"The Constitution of the USA was formed directly for political reasons, not religious ones. "
Yes, and yet you still insist...
I would have to look into Washingtons speech you reference more to make any comment about it. Then again, just because the country is secular doesn't mean it's leaders and members can't be devout of any particular religion. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion.
"I would also draw your attention to the fact in article 7, the name of the Lord is mentioned!"
Yes, the name of the Lord is mentioned... as a date. As in "...the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." Anno Domini would have worked just as well. That's a fairly short peg to hang your hat on.
"Would we still be enforcing a "no fly zone" to ensure that Sunnis weren't killing innocent, oppressed Shias... folks such as Muqtada al Sadr?"
Who knows. Would the Sunnis still be trying to? Would Iraq be 3 seperate countries like Biden suggested? Though I'm a fan, I'm fairly certain Obama wouldn't be president. Hillary may have been if she didn't have to defend her war vote. Then again, the US would have been on far sounder financial footing so there may have been another Republican after W.
By the way, I started thinking that I may have made a mistake with a blanket statement regarding Neo-cons and military service so I looked up a few. W was in the National Guard. Cheney didn't serve. Nor did Wolfowitz. Bolton was in the National Guard and I read this on Wiki;
"Bolton supported the Vietnam War, enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard and consequently did not serve in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from.""
... and got angrier at him. How gosh darn convenient to have "no great interest in going there." for whatever reason. What a tool!
"If there had been zero attempt to assist and finance the Iraqis in creating and maintaining a post war government this would be true."
No matter how much you scrub it, when you're done washing a turd, it's still a turd.
"At some point, it becomes the Iraqi's problem to resolve."
I totally agree. I think that point was prior to "W" taking office. It's impossible to know for sure but just day dream for a minute. What would be different today if we didn't invade Iraq.
Sure, "W" didn't put the hornets nest there. He was the impish little boy swinging the stick at the nest. If you believe in the premise that if you break it, you own it. Then he owns it.
You can paint a number of other characters for causing the problem but none of them were around in my life time. I don't know about you but the only Ottoman I've met was piece of furnature.
The mistakes the "Neo-cons" made are vast. I would argue even criminal in some cases, certainly incompetent. That these guys, most of whom never served in the military, are so willing to put other Americans in harms way for their fantasy of what they want the world to look like is shameful. It amazes me that they have any credibility at all or even a platform to speak.
"Yes, its true we are all sinners, but God used the founders to build this nation, and the entire world recognized over the yrs what you both failed to understand....(Just why did France give us the Statue of Liberty?"
Oh boy... I'm sure that you've heard the Marine Hymn, From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, etc... Those first two lines refer to wars the Marines fought in, Specifically, the Mexican/American war and the war against the Barbary Pirates. The second of the two ended with the Treaty of Tripoli. That treaty specifically states that the United States is NOT founded as a christain nation. The president that sent it to the Senate for ratification was none other than John Adams so, as you can see, this is one case where we don't need to read between the lines to find what the founding fathers thought. It's right there in writing.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The Statue of Liberty is something all together different. The design was originally meant to go at the head of the Suez Canal. Through some back room intrigue, the French lost control of the canal but the statue designer (Sorry, I can't recall his name.) continued to raise funds to build it. Eventually, some one got the idea to give it as a gift to the US if they could come up with the funds for the foundation. Those funds almost didn't happen. If you want to believe that devine intervention was how that all took place, that's up to you. I'm glad that she's there but it seems to me that we got her via some sort of garage sale.
Oh, by the way, I got my letter yesterday. My water rights have been pulled. Do me a favor, when you see your neighbors watering their lawns at night, smack them in the back of the head for me.
Rails, you're just wrong on this. Your insisting that Oregon should "share" their water like the states are some sort of commune is ridiculous... and you know it. There's a major difference between mutual aid and what's yours is ours.
Using Ferguson as an example of "Dependancycrats" is just as silly if you take a minute to read what was going on there. I had never heard of Furguson before the riots but if you read what was going on there, the only thing surprising to me was why it took so long.
"Did you know that the state programs for ACA in Hawaii and Calif are being shut down..." REALLY?!!! I live in California and I haven't heard a thing regarding this. The coveredca website seems to be working. Where, oh where, are you finding this extremely valuable info? Thin air possibly?
Rails you're funny. It wasn't that long ago you were whining that the government wouldn't give you the water you wanted. Now, you're propped up on a rather high horse talking about "Dependencycrats". You are starting to show that you are typical of most conservatives that I know, in that they'll insist they don't need or want any government in their lives.... right up until they do.
"Net = Gross minus the costs/deductions/etc. "
I know that there are a lot of off topic subjects on this message board (This being one.) but do you really think that you need to school any one on this particular message board regarding the differences beat net and gross numbers?
Now, regarding your sputum about the ACA, the CBO has new numbers published every few months, 3/15 being the most recent. The costs are significantly less than originally projected. Here's a blurb from a 4/15 Kaiser report;
"Before the health care law went into effect, the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected how much it would cost the government to implement. In March, the CBO revised their original estimate and now expects the federal government will spend significantly less on the health care law than had been projected.1 This news went largely unnoticed by the public. Only 8 percent correctly answered that the law is now costing the government less than originally estimated, while half think that it is now costing more, 2 in 10 (18 percent) believe it is costing about the same as originally estimated, and a nearly quarter (23 percent) say that they don’t know."
As far as your enrollee numbers go, let us for the sake of arguement assume they are correct, that's over million Americans that have healthcare today that wouldn't without the ACA.
So for a quick recap here, more people are insured and it costs less than projected.... and you're still whining... and doing so at a high volume.
"Progressive liberals have more trouble with the facts (kind of like Obama cherry picking data points trying to sell failed Obamacare)"
I can't decide if you're trying to be funny, sarcastic or just plain clueles.
When explaining crude oil, I like to use the example of a bucket or stones. In that bucket you'll have differing sizes. The first process in a refinery is fraction. Using the bucket stones example, the fractionation tower will act as a sieve with larger stones falling farther down the tower with other criteria sampled off along the way. At the very top you have dust of sand in the example.
Continueing to use the bucket of stones example, a heavier crude just means that out of that bucket there are larger stones compared to a bucket of light.
What SJT1 had pointed out earlier was that the heavy stuff (larger stones) can be broken down into more valuable components. There are a number of different processes that allow this happen. The easiest to understand for the purpose of a message board post is a Delayed Coker which takes the bottoms (a product that if it's allowed to cool looks like obsidian, black, bright and brittle) of a vacuum fractionator and pump it, at high temperature into a low pressure zone. This allows lighter more valuable material to escape or flash off for further fractionation. What's left is pet. coke which looks like coal but actually has more BTUs but also more sulfer and pollutants. As aside, this is the process that the Koch Bros. father perfected.
On the other side of the fractionation tower are light ends. By themselves, they aren't very valuable either. Refineries today will take these light ends and bond them together. They do this for a couple of reasons. One is obvious in that they get another fuel blend component but another is that, often, the off gas from the process is hydrogen which is required for some of the more complex cracking processes.
Refineries may not be rocket science but the science is still pretty cool.
"Reformers convert naphtha/alkanes to branched and cyclic aromatics. No bonding at all. "
Really? No bonding at all? I'm guessing that those molecules just run around holding hands?
"There are none in Euro/Asia because they don't have hydro/catalytic/thermal crackers and have no use for gasoline."
That's funny because I just left one in India that has a hydrocracker, cat cracker, thermal cracker, reformer and powerformer. Look up GGSR if you get a wild hair.
US refineries have the ability to run heavy crude. That doesn't mean they have to. It all comes down to economics. If a refinery can buy light crude and run it through on straight fractionation, they can idle or reduce the run rate on any number of units.
US refiners use crackers AND reformers. Crackers take long chain molecules and break them down, or crack them, into fuel blend stocks. Reformers take short chain molecules (C4 and less) and bond them together to make blend stocks.
US Refiners have alot of investment into facilities to refine heavy crude but there isn't anything that says they can't put those parts of the refinery into circulation and just blend light crude.
Rain, an unbelievable amount of rain, and the surrounding watershed allow the Panama Canal to work. If you ever get a wild hair and decide to buy some cheap property in Panama, acrage in the watershed is really cheap. It's cheap because no one is allowed to build or alter water flow.
Salt water intrusion hasn't been a problem because the uplifts have been flushed out by the down lifts. I highly that the new set of locks will be any different.
In Nicaragua, the river from the Caribbean side (Sorry, I can't recall the name right now.) is fairly shallow. For their canal to work this river will need to be dredged much wider and deeper. A set of locks can be set up to reduce the salt water intrusion but the difference in height is minimal. On the other side, at Rio Brito, they're looking at a current height difference of 200'+ or so. To make this work they'll need to move ALOT of rock and have enough fresh water to flush a series of locks. Depending on how much rock they move will determine how many locks they'll need. I suspect anywhere from 3 to 6 in series would be required, depending on when they give up moving rock.
There is a way of making this work if they wanted to cater to smaller ships but they don't. They hired a phone company to build a mammoth civil project. It may be that Ortega is crazy like a fox and expects the project to fail. The entire thing just seems nuts to me.
More ice and a new artic shipping route? Something isn't adding up. Since all of those ships require insurance and insurance companies aren't exactly prone to winging it, I'm going to say that your more ice arguement is on thin... well, thin ice. ;0)
Shipping is already using Lake Nicaragua and has been for well over a century. It's a major supply route via the Caribbean. The problems for this project are enormous and I'm still VERY skeptical that they'll complete it. On top of that, the operators of the Panama Canal (APC) just finished their own feasability study to see if they actually do have some competition. APC doesn't see how the Nicaragua canal can be profitable. The Panama Canal is really only profitable now because the US Military operated it for close to a century at break even or slight neg. for fleet efficiency.