Egypt has a president - Mohammed Morsi!

I think he meant "Kinnison" Right Wing. Maybe the 8 year presidency of Mitt Romney part confused you.

Actually,the pessimistic ,nightmarish scenario I typed is an idea of my own creation after seeing months of news coverage of RT(Russia Today) News,a news TV show which frequently has disturbing coverage of events in the places I mentioned.
Of course,I hope none of it come true,but after seeing frequent criticisms of President Obama(Whom I voted and will vote for again),and hearing that Mitt Romney is ahead,I felt compelled to communicate a worst case scenario adding as many negative aspects as I could think of.I'm hoping it will motivate people to become more pro-active from a left wing perspective.

So, you posted the most unimaginably horrific right-wing dystopian scenario based on a Romney presidency, cited Russia Today as your source, and then expected it increase support and activity among the left?

If only we had more Democrat office-holders like you, then we'd have fewer Democrat office-holders like you.

*reviews 2010 election*

Oh wait . . .

It has increased activity,you have to admit.As for support-I'd never try to run for public office,my weaknesses would never permit it.On the other hand,those to do get elected do need citizens' support to make sure the scenario I typed remains just a frightening fantasy.

Perhaps you don't get the point.

You are concocting a situation based on the fatalistic imagination of conspiracy nuts.

If Romney had the pleasure of ridding himself of Bolton, he'd have a smoother election.

I never said it wouldn't cause involvement. Quite the opposite in fact. All you got was a small scale of what I said would happen if someone prominent said that in public, namely three different people looking at you and going WTF?!?

But please, please don't let that stop you from continuing.

The funny thing is, those that do get elected do need citizens' support to make sure that the scenario you just typed happens.

I was unaware that he had hired him.

When your foreign policy guy advocates using Syria as an excuse to attack Russia and China with guns rather than words... ask yourself why you hired him.

Oh yeah, it was to pander to the warhawks, which are a credible majority of Americans.

But he's not Romney's foreign policy guy.

I feel I should point out that the Talibans destruction of the Baimyan Buddhas was possible mostly because they weren't well known and so didn't generate a lot of tourism revenue (ie the Taliban felt it was better to appeal to the wahabbis by wasting them then the money they'd get by keeping them), if the MB wants to dynamite the pyramids there is going to be calls of blue bloody murder and for the MB's head on a pike if they actually do it

The Pyramids are too inherently Egyptian for them to consider that. Buddhism is Indian.

Uh. Yes. Yes, he is. Or he has enough power over his advisers to.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/po...concerting_is_romneys_foreign_policy_campaign

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/11/497633/bolton-syria-russia-iran/

http://www.policymic.com/articles/9...rs-that-would-pull-the-u-s-into-war-with-iran

The Baimyan Buddhas were considered an important part of Afghan history, the Taliban Emir even said at one point he'd protect them for that reason alone, then changed his mind

The Pharaohs statues were of men who were worshiped as gods, that's idolatry and so in the Wahabbi mindset they've got to go...


...but no-one with even a single braincell left in their skull would ever do it, the SCAF would string up anyone who tried

OED - "Democracy":
1.
a. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.

That's a bunch of third-partiers assigning him the role.

Still not remotely relevant to what I said, nor does it contradict what I said.

Oh? I don't suppose you are also buying the lie of "Liberals control the media?"

Here's a more neutral article.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/27/us-usa-campaign-romney-foreign-idINBRE85Q1LX20120627

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/u...ney-policy-opportunity.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I know a lot of this neocon promotion crap has happened in the past. What I'm really afraid of is if it gets taken seriously, which seems bloody likely since Romney seems... indecisive? in foreign policy.

No. Liberals are the media and that's an empirical fact proven by dozens of surveys of political donations and affiliations.

I don't suppose you are buying the lie that Hollywood is anti-conservative, especially now that they've admitted it.

So, neo-cons are cooperating with Romney's established campaign MO of demonizing your opponents and you're worried he'll abandon his established governing MO of moderation.

Because he's sticking to his guns you're worried that he won't stick to his guns? He's less "indecicive" and more "shut up so the people fighting for you can work independently without having to work against what you say."

Etch-a-Sketch, remember?

I disagree with them being anti-conservative, as the Democrats have been moving closer to the center right. However, I agree they are Republican bashers.

What scares me is that Romney has shown himself to be indecisive during his campaign for President. Indecisive presidents become the sockpuppet of their party and I don't believe in Norquist's "no tax pledge" or Bolton's "Rambo tactics".

In Massachusetts, he only had to fight Democrats with the support of his party. In the White House, he has to fight the Neocons in his own party and the Democrats.

I'm not sure he's demonstrated the fact that he could do that.

Do you mean that governments can be constitutionally limited without being democratic, and that the former is more important than the latter? Then why did you say "a constitutionally limited government is not a democracy, and I'd say the United States has been moderately successful...."? This seems to be saying that the US is not a democracy/democracies are by definition not constitutionally limited. If that's not what you meant, good.

I didn't say they were "anti-conservative', I said they were liberal. You made the jump to equating the two. I'm certain it was a mistake, though how Freudian that mistake was I leave to you.

As to the Democrats, the Blue Dogs haven't actually moved in decades. However, the left-wing used to be close enough to the moderates that the distinction was not so obvious. Progressivism has grown so much that the center of the Democrats shifted to the left before the moderates recoiled against it making it appear that they're moving right when they're simply reasserting themselves.

In short, in years past, Lieberman would have been more representative of the Democrats.

Massachusetts had a Republican Party?!?



Seriously though, I feel your concern, even if I don't share it.

Yes
Yes

A Constitutional Aristocracy, setting aside the internet majority view that that's what we have in the US, is not necessarily doomed to failure, provided that the governors are not divorced from the governed.
In the US, the governors are divorced from the governed. Tell me you don't think that anything different would have happened in the last decade if serving in Congress was a part-time job that paid $15,000/y and had no benefits after you left.
As I said, the values of the governed society are more indicative of the freedoms under that society's government than the form that that government takes.

Athens was a democracy. Athenians had no guaranteed rights beyond their vote. Volk uber alles. Athens democratically executed people for saying things they didn't like.
America is a Constitutional Republic. Americans have many guaranteed rights. Individuum uber alles. No American can be executed without the approval of a minimum of eight judges and twelve of their peers, all of whom can be stopped by the President or, depending on the case, the Governor, no matter how many Americans vote for their execution. Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, . . .

I would much rather have a Constitution than democracy.

I've heard so much shit from right-wingers claiming that the media is anti-conservative, it's not funny anymore. At worst, Bolton and Norquist is widely reviled, along with other nutjobs and the socio-conservatives.

That's... new. Can you explain your reasoning?

President Romney does not scare me as much as Co-Presidents Bolton and Norquist. Are we on the same page for that, at least?

You just admitted that the media reviles a bit over half of the conservative movement. Does it not count as being anti-conservative just because they're wrong?

For starters, no John Murtha calling Marines mass murderers (or was it crazed murderers, so hard to keep track of all these insults they've subjected me and my bretheren to) and then getting a ship named after himself mad:), no sticking your fingers in your fingers in your ears and going "nuh-uh, you're lying!" when the commander of all forces involved in the war you don't like says that it's going well. OK, Clinton actually said that believing a four-star general required the "willing suspension of disbelief.", but we both know that there's no functional difference between the two.

Also, it is possible for someone to come to the conclusion that Obamacare is a really crappy idea without having a deep-seated need to throw grandmothers off of a cliff. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats thought that the other was misguided. Now Republicans think that Democrats are either stupid or misguided, but Democrats think that Republicans are evil.

I'm reading your page on that. My page doesn't look the same, but some of the same threads are there.

Internet majority view? WTF man?

See, this is perfectly sensible. Why not just leave out the US-is-not-a-democracy crap?

Because it's not.

Just because you hate neo-cons doesn't mean you hate the entire establishment.

I'm sorry but what does this rambling have to do with Lieberman? His name isn't even mentioned in that paragraph...

And no, I don't see what your paragraph does besides saying "Democrats are doing this as well, therefore they lean more to the left!" What I see is "Democrats are doing this as well, therefore they lean more to the right."

No, because socialism is ebil. So sayeth the the Republicans. Really, that's what they chant every session, "SOCIALISM IS EBIL." Like they're stuck in the McCarthy phase.

No. Republicans aren't evil. Certain Republicans are evil. Cheney and Bolton comes to mind. The organization as a whole? Misguided, with the leadership being stuck in an ivory tower, at best. At worst? Evil.

Wait, so you actually support an idiot who wants to cut tax revenue, and an ignoramus who wants to fight China and Russia at the same time?

Now, the idiot who wants to cut tax revenue, I can understand, although I'll note that I think the government will go bankrupt without tax revenue, austerity or none, but Bolton?

If you support Bolton... ugh.

That's the point.

No, it's just empirically a failed idea, best demonstrated by either FBH's or Q99's defense of Obama's 8% promise along the lines of "No one knew it was this bad."

Umm, duh? "No one can know how bad it is." is the idea of capitalism.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The use of self-contradictory statements does not absolve you.

The blue collar buisiness administrator that started working at eight and the Army Reservist are stuck in an ivory tower, but the life-long politician, the Ivy League graduate, and the man that laments the lack of federal funding for "cowboy poetry" on the floor of the Senate of the United States aren't?

Yes, I just described the DC Big 5. You go ahead and assign them. Follow your research wherever it leads you.

Didn't say that.

Well, I now know that you've never actually read anything Norquist's published, so I won't waste my position on him on you, as actually knowing what we're talking about is required for it to be understood.

Heh, you don't even hate him for the reason you're supposed to because you don't know what's going on.

What would you call the biggest changes of allegiance in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I promise it's relevant.