Heartland

Putin's words about Syria, UN and international law moved me and touched me so hard, that i don't know what to say. well, not exactly... Chechnya, Georgia in (2008), any-gay law, anti-democratic actions and law towards his political opponents in Russia.

but maybe that is a real reasons why he's doing this (?).

Bartek wrote:
but maybe that is a real reasons why he's doing this (?).

Yeah, that's plausible. Makes sense. The other aspect of this is his utter contempt for Obama. Putin actually published an editorial response to Obama's Syria speech in the New York Times.

Hilarious. The stones on that guy! Alternatively, he never would have done this kind of thing with Bush. There seems to have been some kind of respect there.

Bartek wrote:Putin's words about Syria, UN and international law moved me and touched me so hard, that i don't know what to say. well, not exactly... Chechnya, Georgia in (2008), any-gay law, anti-democratic actions and law towards his political opponents in Russia.

but maybe that is a real reasons why he's doing this (?).

For the first part I completely agree with you but honestly, Putin doesn't need any "real" reasons, because

a) we are most likely all lucky enough to see that the US will be not bomb Syria, which is an enormous outcome
I do acknowledge (and I'm sure there are plenty people in the ROW who won't deny that, either)

b) it is extremely great, yeah almost unbelieveable, to see first of all the British House of Commons take the right decision,
then see Obama take the right decision (which got him into a very difficult situation and which, IMO, was an act of extraordinary
courage and consequence) and then, when all looks almost in vain see Putin come up with a practicable suggestion.

Hell, that's a world-changing moment in history!!! The president of the US and the president of Russia pulling together!!!
Assad (and not only he) should definitely be aware of that and honour this (and what it does entail) and take the chance
to become an initial part of something reaching way further by taking all possible steps to end first of all the horror in Syria!!!
It's definitely one moment in time!!! It is one more chance for the better for all peoples!!! A chance for the whole of the world
and for all nations to eventually return to reason after all the horrors and changes the past three to thirteen decades have
brought us. A chance for a long overdue serious review.

Obama and Putin are not "pulling together". And we're not in "world-changing moment in history".
Both have very different reasons, Putin is for keeping his (Russian) influences on that region (Iran and Syria), Obama was for stopping using WMD, but he (US of A) has no idea who's gonna gain after intervention, who's gonna win in the end. Obama (US of A) seems to fed up by being used here and there to stop local conflicts, esp. when neighborhood/surroundings countries are not willing to do something first or at least join.
And in fact that the real reason to be worried.
Of course we are were a bit pissed seeing that yet another time US of A are acting like a world police, but in fact that was what we were waiting for- their forces and so their money, blood and sweat was engaged there, "our" boys were safe.

I (in the UK) for one was not waiting for the US of A to go in for yet another time acting like the World Police.
Based on their past record they don't see to do a very good job and I think things would be a lot better if they could try and keep themselves, militarily, out of these places.

I was thinking for some minutes where it fits better...
And the result was here, enjoy it flight666 was done and you can see the destination too


Love that city and tavastia was really cool

I laffed!

million voices wrote:I (in the UK) for one was not waiting for the US of A to go in for yet another time acting like the World Police.
Based on their past record they don't see to do a very good job and I think things would be a lot better if they could try and keep themselves, militarily, out of these places.

Most Americans agree, especially in this particular case where there is (as Vlad Putin of all people had to point out) no democratic forces to be aided.

Even if there were, more and more Americans are returning to John Quincy Adams's view that "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

The flip-side of this would be that if American influence declines, whose influence replaces it in places like Africa and the Middle East? The answer seems to be either Russia or China.

Interesting news...
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... 9/d8k9BXJT

this is the presidential site, correct?

♫ One of these knives...♫

I liked your comment, in fact I nearly thought it was funny - it was on the border

Technology recognises Farage for what he really is

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/unfor ... 29452.html

quality item Paul

So... US Government shutdown. The tea-partiers have decided that in order to prevent (in their view) Obama wrecking the economy, they're going to wreck the economy.

Have I got that broadly right?

markfiend wrote:So... US Government shutdown. The tea-partiers have decided that in order to prevent (in their view) Obama wrecking the economy, they're going to wreck the economy.

Have I got that broadly right?

No.

This situation exists because the government is currently being funded by what are called Continuing Resolutions; Texas' Ted Cruz and others wanted to use the current CR vote to defund Obamacare (a unpopular law that was poorly thought out and passed on a party-line vote and is, ultimately, unworkable). The government is currently funded by Continuing Resolutions because for the past three years or so the Senate (controlled by the Democrats) has refused to pass a budget. CR's are emergency measures. Some "tea partiers" have proposed CR's that would keep the government running for a few weeks while allowing a debate on Obamacare funding, or delaying implementation, but Harry Reid has made clear he will not accept those CR's. Of course, he wants a government shutdown more than Republicans do - it allows him to blame them, which is precisely what he has done.

However, blaming the tea party or Republicans for this is like blaming only one of the participants in a game of chicken. The truth is Congress, as an institution, is a mess, and the vast majority of Representatives and Senators have a class interest in keeping it that way. The other truth is that government spending in this country vastly outstrips government revenues, and Democrats like Reid and Obama benefit politically if they can hide that ugly truth - hence the continual failure to pass an actual budget in the Senate.

I was under the impression that "Obamacare" is exactly the same system (except at a national rather than state level) as Romney introduced in Massachusetts. The only reason the Repubs opposed it is the usual partisan bollocks.

I was also under the impression that, while it is true that opinion polls asking about "Obamacare" get negative results, those which ask for opinions on the actual measures without mentioning the President's name get overwhelmingly positive results.

WTF is up with your country where a system designed to lower the number of people without health insurance is seen as a communist plot?

markfiend wrote:I was under the impression that "Obamacare" is exactly the same system (except at a national rather than state level) as Romney introduced in Massachusetts. The only reason the Repubs opposed it is the usual partisan bollocks.

I was also under the impression that, while it is true that opinion polls asking about "Obamacare" get negative results, those which ask for opinions on the actual measures without mentioning the President's name get overwhelmingly positive results.

WTF is up with your country where a system designed to lower the number of people without health insurance is seen as a communist plot?

Well, there are a couple of difficulties here. One difficulty is the fact that it is national. Romney, I would argue, had authority to do it as governor, and if individual states want to do creat their own programs I think it is generally permissible. However, the Constitution is a grant of limited and specific powers to the Federal government, and I would argue that this law is unconstitutional because Congress doesn't have the power to compel commerce. This led Chief Justice Roberts to uphold the law as based on the taxing power. I think that is wrong, since the law specifically described a penalty rather than a tax.

The law requires that people purchase insurance. In particular, it requires that young people purchase much more extensive and expensive policies than they otherwise might purchase in order to fund the requirement that insurance companies do not deny coverage. It is an example of generational theft in this regard: the young and healthy pay more than they otherwise would in order to subsidize the old and ill. But the associated "tax" for not purchasing insurance is less than the cost of insurance, and you are now able to purchase health insurance when you need it (no bans on pre-existing conditons). If you are young and healthy, you have every incentive to pay the "tax" instead of purchasing an expensive insurance policy - you can always buy one when you get sick. However, the system only works if the young participate in high numbers. But there is absolutely no incentive for them to do so.

Yet another element concerns business: many companies are faced with financial costs associates with the law. It has, in effect, made labor more expensive. Some companies are replacing family plans with individual plans because they can no longer afford to provide family plans. Part time workers are finding their hours cut because employers can't afford both wages and the new insurance requirements. Hiring in general has slowed since the law was passed because businesses are unsure of the actual cost of labor. Some businesses - like chain restaurants - have begun experimenting with part-time only crews because they can't afford the expense of full-timers.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is a monumentally stupid law.

Edit: incidentally, the continuing resolution which was offered by Republicans and the rejection of which led to the shutdown was edited down to just two sticking points for Democrats:
1. A delay on enforcing the (unconstitutional, in my opinion) individual mandate.
2. The removal of the current Congressional exemption from the law.


Apologies for any typos - I'm posting this from my phone.

Obamacare has been passed and IIRC its constitutionality has largely been upheld by SCOTUS. Your point 1, the Repubs refusing to allow it to be enforced, is them attempting to defeat the will of Congress. They're holding the entire country to ransom because they've thrown their toys out of the pram.

Also don't forget that this will likely impact the rest of the world. It's not as if the world economy is exactly stable right now; the USA going into meltdown is very unlikely to help the situation.

markfiend wrote:Obamacare has been passed and IIRC its constitutionality has largely been upheld by SCOTUS. Your point 1, the Repubs refusing to allow it to be enforced, is them attempting to defeat the will of Congress. They're holding the entire country to ransom because they've thrown their toys out of the pram.

Also don't forget that this will likely impact the rest of the world. It's not as if the world economy is exactly stable right now; the USA going into meltdown is very unlikely to help the situation.

No. It's not trying to defeat the will of the Congress, it is, at this point, the will of one of the chambers of Congress, specifically the body that is closer to the people (and, I might add, that you would probably not have said the same thing about attempts to defund the Iraq war in Congress, even though the Iraq war had bipartisan support and Obamacare did not). They have the power to legitimately try to delay implementation of the individual mandate. A Supreme Court decision is not inherently correct, either - the Court has been wrong before, as when it justified segregated schooling (1896, Plessy v. Ferguson) or claimed that slavery was constitutionally protected (1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford). As Lincoln suggested, when you lose in the Court, you continue the fight politically. Your objection is that the party that made gains in the House by opposing Obamacare opposes Obamacare. Well, that's why they got elected in the first place.

The government shutdown is stupid, but it is just as much the fault of the Democratic party as it is the fault of the Republicans - because the Democrat controlled Senate has refused to pass a federal budget for the last few years, and because Obama and the Democrats won't negotiate with the Republicans. See my comment about games of chicken above.

Lastly, the USA is going into "meltdown" regardless of what happens because no one in Washington is willing to make serious choices about serious problems. The fiscal irresponsibility of neoconservative Republicans is only exceeded by the fiscal irresponsibility of progressive Democrats (unsurprising, since the neoconservatives originated in the Democratic party). Why make tough decisions for the good of the country when you can continue to borrow money for the sake of short-term electoral gains? The governing class in this country is a cancer.

The Democrats won't negotiate with the Republicans?

For compromise to be possible, both sides must be willing to make concessions. The Democrats caved again and again to Republican demands to get very limited healthcare reforms through, but the Republicans even now have shut the government down to try to fight it. So don't give me this about both sides being to blame.

It's the Republicans who want the shutdown. Don't believe me? Just ask Michele Bachmann who said "We’re very excited. It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it."

It's hardly surprising; it's the apotheosis of their lunatic Ayn Rand-inspired belief system wherein all government is inherently evil.

My reflection on this is, I find it just incredible that the US military is somehow protected from any sort of cuttings, and yet it is the worst form of grotesque overspending that I can come up with, not only in the US, but in any country anywhere - very few countries in Europe spend more than 2 % of its GDP on military, the US spend 4.4! The US navy is larger and MUCH more powerful than *all other navies combined*. And for this, there are endless streams of money even in a deep crisis like this!?
And I'm not even a pacifist..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

I'm reminded of the comment in the foreword to 2001 A Space Odyssey where Arthur C Clarke says something along the lines of "The money that was spent on the Vietnam war would have paid for everything in this book."

Badgers 'moved goalposts' says minister Owen Paterson

for the headline alone

full shred if needed - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24459424

James Blast wrote:Badgers 'moved goalposts' says minister Owen Paterson

for the headline alone

full shred if needed - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24459424

In other news....
everybody panic!!!

41 uncensored photos from North Korea. stunning. like a dead and empty city.
http://justsomething.co/41-uncensored-i ... tenfelder/