This is a large part of the problem though imho - the media place emphasis 'on 'action' rather than 'considered action' ... that is everything has to be done NOW.

The UN WERE taking action, they were investigating things before the US forced their inspectors out of the country by saying they were going to bomb it ...

Taking action without knowing they're the right actions is just asking for a disaster imho ... it'd be like having a court where judgements are taken purely on public opinion rather than evidence ...

+ 1

Sorry, I was thinking my Twilight Struggle boardgame where the Korean peninsula is part of the SE Asia. :)

The Korean Peninsula problem is what I meant.

I was in Asia a couple months ago. The serving sizes are definitely smaller (and tasted better).

I was in UK recently, the serving sizes are somewhat smaller but I would not say the quality is better (had fish and chips and Indian curry dish).

What I've noticed is soft drinks. No where else (that I've seen) do you get free refills at a restaurant. I pretty much drink diet nowadays.

I think a lot is down to your expectations of food and taste - England is more catering towards a 'blander' taste than in the US where everything is saturated in flavor (esp. sugar/salt) ... I remember when my wife first moved to England we went out and had strawberries and cream at a nice little cafe and she thought they'd forgotten the sugar so 'sugared' hers .... :D

You'll find this throughout the spectrum with food, when I first moved here I expected 'Indian' food to be the same here as in the UK and it isn't its tailored to the US tastes, which is frankly sensible for the restaurant owners and I really should have expected it ..)

Next time you visit the UK I'd recommend going into the countryside and getting a sunday lunch at a traditional pub ...

PS - As with all places food is very hit/miss depending on the venue, with Fish and Chips avoid any touristy places as they don't care about repeat custom - find somewhere which relies upon locals and repeat trade, similarly with an Indian restaurant avoid any which cater mainly for the 'pub/drinking' crowd as they'll be lower quality and more spice.

Here's my tarcone-take on the likely scenario.

Strike happens even if Congress does not support it. US, France with Turkey, UK supporting behind the scenes and some Arab nations providing moral support. Its against Assad and (hopefully) the AQ/extremist rebels. There is 2-3 months of sustained bombing. Moderate rebels are supported by unconventional troops (there has to be some forward observers to guide in the strikes right?).

Russia complains and supports Syria with money and weapons behind the scenes. Iran sends/encourages more "volunteers" to fight in Syria (they have to).

Ultimately the sustained bombing greatly weakens Assad and the QA/extremist rebels. The moderate rebels are in better position. The civil war drags on.

More hypothetically ...

Iran is more active or US/Israel decides there is enough provocation to strike at Iran. Nuclear weapon facilities and oil fields are hit. Saudi Arabia and other friendly oil states have guaranteed to make up the difference but oil prices increases and the market crashes anyway (sell Disney!).

Sure I get that we don't need it to happen right away, but seriously, UN inspections are about as illegitimate as it comes. It's like the Peace Corps but with less access. They are worthless, Marc.

Hmm ... I'm pretty sure you could remove the word "inspections" from that quote & still have a pretty accurate statement ;)

I have no proof that is the case at all - nor do I have insight into exactly what they comprise of.

I personally have more faith in the UN as a collection of nations all with different agendas to be less biased than for a single nation making a decision (but part of this might be down to my upbringing in England).

I know that the US is no absolute goodness that must be trusted, but the UN is broken not because of the US track record but because of the USSR and Chineese track records. So if I have to side with the USSRs veto to order inaction or the USA asking for action, I will side with the USA whose track record has been far superior.

They're not the USSR any more but... oh, why bother...

SI

Reminds me of a joke that I forgot where I heard it about the Patron Saint of British cooking being Sir Boil-it-til-it's-Gray.

SI

All of these whacked out scenarios require Israel and Iran to get into it. But the thing is, Israel and Iran will not get into it not because of Syria. They may get into it with each other because of internal politics, because of some action in their constant back-and-forth, or because it's Tuesday or the sky is blue. Can we all agree that if they go after each other "because of Syria", it's really not because of Syria?

SI

Dutch learned his foreign policy from Mitt, didn't you know?

True.

I agree its not the root cause of Israel and Iran, its the nuclear program. But I do believe the Syria conflict would make it more convenient for a strike if Iran is seen "crossing the line" in its support of Syria.

Some possible scenarios are

1. Syria launches missiles into Israel
2. Iran "volunteers" enter Syria en masse
3. Iran tries to close the gulf
4. Terrorist activities increases and link can be established
5. etc.

The New York Times explained why the new analysis should "demolish" the prevailing mythology about vanishing Medicare doctors once and for all:

The analysts looked at seven years of federal survey data and found that doctors are not fleeing Medicare in droves; in fact, the percentage of doctors accepting new Medicare patients actually rose to 90.7 percent in 2012 from 87.9 percent in 2005. They are not shunning Medicare patients for better-paying private patients, either; the percentage of doctors accepting new Medicare patients in recent years was slightly higher than the percentage accepting new privately insured patients. Medicare patients had comparable or better access to medical services than the access reported by privately insured individuals ages 50 to 64, who are just below the age for Medicare eligibility. Surveys sponsored by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent agency that advises Congress, found that 77 percent of the Medicare patients -- compared with only 72 percent of privately insured patients -- said they never had an unreasonably long wait for a routine doctor's appointment last year.

It was intentional. They are acting the same way they did during the Cold War, which is why I reverted the name back. Lest we forget.

The basic difference between USSR and today's Russia is that Russia is a little smaller in land size.

And the Warsaw Pact is no more.

That's true but they were a buffer against the West in the old way of warfare. Putin seems to be in the mold of the Cold War leaders except much more sneaky and deceptive about it.

Gallup polling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164282/su...conflicts.aspx

I think I may be more frustrated by Obama over the past month than I ever was with Bush. That's coming from a dyed in the wool Bush hater.

Attack or don't attack. Make a damn decision. Don't set expectations and shirk from them when it's time to make good on them. He is more or less the antithesis of a leader.

Very frustrating.

This would be a good compromise (and a great save for Obama).

Obama: 'Breakthrough' is possible on Syria - CNN.com

Didn't Russia just call for the Syrians to destroy the chem stash? If they destroy all the evidence that this shit came from Iraq and then just hand over the shit the Russians sold them, it would be a huge win for Syria/Russia. :)

Syria has had chemical weapons for decades. They didn't need anything from Iraq.

Oh you hope!!! :)

And they are part of worldwide capitalism rather than a closed economic system - which is quite a substantial difference.

That's because we beat the ever-living-Communist out of them under President Reagan. :)

Dammit, that's a great line, I don't care who ya are ;)

Sounds like cooler heads finally prevailed. Putin made a strong statement. It was wise to call him on it. All this red-line talk wasn't productive at all. What's important is that Assad knows Russia saved his bacon and that they're now responsible for future actions. Essentially, Russia just signed for Syria's first credit card. Any more chemical attacks on either side, and Russia has to perform first-response.

It's a different world than it was in 1986, when Reagan essentially did the "unbelievably small" thing against Gaddafi, despite international frustration. This is post-9/11 and post-Iraq and, most importantly, in the Information Age.

Now we just have to get John Kerry to spin down. Someone needs to explain to him that when a high percentage of your international support consists of Saudi Arabia, you're probably not acting in America's best interests.

Stolen from Fark:

Unless you know you believe that the "red line talk" was needed to bring Russia to the table.

Thanks God someone else sees the irony in this. I've been saying the same thing for weeks.

Good god the liberal posting in this thread has grinded to a halt in the past week or so with the ones who did appear mostly conceding Obama was making some bad moves. Now things look temporarily better and DT is already spinning "It was the plan all along!"

Don't worry both parties will find a war with a tiny country they can both support and pat each other on the back chanting USA in no time.

Do you have an actual response to what he said or are you just interested in making ad hominem attacks?

You know I defend you all the time against people and this is the thanks I get in return? I'm too nice.

You know what - Fuck you.

Maybe consider before you go running off at the mouth with your same old bullshit about "liberals" and "conservatives" and trying to reduce everything to that overly-simplistic mindset that sometimes diplomacy is a many-layered thing. I know it requires actual thought and engagement with issues rather than just knee-jerk put-downs of everybody else and a smug sense of your intellectual superiority and everyone else's inferiority, but try it out hmm? You can't sit on the sidelines and throw stones forever - and by the way, if you do, you're really nothing more than a gnat.

I never said it was the plan all along - FTR I've been against any sort of military action for some time now and I think the administration has completely bungled this back and forth to EPIC porportions that have made us look stupid and foolish in the eyes of a lot of countries out there and may only be saved because Kerry threw out a hypothetical (that the administration then hilariously tried to walk back) that Russia & Syria seized on. But if it'll avoid another military conflict I'll take it - although I still want to see the Assad regime stop killing the people of Syria with whatever kinds of weapons they are using to do it.

Eh, you take this all too personal. It's like if you were arguing Patriots vs. Giants and you kept saying stuff like Brady will throw 7 TD's and they said Manning will throw 8. So me coming in and saying you are both stupid would get nothing more than a shrug and maybe a offer from both of you to state an opinion. But for some reason you think politicians really care about what you think and are looking out for your interests at all. So when I laugh at you and offer up the Browns or the Jaguars as the alternative you get all defensive and resort to name calling.

PS: Who exactly have you defended me against? I think I have had like two members of the entire board on my side in the politics thread in the past 5 years!

EDIT: Better example. Last night in the NFL thread if I said "Where are all the Redskins fans?" when they were getting their asses kicked and then during the comeback somebody posted "Maybe this was Shannahan's plan all along!" I would make fun of them also.

This Obama has some set of balls.

Love the part at the end where he talks about Syrian children dying on the hospital floor.

How about we worry about our boys who will be sent over there and some of them killed needlessly.

I can't wait to see how Obamas supporters justify his war mongering while the killed Bush for essentially the same thing.

How about we just let all those animals in the Middle East kill each other and worry about our own issues such as jobs, homelessness, education costs, David Wilsons fumbling issues, healthcare costs, etc...

dola- I will fully admit I don't follow politics very closely, so take my comments for what they are, likely uninformed and uneducated.

I'm personally appalled by how Obama has handled his presidency and if anything it appears to be getting worse at time goes on.

I can't believe the enthusiasm some people in power appear to have to dive into another war in an attempt to bankrupt the country and ensure the deaths of yet more people ...

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the fake cries of horror echoing around politicians recently ...

Dear Ruthless Dictators:

When slaughtering your own people, we will NOT tolerate you using chemical weapons. However, slaughtering them with conventional weapons will continue to be tolerated.

Sincerely,

The USA

Since I agreed with Bush on Afghanistan and disagreed with him on Iraq, what position am I allowed to take on Syria?


I don't really care what position you take on Syria, but that is an incredibly poor choice of words.

I'm wondering this too.

You can take any position you like, not looking for a debate. As for my word choice I think it is perfect. Killing someone because they don't share the same belief as you makes you an animal in my book.

Well you saw fit to stereotype Obama's supporters as potential hypocrites, so as an Obama supporter I was curious how I could avoid hypocrisy in your view.


Those that are killing people just because they don't share similar beliefs aren't the only ones involved in or affected by the situation.

And that's our problem because?

This.

It's amazing how there was overwhelming support for an INVASION of Iraq over the mere suspected possession of chemical weapons (and to a lesser extent, their use a decade or so earlier), but now such an overwhelming opposition against more limited missile-launching type strikes in the face of actual chemical weapon use against civilians (I guess some people are still questioning which side used chemical weapons, but I don't think that's the real reason for the lack of support). I'm not taking a side there, it's just interesting how war weary Americans are compared to years past.

That war weariness seems to be the #1 factor in public support. I never even quite totally understood why was the Afghanistan conflict was so much more popular than even the Iraq one. Was it just because we were closer to 9/11? Or was it just because Bin Laden was (probably) physically in Afghanistan in the lead-up to 9/11? Because 9/11 itself wasn't really a Taliban-led operation, and even RIGHT after 9/11, the U.S. was distinguishing the Taliban from 9/11 and Al-Qaeda, making demands that the Taliban to give up Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders. Was Afghanistan really that relevant anywhere besides the battle of Tora bora?

I don't have a strong opinion on Syria but I'm trying to look at it without the lens of pure war weariness. I think the "red line" deal is real and significant and meaningful - I'm sure Obama would take back the speech if he could, but I'm also not a fan of the idea that dictator can gas thousands of people to death and such a huge majority of people don't even want to think about doing anything because it's not their problem. Just hypothetically, what if it was tens of thousands? Millions? Obviously, that would be a different analysis, and there'd be more support, but it seems like conditions are ripe to push that envelope.

I realize I am far less educated in these matters then you guys who argue in this thread but I just don't understand our involvement when we have our own issues domestically. How many homeless people will die this year because of lack ofshelter or mental health treatment. Do you think anyone in Syria cares about them ?

Well I'm not a fan of erecting an invisible wall around the border of the United States and saying we shouldn't care about anything that happens to anyone outside of it. Not only is that horrible and shortsighted foreign policy, but it is incredibly heartless.

I mean, how far do you take that statement? Should we never involve ourselves in anything that doesn't directly affect us? Are you willing to go back through history and say we shouldn't have ever intervened in outside conflicts that didn't directly affect us? How can we square that idea with the fact that we received help from France during our own revolution?

Now I certainly don't think war is the answer in every conflict overseas. I'd need a better case than we've received so far before I could support military intervention in Syria. I just find "people are dying, but it's not in the US, so who cares" an appalling opinion for a human being to take.

But why should we try and save someone in a distant country when we have our own suffering here ?

I don't think Congress has a "anti-homeless people dying" bill ready to go just in cause we don't strike Syria. One has nothing to do with the other.

And to (try to) answer your other question, I don't know if it's "right" or how things will turn out, but the argument goes that it's our problem because if the slaughter of civilians using chemical weapons is something armies know they can do without the intervention of the international community, then it becomes the new norm in military conflicts. At that point its just a numbers game. 1,500 Syrian civilians probably isn't worth some air attacks, but Obama and company feel that it's only the threat of intervention that prevents chemical weapons from becoming the norm, and from potentially millions being killed. And millions being killed certainly WOULD be our problem, because a less stable middle east means a greater danger to the U.S. Economically too, an horribly unstable middle east isn't good for anyone. And ya, there's definitely a lot of "potentials" and "maybes" built into that, and some of them may be very tenuous. But once people get into power, Democrat or Republican, they seem to believe that a proactive foreign policy is more effective than a reactive one. And Obama definitely wished and hoped that the mere threat was enough - he certainly doesn't WANT to respond militarily, Syria (apparently) just called his bluff, so he had to find a way out to save face.

Edit: But in light of all that, you might just be a strict isolationist, which is fine too, there were people who didn't want the U.S. to involve itself in WWII, because that was Europe's problem. That was a minority view though, of course.

It's not an either/or situation. If we pulled every troop from overseas, cancelled every foreign aid package, and shut ourselves off from the rest of the world, there would still be suffering here.

Do you think that someone's life is less worthwhile because they were born outside of the United States?

My take isn't that 'its not the US, so who cares' - its that both sides in the conflict are far from the 'good guys' and I don't see that intervening on either side is going to help stability in the region or reduce the death toll.

A far better approach would be what (is hopefully) going to happen where the international community work to try and restrain the worst of their excesses and over time stabalize the country.

Complaining about people being killed and 'fixing it' by killing yet more just seems foolish to me ...

Ya, it's kind of funny that unless I missed it, the nature of the "response" hasn't really been discussed much. I think I read something about how the goal wouldn't be regime change. And presumably, the goal wouldn't be killing more civilians either. I think the only real goal is to be some kind of deterrent to future chemical weapons attacks against civilians. And I'm not even sure what that would be under these circumstances. Maybe all this talk has been enough. Assuming the Syrian chemical weapons attacks happened, were they really worth it to them considering the risk that they clearly face now of U.S. intervention? Did it turn the tide of the war or anything?

Edit: Maybe it's enough that this is all enough of a big deal to freak everybody out for a while. I'd find it much more unnerving if a few thousand civilians were killed via chemical weapons and there wasn't even the DISCUSSION of intervention. I think that would be a world where terrible things on a greater scale could be possible. So at the end of the day, I'd guess I'd be happy if everybody got all butt-hurt about this and it was a big deal, but there was ultimately no actual intervention.

Dear Mr. Obama,

Please return your Nobel Peace Prize as soon as possible.

Signed,
Thorbjørn Jagland and the Norwegian Nobel Committee

This might be a bit more meaningful if it really was about the Syrian government killing their own people, but that's not even the issue. Apparently we don't like the way they're killing their own people. If they had just bombed these people we wouldn't even be considering this strike. Let's do a pinpoint strike to get them back to killing the proper way.

Why was Afghanistan more popular than Iraq? That one seems obvious to me: one was our "vengeance" for 9/11 as, yeah, Bin Laden was there versus the other which was, take your pick: a) revenge for daddy's war, b) a defense contractor's wet dream, or c) not at all related to 9/11.

SI

Yeah, so far it's been a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If it remains that way, we get a bunch of chemical weapons defused, and having the international community there help contains the amount of casualties in a likely brutal civil war, I guess it's not really a "job well done" but better than it could have been.

SI

Paul Ryan a firm ‘no’ on military strike against Syria - Yahoo News

Wow, takes a lot of stones to come out with a firm no after the issue has subdued. He would have probably been a huge supporter of Kennedy on the Cuban missle crisis after the Russians changed their plans.

Man, the US has been animals for quite a while (ie, look at the people we've killed and leadership we've overthrown in violent revolt due to Communist sympathies)

I'll take "all of the above" for $1,000,000 Alex.

I hope I'm wrong about this, because the media is rarely accurate these days.

But was Obama's primary intelligence source attributing the chemical attacks to Assad actually a member of an anti-Assad group who lied about her credentials to get her job with intelligence?

If Hollywood was making this stuff up about Bush, we'd all snicker a little, because it fits the Bush as a cowboy persona the media liked.

But this is criminal incompetence, and it comes at a cost. Now Russia is helping Iran get another nuclear facility online, with better anti-aircraft weaponry to boot. We are one step closer to nuclear war, though it's still a long way off.

No. The primary intelligence as reported in newspapers in multiple countries was intercepts of calls between the government in Damascus and military leaders that used the gas. A German newspaper first reported this if I remember correctly. That intelligence apparently leads to some doubt as to whether this was a rogue unit, but it also makes clear that the Syrian army used sarin.

I'm okay with Putin's op-ed. We agree to disagree on some stuff but that's okay. I think his comment about "American exceptionalism" is the one drawing the most indignation. This last paragraph seems out of place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op....html?hp&_r=1&

I actually think that last paragraph is well stated. Of course his intentions in writing that likely aren't that stellar (he likely believes Russia is 'exceptional' for instance).

He might however in my experience I think most countries are reasonably realistic and accept in some areas they're better than others and in only a very few (if any) might they be truly 'the best'.

England is quite the opposite to America we chastise ourselves continually for not doing well in areas and I think its one of the reasons why for such a small nation we tend to do reasonably well - we're constantly striving to improve rather than considering ourselves the 'best' at things ...

Is it wrong to say that America is unique though? "Exceptional" can mean good or bad. At least as much as I hear expressions of positive American "exceptionalism", I hear criticisms about the U.S. foreign policy, healthcare system, the corporate landscape, and the people (and the criticisms come from Americans as well as everyone else). And just in terms of scale of economy and the military, the U.S. is exceptionally relevant, probably even if it leaders tried not to be.

Edit: Just looking at GDP alone - the U.S. produces 1/5th of the world's GDP and twice as much as the 2nd ranked country. If you're just an alien from another universe looking at that, with no preconceived biases, you're going to recognize the U.S. as "exceptional", not necessarily in a positive way, but in the sense that they're extraordinarily relevant (and you'd hope they're not TOO evil).

I think the Enlgish viewpoint you are describing is a fairly recent one. The 1600-1945 British viewpoint was very close to the current American exceptionalism viewpoint.

The problem with your description is that those you describe as "animals" aren't killing each other. They're just killing people, regular people who have no desire to kill anyone else. One of the very reasons that chemical weapons are outlawed is because they're indiscriminate.

I think a lot of Americans are responding to this as if Obama's suggesting another invasion of another Middle Eastern country, bogging down in someone else's war. Now, I am not following this closely but it seems to me that what is being discussed is instead punitive air strikes on those who have broken international law. I haven't heard anyone discuss getting involved in the war--hell, who would we side with? We don't agree with any of the combatants. But it seems that nothing will happen because the American public is just hearing "war, Middle East".

All this really proves is that we need a drastic remodeling of the UN. This is the very reason they should exist but they can't take action in cases like this, they're so mired in gridlock at the very core.

Meh, Bashar Al-Assad's op-ed is much better.

Oh I agree totally - and I think that arrogance was one of the reasons why the British Empire declined ... and definitely a large contributing factor to our current mentality.

Hmmm, didn't the British Empire decline because the entire empire was based on the illegal colonization of everything they ever came in contact with and finally everybody revolted against that oppression? Didn't realize it was because you were arrogant.

(ignoring human rights, invasions, who should control what by right etc.)

It depends on your perspective - the empire declined mainly because of an increasing evening of resources between the 'colonies' and the core country and a lack of cohesion/bonding between the colonies and their home nation.

Initially technologically the core country had a technological advantage and the colonies were run by people from the core country - over time each colony saw itself more and more as independent and didn't want to remain a part of the empire which it saw little advantage from being part of.

I believe it was partially arrogance on the behalf of the empire which prevented them anticipating the changing climates and technological imbalances shifting - if they had anticipated this then they could probably have increased the bonding between the colonies and the home nation (ie. increase propoganda etc.) and have retained things for longer.

As it was it was 'unthought of' for the Empire to fall - so its largely accepted that they didn't believe it ever world (the sun will never set on the English empire etc.).

While you might say nice things about it being illegal colonisation which caused its collapse thats far from the case per-se, otherwise the United States itself would obviously have collapsed being an 'illegal colony' which while it attained its independence didn't give much in the way rights to the original inhabitants of the land (i.e. the collapse was not down to morals or the lack of them).

Its also worth considering that judging such things from todays standpoint is near impossible because our world is completely different than it was back then and what might be considered 'moral' or a 'reasonable risk' then is wholly different to what those terms might mean today.

PS - In many cases while not part of an 'empire' countries have retained connections with Britain willingly since things disbanded .... thats why quite a few countries flags still contain 'nods' towards the English one.
Its also worth noting that the empire was 'dismantled' in a far more peaceful way than most such empires throughout history (see Wikipedia atrible for details) which is probably why the Commonwealth still exists and a country the size of England has any sort of influence in world politics (abeit an influence which is diminishing continually as time goes on).

Arrogance is what built the empire and ultimately sustained it. It was torn down only centuries later because people finally realized that it was a bad deal for them. Having reduced your arrogance would've reduced your defensive posture and the empire would certainly have collapsed sooner. There was no winning the 'hearts and minds' of the oppressed.

The 'winning of the hearts and minds' has been done elsewhere throughout history if you look at things - many of the social classes in America (the obvious slaves for instance) were once incredibly oppressed in America but are now as proud to be American as anyone else.

In a similar manner the countries in Europe which are thought of today once didn't exist and were established originally through conquest - its how those countries were integrated into a large identity which largely determined whether they remained together as a whole.

(similarly I could expand more and argue that many of the issues with wars today are in countries which don't have a single self identity for the nation - instead being split largely on multiple identities with clashing ideologies ...)

PS - All this sort of stuff is entirely open to debate and I'm happy to admit its not clear cut in the slightest in this regard; I'm fascinated by 'what if' histories though of what might have happened if different decisions had been made in the past ....

I'd also argue that its not 'arrogance' that built the empire - it was technological advantage combined with aggression and greed.

Good progress I guess. I'm surprised by this step so quickly and how Russia is giving Obama an easy "out" for now.

Inspectors on the ground in Nov. Remember those inspectors in Iraq.

U.S., Russia agree to framework on Syria chemical weapons - CNN.com

Lip service for Putin aside, I don't think the Russians truly understand the conception of exceptionalism:

Report: Russian team will give Tim Tebow $1 million for 2 games - CBSSports.com

Looking forward to how this plays out. Not much happening in domestic politics lately.

GOP ties Obamacare to government shutdown - CNN.com

On that topic, this is fascinating: Health Tracking Poll: Exploring the Public’s Views on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

And by "fascinating" I mean all the cross-tabs.

Party & Race - pretty clear difference of opinion

Yeah, the chart itself had pretty much no surprises, for me, but I thought the way they did all the cross-tabs was pretty slick.

Watching Sen Cruz on Fox Sun talk show. This is the first time I've paid attention to him (and know its shallow) ... but is it me or does he have a perpetual smirk?

He reminds me of Q from Star Trek TNG.

Wonder if there is any infighting between the Dems like with the Reps? I don't think so.

In government shutdown brawl, it's GOP House vs. GOP Senate - First Read

It's getting really annoying. They've tried to vote to defund this probably close to 75 times. Now they are betting our debt/credit on something that hasn't happened yet and has a 0% chance of currently happening. They will bear the brunt for this, but it's just not good for anyone.

It's such an odd reversal. For most of my life, it's been the other way with the GOP lock step in agreement with each other and the Dems the splintered group. The Dems are still splintered but the GOP is in all out civil war.

EDIT: I guess that means it's not really a reversal. The Dems are still doing their thing- that's what happens when you're the "big tent/everyone else" party. You'll never get anyone to agree there.

SI

Unfortunately, I think a formula and precedence has been set. A terrorist group does not need to bring down a plane. There's going to be copy cats.

Kenya mall attack: About 30 hostages still inside, sources say - CNN.com

So basically, for the Republicans, they are either in "lockstep" or in "all-out civil war" but for the Democrats, they are either in "disarray" or in "complete harmony"?

Except I never mentioned the "complete harmony" part- the Dems will always be in disarray. Basically, the more narrow ideological party defines how the spectrum is arrayed around them as the other party is basically the "everybody else" party.

SI

I was using the antonyms you would normally use if you replace GOP with DEM. You only game me 3 of the 4 I was looking for. :)

Except the point of the paradigm is that one is not possible.

But if one wanted to instead turn it into one of false equivalencies, one could use it for that.

SI

Oh great. CNN reporting 3 of the gunman are from the US. 2 from MN and 1 from MO.

Not saying it won't end up being true but the source right now is a suspended twitter feed. No way that could end up being inaccurate.

It's not like CNN has a history of fucking up coverages or anything.

What more credible, CNN or a suspended twitter feed?

We'll know soon enough.

'Most of the hostages' rescued from Kenyan mall siege as FBI begins investigating claims of Americans' involvement - World News