Mitt Romney's halo

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

only because other countries did the work for your country elsewhere... do you really think that Tito can do anything w/o Axis being annihilated from the East and the West ?  

That's a silly comment, sorry. Do you really thing any Allied country would be able to single-handedly defeat the Axis!?

I was talking about our territory. No other country ever entered out territory to help us defend ourselves. The exception was the in the last few months of the WW II, when Russians passed through our northern parts on their way to Berlin, and even for that they got our permission.

The Allies certainly did not do any work "for us," but for themselves. Given that we were on the same side, it certainly helped, but the same logic works in reverse too: it was easier for them as well, as we kept a fair share of German armies busy fighting us, not the Allies. As a matter of fact, as we were the first ones to stage an uprising against the Germans in 9141, that delayed their attack on Soviet Union for seven weeks (if my memory serves me well). Those seven weeks meant the Germans reached Stalingrad (and its oil supplies) seven weeks later, thus entering into the dreaded Russian winter, freezing their butts (and I mean literally). The same Russian winter that defeated Napoleon. Had Germans reached the oil fields earlier, had they captured them, I am not sure the Allies' victory would be so soon and easy (relatively speaking, of course).

[WalterEG]

The Allies certainly did not do any work "for us," but for themselves.

Nothing unusual there Slobodan.  'Twas ever thus.

[RSL]

Those seven weeks meant the Germans reached Stalingrad (and its oil supplies) seven weeks later, thus entering into the dreaded Russian winter, freezing their butts (and I mean literally). The same Russian winter that defeated Napoleon.

Hitler's strategic blunder -- one of the worst in military history -- had nothing to do with that? I'm not sure the Germans' invasion would have succeeded if that hadn't happened, certainly Charles XII's and Napoleon's experiences make it seem unlikely, but considering how close the Germans were to success before Hitler screwed up, I wouldn't rule it out.

Had Germans reached the oil fields earlier, had they captured them, I am not sure the Allies' victory would be so soon and easy (relatively speaking, of course).

Soon? Easy? You need to hit the history books, Slobodan. If the Germans had reached the oil fields earlier we might not have had a victory at all.

[RSL]

Once again you are bypassing my question. I was raising the issue of constitutionality, not strategy. Was it "constitutionally enumerated" that the definition of national defense will entail patrolling the world, having military presence in 100+ countries,  with "662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries," (that counts only those outside war zones). If it wasn't enumerated, according to your logic, it must be unconstitutional then.

What about Article 1, Section 8 don't you understand, Slobodan? It's pretty straightforward. Article 1, Section 8 also establishes post offices but doesn't say how many or how large they can be. Article 1, Section 8 allows the feds to coin money and regulate its value, but it doesn't put a limit on inflation.

But I agree with you about our overseas bases. With a few exceptions I'd love to see us turn them over to the locals. In most cases the locals hate that idea, though. Maybe instead of bitching about the size of the US military you ought to try bitching about the fact that Europe doesn't want to spend a dime to defend itself.

[Bryan Conner]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

 

Or in the words of the great Liberal One, Bill Clinton, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is."

[deejjjaaaa]

In most cases the locals hate that idea, though. Maybe instead of bitching about the size of the US military you ought to try bitching about the fact that Europe doesn't want to spend a dime to defend itself.

reducing the size of the military can be done starting w/ bases abroad w/o any regard to the Europeans... no need to bitch about them, just withdraw and that's it... they will swim then.

[deejjjaaaa]

That's a silly comment, sorry. Do you really thing any Allied country would be able to single-handedly defeat the Axis!?

but Yugoslavia/Tito/his partizans made no meaningful difference there at all... it was just a dust speckle in that picture... Allies means US/UK/Russia - everything else (French, Polish, Yugoslavian, Romanians deciding to switch sides, the same for Bulgarians...) was irrelevant to the point that outcome could be delayed by several weeks, but that's it... except may be Finns... they really mattered more because they decided not to aggravate their relations with the West and did not proceed further into Soviet territory after reclaiming what was lost pre WWII to USSR... they could tip the scale on the Eastern front, but ex officer of the Imperial Russian Army of German origin Mannerheim was too smart to do that... so didn't... so Germans were stalled in the north... Leningrad did not fall, Murmansk port was able to start getting supplies from US/UK later in the war, the road from Murmansk was not cut by Finns, but they could.

I was talking about our territory. No other country ever entered out territory to help us defend ourselves. The exception was the in the last few months of the WW II, when Russians passed through our northern parts on their way to Berlin, and even for that they got our permission.

Slobodan, you continue to ignore the fact that Tito was allowed to operate like he did just because Germans were too busy elsewhere and could only spare few forces to operate against him... so be grateful to Allies that you are alive today...

The Allies certainly did not do any work "for us," but for themselves.

Indeed, except that is where Germans were tied/destroyed... fighting in Yugoslavia was miniscule in comparison both in manpower tied there and duration

Given that we were on the same side, it certainly helped, but the same logic works in reverse too: it was easier for them as well, as we kept a fair share of German armies busy fighting us, not the Allies.

Did you bother to calculate the size of those "armies" and for how long they were busy w/ Tito...  and compare w/ size that actually were on East/West fronts...

As a matter of fact, as we were the first ones to stage an uprising against the Germans in 9141, that delayed their attack on Soviet Union for seven weeks (if my memory serves me well).

your memory does not serve you well... nothing happened in Yugoslavia like this before June 22 and what happened later (formation of the partizan forces) was again done by communists trained/educated/directed by exactly Soviets (and not on your own... just by Soviet puppets = the communist party of Yugoslavia)  ... check calendar of the events... it was only after the war that Tito was lucky to be sufficiently far from Soviets who were busy w/ the West and US A-bombs and dared to play against pro-Soviet faction in its own party.

Those seven weeks meant the Germans reached Stalingrad (and its oil supplies)

except that there were no supplies there (oil was much-much further south... Chechnya, Azerbaijan - that is where oil was sourced back then and the river (Volga) itself could not be used for oil transport at that moment... so the error (German error) was to try to actually cross the river and cut oil delivery by land from the southern oil fields instead of aiming for the oil fields directly... it had nothing to do w/ Soviet organized communist movement in Yugoslavia... I understand that it hurts your feelings to know that Soviets were as usual behind, sorry... that is unlike Poland where at least there were genuine non Soviet backed pro Allies forces...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I understand that it hurts your feelings to know that Soviets were as usual behind, sorry... that is unlike Poland where at least there were genuine non Soviet backed pro Allies forces...

And yet, Poland needed Soviets to free it and remained Soviet for the next 50+ years, while Yugoslavia freed itself and remained independent from Soviets for the same time period.

Look, this thread has meandered way off the original topic (loosely defined as Romney/Photoshop) and I do not want to stir it any further in my personal direction, my "feelings," or my country of origin. All three are rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I responded, perhaps foolishly, to a challenge directed at me. I said what I said, and those who know history know what I am talking about. Those who do not, are free to disagree, peddle their silly logic and their own theories or whatever. 

[markadams99]

Not correct.  According to today's law of the land they are explicitly constitutional.

The law is wrongly decided. Exceeding the enumerated powers + amendments is unconstitutional.

[jeremypayne]

The law is wrongly decided. Exceeding the enumerated powers + amendments is unconstitutional.

You can disagree with the decision ... but you can't say it is unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court gets to say what is and what is not constitutional ... and it said it was.  Case closed - see Marbury vs Madison - 1803.

As far as the case itself that decided the constitutionality of Social Security ... The court directly addressed your concerns and ruled against you, saying:

"Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." . . .  There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. . . .  The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law ...

Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the wellbeing of the Nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.
The purge of nationwide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. Unemployment spreads from State to State, the hinterland now settled that, in pioneer days gave an avenue of escape. . . . Spreading from State to State, unemployment is an ill not particular, but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the Nation. If this can have been doubtful until now, our ruling today in the case of the Steward Machine Co., supra, has set the doubt at rest. But the ill is all one, or at least not greatly different, whether men are thrown out of work because there is no longer work to do or because the disabilities of age make them incapable of doing it. Rescue becomes necessary irrespective of the cause. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house, as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near."

[markadams99]

You can disagree with the decision ... but you can't say it is unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court gets to say what is and what is not constitutional ... and it said it was. 

This is semantics. Eg Roe v Wade is constitutional according to the Supreme Court, but unconstitutional according to the dissenting reasoning from inside and outside the Court. That which exceeds the enumerated powers + amendments is unconstitutional irrespective of Supreme Court decisions.  In practice such a fundamental disagreement should and probably will be settled by 'We, the people' through elections resulting in the make up of the Supreme Court and the demeanour of the other branches which have their own interpretations of their constitutional prerogatives.

[Ray]

Whatever you Americans do, please ensure that the US dollar does not fall significantly below the value of the Australian dollar, because I still have some US dollars on my Travel Card. Thank you. 

[jeremypayne]

This is semantics.

No.  This is constitutional law ...

[Ray]

The American constitution is in serious need of amendment. Currently about 67% of all Americans are overweight and about 34% obese. The trend is upwards. I've seen estimates of 50% obesity, or greater, by 2030.

For a strong constitution I would recommend regular exercise, both aerobic and anaerobic, and consumption of only wholesome foods in moderation.

[Chris Calohan]

The American constitution is in serious need of amendment. Currently about 67% of all Americans are overweight and about 34% obese. The trend is upwards. I've seen estimates of 50% obesity, or greater, by 2030.

For a strong constitution I would recommend regular exercise, both aerobic and anaerobic, and consumption of only wholesome foods in moderation.

I hate to break it to you, but the UK and the rest of Europe is headed in the same direction. By 2020 it is estimated that more than 75% of the "Western" world will be obese to morbidly obese.

As to the constitution, it is amended as necessary and only after great thought (well, in theory). In most cases, it's not the constitution in need of overhauling; it is the interpretation of its host (Washington, D.C. and its lofty minions) who need to step back and examine their role and their agendas in how the document should, would or can take care of its people. I am so disappointed every day in how this beautifully written document has been tossed about indiscriminately by those elected to protect it from just that.

Time and experience have a way of returning with bigger, sharper teeth. It's going to be interesting.

[Ray]

I hate to break it to you, but the UK and the rest of Europe is headed in the same direction.

Sure! But the USA is top dog in this respect. Refer attached graph from the OECD on obesity rates, taken from http://www.oecd.org/els/healthpoliciesanddata/49716427.pdf
Obese means not just overweight but very much overweight, ya know. It would be nice if America could show a good example to the rest of the world.

[dmerger]

... the gutting of the military (designated "the peace dividend" by Slick Willie) since the Reagan years ...

I hear you Russ, but you can’t really appreciate the magnitude of the gutting until you look at some numbers.  Here are the official government numbers for the Department of Defense military spending.

1988 (Regan’s last year in office and his highest military spending) -- $282 billion (inflation adjusted = $527 billion).

2011 -- $721 billion.

[Chris Calohan]

Sure! But the USA is top dog in this respect. Refer attached graph from the OECD on obesity rates, taken from http://www.oecd.org/els/healthpoliciesanddata/49716427.pdf
Obese means not just overweight but very much overweight, ya know. It would be nice if America could show a good example to the rest of the world.

I'm doing my part. Since I retired on June 6, I've lost two inches off the belly, one pant size, one off the chest and gained inches and mass in all the other extremities. My BMI has dropped from 28 to 24. A hard workout on the old Bowflex which I dusted off and began to use again, lots of long, fast walks and eating less have all contributed to this change. I feel so freakin' much better, sleep better and have a sharper outlook on life. Now, if we can just get the Europeans to quit smoking, I might visit again.

[Ray]

Now, if we can just get the Europeans to quit smoking, I might visit again.

I'm sure they'll eventually follow the example of Australia and require all tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging. I don't like to boast (you must have sensed I'm very modest) but it seems Australia will be the first country in the world to legislate for plain packaging, effective from December this year - a dull, brown packaging.

I quit smoking about 38 years ago, in favour of the antioxidant-rich red wine.

[Chris Calohan]

I quit smoking 18 years ago and boast very clear, healthy lungs at age 66 and haven't had a chest cold, bronchitis or any other sinus/pulminary infection since quitting. And while I applaud Australia for the plain packaging, it was the USA that first went smokeless (for all intent and purposes) in all public and government venues. The few exceptions are North and South Carolina who grow the nasty stuff. They promote smoking everywhere and other than public places and government buildings will smoke like nasty little chimneys wherever they can get a lung full. It is a vile habit and I am glad to be rid of it. I wish the world would follow suit; clean air is so refreshing.