mr_genius

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 02:53 PM) He was actually saying "God Ham America". He does love his bacon. Oh, well, than that would have been inappropriate. Our country has an obesity epidemic, no need to encourage people to eat additional bacon.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) You mentioned "the altercation", and in my book running away is not an "altercation". I think that's an important fact in this case. And if you go look up any news article about the case, you'll find that is what happened, as the agents eventually acknowledged. No need for the snark. ok i looked up a news account http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311996,00.html I classify this as an altercation. Drug van crashes, they struggle as the guy gets away. One officer is shooting at him, thinks smuggler has gun, and the second officer comes over and sees partner laying on the ground firing and shoots suspect rear. edit: apologies for smart-alecky portions of previous post

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 02:42 PM) Seriously this: ""REV LOWERY: Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen. AUDIENCE: Amen! REV. LOWERY: Say amen -- AUDIENCE: Amen! REV. LOWERY: -- and amen. AUDIENCE: Amen!" Totally should have lead off. I would have prefererd a Rev.Wright "God Damn America" speech. would have been hilarious.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) Bulls***. That's completely out of context. His comments immediately before what Tex's paraphrase was "People are often surprised when I am asked who I most look up to in the Senate and I say Teddy Kennedy". Then he said what Tex said, and that's a completely different point. Let's stop the horse s*** now, ok? wow, leaving out that part of the quote is one hell of an oversight.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 02:41 PM) He was shot in the buttocks while running away. All I said was he didn't die. Nice to know you were there for the eyewitness account though, thanks for the info.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) Border Patrol agents who shot and killed an unarmed suspect (but known drug dealer), attempted a cover up, caught and duly convicted and sentenced. Had their sentences commuted by Bush. Controversial in some circles. Worries abound in some circles. actually, the drug smuggler was shot on the buttocks during the altercation. he did not die.

Whoa, the market is completely tanking today. DOW -317 at the moment

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 10:01 PM) ... but I mean come on it's pretty bogus to expect Hollywood to teach anything worthwhile on politics. "Thats not true!!" "Yea. What Michael Moore said. "

I'm going to modify my 'UN is completely useles' statement. I do think it can be a useful symbolic show of unity. However, the money we put into the organization is excessive and needs to be cut back. Let's face it, the US doesn't have money to be throwing around like this.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 08:17 PM) You wont let go of mutually assured destruction as being the primary reason for the lack of conflict in the post-war era, because that's pretty much what all your points are reverting back to. well, that’s not true. I will address later in my post. I certainly do believe nation states realize the higher costs of all out war in the age of nuclear arms. Of course, the notion that they would 'never' decide to set off a nuclear Armageddon is a complete unknown, but we know form history that so far the major nuclear powers have been very much opposed to such global actions. Also, keep in mind that the vast majority of the world was very much against WWII. Germany was given a number of appeasements as the world was very much against a second world war. However, eventually things had been pushed too far and WWII was on. Would WWII have been avoided if there were a number of nations with nuclear weapons? Possibly, it's impossible to tell. There is also the variable of the Nazi party and Hitler which, honestly, has yet to been matched. A major world power has not had an ideology of that of Nazi Germany. Debt levels of Germany after WWI (due to a 'war guilt' clause) certainly did play a role in WWII. However, lets see how you tie the UN into this. The UN cannot control world powers or force them to forgive debts or loan money. Oh, the link. A UN forum for discussions would have avoided Hitler and WWII. The truth is there was a great deal of discussions of war debts and the guilt clause. There were plenty of forums, another one would not have done anything. The UN would not have been able to stop anything, as they cannot control the actions of sovereign nations. Also, Hoover tried to implement a moratorium on the 'guilty' payments but France refused. The United States congress also shot his request down. But wait a minute, I thought you said my only argument was that of 'mutual assured destruction'? Actually, this portion of your post makes little sense, as I have directly tied international diplomacy to economics. You really missed the mark badly here. The more countries trade with each other and have mutually shared goals in an economic format the less likely a world war becomes. The UN cannot force such interaction; nation states must want to participate. We now come back to one of my original statements that nation states will almost always act directly in relation to self benefit.

Nice prediction, was probably written off as completely unrealistic back then. Only off about 4 years. BBC World News America has unearthed a fascinating clip of Dr Martin Luther King speaking to the BBC's Bob McKenzie in 1964 in which Dr King predicts an African-American president "in less than 40 years." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/worl...ica/default.stm

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 09:46 PM) Have you read what Robert McNamara said about the Cuban Missile Crisis? We didn't even know there were warheads in Cuba until after the crisis, quite a few US generals were advocating a military strike on Cuba and that would've been the end of the world. Yes, and again the UN did not stop the invasion or a nuclear war. The UN did little to nothign to cool down the standoff. The United States and Soviets themselves did it. You are proving my point for me. The UN does little to nothign in building economic ties between countries such as the United States and China. Again, these nations set up these agreements and do not need the UN. The UN is largely a symbolic organization; albeit a very expensive one.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 09:31 PM) Can you go into these variables? btw- mutually assured destruction doesn't count. Both sides had their fingers on the button multiple times and were fully willing to go all the way. -Mutually assured destruction does count. The soviets and the United States were not going to blow each other up. There was a lot of dangerous activity, but neither wanted to end the world. -There has been a lone super power for a number of years - World economics - Increased free trade

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 09:28 PM) I swear to god guys, read a f***in book. lol nice try

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 09:19 PM) This isn't true at all. There has been one instance of conflict between great powers since 1946. Before the UN there was the Russo-Japanese War, World War 1, World War 2 and plenty others. The UN has been extremely effective at preserving world peace, it's actually exceeded any realistic expectations they could've had at it's inception. The UN hasn't stopped any major world wars. There are a number of variables which have kept us all out of another world war; the UN not being a major player. The notion that the UN has stopped world wars is fairly absurd.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 07:57 PM) I'd like to hear some rationale behind this. Nation states will always do what is in their own best interest; the UN has no control over major world events. The money we pour into this corrupt and failed organization can be spent in better ways. We can put all the money into health care or some other priority . If anything, the United States should pay in less than the average member of the organization. This financial support would merely be a show of good will; as the money is going to be wasted as the organization is completely incompetent. The truth is the UN has no real power and is one hell of an expensive grandstand. The UN barely does any of this. They have brutal dictators on their bogus human rights commissions. They filter money that was designated for poverty relief directly to dictators to buy weapons. It's completely corrupt and wasteful, there are much better ways to distribute world aid.

The UN is completely useless, corrupt, and a waste of money.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) Not to be confused with .

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 07:42 PM) It depends a lot on your definition of the word "literally".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) Wow, we might see Dow 9000 today the way things are going. Flattening and flirting a bit around 8950 though, so, we could also collapse back pretty quickly. could drop below 8k soon

"I skip out on my taxes too and I'm the Chairman of the Ways and Means committee! How great is that?"

QUOTE (Pods70Rowand33 @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 05:39 PM) lol you mean girl. but it's ok. my bad

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 05:43 PM) Actually, there's some legit economics that would say that running deficits at a time of economic growth is a bad thing, because the growth always stops at some point, and when that happens, you actually need the government to go in to deficit. The ideal time to balance the budget and pay down some portion of the debt would have been the period from say 2003-2006. Instead we were $200-$400 billion in the hole every one of those years. There are also a great number of well respected economists that will tell you running annual deficits of 2 trillion are a disastrous policy. The numbers that Obama is planning on running in deficit spending are staggering. The deficits were horrible under GW Bush and they are going to sky rocket to dangerous levels under Obama. What is being planned is completely reckless and needs to be stopped.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) Glenn Greenwald is a highly reputable progressive blogger. He's basically the type of blogger that should only be read by the ignorant that need their world views confirmed.

Truth is the market crash, GOP scandals, and GW Bush played a much larger role than Howard Dean. If things go badly during the Obama admin the GOP will likely make up ground, it's just how things work.