Jim (who I firmly believe is a closet liberal)

<Pulls off white glove, slaps Little Joe across the face with it.>

"Sir, my good name has been impugned! I challenge you to a duel! Send around your seconds."

I was just about to say that on another thread! The bot? just replies with some anti-liberal rhetoric to every thread and doesn't say anything substantive about any specific content.

The Daystrom duotronic posting bots Number1 through 6 were not entirely successful....

So, my math on this is 500 missiles on opening day, then 225 strike sorties and another 50 bombing sorties each day for two days, shifting toward 150 strike sorties and 50 bombing sorties per day by the end of the first week.  Assuming the piece counts are accurate and 2 hits per sortie, that's 100 days to hit everything once, by air.  Meanwhile there is a ground war going on and how that goes is an entirely different equation.

So, um, what about the South Korean air force? And its own considerable artillery resources? Why is the task of taking out North Korean artillery left to only the U.S. Navy? The South Koreans will be promptly executing counter-battery fire from their own artillery and air force. The North Korean artillery will need to engage in fire-and-move if they wish to survive any length of time, greatly reducing their rate of fire. Dug-in positions may not be survivable.

Also, it isn't militarily wise for the North Koreans to target civilian targets exclusively, such as greater Seoul. A considerable number of their artillery must be reserved for military targets and reserves.

I found some articles on the claim Seoul would not be "flattened" by North Korean artillery should all-out war break out:

"Can North Korea Really "Flatten" Seoul?"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/

"How North Korea Would Retaliate"
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-retaliate

"Why North Korea Can’t Flatten Seoul"
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seoul/

A contrary opinion:

"A Look At North Korea's Artillery Shows Why No One Wants War"
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4

You're a piece of work Jim.  I think I heard there were 6 people killed in that strike, and they were not civilians.

But go ahead and live your fantasy.

Nowhere did I say we killed any civilians. I was attempting to point out that Assad has been killing civilians for years and Trump only claimed revulsion when chemical weapons were used. If Assad can keep killing civilians by conventional weapons he wont have to worry about Trump.

As to policy consistency - well, feel free to look up what Trump has said about the U.S. getting involved in the mideast back when he was a candidate. Or even a few weeks ago.

One of us is wrong.  AFAIK, there is no interstate competition for medical insurance.

There may be interstate competition in the hiring of the best doctors and nurses, or the purchase of supplies and equipment.  But there is no interstate competition for health insurance products.  Living in Florida, I cannot purchase a plan that my cousin in Virginia can, and vice versa.

With respect to health insurance, this page may prove useful (I quote only from the first paragraph; the rest of the page should be read for more info):

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx

"Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. Large employers who self-insure are exempt from these state regulations. The result has been a patchwork of 50 different sets of state regulations; the cost for an insurer licensed in one state to enter another state market is often high."

I've had my own domain, and hence the same email address, since 1995. I've had it hosted by three different providers in all that time. It is not free, but never more cost than about one fast-food meal a month.

I don't believe an apology is in order, but I would like to call a truce with Jim.  And yes, I realize that I was the guiltier one.

Now that I understand where he is coming from, I have no problem with his posts.  Especially because they are usually well reasoned and backed up.  My problem with his posts was that they were invariably antagonistic towards conservatives.  But I can see why he would think that is called for, since we have so few liberals on here.

Truce? I missed the declaration of war, dangit. No apology needed from you or anyone. Fortunately for me, I don't hold anything people say to (or about) me against them. It's fortunate for me because it means I remain in a blissful state, rather than get worked up.

I used to consider myself conservative - back in the early 1970s. I was pro-Nixon. I read William F. Buckley's National Review (well, mostly because an older brother subscribed.) But at some point, not sure when, I found myself in the evil clutches of libertarianism. Guess I never could accept the idea of a government small enough to fit in everyone's bedroom. I thought it should be even smaller than that.

I wrote "And I write that as someone who thinks Sessions is a danger to liberty."

and what do you base your belief on?

I think Sessions is a danger to civil liberties because of his recent statements on crackdowns on recreational use of marijuana and his defense of current civil forfeiture practices (see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department)

Lastly, the following votes on civil liberty issues are contrary to my conception of liberty (though there are many votes he cast that I do agree with):

Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm

did you also think that holder and obama were a danger to liberty?

The eight years of the Obama administration was a disaster for liberty. I didn't vote for him - nor any other Democrat for any other local or national office anytime in the last 40 years.

This forum appears to be dominated by conservatives, followed by libertarians, populists, and lastly liberals - so it is in danger of becoming a conservative echo chamber. As a result, IMHO attempting to debate posts made by the few liberals is an exercise in redundancy, which only leaves debating posts made by the conservative majority. If posters make posts I suspect are erroneous and I suspect they will go unchallenged I may decide to challenge them, depending on how much effort is involved vs how much time I'm willing to expend. I consider myself a libertarian and there are plenty of differences by libertarians and conservatives.