talk about snowball

[kimba1]

does anyone here think this issue of hobby lobby has gotten way out of hand?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The idea that an artificial entity can have a religion is ridiculous. They might as well argue that a refrigerator can be a Seventh Day Adventist and have a right to take Saturdays off.

I had to get rid of my Osterizer: it became a Baptist and when it tried to baptize the toaster in the sink as I was washing dishes, it was clear I had to get rid of it. Now it is suing me.

[Plane]

Is the Democratic Party people?


This is overblown of a reason, it is a manufactured issue that the Democrats hope to use politically.


 This is so liable to blow up in their faces, Republicans are gleeful, did you see Hillary Clinton speaking of the hypothetical Hobby Lobby clerk who could no longer afford contraception? This is an insult to the intelligence , Hobby Lobby had a good insurance package previous to Obamacare and contraception was and is covered without interruption.

    Who has found a real person who is a Hobby Lobby employee and has standing to complain?


       I have not seen that, the Democrats are very hot to protect theoretical people from nonserious nonthreats.


     At some point Democrats are going to tire of having their intelligence insulted.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Both parties spend most of their time running stupid ads and campaigns.

[Plane]

Both parties spend most of their time running stupid ads and campaigns.

Bingo.

[Xavier_Onassis]

All parties insult the intelligence of the voters.
In the RMN/JFK election, someone asked if there was one single piece of "Free world" territory that was not worth fighting a major war over.
Some honest State Dept  or Defense Dept person said that the tiny Taiwanese islands of Quemoy and Matsu were indefensible as well as largely useless.

If you look at a map, you can see that this is true: both are ver close to the coast of Mainland China, and would be useless as a place from where to stage an invasion, due to all the PRC guns trained on them.

They debated this over and over, and maps of the islands never appeared in any source I read.

After the election, nothing different happened: the ROC and PRC engaged in useless salvos as before and there was no invasion attempt by anyone. The debate was  among the most useless ever to involve a presidential election.

The big deal was the "missile gap", which was fictitious. The Democrats claimed that the USSR had more missiles than the US. This was entirely untrue. The GOP refiused to reveal the truth, though surely the Russians knew the truth and the US knew the Russians knew the truth. The idea was to terrify the voters about the Russians, when the real problems were largely domestic: civil rights being the major issue.

[Plane]

All parties insult the intelligence of the voters.

Yes , I wish I knew how to get them to pay some attention to the greatest common denominator .

In the RMN/JFK election, someone asked if there was one single piece of "Free world" territory that was not worth fighting a major war over.
Some honest State Dept  or Defense Dept person said that the tiny Taiwanese islands of Quemoy and Matsu were indefensible as well as largely useless.

If you look at a map, you can see that this is true: both are ver close to the coast of Mainland China, and would be useless as a place from where to stage an invasion, due to all the PRC guns trained on them.

They debated this over and over, and maps of the islands never appeared in any source I read.

After the election, nothing different happened: the ROC and PRC engaged in useless salvos as before and there was no invasion attempt by anyone. The debate was  among the most useless ever to involve a presidential election.

The big deal was the "missile gap", which was fictitious. The Democrats claimed that the USSR had more missiles than the US. This was entirely untrue. The GOP refiused to reveal the truth, though surely the Russians knew the truth and the US knew the Russians knew the truth. The idea was to terrify the voters about the Russians, when the real problems were largely domestic: civil rights being the major issue.

   Yes , but don't hold the Russians blameless , they played their cards close to the vest and tried to project an image of strength above the reality. It took them a long time to realize that they were playing our game , doing that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I did not say the Russians were blameless.  They knew that the goal of the US was to destroy the Communist Party's role in leading the USSR.

The fact is that Nixon and Eisenhower knew there was no missile gap. The Russians knew they knew, and we knew that they knew we kenew and so on. Onlyn the American voters (and of course, the Soviet citizens)  were kept in the dark.

Everyone knew that Quemoy and Matsu were indefensible from a concentrated PRC invasion, but they also knew that conquering these tiny islands would have served no purpose to the PRC if they put forth the great effort required.

When I was a kid, they told us that  any day the Russians (never the Soviets, always the Russians) would attack the US and surely try to blow up Kansas City, because otherwise we might try to invade Russian with Chevrolets, Fords, Mercuries and Buicks. We  could save ourselves from thermonuclear  war by assuming a fetal position under our desks. 

To be fair to Liberty Public Schools, they only had is do this silly drill three times. Kids elsewhere did it on a regular basis several; times per year.
Everyone knew that  hiding under a desk is not going to save anyone. So what was the point of scaring us?

[Plane]

   Looking fierce and strong was part of the Soviet strategy, within their own borders and their sphere of influence they proclaimed the inevitability of the world becoming Communist.

   There was a lot of Soviet effort and expense to build some seriously impressive rockets, and certainly no attempt to correct anyone's overestimation.

    I think Kennedy was honest when he began to build a massive fleet of ICBMs , he really did not know that half as many would have matched the threat.

    Did the Soviet leadership know that striking fear in the American populace would be very useful to the American leadership class? They probably didn't know , I don't think that they ever understood us very well. But if they had understood us better , they might have done the same anyway, their internal focus was another reason to proclaim strength. After the way the people suffered through WWII it was very popular with the people to seem strong.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Ha Ha....a Liberal's nightmare!

A Pro-Life woman, with a Chick-Filet cup, shopping at Hobby Lobby!

[Xavier_Onassis]

It only shows that dolts like to group together and that other morons think that this is in any way making any point.

No heads will explode.

This is a facepalm moment.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think Kennedy was honest when he began to build a massive fleet of ICBMs , he really did not know that half as many would have matched the threat.

=================================================================
The CIA had accurate data on what the Soviets had. JFK may not have known this before he was elected, but after he was in office he either knew and ignored it, or was lied to, because there was no need to piddle away so much money on weapons that served no purpose.

If he was honest, he was also either stupid (because he ignored the facts) or weak (because he did not get the true information from intelligence.)

JFK was vastly overrated. He was better than Nixon, but just barely.

[Plane]

The CIA had accurate data on what the Soviets had.

I don't think so, the Soviets were proclaiming a lot of strength, why do you think the CIA knew better?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Because what the CIA knew at the time is no longer a secret. The Russians have divulged nearly everything they knew as well.
It is not clear what everyone knew and how much each side knew about the other. Only the citizens did not know.

And since people do not read, they still don't.

[Plane]

 That sounds interesting, could you point to a link or something ?