More and more, this quote from Penguin regarding Bubbles becomes truer and truer...

...

Of course I would not cheer if a ship named USS Obama(although it will be a damned shame if they ever name one after him, sure they will though, eventually.Some group will whine and moan and then some spineless politician will give in to appease the AA voters) was sunk, it would be manned by US sailors and marines, lives could be lost, so no I would not want it to sink.

USS Hitler? lol get real Bernanke? That would be inappropriate also.


Reagan took office, the country and economy were a mess, Carter was just like Obama, Reagan came in and things turned around, he left office with a 64% approval rating and a strong economy, obviously majority of people did well under him.Of course, a Dem would tell you everyone can do well under them lol, sorry but that is not real life.Far as the soviets, yes he played a huge role.Every President since WW II had been almost afraid of the Soviets, dicked around with them, appeased them even.JFK took a hard line at some points during his tenure, but we wasted billions, if not trillions over 40+ years on proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, trying to "contain" them, not defeat them as we should have.Reagan felt this was stupid and decided to change it, he did not want us to fight more endless proxy wars, it was time to stand up to what he appropriately named the Evil Empire.Reagan built a strong military and the soviets could not keep up, unfortunately it ran a deficit but things can not always be perfect, it lead to the fall of the soviet union.Reagan was not perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better than any Democratic President we have had.Of course there are a million factors we could discuss but that is the truth, plain and simple.

:damn: NO.

Reagan defeated the Soviet Union by spending them into submission, and now you're paying for it. :03:

Agreed.....but I still don't understand all the hype over the naming of a ship :hmmm:

Again I would ask that you cite specifics. What is obvious to everyone but you is that you still do nothing but spout the party line. This is why absolutely no one takes you seriously. If you want to become more than the forum joke you need to start actually discussing things.

Not exactly a front line vessel either. It's a bit like someone objecting to the naming of a Fort Victoria class. :hmmm:

We could just use the ships number and just not give it a name CV-76 for example that would be the dull name of the USS Ronald Reagan if we did the SSN-23 is Jimmy Carter ships need names and it does make sense that they do use the names of Americans for many of them it to an extent represents the complex nation that we are.I am pretty sure that very few sailors discuss at length the names of their ship as a ship is an entity in and of itself they my have the name of a person, place or battle but a ship and its crew has its own esprit de corps and to help promote that you need a name.

Bubblehead said:

"prob a lot easier to fool a farmer than say a banker etc"

What exactly makes a banker smarter than a farmer? Sure one gets higher pay and the job required more education but I see no way that being a banker or any other high paying job makes you smarter than any other person by your logic then an enlisted person is less intelligent than an officer(many times they are far more intelligent than officers) or that a person that sevres in a front line combat role is less intelligent than a person who serves in a rear echelon role when the fact of the matter is that money and power are not important to everyone not every person needs have lots of wealth or have power some people do the work that they want to do.

Also without the farmer the banker would starve to death so the banker needs the farmer at lot more than the farmer needs the banker.You should try and grow some crops and raise livestock
because it is a much harder job than you think and it requires a lot of skills and knowledge.And the work that a farm worker does I can assure you even if it paid what the banker got most people would refuse to do the job because it is such hard work.

Well put...

Just think of how many times you've heard of a freshly minted Lt. being paied up with a seasoned, knowledgeable platoon Sgt.; thers's a reason the military does this: a college degree and OCS do not even begin compare to the experience, command skills, and battle knowledge of a good NCO. Many an officer butt has been saved by a "mere" noncom...

AS far as farmers go. farmers were the most valued part of older society before the Industrial Revolution and, arguably, still are...

...

On the other hand I've personally known more than one senior NCO that had his cookies pulled out of the fire by a young but on the ball 2LT who was smart enough to know that getting drunk and missing a troop movement could easily ruin said NCO's career on the cusp of his retirement.

There's a reason that NCO's, for all their experience, command skills, and battle knowledge are not put in actual charge of the platoon.

Perhaps the solution is to just give all boats letters and numbers. :DL

Russkie style?

Might keep the bitchin and whinin down.

That is true people have their place in the military and a 30 year SNCO still lacks the specific training that even an 0-1 has of course such things are not a reflection of ones intelligence or lack there of on the flip side of the coin in a unit with poor officer leadership it is the SNCOs and and NCO that hold the unit together and in every unit they are the ones that maintain discipline and if the all the officers are killed or wounded one of the NCOs takes his place all though today it might only be for a few hours in the old days that usually meant a battlefield commission.

@Oberon The Soviets only did that some of the time and now most Russian navy vessels have a name short of perhaps small craft which in most cases in most navies have only numbers.I think it is important for esprit de corps for a ship to have a name on a very small vessel the sailors have pride in the unit they are assigned to and in the US military at least where units have numbers they all have some sort of mascot/name (though honestly "Bulldogs" is used a bit too often in the USAF why cant their be an Albatross squadron once in a while)

Ooooh, I strongly doubt it... :03:

Yeah then you would have people that are offended by odd numbers get upset about ships with even numbers and what of the Prime Numbers Are America's Future lobby?No naming a ship only numbers just adds more to the issue someone will always find a reason to get upset.

Giving vessels numbers is also off the table. In a game mod I am working on atm, the transport ships are named after rivers. I know there are some sickos out there, but who in their right mindset has something against a river? :doh:

A sensible proposition about the Chavez ship is hidden in the reply to Bubblehead, highlighted for anyone who don't want to comb through the boring wall of text.

Contrary to your previous reply, you only called Chavez a thug once here, I see you're making progress. :DL Now we need only the explanation how a guy who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which lets him stand in line with Reds like John Wayne, Maggie Thatcher and Ron and Nancy, is a radical. Please also regard post #66, the number of the Steve, where he reminded you again to bring some facts to the table.

The repeated calling Chavez a violent thug makes it sound like we are talking about Al Capone. I am aware of connections of certain unions with the mob, but so are some businessmen, so are some politicians. Certainly no lawyers, never heard of a banker working with the mafia. :know:
Power and corruption are siamese twins. (Legal disclaimer: to anybody reading this, who was, is or will be attached to his sibling - no offense to you, never met anyone of you, but I am certain you're cool people - unless your surnames are power and corruption ;))

So bring on some sources for corruption. A good start might be this extensive article from the LA Times, about corruption and the buddy-system in the post-Chavez UWF: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...808,full.story

I notice a big disregard for the farming man in today's middle-class, for the job as for the food they grow, which is eaten day by day by them, hastily slung, quickly rinsed down with the help of a crappiato, without even thinking for a blink, where the wrapped, shiny red apple they grabbed at the 7/11 comes from. So I am stricly arguing on an agricultural level here.

Set course to the late 18th century:
Did ole George not only conscript his army out of farming men but did work his soil himself? Not only artisans, merchants and lawyers were taxed without representation and rose to kick out the crown with the help of cooled Ale - and sometimes by more violent means.
Certainly Washington did not only fight for himself, hiss idea, no he also fought for an improvement of the life conditions for the other settlers in North America, well as long as they were male WASPs. ;)
If you want to use class-warfare terms, he fought a rule by the aristrocat class. He also fought for a set of ideas, later written down in the DOI and the US constitution.

So a quick comparision, let's also put in soopa's proposition for giggles:

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3927/washchav.png

proof that pseudo-political statistics can show Herr Schickelhuber and Mr Washington being similar: Ccchhheck! :D

And no, although I had the honor to learn a little of American history from school books during the Reagan era, I don't believe that Washington fought under the red flag, or was a Marxist before Karl was one.

I am pretty sure that the Navy is aware that Washington has a quite undisputed reputation, so they say: "let's give him a cool, big-ass vessel". As Chavez seems to be slightly more conroversial than Washington, they say: "k, we'll give him a little ship, no one will care."

Fast forward 150 years in the nation which voted a farmer and a soldier as their first president:
1944, the US is in the state of war since over 2 years, many young men get enlisted. Many of them farmers, some of them descendants of immigrants.
The years 44 and 45 were probably no easy tour in the US navy, certainly the people who fought there, would have preferred to make love to Mary-Ann in a corn field rather than being under enemy fire. Chavez and his fellow sailors are part of the generation the US calls The Greatest Generation, now nearly gone off the streets. As long as their is no proof of treason or else while in the war, Chavez belongs to this generation.
Maybe there was something that gave this gen this mindset, this strange mix of toughness and humbleness, not easy described by words.: the hope to get home to a country in peace, to fight so that it may so be, to fight to avoid to fight at home someday, that war one day comes upon their little piece of land they own. To fiight to sit in a rocking chair, watching the plants grow, without bullets flying around the head.

So the most fair and reasonable vote would be this: let those people who have been on a ship in WW2 decide. If you want to fight against the name of the ship, visit your local vet organization and find some people who agree with your view. Visit some WW2 Navy veterans, talk to shem, listen to their stories if they want to share them, confort them, if they can't leave the bed. Tell them about the ship and your opinion, ask them about theirs. I am sure you'll some who agree with your view, you'd also find others, you'd say "why not?" and many would just quote Alfred E. : "What, me worry?"
Gather the vets who are against the name, write a petition to the Navy, their words still have weight.

Beware: don't even think about calling your interest group a union, or you will be seen as a corrupt Communist! :know:
I am also curious how many vets will say that WW2 was the best time of their lives, not even touching the aspect that duty in a segregated force may also put one's perception of the service slightly into the negative.

Cut: WW2 is over, goto post-war:
Has living off the land in the US ever been a farmers-pie-walk? Hell no, it has always been a struggle. So has the life of the landless farm workers, who also contribute their share to the wealth they help to grow and harvest.

"If you don't do the job for some coins, I'll hire somewhere else that is cheaper and after this the next guy who's even cheaper?"
That is the mentality that led to those millions of illegals in the US. Same as the mentality of the consumer who wants to buy cheaper and cheaper,
led to a drain of workplaces in the industrial sector and to the giant trade deficit with nations who build cheap plastic crap.
Do you want to buy your apples from China, drained in chemicals because of unregulated poison levels? Keep on paying the guys on the farm less and less!

So there were people sick of getting the short end of the stick in agriculture, not even getting any protection for from pesticides.
So what is the weapon of the landless to improve their life conditions?? The machete to chop down the evil, fascist suppressor, or whatever reason people need in South Africa?
Set the hope into the free market, wander to the next employer, who offers the same cheap deal?
Or education? Learning another trade ain't easy without some cash to start, even without enough cash to substain a worthy life. Book education was not easy to get without dough, unlike today where imbeciles like me can copy and paste some random wiki facts together from dubious sources and claim to know crap.

So some people chose to organize, as always used in the history of mankind. Power by many. Good for hunting mamooths, good for bargaining with the employers, who, and we shall have no doubt about it, have also always been organized themselves.

Now Topedos los auf das Schlachtschiff Reagan:
Still staying on a stricly agricultural level, only short mentioning Ronnies help to the empire of evil by delivering food.
I think Reagan did a lot to disrespect the fate of the guys who work their own soil, basically his stance was: kiss my wrinkled actor's ass!
What was the life of the US farmers in the 80s like? The pressure to conglomerate - get big or get down. Why is such a big part of Americas food industry in the hands a few big companies today? Political priorities.
Reaganomics: no help, no more subsides, not even credits. The choice for the farmer was either to try to grow or sell to the banks, or to some big corps.
Even those Commie bastard representavtives from the socialist midwest protested back then about Reagan's agricultural politics, 2 random articles from '85: http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-..._1_aid-farmers,http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...ograms-farmers

I find it also outrageous that the industry was allowed a big real-time, biology experiment with genetically modified crops. The de facto non-existant regulation of GM crops was brought to you under Ronnie in '86, without asking the people who have to eat the food grown in american soil, day by day.
As any other pollution, it knows no boundaries of a field. What was in for the farmer? I don't know. What was in for the food mob: The perfect cycle: Make any farmer dependent from your seed. And of course the crops are only resistant to pesticides from your own company. Make him not do, what any farmer has done since thousands of years after harvesting: keep some seeds for the next sowing. Even patenting the seeds, take the farmer's soveregnity about his own cultivations.
And this is also one of the tragedies in a country, which soil is rich enough, not only to feed people in the US but many more.


with agricultural, not agorophobic greetings,
Penguin,
proud grandson of a farmer


PS: call those thoughts whatever you want, commiesocialistpinko whatever, but please not progressive, there's nothing original in this pamphlet here, all thoughts have already been thought by people living a whole lot more yesterday - maybe I'm reprogressive, lol

Maybe i'm just a soon-to-die Bigot like Mookie says but calling those particular people "Reds" is just, well.... wrong! :DL

What name? What ship. The entire thread has gone to the dogs. :hmmm:

Woof!!!

HunterICX