1 - 10 Next
My understanding is that Maliki and Obama disagreed. Maliki wanted MORE troops. Obama wanted LESS troops (a skeleton force). My sense is that Obama wanted to be able to portray it that we had brought essentially ALL the troops home. This is really all about Obama.
It's official. The IRS is openly rebelling against Congress. There need to be DRASTIC measures taken NOW!
Nice reference. One needs to either read the LOTR, or have the extended version of the movies in order to know this nasty fellow. J.R.R. Tolkien is the greatest.
I was going to post that. Alternatively, I'd consider that he may have been on acid all along.
My guess, based upon the Soviet propaganda posters and how hard he seemed to work to lie like this, is that he would have been glad to keep it up, but he got physically exhausted by sheer work of keeping up with the current set of made up facts. A side effect of that was that his mannerisms were becoming like a poker "tell", and causing the press to get the cues as to which were the really enormous lies. When that happens, they know which way to devote attention. Thus, Carney needed to be replaced by someone fresh who could possibly trick the press better.
So, this shows the "Importance of Being Earnest". :) Funny!
All the losses of life in war are terrible, so we can be forgiven if we accidentally get a bit emotional and overstate their sheer size. It's important for economic thought, though to simply refer to the statistics, grizzly, though they may be: Vietnam KIA was 58,286 and around 30% of wounded died of wounds so, of the 153,353 wounded 45,990 may have succumbed to their wounds. All told that means US casualties may be as high as 104,277 (probably over large), this does not seem to rise to the level you mention since workforce scales seem to run in the many tens of millions. To see something that might have actually affected the workforce, likely the effect after the US Civil War would be the one to look at. The losses there represent almost 2 percent of US population. Vietnam 0.03% While I agree there are a number of factors which clearly contribute to downward pressure on worker income, I'd caution that any TRUE massive removal of population like during a plague, absent any change in demand, would tend to RAISE wages, as employers competed to obtain short supplied workers. Increases in supply like you mention (women and immigration) would be an increase in supply and very large and would tend to lower worker earnings.
In response to:

No Landslide for the GOP

Chris4691 Wrote: May 16, 2014 11:56 PM
I'd take a landslide in State and Local. This is like the "farm team" for later runs into national office. If all the source material is GOP. . .
When I first heard about this stuff years ago, I found it very hard to believe. Now that I've seen Benghazi, and Fast and Furious, NSA, and the IRS scandal, and all the ammo purchases, I'm not so skeptical any more. I'm listening to audio on the radio, where college age persons are being interviewed, and they sound so ill-informed, and frankly dull witted, that I'm concerned. They fall for someone completely ruthless and totally self-centered and ambitious. They convince themselves that this person is somehow "accomplished" when the person has no accomplishments.
It's very important to know WHICH change is the good change. When Obama promises Hope and Change. That's the "good" change. Be sure to note that! It's important. When faced with the awful events of 9/11 it's also important to note that "NOTHING can change who we are as Americans". So, I think the distinction is "obvious". Er. . well, you understand.
1 - 10 Next