Fairweather

I agree about 90%. Still, if you can figure out how to do it, please tell. Abrogate GATT, NAFTA, etc? Relax environmental regulations here at home? Abolish unions? Retrain service sector employees to work in all the new factories that are selling products to who exactly? Nixon thought that opening up China to the west would make it less of a threat. I guess the jury is still out.

I agree, you don't strike me as a gulag type of guy. Quite the opposite. But your friends--not so sure. (Let's let history be our guide here.)

wonderful argument (not that it has anything to do w/ what i said?) sure, as you illustrate, the extreme liberal-take on foreign policy has over-tones of kumbaya and utopia, but the other side you seem to favor, the world in which the strong can do whatever the fuck they want to the weaker, dressing the whole thing up in equally bullshit ideologies, is easy to mock w/ a meme too i'm no extremist, but if i have to pick one over the other, i'll take unicorns over buchenwald, flying-pigs over falling heads, ruby-slippers over jack-boots. In case you haven't noticed, the former seems to too-often lead to the latter.

In a way I agree with GGK; dividing up the spoils of war at Yalta before the conflict was even over--and with a nation that we knew would soon turn from ally to enemy--strikes me as immoral. What's more, we turned around the following week and incinerated 40,000 German civilians in Dresden not because it was going to accelerate Hitler's demise in any way, rather, because we wanted to show the USSR what we were capable of. :vomit: Partnering with Stalin against Hitler strikes me as immoral on many levels as well--starting with his mutual invasion of Poland in September of 1939 and he and Hitler's similarly-bloody resumes. Neither one the lesser of two evils, IMO. Of course, FDR gets a pass on all of this from you libs because he gave us Social Security and all kinds of the big government that you crave to this very day. Plus, as GGK points out, he was a real softy when it came to commies. But to Ivan's point, what were we supposed to do? I guess we could have let Hitler beat up on Stalin a bit more by cutting off the lend/lease program--but the Russkies would have beaten the Nazis anyhow. At the end of the day, however, Ivan's thinking re Iran closely matches that of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in that we shouldn't be the sole holders of nukes.

this really ain't that hard to intuit through - are we currently in a declared war w/ iran? i don't think i have any right to dictate what government the people of iran have - i think the current shit state of affairs between our nation and theirs is precisely b/c people like you think the opposite - i don't give a fuck about their mullahs and they can do whatever they wish, including build nukes if that's w/n their abilities, so long as they wreck no harm in my homeland - i sincerely hope that, if they produce them, that we can talk out our differences w/o these terrible weapons being used (it seemed to answer in the cold war), but if that fails, then sadly many will die on both sides (many more on theirs, as we no doubt have a huge advantage), so let's focus on keeping the relationship positive enough that doesn't have to happen, eh? treating them like we're a bully doesn't seem likely to produce positive results...

Unfortunately Feck and Crux are a little late on this whole socialism wave Tacoma been at the fore of this so-called new thang since about 1910 public ports and IWW and Homer T Bone and national guard and riots and breakin the railroad waterfront monopoly and shit like that and that's right we are the the original american commies down here but not choppin off commie nuts like they do in Centralia mmmhmmm read a book

I've been sitting on this USGS B&W for 30 years, and the beautiful sunlit ridge that splits the center remains unclimbed as far as I know.

Um, you might want to go back and take a look at Patriot Act origins. 98-1 in a bi-partisan vote. But I don't think GW was ever accused of "random" wiretapping, meta email collections, hacking the phones and computers of reporters, or using the NSA and IRS against political enemies--that's all on your guy, Barack H Obama. Now he's cheering the Democrats in the Senate as they roll back 200 years of minority filibuster protections. You know what I think? I think you and your fellow lefties are ok with your guy spying on all of us--especially conservative groups--because on your way to utopia the ends always justify the means. What a bunch of hypocrites. I'm just surprised B-Ho hasn't resurrected FDR's Supreme Court stacking scheme yet.

I knew it.

Ouch! Looks like the tool-in-chief is losing one of his biggest props:

I guess this means you can all come out of the closet then?

Hey your new mayor and socialist city councilwoman are gonna get those McDonalds workers $15.00/hr--whether the market says their skills merit it, or not!

No fucking shit. But still, you support a collectivized/centralized medical system here in your adopted country. Healthcare today, agriculture tomorrow? Like you said, it's the system. I'll take my chances with capitalism's invisible hand over the commie bureaucrats you seem so fond of. Not sure why you aren't making the connection. You can't have your cake and eat it too. (You'll have to look it up.) I am sure using PUBLIC roads, or sending kids to PUBLIC schools is like entering gates of hell of a road to communism. Another load of shit argument. First of all, there is no longer real free market system- it's weird hybrid of privatization of profits and socialization of loss. All the rest of developed countries has some form of regulated health system, it doesn't mean collectivization, that is some strange hyperbole of thinking- looks like your domain. Roads, no problem--although I will say that the lefties have spent a good deal of time and effort of late trying to get us all out of our private automobiles and onto buses and trains where we can be "less individual." As for public schools, well, sadly the record speaks for itself, no? Healthcare, however, is viewed by many (including me) as a step too far. Once the gloved hand of government is literally up your ass, all bets are off.

how is that relevant? my point is that either all nations have a right to nukes, or none do. just b/c a nation has a right to a nuke doesn't mean others have an obligation to help them realize that right. indeed, restricting the trade of nuclear technology makes sense to me. but if iranians are advanced enough to build one themselves, than so be it, and we should probably save the lat n' longitude of tehran into the "favorites" menu on our minutemen Ok, then by your logic bombing the Deuterium production plant at Vemork in occupied Norway in 1943 to set back the German nuke program was wrong? Got it. Don't you think keeping the Mullahs from getting the bomb in the first place is far better than targeting Tehran and all the folks who live there after the fact?

No fucking shit. But still, you support a collectivized/centralized medical system here in your adopted country. Healthcare today, agriculture tomorrow? Like you said, it's the system. I'll take my chances with capitalism's invisible hand over the commie bureaucrats you seem so fond of. Not sure why you aren't making the connection. You can't have your cake and eat it too. (You'll have to look it up.)

TRANSLATOR! CAN WE GET A TRANSLATOR DOWN HERE RIGHT AWAY PLEASE!!!!

Let's be serious here: Does any aspiring jihadi really believe that his 72 virgins are gonna stay that way for more than, say, the first month or two?

i was assuming that, like KK, you are okay w/ the idea that some nations, like some people, are fundamentally better/more enlightened/more worthy/less crazy/etc than others - if so, that IS in conflict w/ a basic jeffersonian concept (which admittedly, he was hardly the best messenger for ) It's disingenuous of you to lump all of these attributes together. Better? certainly not. More worthy? no. More enlightened? yes. Less crazy? absolutely. Not sure Jefferson (or Paine or even Rosseau) would include these latter two in the natural rights column. If I'm wrong, I will stand corrected. But I suspect you've revealed something here that can be distilled down to the whole opportunities/outcomes thing. Would you have encouraged FDR to share material and details of the Manhattan Project with Axis leaders in the name of nation-state equality?

Jefferson's larger hypocrisy goes a long, long way toward esssplaining the modern american liberal psychosis. so, just to get you on the record here then, you admit the entire foundational american ideal of equality for all is bullshit? i'm fine w/ talking to cynical assholes, so long as the cards sit square upon the table. your country, right or wrong, and you and yours more deserving within that country. i'm sure that's a grand place to occupy. the nice thing about being an atheist is not having to defend angels - ole'tj, a man i much enjoy discussing on and who's school i spent many of the best days of my life, was no god, but a politician, the very meanest sort of demi-god - he had some sublime ideas, good guiding-rods as we ramble on into the future - plenty of flaws to pick from too - obama could literally be his son. the ideal is the issue though. you either believe in the ideal of equality, that noble goal which does in fact fly in spite of nature's fashion, or you shut the fuck up when the "star spangled banner" gets played, see? WTF are you babbling on about? Not saying I dislike Jefferson or his big ideas. In fact, he's on my very short list of unpigeonholeables like Orwell or Teddy or Ed Abbey. But the fact that folks of a certain political persuasion (yours) like to cherry pick Jefferson amuses me to no end. For example, his arguably tacit, after-the-fact support of Shay's Rebellion is probably something you don't like to bother with. That whole tree of liberty refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time stuff, ya know.

You're right, I could have chosen my words better. Not trying to defend the Soviet communist dictators in any way--bastards all. Especially Stalin. But I certainly don't think the people of the former USSR are or were "savages". Just people trying to get through life like the rest of us. The point I was trying to make was that Soviet leaders cared about their own physical survival in some manner. And since they weren't big professors of any sort of afterlife, it stands to reason they wanted to extend their lives as long as possible. Iran's leaders--including the now-gone Ahmadinejad--have professed a belief that their rewards lie in some sort of glorious afterlife. They have also stated publicly that Israel should be wiped off the map. They cannot be trusted with nukes, and I hope that BeBe takes out their program before it's too late. It's hard for me to fathom the darkness that steers someone like Ivan into moral equivalency arguments. Just plain dumb.

You have repeated this here numerous times and you should abandon this argument once and for all. By this logic, first amendment press freedoms should apply only to hand-set type printing presses--and post-1787 television, radio, internet, and other modern social media should be subject to strict government control.

I trust Kruschev, Reagan, or Mitterand with a nuclear arsenal any day over Ahmadinejad or his successor. The military doctrine starting from the 50's in the entire Warsaw pact was small nuclear strikes followed by armored divisions within 4 hours. So much for your trust to russians. The doctrine you speak of was limited to Europe--more specifically, the Fulda Gap. Little to do with the intercontinental MAD strategy that saw nuclear-armed ships, aircraft, and submarines with specific target lists on patrol 24/7/365 for nearly fifty years. I still believe that we were safer back in the days when the nukes were held exclusively by the US, USSR. We kept them in check; they kept us in check. And we both cared enough about the collective fate of our citizens to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. I'm not sure this is true for the kooks running Iran.

Jefferson's larger hypocrisy goes a long, long way toward esssplaining the modern american liberal psychosis.

Beware, for he is a man of many disguises and passwords. He is sometimes revealed as Ivan's doppelganger by his distaste for all lower case and his insatiable love of self.

I think you're confusing a secular country (which we are largely not) with secular government (which we have). Easy enough?