Examples?>> ^My_design:

You know the funny thing is that many of the same things being said above can also be said of the Democratic party.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

There's a difference between being partisan (Maddow definitely is) and being a racist, homophobic conspiracy theorist. (current GOP base)>> ^My_design:

You know the funny thing is that many of the same things being said above can also be said of the Democratic party.

I believe that by then the GOP would be something else; just like it was something else under Eisenhower and Lincoln. We are all moving forward; just at different paces. After all, we are just rivals in our way of thinking, not enemies. If for example, you get it and others don't so quickly, you shouldn't ridicule them for not jumping on your bandwagon so quickly. As long as we all have good intentions, the details will get sorted out with time.

>> ^st0nedeye:

In terms of the national presidential election, without major structural changes to the GOP they are finished.
Texas.
In 2020 to 2024, based on changing demographics, it will become blue. If/when it does, the GOP will lose 50+ electoral votes, and lose any chance to win a presidential race.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center. You can see it today; Mitt cannot have a change unless he pretends he's a centrist. This not only goes for the general populace, but also for the republican registered voters themselves. It's no surprise Santorum didn't win the primaries. History books will look back at this era and reflect on the neo-conservative movement and its negative effect on American politics.
The great thing about the internet is that every video, document, public forum comment, and article can be stored permanently. Many people are on the wrong side of history, and their offspring will find that out.

In terms of the national presidential election, without major structural changes to the GOP they are finished.

Texas.

In 2020 to 2024, based on changing demographics, it will become blue. If/when it does, the GOP will lose 50+ electoral votes, and lose any chance to win a presidential race.



>> ^MonkeySpank:

I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center. You can see it today; Mitt cannot have a change unless he pretends he's a centrist. This not only goes for the general populace, but also for the republican registered voters themselves. It's no surprise Santorum didn't win the primaries. History books will look back at this era and reflect on the neo-conservative movement and its negative effect on American politics.
The great thing about the internet is that every video, document, public forum comment, and article can be stored permanently. Many people are on the wrong side of history, and their offspring will find that out.

It must be wonderful to be a liberal and live in a alternate reality where Obama has actually done anything he promised he would do for the past 4 years, all the while blaming Republicans for all his failures. Hasn't gotten a budget passed since day one even when dems had control of congress, hasn't closed Gitmo, hasn't been transparent, continues to spend like a druken sailor. Instead of ending military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead starts more military actions in Libya without Congress approval. Over 10% unemployment if you count those no longer looking for work because they can't find any. Keep living in dream land libs. Your Messiah is a flat out failure.

You're responding to a sock-puppet like it's a real person.>> ^volumptuous:

How did Biden lie? Oh, also it was Ryan and co. who removed funding for security at US embassies.
btw: Bush and your pals lied us into Iraq and millions have died as a result. Estimated 1.2 million children have been forced into international sex slavery because of your friends.
Maybe you're ill-informed, but here's the hard numbers. Under Republican administrations, many MANY more US embassies have been attacked. Under Obama? Not much.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B30_qY0A6dA/U
HmIIg1Dy4I/AAAAAAAAHVk/95tHtiT8rpU/s1600/diplomatic-attacks4.png
>> ^TangledThorns:
Obama and Biden keep lying about Libya. Biden lied, people died.

How did Biden lie? Oh, also it was Ryan and co. who removed funding for security at US embassies.

btw: Bush and your pals lied us into Iraq and millions have died as a result. Estimated 1.2 million children have been forced into international sex slavery because of your friends.

Maybe you're ill-informed, but here's the hard numbers. Under Republican administrations, many MANY more US embassies have been attacked. Under Obama? Not much.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B30_qY0A6dA/UHmIIg1Dy4I/AAAAAAAAHVk/95tHtiT8rpU/s1600/diplomatic-attacks4.png

>> ^TangledThorns:

Obama and Biden keep lying about Libya. Biden lied, people died.

Obama and Biden keep lying about Libya. Biden lied, people died.

Apparently one of the foreign service workers killed at the US Embassy in Libya was Sean Smith, known to EVE Online players as "Vile Rat", a very well-respected diplomat for the SomethingAwful "Goonfleet".
He'd posted a least one concerning message earlier that evening to the effect that their police "protection" was taking photos of the compound, and was on messaging client Jabber with other players when the attack began.

It's worth noting that "Innocence of Muslims" is probably not the "cause" of the unrest. The trailers were released back in July. Someone (some group) kept it to use as a tool\weapon and unleashed it in a coordinated manner around the anniversary of Sept 11th.
I'm not usually one to put much heft in conspiracy theories, but this really seems like a masterful stroke of coordinated manipulation. To put it more succinctly: I believe this was a terrorist act. I can't rule out the possibility that this was just an incredibly unfortunate coincidence in a volatile region, but I doubt it.

Stupid movie with a ridiculous response from some. Religion of peace

some dialog about it. Innocence of Muslims film that sparked violence in Libya, Egypt, and now Tunisia

>> ^NetRunner: And here's where you've really gone off the rails. I'm some political hack engaging in mindless tribalism and mischaracterizing the words of others....because I asked you to provide examples of what Obama has specifically done to make you think he'd attack Iran without cause?




I did not claim that you are a political hack. In fact, I explicitly stated that I hold you in much higher regard than that (emphasis added):

to mischaracterize my words in that way (especially when I made it pretty clear I had no preference for Romney even on this very limited issue) is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from a hack political operative. I think, no... I know you are better than that.

You mischaracterized my words then (I never once mentioned bin Laden or Libya, nor did I write anything close to suggesting Obama is evil):

Again with the "Obama must be evil because he didn't instantly fix all of Bush's quagmires." It's based on the bin Laden raid and Libya.

and now you have done it again (the hack statement), and again:

This in response to the question of "are we about to invade Iran?" with the clear implication being that you think Obama is prone to get America involved in pointless wars

My words implied nothing of the sort. This is your own extrapolation.

What little judgment I was passing on you was that I felt you were leveling baseless accusations against Obama, and all I was really doing was asking you to try to back it up with facts.

I provided facts, and your response was to mischaracterize my words. How should I have responded? How would you?

>> ^jonny:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

How and when did he show this? The two Obama-initiated armed conflicts I'm aware of are the bin Laden raid and whatever you want to call our involvement with Libya. Both were short, and seemed entirely focused on America's long-term well being.

>> ^jonny:
if Obama goes in, at least we have a chance of accomplishing our goal in a timely manner.
What makes you think that? The timely manner in which Guantanamo has been shut down? Or perhaps the timely manner in which we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Again with the "Obama must be evil because he didn't instantly fix all of Bush's quagmires." It's based on the bin Laden raid and Libya. In both of those Obama-initiated efforts, they were completed successfully in timeframes so short you're not sure if you should call them wars, even in hindsight.

All that said, I don't really see Mittens or Obama engaging in some unprovoked war with Iran. I certainly think if Iran detonates a nuclear bomb, or attacks one of the many warships we have parked next door to them that we'll respond with some disproportionate action, but I don't really see either Mitt or Obama ordering some sort of preemptive invasion like Bush did with Iraq.

Maybe later events will change my mind on that, but I don't sense any real appetite for war with Iran from anyone on either side of the political divide right now, except the usual stopped clocks who want to go to war with everyone all the time (McCain, Lieberman, etc.).

America's greatest foreign policy focus right now should be Europe's economic situation, not the middle east, or even southeast Asia.

It got worse since 9/11, but at least ours over here has been this way for as long as I (28) can remember. We were fed the same bullshit stories in '98/'99 to get our military involved in the Kosovo War, not to mention the Iraq War, and most recently the mess in Libya.

What struck me the most about the report was this:

68: Since it began its work, the Mission has been the target of a vicious media campaign. Some media outlets have published unfounded statements, which they attributed to the Head of the Mission. They have also grossly exaggerated events, thereby distorting the truth.

75: Recently, there have been incidents that could widen the gap and increase bitterness between the parties. These incidents can have grave consequences and lead to the loss of life and property. Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups.

>> ^marinara:
How did our news get so bad?

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?

Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.

If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

>> ^NetRunner:

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.
Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.
As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.
Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.
Right, like investment banking.
Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.
From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?
Agreed, once I correct the label.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.
I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.
It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.
I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.