Nooo! Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Hey, it might be fun. There's gonna be a open marriage, wife-swap party afterwards. Bringing trinkets for Callista.

Newt is Obama's dream ticket. And hang on to your money. Newt wants it.

Hey, now! You should not denigrate open-marriage. Newt & the expensive trinket lady had to do the open-marriage thing as they are both devout catholics and we all know the catholic church does not allow divorce--no matter how many times you do it.

Humorous comments aside, I would love for Speaker Gingrich to get the GOP nomination. It doesn't matter if you are a left wing nut job, a right wing whack job, or a middle of the roader. A series of debates between President Obama and Speaker Gingrich would be amazing. Sadly, I don't think it's gonna happen.

The media will give a pass to their candidate, Obama, regardless of the horrible job he's done. Newt is a smart guy but with way to much baggage and the right needs to rally behind the only guy with a chance and that's Romney like it or not.

Romney. Oh yes, the honest fellow who stashed his cash away in offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. Took full advantage of the tax codes in order to pay no income taxes, and only something like 15% taxes on his (ahem) investments. I am quite sure that the Nevada Republicans will follow their Floridian counterparts and vote for Romney. Congratulations on your second term, Mister President.

Obama won't win regardless. Did Romney break the law or take advanntage of it like everyone else that makes his type of money? Did Obama appoint as his economic adviser the head of one of the biggest companies in the nation that paid no taxes whatsoever? Romney's baggage is minimal compared to Newt's and Obama's failed policies will be his undoing. I'm not crazy about Romney but what second choice is there?

I don't know, Bill. I just don't know. All I can say is that I honestly and truely would have loved, LOVED to have seen debates between Obama and Gingrich. Ron Paul would have made an interesting President, but he's not slick enough (in a dirty way) to win. Obama or Romney. Choose the lesser of two evils. Sigh.

In the meanwhile Robert you'd be happier with the idiot in the White House now who promised to bring together but has divided this country more while promising a whole new way of doing things that would be open and transparent to the American people. His administration has been anything but that. With the complicity of a good portion of the media Obama has failed in just about every aspect I can think of. You can start with the debt, go to gas and food prices and if anyone truly thinks the actual unemployment rate is 8.3 percent they need to look again. Any Republican is better than Obama.

Someone needs to step away from FawkSnooze...

Why yes, Ian, that IS the best I can (be bothered to) do. I'll step back now and let you intellectuals(?!) have the floor that's so rightfully yours. Really now. Honestly. Seriously. I mean, for reals.

Robert. like a true leftist you retreat to years gone by and lay blame only on the right while there's so much more to pass around. Today is what matters and so instead of shooting it out with you over past years I'll simply point out that this current president has failed and surrounded himself with like idiots that have done little to help the nation. That's all that really maters to me and, unlike you I'm sure, if I thought there was a dem who had the right answers and was willing to go up against Obama I'd vote for him. Am I impressed with all those running on the right, nope but all of them, even Crazy Rick, would be better than the failure in office now.

...and as a side note, Robert, it was Barney Frank and friends who laid the groundwork for the housing crash (and thus the economy being what it is).

For anyone that cares to dig a bit deeper for information than the living room television set - see:

"The Real Newt Gingrich":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_1c3sWMsTs&feature=player_embedded

The FACT is, Gingrich is a globalist and does not have America's best interest at heart. His own words and actions (voting record) tell the whole story. The same is true for Romney. These men have no intention of changing our failed monetary system controlled by the offshore banking cartel (Federal Reserve). Only one presidential candidate fully understands this monetary problem and will take proper action and begin to chart a prosperous future for America. You may know who he is. If you don't, tune into 'Freedom Watch' on ch 359 (Direct TV / Fox Business Network) each weeknight at 8:PM.

In fact neither Romney and Gingrich are funded by essentially the same banker establishment. For more see: Infowars Dot com.

Brian - the guy you mention doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of becomming President, let alone the GOP nomination. Like I mentioned earlier, he's just not slick enough. It's gonna be Obama and Romney, and we get to choose between the lesser of two evils.

@BillC: Idiot in the White House?!? He's an idiot? Compared to whom? Bush Jr? or the present GOP hopefuls?

Can't you see how it is now? and can't you remember how it was four years ago? You know when Bush Jr left office with a banking system in collapse, banks refusing ANY loans, Foreclosures at a maximum, a failing car industry, dealing with the threat of Osama Bin Laden, over 200,000 troops fighting two foreign wars, over 750,000 jobs lost every month and a debt created by tax breaks that weren't funded?!

And you complain about the cost of gas?!?

Can you imagine what an up hill struggle ANY President might have considering how the rest of the world has also gone through the same hell? Obama might hated by Tea Partiers and might not be the left's darling, but he's been a success in what he's achieved. DADT and equality pay for women in work. He's cut hundreds of thousands from the government workforce, suggested streamlining government agencies, tried to get bipartisan agreement about our debt ceiling, oh yes Osama Bin Laden was dispatched on his watch and didn't let him slip through his fingers like Bush did.

Seriously Marcus, when was the last time the Dems even offered up a budget? They didn't when they held both the House and Senate, get real. Obama has done nothing but divide this country more and people know it. By the way here's Barney Frank, the darling of people like you and Robert...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA&feature=related

If you believe the unemployment numbers are fact you are way beyond hope but I bet the kool-aid tasted good.

Bill C: Barney Frank was The Chairman of the House Finances Committee from 2007 to 2001. George W Bush was President 2001 - 2009. Tell me how President Obama divided the country? I think you'll find that Bush and his policies did more to hurt this country than anyone. It didn't just all happen in 2008. And as for Kool Aid, the drink is great but much weaker than the type drunk by the Tea Party and fellow GOPers.. That's working a treat as demonstrated by your reply.

Brian - don't get me wrong..... I really do think that Ron Paul would make an interesting President. At least he's different than Obama, Bush Junior, and everyone else. I sometimes chuckle when people attack Bush for this, or Obama for that, when there's really not too much of a difference between the whole lot of 'em. If Ron Paul is on the ballot, I'll vote for him, but he still ain't gonna win. The Dems and GOPs would never allow it..... they're all just a bunch of various peas in one big, fat, bloated pod.

tax avoidance is not a sin or a right - its the law

since money is considered as speach - the biggest bankroll speeks loudest

there is no one party that can honestly represent a group of people - its only done with lies and deception - some say thats the devil.

Fox news just doesn't like facts. Real facts spoil the fun, whereas opinions from the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, are great fun for the Tea Party.

Didn't read any other comments on this thread except the last two. Must say, "touche" to True Freedom's last sentence. Not a fan of any of the news programs but they are all indeed very one sided and will use a part of whatever "fact", statement of comment they can to either validate or denigrate a point of view.The sooner we all realize there is no one right or wrong, the sooner we will achieve the true liberty we all supposedly seek.

Fox news is not reputable news organization. In fact, they twist the truth so much so that they are prevented from broadcasting in Canada because of the country's Radio Act that states "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." In other words, Fox News is illegal in Canada, think about what that says in terms of the average GOP mindset that looks at the organization as a source of unbiased news coverage. "Fair and Balanced" more like "Lies and Distortions."

When Fox successfully appealed in Florida ten years ago, the case determined that there is 'no rule against distorting and falsifying the news in the United States." This has to be one reason Canada bans Fox news.

This page started out announcing Gingrich in a visit to Pasadena. Wow. How a week can be a long time in politics?! If Santorum is a front runner, who's next week?

Fox is light years ahead of the stupidity you hear from the left reagrdless of the instances when they're off base.

Canada? Really? Bah, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!! Canada.

Sorry to disappoint you but Wikipedia is only partially correct, Fox News is not allowed to broadcast from inside of Canada, they broadcast in the US. and are aired in Canada. Also, when aired on Canadian airwaves the cable companies providing FOX News programming must still abide by the country's regulatory standards, which attempt to limit the ownership of multiple airways by one single corporation, such as one company having an FM, AM and Television stations in one market. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/pb2008-4.htm

By the way, we had the same kind of laws in the US, known as the Fairness Doctrine of 1949. However, thanks to the efforts of the Reagan administration, it was repealed. "The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair," according to the Museum of Broadcast Communications, read more here: http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=fairnessdoct

Strange how after more than 30 years of Reagan repealing the Fairness Doctrine, which required balanced and fair reporting, the man behind the Iran-contra affair, South American death squads and the arming dictators, such as Sadam Hussein is considered one of the GOP's greatest heroes. @Ian Really? You laugh at Canadians? I have you seen how high they rank in the quality of life index compared to us?
By the way, I'm not a democrat, I lean more toward Libertarian governmental ideals, which don't include religious zealotry, corporate interests or abridging women's rights.

I just feel that our personal liberties have been sacrificed for the sake of a big business and corporate freedoms, which are not tantamount to individual freedoms and rights.

This thread sure brings out the leftist trolls. Some are not capable of separating Fox News opinion programs like Bill O'Reilly and Hannity from Fox News regular news programs. Fox unlike MSM didn't give Barack Obama a complete pass back in 2007 / 2008 like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, N.Y. Times, L.A. Times, etc and the rest of MSM.

FYI: "Fast and Furious" had nothing to do with the DOJ during the Bush administration. Your confused with "Operation Gun Runner" that was established by the DOJ during the Bush administration. It was a multi international law enforcement operation including Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Mexico and many other nations. It was killed by the Bush admin as soon as they found they lost track of weapons once they were inside Mexico. The Obama administration tried to do it again without the help of international law enforcement and it was called "Operation Fast and Furious." It led to supplying the Mexican drug cartel with over a thousand weapons and the death of a U.S. federal agent and who knows how many other Americans ? The MSM has refused to cover the story because it shows that Obama has surrounded himself with incompetent fools like Eric Holder who has a racist chip on his shoulder.

In defense of Fox News, I doubt you will ever see a Fox News correspondent openly giving the Obama bump on live television like we saw this past weekend on CNN.

CNN journalists high-five, share “Obama bump” openly on air
Noel Sheppard for NewsBusters relates the story of overt political partisanship displayed openly on air by CNN activists—oops, I mean “journalists”:

After CNN’s Soledad O’Brien took some heat a few weeks ago for accepting a high five from Roland Martin as congratulations for skewering Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, you’d think she be careful not to demonstrate such overt partisanship while on the air.

Apparently not, for during CNN’s broadcast of Whitney Houston’s funeral Saturday, O’Brien and Piers Morgan “Obama bumped” singer Roberta Flack. . . .

Before breaking for a commercial, Jackson got up to shake Morgan and O’Brien’s hands saying, “We’re going to the cemetery.”

Flack then held out her fist saying, “Let’s have an Obama bump here.”

Morgan and O’Brien obliged with the latter saying, “Absolutely.”
http://americanvisionnews.com/1912/cnn-journalists-high-five-share-obama-bump-openly-on-air

Hey Ken Camp, you're not even close with your assertion that Fast and Furious was started under Bush. That's just more leftist crap. The Gunrunner Program was under Bush but the difference with that program and Fast and Furious was that straw purchasers were arrested immediatley after making their weapon buys, those guns weren't alowed to float on down to Mexico and into the hands of cartel members. Nice try at rewriting history that's already been debunked.

I don't watch Hannity very much Marcus, it's on at the same time as Family Feud. I actually can investigate and read without anyone's input on any show. You hear things on Fox you never hear on the leftist stations, including ABC, NBC and CBS. A person can actually check things out and make an informed decision using many sources, left and right. You should try it.

Hey Reza, you don't think this administration is trampling on your rights? As for who are held up as icons by either party, there's lots that never should have been.

I found it amusing that someone used "We Fox isn't allowed to broadcast in Canada" as some kind of litmus test of the validity of a cable news station. I also find it amusing that there are those who bemoan the one-sidedness of that one cable access news station, while at the same time, thinking that stations like MSNObama, CNN, and the three networks are the ones who are fair and balanced.

I find it amusing that anytime someone criticizes Fox news they are automatically categorized as CNN and or MSNBC supporters. If someone is using only one of the three for their sole news source then they must have a very narrow perception of the events unfolding around them. People should gather information from as many credible sources as possible--not just political pundits and talking heads.

I agree.

Please tell Ken Camp to stop the personal attacks.

All of the cable networks are worthless. BBC is a good alternate source to find out what's going on. And they speak English.

Bill C: You hear things [on Fox] never heard on other tv stations, eh? That's true. Hannity criticizing the President over the Bin Laden hit, and saying he has a tape. Well Mr. Hannity where is it? Political punditry sucks on most channels but it stinks the most on Fox.

J.D. Gordon, a retired navy commander, writes in the Washington Times about Obama's deadly new PR firm:

The dramatic rescue of an American aid worker and her Danish colleague in Somalia by Navy commandos was a terrific encore to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan nine months ago. However, all the White House-driven publicity for both events has helped turn the once-secret SEAL Team 6 into a household term, with likely negative consequences...

The military still avoids discussion of the unit and its highly classified missions...

The one and only reason why there has been so much recent publicity on SEAL Team 6 rests with the commander in chief.

Casting aside decades of careful leadership to keep these stealth warriors out of the public eye, away from would-be revenge-seekers and assorted far-left protesters, Mr. Obama has discussed their exploits to such an extent that their mystique is largely diminished - and their identities closer to being disclosed.

Gordon sharpened his focus and characterizes Obama's unwanted publicizing of Navy Seals missions for what it is: a political ploy:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/obama_exploits_navy_seals.html#ixzz1n0QGMeRp

"Gordon sharpened his focus and characterizes Obama's unwanted publicizing of Navy Seals missions for what it is: a political ploy"..............................

Another politically motivated "much ado about nothing" assault on President Obama for his remarkable acumen and success in guiding effective "stealthy" attacks on enemy targets. If you go to this publicly available site you can read all day and night about Seal Team Six, its history, name changes, and previous missions (in lots of detail): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Special_Warfare_Development_Group

Little did I know how disasterous their deployment was under Ronald Reagan in 1983 when four Navy Seals apparently drowned in a static line drop while assaulting the great terror and military threat posed by the island of Grenada. Don't recall much outrage or calls for Presidential accountability in light of that tragic outcome.

Robert, your probably unaware and your suppose to be that under the Bush administration there were numerous special operations missions against high value Al Qaeda and Taliban targets conducted within Pakistan that were comparable to the mission that took out Bin Laden. Why are you unaware of them ? Because President Bush didn't politicized the war against Al Qaeda and he didn't jeopardize the lives and future SOP missions that would be conducted in the future for political gain. Basicaly your not suppose to know about them. You know there was something seriously wrong when Obama announced the death of Bin Laden before the after action reports were even written up and worked their way up the chain of command. I'm still a member of the military community and may I suggest that you go aboard the Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado and talk to those who belong to the SEAL community. You'll find a lot of unhappy SEAL's and their family members who don't like Obama jeopardizing their lives and their missions for political gain.

Jerry - "Because President Bush didn't politicized the war against Al Qaeda and he didn't jeopardize the lives and future SOP missions that would be conducted in the future for political gain."

Yeh, when I think of GWB I think of discretion and honesty about military matters - the fabrication of weapons threats "evidence" in Iraq; the self-serving prematurity and immaturity of "Mission Accomplished"; the exposure of clandestine CIA operative Valerie Plame as political vendetta, and the Al Qaeda recruitment poster that was Abu Ghraib "get tough on them policy."

Sad to hear so many SEALS are unhappy.

This talk of politicizing the Navy Seals might be interesting, but it doesn't add to the debate that opinion shows such as Hannity, continue to feed false information to audiences. Let's face it, Obama could save a kid from a house fire, and they would still find something to criticize.

And as for the WH politicizing this operation...? Well, he's got a long way to go to match what President Bush did with Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember the slogans? 'the War on Terror'?

To quote Churchill: The problems of victory are more agreeable than the problems of defeat, but they are no less difficult

Robert said <" Sad to hear so many SEALS are unhappy.">

I'm sure you really are.
I seriously doubt that G.W. Bush would have had to "sleep on it" before signing off on the mission. Why would he, there were already numerous missions that already took place in Pakistan by U.S. SEAL's and other American Special Forces.

Navy SEALs Launched Similar Pakistan Raid in 2006 (NewsCore) - ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- In the wake of Usama bin Laden's death, a former Pakistani intelligence officer Monday confirmed that US Navy SEALs launched a similar raid in Pakistan territory in 2006, targeting senior al Qaeda figure Ayman al Zawahiri...

Munir said yet another operation occurred in 2008 just over the Afghan border in South Waziristan,... Authority for such sovereignty-breaching operations is believed to have been given in a 2004 classified US document called "Al Qaeda Network Exord," which streamlined the approval process for the US military to act outside officially declared war zones. http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpps/news/navy-seals-launched-similar-pakistan-raid-in-2006-dpgonc-20110509-bb_13125850

Well it was classified until Obama embarrassed Pakistan by publicly announcing that Bin Laden was taken out in Pakistan.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058229/Obama-playing-golf-20-minutes-Navy-SEAL-Osama-Bin-Laden-mission.html

Just out of interest, were you pleased that Bin Laden was a successful operation?

Marcus, I was quite pleased that "we" nailed bin Laden, however, I didn't nail him, and neither did Obama. What I find so fascinating about that raid, is that our wonderful Vice President was not furious about it.

On January 12, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Joseph Biden (Delaware), informed United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Bush Administration did not have the authority to send US troops on cross-border raids. Biden said, "I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that. I just want to set that marker."

Biden is such a stinking pile of sh*t.

Ian & Jerry A: You're right: neither of us 'nailed' Obama. But who sanctioned the operation? Who made sure we still continued the search for Bin Laden? Obama did. Not Bush. In fact, Bush is on record as saying 'he doesn't think about him much now' - a short time after 911. This is stunning coming from a man who sent troops into Afghanistan, Iraq because we were 'so threatened'. In the end, our military do tough an unpleasant work to defend the US.

But it is our leaders who are responsible - not the service personnel. If it goes wrong, leaders shoulder the blame, not the troops. President Carter discovered that after the failed rescue of hostages in the Iran Embassy fiasco. He ordered the mission. He had to face the music. However, if a President did the right thing...i.e made sure we stop the reason for 911..... then he should be given the respect. Obama didn't give up. He's a President who prefers diplomacy but not when it comes to the defence of our nation.

So your comments about the politicization of the Bin Laden operation seem 'beside the point'. Bin Laden was killed and so we should thank everyone from the Commander in Chief down to the Navy Seals and be done with it.

Your reference to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind behind the attacks on 911 is misleading.

Have you not forgotten that Bin Laden was the head of Al Qaeda which was responsible for the attacks? Are you trying to rewrite history here? KSM and his men might have done the dirty work, but Bin Laden was the architect of the whole plan. Wow, you really don't want to give our President any credit, do you?

Ps: As for FDR, you are right. FDR did not invade Iwo Jima. Nor did he fight against the Germans in Europe. But he was the President and will always be connected with the leadership that stopped World War II. Remember, before the attack at Pearl Harbor, he was the only person in US politics warning America of the dangers of Hitler and Fascism. The mood of the nation as was also Congress etc, was to avoid going to war. They Britain being hammered by the Luftwaffe and saw an imminent collapse of Europe. Even the Ambassador to the UK, JFK's father, warned FDR that supporting the British against the Germans was a mistake. The US was a major factor why WWII was a success, but it could only have happened with strong leadership.

Marcus, you said that Obama didn't give up as if G.W. Bush did give up which is a lie. You are just not in a position to know what operations were taking place against Al Qaeda during the eight years of the Bush administration. Like I'll say again, Bush didn't politicized the war against Al Qaeda. For national security reasons, you aren't suppose to know, get it ? It wasn't Bush's war but all of America's war against Al Qaeda. It was Obama and the liberals who has divided this country. It's Obama who keeps using the Navy SEAL's for political gain. You should take a closer look at our military after three years of Obama. Over 1/5th the navy's ships can't put to sea and fight. Our navy ships are actually falling apart under Obama's command. At times 50 % of the aircraft on deployed aircraft carriers can't fly do to the lack of spare parts. Military aircraft can't fly training missions due to the lack of fuel and spare parts. Morale among the troops have plummeted under Obama's command. Our military is very close to becoming a hollow force. After Obama's cuts on defense spending kicks in, we are likely to have a second rate military. Obama has actually dumbed down our officers corps in the name of political correctness and social engineering. Obama is a national security threat. FYI: 6,000 Al Qaeda fighters were killed in Iraq during the war.

Guess what Jerry A?! Obama will win his next term. The country won't believe your right wing rhetoric. Bush did give up on Bin Laden once he got his true goal: Iraq.

And as for your assessment for our country's Naval capability: FYI: The Defense budget has been cut by a staggering $5 billion, down to 525 billion, with the likely hood that it will increase another 20 billion in 2014. Hardly a hollow force.

And as for the phrases such as "navy ships are falling apart", "second rate military", "dumbed down", "[morale] plummeted"; these are purely anecdotal at best and rhetoric at worst.

I understand you might not vote for Obama, but suggesting he is a national security threat is ridiculous.

The left is so weak it's a laugh just hearing them speak and reading their posts. I watched a little bit of Rachel Maddow yesterday and she was talking about Frank Luntz who is a Republican strategist, does polling, consulting and specializes in the use of language. Now Democrats have these same types of people which is fine, but the gossip queen Maddow, and that's all she is, was all in a dither over a comment Luntz made at I believe a Santorum function. He told the crowd he had a Run Obama Run bumper sticker on the front bumper of his car, not the rear.
Of course Rachel spouted off that this meant Luntz wanted to run Obama down and kill him, not run him out of the White House which was the obvious. That's why the liberal stations get such horrible ratings, nobody in their right mind trusts the like of Matthews, Sharpton, Olberman, Maddow or Schultz.

LOL The delusions of the right never cease to amaze me! OF COURSE a "Run Obama Run" bumper sticker on the front of the car is a joke on running down the prez. Hardy har har. Just like when Palin was using crosshair target symbols on her maps of Democratic districts but then backpedaled when Giffords (a recipient of a crosshair symbol) was shot in the head, prompting the very butch Tammy Bruce to declare that the symbols weren't crosshairs at all, but "architectural symbols." Gosh, I wonder how many believed that one? Hardy har har.

I sure as heck won't be voting for Obama, but I am certain he is going to win a second term. I'll even go as far as betting anyone a strawberry donunt from Donut Man that Obama will win.

Ken wants to know how many believed that one ? Probably as many who believed that Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house." According to a Zogby poll of those who voted for Obama in November of 2008, 86.9 % of those who voted for Obama thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!! Palin said that "you can see Russia from Alaska." Liberals still find that hard to believe. But you know how liberals think, if it's on the internet, it must be true. If it's on Saturday Night Live, it must be true. If a light rail train maintenance yard isn't allowed to be built in Monrovia that it must be true that the Gold Line will never be built.

The hate speech of liberals has always been more disgusting than anything conservatives come up with. While they waste their time on trying to be funny, hip or edgy what you don't see from them is a serious attempt to defend Obama's record. If Obama gets four more years I can only hope conservatives obstruct him as much as possible while he attempts to turn this nation into another European mess.

On another note it's frustrating that I have to sign into this site everytime I make a post if I leave my computer for even a short time.

Marcus, I guess we are just spending to much money on defense, Obama believes so.

The U.S. Navy’s ship and sub fleet seems to be in rough shape according to lawmakers and Navy officials. Lean management and staffing techniques aimed at doing more for less money have taken their toll on the fleet, leaving 22-percent of Navy vessels with a degraded ability to serve in the first half of 2011; 24-percent of the fleet was in similar straights last year. In 2009, that number was 12-percen
http://forbes.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/HighResolution/97394849-f95e-45ad-9ddf-7c045ee4b9da.jpg

In fact, roughly 40 to 50-percent of Navy ships aren’t mission capable due to at least one piece of onboard “mission essential” equipment failing. Mission essential equipment “could include anti-air defenses, radar, satellite communications, or engines,” according to the office of Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes. http://forbes.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/HighResolution/a91add9b-d57e-4a67-951a-b15d9fffc3c2.jpg

Meanwhile, naval aviation is also missing deployment ready goals due to aircraft maintenance issues. http://forbes.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/HighResolution/e3af8ef0-594d-4bd9-a3d3-935feced40c4.jpg

Navigio, the only reason I responded to your post, you mentioned public education and you used a couple of links to Wikipedia. You might remember some years ago their was a debate going on if teachers should be using Wikipedia in the classroom or encourage students to use Wikipedia. I didn't follow the debate so I don't know what the final conclusion was. My personal opinion is that I hope Wikipedia isn't being used in the classroom. Any ways, have a good one Navigio.

Navigio, I think in about twenty years Wikipedia will be a reliable source for information. You have probably noticed that some entries in Wikipedia are locked and protected from being edited except by administrators. You'll normally see a pad lock at the top of the page. What led to that was Barack Obama's bio in Wikipedia. Anyone who used Wikipedia back in 2008 and 2009 when looking up Obama, who knows what they read ? I use to get a kick out of reading the daily edits that were taking place. Obama was born in Kenya was typical but so was born in Mongolia and Mars. And it would stay up for days before someone came around to reedit the article. If your a member of the Wiki community there is a forum where member debate the accuracy of entries made in Wikipedia. There have been some good ones that have been written in Wikipedia and it was obvious that it was all crap but stayed up for months before being reedited and brought up to being factual. Personally I try not using Wikipedia as a link to back up something I have said unless I'm lazy. But debating if Wikipedia should be used in the classroom would be a good debate.

Montey Washington, I concur with every thing you said about our Constitution and national defense. You seem to be one of the few who has actually read the Constitution and able to comprehend the intent of the Constitution. And you have observed the mistakes made in the past when massive cuts were made on our military. It's cheaper to maintain a strong military than to have to rebuild the military after discovering we have a hollow military force. I remember not so long ago when defense spending was 60 % of the national budget. Back then nobody complained because back then both the Democrats and Republicans were in lock step of keeping the peace through having a strong military. Peace through strength. It prevented nuclear W W lll.

Strong defense isn't just about how many tanks, ships, missles we have. It's about strong leadership who know when and when not to act. Jerry A and Monty have a right to say what they think, but I think their posturing is aggressive war mongering speech. Yes to strong defense but not at 60%+ levels.

Who's going to pay for all this? Have you not noticed we are going through a recession?!?

Revisionist history Marcus. JFK made a secret deal with Kruezhev to remove NATO missiles that were stationed in Turkey in return Kruschev would remove his missiles from Cuba. This was Kruschev's agenda in the beginning of deploying Soviet MRBM's in Cuba. Part of the deal was that the Soviets would keep the the deal a secret. It was kept a secret for a couple of decades. Do your own research.

In the early 1960's former President Eisenhower WARNED JFK not to get involved with South Vietnam, that the South Vietnamese government was to corrupt. Most of the Generals and Admirals told JFK the same thing. JFK usually rejected the advice of his elders and relied on those he surrounded himself with known as the "Young and Brightest", mostly Harvard grads. JFK disregarded the advice of his elders and signed off on the CIA backed military coups to remove RSVN President Diem from power. Unfortunately the military coups turned out to be the murder of Diem and his brother. From that day on America owned South Vietnam, it became our problem because JFK rejected the advice of those who knew better and only listened to his "The Young and Brightest."

Do you want to know the truth about the Bay of Pigs, when JFK ignored President Esienhower advice and warnings ? Or why the Berlin wall went up ?

The Soviet Union looked upon JFK as a weak and inexperianced President, which he was. But the Kennedy family has established a well organise machine to protect the image of JFK.

From Ken Camp: Bill C wrote: "Better the words "liberty" and "freedom" than the word Nazi that you seem to favor Ken."
I used that word only once, I believe. And I also believe that was in an entirely different Patch, so readers here won't know what you are talking about.

Oh I think they do. So I guessed you've used it without even seeing the word, pretty good these intuitive skills of mine.
You're right though Ken, the term you used was swatsika and nobody associates that symnol with Nazis, silly me for reading between the lines. You don't have to mention Afghanistan for me to mention it, when did you get the idea you make the rules as to what others post? Oh wait, you're a off the far left edge liberal and the only guy in the country that never watches the major stations. More bs Ken and lots of it. That's easy enough to tell though with your claim in this gem... "Reminds me of all the military-obsessed kids I knew in high school. Every one of them wound up with a swastika in the closet, duh". Every one of them huh? Pretty funny stuff and to have to retreat to an obvious lie to make a point is pretty much s.o.p. for people who think like you. I'm not surprised and trust me, never emotional about what leftists post on line. The left is all emotion based, always has been.

"Duh" was a good way to end such a mindless pathetic post but I'll give you props for being consistent.

Here's a question for you Robert, do you seriously believe number 5, disarmament, in the manner Eisenhower spoke of it can be achieved at this time?

Ken Camp: Geez, all this obsession with detail regarding our military and the like . . . sounds like a fanatic, duh?

In your wotld is it better just to wing it Ken and not pay attention to detail or have an interest of some type that you study and know? That type of attention to detail makes someone a fanatic? Seems what you're sayin is detail and facts are the undoing of guys like you who try to get by on a punch line.

Bill - "Here's a question for you Robert, do you seriously believe number 5, disarmament, in the manner Eisenhower spoke of it can be achieved at this time?"

I have written a rather long piece about the all volunteer army, it might wind up on Patch, and here is a taste of my beliefs:

"As an American citizen, I am certainly aware of the point of view that represents war as a regrettable necessity in an imperfect world. I would not argue that the flawed and aggressive history of mankind has not been steeped in war, but I would never celebrate any of the so called virtues of war without first acknowledging that at its core, no matter what the cause or justification, war represents not the greatest test and virtue of mankind, but its greatest failure. That being said, I would also never advocate for the unilateral disarmament of our nation, which must, after all, and despite its best inclinations, exist in a world that largely rejects my premise, celebrates military prowess, and tends to war at will.

Why would I need "another gun" Ken? You afraid of them because of what ownership of one represents to many on the left? I do have friends on the left that own them though, weird huh? Get proficient with one Ken, won't do you any harm and better to not need one and have it...

Robert, I don't think you really understood what Esienhower was saying. The "military complex" was something new, Esienhower and America weren't sure where it would lead us too. That's why he warned America. In fact the military complex would create a strong middle class and some of the most prosperous times in America's history. NASA was part of the military complex. The construction of the Interstate Highway System officially known as the National Defense Highway System was part of the industrial complex. The internet was created for the U.S. Air Force so they could communicate to ICBM missile silos during a nuclear war. If it wasn't for the Vietnam war we wouldn't be having this discussion today because the internet as we know it today couldn't have been created. The cordless drill to that cell phone of yours would have never been invented without the military complex. Even the Boeing 747 owes it's creation by losing a military contract to Lockheed who won the contact for the C-5A transport plane. Boeing decided to put seats and add windows to their air force transport plane. Satellite communications, GPS, turbine engines that generates your electricity, all were created because of the military complex.

Robert, I think you take for granted what you see around you. In reality the military complex was a complete success. Back in the days when the military complex was at it's peak, even the milk man or a labor digging ditches could buy a house.

Jerry, I have no idea how you can read that speech and essentially ignore the WARNING. I think this is typical of military oriented thinkers, just too narrow a pov.....

1 - "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful goals.....

2 - "America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we...Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment.

I mean he would literally be shot at dawn by each of the current Republican candidates for uttering the #2 part of that speech above.

President Eisenhower did not warn of the value of the military, after all he was a General and had successfully won campaigns in WWII. He was meaning how the 'military complex' could be so intrusive into American way of life that it might resemble the fascist countries that he and the Allies fought to stop. Military complex does not mean corporations making a buck out of selling equipment, he meant the military complex that ran and determined our future by controlling Government. In power he even sought to control the outrageous spending that these military companies were making off the backs of the American people. He wanted oversight and accountability, not an open check book.

Btw, NASA is a defense agency but clearly has civilian objectives. It was once the biggest government employer in the 60's, but it got America on the moon before anyone else. An incredible achievement. But that only happened because a President had the vision to do it. That's right JFK. Remember him? We were so embarrassed by the Soviets in the space race, that we had to beat them. Rightly or wrongly we did it. Armstrong stepped on the Moon in 1969.

The 'internet was created by the US Air Force....'. Jerry A, please be clearer with this broad stroke of a statement. This is not clear nor accurate and I'm sure you'd agree, would demand a whole book on the subject to make both of us happy. And btw, I'm not saying Gore invented the internet....again, that would be misinformation.

JFK will always be looked on as President who marked a change. Failures such as the Bay of Pigs, and his dealings with Khruschev would be measured against his successes with dealing with domestic politics. He spearheaded civil rights, and like I said before started the NASA's race to the moon. He was in power from 1961 to 63.

Again, which President really impressed you and why? And I mean one that has affected life in the last forty or so years?

Jerry A: Of course I take a different political view. In fact, I look at most Presidents with mixed feelings. I don't think there is a winner to be honest. However, Obama gets my vote for being the first Black President. Remember, the idea of this forty years ago was sheer fantasy.

Nixon shamed a whole country with the Watergate affair. Ford doesn't register much though its unforgivable that he pardoned Nixon. Carter was a nice guy but weak in office but turned out to be a better diplomat out of office. Reagan faced off with the Soviets, but also grew the deficit with unwarranted military spending. There was also the Iran Contra affair, covert operations in south America and with bin Laden too. And the trickle down theory was introduced which even today is a fallacy. JFK was an interesting President who never got to be judged for the entire term. He had mixed international success, spearheaded civil rights, and got the space program on a rocket ride to success. And yes he dodged the cuban missile crisis. As for Clinton, well he's probably the brightest President we've ever had, but that didn't always mean success. Failed healthcare was one. But his Presidency stood up to the bullying from Congress even though he paid the price with his affair. It was also the only time in recent memory that the economy grew at incredible rates and where everyone in america benefited. Life was good.
Bush Sr failed by raising taxes, though did do the right thing by going into Kuwait.

Now I know there's an opportunity to write more to prove me wrong, or show links from some obtuse website proving this that and the other, but for now this is my brief opinion.

Right now the middle class in the country are being bombarded with the knowledge that America is slowing limping out of recovery. And like a wounded fighter, beaten down in the fifth round, he'll stand up and recover. But we have to learn from this.

We can't ignore the fact that the banks led us astray. Yes people took out mortgages they shouldn't have, but the mood was 'live and let live'. Banks were allowed to do what they wanted. The middle class are now losing their homes, working for less money, longer hours while the banks and the hedge funds live in luxury. Sure some are losing thousands of jobs, but the heads of the Wall street still hold all that credit we so need to spend to get this country going.

We don't need more military spending. We need more people spending. That's what happened in the 50's. And that's what should happen again now. Maybe we should have a Eisenhoweresque national rebuilding policy? I don't know, but we can't let the banks call the shots.

Monty: "We on the right have an advantage in that when we go to college..."

WE on the right...?! Please!! You really don't need to lecture me on how to debate my point of view. You either agree or not. Give your views, opinions and facts and we'll move on. You don't speak for everyone on the right. Not everyone on the right went to college. Your assumption that the right has 'an advantage at college' because you have to listen to the other side, is arrogant and condescending. The left and center do the same and so get used to it.

As for the Presidency list: these are my opinions in an overview. I can get into each one if you like, but it was meant to be how I see each President. The devil is in the details as they say, but Clinton is seen as a success even with the affair marring his two terms.

You mention checking out the other point of view. Well this was why this thread grew, because Sean Hannity made this bold statement that he had tape that showed that the President didn't want to find Bin Laden. But Hannity doesn't have a tape and was just appealing to his base and lied. So I do look at the other side. As you can see, I responded to that. Do you have the tape? Have you seen it? Again....facts....

Anyone who supports the left and this useless president is only doing so because of their hatred of the right, at least that's how I see it. I'd love to see this president, whose in love with alternate energy sources, come up with an actual energy policy that allows for the development of such alternate energies without sabotaging our needs now. That is exactly what this administration is doing so we keep looking outside for the needs we could be meeting, at least way more than we are now, by using domestic sources. The left as represented here seems more involved in what Hannity might say next than the actual improvement of our nation as a whole.

Opinion is so subjective. One says useless, another might say inspiring. In the end, its debate on ideas. I've been in situations where I've been dominated by far left thinking, and far right thinking, so speaking freely can be problematic. In the end, we have our views formed by what we see and understand.

That's why I got was so exasperated with Hannity. "Ok, ok, we hear you. YOU KNOW that the President wasn't bothered about getting Bin Laden AND you have him on tape saying so. Amazing. America needs to hear this. So why not play it? No?? Why not? It doesn't exist. He lied So why should I trust his opinion. The same goes with Limbaugh, who constantly throws mud as well. Now you see why people on the left are so skeptical? (Of course I'm sure you'd say the same about the left too!) If more on the right used facts and evidence then the opinion might be taken seriously.

Before I sign off on this thread, and move onto commenting about zoning, best pizzas, how to deal with acne or the development of Eagle rock instead, I will say this. We will never agree about Obama. He represents a change that is out of your control. A President sits in the center, much to the Progressives chagrin. For the right? Well, I do hope one day when he runs into a house on fire, rescues a child, and they escape alive, you give him some credit. (Of course I use that as an analogy)

And conservatives don't live in a fantasy world? Oh yes, I think they do.

Obama isn't about change, he's always been a Chicago thug politician and he's acted no differently in the White House. Keep wearing those blinders Marcus.

President Obama - a Chicago thug politician?! Which planet are you on? This is hilarious!

Let me switch on the klaxon! Any ER conservatives out there? Help him right wing buddies. Run to his aid. He needs support here. He needs facts and lots of opinion, otherwise he's going to look like an -------!

"I think they do."-Marcus

The thing is, you just got done telling us that opinions are irrelevant. "One says useless, another might say inspiring." Then you mutter something about debate on ideas. We can't even agree on facts- and I notice that while your debaters here present facts (which you could dispute or disprove, but really have not done so), they seem to be making arguments while you mockingly chide like a schoolboy. I think I know which 'opinion' carries more weight when tested and which argument I find more convincing.

Thanks for being the foil to proving our point. Best to you, Marcus!

I was getting a little bored with you guys but this is great material. Made me smile from ear to ear. Bringing out the old topic Saul Alinsky is just the cherry on the cake. Of course I'll respond in due course.

When you call the President a thug, I have to react in a mocking way. Your description of this man is just plain wrong. Whereas a thug uses aggression, violence and intimidation, Barack Obama has shown to be an educated man; a man who graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard, was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, has a successful marriage and great kids family background and a man who was very successful in Chicago politics.

Chicago has had a reputation of corruption that's for sure. But I ask you where has the evidence that Barack Obama intimidated his point of view? Where is the evidence that he is corrupt? Like Hannity and the infamous 'non tape' - it doesn't exist. I'm not saying that Obama doesn't have meetings behind closed doors and agreements are made, but lets be fair, politicians on both sides of the party do the same. But do I believe he has made corrupt bargains? No. If you do think so, say it.

You mention Saul Alinsky like Gingrich uses him. Saul Alinsky was a man who grew up in the depths of poverty and strove to make a difference. He was a community organizer. He wasn't a communist, but more of a non socialist left leaning thinker and activist. He got people to vote. He worked in african american communities after full on race riots. He worked with people with all manner of ideologies, but shared a common community spirit. He died in 1972 when Obama was a young kid. Now here's the interesting thing....

So why does the right use Alinsky against Obama? because they have to make him out to be a socialist and that's a cheap shot at doing so, that is, smearing a dead man who cannot defend himself.

Now I didn't write this for my right wing voices here, but more for those interested in hearing something other than a FOX talking point again.

Marcus, all you had to do was ask and I would have saved you a lot of time Googling.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20(2).pdf

When the president, any president, says screw congress and the rules I'll do what i want he's acting as a thug. Obama has done this. When a president's justice dept drops a case against people engaged in voter intimidation he's giving a wink and a nod to such thug behavior. Obama's justice dept has done this. When a president has a speaker warming up the crowd before he speaks and the speaker uses the term, "Let's take these son of a bitches out" while talking about those politically against the president and when he gets up the president says nothing makes my point as well and there are more examples. There is nothing about Obama that warrants a second term, nothing.

Hey, speaking of local political thugs....What has Jose Huizar been up to in redistricting and carving up Highland Park lately? Any word on his new alliance with Carmen "I am a Liar" Trutanich and his attack on medical marijuana patients? Will the Jose-bag declare his new love for his racially gerrymandered district (plus all those alluring downtown building and safety consulting contracts for his aides) or run to replace his other new love, Carmen?

But seriously folks,, just checking in on Monty, and Bill C. and Jerry A for.....awesomely nice guy, right?... and reading their anonymous, nonsensical right-wingding cut-and paste attacks has been a great feature of this thread.

Keep up the great work, Gingrich supporters! And remember, you can always vote for Santorum if he has any prayer of God's special and preferential provenance at the convention. Amen.

"Whereas a thug uses aggression, violence and intimidation, Barack Obama has shown to be an educated man; a man who graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard,... and a man who was very successful in Chicago politics."

Well now, I believe logic says that at best might make him an educated thug, but a thug none-the-less. It's certainly not dispositive in the way you'd like it to be.

Over 70% of the population believes the individual mandate is unconstitutional, yet it was imposed with a late night jam down in the senate of a bill no one read. That's a bit thuggish, no? Obama's declarations that if the congress will not act, he will act (presumably through executive fiat via regulation), completely against the spirit of our governmental structure that makes our representatives the makers of law. The decree that he will kindly give the Catholic Church one year to figure out how to come to terms with violating their consciences by paying for abortions (which is what abortifacients are for) and birth control is pretty thuggish, I think, as it brazenly oversteps the bounds of the Constitution and the first right enumerated in the first amendment- freedom of religion. Deciding that we need more expensive gasoline and gas to force electricity costs and fuel costs higher so we would 'see the light' ( http://tinyurl.com/dfyqof ) and get on board with alternative energy, whether or not we're ready... The thuggishness goes on and on.

So Mr. Obama is not a socialist then? Is that what you're saying Marcus? By the way, is that a bad word, or a derogatory label in your view? There are entire political parties in Europe that are socialist- most of the left of center parties, in fact. Mr. Obama's political ideology seems to dovetail in quite nicely with them. He wants European style government run healthcare- he'd prefer single payer, but this will do for now- that's an indisputably socialist position. He's enlarged the government tremendously during his term, and increased government oversight into our lives a great deal, and that too is consistent with socialist thought. To the extent that socialist is a perjorative rather than simply a point or region on a political spectrum scatter plot, it's only so in that most Americans don't want to be living in a European socialist state. Can't say I blame them, as I glance across the sea to a continent in worse economic turmoil than ours. So, why the determination to say he's not a socialist?

"...and his attack on medical marijuana patients?"

Now I get why you have the time for this, and how it's just a game for you guys.

Sorry Rob, I don't cut and paste, linked an article and a video but the words are all mine. Is it possible you're hitting the medicianal weed a bit too much? Your ridiculous comment on Europe speaks to your inability to be serious, but I can see why you're an obvious Obama groupie.

Hey Rob you sure do love the Patch, you're all over the place. Many people know who people are in Glendora but it's nice to keep a little piece of anonymity when dealing with the screwballs we have here. Not being a Glendoran I doubt you're very well versed on our city and it's history. Keep going after Huizar though, I'm sure you'll get a lot of results for your efforts.

Bill, Bill, Bill. Read the Economist back issues since before the Euro and get back to me. Unless you want to also claim Maggie Thatcher as a European socialist, you need to at least know who Sarkozy and Merkel are, and what politics - Conservative - they represent. Also I have no idea, other than recognizing that he is neither socialist nor thug, what makes me an Obama groupie. He, like Clinton, is a little too moderate for me. (See what I mean about cut-and-paste? "Obama Groupie," "European Socialist," "Saul Alinsky," "Chicago Thug" - all from the Karl Rove/Fox News playbook. Which reminds me this subject is going on several hundred posts long, if you want to start bringing anything but right-wing brain-freeze, now's a good time to start.)

Finally, on the subject medical marijuana, it is clearly a lot better for the brain than alcohol - see that angry, damaged, dry-drunk George W. Bush. But really, let's keep talking about Obamneycare, Santorum's attacks on women, and the inspired lunacy (literally!) that is Newt's continued campaign. There's plenty of time later to remember the WMD lies, Dick Cheney, and the Republicans trashing the U.S. economy with their wall street buddies under Bush. Thank you Republicans!