Search results

What I'm observing is that people bitter about Trump are bitter about all the cleanup being done for 1776 + 250. Any excuse to criticize will do. $850M for Obama's eyesore, though - what a magnificent deal.

Yes, the cracked frog pond they had before which had also been imperfectly repaired by a previous administration (at much more than twice the cost) was so much better.

Yeah, people reach into public fountains and pools out of curiosity all the time. I can't get close enough to toss a penny in anymore due to the press of people waiting their turn to feel the slimy textures.

"Minneapolis." Clear enough to anyone following US politics and social news.

Camel's nose. Draw a bright line.

. Maybe communities have to deal decisively and finally with people who use open fires to prepare their drugs.

Don't pay. If Iran interferes with shipping, punish it. Possibly. Slippery slope applies dealing with tyrants and aggressive nations. Big problems are most easily solved while still small. Appeasement is a strategic error. An exception is to buy time to prepare to halt it and reverse it...

Sure, but irrelevant. The preservation of liberal principles occasionally requires violating them, which is not abandonment if we return to them. (Abandonment would be violating and not returning). I am confident the people pushing overt displays of Islam are mostly those pursuing long-term...

Call-to-prayer is a religious dominance play. Church bells are basically music without words. Call-to-prayer is a political statement.

Beside the point. My point is that whatever it is called, I doubt it lasts. How does that work? The US administration is denying that it is proposing to directly give Iran $300B. So by what means are others to be compelled to give or invest? Yes, and that's what most people aren't grasping...

You think this ends with indefinite tolls on the strait? That investors really are going to come forward to pony up $300B of their money to dump into Iran and write off? As I wrote much earlier, no-one "wins" this. Iran is worse off than it was pre-war and will continue to be for a long time.

What is it you think Iran has "won", other than "not losing"?

The major participants all fought like demons. What is it you think you've discovered? That most countries don't go to war unless they're attacked first? That if aggressors escalate far enough or pose a big enough threat, pretty much everything is on the table? That with very few exceptions...

The question isn't particularly useful. "What conditions can I pile on to frame a rhetorical question that will essentially define it to have only one answer" is how the exercise strikes me. "Wars viewed as worth it", no matter what kind of government initiated them, was a small set to begin...

They're slightly across the water from Greece. Completely opaque as to how that would negate obviously democratic institutions. Care to expand? Same for that one.

The question isn't whether some of the supremely vile guilty deserve death. The question is whether some of those supremely innocent but wrongly believed to fall into the former category have to risk it to satisfy someone's anger.

Surely the majority is always right, and we should run ourselves by the will of 50%+1 in all things.

It would be a heckuva thing if people pushing over-the-top anti-US rhetoric while wrapping themselves in a Canadian flag had to navel-gaze and perhaps admit they were helping China and/or Russia by taking a few swings at the wedges Trump is pounding on.

As usual, "more for this is less for that" applies.

Reinforcing failure. Another nail in the productivity coffin.