Vertigo

They should. But the process is broke, so they don't.

I'm pretty dang sure the POTUS said "Separate but equal to the Air Force".

I didn't find it scary until the last 20 minutes or so. Suspenseful. Thrilling. Emotional. Quite a few "Oh fuck!" moments that you weren't expecting. A ton of foreshadowing and clues given out, but you have to pay attention to the details. I enjoyed it quite a bit. Not so much as a horror, but because I think Toni Collette did an outstanding job of acting in this and I liked following the trail of crumbs that lead to the conclusion.

Please point out where I said anything negative regarding Trump trying to work with NK. In fact, you'll find I gave Trump a kudo for his part in getting NK to the table. I don't have an issue with the salute, just like I didn't have an issue with Obama's bow, unlike the hypocrites here who are ok with their guy showing respect but not Obama. As far as my charity giving, it varies by year on what I can afford to give. This last year was substantially lower due to the cost of the divorce lawyer. But on average of say it's around $500 a year.

Doctors Care out of Littleton, CO is one I give to and wholly recommend. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=13211 Though I think people get more satisfaction giving to organizations in the area, so use this as a guide to find one closer to your community, if you wish https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.results&cgid=5&cuid=12&scopeid=1&overallrtg=4

I am in no way shape or form a Hillary fan. I just like pointing out hypocrites and watching them defend their hypocrisy.

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/thesaurus-category/american/gestures-of-respect

I don't believe the President is beholden to AFIs or Army regs. He's a damn civilian. Heads of State do not salute or return salutes from foreign military. 1. General salutes then offers handshake. 2. HoS nods then accepts handshake. Also, wtf do you think a bow is? It's a display of respect.

So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? K.

All those that panned Obama for bowing. We're cool with this, right?

The climate being the exception to that rule, I guess?

You'd think, but Pawnman has had MANY dudes convince him, so....

I watched "Lincoln" on Amazon last night. Pretty damn good. Daniel Day Lewis did an outstanding job playing Abe. His speeches and storytelling were pretty compelling.

I give Trump credit for bringing in Mattis on his team and allowing him essential free reign to do what he sees fit to accomplish the mission. IMO he's the only guy in his administration that meets Trumps bill of "only hiring the best people".

Yes and no. I put the majority of the blame on the Iraqis themselves for not maintaining the security that was in place before we left. At this point we shouldn't be having to hold their hand in securing their nation, they've had plenty of time to get themselves in a position to have kept IS from retaking territory. That being said, I think Obama was more than likely briefed that once we leave there's a good possibility that IS would be emboldened and will once again take over control of areas of Iraq. He should have listened to that and ensured the Iraqi government was 100%, rather than just leaving and saying "your problem now, deal with it". So how long do we stay this time? Are we going to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq? If we leave again in the future and IS once again takes over territory, do we then recognize that it's not our policies but rather the lack of resolve by the Iraqis themselves?

How does "it's great this has continued under the current administration" equate to not giving Trump credit? It's a fact those two trend lines started under Obama's administration and has continued during Trump's presidency. I'm giving them both credit. There's been plenty of policy changes that has had an effect on the economy so that this economy is solely Trump's now, and it's continued to improve- the trend has continued on. That's giving him credit for not reversing what was started under Obama.

Record number? If by record number you mean he's 6th out of the last 19 Presidents, then yeah! Great! https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-trump-federal-judiciary/ I think this is fantastic. I'll even give Trump some credit for the about face we've seen out of NK even without the talks taking place. Whether it's intentional or not I think Trump's irrationality has pushed NK to change how they act. The NK regime just wants to survive. Everything the do and say is in service to that goal. A core component of their crazy act is having global superpowers with leaders who act rationally. But that's changed with Trump, a man who appears to be unstable in his actions and words. So they've had to change tactics.I like to think of NK as the weedy kid with a bad haircut that everybody laughs at in high school, whose only friend is the fat, foreign exchange student from China. But NK doesn't want to rely on China for their protection, they want to remind everyone they have a voice. Therefor they've adopted a very distinct strategy- act crazy. Coming across as unstable and volatile. It's important to note that's just an act. In order to appear stronger they publicly try to intimidate the US- the nice guy, muscular jock across the room. The strongest person they can see. Calling them names and knowing they would never -really- respond. And it works. Most nations decide NK is just not worth the hassle. They just roll their eyes and give in to whatever they're demanding to shut them up for a little while because it's easier than the alternative. But now there's been a change to the jock. This time when NK looks over at the USA, rather than seeing a sensible, rational face, they see a wide grin and crazy eyes staring back at them. There suddenly is another crazy kid in the class... a much LARGER and STRONGER crazy kid! And they suddenly realize that if they continue to provoke this new jock might actually respond now. Add in the fact that their one friend, China, has been getting fairly annoyed with their antics and their friendship has cooled some. Also when they look over at the jock they see him wearing shoes made by China. And when they look at their friend China they see him eating an American cheeseburger- these two are trading economically and culturally. The ideological divide between China and the USA has diminished greatly since the 50s... so NK has to wonder, if things really went down, would my buddy really have my back? So NK thinks "wow, maybe now is a good time to tread softly, now is a good time to drop the crazy act" I believe we have Trump's irrationality to thank for that, at least partially at least. Whether that was his plan the whole time or just a lucky byproduct of his unstableness, who cares, it seems to be doing something which is better than nothing. It's wonderful that what started under Obama has continued thus far under this administration. It's not quite the growth Trump has said it would be (we're still under his promised 3% or more) but hopefully we'll get there soon. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/27/606078181/economy-probably-started-2018-off-slow-short-of-trumps-growth-target Again- it's wonderful that what started under Obama has continued under this administration. I hope this continues or at least stays this low.

And what party was in control of the purse strings at the time that voted "No!" to the requested increased embassy security funding at the time? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BLMz1chEM Regardless, the "whataboutism" to deflect valid criticisms on this administration is telling.

Much easier to not get them killed when you leave those positions vacant. What are we at like 44 ambassador positions have gone unfilled by Trump? Can't kill someone who doesn't exist, amirite?

Bombed an empty airfield, and gave a "heads up... move your equipment and personnel cause we're gonna hit these places" The mercs attacked our forces. The only other option was to let the mercs kill them. Seems like common sense rather than an offensive strategy. The same UN diplomat who announced there will be new sanctions on Russia, only to find out that Trump called Putin before that and said "No there won't be". Oh and then failed to notify that same U.N. diplomat of that conversation. Where's the sanctions that passed Congress with a near unanimous vote and was signed into law? You know the ones that were supposed to take affect in October but Trump decided to just ignore? Shuttered the Russian consulate and then became irate when he found out he was expelling more diplomats than the other nations. I think it's good Trump's backing the resolution that came out of NATO's 2014 summit when Obama was President that forces other nations to reach the GDP goals.

I'll take Cold War foreign policy towards Russia than the current one, which appears to be:

So in the late 2000's, after Saddam's government had been dismantled and the dude was hung, our fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq was the same as attacking the Iraqi government forces (whom were fighting with us). Is that what you are saying? There's no differentiating between attacking a government's forces and equipment and attacking a terrorist organization operating within that country? They are one in the same? Libya is Syria? Can we keep on the subject of attacking the Syrian government? I pointed out the falsehoods about why Obama didn't attack Assad and your response is "what about Libya?" Maybe the guy learned his lesson from Libya and wanted to do it the right way, the Constitutional way. And the response here is that meant he was weak and failed to act. No, that means he followed the law and the Republican party blocked any legal attack.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to Trump's attack on Shayrat airfield in 2017 the U.S. had never attacked the Syrian government or its forces directly, but rather our attacks had been on ISIS in Syria. Correct? So while Obama had been attacking ISIS in Syria, he never bombed the Syrian government. And the one time he had a plan to attack the Syrian government he went to Congress to get approval for that. There's a distinction between the two there. One is attacking the government and its military, the other is attacking a rogue terrorist group located in that country. So while I agree that we should never have even got involved in this mess in the first place... I can still discuss what happened, what is happening, and point out the wildly inaccurate revisionist history that occurred above.

I haven't seen a lick of MSNBC in years. Care to prove any of those items I listed didn't occur? How about you worry about yourself.

When your only possible response is to attack the sources, you know you don't have a real valid argument. Those are news articles, not opinion pieces. But here ya go, crybaby, happy now? I guess since these are fox stories then they HAVE to be correct. The same stories from CNN are fake news. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/16/white-house-backs-away-from-haleys-pledge-new-sanctions-against-russia.html https://fox61.com/2018/04/18/senators-leave-classified-briefing-on-trumps-syria-policy-very-unnerved/