DanG

No, I didn't know that. Where does the money come from to run the country? - Dan G

I've tried to discuss the issues with you. You don't listen. Discussion means two sides explaining their respective positions, considering what the other has to say, and responding thoughtfully. What you do is not discussion. The issue at hand is whether Obama should have approached Russia with a purported deal regarding the missile defense installations in Poland and support for Iran's nuclear program. If you actually read the articles you linked, or knew anything about the missile shield, you might have a better understanding of what that means. The stated goal of the missile shield has always been to reduce the threat of long range missiles from Middle Eastern states such as Iran. Whether or not that is actually the goal can be disputed. The shield wasn't Obama's idea, and suspect he knows the real purpose of it, namely leverage against Russian influence in the region. By writing a letter (which is obviously inaccurate to characterize as secret, since we're talking about it on a skydiving forum) Obama is just continuing the diplomatic dialogue over this issue that has been going on for years. If you want to argue that he should have continued with low-level, back channel dialogue instead of taking to the highest level, that is a legitimate argument. That he's just a giant fuck-up who doesn't understand the world is not. There, I've discussed the issue. Please now follow your usual MO and refuse to respond to anything I've said. Make sure, however, to reiterate your ill-informed position ad nauseum until everyone else gives up in frustration. - Dan G

I can't help it. I'm a rocket engineer with a degree in Foreign Affairs. Really. On the other hand, I never, unlike you, claimed to have vast knowledge. I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wingers here. - Dan G

Hmm, yeah, maybe. You're sure, however, that you have the whole story? It's not possible that discussions with them are not ongoing in the background? And your also sure that the Poland missle shield was not just a bargaining chip against Russia the whole time? You and your cabal here were willing to give GWB a pass on the worst foreign affairs record ever, but you're jumping on Obama because of something printing in the New York Times, a paper that you previously ridiculed as full of lies? Get your story straight and come back later. - Dan G

Very interesting take on CDIF. Any comment on the Jindal story? - Dan G

Do you know anything about diplomacy? What are your credentials, please? Why exactly is the head of state writing a letter to another head of state diplomatically improper? - Dan G

Now you're just being silly. We all understand that you've come to the realization (guess what, you're not the first one) that the power of the law is ultimately the power to do physical violence. It's not a new concept, and it's not a particularly useful concept either. Take your arguments into the real world and perhaps we can have a productive discussion. - Dan G

Um, yeah, doesn't matter if they wanted it or not. They got it, and they'll continue to get it in the future. Like someone else said, if you don't want to live in a society, find a deserted island and set up shop. - Dan G

That depends. Did that person enter into a contract promising to pay for the thing? Have they now, after enjoying the benefits of said thing, decided they don't want to pay for it? If so, then no, it is not a crime to force that person to pay for the thing that they now do not want. I suspect you know where both of the arguments lead. Yours leads to anarchy. The other leads to society. - Dan G

My God, is your head so far in the sand that you don't realize that both parties use fear to motivate the population? The Democrats are using economic fear, the Republicans used terrorism fear. Same shit, different day. - Dan G

Really? The right wing hasn't tried to use fear to win elections? Have you been sleeping since 9-11? - Dan G

I always thought Obama added the qualification to his promise of withdrawal that a low number of troops would remain indefinitely to train/monitor/whatever? Am I wrong? (Although 50,000 is a lot more than I thought he meant). I think that 50,000 troops is WAY more than we need there after we hand the country back over to the Iraqis. In fact, any more than whats required to protect the Embassy and maybe a Consulate or two is more than I think we need, but I never thought we should send folks there to begin with. - Dan G

Have you read anything she's written? I know they are long, but nerdgirl's posts are exceptionally well thought out and informative. Regarding counter-insurgency, and specifically the fight in Afghanistan, she is very well read and remarkably astute. And as far as calling her naive about threats to national security, that has got to be up there with the kid who told Kirk Verner he was uninformed about docking on a 4-way. - Dan G

You are good at being stubborn. Are you ignoring the part of the article where the author admits that giving is tied to religiousity, not political beliefs? I'll quote it again: Or later on, when the reporter takes two seconds to be fair and includes some criticism of this obviously biased researcher: and later: To try to wrap this up, because we're not getting anywhere, I readily admit that you might be right. Perhaps Republican are more charitable than Democrats. On the other hand, perhaps they are not. The only "data" out there seems to have been compiled by a conservate, religious author, and seems not to have been peer reviewed (which is one reason why people publish such studies in books rather than articles). I don't really care who is more charitable, I just don't think its fair for you to rely on claims that are not verifiable. - Dan G

Gosh darn it, you're right. The fact that the 30% figure disappears when you look at where the money goes is just not important. Republican giving to their University endowment and to the church to buy a new rectory is just as important as Democratic contributions to Habitat for Humanity and AIDS research. Man, you are really good at this debating thing. And here I am all along assuming that facts matter. Really, I just need to keep posting the same unsupported drivel over and over, and eventually people will believe it. Thanks for the lesson. - Dan G

Clearly you refuse to recognize that the bank behavior is morally unjust. I'm trying to get you so see it through capitalist eyes. I just can't understand why someone who claims to be as business saavy as yourself can't see why fucking potential long term customers is a good business strategy. Here's the scenario: I'm down and out. The state sends my unemployment benefit to Citibank. Citibank, because they can get away with it, charges me for breathing the fucking air in the bank lobby since that's air that could be breathed by regular customers. When I get a new job (and I will get a new job at some point) what's the one bank that I will never give my business to? Citibank. If they had treated me like a regular customer (because for the six months I could potentially be on unemployment I am one) I might just continue to bank there in the future. Are you, and apparently the banks in question, so fucking short sighted that you can't understand that the $0.50 you squeeze out of me every couple weeks is not worth it in the long term? Or do you just hate poor people? - Dan G

Why am I not suprised that you did not see that which you did not want to see? I suppose technically I didn't disprove it, merely showed that it is not provable, and therefore shouldn't be stated as fact. The difference is probably lost on you. - Dan G

I guess if I work for the state and they deposit my check into the bank I'm not a regular customer either. Explain to me again how these people's banking experience is fundamentally different. Or look at it another way. If the banks in question treated these people like regular customers, maybe some of them would stick around after they get new jobs. Or is that too forward thinking? - Dan G

Yeah. Seriously. I'll make some (probably wrong) assumptions about what you think using only your post as a guide: 1. Voting for "bread and circuses" is bad. 2. Obama and Democrats in general are the party of "bread and circuses". 3. Obama and party will erode the US Constitution. 4. America is in danger of becoming less free because of #3 above. 5. Voting for "bread and circuses" makes America less free. How right am I? - Dan G

Can you give examples of people who aren't contributing? I'd like to know where your bright line stands. What about teachers, police officers, and firemen? What about doctors? What about garbagemen? How do you define who is contributing, and who is not? - Dan G

You're right. I generalized that giving to megachurches is different from giving to the Red Cross. Sorry, I thought you meant something else. I can see how my generalization is not accurate, especially in light of Stanley's post. Can you also admit that your generalization regarding Republicans and Democrats was also inaccurate? - Dan G

What does the concept of people voting themselves "bread and circuses" have to do with the supposed erosion of the US Constitution? - Dan G

I believe there are bilions of planets in the universe. I also believe that many of them contain life, some of it "intelligent". I do not believe in God. On the other hand, I believe in intellectual honesty, and your argument has serious flaws. You state: Your argument depends on the assumption that life on Earth was not created by God. That may be true (I personally believe it is) but it is not a given in the debate. A believer can just as validly say, "You believe that something that we have never seen and know is impossible (abiogenesis) has happened billions of times, but something that we see every day and know is unique (the creation of humans by God) never happened." This is the crux of the debate. The two sides (and really the two sides are caricatures of what most people actually think) don't start with the same assumptions, so they can never reach the same conclusions. - Dan G

Which generalization was that? I made no generalization, except for the one about generalizations not meaning anything. - Dan G

I agree, and I have nothing against giving to your church. I gave money to a Christian based charity last year, and I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that generalizations like "Republicans give to charity more than Democrats" don't really mean anything. - Dan G