The Standard-Examiner's Loretta Parks contributes an interesting article this morning, on the subject of the recent spike in wheat prices, and its immediate effect on our local Utah economy. With all due respect, we think Ms. Parks' article is evidence of the kind of myopia that results, when creatures of the world who haven't yet experienced inflation, fail to consider all variables in today's World Economic Environment.
Today's article is well researched, as Std-Ex articles go:
From LDS food storage people we get this:
LAYTON — Current wheat prices concern Carolyn Wade, who has practiced food storage for many years.
“I was shocked at how much it went up,” Wade said.
Wheat on Monday sold between $9.27 a bushel and $11.47 a bushel, depending on quality, according to the Utah Department of Agriculture Market News. The price is lower than it was a week ago, when a bushel of wheat was selling for between $10.29 and $13.19.
The Monday price is still much higher than in September, when the average price was $6.75 a bushel, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Web site. The price of wheat has been dropping during the week, and officials across the country expect it to continue to drop, but also expect it to be higher this year than last year.
In January 2007, the average price was $4.53, according to the Web site.
Wade, of West Point, said she is not overly worried because, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she has practiced food storage as her church leaders have recommended.
The last time Glade bought wheat, she paid $12 for 50 pounds. Her daughter in Layton called her recently and told her 50 pounds of wheat was selling for $36 at a local store.
“I have a lot, but I’ll need to get some now to simply do some baking and that’s going to be a real cost,” Glade said. “I just can’t believe it.”
Commercial bakers are also being hit hard:
Great Harvest in Layton increased its loaf prices in November by 25 cents a loaf and then had to raise it again a week ago, said Bourke Tarbet, the owner. Increasing wheat prices are increasing the price of flour, which in turn is increasing the price of bread.Further down the article, Ms. Parks quotes a Utah Department of Agriculture official, who echoes the sentiment of Mr. Tarbet, and characterises the recent spike in wheat prices as a mere supply/demand problem, which would, under general principles of economics, be ostensibly cured by a mere corresponding and inevitable increase in wheat production:
Other Great Harvest owners have also raised prices in order to pay for the increasing cost of flour.
“My flour prices have doubled,” Tarbet said. [...]
“I guess farmers will grow more wheat, and it will take a couple of cycles for us to get out of this,” Tarbet said.
Richard Kestle, director of Utah Agriculture Statistics, said on Dec. 1, the U.S. had 1.3 billion bushels of wheat available.All of these people myopically characterise the rise in wheat prices as a short-term supply-demand problem, which can be ultimately corrected once grain producers ramp-up production and bring more wheat to market. While it's probably true that the increase in wheat prices is at least partly the result of supply-demand disequilibrium, we believe there are more fundamental market forces at work, which will continue to propel the price of wheat, and all other world-traded commodities upward, regardless of the mitigating effect of production-side increases.
In 2003, the country had 1.52 billion bushels of wheat in storage, which is a 26 percent decrease, he said.
The decrease in supply of wheat equals an increase in price, or “basic economics,” which eventually translates to higher prices for bread, pasta and cereals, Kestle said.
Of course the recent upspike in wheat prices isn't unique. All commodities from corn, soybeans, steel, and precious metals are experiencing similar upward price-spikes.
The problem folks is the weak US Dollar, which continues to weaken each day that the US Government continues to resort to the printing press to create billions of more fiat paper dollars.
Nobody in the current generation has seen inflation. The last time inflation raised its ugly head was pre-Reagen... during the Carter Administration. Until now, the US Government and the Fed have kept commodities prices relatively stable -- until now, that is.
That leaves it to old fuddy-duddies like us -- who have lived through US recessions during our lives -- to spotlight the problem, and bring it to the forefront.
The ultimate problem is the weak dollar, however, folks -- and it's endemic in our current economy.
There are unmistakable signs that hyperinflation is in the air, for those who are paying attention, as a result of of seven years of US Government fiscal recklessness.
Here's a good article on this subject.
Read Up!
22 comments:
Sorta leaves you wondering...is it because of the Bush administration and the GOP majority of both houses?
Or is it because of the now majority Democrats in both houses, plus leadership of Pelosi and Harry Reid - singing to Murtha and all those new chairmanships?
Are the Republicans intentionally laying back allowing the economy and our dollar to go to hell in a hand basket - so they can come out in November saying "see we told you so." to voters with the standard cycle tending toward a Hillary or Obama (Demo.) in the oval office?
Or are the Democrats at the National (not at the Utah State level since everything is backwards in Utah) that whacked out and confused, now they are finally back in the saddle again?
Thoughts? Opinions?
Minor:
Just want to remind you that Dem majority in the Senate is below 60, which means they cannot even get to a vote any bill the Republicans don't want to come to a vote.[It takes 60 to crack a philabuster.] Not to mention bills being vetoed by the President if they do manage to pass. As has happened several times. I make no case,necessarily, for the bold intelligent leadership of Reid/Pelosi, only wishing to point out that so long as we have a divided government [minority can block bills coming to the floor in the senate]in Congress, and divided government [president of one party, legislature of another], then both parties are going to have shoulder either the blame or credit for what is and is not done.
"Sorta leaves you wondering...is it because of the Bush administration and the GOP majority of both houses?"
I dunno, MM. The neoCONS in control of our federal government couldn't have chosen a more effective course to ruin the US ecomomy, if they were hell-bent to do so intentionally.
Here's something interesting, though:
Is Cheney betting on Economic Collapse?
Food for thought.
How anyone in government thought we could wage the Iraq war on deficit spending in the trillions without destroying our economy is beyond me. We are beginning to see the costs.
For the youngsters among us - when fuel prices rise, everything goes up. Double-digit inflation got so bad under Nixon that he instituted a price freeze. Once prices go up, they rarely come down again.
Mortgage interest has been as high as 15%.
The 70s was also about the time that companies stopped being loyal to their long-time employees, firing those who were just a few years from retirement. Until then, such behavior was unthinkable.
For those still employed, salaries didn't begin to keep up with inflation.
Talk about outsourcing! CNN has an article today about our US Passport production being outsourced to Thailand. Bush, Cheney, and cronies are eating this country alive from the inside out. Can we survive the next 9 months?
Or...
Food prices could be going up because we've begun making food into fuel in the form of biodiesel.
To grow food or to grow fuel? My crop has at least got to be as profitable as fuel, or else I've made a less than optimal choice for my land/crop profitability.
You can now find the price of bread on the billboard at Chevron.
Geez Ogden lover,
"Double-digit inflation got so bad under Nixon that he instituted a price freeze. Once prices go up, they rarely come down again.
Mortgage interest has been as high as 15%."
I was away at war in the early seventies.
When I came back to "The World", as we referred to the USA, and got done dodging all the slings and arrows (insults and accusations of being baby killers, etc.) of those who were smarter and figured out how not to serve, it seemed it was Jimmy Carter time. I have a six pack of unopened "Billy Beer" for those who remember those times (now worth $60).
And I seem to remember inflation in the teens, mortagage rates and interest rates in the high teens.
I seem to recall a few friends even having to die needlessly trying to do three or four training missions on one mission due to a major fuel shortage.
I even recall taxing back after landing on one engine to save fuel for the next guy.
There was an edict from Washington that all Federal buildings, in the dead of winter, had to have thermostats set at 55 degrees. Imagine secretaries trying to type with their hands and feet very cold. People at home sick in record numbers, and energy costs (electricity) increasing exponentionally due to "illegal", brought from home, "space heaters" smuggled into offices across the Country.
I must have missed all that while "Tricky Dick" was lying and disgracing the office of President dastardly claiming he had nothing to do with the Watergate breakin.
Really a "big deal" after the Kennedy boys used our "White House" as their personal brothel. And then Lynden J. heightened our deepening involvement in SEA while preaching the gospel of "The War on Poverty", both of which proved to be disasters.
And now we have some "no shit murderous enemies" who for the second time in our relatively young history (correct me Curm, caues I think the first were the British) who really want to kill us at home and not just abroad.
So here we are...not knowing anything else to do but try to kill them where they are, BEFORE they can come and kill any more of us.
And here we are with a President who has the will to see it through, and a majority of Democrats, who have suddenly seen the light in macro economic terms, who are unwilling to do anything but go along with the war. Because very likely they are in the windfall money receipt driver's seat now.
So what's the answer? Slick Willie's "arrest them boogers!"? Or is their really anyone out there who actually believes we can reason with these fanatics? What buy them off? How about just do the denial thing and pretend they don't exist - that will show'em?! We seem to have tried that already and it got us 9/11...
Anyone got a better solution than eliminate the threat where they breed and train?
Think someone got it right when they said (or thought) "This isn't a partisan issue or problem. This is an American problem. And as China, Russia, Great Britain, Spain, Indochina, the Phillipines, and every country faces what we face, it is a worldwide issue and problem." The days of the Winter or Summer Soldier conferance BS and liberal marches with peace symbols and draft card burnings are not in vogue no matter how much some might long for such repeat nonsense. And to those who "go now" and "went then" it "is" and "was" nonsense and merely an excuse for not "paying the piper".
Rudi got it right when he says there is blame enough to go around. And I think with stronger leadership, blame would not exist. But rather "blame" would be replaced with national unity and resolve, if not international unity and resolve.
Bush's failures have been in lack of leadership. And of course a lack of "veto" usage, unfortunately not as our great friend Curm suggests.
To a spoiled, little silver spoon, rich kid, cheer leader, George "W." mistook tenacity and persistance (some call it pig-headedness) for leadership. He listened as dad's old cabinet buddies (Rummy, Chenny, and Tom) told him leadership meant he could have a two front war AND a vibrant economy (because of it) without asking every citizen to be involved by making personal sacrifices, instead of only the war widows, maimed soldiers and their family members. Bush was "trained" at Yale to think "leadership" means "cheerleading", grip-n-grins, and back-slapping. He was not "fighter pilot"...he was a privileged draft dodger ushered into a "weekend warrior" fun club called the Ellington ANG. I am qualified to make that unequivocal statement.
He was a bad choice, but the choice was between a bad one and a much worse one at each time we voted. Both Kerry and Gore were simply dispicable and at least by my own judgement of character, much much worse.
Sorry for the long diatribe or "rant", but I feel strongly about some of this stuff and it helps to vent it sometimes to people like yourselves who are very bright and able to understand what I am trying to talk about without taking offense.
I better shut up and let you good folks tell me all about how wrong I was and am.
Guess I was inspired by Charlie T's. "The past teaches us what's valuable, including whiskey" piece, especially where he quotes Dr. Bob Becker, who teaches history at WSU.
MM:
The debate is not about whether we should do all possible to interdict Moslem extremist attacks on the US. The debate is about how to do it effectively. Since Iraq was not involved in the attacks on us on 9/11, and since Saddam Hussein was a secularist who was despised by [and in turn despised] the terrorists who made up Al Queda, and since we were already engaged, and properly, in denying those extremists Afghanistan, and attempting to create stable non-terrorist aiding government there, the decision to invade Iraq was a disaster. It drew forces out of Afghanistan so we could not and did not finish the job there. [A recent Pentagon intelligence report now lists Afghanistan as in greater danger of collapse than Iraq.] The resulting metastasizing of the debt as we pour hundreds of billions into Iraq with few discernable results has, as Og points out, destabalized the dollar and helped undermine the American economy.
We're arguing about tactics and strategy, MM, not whether the batshit whacko Moslem extremists should be fought. And by every measure we have, Bush's disastrous policy has significantly increased third world opposition to the US, and significantly undercut our support among our longest and most reliable allies in Europe and elsewhere.
My view: there is much wisdom in the old adage, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. And that means finding leaders who can look, when any situation comes up, at what would be best in the end for American interests. And not give in to drugstore cowboy macho urges like "bring it on!" or, from LBJ, "Nail that coonskin to the wall!" And that cannot begin to happen, the kind of steely-eyed unemotional stone cold sober assessment of options, resources and probable outcomes, so long as we have calling the shots someone who to this day refuses to admit that he made any mistakes, and who seems to believe that continuing to do more of what has had disastrous results so far will somehow all work out in the end.
Of course we need to take on terrorists who target the US. But we need to do it intelligently. We need to get away from presidents who send us to war halfway round the world because they have a "gut feeling" that it was a good idea. I think I prefer presidents who think with their minds, not their guts.
Rudi:
Thanks for the link on Chaney's investments. As they used to say on "Laugh In," veddy in-ter-es-ting.
Seem he understands just how badly he and Vice President Bush have screwed up, and has decided to take the money and run. Odd that he seems to have no trouble thinking rationally and discerning wise policy when looking after his own interests, and yet can't manage to do either when looking after the nation's interests.
"The problem folks is the weak US Dollar"
"The ultimate problem is the weak dollar"
The author of these two statements(sorry, Rudi?) is as clueless as the folks who see the resolution as simply a shortfall in production that will easily be made up in the next crop cycle.
The problem is that we have built the world's most productive economy on cheap fuel that is no longer CHEAP. Whether this is a result of Peak Oil production or growing worldwide demand is meaningless. It is the current event and not likely in any scenario to improve. Americans always assume some hero politician or invention will allow us to surge ahead of the rest of the world. Not in these times. All the great inventions that translated cheap fuel to mechanical energy have been done. We now must scale our energy needs and consumption to reflect the critical need of the activity. In other words, the production of wheat takes precedence over the squandering of fuel to meet all those social demands that have been so irrationally staged as priorities. things like soccer matches, weddings, funerals, shopping for doodads, whole stores filled with non-essential crap. Plastic packaging, fast food, sub-liter bottled water(you are an anti-enviro cretin if you fall for the chic of labeled and portioned drinking water. Do the math on your relative impact if you buy cases of this shit).
There are so many angles to the disaster we have spent ourselves into, no one can pinpoint the way out as we all scrap with one another over whose lifestyle is more impacting. Good luck, America, you'll need it.
I have been storing food for 3 decades and always buy in advance at the lowest commodity prices. That stored food gets cycled into the daily use so as to always be fresh.
The crazy thing is that it is always the "cool-observer conservative" types who see this a little clearer than the liberals yet they are the jerks who continue to vote in the creeps who disrupt the world and spend ourselves poor on empire building ventures. Unfortunately, America is not an empire nor ever has possessed the good sense of how to manage an empire.
"not knowing anything else to do but try to kill them where they are, BEFORE they can come and kill any more of us."
"Anyone got a better solution than eliminate the threat where they breed and train?"
See what I mean...
What a load of external blame and nonsense.
What about an option that cultivates respect around the world instead of our corporations and treaty-enforced-prohibitonist laws that prevent peasants from producing the best agricultural product on their meager land.
We can prevent a terrorist attack by not offending and occupying hostile territories. It may amaze some how fast our standin could be repaired and how many friends could be cultivated by treating the world as equals instead of greedily subverting their natural resources for our wealth and health.
"until we spotted a few skiers as they hop-turned down Lone Tree, an elevator-shaft chute etched into the face opposite the lodge. The spell broken, we headed back out."
Unfortunately for these tenderfoots, Lone Tree was already tracked out by those few hop-turners. Incidentally...Hop-turning is inherently gay...or effeminate, or whatever, it chops up the friggin' snow. The proper style is to point it straight down those chutes and use the run out in the bowl to experience some real speed. It sickens me to see skiers scarring the fresh with incessant "hop-turns" Get some skills before braving this terrain or stay on Needles lift. These articles only serve to draw more intermediate fools to our grand terrain and inviting them to venture into avalanche prone areas. Most of Snow Basin's better terrain is CLOSED on the better days awaiting avalanche clearing. The better terrain is also mostly out of bounds and not patrolled. Not for the casual visitor.
Real men never fear anything. Real men make decisions based on confidence, not invoking fear. These "real men" terrorist fighters are really pantywaists seeking free rides on the fear mongering ventures of the American global gluttony machine. To attach oneself to this kind of "backed into a corner" "foaming at the mouth" globalism reveals the kind of thoughtless feargroping animal that epitomizes the American right(wrong). All you tough guys who flew missions or sat in trenches have no more claim to a valid world view than anyone else. Your view is fogged by fear and shell-shock. You always insist no one else can see it all clearly because you didn't have the courage of conscience to bail out to Canada and tell our corporate war machine to bugger off. You are the tools of fear. Those of us who oppose war at any cost are the brave and tough. We live in confidence and strength. No amount of Fox news can shke my strength. You are WEAK in the knees, war mongers.
To Tec J.
"The days of the Winter or Summer Soldier conferance BS and liberal marches with peace symbols and draft card burnings are not in vogue no matter how much some might long for such repeat nonsense. And to those who "go now" and "went then" it "is" and "was" nonsense and merely an excuse for not "paying the piper".
I think the Machman got it right. Its OK if you squat to pee Tec. He and others fought and sacrificed so you could say those things. Be nice.
"Its OK if you squat to pee Tec. He and others fought and sacrificed so you could say those things. Be nice."
Nothing anyone fought for in the last several wars INCLUDING WW2 contributed to my RIGHT to say those things. I say those things unequivically as an American. Those who fought were snookered and use these bellicose rants to justify being hoodwinked into yet another useless empirical venture. It is not disrespect. In fact is is damn disrespectful to twist these misadventures into some patrio-nazi agenda.
Pull the thong out of your cheeks KE and see the big lie you fell for...sucker
My father fought in a major botched venture known as the invasion of Sicily. His para-group of C47 pilots and jumpers were compromised by testosterone fueled commanders who completely misjudged the german resistance based on their need to produce results. Read up on it. WW2 was no hero producing war. It's the media and the children who inherited the armed forces who have jacked this country. Their concocted hero worship fuels their desire to finish some fantasy of an unfinished job in the world. My father's friend's NEVER invoked their war credentials nor their world view based on those credentials. They were humbled by the war. This war mongering thing is a post-Vietnam syndrome and those who were mislead to fight there to halt some domino theory fantasy. Now they use their self deception to guilt those who have cooler heads into buying their trumped up experience and fear tactics. No one who has truly fought frontlines want to talk about it. It is something you put behind you. It's tragic and hellish. Those who sound out their experience...well, medals can be bought at many a garage sale. I'm not listening to any chest beating. It's fake.
The vast majority of military personnel serve in behind the lines positions. History has shown many will enhance their involvement to cover for their lack of engaged action. I'll take this war mongering with a grain of salt.
Tec J.
I seems apparent that you have managed to avoid any form of service to your Country by rationalizing your own personal inhibitions and cowardace and projecting them onto others. You likely have projected your Mormon Mission as some kind of red badge of courage in service to your country (Utah).
Put down veterans at your own peril. Blather your own views at will, but do not put down those who have died to give you the freedoms which you so blithely dismiss and abuse.
It is OK for you and the other Mormons and liberals who share your hate America views.
It is OK for you to burn the symbol of our Country.
Is is OK for you to dilude yourself into thinking you can say whatever you want to say just because you live in or were born in America.
It is OK because you actually believe you are a Saint and will someday become a God on your own planet.
It is OK because you have all these freedoms, even as a limp dick chicken shit who tries to intellectualize himself into respectable company.
You sir are no "real man" but a cowering pitiful bottom feeding excuse making non citizen who sucks the air of freedom because of the sacrifices of real men.
I would say "Get a life" but then you already have a neurotic fantasy one. So I will suggest you seek psychological help instead.
Knight:
All comparisons regarding VN and Iraq need to keep clearly in mind this key fact: we had a draft back then. And after draft deferments for college were eliminated, we had middle-class kids being hauled off to fight in Asia instead of heading off to Old Siwash to cheer the team and conduct panty raids. We have no draft now. If we did, the same surging crowds you saw in the VN years you would have seen here again long ago. And we'd have been out of Iraq by now.
Should we re-introduce the draft? There is a case to be made for re-instituting the draft. Presidents and congress would be much less likely to get us involved in cowboy-adventures overseas if they knew their constituents' children would be drafted to fight. I doubt the invasion of Iraq would have happened had there been a draft in place at the time.
On the other hand, seems that if the Republic is fighting just wars, i.e. wars that deal with a major threat to the United States or protect a vital [and I do mean vital] interest of the US, there ought to be enough people willing to volunteer to do the fighting. And if an administration cannot explain and justify the war it wants to start sufficiently to convince Americans to step forward, then perhaps it needs to rethink the wisdom of the war in the first place.
Your VN analogy falls down, I think, in another way. We have good evidence that the American people will support, with virtually no protest, wars they are convinced are necessary for the nation's defense.
The problem with VN is we attempted to force service in a war the public did not long support, and of the need for which it was not convinced. In that, VN is very like what is happening now in Iraq, minus the draft component.
Tec is right that military service does not convey any right [other than rights to medical care and veteran's benefits] that is not available to other Americans who did not serve. Most American citizens do not serve in the military. To ascribe to the notion that, somehow, military service is a necessary qualification for holding office, or that it conveys some special political rights not available to others, is to undermine much of the Constitution as envisioned and drafted by the Founders.
My own view is, when our government --- rightly or wrongly, wisely or stupidly --- sends Americans into combat, soldiers have no choice but to obey. We do not want soldiers deciding when they will or will not fight, which wars they find acceptable and which not. That has to be a civilian government decision.
However, any soldier, sailor, airman etc. sent to fight, and who conducts himself honorably, even in what the public may be convinced is an unjustified and wholly stupid, if not criminal war, must be... must be... accorded precisely the same respect, and be entitled to the same benefits for service, that were given to those who fought in more popular wars [e.g. WWII]. And not one iota less. The mendacity or stupidity of the civilian leadership that sent them to war should matter not a whit. Nor should it matter one iota whether the war is judged, in the end, to have been successful [WWII], a draw [Korea] or a loss [VN] by the public.
Which is why I support, strongly, the bi-partisan new G.I. Bill about to be introduced into Congress by one Dem and one Rep Senator, to provide those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with a package of benefits not unlike that accorded to returning vets after WWII. Wisely or not, the government elected by "We, the People" sent 'em. And we owe them, then, for going over in our name, whether it was wise or not, just or not, successful or not.
Which brings us to Mr. McCain, who is justly proud of his military service, but who is also telling us that that service makes him more qualified to be president than someone who did not serve. And that is nonsense. Nothing in our history indicates that military service indicates administrative ability. Or even honesty. [Think Duke Cunningham.] Or even competence. [Think U.S.Grant.] Jefferson never served a day. Lincoln had a brief stint in the frontier militia, which he hated. On the other hand, Ike turned out reasonably well in the White House. So did Washington. Zachary Taylor, on the other hand....
The point is, military service is no more an indication that someone will be a good president than lack of service is an indication that he... or she... will be a poor one. And so when someone tells me "vote for me because I served in the military," I react the same way I do when someone says to me "Invest in my company because I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior." I head for the door as fast as I can.
Hey guys...
The Machman here. And I agree totally with what Curmudgeon just said, for the record.
And I think reinstituting the draft would be a good thing for the Country in the long run. With manditory public service in some form, I think we would all be better served.
Seems that since 1970 when the all volunteer force was deleted there has been a decline in understanding of some very basic notions held by most citizens.
We have Orin Hatch, who never served in the military, constantly sponsoring bills to ban flag burning. While what very few who have been in the military in Congress shoot it down saying that is a part of the rights for which they fought. Just as an example.
If everyone spent a couple of years serving, either in the military, coast guard, Americrops, VISTA, or whatever, I think the participation in elections and community service would be better. Why, because people would feel more "invested" in a Country they more directly helped sustain, build, recover economically, or even defend in a few instances.
Again, I defer to the knowledge out there to tell me if and how I'm wrong. This time without the animus and personal attacks (re Tec J., knight errant, and neutral passerby --- hopefully.)
Our military ventures have not been about fighting for our right to self expression as is constantly evoked by the hawks and apologists. They have been about a myriad of international issues but they have not been about protecting our American way of life, not by a long shot. Sure, these hawks insist on guilting those with enough sense to not waste our lives fighting for politicians into thinking they fought for us but it's nonsense.
The reality is that the United States is so strategically perfectly located as no nation aside from Canada could pose a threat of actually occupying even a county much less any sizable portion of the US. So all this bellicose protecting of our way of life is BS. There is no imminent threat to our way of life aside from the liberties we lose when the fear mongers make it harder for real Americans to move about freely and enjoy some semblance of personal privacy. Your fear ranting is responsible for more loss of our way of life than any despot ever threatened. Just look at Iraq for example. The most powerful military cannot even occupy and handle that country, who could possibly threaten the US. Talk about an insurgency, imagine the insurgency if Chinese or Russian troops landed in SoCal. What a joke is that scenario. Americans are always fretting about shit hitting the fan and outside threats bringing down our freedom. I propose to you that no country would have anything to do with us. No country has the resources to mount a sea crossing with an occupying force. Crap, do I have to point out the nonsense scenarios these hawks fantasize over.
Go fight your wars, but do it at the employ of the corporations fighting for the right to rape the respective country and don't wrap it into some digestible lie like nation building. You are suckers for the biggest lies. Enjoy your crow.
Someone thinks I'm Mormon. That's a riot.
Am I a vet? You'll never know because whether I am or not, I would never stoop to using it for justifying one position or another or whether it entitled me to a more valid world view. All positions deserve respect based on their merits, not on anything to do with the speakers supposed service. What empty fluff. I would never use military service to shove my version of America down anyone else's throat. If these are the weaklings the military breeds then it's no wonder we are at a stalemate in ALL of our military conflicts.
Since WW2 all of the conflicts have been about American corporate interests and nothing to do with democracy in the host country, except for our corporations extraneous right to sell the locals Pepsi or Hershey bars.
The Reverend Wright = The Reverend Tec Jonson?
Just as whacked out. SHUT UP DUDE!
Take your drivel to a shrink!
PTBAA
Good to see you have a coherent response.
Post a Comment