First of all, you cannot continually eat MREs as eventually you will have some medical problems from them. Don't get me wrong, they are good and have everything you need to survive...but a continuous diet of them will lock you up tighter than a misers purse.

Now a while back the military did have cooks and equipment to do their jobs and the military still does have that to a limited degree. So why aren't they being used there? Because during the 1990s, there was a large downsizing of the military including personnel, equipment and posts.

Later, we had to pay the price for that downsizing by having to pay contractors to do the work, by having to offer outrageous bonuses to get military people to reup during a wartime situation and by having to invest large funds to quickly equip soldiers with equipment they should have already had.

If you want to keep your military ready and not have to pay ridiculous costs when they have to deploy, you have to keep them ready during peacetime. Simple as that. Until we learn that lesson, we will continue to have problems similar to what we have now.

Prepare for war while at peace.

Let them sink or swim. That's what the rest of us have to do on a daily basis. So if they can't make the mortgage payment they set up, let them lose their house and just start renting.

Isn't that what those of us who "make too much money" would have to do if WE got foreclosed on???

Equal treatment for ALL!

Um, NO. So who cares? I sure don't...because I don't have to sleep with her.

Not going to happen.

BTW, there are a LOT of people who have contempt for THIS Congress.

makes one wonder how Obama intends to cut back the military as well.

After Stimulus Package, Pentagon Officials Are Preparing to Pare Back

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18defense.html?ref=politics

for bringing the troops home. They are just switching from Iraq to Afghanistan...and then possibly to either Pakistan or Iran, I guess.

Putting Stamp on Afghan War, Obama Will Send 17,000 Troops

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/washington/18web-troops.html?ref=politics

from the NY times. Pelosi will either have to listen to what the Pope said...OR she will have to stop saying she's an "ardent Catholic". You cannot be an ardent Catholic and then ignore the teachings of the church, as instructed by the head of the church!

Visiting Pope, Pelosi Hears a Call to Protect Life

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/us/19pelosi.html?ref=politics

"Give the Democrats their chance to totally screw things up. You know they will. Let 'em have it! In a few years the country will forget how badly you guys screwed it up when you were in charge, and give control back to you. Wait your damned turn!"

Ironically, we agree...except that I find ALL the politicians in DC distasteful simply because they are more interesting in what they can get for themselves or are simply too wimpy to go against the tide and fight for what they believe in.

I've rarely met a politician that could give a good tinkers damn about, really.

Yeah, Ed Shultz - on a whole 100 radio stations. Ok.

"I guess you only read AP when they're linked by World Net Daily, hunh?"

Not really. I actually look at the LA times, SFGate, the NY Times and a few others as well. The point is, when someone tells the truth, you shouldn't ignore it, no matter where it comes from. Of course you should suspect it, until verified by other sources.

Doing research would require too much work for poor alex.

"Don't tell me that progressive radio can't draw. Just look at the election results to see the market."

Really? Then why is Air America and every other liberal (why call it "progressive" when liberal is what you really mean?) radio station either struggling or has failed?

Analysis: Democrats self-destructing over ethics

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j44ku9zUM9IEdkkoWbIYStDVE6SwD96EH4JO0

While I agree with you, I doubt any here will listen unless you find it in the LA Times or some such.

Even if hard evidence was given with the article, there are those here who would disregard all of it because it was in "one of those conservative papers...and you know how THEY are".

I myself try to get information from a number of places...but most here will only look in the locations they agree with.

in which people don't like Obama's plan. Of course this is just CNBC...which MUST be one of those lousy inaccurate conservative sites.

Santelli's Chicago Tea Party

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

of whether or not President Obama wants the Fairness Doctrine reinstated, there ARE those in Congress who do want it back...and apparently they want it to go further by covering the internet as well. Doesn't sound like a "phantom enemy" to me.

"Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes."

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/16/in-all-fairness