Originally Posted by radind

...Russia shows no sign of any interest in doing anything constructive.

Huhwut? They're practically the only major world player engaged in constructive pursuits in Iran.

Originally Posted by playwrite

From the very best in the business -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...rmed-strongly/






Funny how gleeful you all get from the misery of higher gas prices.

What are you going to do when gas/oil prices collapse, cry crocodile tears for gas station owners?

Do you know what China and India are paying Iran for oil? Do you think it is anywhere near open market prices?

Iran's elections are this Friday; Russian elections are this Sunday. Then it’s back to business. Want to bet on where oil/gas prices are headed?

The Liberal Nate Silver gives no evidence of "push polling". I guess I was wrong o my dates, Rasmussen was very accurate in 04, 06, and 08. By looking at the data it looks like his numbers may have been skewed by a really bad poll in Hawaii, not exactly an easy place to poll according to many. Rasmussen's and Gallups numbers lately are remarkably similiar. Silver doesnt mention them in his "analysis"

As far as being gleeful, Im far from it. Obama, from 09 on has made the wrong turn everytime when it comes to energy policy,

Here is the Dems in 08 doing exactly what your accusing Republicans from doing.....
Of course now, its not Obama's fault.....

http://www.breitbart.tv/high-gas-hyp...ed-gas-prices/

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see any evidence for your assertion about the educational policy of the Republicans. What is the basis for your claims? I don't know anyone with the views you have expressed and we certainly need a public that can make ethical decisions.

Practice in R-dominated states is to favor "technical institutes" over four-year colleges. Such could be good short-term economic policy that trains people who get jobs that last five years or so.

If I wanted to create a right-wing society I would make liberal arts learning a rarity so that people could do the critical thought necessary for judging corporate behavior and mass low culture. The small, well-connected educated elite mostly from a self-preserving upper-middle class would be so isolated that it could never think outside its box of class privilege.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Practice in R-dominated states is to favor "technical institutes" over four-year colleges. Such could be good short-term economic policy that trains people who get jobs that last five years or so.

If I wanted to create a right-wing society I would make liberal arts learning a rarity so that people could do the critical thought necessary for judging corporate behavior and mass low culture. The small, well-connected educated elite mostly from a self-preserving upper-middle class would be so isolated that it could never think outside its box of class privilege.

I agree on the liberal arts education, but think that you exaggerate the potential negatives from the Republican party. As an independent , I have issues with both parties but our political system with Congress as a brake tends to limit the extremes.

Originally Posted by radind

Iran needs to be persuaded, but Russia 'must' be involved. The problem is that Russia shows no sign of any interest in doing anything constructive. And we will continue to be in political crisis unless a majority can be persuaded to be reasonable and cooperate. Not much hope for this either.

Iran claims to be open to inspections. That is the key concession Iran needs to make for real.

Originally Posted by Weave

The Liberal Nate Silver gives no evidence of "push polling". I guess I was wrong o my dates, Rasmussen was very accurate in 04, 06, and 08. By looking at the data it looks like his numbers may have been skewed by a really bad poll in Hawaii, not exactly an easy place to poll according to many. Rasmussen's and Gallups numbers lately are remarkably similiar. Silver doesnt mention them in his "analysis"

As far as being gleeful, Im far from it. Obama, from 09 on has made the wrong turn everytime when it comes to energy policy,

Here is the Dems in 08 doing exactly what your accusing Republicans from doing.....
Of course now, its not Obama's fault.....

http://www.breitbart.tv/high-gas-hyp...ed-gas-prices/

Silver works, to a fault, to being non-partisan. He's considered the best "polling analyst" by all that are involved in such things regardless of political persuasion. He was really the first to describe the 2010 shift long before it became conventional wisdom even among T-baggers.

Just what actual result in x-party elections would one use to determine Rasmussen's accuracy? There was NY-26 special election back in the summer, but I'm not aware of anything since. I don’t think Razzy has the bias against any GOP candidate in their primaries that he has for Obama so I don’t think Razzy’s accuracy in that regard crosses over to a x-party race.

Energy policy - maybe you forgot, but your energy policy is "Drill, drill, drill" - we are now drilling more under Obama than anyone before. Also, did you know that the technology for all the formation fracturing that is allowing for more oil and particularly gas production was solely a development of the DOE - a federal govt agency. Just note, when you say more oil/gas production now would create a lot of jobs that you are essentially validating that the govt creates jobs.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Iran claims to be open to inspections. That is the key concession Iran needs to make for real.

I am a skeptic. It seems that every time the inspectors go in, they are kicked out fairly quickly.
We should try to negotiate, but really do not expect anything constructive until Russia makes some push toward a settlement. Unfortunately there are no good solutions in sight.

Originally Posted by radind

Iran needs to be persuaded, but Russia 'must' be involved. The problem is that Russia shows no sign of any interest in doing anything constructive. And we will continue to be in political crisis unless a majority can be persuaded to be reasonable and cooperate. Not much hope for this either.

Putin needs $125 oil in order to sustain the govt spending he has put in place to make the serfs stay happy.

After his re-'election,' he will, in the best tradion of the Czars of the past, no longer give a 'shirt' about the serfs. It will then be okay by him for oil prices to come down. Election is this Sunday.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Putin needs $125 oil in order to sustain the govt spending he has put in place to make the serfs stay happy.

After his re-'election,' he will, in the best tradion of the Czars of the past, no longer give a 'shirt' about the serfs. It will then be okay by him for oil prices to come down. Election is this Sunday.

Reduced oil prices would be nice, however I am more concerned about potential conflicts involving Iran. I don't know what Putin will do, but my sense is that he enjoys seeing the USA in a jam. Although Russia could help , I am not optimistic.

Originally Posted by radind

Reduced oil prices would be nice, however I am more concerned about potential conflicts involving Iran. I don't know what Putin will do, but my sense is that he enjoys seeing the USA in a jam. Although Russia could help , I am not optimistic.

Arguably, Russia is helping. The same sort of way a bartender is helping when he declines to give you your car keys at closing time.

The bartender tends to get cussed-out for it, too.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Arguably, Russia is helping. The same sort of way a bartender is helping when he declines to give you your car keys at closing time.

The bartender tends to get cussed-out for it, too.

Russia could do more by telling Iran to back off the nuclear development. I would have liked to see Russia and the USA develop some kind of alliance, but have begun to lose hope. Perhaps this will improve after the Putin era ends.

An interesting perspective.

Why We Fight: The Psychology Of Political Differences : NPR
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/01/146474...al-differences

..."Our righteous minds made it possible for human beings — but no other animals — to produce large cooperative groups, tribes, and nations without the glue of kinship. But at the same time, our righteous minds guarantee that our cooperative groups will always be cursed by moralistic strife. Some degree of conflict among groups may even be necessary for the health and development of any society. When I was a teenager I wished for world peace, but now I yearn for a world in which competing ideologies are kept in balance, systems of accountability keep us all from getting away with too much, and fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means. Not a very romantic wish, but one that we might actually achieve."...

Originally Posted by radind

Russia could do more by telling Iran to back off the nuclear development.

Why? It's their rights as a signatory to the NPT for Iran to have nuclear power. What good comes of telling them they can't? Better they stay on CO2-producing fossil fuels?

I would have liked to see Russia and the USA develop some kind of alliance, but have begun to lose hope.

There was a chance of that happening for the decades after the USSR ended. But subsequent American administrations (certainly interested in forestalling the rise of a potential rival on the scale of the one that had just collapsed) have done their best to both help their own cronies loot the soviet ruins and to make it clear that Russian interests -- whatever they may be -- are opposed to American ones. Russian people tend to be pretty friendly with American people (our experience, at least). But the idea of America as a serious political ally is so discredited as to be laughable to Oleg Literovodkevich.
They've got China and India -- both actual neighbors, major trading partners, and historically fairly trustworthy. The SCO is for the moment plenty adequate.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why? It's their rights as a signatory to the NPT for Iran to have nuclear power. What good comes of telling them they can't? Better they stay on CO2-producing fossil fuels?

That is only relevant if one believes the Iranians are NOT developing a nuclear weapon. You buy that? If so, there's this bridge to Brooklyn you might be interested in acquiring.

Talk about Cailfornification I'm almost beginning to wonder if we are seeing the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. Certainly the leaders not personally involved in the St. Rum vs. Mittens cat fight understand the demographics that are pushing their party to irrelevance with voters under 35. We keep reading here on the forum about parallels between the Civil War 4T and now. The gradual breakup of a long standing political party may well be one of the outcomes of this 4T. If so we won't likely know before 2020. And I write that because the old angry white voter model can still, at least on paper, look competitive in 2016 but by 2020 there just won't be enough of them left to carry states as loyal to them as Georgia, Texas and yes, South Carolina.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That is only relevant if one believes the Iranians are NOT developing a nuclear weapon. You buy that? If so, there's this bridge to Brooklyn you might be interested in acquiring.

Oh, Ira_ is building weapons of mass destruction you say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/iranian-nuclear-weapons-mohamed-elbaradei

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said British claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme were unfounded.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/16/panetta-iran-is-not-developing-nuclear-weapons/

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that Iran is enriching uranium in a peaceful nuclear program but that Tehran has not decided to develop an atomic bomb.

You want to talk about naive, how about falling for the same shit twice in ten years? So, do you wanna buy some mortgage securities? They're rated AAA!

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Talk about Cailfornification I'm almost beginning to wonder if we are seeing the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. Certainly the leaders not personally involved in the St. Rum vs. Mittens cat fight understand the demographics that are pushing their party to irrelevance with voters under 35. We keep reading here on the forum about parallels between the Civil War 4T and now. The gradual breakup of a long standing political party may well be one of the outcomes of this 4T. If so we won't likely know before 2020. And I write that because the old angry white voter model can still, at least on paper, look competitive in 2016 but by 2020 there just won't be enough of them left to carry states as loyal to them as Georgia, Texas and yes, South Carolina.

a similiar observation from "the most interesting man in the world" -

http://www.sailblogs.com/member/thewanderer/

Why Obama Is a Shoo In: Part Two

Republicans properly view 2012 as their last real chance, and they are sensing to their horror that demographic tides are swinging against them and this is their last chance to reverse in government what is fast being irreversible that they do not like. That is why we hear such strident statements from the candidates. This is the why of birtherism, death panels and bizarre invocations to God. The terrifying thought is that the achievements of the Obama administration are fast becoming irreversible, and an apocalypse is at hand.

The GOP has good reason to be terrified. Obama's election coupled with John Judis' and Ruy Teixeira's 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, spells it out. Judis and Teixeira argue that demographic and political trends are converging in such a way as to form a *natural-majority coalition for the Democrats. Trends they observed have redoubled since they wrote.

The Republican Party is confined to white voters, especially those lacking a college degree and rural whites who, are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Meanwhile, Democrats are taking in whites with graduate degrees, many secular whites, and have retained racial minorities. As Judis and Teixeira observe, these changes make every successive election less favorable for the GOP since Nixon. The democratic base is expanding and Republicans are increasingly on the short end of the stick.

Republicans worsen their own situation by their hostility toward too much of the demographic base. They evidence hostility toward women, the undeserving poor, the elitist snobs (like Obama) who suggest more should attend college, immigrants, the entire middle east (except Israel of course ), agnostics and atheists, Islam, unions, the working class in general (because even though many Conservatives are working class they think their ship is coming in), the intelligentsia, wildlife, nature, and Science in general. This is too big a list and it affects too many.

Time is running out for the follies of Republicans and they lack the time, intelligence and will to reinvent themselves any time soon.

- can't happen fast enough.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Oh, Ira_ is building weapons of mass destruction you say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/iranian-nuclear-weapons-mohamed-elbaradei



http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/16/panetta-iran-is-not-developing-nuclear-weapons/



You want to talk about naive, how about falling for the same shit twice in ten years? So, do you wanna buy some mortgage securities? They're rated AAA!

we'll see.

IAEA and Sec. of Defense not good enough? Show me someone credible with some shred of evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

Closest I can come up with is a public opinion poll from the Dahaf Institute - some hawkish Israeli think-tank with all the polling objectivity of Rasmussen.


"87 percent of registered American voters believe that Iran’s suspected illegal nuclear weapons program is a threat to the United States"

"87 percent of Americans polled don't need evidence to back up Israeli propaganda, or even reject contradictory evidence"

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

IAEA and Sec. of Defense not good enough? Show me someone credible with some shred of evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

Closest I can come up with is a public opinion poll from the Dahaf Institute - some hawkish Israeli think-tank with all the polling objectivity of Rasmussen.


"87 percent of registered American voters believe that Iran’s suspected illegal nuclear weapons program is a threat to the United States"

"87 percent of Americans polled don't need evidence to back up Israeli propaganda, or even reject contradictory evidence"

You know no more and no less than I do.

If you believe otherwise, that's something you should talk to shrink about.

Like I said, we'll see.

Originally Posted by playwrite

a similiar observation from "the most interesting man in the world" -

http://www.sailblogs.com/member/thewanderer/



- can't happen fast enough.

Looks like the meme that Repubs are demoralized isnt quite true...seems the Dems lack voter enthusiasm more than the Repubs, a huge change from 2008. In 2008 it was Repubs were at 44% enthusiasm during the primary, now the Dems are at 44% the Repubs are at 53% and will rise once Romney is the nominee.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153038/GO...nthusiasm.aspx

High gas prices, faltering economy this summer wont help Obama.....

Originally Posted by playwrite

You know no more and no less than I do.

If you believe otherwise, that's something you should talk to shrink about.

Like I said, we'll see.

I know that Iran has been an obsession of U.S. imperialists for the better part of a century (and British ones for a century before that). I also know that the last false WMD scare was used to advance the Twin Pillars strategy for controlling the Middle East.

I also know that U.S. propaganda is powerful, and that a majority of people will believe what they are supposed to believe, despite any lack of evidence or serious claims coming from credible people.

The "best case" result of "we'll see" would involve another massive US invasion, hundred of thousands dead, large cities reduced to rubble. The worst case is that Russia and China have already drawn a line in the sand, and those who see the goal in their sites have become blinded to the true risks of this road...

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I know that Iran has been an obsession of U.S. imperialists for the better part of a century (and British ones for a century before that). I also know that the last false WMD scare was used to advance the Twin Pillars strategy for controlling the Middle East.

I also know that U.S. propaganda is powerful, and that a majority of people will believe what they are supposed to believe, despite any lack of evidence or serious claims coming from credible people.

The propaganda is getting more and more creative. Without permission from the masses, these wars could not move forward. Apparently, The Powers That Be understand this way too well.

They aren't even hiding the racism any more. The Birther BS is so obviously racist code it ain't funny. How long before a major Republican politician slips and calls Obama an "uppity n***er"?

Sheriff Arpaio: Obama birth certificate a ‘forgery’

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I know that Iran has been an obsession of U.S. imperialists for the better part of a century (and British ones for a century before that). I also know that the last false WMD scare was used to advance the Twin Pillars strategy for controlling the Middle East.

I also know that U.S. propaganda is powerful, and that a majority of people will believe what they are supposed to believe, despite any lack of evidence or serious claims coming from credible people.

The "best case" result of "we'll see" would involve another massive US invasion, hundred of thousands dead, large cities reduced to rubble. The worst case is that Russia and China have already drawn a line in the sand, and those who see the goal in their sites have become blinded to the true risks of this road...

We are dealing with an ambiguous situation since Iran refuses to cooperate with the IAEA,
I would not have an issue with Iran developing nuclear power. But you cannot know where they will stop and Iran continues to fan the flames by making threats. It seems to me that one must be prepared in case Iran is serious about their threats.
I don’t want another ‘war’. I was opposed to the Iraq invasion and opposed to nation building in Afghanistan.
Iran could open up and put an end to the speculation, but chooses not to. Just as Russia could help, but chooses not to.
If Iran does proceed to develop a nuclear weapon, I expect that there would be a major Middle East nuclear arms race.
Given the level of uncertainty, the USA must remain vigilant and prepared to respond as necessary.

Different shades of red line – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/01/different-shades-of-red-line/
...”IAEA inspectors have been thwarted by Iran in their attempts to visit all potential nuclear sites. And no one knows for sure whether Iran will even build a nuclear weapon.
It’s that ambiguity that puts the international community on edge as Iran moves closer to at least the potential of having a bomb.”