Academy Sees Applications Drop

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
21

<p>Don't forget that budget (and it's corresponding deficits) was passed by a Republican (at least they "call" themselves "Republican") Congress and signed into law by a "Republican" (at least he "calls" himself a "Republican") president who hasn't met a spending bill he doesn't like. If ANYONE in Congress wanted to pass a bill for unlimited spending ANYWHERE our chief executive's track record shows he would sign it. </p>

<p>The proven inability on both sides of the aisle and in the White House to govern competently, using their brains and not by the seat of their pants, I suspect, is going to lead to a voting revolution in November that ought to be very interesting.</p>

22

<p>RE:CUTS MIGHT SHRINK NAVAL ACADEMY ADMISSIONS</p>

<p>Great...That's a good way to lose chunks of their top candidates by advertisement alone....nevermind any of the bottom cuts to keep class size down.</p>

<p>32 faculty vacancies??? WT*? Shameful! I put a link in an email to son's BGO for comment.</p>

<p>Timing of this is also wonderful......:(</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Don't forget that budget (and it's corresponding deficits) was passed by a Republican (at least they "call" themselves "Republican") Congress and signed into law by a "Republican" (at least he "calls" himself a "Republican") president who hasn't met a spending bill he doesn't like. If ANYONE in Congress wanted to pass a bill for unlimited spending ANYWHERE our chief executive's track record shows he would sign it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ain't that the truth....</p>

<p>
[quote]
The proven inability on both sides of the aisle and in the White House to govern competently, using their brains and not by the seat of their pants, I suspect, is going to lead to a voting revolution in November that ought to be very interesting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like what? Who will replace who? Will the Greens win, or the Constitution Party, or the Neorelativistoxymoronicgaghelfrunt Party?</p>

<p>The only revolution this country will ever see is if the people grab their weapons, march on Washington, and remind the turds inside the beltway who really is supposed to be running this place. Sadly, however, so many of the people have become so dependent on the scraps falling from Washington's table, or so engorged by the power that comes from rubbing shoulders with the folks doing the eating, that that will never happen, either.</p>

<p>So either way, we're pretty much screwed unless a bunch of people get voted in who will actually cut spending, as in, "This year's budget is 30% LESS than last year's, not just 30% less than what we expected to INCREASE it by."</p>

<p>Of course, they'll be called heartless, cruel, racist, greedy, etc. :rolleyes:</p>

24

<p>I know some of y'all don't like it when I mention a certain potential presidential candidate, but if getting federal spending under control is truly important to you, then check out this link:</p>

<p><a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1220%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1220&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It's from 2004, I know, but it's enlightening about his point of view nonetheless. And VERY discouraging about the types of things that congress does choose to spend OUR money on!</p>

25

<p>SNORK!</p>

<p>I just had milk come up through my nose. Sorry.</p>

<p>John McCain. Right. The same dim bulb that has made it illegal to express a political opinion 60 days before an election. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>If he doesn't understand the First Amendment, you'll forgive me if I put ZERO confidence in his ability to understand basic fiscal tenets. </p>

<p>He's also managed to bring his own trainful of pork back to Arizona. He's no different than any of the others.</p>

26

<p>Budget issues have curtailed weapons training at USNA. Also, the shortage of troops in Iraq resulted in Marine guards leaving the Academy altogether and being replaced by Navy personnel.</p>

27

<p>Weren't the gate guards replaced by a private security firm?</p>

28

<p>"Like what? Who will replace who? Will the Greens win, or the Constitution Party, or the Neorelativistoxymoronicgaghelfrunt Party?"</p>

<p>The simplist answer is for the American people to start voting according to the merits of the candidate instead of which party they belong to-- I have no issues with a Republican or Democrat being elected as long as they are competent to make sound decisions and policy. I don't vote for a candidate because he or she is a Republican or a Democrat--both party's continue to be bastardized by the few who happen to be in control at a given time. The current Republican party is NOT the party of Reagan and the current Democratic party is not the party of Kennedy or Roosevelt. Both have been morphed into something quite different, and neither has been able to put up a competent candidate for President since Clinton. (Frankly, I'd rather have a horny, competent president than what we are dealing with now, from either party.)</p>

<p>John McCain would be a great president, but the current Republican machine would never tolerate someone who thinks for himself, actually served his nation with courage and honor in wartime, and might actually "kick off" that personal responsibility ethic we were promised by the Republican party. McCain doesn’t mind confrontation, but his kind doesn't get along well in the party, especially in the South. After McCain defeated Bush in New Hampshire in the first election's primary, Bush's campaign painted McCain as an anti-establishment type, which is funny because Bush spent the rest of his campaign trying to convince us that he wasn't a "Washington type" politician. Perhaps the American people should have asked themselves in 2000 if:</p>

<p>"Would you feel more reassured if President John McCain or President George W. Bush appeared on television one night to explain why America was going to war?" </p>

<p>We need a grown-up in the White House ASAP. This ship is off course and the captain is too stubborn to change it or the people who steered him on it.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
The simplist answer is for the American people to start voting according to the merits of the candidate instead of which party they belong to

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And what candidates would those be? Democrats love nothing more than to spend other people's money to satisfy their own insecurities and prejudices, and Republicans don't seem to be able to muster up the intestinal fortitude to stand by what they claim to. Hell, even the ones who went to DC to REALLY make some changes end up getting sucked in!</p>

<p>So who are the people going to vote for?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The current Republican party is NOT the party of Reagan and the current Democratic party is not the party of Kennedy or Roosevelt.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You certainly got that right, although the way we're spending would make Roosevelt proud.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Both have been morphed into something quite different, and neither has been able to put up a competent candidate for President since Clinton.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>ROFL!</p>

<p>ROTFLMAO!</p>

<p>CLINTON? COMPETENT?</p>

<p>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!</p>

<p>YEAH! REALLY COMPETENT! Let's blow off Osama Bin Laden when he's offered to us on a plate because we don't want to have to deal with the bad press. Let's pull our troops out of Somalia after one bloody row (where we killed 100 of them for every one of us), and thus show the world we were nothing but a paper tiger. Let's direct more firepower at the American people (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzalez) than we did at terrorists.</p>

<p>Competent my fat rump!</p>

<p>
[quote]
John McCain would be a great president, but the current Republican machine would never tolerate someone who thinks for himself, actually served his nation with courage and honor in wartime, and might actually "kick off" that personal responsibility ethic we were promised by the Republican party.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you believe that, then you must be on some seriously good crack. McCain cares only about McCain, and if you think the love affair the media has with him would last after he won the GOP nomination, think again. You think they'd back him over that bolshevik ***** the other side is going to put up?</p>

<p>
[quote]
We need a grown-up in the White House ASAP.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We have one. Get over it. The real frat boy was that hormone-addled adolescent he replaced.</p>

<p>Problem is, this guy wants to be compassionate too much. I wonder what the response would be if he suddenly came out tomorrow and proposed disbanding the Department of Education (which is blatantly unconstitutional and which educates NO ONE) in order to save the billions that are poured into that black hole every year? </p>

<p>I can tell you one thing: Conservatives and fiscally-minded non-conservatives would be ROARING with approval, but all you would hear is how he's out of touch, heartless, etc.</p>

<p>After all, this is the guy who created hurricane Katrina using the Halliburton Storm Generator Mk II (Mk I created the tsunami), and then sent the Army Corps of Engineers to blow up the levves and kill 10,000 people whose corpses have all been hidden. :rolleyes:</p>

30

<p>Yes, Shogun. Agree, agree, agree.
Now, what would/could happen if McCain got the nom & "the party" really got behind him??</p>

<p>Zaphod - Can you please name some pork projects McCain has advocated for Arizona?? Really. I'd like to know. (Haven't found anything in my research yet).<br>
Hey, he IS one of the sponsors of the recent Pork-Barrel Reduction Act - guess he's trying to stop himself from bringing any more of that pork to Arizona!</p>

<p>He's also sponsoring the Line-Item Veto Act, something your man Reagan was all for!</p>

<p>And just because he wants to limit candidates' access to PAC money during an election doesn't mean he doesn't understand the 1st Amendment (as I understand it, the PAC groups can spend it, but the candidate himself can't - and that's just the PAC (soft) money).</p>

<p>Hey - I'm all about being informed, so if any of y'all have the real gouge on McCain, let 'er rip. I'd love to hear why we shouldn't elect the guy!</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the research continues - when 2008 gets here I want to be informed. This forum is a great place to post info as well as opinions - as long as we all behave!</p>

31

<p>For example, Sen. McCain wants $10 million ($2 million annually over five years) to establish the William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence at the University of Arizona.</p>

<p>Yeah. That's good use of public funds. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>No matter how "anti-pork" he (or anyone else, for that matter) might seem, they always send a little bit their way. With the money above, we would have enough money to fill the gap at USNA and have funds left over.</p>

<p>Oh, and when you are forbidden by law from running a political ad 60 days before an election, that is an infringement on political speech. Period. In case it hasn't sunk in yet, the 1st Amendment isn't about pornography or calling for our troops to shoot their officers.</p>

<p>I love the Line-Item Veto. Big woop. He also tried to ban gun shows, which is near and dear to my heart as a law-abiding citizen. Of course, that makes him eligible for sainthood in the eyes of those who worship at his altar for no other reason that he divides the right. </p>

<p>Oh, that and the fact that he got on this moral high-horse about torture, as if just because he was tortured by the (peaceful, kind, loving, and who never attacked us, remember?) Vietnamese, this somehow gives him the right to equate what he and his comrades went through to a pair of underwear on someone's head.</p>

<p>The party will never "really get behind him" because he has never "really gotten behind" the party, and I don't mean the GOP; I'm talking CONSERVATISM.</p>

32

<p>"Oh, that and the fact that he got on this moral high-horse about torture, as if just because he was tortured by the (peaceful, kind, loving, and who never attacked us, remember?) Vietnamese, this somehow gives him the right to equate what he and his comrades went through to a pair of underwear on someone's head."</p>

<p>I would submit that John McCain is one of the few politicians we have who DOES have the right to speak on torture. The rest of these chicken-hawks certainly do not.</p>

<p>"For example, Sen. McCain wants $10 million ($2 million annually over five years) to establish the William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence at the University of Arizona.</p>

<p>Yeah. That's good use of public funds."</p>

<p>The William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence is to focus on scholarship and education about the judicial branch of government. Boy, we sure don't want anyone at a law school to know anything more about the judiciary than they already do. </p>

<p>"GEORGE W. BUSH PROMISED to "change the tone in Washington" and ran for office as a moderate, a "compassionate conservative," in the focus-group-tested sloganeering of his campaign. Yet he has governed from the right wing of his already conservative party, assiduously tending a "base" that includes, along with the expected Fortune 500 fat cats, fiscal evangelicals who talk openly of doing away with Social Security and Medicare, of shrinking government to the size where they can, in tax radical Grover Norquist's phrase, "drown it in the bathtub." That base also encompasses a healthy share of anti-choice zealots, homophobic bigots, and assorted purveyors of junk science. Bush has tossed bones to all of them—"partial birth" abortion legislation, the promise of a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals, federal roadblocks to embryonic-stem-cell research, even comments suggesting presidential doubts about Darwinian evolution. It's not that Mr. Bush necessarily shares their worldview; indeed, it's unclear whether he embraces any coherent philosophy. But this president, who vowed to eschew politics in favor of sound policy, panders nonetheless in the interest of political gain. As John DiIulio, Bush's former head of the Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, once said, "What you've got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm." "</p>

<p>As far as Clinton goes, keep in mind he left his second term in office with a 65% approval rating from the American People, AFTER Monica and AFTER the Conservatives led an impeachment. That was the highest end of term approval rating since Eisenhower. Reagan's was 64%.</p>

<p>Conservatism ain't what it used to be.</p>

33

<p>Gotcha. Appreciate the info & your views too.</p>

<p>Where did you get the info on the Rhenquist Center?</p>

<p>About McCain not embracing Conservatism - doesn't his advocacy for fiscal responsibility in Congress illustrate that he is more conservative than most of those big spenders? (And I'm talking Rebulicans too, as seems to be the case these days). </p>

<p>And does someone have to be unwaveringly conservative on every single issue to be deemed a conservative? No room for flexibility? Can't veer off of the "party line" a little bit? If not, that's a pretty narrow-minded party/ideology. Hmmm - always thought I was a conservative...</p>

<p>Z - one more question. If someone goes to a gun show, can they walk away with the gun that same day? Can they do criminal background checks and stuff like that at gun shows? Just curious. Thanks.</p>

34

<p>Pleeaeaeassssse start a new thread in one of the parent forums with this "stuff". ;)</p>

35

<p>I, too, am enjoying this. Imagine, a discussion with facts and not just name-calling and aspersion casting. Thanks, you two!</p>

36

<p>Sure, these USNA Candidates aren't interested in politics anyway...;)</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
Boy, we sure don't want anyone at a law school to know anything more about the judiciary than they already do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By all means build it, but not with public funds.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"GEORGE W. BUSH PROMISED to "change the tone in Washington" and ran for office as a moderate, a "compassionate conservative," in the focus-group-tested sloganeering of his campaign. Yet he has governed from the right wing of his already conservative party, assiduously tending a "base" that includes, along with the expected Fortune 500 fat cats, fiscal evangelicals who talk openly of doing away with Social Security and Medicare, of shrinking government to the size where they can, in tax radical Grover Norquist's phrase, "drown it in the bathtub." That base also encompasses a healthy share of anti-choice zealots, homophobic bigots, and assorted purveyors of junk science. Bush has tossed bones to all of them—"partial birth" abortion legislation, the promise of a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals, federal roadblocks to embryonic-stem-cell research, even comments suggesting presidential doubts about Darwinian evolution. It's not that Mr. Bush necessarily shares their worldview; indeed, it's unclear whether he embraces any coherent philosophy. But this president, who vowed to eschew politics in favor of sound policy, panders nonetheless in the interest of political gain. As John DiIulio, Bush's former head of the Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, once said, "What you've got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Come up with that yourself, or do you receive DNC talking point intravenously along with the rest of the liberal Kool-Aid?</p>

<p>Wow, so just because I believe an innocent child has a right to be born, I'm an "anti-choice zealot"?</p>

<p>Considering that the party of "choice" only believes in choice when a child dies, I'm not going to lose any sleep. Let's face it, they're anti-choice when it comes to school choice, they're anti-choice when it comes to my choice on how to spend the money I make, they're anti-choice when it comes to the choices I make on how to use my property, they're anti-choice on allowing the Iraqi's to choose they're government (remember, Democracy isn't for everyone!), and the list goes on.</p>

<p>But WE are the "anti-choice zealots". :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Junk science? You must be talking about this global warming thing that Al Gore has lost his brain to. I hear that Mars is warming, too. Does Halliburton have SUV's up there, too?</p>

<p>
[quote]
As far as Clinton goes, keep in mind he left his second term in office with a 65% approval rating from the American People, AFTER Monica and AFTER the Conservatives led an impeachment. That was the highest end of term approval rating since Eisenhower. Reagan's was 64%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah. I guess when you sit back on your ass for eight years and accomplish nothing but lies, scandal, deceit, and so forth, and tackle nothing of any importance, and the economy is booming, you'll be OK.</p>

<p>YOU should keep in mind that, after an assault on his character unheard of in American politics, George W. Bush cleaned the clock of John Kerry (who served in Vietnam, BTW), and won 51% of the vote. Clinton never topped 50. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Conservatism ain't what it used to be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure it is. It's just that a lot of the people in power now are lukewarm conservatives at best. I also find it laughable that you support Clinton yet regret that Conservatism isn't what it used to be. You feeling OK?</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
Where did you get the info on the Rhenquist Center?

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/editorials/story/2a2d0d7e2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/editorials/story/2a2d0d7e2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
About McCain not embracing Conservatism - doesn't his advocacy for fiscal responsibility in Congress illustrate that he is more conservative than most of those big spenders?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In that regard, and assuming his record backs it up, then the answer to your question is yes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And does someone have to be unwaveringly conservative on every single issue to be deemed a conservative? No room for flexibility? Can't veer off of the "party line" a little bit? If not, that's a pretty narrow-minded party/ideology. Hmmm - always thought I was a conservative...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Conservatism is not a party. It is a set of basic principles. Less government intrusion into our lives. Lower taxes. Smaller government. A strong military. A foundation in faith (not a particular faith, but at least the recognition of a Supreme Being), etc.</p>

<p>Generally, those are what separate Conservatives from liberals. Yes, there is disagreement, but when you start talking crap against your own party and supporting the other one, you're no longer being flexible. You're being a traitor.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Z - one more question. If someone goes to a gun show, can they walk away with the gun that same day? Can they do criminal background checks and stuff like that at gun shows? Just curious. Thanks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If someone buys a weapon from another private citizen, then no background check is required by federal law, but many states require it. If, however, you purchase from a licensed vendor (and 99.9% of vendors at gun shows are), then you MUST complete a background check.</p>

<p>The "gun show loophole" is a farce. Criminals don't buy them there, anyway. It's called the black market, just like drugs, and we all know how effective we've been at controlling THOSE, now don't we?</p>

39

<p>Zaphod,
The only reason I wanted the thread taken elsewhere is that I can't stop my heartbeat from rising everytime I read one of the volleys between you and the 'anti' conservatives (got to call them something ;)). I love it and I'm ready to move to NC so I can co-conspire close to one of pure knowlege, such as you :D....</p>

40

<p>Anytime, buddy! :D</p>

<p>Lord knows, your smarts aren't appreciated in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts! :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Come on down! We need to clean out Chapel Hill. That's the place where a Muslim recently rented an SUV and drove it into the common area at UNC and ran over 9 students, and later admitted he had rented the vehicle and done the attack to kill as many students as possible in response to the way America is treating Muslims.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the UNC administration refuses to call it a terrorist attack, the media has ignored it, and no one has asked Al Gore, who just the week before was in the Middle East telling the idiots over there how we are rounding up, imprisoning, and killing Muslims over here en masse, if he felt responsible for the attack.</p>

<p>Now, Pat Robertson calls terrorists satanic, and ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE! :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Liberalism is a mental disease.</p>