are aware, are you not, that previous to NAFTA, US trade barriers to Mexican/Canadian goods are essentially the same as they are now. But that Mexican/Canadian (mostly Mexican) barriers to US trade goods were considerably more restrictive, right?
What NAFTA did, in large part, was make it easier to sell things in Mexico and Canada, NOT easier to buy things made in Mexico and Canada.
Exodus of jobs to Mexico didn't happen BECAUSE of NAFTA, but in spite of NAFTA - we were already exporting jobs to Mexico when NAFTA was ratified.
I admit to not reading this iteration, but his last attempt but one to get Bush impeached included a lot of things he called treasonous. Alas, treason has a definition in the Constitution, and none of his "treasonous" charges actually met the definition.
I'd be intensely surprised if he's found anything "treasonous" this time around, though no doubt a lot of people who don't bother to look the definition of "treason" up will believe that he has.
Yes, it was a waste. Unless something is put before the appropriate committee for a vote, it's meaningless babble.
Is there something else I want him to work on? Let's see...how about virtually anything that he's serious enough about to put before the appropriate committee for a vote.
If he'd taken his five hours worth of babble before whichever House Committee handles that sort of thing, and the vote of the committee had been "shut up and don't bother us with this again", I'd have some slight respect for him (not much, since it's been pretty clear for years that he's not going to get Bush impeached, and wasting time is not respectable), but I've none at all for a man who puts something into the Congressional Record just so he can say "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen!" later.
Well, no. Remember, this was a result of a Sexual Harassment Lawsuit against Clinton. Remember that the Supremes had recently ruled that someone's past sexual history WAS RELEVANT in a sexual harassment trial.
Based on the Supreme's Ruling, Clinton might very well have lost the case if he'd told the truth. Which makes the perjury a moderately serious issue, legally speaking.
Which latter makes it, arguably (only arguably, I'd have voted to Impeach if I'd been in the House then, but not to convict if I'd been in the Senate), an Impeachable offense.
By contrast, if Clinton had just screwed Monica, it would still have qualified as Sexual Harassment, by the standards of the leaders of the Feminist Movement, for anyone but Clinton. But it would NEVER have come to trial, since there would have been no underlying perjury to get things rolling.
I think he's a nutcase because he actually believes that having that read into the Congressional Record means more than when Daniel Webster put a chowder recipe into the Congressional Record.
Imagine, if you will, that everyone actually decided that his little speech was worth considering for real. They'd have spent a month or six discussing whether to Impeach. Then another month or six trying the case in the Senate.
By then either McCain or Obama will be President. The Senate doesn't actually have authority to do anything to Bush once he's out of Office, so the whole thing'll be moot.
And all that is assuming that you can convince enough Representatives and Senators to vote to impeach/convict. Which you won't, unless you hold guns to the heads of every Congresscritter.
Better yet, it seems that most people (on both sides of any debate) hold with:
Two things:
1) Clinton was the one with the historical legacy fixation, and...
2) THIS is a stain upon his legacy?!? A nutcase like Kucinich doesn't even bother to make a speech to the House, but has it read into the record after hours??? The Congressional Record is full of dreck read into it after hours by people who wanted things on record (usually for their reelection campaign). You DO know that the Congressional Record includes a couple of good recipes for chowder, right? That's the sort of thing the Record is full of....
Always loved this quote. Of course, the premise is entirely incorrect - "every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment" is simply not true. Which is why there are boom and bust cycles in the non-human animal kingdom. Lemmings, anyone?
In fact, the primary limiter to animal populations is that they consume "every natural resource" if they get the chance. Which they don't often, since we're generally higher on the food chain than they are. But they're trying, just as hard as they can, to expand to the very limit of the load-bearing capacity of the land and beyond.
Just like us....
Mars.
Mercury.
Note that one is bigger than the other and the smaller one has a higher density.
As have I. In addition, I have bought Hardback editions of about 40 books as a result of reading some writer's works on the Baen Free Library.
So, a few dozen titles put up for free have generated at last $1000 revenue JUST FROM ME. So far. When those authors write more books, I'll buy them too.
And NONE of that revenue would have been garnered without the free titles - books cost enough that I don't spend money on new authors all that often. And I'd seen all the authors in question in bookstores and decided they didn't look interesting enough to spend money on before I discovered the Free Library.
No, you are carefully focussing in on the wrongs of the Reps, while overlooking the wrongs of the Dems.
Note, by the way, that FDR did far more to make a police state than Bush Jr has. Suspension of Habeus Corpus, moving American citizens by the tens of thousands into Concentration Camps (the Japanese-Americans of the west coast - and no, I don't think that was quite his intention, but it certainly was the result of a decision), fighting an undeclared war in violation of international law (WW2 before Pearl Harbour. Sound familiar?
Do I believe that what FDR did was wrong? In hindsight, it's pretty clear that his decisions got the job done with the least amount of pain possible (though the Concentration Camp thing is still a bit over the top - even if it was intended to protect the Japanese-Americans from possible lynching).
Is Bush wrong? I'll let you know in 50 years, when we've had a chance to evaluate the long-term effects. Any analysis much earlier is just noise from the Left and the Right, with neither side listening at all. And if you think that YOUR side is rational on the subject, think again. Your side is just as irrational (if not more so) as the other side. Whichever side you claim is "your side". Just like the two sides were irrational about Clinton....
Myself, I'd have ignored it entirely, but then I'm a right bastard sometimes.
Note, by the way, that your argument is that:
1) spending the stimulus check is a bad thing.
2) NOT spending it is a bad thing.
Which implies that you think having an extra $1200 dollars is a bad thing. If so, let me know, and you can save yourself the evil of having it by sending your's to me....
Note, by the way, that I'll accept tax refunds from anyone who thinks they shouldn't be getting refunds when we're running a deficit.
Plus, if you believe that you didn't pay enough taxes this year, just send a check to me in the amount that you think you should've paid, and I'll make sure it gets put to good use.
Counterexample: noone said Harry Truman was leftist, much less the "most leftist ever". The Reps say it because it's generally true in recent decades - basic tenet of the electoral process is that each party panders to its base during the Primaries, and then runs for the center in the general election.
Guess what? The Democratic base is leftist. Well, technically, the part of the Democratic base with the money to finance a Presidential campaign is leftist, not the whole party. Thus, the Reagan Democrats. But that's the way the Dems campaign in their Primaries, and that leaves them open to charges that they're leftist. Just as typical Reps campaign to make themselves look right of Attila the Hun during their primaries. McCain is actually refreshing for NOT doing this. Much.
For reference, we've been in Iraq for five years now, with just over 4000 killed. Averages 800 per year.
Vietnam had an average of more than 5000 per year (any year in Vietnam saw more casualties than this last five years has).
Korea had an average of about 13000 per year.
WW2 had about 75000 per year.
WW1 about 70000 per year.
Spanish-American War about 800 per year.
Civil War about 70000 per year.
Mexican-American war about 4000 per year.
The earlier wars (Revolution, 1812) we have incomplete data on, but a good guestimate is comparable to the Spanish-American war.
Note that almost every war we've ever been in, we had FAR higher casualties than we've had in Iraq. Note that the only people alive who've seen a war with casualties this low are over 100 (Spanish-American war survivors, if any).
Note also that I'm only considering US casualties. If we include allied casualties, this war looks even better in camparison (we were a small fraction of the casualties of the Korean War, not the large fraction here, as an example). And I don't consider enemy casualties to be particularly relevant in warfare.
Women? No, though some will vote against Obama out of pique.
Blue-collar workers? Yes. Exit polls pretty much say that 20+% of them voted for Hillary because of Obama's race. That group isn't going to vote for him now just because he's running against a Republican (white) guy.
Hispanics? There's a certain amount of recism in that community too, so some will go McCain for that reason. Plus McCain is from Arizona, which should get him a few more hispanic votes. The rest? No idea at all.
What makes YOU think that racism won't trump Party affiliation?
You forgot "followed by Clinton's". As well as "preceded by Carter's".
And a few dozen other Presidents. Including FDR. Since using the US Navy to deal with German submarines before 7 DEC 1941 was illegal under US law and under international law.
Then there are those two evil Republicans, Kennedy and Johnson. Or does "Vietnam" not ring a bell? Wait, my bad, Vietnam was caused by Nixon, right? He subtly convinced two Democratic Presidents to invade Vietnam so that he could look good for pulling out of Vietnam 12 years later, right?
Which one did we conquer in the 1800's? Or were you counting the various Indian nations that we migrated into?
We just spent that on gas or food? Oh, my! Silly me! I didn't notice the extra $1200 I spent last month - it looks like the $1200 is still collecting interest in my bank account.
Not that I believe Clinton was particularly leftist (though trying to nationalize 1/7 of the economy makes one wonder), but...
You DID learn enough elementary thought in school to understand that ALL of those statements could be true, right? All it would take is that Clinton by more leftist than annyone who had gone before him (hard to do with FDR in the list, but possible), then for Gore to be MORE leftist than Clinton, then for Kerry to be MORE leftist than Gore, then for Obama to be MORE leftist than Kerry.
You see, we humans (most of us) are bound in time - we do not see the future, only the past and (sometimes) present. So in 1992, it would have been essentially impossible to say that Obama was the most leftist presidential candidate ever, SINCE HE WASN'T A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE then. This limiting factor in out perceptions would be true even if he WERE the most leftist Presidential Candidate ever today.
Note that it would be just as true if the next Democrat to run were left of Chairman Mao - he would then be the most leftist presidential candidate ever, and it would still be true that in 2008 Obama were the most leftist Presidential candidate ever.
NOTE: All of the above assumes that Obama is, in fact, the most leftist Presidential candidate ever. I do not beleive this to be so, though he is certainly the most leftist Democratic candidate in MY lifetime.
Personally, I'm curious whether the Dems who voted for Hillary will be willing to vote for Obama. Exit polls from various Primaries indicate that Obama will lose a significant part of the Democratic base due to the racism of the Democratic Faithful, though this is by no means certain.
I also find myself wondering if Hillary hasn't conceded yet because she's hoping Obama gets assassinated before the Convention. Or because the guy she hired to do that hasn't finished the job yet. Yes, I don't like Hillary. I've got no real objection to Obama - he could turn out to be the next Kennedy (what he's aiming for), or the next Carter (what he's aiming to avoid). If the former comes true, good for him. If the latter, well, "good" doesn't come into it.
Used in that way, it refers to watchstanding. Normally, a Sailor stands one watch in three. Occasionally, for whatever reason, you find yourself standing one watch in two. Which means you are Port and Starboard with the other guy who stands your watch while you sleep.
The Thresher and Scorpion are on a Port and Starboard watch at the bottom, waiting for someone to come along and put them on a three-watch rotation...
Realistically, it reduces to two things:
1) When the Main Seawater Pipe shears, the boat sinks. Period. The engine room has too much volume to be lifted to the surface by any combination of blowing ballast and driving up, even ignoring that you lose the main engines when the MSW shears.
2) The High Pressure Air system iced up. The air in the tanks wasn't dry enough, and when it expanded, it froze out until the pipes were blocked. Which pretty much prevented blowing ballast.
Everyone who goes down in one of the boats knows. There's always the chance of taking the Thresher and Scorpion out of Port and Starboard when you go down, and any sane sailor knows it. Any experienced sailor knows how many times his boat has come closer than he'd like to doing it (mine, once while I was on it, once before that), and worries every time he goes down.