How?

Really, if you drop all the rhetoric and fear-mongering (like "omg, omg, Russia is going to invade Alaska next if we don't do something" ), what substance is there to all this?

Nobody was making a fuss when Crimea was being taken from Russia and forcefully made part of Ukraine (without any referendums real of f**e, just with a single order). Nobody bothered to ask the people living on that land what they think.

Nobody was making a fuss when Ukraine refused to give it back to Russia while splitting from the USSR.
(They actually didn't refuse, but said it's best to discuss it later, once things settle down. Wouldn't you think 20 years is enough time for things to "settle down"?)

And now, Crimea is being returned to Russia (so far, amazingly, without much bloodshed), and it's somehow a major problem and concern of the US?

How come?

But more importantly, how exactly would it affect "American citizens for decades to come"?

If anything, this is a great bargaining chip. In exchange for recognition of the new Crimea status by the West, Russia would most likely play ball on Syria, Iran, and a host of other issues that actually matter.

LOL. This is an ad for a bitcoin sales page.

The whole "article" is meant to send you here:

"More: What is replacing the dollar in these U.S. cities and companies? That was the most shocking part of the Robinson interview. (Click here to watch it)."

And that leads to a sales page.

Most of the money given abroad isn't actually "money given abroad." It's money given to a foreign entity to spend on American-made goods and services. (Say hi to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, GE, etc.)

As for the disaster aid, it's pretty much the same thing. All equipment, all MREs, blankets, medicine... all that is American companies billing the US government.

So in effect, it's the US taxpayers placing orders with the US companies. It keeps the money at home and provides jobs.

Now, the question of would it be wiser to spend this money on special programs instead of payments to vendors -- I don't know. But please stop with the "we are giving away so much money" myth. The US Government isn't stupid. And, more importantly, the lobbyists aren't stupid. They wouldn't be lobbying for anything that centers around actually giving something away to someone if it didn't involve producing significant profit for their employers, which are US businesses.

Can you explain the logic behind the alleged WMD move given what I posted above and all the other information that was discussed over the past decade?

Can you explain the motive and the reasoning behind it?

No? Why not?

And if not, shouldn't you try to figure it out, at least for yourself, instead of clinging to an opinion simply because it helps you maintain your current worldview?

And if you can't piece the logic together, doesn't it mean you should re-evaluate your views rather than stubbornly defend them?

The pictures, the satellites, the trucks... combine that with a logical explanation of "why" for all parties involved, and only then you are good to go. But without it, it's a weak position.

Well, it depends on the matter at hand. When the "views" are stupid, there is no point in not calling it for what it is.

Example.

One in five Americans believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Should we call those people uninformed and stupid? (preferably to their faces)

Or should we respect their "opinion?" And respect the fact that we disagree?

Let's play this out, hypothetically.

Person A: The Sun revolves around Earth.
Person B: You are an i***t.
Person A: But XYZ says so, and UVW published it, and...
Person B: You are still an i***t.
Person A: Do you call anyone who doesn't agree with you an i***t?
Person B: No, only the i***ts.

Hopefully, this explains my position on "unintelligent" and "disagreements."

Yes, there are plenty of people who basically go wherever the war is. Some are mercenaries, and some are religious nuts. The same people who fought in Chechnya also fought in Iraq, and Egypt, and Libya, and Syria. And they'll go to any place where there is a war because k*****g is all they know how to do. Foreign fighters were involved in all Muslim-related conflicts over the past 30 years. They are all from different countries. Mostly from countries in the Middle East and Africa. They are a lot more ruthless than the locals, in any given war, and they never want the war to end. And if the war ends despite their efforts to continue destabilizing the situation, they move someplace else.

But what's that got to do with the fact that Iraq->Syria WMD t***sfer is a ridiculous theory?

Read up on Sunni vs Shia relationships and you'll see why even considering such possibility is silly.

It would be similar to saying that during the Cold War, the USSR hid some of its nuclear stash in the USA.

Not to mention the fact that it would have been ridiculously stupid of Hussein to send away WMDs and lose the only fighting chance against the US invasion. Do you think he chose to hide the stash and die just to make Bush look bad?

Pretty much since the time Syria joined the anti-Iraqi coalition during the Gulf War. Hussein didn't like that very much.

You really didn't know that, did you? :) LOL.

As said, low information v**ers... they exist on both sides, sadly.

This is a good example of a low information unintelligent v**er who's been brainwashed into this whole "evil arabs/muslims" thing without having any idea of what goes on over there in the region. They are not a homogeneous group.

Iraq and Syria h**ed each other more than they h**ed the US (or the West in general). As a matter of fact, they only direct their actions against the West when the West supports the "other" Muslim group. In all other times, they are busy fighting each other.

Sunnis h**e the West when the West supports Shiites against Sunnis.
Shiites h**e the West when the West supports Sunnis against Shiites.

But in all other times, they just h**e each other, a lot more than they h**e Christians, Jews, or any other infidels. (With very few exceptions.)

It's an oversimplification, but that's basically how it is.

Now, why in the world would Sunni's Iraqi government t***sfer WMD to Alawis' (Shiite) Syrian government?

Iraq used WMD against Iran. Syria is Iran's closest ally. If Iraq t***sferred WMDs to Syria, then Syria would immediately t***sfer it to Iran, and Iran would use Iraq's own WMDs against Iraq without any delay. And Iran would have perfect deniability; the world would think Saddam gassed his own people with his own WMDs. Any possible UN inspection afterwards would come to a conclusion that those WMDs are of Iraqi origin. Such a "gift basket" would be just too good to be true for Iran.

So this little theory simply makes no sense.

But who cares about logic, right?

After all, if it helps you justify Bush's mistakes with this "Aha!" attitude, then it's all good. Screw the integrity, as long it sounds good on the surface and supports your position. Amirite?

There is partisan politics, and then there is stupidity. This is the latter.

P.S. This isn't meant just for you personally. It's for all the people who all of the sudden started talking about Iraq to Syria WMD t***sfer with this "Aha!" attitude. As if somehow this nonsense theory actually explains something.

Everyone makes mistakes. So when your "side" makes a mistake, just own up to it. Spreading nonsense just because it supports your worldview shows lack on integrity.

And isn't integrity what the conservatives all are about?

You are forgetting about the inflation. When the masses have more money to spend, prices generally rise. After all, if your customers can pay more, why not make them pay more. In other words, since poor people generally have poor money management sk**ls, they would be happy to waste away all their "surplus" cash on overpriced merchandise.

Yes, the masses would have more money, but the purchasing power of their money would be reduced. So in the end, the masses wouldn't be able to afford to buy more than they currently can. This goes for people who live paycheck to paycheck. They wouldn't be any better off than they currently are.

And on top of that, everyone who invests or saves would lose due to inflation.

So it wouldn't make things better for the poor, but at the same time would make things worse for middle class savers and upper-middle class investors.

That sounds like a good idea to you? Really?



You can demand rainbow and pink elephants for everybody, but that won't change fundamental economic laws.

You are on my can't-understand-what's-being-posted-due-to-poor-reading-comprehension-sk**ls list. Which automatically puts you on my not-worth-trying-to-debate-with-since-he-is-likely-to-go-off-on-tangents list.

OK, I won't.

There are some conservatives who are openly for total domination of religion over all aspects of our lives including social, political, and judicial.

I guess you aren't one of them. Good to know.

(But then, they'll probably call you a f**er or a rino or wh**ever.)



I don't dismiss feelings, and neither should you.

I understand that some people feel that they should be able to talk or do wh**ever they want inside their church. I can respect that.

But then, there are also people who feel that entities (such as churches) that don't pay (all) taxes shouldn't be able to do what some tax payers disagree with. Shouldn't we respect their feelings as well?

Different people want different things. And to make it all work, we have laws.

And right now, the laws allow churches to keep some of their money in exchange for not getting involved in politics. Sometimes, churches violate laws. Sometimes, the government gets involved.

As I said above, you can't have it both ways.

Statements like that is what usually leads to things like Sharia law (or the Christian version of it). Thanks, but I'll pass.

Religion has its place. But putting it above civil government is madness. Always was, as shown repeatedly by the human history.

Yep, that was wrong. But there are codified protected classes.

I would say it was in bad taste for the lesbians to file a complaint. They should have simply walked away to get another photographer. But once they filed a complaint, the rest was a matter of law.

It's not a case of the government overstepping. It's a case of private citizens using the system to punish someone they didn't like.



It's not God's money. It's Fed's money.



Feelings are irrelevant. I feel that I shouldn't be paying any taxes at all, except for a federal sales (and use) tax. But here I am, still paying income tax and a host of other taxes.



I never said it is.



I agree, but until then, we have now.



Because that's how taxation works. If you pay your taxes and then go to a local car wash. That car wash place also has to pay taxes based on any money you pay them. The excuse that its customers have already paid taxes won't help them if they don't pay up.

That's just how it is. And churches have a special status. With that status come some restrictions.



That's true, but irrelevant in this discussion.

No there isn't.

As I posted above, when you make the existence and operation of some entity tax free, it's the same as giving that entity roughly 30% of its budget in the form of government subsidies.

We (individuals and corporations) all pay taxes to pay for government services. And we consume those services. Churches don't pay taxes, but still consume the same government services. So in effect churches are subsidized by the taxpayers.

Here is a simple example. Churches located in the US use the implicit protection of the US armed forces from foreign aggression. Like all of us. But who pays for the defense spending? Not churches. I pay for it. You pay for it. Corporations pay for it. But not churches. So we all subsidize churches by paying their share of expenses for them.

This is just one basic (but major) government service that we all use. There are many more government services that a vital to the existence of every single one of us (including the churches). Yet, churches don't pay for them.

That in itself is not a problem. But when you mix tax-free status with political activity and demands for the government to stay out of church's business, it becomes a giant hypocrisy.

That might be true, but it doesn't matter.

If churches are de facto getting subsidies from the government, then no one can blame the government when that same government sticks its nose into what the churches are doing.

After all, some atheist can claim that since he pays taxes and churches don't, it means he is in effect supporting the churches, by paying for the government services which the churches also consume. Therefore, he should have a say in what goes on in those churches.

From that, it follows like a similar right-side argument about a******n clinics. People who are against a******ns are upset that their tax money is being used to fund said a******ns.

Strangely, when it comes to churches, this argument is rarely raised.

Yet, when you make "life" for some entity tax free, it's the same as giving that entity 30% of its budget in the form of government subsidies.

I really don't mind my tax money going towards churches. But once they start preaching politics, this crosses the line. Why should I pay for the ability of some pastor to promote some political agenda with which I might not agree?

This is what liberals often do. They want to take my money and then they want to decide what to do with it because they believe they know best. My opinion doesn't matter, and I'm simply forced to pay. I'm against that.

Yet, this is basically the same thing, but coming from the conservative side.

If churches were made for-profit -- completely private entities, then this argument would disappear. And the churches would be free to do wh**ever they want. And the government wouldn't have much say in what goes on inside those churches.

The same with public schools and prayer. If it's public (as in either subsidies or completely funded by the government), it means the government should have the right to say what goes on in there.

I don't like the idea of a big government. But I can't stand the hypocrisy of taking public money and then telling the "public" (the government) to mind it's own business.

Pick one or the other.