Edit: not worth it.

6 inches of pristine fluffy snow this morning and a full compliment of Toy Story stuff makes this far and away the Best Christmas Ever in the wizened eyes of my 3 year old. You haven't been sledding until you've been sledding with Woody and Jesse.

Mele Kalikimaka!

Something tells me every Christmas is merry in Hawaii.

What magic does the United States possess that renders it immune from what has happened, sooner or later, to every empire in recorded history?

I'm curious about this phrase. What has happened, sooner or later, to every empire in human history?

"Rome was destroyed. Greece was destroyed. Persia was destroyed. Spain was destroyed. All great countries are destroyed. Why not yours? How much longer do you think your country will last? Forever?"

I don't recognize the quote, but I was more curious about a level of specificity implied there when I asked about the phrase.

I don't recognize the quote, but I was more curious about a level of specificity implied there when I asked about the phrase.

I suppose the sun sets on every empire eventually. But it doesn't set in the same way for all of them. You can go out in a blaze of glory, or the long, slow fade, and everything inbetween.

I don't recognize the quote

Catch 22

Pretty sure Rome, Spain, Greece, and Persia are still around. The United States in the 21st century isn't exactly a great analog for the old colonial powers.

Pretty sure Rome, Spain, Greece, and Persia are still around.

I guess I would disagree with this statement. The landmasses are still there, but if you look at each of these areas, pretty much everything else is different.

Persia: Pretty close to the same name, actually (In Persian they referred to themselves as Eran). The former Sassanid Empire has very few commonalities. The religion is different, with Zoroastrianism now almost completely stamped out. Most of the art is gone, a relic of the Arabian rule. The food is mostly Arabic now. The people are mostly the same ethnicity, with more Arab thrown in there.

Rome: Different name (sort of. The peninsula was called "Italia" by Augustus's time, but no one referred to the nation state that way). Culture is completely different, and the ethnology is pretty severely different in some places (north Italy has a pretty strong Germanic influence). The food is different, the art is all different. The ruins are still there, as is the city. Religion is still as it was left at the end of the empire.

Greece: Same name (Hellas). Everything else is different, most notably the people. One exception: I swear to god the same ferrymen have been in business for 3000 years. And they suck.

Spain: Not sure what the reference point is here. Isabelle and Ferdinand? Name's the same (more or less). System of government is different, people are mostly the same (more mestizos). Major difference is the economy--Spain is no longer really a place that has exports besides tourism.

I would say that all of those civilizations are gone (with Spain being the closest and most recent). A better example for your argument would be Great Britain. They lost the empire after WW2, but the core islands keep most of the same culture.

I guess I asked originally to Dan because if every empire in earth's human history has had armed civilians take on the governing authority, I do not know what that proves.

@4889 : I generally agree, but I'm arguing in the "Reasonable Alternative that is logically consistent" realm, and given that I think most of us agree that lowering the circulation of guns in the US by a meaningful margin (like, at least half of them if not 80%) is practically close to impossible, these alternative must be considered.

In Taiwan, most people that dodge draft service are actually well off people, Med school students are especially notorious for that (and in Taiwan there is a rather high purportion of father-son in the medical biz). almost all the poor folks serve, as is anyone who has any sort of serious moral view of them self.

And even then, #### will happen, but you accept that is the price to pay for having guns, and the society is more likely to stay in one piece.

@4910 : The Spanish Empire didn't really export much either, unless you mean Conquistidor and Smallpox. It was quite famous that they got so much gold that it inflated all their local industry out of business, which is a major reason why they gone to hell after the gold stopped flowing.

Today's spree killer had a Bushmaster .223. I think this may well be the tipping point.

WaPo link.

I don't see any near-term "tipping point" in terms of actual legislation. The Republicans will almost certainly control the House until 2016, and even then the odds would be against the Dems because of gerrymandering even if they win the Presidency. A good bet for the next election in which the Dems gain all 3 branches would be 2028. And that's putting aside whatever the Court does.

If you mean "tipping point" in terms of a long-term change in social attitudes, that could be true. But it took the NRA 50 years to convince people that the 2A protected an individual right to own guns and it will likely take nearly that long to undo the extremism of its approach because that's now the policy of one of the two political parties.

While I was in fact referring to the latter, the days of Republican party unity would appear to be at least temporarily at an end. And not all Republican representatives are in safely gerrymandered districts, although many are. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see public sentiment coalesce around some specific gun control measures forcefully enough to get something (perhaps something not very meaningful to be sure) passed.

And this is a very interesting read - A Dispatch from the National Review's Post Election Cruise

And this is a very interesting read - A Dispatch from the National Review's Post Election Cruise

A fun look at how nuts and delusional some people are! Some of the people were pretty rational of course but man, there's some loony stuff in there. My favorite part:

But Ms. O’Sullivan again took umbrage. As everyone went silent, she recalled a conference she attended in Australia in which a liberal nun (who “didn’t even have the decency to wear a habit”) criticized America for its “inner-city racism.” Offended, Ms. O’Sullivan recounted what she wished she’d said to this nun:

“Pardon me, madam, but I have been in your country of Australia for ten days and the only Aborigines I’ve seen have been drunk on the street, and at least if we were in my country they would be serving the drinks at this conference!”

Oh, and approximately 98.4% of the cruisers were white.

4913. One of the most popular rifles was involved in yet another event involving a rifle? Shocking news.

Not sure you can take anything away from a booze cruise.

4913. One of the most popular rifles was involved in yet another event involving a rifle? Shocking news.

Er, is this meant to mock someone expressing shock, or...? Because no one did. Actually, what are you saying?

Today's spree killer had a Bushmaster .223. I think this may well be the tipping point.

Is Bushmaster publicly traded? Might be a good plan to short their stock if it is.

On the other hand, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

The company that owns them put all their firearms holdings up for sale after Newtown.

.


Problem solved.


-----------------

But hey feel free to find a study that backs up what you want to believe, I am sure the NRA and others have funded plenty of such studies, but don't expect me to believe it or that cave men rode dinosaurs.

??


You might be confusing me with someone else.

.

You might be confusing me with someone else.

Not talking to any person specifically for this part (the excerpt and construction of the post was bad - should have been two posts), just explaining not diving into "well my study said" for the issues. I am really tires of playing whack-a-bad-study from my years on climate change patrol. Sorry for the confusion.

It's a late entrant --

But I think WaPo's story this AM about the Freedomworks apocalypto has to be a finalist for most bizarre political story of 2012...

Richard K. Armey, the group’s chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the group’s Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist. The aim was to seize control of the group and expel Armey’s enemies: The gun-wielding assistant escorted FreedomWorks’ top two employees off the premises, while Armey suspended several others who broke down in sobs at the news.

The coup lasted all of six days. By Sept. 10, Armey was gone — with a promise of $8 million — and the five ousted employees were back. The force behind their return was Richard J. Stephenson, a reclusive Illinois millionaire who has exerted increasing control over one of Washington’s most influential conservative grass-roots organizations.

Stephenson, the founder of the for-profit Cancer Treatment Centers of America and a director on the FreedomWorks board, agreed to commit $400,000 per year over 20 years in exchange for Armey’s agreement to leave the group.

If kids played politics like they used to play cops & robbers -- I think this reads about how you'd imagine they'd play it... except, you know -- this was a real organization, that exerted a fair amount of influence, includes a 70something congressman with a real gun-toting attache, etc.

Read the whole thing... It would make for interesting work of fiction, if it weren't real.

And this is a very interesting read - A Dispatch from the National Review's Post Election Cruise

Never a band of Somali pirates around when you need them...

Never a band of Somali pirates around when you need them...

I blame global warming.

Never a band of Somali pirates around when you need them...


I blame global warming.

You mean it isn't Obama's fault?

You mean it isn't Obama's fault?

He gets a pass on this one. Although Kenya does have pirates, and Obama hasn't done anything to combat pirates. What a failure.

4924- That feels like material for a really 1-season run HBO show. Who plays Armey?

4924- That feels like material for a really 1-season run HBO show. Who plays Armey?

Sadly, Earnest Borgnine has passed...

Catch 22

Wrong quote, though.

Capt. Nately: What you don't understand is that it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Old man in whorehouse: You have it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.

Odd how Great Britain and the Soviet Union get omitted from the conversation about empires falling and yet the two of them are modern examples of empires ending.

Frank Luntz, known liberal:

“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said during an appearance on "CBS This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at any time, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.”

Video link

Odd how Great Britain and the Soviet Union get omitted from the conversation about empires falling and yet the two of them are modern examples of empires ending.

One thing that I find interesting about the talk of 'empires ending' -- and tossing the two cited above, along with the US, Greece, Spain, Persia, etc into that mix...

First - I think we probably need to figure out how to handle colonial expansion. GB, Spain, Rome, Persia, Greece are at least somewhat distinct from the US and to a lesser extent, Russia in that they fell due in no small part to an inability to incorporate militaristic expansion into a common national identity.

GB and Spain were really extreme outliers -- they expanded so quickly and so dominantly that it's pretty easy to mark those empire for doomed... in an age where the world was barely mapped, much less readily accessible in any real-time -- there's a huge drawback in trying to manage an empire on which the sun never set.

Rome probably fits in with GB and Spain, if we do a further era adjustment to classical times - when the boundaries of exploration are butting up against the boundaries of empire, you're bound to have problems.

Greece and Persia are a bit in the middle... Ancient Greece certainly had its conquerors (Alexander as the prime example) - but its empire also the route of economic hegemony rather just complete territorial conquest. Persia - with some obvious exceptions in its history - seems more a bit more reactive than proactive... Plus - you've got to deal history pre- and post-Islam and whether you consider that a part of Persian history or Persia a part of the history of the Caliphate (I'd go with the latter).

So then - we have the US and Russia... Russia is also difficult - i.e., how do you handle the USSR in Russian context? There's significant territory of economic importance (Ukraine as a prime example) that was a part of the USSR, but not a part of Russia -- not to mention some smaller, but strategically/geographically critical areas like Georgia, Azerbaijan, et al.

What the US has going for it - from an empire perspective - is that by hook or by crook, it's been pretty 'successful' in the sense of empire in consolidating its 'nation proper' in a way that other empires didn't/couldn't. It's still a geographically well-placed area, with plenty of natural resources, a fairly large population -- and unlike the others on the list of bygone empires, no obvious 'successor states' that are either neighbors or internal entities to rise from its ashes (secessionist fantasies aside).

China - to some extent - has the same going for it, I think... One thing I think you have to hand to it Mao and the communists for -- they've succeeded to a greater extent in less than in building a cohesive 'China' in a way that centuries, even millenia, of past dynasties couldn't quite organize... That's not to say there aren't still divisions - but setting aside some of the outlying provinces of a more disputed nature, I'm not so sure modern Chinese divisions between say... Shaanxi and Yunnan are all that much more challenging than those of say, Texas and New York.

Could you please provide an incident in US history where armed citizens, independent of the government, prevented the government from doing something that the government wanted to do, and also that in retrospect, the armed citizens were seen as acting more justly than the government.

An armed populace is similar to a country with nuclear weapons: Having the weapons reduces the need to use them.

***

The problems with the study Dan is posting is in the second post of this page.

Also, a study was done where the buy-back effect was examined throughout different provinces. The provinces which had higher rates of buy-back had lower levels of suicide/homicide.

I linked all this.

Of course, Syzmborski doesn't care about facts anymore than Kehoskie does. — tshipman

It's been well over 48 hours but still no comment from Shipman re: #4806. I'll repost it here for everyone's convenience:

The Australian Gun Control Laws, including the accompanying buy-back, decreased the firearm homicide rate by 59%, and the suicide rate by 65% (link is to a PDF). — tshipman

By the way, I'm sure this was just an honest oversight by Shipman, but in all of his many citations of Australia as the model for gun control, he's left out one key fact: According to the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia, "93 percent of those who were forced to surrender a firearm during the buy-backs replaced it with one or more firearms almost immediately" [source].

Thus, the alleged huge reduction in the number of privately owned firearms in Australia appears to be little more than a mirage. 93 percent of Australia's gun owners who were impacted by the new law simply traded one type of gun for another.

An armed populace is similar to a country with nuclear weapons: Having the weapons reduces the need to use them.

Then wouldn't many nuclear-armed countries reduce the need to use them? Iran and North Korea subscribe to your thinking.

Then wouldn't many nuclear-armed countries reduce the need to use them? Iran and North Korea subscribe to your thinking.

Implicit in the doctrine in #4935 is that the people in possession of the weapons aren't lunatics. The NRA and SAF don't claim the mentally deranged have an inalienable right to possess firearms. Likewise, countries run by homicidal and/or genocidal maniacs shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Speaking of China. Because the Chinese domestic auto industry aren't so good at making cars, they have been recently resorted of putting naked female models in front of their new models to help promote them. And yes, there are pictures.

Implicit in the doctrine in #4935 is that the people in possession of the weapons aren't total lunatics. The NRA and SAF don't claim the mentally deranged have an inalienable right to possess firearms.

Are people who think their guy losing an election constitutes a valid reason for secession lunatics? They certainly are to me. Gun organization leads who advocate having an armed government guard in front of every school are maniacs in my eyes.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with two-bit strongmen with access to nukes. I also deeply uncomfortable with self-styled militiamen armed to the teeth driving around bristling with weaponry.

An armed populace is similar to a country with nuclear weapons: Having the weapons reduces the need to use them.

And yet, the only country to ever use them had a monopoly at the time.

That was different.

Are people who think their guy losing an election constitutes a valid reason for secession lunatics? They certainly are to me. Gun organization leads who advocate having an armed government guard in front of every school are maniacs in my eyes.

Among others, Lawrence O'Donnell and Bob Beckel called for secession after Bush was reelected in 2004. If some knee-jerk hyperbole now constitutes lunacy, it appears the Dems have no shortage of "lunatics" within their own party.

As for armed guards at schools, is it really a secret that huge numbers of schools already have armed guards, and have had them for decades? The security at inner-city schools can often be mistaken for that of an airport, while the upper-crust school Obama's daughters attend has eleven armed guards — not counting the Secret Service. Typical elitist example of guns for me but not for thee.

Among others, Lawrence O'Donnell and Bob Beckel called for secession after Bush was reelected in 2004. If some kneejerk hyperbole now constitutes "lunacy," it appears the Dems have no shortage of lunatics within their own party.

I'd be perfectly happy if those guys weren't allowed to own guns.

As for armed guards at schools, is it really a secret that huge numbers of schools already have armed guards, and have had them for decades?

No, but there's a huge difference between individual schools deciding on their own they need protection because kids are bringing guns to school and requiring all schools to have armed government guards.

Typical case of guns for me but not for thee.

I don't have a gun and, unlike the NRA, I'm not willing to require schools to have them.

An armed populace is similar to a country with nuclear weapons: Having the weapons reduces the need to use them.

Yes, that explains why the country with the highest saturation of privately owned firearms also has the highest death by firearms rate in the developed world.

Implicit in the doctrine in #4935 is that the people in possession of the weapons aren't lunatics. The NRA and SAF don't claim the mentally deranged have an inalienable right to possess firearms. Likewise, countries run by homicidal and/or genocidal maniacs shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Can someone explain to me in what way Iran is run by lunatics*? I don't agree with their politics, policies, or really much of anything, but given their world view they (as a country) seem to be fairly rational in their statecraft. I know if I were them I would want nuclear capability, if only to discourage invasion from the US the next time a Republican goes to work every day in the oval office.

Hating Isreal and wanting it destroyed is not exactly enlightened, but from their perspective I don't think it lunacy. And please don't quote random crap from a speech to "prove" they are insane. Random politician saying stuff is one thing, declaring a nation to be run by "homicidal and/or genocidal maniacs" should be a higher bar to clear (especially given the history of some "enlightened" nations I could name).

And by the way being a "bad guy" doesn't mean you can't have nuclear weapons, because there is a pretty good history of bad guys having the bomb. The USSR, China, and so on - not exactly a litany of benevolent and good natured rulers. And by the wya the US is still the only nation to actually use atomic weaponary in war, so our high horse on the subject is not so high and is a bit lame.

Final note: No I am not suggesting every two bit country should have the bomb, and actually would rather limit atomic weaponary for practical reasons.

* I am not sure I would even agree North Korea is run by "maniacs", but I think there is a bit stronger case.

As for armed guards at schools, is it really a secret that huge numbers of schools already have armed guards, and have had them for decades? The security at inner-city schools can often be mistaken for that of an airport, while the upper-crust school Obama's daughters attend has eleven armed guards — not counting the Secret Service. Typical elitist example of guns for me but not for thee.

So you are in favor of some sort of government program paying for/facilitating/mandating armed guards in schools*? Or are you just taking pot shots at what others are saying and never putting forth any positive ideas?

Just checking.

* And if so I would love to hear how you want to pay for it.

Among others, Lawrence O'Donnell and Bob Beckel called for secession after Bush was reelected in 2004. If some knee-jerk hyperbole now constitutes lunacy, it appears the Dems have no shortage of "lunatics" within their own party.

How many signatures did those petitions get?

And, without checking your links, two lunatics actually does seem like kind of a shortage.

And yet, the only country to ever use them had a monopoly at the time.

I said "reduces" the need to use them, not eliminates the need.

***

I'd be perfectly happy if those guys weren't allowed to own guns.

Well, then, you should get started on amending the Constitution instead of tilting against windmills on the internet.

No, but there's a huge difference between individual schools deciding on their own they need protection because kids are bringing guns to school and requiring all schools to have armed government guards.

Oh, you're objecting on "choice" grounds? That's rich.

We can't even pay for teachers, how the #### can we pay for armed guards?

Can someone explain to me in what way Iran is run by lunatics*? I don't agree with their politics, policies, or really much of anything, but given their world view they (as a country) seem to be fairly rational in their statecraft. I know if I were them I would want nuclear capability, if only to discourage invasion from the US the next time a Republican goes to work every day in the oval office.

Hating Isreal and wanting it destroyed is not exactly enlightened, but from their perspective I don't think it lunacy. And please don't quote random crap from a speech to "prove" they are insane. Random politician saying stuff is one thing, declaring a nation to be run by "homicidal and/or genocidal maniacs" should be a higher bar to clear (especially given the history of some "enlightened" nations I could name).

...

* I am not sure I would even agree North Korea is run by "maniacs", but I think there is a bit stronger case.

I'm going to assume you're posting while intoxicated and forgo writing an actual response. Otherwise ... yikes.

As for armed guards at schools, is it really a secret that huge numbers of schools already have armed guards, and have had them for decades? The security at inner-city schools can often be mistaken for that of an airport, while the upper-crust school Obama's daughters attend has eleven armed guards — not counting the Secret Service. Typical elitist example of guns for me but not for thee.

i graduated high school in 05, and there was an armed police officer on premises when i was there.


and w/r/t putting armed guards in every school as a legitimate idea, if obama/pelosi/reid were the most boastful supporters of such legislation, is there any doubt that the same people who support the idea now (the very same idea, no less) would be the loudest opposition?

How many signatures did those petitions get?

And, without checking your links, two lunatics actually does seem like kind of a shortage.

I can't name any prominent conservatives who are seriously talking about secession. Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell has his own TV show, and Bob Beckel is one of the main go-to voices on the left. Physicians, heal thyselves.

(And in any event, it's silly to consider knee-jerk hyperbole to be anything but knee-jerk hyperbole.)

I can't name any prominent conservatives who are seriously talking about secession.

as opposed to what? joking about it?

I'm going to assume you're posting while intoxicated and forgo writing an actual response. Otherwise ... yikes.

Not intoxicated. Please explain to me in how Iran is run by lunatics as oppossed to the leaders of the USSR and China for the past however many years. Really. Seriously.

EDIT: And yes I know the USSR doesn't exist any more. Feel free to add in Russian and other nuclear power leadership as needed.

as opposed to what? joking about it?

Are you seriously claiming there's a major secession movement afoot in the U.S. rather than some sore losers simply blowing off steam, just like a lot of Dems did in 2004?

(And in any event, it's silly to consider knee-jerk hyperbole to be anything but knee-jerk hyperbole.)

You didn't answer my questions about the secession petitions.

Neal Boortz pondered moving back to Texas and seceding from the US after the Supreme Court ruled on ACA, claiming that Texas has the right to secede. Of course being Neal Boortz, he didn't understand what he was talking about. And Rick Perry hinted at it.

Not intoxicated. Please explain to me in how Iran is run by lunatics as oppossed to the leaders of the USSR and China for the past however many years. Really. Seriously.

You and your fellow lefties can find racism in a box of Cracker Jacks, yet you need it explained to you how a leader who wants Israel annihilated and/or Jews exterminated can and should be considered a lunatic?

Mao Zedong: 40 to 70 million killed (Rough Wiki estimate) - I guess not a lunatic.
Stalin: 15 to 18 million killed (Rough wiki estimate) - I guess not an lunatic.

Iran: Run by lunatics, because ... ?

EDIT: Wanted to destroy a nation which you perceive to be your enemy, evil and so forth may be evil and is certainly wrong. However, it does not make them lunatics, especially because so far they are mostly hat and not much in the way of cattle. Cherry picking quotes from a few (and no the president is NOT in charge of Iran) and using that to declare them as lunatics is really weak and silly.

EDIT postscript: I am NOT defending IRan or North Korea. But calling the lunatics is ridiculous. They are rational states with goals we can oppose.

You didn't answer my questions about the secession petitions.

Lassus, are there no limits to your pedantry? If you want to know the answer to your own question, go look it up yourself. (But I'll give you a hint: The White House petition site didn't even exist in 2004.)

wouldn't many nuclear-armed countries reduce the need to use them?

Actually, yes. The only time nuclear weapons were ever used, noted above, was when the US had the nuclear monopoly. I also think that fear of nuclear weapons is part of the reason that the Arab states haven't banded together to destroy Israel, so there is a deterrent factor to ownership. I don't think there can be meaningful war between first-world powers any more without going nuclear, and if that's not a deterrent to war, nothing is.

Can someone explain to me in what way Iran is run by lunatics*? I don't agree with their politics, policies, or really much of anything, but given their world view they (as a country) seem to be fairly rational in their statecraft. I know if I were them I would want nuclear capability, if only to discourage invasion from the US the next time a Republican goes to work every day in the oval office.

Ahmadinejad is a bit of a nutbar, don't you think? He said AIDS was created by Western nations to weaken poorer countries, and that there were no homosexuals in the country of Iran, a statement that he has affirmed, so nobody can say it was a random error of judgment. (It happens that I think it's reasonable to call fundamentalists of all stripes lunatic, and one radical religious leader holding the absolute veto power is an insane political system.)

And by the way being a "bad guy" doesn't mean you can't have nuclear weapons, because there is a pretty good history of bad guys having the bomb.

Being someone that the current nuclear powers consider to be a bad guy means that you don't get into the club. I am fairly unafraid of nuclear war with the current nations that possess nuclear weapons, but I don't think any nation is really "enlightened" enough to safely possess them. If I could completely disarm the world, I would, but if even one nation is to have them, you can bet that I would want my nation to have them (and I would do everything reasonable to stop anyone that I could ever imagine being my enemy from getting them).

Well, then, you should get started on amending the Constitution instead of tilting against windmills on the internet.

There's no need to amend the Constitution. We've already had that discussion.

Oh, you're objecting on "choice" grounds? That's rich.

Like you, I support the right to own firearm for self-defense. Like you, I believe there are limits on what types of firearms should be legal. I just happen to draw the legal line differently. No need to amend the Constitution.

Are you seriously claiming there's a major secession movement afoot in the U.S. rather than some sore losers simply blowing off steam, just like a lot of Dems did in 2004?

Were there tens of thousands of people signing White House petitions for secession in 2004? I don't know about you, but I don't ever joke about it. Civil War, too soon.

Are you seriously claiming there's a major secession movement afoot in the U.S. rather than some sore losers simply blowing off steam, just like a lot of Dems did in 2004?

do you know what the difference is between liberals joking about putting conservatives in internment camps and southerners joking about secession?


there are actually 2 differences.
1, there are no liberals who are joking about putting conservatives in internment camps.
and 2, if the south tried to secede from the union, it wouldn't be the first time.



look, you can smirk all you want about rick perry just joking about texas seceding, but he's not joking; he's dipping his toe in the water to gauge the temperature. i mean, i'm sure he'd say it's just a joke, but if someone who's holding a knife tells you he's gonna stab you, it's a good idea to take him at his word, regardless of whether he's got a smile on his face as he's saying it.

Neal Boortz pondered moving back to Texas and seceding from the US after the Supreme Court ruled on ACA, claiming that Texas has the right to secede. Of course being Neal Boortz, he didn't understand what he was talking about.

Neil Boortz is a libertarian.

***

Mao Zedong: 40 to 70 million killed (Rough Wiki estimate) - I guess not a lunatic.
Stalin: 15 to 18 million killed (Rough wiki estimate) - I guess not an lunatic.

Iran: Run by lunatics, because ... ?

EDIT: Wanted to destroy a nation which you perceive to be your enemy, evil and so forth may be evil and is certainly wrong. However, it does not make them lunatics, especially because so far they are mostly hat and not much in the way of cattle. Cherry picking quotes from a few (and no the president is NOT in charge of Iran) and using that to declare them as lunatics is really weak and silly.

EDIT postscript: I am NOT defending IRan or North Korea. But calling the lunatics is ridiculous. They are rational states with goals we can oppose.

Are you sure you're not intoxicated?

Ahmadinejad is a bit of a nutbar, don't you think?

He is not the ruler of Iran*. He is a power there, but if you think he is truly in charge you are very much mistaken. He has much much much less relative power than (for example) Obama does.

* I am not an expert on Iran, but this should be pretty common knowledge.

Iran: Run by lunatics, because ... ?

Mostly because the esteem in which their cultures hold "martyrs" makes deterrence -- which works only against rational calculation -- more challenging. Mao and Stalin were nuts, but they feared death and presided over cultures without a martyr complex.

Are you sure you're not intoxicated?

We call this afraid to answer because you know you have been called out and have no real answer. Keep calling names, because it is obvious you have no clue - it was just a talking point and no you don't know how to respond.

Were there tens of thousands of people signing White House petitions for secession in 2004?

No, because that White House site didn't exist in 2004. Otherwise, I'm sure plenty of the Daily Kos crowd would have had fun with Bush's site just like non-liberals have been having fun with Obama's site.

***

We call this afraid to answer because you know you have been called out and have no real answer. Keep calling names, because it is obvious you have no clue - it was just a talking point and no you don't know how to respond.

Nice try, but I'm not going to waste time explaining how a guy who wants Israel annihilated and/or Jews exterminated qualifies as a lunatic.

Lassus, are there no limits to your pedantry? If you want to know the answer to your own question, go look it up yourself. (But I'll give you a hint: The White House petition site didn't even exist in 2004.)

Wasn't aware of that. My point was WTF are you doing bringing up a dopey newscaster and a "go-to voice" as something that's a thing for lunacy when thousands upons thousands upon thousands of right-wingers across the nation have been putting their names to SECESSION OH HELLS YEAH. If you want to prove some kind of equality there with that, it's weak.

Mao and Stalin were nuts, but they feared death and presided over cultures without a martyr complex.

Are you not overly familiar with Russian and Chinese culture. They are different kinds of martyrs, but seriously read up on the crazy crap they did in the 20s, 30s, and 40s and the justifications for it and then claim they have less "die for a glorious cause" going for them than modern day Iran does?

EDIT: Seriously though what actions has Iran taken in the last 30 years vis-a-vis the world stage that leads you to believe Lunatics are running the country?

He is not the ruler of Iran*. He is a power there, but if you think he is truly in charge you are very much mistaken. He has much much much less relative power than (for example) Obama does.

I think this is very nitpicky, especially since the rest of my post mentions the religious power that really runs the country. Ahmadinejad is the public face of Iranian politics to the rest of the world. Whether he actually holds the power is not particularly important: his words and actions represent the political will of Iran.

Nice try, but I'm not going to waste time explaining how a guy who wants Israel annihilated and/or Jews exterminated qualifies as a lunatic.

Really, no kidding, random talking points from a guy NOT IN CHARGE does not mean the nation is run by Lunatics. Nice that you have stopped calling me names and started crawling away, tail between your legs.

Bob Beckel is a "go-to voice" on the left. That's funny.

Neil Boortz is a libertarian.

Libertarians can not also be conservative?

EDIT: Seriously though what actions has Iran taken in the last 30 years vis-a-vis the world stage that leads you to believe Lunatics are running the country?

how about capturing three hikers who mistakenly crossed their border and accusing them of being american spies?

his words and actions represent the political will of Iran

And you (well Joe really) are claiming what one guy has said, not done but rather has said, is dispositive to proving lunacy, and it is not even the guy in charge. And if he is so representative then why

On 14 March 2012, Ahmadinejad became the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran to be summoned by the Islamic Consultative Assembly to answer questions.

I am not saying he is a great guy. I am not arguing for Iran or that they should have nuclear weapons. But could be please stop demaning and underestimating nations we don't like? There are plenty of things not to like about Iran, we don't need to make up charges of lunacy.

how about capturing three hikers who mistakenly crossed their border and accusing them of being american spies?

And what happened then?

And do I get to compare this incident to Abu Graib(sp?) or other random crap the US and other nations have done?

No, because that White House site didn't exist in 2004. Otherwise, I'm sure plenty of the Daily Kos crowd would have had fun with Bush's site just like non-liberals have been having fun with Obama's site.

Now you're just projecting. Like STEAGLES notes, when talking secession the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives mean it. They don't you say? So all those people in the Old Confederacy, they would never dream of wanting to leave the Union? Gotcha.

Here is the wiki article on the hiker incident clearly they are crazy and the President is in total charge of the country.

A team of United States Department of State officials, including diplomat Philo Dibble, coordinated with Omani and Swiss diplomats to secure the release of Bauer and Fattal.[40]

On September 13 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told NBC News that Bauer and Fattal would be released “in a couple of days” in a “humanitarian gesture.”[41] Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak at the United Nations General Assembly the next week. However the release was delayed as part of "what analysts called a power struggle between Ahmadinejad and the conservative establishment he has angered," and soon after the announcement, Iran’s judiciary contradicted the president and stated it had exclusive authority to order their release.[2] (The judiciary answers to the country’s supreme leader.) Bauer and Fattal were released at dawn September 21 and taken by a diplomatic convoy to a plane that took them to Oman.[2]

Again I am not saying they are most awesome country evah! And their judiciary and such is nothing to write home about, but maniacs? Lunatics? Really?

Breaking News ?@BreakingNews
Ex-US President George H.W. Bush's fever has worsened with doctors putting him on a liquids-only diet, hospital spokesman says - @itvnews

how about capturing three hikers who mistakenly crossed their border

I don't really blame them there. In all likelihood a healthy percentage of westerners wandering around in that part of the world aren't innocent lambs.

how about capturing three hikers who mistakenly crossed their border and accusing them of being american spies?

Honestly, that didn't seem that crazy at all. I can see almost any country doing that.

NOTE: I think most countries are crazy, so there's that.

A little earlier before the hikers situation, they(Iran) caught a half-Iranian U.S. citizen who was claiming was working in a doctoral program. After a few weeks, Iran quietly shipped her to Japan and that was the end of that. But yeah, she was probably a spy and after finding the hikers, their guard was probably up.

But could be please stop demaning and underestimating nations we don't like? There are plenty of things not to like about Iran, we don't need to make up charges of lunacy.

I think they're a country run by lunatics because they're a country run by religious fundamentalists. There are plenty of religious fundamentalists in this country, but:

1) I think they're lunatics too.
2) They don't run the country.
3) Our government doesn't establish them as absolute leaders.

Shame on you, Srul.

That all changed with the Civil War, but History is what it is. The fact that you disagree with reality just puts you in the next pew over from the Republican Party.



And no man who uses the screen name "Retardo" has the right to call shame on anyone else.

Ahmadinejad is a bit of a nutbar, don't you think? He said AIDS was created by Western nations to weaken poorer countries, and that there were no homosexuals in the country of Iran, a statement that he has affirmed, so nobody can say it was a random error of judgment. (It happens that I think it's reasonable to call fundamentalists of all stripes lunatic, and one radical religious leader holding the absolute veto power is an insane political system.)

Probably...

Though, it ought to be noted that there's a pretty big gap of understanding in the west about precisely what Ahmedinejad "is" -- or rather, more accurately -- what the 'President of Iran' is compared to most other nations... It's pretty unusual setup in that, unlike most "heads of state" -- the President of Iran is extraordinarily limited in terms of foreign policy, more so than any other major or mid-major nation. The army doesn't report to him, his foreign policy powers are pretty much limited to economic treaties (and even then, subject to both the Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians) -- the army reports to Khamenei.

In effect, what Ahmadinejad thinks about Israel, the US, or anyone else outside of Iran is relatively irrelevant (compared to say, Kim Jong-un).

The other factor to consider - Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, while once supposedly tight - sort of have each other by the tail... While Khamenei took the rare SL step of publicly backing Admadinejad, most reports indicate their falling out predates the 2009 election chaos and repression.

Cavalierly tossing about 'lunatic' accusations probably doesn't help much in terms of discussing foreign policy... I mean - it seems to lead to the logical conclusion of wiping the 'lunatic' off the face of the earth (along with a good chunk of the nation being led by/under the yoke of the lunatic) -- at which point, it starts to become really difficult to start diving who isn't a lunatic of some sort.

I guess I'm saying that I'd tend to side with BM on this one...

What we've got is a fundamentalist leader of an increasingly aging conservative coalition in his country -- who also happens to be dealing with schisms within that very coalition, while at the same time, not really delivering on much of what he promised to his core supporters within that coalition (Ahmadinejad's calling card during his electoral rise was supposed to be economic - he was the non-corrupt mayor of Tehran who didn't ride around in a limo; he was the Iranian "99%" candidate... again - remember that to an Iranian, the "President"s primary responsibility is actual the domestic slate of issues).

Does he truly believe some of the absolute nutso views he's espoused? Almost certainly... but a true lunatic is unpredictable - and I don't think Ahmadinejad is unpredictable, just politically boxed in, engaged in some intramural Iranian power struggles, and using the levers available to him to shore up his own support.

Does he truly believe some of the absolute nutso views he's espoused? Almost certainly... but a true lunatic is unpredictable - and I don't think Ahmadinejad is unpredictable, just politically boxed in, engaged in some intramural Iranian power struggles, and using the levers available to him to shore up his own support.

The money quote here is "a true lunatic is unpredictable". You can't negotiate with them. They go on killing sprees and don't care if they die. It is really bad to have them in charge of the bomb. Those sorts of people tend not to end up running countries* for obvious reasons.

Having conservative, fundementalist, bad people in charge of the bomb is not great, but if they understand the calculus of atomic weapons and that no kidding using them is a really bad idea (which Mao, Stalin, and pretty much every leader of a nuclear nation has understood) then it is not the end of the world.

Much like guns, fewer nuclear weapons is preferable because there is less chance of a madman getting hold of one and less chance of a mistake or whatever - but that doesn't make every nation we don't like run by madmen.

* Pol Pot comes to mind as a true nutso leader for example, and I am really glad he didn't have nuclear capability.

Are you not overly familiar with Russian and Chinese culture. They are different kinds of martyrs, but seriously read up on the crazy crap they did in the 20s, 30s, and 40s and the justifications for it and then claim they have less "die for a glorious cause" going for them than modern day Iran does?

Heh...

Again - gotta say that BM wins this round of historical Jeopardy.

Around the time most European states were organizing into actual state monarchies, the Russians were still struggling to break free of the Golden Horde and various other nomads... Around the time those other European states were becoming the nations we still recognize today, the Russians were repelling invasions and quasi-monarchical forced unions from their Lithuanian and Polish neighbors to the east... By the time they finally righted the ship; they arrived just in time to become the large, slightly dull-witted (but big and strong, if still a bit oafish) younger brother of the great European monarchies.... and that's before you even get into the fall of the Romanovs and western support for the 'Whites' in the Soviet revolution.

Of course, one thing you can say about Russia -- they probably don't even have a claim as strong the Chinese when it comes to externalized dominance and meddling.

When members of Congress vote next month to determine who shall lead the House, odds are increasingly dim for House Speaker John Boehner’s hold on power.

Since the failure of his Plan B proposal for extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all but the riches Americans — those with an annual income of $1 million or more — pundits and pols have been raising the spectre of a new speaker of the House come the next Congress. The pundits, for once, appear to be onto something.

At the right-wing Brietbart.com, Matthew Boyle writes of a plan by conservatives to wrest the speaker’s gavel from Boehner by changing the rules of the vote to a secret ballot, under the reasoning that, if Boehner was unable to determine who voted against him, he would be unable to visit retribution on those members should his speakership survive the vote.

Although Boyle relies entirely on unnamed sources, he obtained a document laying out the plan, which is currently being circulated among right-wing members of the House. The irony is that they plan to use Boehner’s promotion of an anti-union position favored by the Tea Party as the rationale for making the rules change.

Link.

Also interesting:

Meanwhile, the center-right pundit Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is suggesting that members of congress use existing constitutional law to oust Boehner by chosing someone who is not a member of Congress. Writing at the Washington Post op-ed page, Ornstein suggests:

Go to Article I, Section 2: The Constitution does not say that the speaker of the House has to be a member of the House. In fact, the House can choose anybody a majority wants to fill the post.

Bob Beckel is a "go-to voice" on the left. That's funny.

Heh... there's a blast from the past (the last I heard of him, he was the guy who artfully dispatched Gary Hart for Mondale in 1984) - I honestly had to check his wikipedia page to answer my own personal "alive or dead" question... and surprise! Still very much alive - but working for Fox and apparently, writing occasionally for USAToday... which might be the same as 'dead', relevancy speaking.

I suppose he must be the go-to guy if Brazille and Shrum are already booked/refuse to appear and you have a 4th rate conservative show in need of a liberal pinata to whack around so you can proclaim how open-minded you are!

Meanwhile, the center-right pundit Norman J. Ornstein

Read this as Norman J. Osborn and had a minor surreal moment.

and w/r/t putting armed guards in every school as a legitimate idea, if obama/pelosi/reid were the most boastful supporters of such legislation, is there any doubt that the same people who support the idea now (the very same idea, no less) would be the loudest opposition?

Christ, if Obama had made that proposal, every right wing nut in the country, including half the GOP House members, would be calling for his impeachment on the grounds that his plan was nothing but a stalking horse for the takeover of the U.S. by UN troops from the Congo.

I'm not going to waste time explaining how a guy who wants Israel annihilated and/or Jews exterminated qualifies as a lunatic.

I doubt he actually wants to annihilate Israel. It's a popular stance much like Reagan's rhetoric about destroying the Soviets was-if he'd really wanted to, he wouldn't have acted in a practical matter the way he did. All politics is local, even in Iran.

Odd how Great Britain and the Soviet Union get omitted from the conversation about empires falling and yet the two of them are modern examples of empires ending.

Citing the fall of the USSR would be kinda weird in a 40 year old storey set in WW2.

An armed populace is similar to a country with nuclear weapons: Having the weapons reduces the need to use them.

Implicit in the doctrine in #4935 is that the people in possession of the weapons aren't lunatics. The NRA and SAF don't claim the mentally deranged have an inalienable right to possess firearms. Likewise, countries run by homicidal and/or genocidal maniacs shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Anybody who wants guns in order to stand up to the US government and military, is clearly insane, and on no account should be allowed to have them. Anybody who doesn't want to is sane, and can have them.

Catch 22 again.

In a world of things that are unbelievable, is the anything more obviously untrue than Tagg Romney's claim that is his father didn't really want to be President and was reluctant?

He reluctantly ran for President for over six years? Spend countless hours and millions and millions of dollars (especially if you include opportunity cost from what he could have been earning). Suffer huge amounts of attacks from all sides. Face questions and comments from everyone, where no detail of your life, your history is too small or mean to unearth and use against you. Subject your family and friends to the scrutiny of a national political race, only to lose and then ... eh, didn't want it anyway?

Wow, does anyone believe that? People on this board believe many things, but does anyone here believe that?

Wow, does anyone believe that? People on this board believe many things, but does anyone here believe that?

Well, actually, yes. People are more reluctant going into marriages that last longer. And not good ones. And jobs and careers. I'm not saying it IS true, but I don't think it's remotely unthinkable.

He sure ran like he didn't want to win.

Anybody who wants guns in order to stand up to the US government and military, is clearly insane, and on no account should be allowed to have them. Anybody who doesn't want to is sane, and can have them.

Catch 22 again.

So what scenario do you envision, meaning one that has a better than a .001% chance of happening in the real world, where a sane person would attempt to fight off the U.S. government with firearms?

There are plenty of good reasons for wanting to own a gun for sport and / or personal self-protection, but owning them for possible use against the government is not one of them.

but does anyone here believe that?

Not me. I think most big-time pols, given a shot at it, would like to be President. Romney may not have liked RUNNING for POTUS, but I think it is clear that he very much wanted to BE President.

He reluctantly ran for President for over six years?

Also, IIRC Tagg claimed he didn't want to run *again* after 2008, so it wasn't the full six years.

Flip...