I tend to agree a lot with Daniel Larison, this included.

We know.

Know... that JPhillips agrees with a conservative blogger? Yes, Larison is a conservative, just the older more isolationist sort.

Well, you know how radical left the American Conservative can be!

Actually, I know a bunch of GOP folks who like to call them RINOs, even though they represent an older conservative though (Paleoconservativism). They don't even know their ideological history!

It's funny that in order to finally end the Soviet threat, we had to rattle our saber quite a bit and not go the route of detente.

So is this interesting because Larison agrees with JPhillips or because JPhillips agrees with himself (hence, the "We know" comment)? :)

We outlasted the Soviet system more than anything, and when the opportunity to negotiate a real change presented itself Reagan took it even though the far-right objected.

This is what's frustrating about the linear left-right viewpoint. My foreign policy views are generally closest to traditional conservatives, but somehow that's now far left.

Indeed. Quite a bit of right-wing conservatives started calling Reagan a Neville Chamberlain for negotiating with the enemy (Gorbachev) in the mid 80s.

You think you are frustrated? Think about how Pat Buchanan feels :D

Post some of your views that are traditional conservative foreign policy and I'll probably agree. Post far left opinions like above, and I won't. This isn't that hard, JPhillips.

You mean like... a more isolationist foreign policy? This is the bedrock of conservatives in the early part of the 20th Century. Heck, Eisenhower campaigned (in his re-election bid) on "He Got Us Out of Korea".

You mean, President/General Eisenhower of WWII fame? Good thing he didn't have that stance 10 years prior or we'd all be starring in this show on Amazon Prime...the reality TV version of it...

There's a time and a place....this isn't one of those times to sit back and let it come to us.

Yes that Eisenhower, who could adequately assess a threat and realized that war was the last option. Someone who would look at people who compared ISIS's threat to the Nazis and scoffed at them for their complete lack of perspective.

With all the Trump coverage, I guessed Ive missed the Eisenhower sound bites where he agrees we should back-pedal from ISIS. What did Lincoln say?

He said he was looking forward to the play. JFC

I learned about Anachronisms playing MP FOF....guess not everybody does...

Your backpedels are adorable. You were the one who seemingly indicated that a more isolationist philosophy was not traditional conservative foreign policy. If you can't handle that, then maybe you shouldn't make such insinuations in the future?

Did we have to? It's not like the Soviets were more powerful and we bluffed them into giving in. I'd compare it to dropping the atomic bombs in WWII - clearly the right play and something that saved lives and money long-term because it sped up the conclusion, but both were already foregone conclusions and a matter of when, not if.
I don't think ISIL/Daesh is much more of a threat than the borderline terrorists who control Somaliland or parts of Mali, or even the tribal regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan. They're annoying for sure, but they're not a real threat to us. Even if they ever do launch a chemical/biological/nuclear attack it'll be because they acquired the materials from a corrupt or failing state elsewhere (or knew where Saddam hid some), not because they're actually producing or researching anything there.

If you're just talking about Islamic Radicalism in general, that's not something that can be solved by our military, and using them super-aggressively (or pushing an insane anti-Muslim stance) will just as likely create more terrorists here in the US than would ever be able to sneak into our country from over there.

Didn't even realize the deadline was here. Com'on Ryan, I'm rooting for you and your leadership.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politi...use/index.html

I don't know if looking back for ideology means anything these days. Seems the sides just care about opposing what the other one does. If Obama was for ground troops and a massive war to wipe out ISIS, the right would be against it and vice versa.

From my understanding, times change, and was clowin' you for bring up 1949 or whatever. But in any event, I was just having fun with ya for your standard over-reaction. Relax. :thumbsup:

If the Obama administration can't put an end to this my career is going down the drain. Nothing like the government awarding government flying to a middle eastern carrier.

United cites Gulf rivals in axing Dubai flights

I'd rather it be an American carrier doing it. But the administration would just get busted in the chops if they didn't go with whomever was offering the best deal.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't know why they are losing money, the ATL-DUB flights are always full. The airlines are also making lots of money now that oil/gas prices are down, hard to feel too badly about this and maybe they should have partnered with some of these airlines before JetBlue.

Also, it's one route and I'm not sure what that does to the bottom line.

Except that's not true at all. You're making the assumption that all things are equal, when the government of the UAE has been subsidizing Emirates to allow them to operate at the revenue rate they operate at. It's not a matter of them providing a superior product at a lower price. If I've got the treasury behind my P&L I've got no fear of failure.

So it's one route. Emirates is one of the big 3 middle east carriers that are owned by the government of that country. US airlines are the most regulated, deregulated, industry in the US. The full intention of the foreign carriers is to water the market down with so many seats in the international market that no other carrier can keep up. Flight being full makes no difference when your losing money on the route. International routes are very valuable. I don't know the numbers exactly but the bread and butter of major airlines is in the international market.

The government run airlines are allowed to operate at a loss to grab market share, which is a violation of the current Open Skies agreement that states that they aren't allowed to do that.

I'm actually okay with more competition from foreign carriers in domestic travel.

I sometimes get upgraded but I generally travel economy, even internationally. I see a world of difference in service, attitude etc. between domestic and foreign air travel.

I know there are a lot of reasons for this (some valid, some not, some airlines are better than others etc.) and don't know if Emirates can continue their level of service in the US but let's see what happens.

I'm tired of being treated like cattle.

TBH, I guess this is a big deal and a win for Obama if it passes but I don't really understand what this means for us ... how/what needs to happen to operationalize this.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/world/...ote/index.html

If the NYPD story is correct, it really sounds like the LA school closure was a substantial overreaction.

I'm willing to give LA a bye. They were unprepared on how to "qualify" how real this was. I'm sure they'll do better next time.

Given what just happened in California, I'd rather they overreact than not take it seriously enough.

But we can't close down things for every threat. Overreaction gives all the power to those who want to disrupt things.

And I would agree with you normally. Maybe I don't feel like it was as much on an overreaction given what just happened in San Bernadino. They didn't want to have to say again they missed something, or we didn't react when we should have. NYC didn't just have a terrorist attack take place or they might have reacted the same way LA did.

Reducing our oil dependence on the ME and helping our domestic shale industry for now is pretty important to me. Assume Obama resisted removing the oil export ban because of environmental reasons.

Telsa and Solar City popped today because of the renewal of tax breaks. Good to see a good old compromise.

White House Announces Support for Plan Allowing Oil Exports - Bloomberg Politics

A little fallout for Ryan "the Muslim" on the bill.

Fury of the right falls on Ryan | TheHill

A lot to be pissed off about really. How can you call yourself fiscally conservative if you raise government spending and raise the deficit.

Well, President Reagan raised government spending and raised the deficit. Was he not fiscally conservative enough for you? :)

Not in the slightest

So we should have a budget at the same level as 1980? 1950? 1900?

We should have a budget that we actually can pay for in full.

Like all good corporations everywhere?

So conservatives say spending is bad and dangerous, except if its the military, and the liberals say spending is good and helps the the economy, except if it's the military. It's interesting to me the military is so polarizing in that way. So when I see something like that, I have to think the truth is in the middle. Military spending does stimulate and support the economy, but there's also definitely a ton of waste

But non-military spending doesn't stimulate and support the economy, is that what you are inferring?

Nah, it certainly does, it's just interesting to me how military spending doesn't follow the same "rules" as other kinds of spending, for either side.

Edit: I think a big strong military is essential for the U.S., and it also happens to provide great economic stimulus and life opportunities/employment for so many young people. So I'm not a fan of the general vilification of defense spending you see sometimes from the far-left. But like anything else in government, there's also plenty of waste and plenty of backroom dirty politics that benefits the defense contractors (who surely do not pay enough taxes). So I'm all for a moderate, middle-ground approach to improve things.

In a general sense I agree. There are, though, other ways to balance the budget than cutting spending.

Agreed, but raising spending w/o raising revenue isn't one of them.

In this budget I think the much bigger problem is the 650 billion in new tax cuts.

We can, through a combination of revenue and financing.