Originally Posted by playwrite

I like taking their money.

The people who live in today's world, who have no attachment to pre-1971, are very aware of this.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The people who live in today's world, who have no attachment to pre-1971, are very aware of this.

You're attached alright, you just don't know it. Likely don't have a clue what I'm referring to.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're attached alright, you just don't know it. Likely don't have a clue what I'm referring to.

What are you referring to? How am I attached? How does pre 1971 life relate to me?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

What are you referring to? How am I attached?

In 1971, Nixon ended convertibility of US Dollars to gold.

There's not a Rigthee out there that doesn't believe our monetary/economic system still operates as if there is a gold standard, and federal deficits, debt and spending are inherently evil.

Without that misunderstanding, there really wouldn't be a reason for the GOP to exist any more. Maybe a some sort of TheoCon/NeoCon combo party but that's about it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

In 1971, Nixon ended convertibility of US Dollars to gold.

There's not a Rigthee out there that doesn't believe our monetary/economic system still operates as if there is a gold standard, and federal deficits, debt and spending are inherently evil.

Without that misunderstanding, there really wouldn't be a reason for the GOP to exist any more. Maybe a some sort of TheoCon/NeoCon combo party but that's about it.

I don't believe it operates that way any more either. Right now, I believe it operates however it thinks or believes it needs to operate in order to continue operating its own way and dishing out large scale financial benefits those who support it being operated its own way who want it to continue being operated its own way. The GOP doesn't exist anymore. The GOP just hasn't figured it out or come to grips with that reality yet. Haven't you've been watching the change that's happening on the Republican side? The GOP is being completely blown off and ignored by its voters.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't believe it operates that way any more either. Right now, I believe it operates however it thinks or believes it needs to operate in order to continue operating its own way and dishing out large scale financial benefits those who support it being operated its own way who want it to continue being operated its own way. The GOP doesn't exist anymore. The GOP just hasn't figured it out or come to grips with that reality yet. Haven't you've been watching the change that's happening on the Republican side? The GOP is being completely blown off and ignored by its voters.

Watch and learn from them, it will come in handy because you baggers are next.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The people who live in today's world, who have no attachment to pre-1971, are very aware of this.

People would be wise to contemplate how America got through the last Crisis Era.

A hint: Jim Crow would be an improvement in racial relations if people then acted as Americans do now, at least politically.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's not necessarily a question of who is loyal to whom. When genocide happens, humanity needs to step in. That's the case in Syria. I don't say with intervention, but just some support.

Why us? More to the point, how will we intervene in a positive way? It can't always be us, and our track record is poor in any case. We may do vastly more harm than good. In fact, it's almost a certainty. The Europeans, on the other hand, have a real stake here. For all practical purposes, they are being invaded. More to the point, they are already in the neighborhood.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

In case you haven't noticed, Palestinians find peace under the international community's stipulations impossible too. Israel agreed to 99% of territorial compromises under Ehud Barak during the 1990s and Yasser Arafat had to say no or he would have been assassinated. Arafat's bodyguard said so in an NPR interview on, I believe The Story (WUNC) in 2008.

Palestinians have no incentive to agree to any sort of peace when the United Nations continues to subsidise Palestinians remaining as refugees (which takes up over 1/3 of the UN's total budget and gives the UN a constituency dependent upon it that it otherwise woudn't have. A real peace agreement would be modeled after the "two state solution" which separated Singapore from Malaysia to prevent Malaysia from having a Chinese majority. Chinese in Singapore got Singaporean citizenship while Chinese in Malaysia (and Hindus in Malaysia) got Malaysian citizenship. Both remained under British law while Muslim Malays fell under Sharia law (though not without the prescribed execution methods--Malaysia still uses hanging).

An Israeli version of this would involve a Palestinian state in Gaza only (which is twice the size of Singapore with 2/3 of Singapore's population and offshore gas reserves). Jerusalem and the West Bank are recognised as annexed to Israel with it's inhabitants entitled to full citizenship (a requirement of any annexation since the Mandate Accords of 1920) with those declining to take Israeli citizenship emigrating to Gaza or elsewhere in the world. That is a two state solution that works and will not lead to Israel's destruction and does not involve the unrealistic idea of two parts of a state separated by the territory of another state. And with a birthrate of 3.0 children per family, Jewish Israel need not fear any demographic time bomb especially since West Bank Palestinian's birthrate is the same or slightly lower. But it requires Palestinians and Europeans to give up on the fashionable notion that the State of Israel was created by mistake in a moment of weakness for the international community.

Gaza opted for Hamas, and the West Bank for the PLA. I don't see them as one nation, frankly. Hamas is a paper tiger party, and their inability to do harm to Israel is proof. If the Israelis didn't overreact every time a rocket is launched, it would revert to a party of toothless chest thumpers. But they do, and that just gives Hamas legitimacy; the excessive response to provocations guarantees their continuation.

On the other hand, the problem in the WB is the unending settlements, that makes the place a Swiss Cheese Ghetto. In this case, its the not-so-toothless Israelis provoking the Palestinians.

Why are we involved at all?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

We continue to back the Kingdom because the Kingdom prices it's oil in US dollars. And drags the rest of OPEC with the exception of Iran with it. Thereby making dollars a necessity for any nation needing to buy oil. Which forces nations to find things to sell to the US to get those US dollars, resulting in cheap affordable consumer goods for Americans. Which in turn permits the US to get away with running account deficits, budget deficits and lower interest rates at levels that would have other nations selling off dollars for alternative currencies if those alternatives were viable...

Other nations have equally strong currencies without the benefit of a petro monopoly. To be honest about it, we will be better-off cutting the Saudis loose and taking our chances. We still hold the world's strongest currency because we are the world's strongest economy. That won't change any time soon.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well, he didn't really get banned. At least not in the classic understanding of the word. :

Few true banning's have occurred. Marc Lamb unloaded on the webmaster, and that's a case of true permanence. One or two totally obnoxious posters trolled the site to see how long they would be tolerated. Answer: not long. Most other banned posters managed to reappear like the Phoenix ... chastened but unbowed.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Why us? More to the point, how will we intervene in a positive way? It can't always be us, and our track record is poor in any case. We may do vastly more harm than good. In fact, it's almost a certainty. The Europeans, on the other hand, have a real stake here. For all practical purposes, they are being invaded. More to the point, they are already in the neighborhood.

Yes indeed. It is the result of our inaction. And yes, it should have been more than us. It has been, too, but regional powers mostly. Again, not intervention; we can't fight their revolution for them. Support is what I have recommended for a long time. Assad got more support than the people did, for his genocide on his own people. Hillary got it right.

You have it right on the Israel/Palestinian mess and the Saudis.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Watch and learn from them, it will come in handy because you baggers are next.

The TP's are willing to take your knees out and jump on your back for the ride to ground. Do you like crashes? Do you like social disturbances? How many crashes would it take to bring a trust fund kid like you down to my level? One big one? Two pretty big ones? A serious hand full in relatively short time period.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Few true banning's have occurred. Marc Lamb unloaded on the webmaster, and that's a case of true permanence. One or two totally obnoxious posters trolled the site to see how long they would be tolerated. Answer: not long. Most other banned posters managed to reappear like the Phoenix ... chastened but unbowed.

How do you know that? Were you in with the webmaster at the time?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Why us? More to the point, how will we intervene in a positive way? It can't always be us, and our track record is poor in any case. We may do vastly more harm than good. In fact, it's almost a certainty. The Europeans, on the other hand, have a real stake here. For all practical purposes, they are being invaded. More to the point, they are already in the neighborhood.

I don't think we could harm the situation much more than it has already been harmed at this point.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think we could harm the situation much more than it has already been harmed at this point.

Oh, I don't know. If Trump were to govern as he campaigns, responding to adversity with insults, optimizing ego gratification, seeking always to be the center of attention, I bet he could find a way to make things worse.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The TP's are willing to take your knees out and jump on your back for the ride to ground. Do you like crashes? Do you like social disturbances? How many crashes would it take to bring a trust fund kid like you down to my level? One big one? Two pretty big ones? A serious hand full in relatively short time period.

I know, I know, zombies are just around the corner.

By the way, did anyone tell you that Mayan Calender thingee didn't work out?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes indeed. It is the result of our inaction. And yes, it should have been more than us. It has been, too, but regional powers mostly. Again, not intervention; we can't fight their revolution for them. Support is what I have recommended for a long time. Assad got more support than the people did, for his genocide on his own people. Hillary got it right.

You have it right on the Israel/Palestinian mess and the Saudis.

No, it should be someone other than us. We can't get involved everywhere on every issue every time. There are cases where the US needs to be involved; for example, no one else can stand-up to the Chinese in the South China Sea. But we've meddled unsuccessfully in the Middle East for decades. Unless the Russians invade, it's time to bid the entire region adieu.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

How do you know that? Were you in with the webmaster at the time?

I know you're back, along with several others. I know quite a bit about the Marc Lamb affair, and one of the stalker-trolls. The rest is extrapolation.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think we could harm the situation much more than it has already been harmed at this point.

There's a great selling point for throwing or children and treasure at a problem.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, it should be someone other than us. We can't get involved everywhere on every issue every time. There are cases where the US needs to be involved; for example, no one else can stand-up to the Chinese in the South China Sea. But we've meddled unsuccessfully in the Middle East for decades. Unless the Russians invade, it's time to bid the entire region adieu.

What about your Kurds?

Also, I think the Iranian election is worth watching and then the eventual replacement of Supreme Leader. If they ever become a moderating force in the Region, we might want to get closer - one thing they don't need from us is an army. Another possible outcome of that is to tell WB settlers to go F themselves. Then the real issue becomes clear - Sunni-land?

It seems Putin is reconsidering intervention. His troops have achieved their objectives and can come home now. As an American, am I allowed to be dubious? Declare victory and go home? Really? Can we sue them for copyright infringement?

While he pushed some battle lines, I've a feeling that withdrawal will result in a slow shift back to the old status quo. Quagmire as usual?

Originally Posted by B Butler

It seems Putin is reconsidering intervention. His troops have achieved their objectives and can come home now. As an American, am I allowed to be dubious? Declare victory and go home? Really? Can we sue them for copyright infringement?

While he pushed some battle lines, I've a feeling that withdrawal will result in a slow shift back to the old status quo. Quagmire as usual?

Dubious is the correct word. Here's an excerpt from the media coverage in Moscow -

Russia's military won't withdraw entirely from Syria, however. The Russian airbase in the province of Latakia and a naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartous will continue to operate, Russia's TASS news agency said.

Putin's got Assad a buffer around his two crown jewels in the Mediterranean; he can afford to pull the troops out and look like the grand diplomat. They'd be back in there within hours of any indication that Latakia or Tartous were back at risk.

The one possible positive out of this may be a signal to Assad and the West that Putin's support of Assad politically is limited. Fingers crossed that this might be a step in the direction of removing Assad relatively peacefully.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, it should be someone other than us. We can't get involved everywhere on every issue every time. There are cases where the US needs to be involved; for example, no one else can stand-up to the Chinese in the South China Sea. But we've meddled unsuccessfully in the Middle East for decades. Unless the Russians invade, it's time to bid the entire region adieu.

Well, looks like the Russians have invaded, but now are pulling out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/wo...awal.html?_r=0

It looks like only the USA can lead the fight against the IS. And we need to support the Syrian rebels; as proxies, and negotiators, not invaders. But no, we can't be involved in every issue every time. There needs to be global involvement to uphold international law. We can make sure everyone can travel through the South China Sea. But if the Chinese want to claim a few islands, I don't see that's worth fighting over.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, looks like the Russians have invaded, but now are pulling out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/wo...awal.html?_r=0

Putin's smarter than we are. He knows to chuck losers pretty damn quick. I'll take him as a bridge partner anytime over our wahoo Deep State idiots.

It looks like only the USA can lead the fight against the IS. And we need to support the Syrian rebels; as proxies, and negotiators, not invaders. But no, we can't be involved in every issue every time.

No. Simple steps are better.
1. Impose that $70.00/bbl floating excise tax on imported oil.
2. Wait for Mr. market to do his job and replace that shitty Mideast Oil.
3. Shut down all US military bases.
4. Withdraw every single US military person.
5. Grab some popcorn and watch the MIdeast go to hell.

There needs to be global involvement to uphold international law.

There is no international law.

We can make sure everyone can travel through the South China Sea. But if the Chinese want to claim a few islands, I don't see that's worth fighting over.

No again. If China wants to play Big Boy, the price shall be shutting off the US consumer market.

::Rags:: imposes excise taxes on Chinashit because we don't want to depend on Big Bad Boys for stuff.