"...if ISIS is naive enough to do that..."
Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't.. And i don't mean allow them to enter unopposed. There are means of returning fire giving the appearance of on site manned weapons. The evacuation is the riskiest phase, how do you evacuate a well populated major target without being discovered. There are ways depending on the circumstances and i'm not pretending to know if circumstances will allow or even what the circumstances are at prospective sites.
The only time i was in spain was a refueling stopover between casablanca and marseille. On a replacement plane after waiting 11 hours at the airport for the original scheduled plane. And yes, i know of the alhambra and have seen photos. I've read somewhere that had the guy who was sent to find the most beautiful house of worship in the world had seen the alhambra then russia might well have wound up muslim instead of orthodox christian. Me, i have no opinion there, and i don't know whether or not he did see the place.
Al sharpton. On what things, the "such things" you note, did he have input? If al said he would bring everyone together i haven't heard it. But whether or not he said it he probably has, numerous times. Bringing everyone together to fight on opposite sides of an issue. Can't have a war unless opposite sides get together in one way or another to duke it out, in one way or another. So give the guy credit where credit is due.
"So much for another archaelogy site"
What i'd like to see is every country in the world allowing isis bent citizenry allowing them all to go to the middle east,, pick target towns for them to attack, evacuate all the citizens of those town overnight, allowing isis to enter, then obliterate the town, people, structures and all.
Yes, it'd be a shame to lose archaeological sites you and i and 99.9% of the people of the world will never experience even if they were still around, but the price of peace is sacrifice. I don't say that lightly, just pragmatically. They are relics of a long gone past and are worthless when put into a value comparison with present day survival.
to not liking an entire race of people. No President Obama did not cause increased racism... Rather he exposed what was just under the surface all along. The cause or racism is often irrational fear, and tribalism or the effect of the thought process "They are not one of us" A common specter of tribalism. Not us... bad!
"Here is the thing. When President Obama was voted into office I witnessed a literal FREAKING OUT amongst some in my country. Existing militant groups grew their ranks, and new groups popped up. People rushed to purchase ever more guns and ammo. The Republican leadership stated flat out they would not work with him. Radio shock jocks and the like openly stated their desire to see him fail which by default meant our country would suffer for our Presidents failure can only mean our nations failure most especially when fighting two wars and a Great Recession. Look at history and how the country did as a President failed. And thus it has been for the past 6 years now.
President Obama recently opened a Twitter account.... Have you seen the comments by some!?! Attacks on his children for Christ's sake! Sad and disgusting as it is it's not a big surprise based on the commentary by some over the past 6 years, and likely will continue for the next couple. So what is different here? President Obama's politics are no different than every other Democratic Presidents before him heck even some Moderate Republican Presidents. So that can't be the reason. Health care reform has been on the agenda of both Democratic and Republican Presidents for many a decade now. So that can't be it... His only real crime is he succeeded where so many from both parties failed. So it does not make much sense that that would be the cause of all this upset.
Has he taken our guns? I still have mine so my guess would be no. So that can't be it either. My humble opinion is President Obama had only two strikes against him as President, and those were issues only depending on "YOUR" state of mind to begin with. One his name was unusual and two his skin tone. I don't think President Obama has caused greater racism for racism is illogical and irrational and even a single person being black and you not liking his politics or his name is hardly a reason based reaction
Kbk. I wondered why i had you on ignore so i took a peek. Now i remember. By the way, you were dead before you left, whenever that was. Think anybody with brains missed you?
"First on the list would be China..."
Not for me. I can think of worse places, probably starting with n korea.
The chinese may not be where you want to be now but if you have the type patience/cultural outlook they do you'd probably think they are already past the speed limit for change. That's just the way it is. No ny minute for them, a ny minute would be a year's worth of change for them.
It's fine to prioritize American, no doubt. But as far as i'm concerned those people in the states you mentioned, among others, have the freedom to do political good for themselves and largely choose not to, in fact choose the opposite. My opinion, right or wrong, until i see a good argument for the opposite.
I don't consider a revokutiionary war as being a civil war. Or i'd make a distinction of what type civil war is involved. For me the US civil war was not for a revolutionary change in the type of gvt. Splitting hairs but there is that distinction for me and i choose to consider it a valid distinction. They were english, french and russian revolutions, not english, french and russian civil wars. At least not until the russian reds fought against russian whites.
I think you sell the man way too short. What immediately comes to mind is, if you drive, you enjoy a wealth of highway systems throughout the nation. Of course they have been deteriorating for some time now because of recent administrations and congresses. Then there's the peace and prosperity during his tenure, peace being accomplished probably because he was an old soldier, even though he was more of a diplomat and organizer. I don't think he ever was involved indirectly in combat himself, but he knew the ramifications.
He kept us from from entering the war in viet nam with the frnech, knowing full well what would, and ultimately did, take place. He got us going on the road to space, with a little kick in the behind from sputnik. And he kept the conservative right from taking over the gop.
Other things as well. You should learn a bit about the man. He was one reason i became a republican at first. Him, rockefeller, the other republican progressives. It wasn't until the party turned to #$%$ that i left. Never did go dem, went straight to independent.
"Not our problem riv."
Sorry. When i see a little girl torn up or a person tortured for the hell of it, anywhere in the world, i become one of those bleeding hearts. Keeps me above the lower animals i think. I'm not religious but i do believe in being my brother's keeper, no matter his/her race, nationality, religion, etc. Heck, i even thought the blacks should have equal rights, even though i'm a white guy who had little to do with blacks back then. I guess i shouldn't have had empathy there, either. Where does the line between involvement and ignore get drawn?
"Before Bush attacked this country there was no threat, as in zero, from ISIS and other terrorist groups."
As a general thought, tell that to the victims of 9-11. Be that as it may, ok, the threat was much smaller than it is now. Saddam was a dampening power for his country. But don't lose sight of the fact that he was a brutal dictator. An equal to cheney who'd fit right into that role if he'd been born in one of those middle east countries, or in early 20th century germany.
I can't picture cheney as an italian dictator though. No passion. Also no guts of his own, relies on other people's guts. Much like the dennythang.
Adam schiff - the congressman or the law & order d a? Since it's a guano thread it's a toss-up between reality and fantasy.
"What do they say about the definition of insanity?"
Lol! doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Honestly, i don't have a huge problem with cutting revenue. The 'pub thing though, it's cut more taxes on those who least need the cuts and cut less, not at all or even raise taxes on those who can least afford to pay more taxes. Again, a matter of power, not sound economics. Some day the plebes will wake up and unite one way or another. Will things change? Nope, not other than a power shift. Same abuse only from the other side. History tells us that because it also tells us human nature doesn't change. Don't expect different results from the same thing.
"The basic story from the Cato reports is that Jeb Bush was a prolific tax cutter, but he let spending rise quickly toward the end of his tenure. Like George W. Bush, Jeb was good on taxes, but apparently not so good on spending.
Jeb Bush was in office from 1999 to 2007. Florida general fund spending increased from $18.0 billion to $28.2 billion during those eight years, or 57 percent. Total state spending increased from $45.6 billion to $66.1 billion, or 45 percent. (This is NASBO data from here and here). Over those eight years, Florida’s population grew 16 percent and the CPI, which measures inflation, grew 24 percent.
... total spending was restrained in Bush’s first term, but then rose quite rapidly in his second term."
Something to look into. There could have been a good reason for the noted rapid spending increase in the 2nd term. I don't know, i haven't looked into it as yet. Don't know if i ever will.
What i do know is i was against reagan because of his spending in california, figuring it would carry over if he became president. It certainly did.
It's easy to spend your way out of your own problems. What's hard is to spend your way out of your own problems without leaving severe problems for future generations. Nobody within the past 50 years seems to have figured that one out yet except the clintons. I would expect hillary's administration, if she gets it, to be not much different than bill's. If we're gonna go to family dynasties for our presidents i'd rather go with one that has a track record of which i approve.
Kehoot, yup, you are a hoot, if those most recent two are to me i only want you to know you're wasting your time. You went on ignore yesterday. I dislike dealing with utterly stupid people.
"...HAVING enough to buy a computer next time..."
No sniffs. I don't work that way. Family money is nice to have, as far as we know we had the first chain of bakeries in the US, long gone now, and i mean really long, long time gone, but i couldn't find anything on the web to say one way or the other. My own made money is nice to have, and it wasn't made in the bakery business. I got breaks and made some of my own but that's not the luck everyone gets. Often that's all it is, luck. Lucky being in the right place at the right time with the right idea. You can have the third but never get the chance to use it if you're unlucky enough that the first two don't come along within your lifetime. And often lucky enough to have the right connections to take advantage of your skills and ideas, or unlucky that someone else has the connections and you don't when you both have the same idea.
I was brought up to have respect for money and don't wish to pay 2 to 3x the price i can buy it when i'm back up here. I can wait the couple of months until i'm back, there's no burning drive to tune in here, and i really don't have to play my stocks every day. The once or twice a week internet cafe is just fine. Think of all the commissions i save while the portfolio doesn't go anywhere whether i trade or not. Besides, it's a kind of punishment for being so lazy to not put the computer away for the night instead of leaving it by the window.
When i go to the supermarket and they tell me i saved so many $$ on the stuff i bought on sale i can only think that i didn't save anything by buying on sale, i would have spent more than i should have if i'd have bought that stuff when it wasn't on sale. A penny saved is a penny earned kind of thing.
You remember that one, don't you? Remember who supposedly said it? If the initials are bf you get a probably wrong as apparently there's no evidence he ever mentioned it in any way. Have a good night
"It can't be dummy downed enough."
No, you can dummy it down enough, to the level of a dummy. What you can't do is go as low as the level of these idiots.
Regards the gold thing, maybe if the US were to go to the gold standard and fix the price at a million an ounce the US might be able to pay off the nat debt rather than go bk. 8,000 tons would certainly translate to a hefty amount of $$ at that price. Even if we couodn't pay off the entire debt it'd take care of a good chunk, lower our debt service payments drastically. Then we go back off the gold standard and leave our paid creditors high and dry. We still dictate economic terms to the world so what they gonna do, stop selling to us? That's just fine for out domestic producers, though not so much for US consumers. But good for US jobs so consumers get a trade-off that way.
Idle spec. It's not gonna happen. But then i thought the chinese canal through nicaragua wasn't gonna happen, either. I understand they're already digging. That's as per the guy i was sitting next to on the plane and i just verified it by googling. Won't be all that far from me. I see it goes past ometepe, the big island in lake nicaragua. The island's composed of two volcanoes. Stayed there a couple of nights 2 or 3 years ago. Pretty. Good pizza. Looks to me like the project could be caused to go bust if a 4th set of locks is built in panama. The nicaragua projects budgeted at 40 billion or 50 billion, i forget which, current estimates, and you know that's gonna go over in the end. Another set of locks in panama will go for 10 billion current estimates. Blow out the nicaragua project and you hurt both china and russia, russia also having a financial interest in the project. Seems like a no brainer to me.
As i wrote, perhaps. I certainly wouldn't go by your own definition. Of anything. You want to give us your definition of a socialist? If not, your label has no meaning.
While you're on this mezvinsky guy how about the right wingers who rose up against the sexual antics of dems, only to themselves be shown to have their own dirty laundry in that area. No one denies politicians are as human and failing as the rest of us, only most of us don't don't restrict their criticisms to one side or the other. Only the half-blind zealots such as yourself do.
That you igg? Whether or not it is, no matter. Same type.
"... if you put 10 Republicans in the same room you would have 10 different philosophies, beliefs and morals."
Perhaps, but they'd be much more alike than any 10 dem candidates would be. That hallmark, diversity, is sole property of the left. Hence igg's definition of his party:
"... the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or of a foreign race "
Igg or the double calls that socialism because the dirtbags called it socialism. I could call myself a green martian. Would that make me a green martian? When shea stadium, or citifield is the new one now i think, is packed with 60,000 mets fans are they all socialist because they have one thing in common, rooting for the mets? If i packed 60,000 german met fans into the stadium do they all become doubly socialists because they're all german extraction and they all root for the mets?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Being the advocate for capitalism, though a not unregulated capitalism, that i am i think not. I can think of worse things to be than a true socialist. Look in the mirror and define yourself while looking directly into your eyes. Like what you see? Did you know they piled it that high?
"THOSE ORDERS WERE BY LEFTIST LIKE YOURSELF..."
Look up the definition of the type party that left the orders, you dolt. What happened, you had to pull your prior post?
"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization"
" extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."
" a form of reactionary authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."
Are you one or are you just the ordinary type idiot?
"The USA should spend more of their money in their own country..."
Why? At least for every buck we spend overseas we get a multiple of it back in return, though i'm sure you can't see that. What kind of return do we get for every buck of guano thang's pension? I'm sure we're spending a multiple for every buck we give that idiot, though i bet you can't see that, either.
"...he would be more comfortable living under a dictator where he does what he is told when he is told..."
Where would the thang fit in best with the 1930's to mid 1940's ruling political party in germany. "i vuz just following orders" fits the thang best. Not the type to give orders but the type to relish carrying them out under that type regime.
What's it picking on the chinese-Americans for? They've certainly on average contributed far more to the well-being of the US than any of his type have. Heck, this thread gets interesting enough i may have to look in on old thang. It has been a long time.
"...I am just disappointed in rivvir."
Awww, now you've really hurt my feelings. I hate disappointing people. Well, you don't disappoint me one bit, igg. I guess one of the perks of having low expectations. Though it seems i should've set the bar even lower to give you a shot at getting that high.
Just watching the news on the banks' collusion on fixing the $/euro spot. I hope they get the heck sued out of them by all the funds they hurt. I imagine a bunch of well heeled individual investors got punished, too, and will be going after the 5 banks. Pleaded guilty to felony charges among the group of charges involved. Anybody going to jail? I guess not, but there should be.