Obama warns Russia

[Thelaw1]

Too bad Russia did not warn Lincoln there would be costs to intervene in the South when the CSA declared their independence from the USA. Surely, if Lincoln had a right to defend the nation, and restore order, without interference from foreign nations, then Russia does as well.

Fact: in WWII Western Ukraine joined the Nazis in fighting the Allies; Ukrainian Fascists murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc. Ukraine was the only nation in the world that allowed former WWII Fascists to have a parade.

Fact: Kiev is the beginning of Russia; Ukraine-Russia seperation was caused by the Mongol invasions, Tatar and Cossacks and Turks moved in, later the Lithuanian-Polish league conquered Ukraine.

Oh, and how many presidents has Ukraine had in the last 5 years?

So should Great Britain be allowed to take the United States back? Or Canada? Or Australia? Fact is, international law has changed since the American civil war. First and foremost, the CSA was not even a de facto government let alone a de jure government. Thus, there can be no sovereignty. Second, Ukraine is a functioning state standing on its own. As a free standing state, it has sovereignty. Under Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, a state cannot violate with another state's sovereignty unless its for self-defense (no facts indicate that is the case) or when the Security Council authorizes military action. That has not happened here. In fact, respecting another country's sovereignty is so important that it has arisen to a jus cogens norm.

[Yamato]

The word infamous comes with negative connotation so I guess it's good or bad depending on perspective.

To be less than fully prepared is to be unprepared. I really was thinking of our own best interests when I said anything. I can't say for certain that any line of conduct could ever be a hard line though.

Who says I'm not impressed!? All I can say about 2014 is what I see. Political infighting 24/7/365. Had Ron been elected his presidential power would've made impacts but he'd have still been up against a largely establishment oriented house and congress. It would've been interesting but no way could he have fully implemented all of his great ideas. As for you, Ron still would've had an R next to his name and you'd have to contend with people lashing out at you for being a loyal republican. Now that would have been something to see too.

Nothing, and if it were up to me that's how it'd be but unfortunately we have relations, deals and politics to contend with and as far as I can see those are real world issues. You seem to mistake statements like that for implying that I'm fully in favor of it. What can I tell you? I'm not. Though there may be a nuance here and there that tilts my table. Being idealistic and speaking idealistically is great but sometimes realities push a conversation or train of thought off course a little. It's called reasoning and rationale. Strict ideology doesn't always work the way one wants.

Thanks man. Now I'm humbled but impeccable and pristine might be a little much. I think it's just that you're relentless and frankly exhausting at times. You also confuse me because I usually think you get me then you go all out trying to pin me as a hardliner and/or get me to prove without a doubt otherwise. Differences are fine but I think my previous couple of sentences speak to that comment too.

I'm really not trying to get personal. Generally, I like you. Remember that time I stuck up for you when a certain moderator was hammering you calling you a troll? I know you do. Just maybe it's the way you persist that perhaps it begins to feel a little personal. Either way, we've done this before. We'll get past it.

If dreams came true and Ron Paul was actually elected President, I'm suddenly a proud card-carrying member of the Republican party? You don't know Ron Paul very well brother.

I won't know better either until I question it, Fess. I don't come after you as a person or attack your character or characteristics, lifestyle or preferences. You don't either and that's why you're right, we'll get past it, again.

But I think crashing the chorus line is a noble endeavor; even mine. I would welcome genuine challenges to libertarian principles more than anything else because unlike most of the partisan back and forth, that would be a worthwhile debate.

It'll be persistent and might even feel a little personal, but it'll never be personal. When you've replied to me recently after I replied to someone else, your replies have sounded like you're disagreeing with me. I'm fascinated by that, because if we wind up agreeing after a difficult process like we're on the verge of doing again, I'm still just as confused about what you're trying to disagree with me about exactly. I suggest we match the military budget of the 2nd largest military spender on the planet. And then after that I'm such a hippy? Really? Is that still what you think or are you starting to question it?

We do indeed have relations, deals and politics, and those are precisely why anything can come our way. I don't want to start with "anything" and then get out a paring knife, and then have to double back to cover my neck. Our rule of law is supposed to work the exact opposite of that. Our Constitution gives us the short list, and anything else, forget it.

But even if I can completely remove the Constitution from the picture for a purely objective viewpoint (LOL), if we want to go around the world looking for problems to solve and our American ideas are so damn good, then I think at a bare minimum 1) we should be able to sell our ideas successfully to others to play our global/regional politics together 2) using force and especially violence on people to get our way is out of the question and 3) we need to be honest enough with ourselves and our children that we pay our foreign adventure bills now instead of suckling on the central bankers' credit teat for somebody else to have to pay for later. We had democrats in the '50s and we paid our bills. This is pathetic, no matter what party at the switch. If all that happens, then I'll be in line right next to you and I promise my jaw won't fall on the floor if you badger me about the federal government of all things being ready for "anything".

You remember how we had to be ready for Saddam Hussein? Oh let me count the ways! Oh the things that come our way! Using enabling rhetoric like that, and it sounds like the Republican National Convention of 2004 all over again.

It looks exactly the same to me as arguing with any liberal about the general welfare clause! Except that with general welfare at least, we're actually talking about domestic issues that effect these 50 states (it's definitely "come our way"). So that's not how we determine government intervention or not. And it's not even exactly the same, it's much worse when we have this kind of mindset or use this kind of rhetoric for theoretically infinite foreign interests. All kinds of crazy things are going to come along, and the economy is global now. That doesn't mean the federal government of the United States, vis-a-vis the US military, has to be uniquely or exceptionally ready in the world. There might be a gaping chasm of difference between us here too, I really don't know. Gotta hammer it out to figure it out.

[F3SS]

If dreams came true and Ron Paul was actually elected President, I'm suddenly a proud card-carrying member of the Republican party? You don't know Ron Paul very well brother.

Well, on a technicality. He was, after all, a republican. That's it. It's not a condemnation or guilt by association from me, just you know you'll have it coming to you by someone if that day comes again and there's a republican you vote for. Like maybe Rand?

I would welcome genuine challenges to libertarian principles more than anything else.

You're probably not going to get that from me. We need foreign relations without military involvement. I just don't know how to achieve that without being interrupted or enticed into the wrong direction while in the process of withdrawling our global presence if for nothing else than that simple act of our dwindling presence. Much of the world itches bring US down if only by attrition. At the very least keeping US antagonized, exhausted, distracted and weary and generally agitated is good enough for some. I know we do/have done a lot that isn't right but I'm not about to want to risk getting what's coming for US. Isolationism is a nice idea. I think it would work but getting there and staying there is conflict I see. So in the mean time....

I suggest we match the military budget of the 2nd largest military spender on the planet. And then after that I'm such a hippy? Really? Is that still what you think or are you starting to question it?

...No way, triple minimum and that would about halve our spending.

Here, http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp great site.

You remember how we had to be ready for Saddam Hussein? Oh let me count the ways! Oh the things that come our way! Using enabling rhetoric like that, and it sounds like the Republican National Convention of 2004 all over again.

Can't say I was paying much attention to these matters back then.

There might be a gaping chasm of difference between us here too, I really don't know. Gotta hammer it out to figure it out.

I think I pretty much covered it a few lines above. I'd like to get there. I'm just not sure a sudden withdrawl of all things the US military in world is the way to go. I think the ways to achieve that need hammered out and the only thing I disagree with you on is the seeming gungho-gotta-happen-now outlook I perceive. Otherwise, if you agree that it could be done within a reasonable time frame such as 3,4,5,6 years, given that we've got most of the kinks confidently worked out on how it happens smoothly, then it would seem we have nothing to really disagree on.

Edited March 6, 2014 by F3SS

[Yamato]

Well, on a technicality. He was, after all, a republican. That's it. It's not a condemnation or guilt by association from me, just you know you'll have it coming to you by someone if that day comes again and there's a republican you vote for. Like maybe Rand?

Maybe just Ron at this point Fess, and he's retired. Ron Paul would have made an unpopular President making the economy drink the hard medicine that I don't think Rand is willing to prescribe.

You're probably not going to get that from me. We need foreign relations without military involvement. I just don't know how to achieve that without being interrupted or enticed into the wrong direction while in the process of withdrawling our global presence if for nothing else than that simple act of our dwindling presence. Much of the world itches bring US down if only by attrition. At the very least keeping US antagonized, exhausted, distracted and weary and generally agitated is good enough for some. I know we do/have done a lot that isn't right but I'm not about to want to risk getting what's coming for US. Isolationism is a nice idea. I think it would work but getting there and staying there is conflict I see. So in the mean time....

You mean if they kick us on the way out the door we'll have to show them who's mucho macho? The world is dying to be our friend. We have the power to trade with other countries and very lucratively. That's foreign relations when we don't have gigantic standing armies lying around with nothing to do.

...No way, triple minimum and that would about halve our spending.

Here, http://www.globalfir...ding-budget.asp great site

So a $378 billion annual defense budget.

.I think I pretty much covered it a few lines above. I'd like to get there. I'm just not sure a sudden withdrawl of all things the US military in world is the way to go. I think the ways to achieve that need hammered out and the only thing I disagree with you on is the seeming gungho-gotta-happen-now outlook I perceive. Otherwise, if you agree that it could be done within a reasonable time frame such as 3,4,5,6 years, given that we've got most of the kinks confidently worked out on how it happens smoothly, then it would seem we have nothing to really disagree on.

So we should take about five years to get the military budget down to $378B? Why stop there? Why would our budget need to stay so extraordinarily large? I think five years is a perfectly reasonable time frame to cut spending by half, but I don't know why we "need" defense spending that's three times higher than anybody else.

You asked a question earlier:

Am I? So we don't need to be prepared for anything at anytime?

How many countries in the world need to be that prepared?

If we're going to use an amount three times higher than anybody else as the spending limit, then I think the answer is, it's just us. I consider that to be "American Exceptionalism" by definition. There's no truer purer form than one measured in dollars.

[Agent0range]

So we should take about five years to get the military budget down to $378B? Why stop there? Why would our budget need to stay so extraordinarily large? I think five years is a perfectly reasonable time frame to cut spending by half, but I don't know why we "need" defense spending that's three times higher than anybody else.

Payroll alone is $45 billion. Fuel, food, and other necessities are needed, exactly how low do you think it can go?

[Bama13]

Too bad Russia did not warn Lincoln there would be costs to intervene in the South when the CSA declared their independence from the USA. Surely, if Lincoln had a right to defend the nation, and restore order, without interference from foreign nations, then Russia does as well.

Fact: in WWII Western Ukraine joined the Nazis in fighting the Allies; Ukrainian Fascists murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc. Ukraine was the only nation in the world that allowed former WWII Fascists to have a parade.

Fact: Kiev is the beginning of Russia; Ukraine-Russia seperation was caused by the Mongol invasions, Tatar and Cossacks and Turks moved in, later the Lithuanian-Polish league conquered Ukraine.

Oh, and how many presidents has Ukraine had in the last 5 years?

Fact: People in the Baltic States fought along side the Nazis. They murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc.

Fact: People from Belgium fought along side the Nazis. They murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc.

Fact: People from Finland fought along side the Nazis. They murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc.

Fact: People from Norway fought along side the Nazis. They murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc.

Fact: Some Arabs fought along side the Nazis. They murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc.

Fact: People of many different nationalities fought along side the Nazis. They murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc.

[F3SS]

Maybe just Ron at this point Fess, and he's retired. Ron Paul would have made an unpopular President making the economy drink the hard medicine that I don't think Rand is willing to prescribe.

Won't argue one way or the other but I bet you'd vote for him.

You mean if they kick us on the way out the door we'll have to show them who's mucho macho?

That's an immature way to put it. There are crazy ass people in the world and serious shlt could happen. No need to delve into hypotheticals as I don't what they would be but my point is valid.

The world is dying to be our friend. We have the power to trade with other countries and very lucratively. That's foreign relations when we don't have gigantic standing armies lying around with nothing to do.

Perhaps. Much of it is a matter of reigning in the puppet masters. The big players in the world stage. The ones behind the scenes that supposedly, and likely, have so much influence in our policies.

So a $378 billion annual defense budget.

So we should take about five years to get the military budget down to $378B? Why stop there? Why would our budget need to stay so extraordinarily large? I think five years is a perfectly reasonable time frame to cut spending by half, but I don't know why we "need" defense spending that's three times higher than anybody else.

Sure, why not?

Why 3x you ask? Simple logic. We are the bullseye of so many targets out there. To only match the second biggest spender is ludacris. It's a must for US to be well ahead of the game and you're not going to get me to budge.

How many countries in the world need to be that prepared?

Don't know, don't care. Just one as far I'm I'm concerned.

[Yamato]

Won't argue one way or the other but I bet you'd vote for him.

That's an immature way to put it. There are crazy ass people in the world and serious shlt could happen. No need to delve into hypotheticals as I don't what they would be but my point is valid.

Perhaps. Much of it is a matter of reigning in the puppet masters. The big players in the world stage. The ones behind the scenes that supposedly, and likely, have so much influence in our policies.

Sure, why not?

Why 3x you ask? Simple logic. We are the bullseye of so many targets out there. To only match the second biggest spender is ludacris. It's a must for US to be well ahead of the game and you're not going to get me to budge.

Don't know, don't care. Just one as far I'm I'm concerned.

Why should our crazy ass people have their way with their crazy ass people? I'm immature? No I'm making a very astute observation that our clowns aren't anymore mature than anyone else's clowns. Taking this global government circus as seriously as you do doesn't mean you're mature.

"Why not" is because it's precisely why we're bullseye of so many targets out there. You make a statement, and when I try to apply your standard to anyone else, suddenly you don't know and you don't care. So long as that enabling Establishment faith and rhetoric pushes the policies that are endangering us all and bankrupting us all. If you want gigantic military that needs a logarithmic chart just to see where the US military spending ends, if you want the US to continue spending as much as the entire world combined, which is about what $378 B is, then you're never going to get rid of these neocon right wing statist policies that are destroying our republic from the inside out.

[+DieChecker]

then you're never going to get rid of these neocon right wing statist policies that are destroying our republic from the inside out.

But don't you actually believe there are NO good people in government, Republican or Democrat... Conservative or Liberal? You hate them all equally, right? You'd like a small Federal government full of neutered Centrists?

[HollyDolly]

A quote by Kerry which i already posted,"You just don't in the 21st century behave in a 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped up pretext," he said.

The Hypocrisy never fails to astound me..

What!!! Do you think that Vlad cares what anyone thinks? He's doing exactly what someone like Ivan the Terrible would have done.

If you look at history you will find in the past leaders who did the exact same thing. Seems to me the british steam rolled over the Irish for centuries.I for one don't know a great deal of the history of the region. The Ukraine if i recall was once known as the breadbasket of Russia.

Stalin ran over those who did not want to collectivize the farms amongst other things and starved millions to death including in the Ukraine.Many of these people remember that and don't have any love for the russians.

The important thing is to let something be worked out between the two and the UN.We don't need to send a billon or two over there and need to keep our nose out.

[Yamato]

But don't you actually believe there are NO good people in government, Republican or Democrat... Conservative or Liberal? You hate them all equally, right? You'd like a small Federal government full of neutered Centrists?

I don't hate anyone. I love the rule of law in the US. I'm trying to save it from itself. Avoiding a small government of neutered Centrists isn't going to save it.

What are you really trying to draw up as a difference between you and I here?

I'd like a federal government that pays its bills. Balance the budget every year and you'll never hear a complaint about the government from me again. Do you disagree with me about something here? You don't want an honest government that pays its debt? That pays its bills? You want to keep sticking people in the future who will have their own problems to pay for with the bill?

[Yamato]

We want to keep antagonizing people in the world with our skank foreign policies, causing hatred and resentment against us, as we dumbly blindly wait for the next 9/11 as if we still can't understand the facts about the worst foreign attack on US soil in US history?

Let's get to the only real 9/11 conspiracy I've ever been able to find: Any time there's a murder out there, the police investigate the crime. Part of the investigation is motive. I didn't abandon that process after the terrorists attacked us on 9/11. The government and the media did, in a full-blown blackout. Why I feel like the only one getting slapped in the face by that fact, I have no idea. The ignorance required to actually want a global scale military budget for the US federal government of all things, is just E.P.I.C. Even Fess? Et tu, Brute?

The blackout worked. Sweet Jesus cupcakes, it worked!

[F3SS]

I've conceded to being ok cutting a few hundred billion from defense. I'm not an expert in military and globalism issues so at the risk of ignorance in conceding to a sub-par second world country style military plan I'd rather play it safe and know we are undoubtedly unbeatable until I'm made privy to all the insider briefings. As it stands, the joint chiefs of staff and our most learned military commanders aren't giving me all the info I need to make a highly educated call on the defense budget. And for that matter, neither are you knowledgable enough to be so adamant about US being mediocre yet safe.

You're beginning to sound like the anti-gun crowd in the way that they gleefully say get rid of them and our problems will go away. That's essentially what you're saying about the military. It's too idealistic. I'm not entirely opposed to your plan but reality says nice ideas don't always pan out the way you would like.

So in the mean time until the libertarians take over we have to deal with who and what we've got. Under the leadership we've had for so long now, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon, these bright ideas aren't going to happen. We can't give them free reign but we can try and tame the beast. Or... Don't deal with them at all which doesn't help either. I'm just not seeing any other option until you have an Oval Office and a Cabinet. Why don't you try to spend more time spreading your good message rather than trying to extract every ounce of partisanship you can from other people all so you can hold up your incredible findings for all to see.

[Yamato]

I've conceded to being ok cutting a few hundred billion from defense. I'm not an expert in military and globalism issues so at the risk of ignorance in conceding to a sub-par second world country style military plan I'd rather play it safe and know we are undoubtedly unbeatable until I'm made privy to all the insider briefings. As it stands, the joint chiefs of staff and our most learned military commanders aren't giving me all the info I need to make a highly educated call on the defense budget. And for that matter, neither are you knowledgable enough to be so adamant about US being mediocre yet safe.

You're beginning to sound like the anti-gun crowd in the way that they gleefully say get rid of them and our problems will go away. That's essentially what you're saying about the military. It's too idealistic. I'm not entirely opposed to your plan but reality says nice ideas don't always pan out the way you would like.

So in the mean time until the libertarians take over we have to deal with who and what we've got. Under the leadership we've had for so long now, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon, these bright ideas aren't going to happen. We can't give them free reign but we can try and tame the beast. Or... Don't deal with them at all which doesn't help either. I'm just not seeing any other option until you have an Oval Office and a Cabinet. Why don't you try to spend more time spreading your good message rather than trying to extract every ounce of partisanship you can from other people all so you can hold up your incredible findings for all to see.

I'm extracting partisanship how? That's the exact opposite of what I'm doing. This has nothing to do with partisanship. I haven't suggested there's partisanship here at all, or that you're one party or the other, either way.

The take-home message at this point is simple observation based on all history post-World War II. If you want the US to have an exceptionally large military, you're going to get the exceptionally large policies that go with it.

What does that have to do with partisanship? You could be from either of the two parties and believe in this unique/exceptional role of the federal government in the world.

[F3SS]

Partisanship, was for lack of better term, lapse of reason. What I meant was instead of agreeing to disagree, after a certain amount if effort, you seem to have some undying need to get others to admit or realize that they aren't who they say they are. It's whatever though man. Not a big deal. Sometimes, like maybe with this subject about the budget, I feel I've said all I can say. I think you want more explanation than I can offer. As I said before, I'm not sure I can make a better determination on about the how best to navigate US back to a constitutionally idealistic military agenda without more insight than I have. Believe me, I want to get there too. I just don't know how to safely and wisely get out of all the current circumstances we are in and that's about it. Wether I condone or condemn those circumstances is a secondary issue.

[+and-then]

I would not worry so much about this, so far, and as long as the West keep howling, Russian oligarchs are loosing 10-15 billion a day... it will just be a question of time before one of them gets a contract on Vlady....

Wouldn't THAT be an excellent outcome

[Yamato]

Partisanship, was for lack of better term, lapse of reason. What I meant was instead of agreeing to disagree, after a certain amount if effort, you seem to have some undying need to get others to admit or realize that they aren't who they say they are. It's whatever though man. Not a big deal. Sometimes, like maybe with this subject about the budget, I feel I've said all I can say. I think you want more explanation than I can offer. As I said before, I'm not sure I can make a better determination on about the how best to navigate US back to a constitutionally idealistic military agenda without more insight than I have. Believe me, I want to get there too. I just don't know how to safely and wisely get out of all the current circumstances we are in and that's about it. Wether I condone or condemn those circumstances is a secondary issue.

In most cases, we just get out. We pick up the phone from the Oval Office and say "Hey yeah, we'd love to trade more with you, but that sweetheart deal that President Whowuzit made over 30 years ago? Yeah sorry we can't do that anymore. How's the wife?"

Bribes and bombs and bullets. That's all that's holding this big charade in the Middle East up.

A President of the United States could end most of what we're doing in the world at will. Who's gonna cry when the taxpayer money comes home and somewhere, sometime, some place in the world is gonna suffer for it?

Who's gonna pin the consequences of that lower military spending on Barack Obama after some crap in the world hits the fan?

[+DieChecker]

I don't hate anyone. I love the rule of law in the US. I'm trying to save it from itself. Avoiding a small government of neutered Centrists isn't going to save it.

What are you really trying to draw up as a difference between you and I here?

I'd like a federal government that pays its bills. Balance the budget every year and you'll never hear a complaint about the government from me again. Do you disagree with me about something here? You don't want an honest government that pays its debt? That pays its bills? You want to keep sticking people in the future who will have their own problems to pay for with the bill?

I don't disagree about balancing the budget. But is there a single Democrat or Republican that you would support? It seems you disagree with like 96% of everyone in office. Rather then compromise, you would rather just talk and get nothing done. I think that is why Ron Paul failed when running for President, he was unwilling to compromise.

[coolguy]

Obama fears puttin and its a fact.

[acidhead]

I don't disagree about balancing the bu. et. But is there a single Democrat or Republican that you would support? It seems you disagree with like 96% of everyone in office. Rather then compromise, you would rather just talk and get nothing done. I think that is why Ron Paul failed when running for President, he was unwilling to compromise.

Ron Paul is a man of principle. The ds and rs agree for the most part with foreign and monetary policy. The Iraq invasion and the bailouts of the too bigs. Yet they bicker on domestic partisan issues irrelevant to economic and the safety of the American individual.

If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

[Yamato]

I don't disagree about balancing the budget. But is there a single Democrat or Republican that you would support? It seems you disagree with like 96% of everyone in office. Rather then compromise, you would rather just talk and get nothing done. I think that is why Ron Paul failed when running for President, he was unwilling to compromise.

There are many nice, friendly and intelligent people in our government filled with good intentions as far as the eye can see. And every single time, they make terribly inefficient and counterproductive use of our money the more they spend it, the worse it gets.

But it'd be fair to say that I disagree with the foreign policy about 96%. That's where all the money is going that we can easily get back, so in the genuine interest of balancing a budget, how can we avoid considering that?

Life is short bro. When the years go by and the policies don't change, what am I supposed to think of the policymakers and lawmakers?

The only reason Ron Paul didn't get much done is because he voted No more than any other lawmaker alive. But a small government is a government that doesn't get much done. That's the point! If we're going to play the role of libertarians at least. If we just say we want a smaller government and then don't like it when we see what it looks like, then we don't really want small government. Just saying we do is what will never change anything. We've got to actually do do.

[Yamato]

Ron Paul is a man of principle. The ds and rs agree for the most part with foreign and monetary policy. The Iraq invasion and the bailouts of the too bigs. Yet they bicker on domestic partisan issues irrelevant to economic and the safety of the American individual.

If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

You're the man dude!

[preacherman76]

How people think we havent gone way beyond a time to compromise, I just dont know. Nearly everything these people do is full of coruption. What is there to compromise about? NSA spying on, well, everyone? Spending money on things we clearly cant afford? The constant stripping of constitutional rights? Where is there room for compromise? Far as Im concerned, these people have done all they can to betray our trust. I for one am going to keep the pace, even if it stays this slow.

[Rafterman]

How people think we havent gone way beyond a time to compromise, I just dont know. Nearly everything these people do is full of coruption. What is there to compromise about? NSA spying on, well, everyone? Spending money on things we clearly cant afford? The constant stripping of constitutional rights? Where is there room for compromise? Far as Im concerned, these people have done all they can to betray our trust. I for one am going to keep the pace, even if it stays this slow.

Well they could agree to only spy on half of us.

[Yamato]

How people think we havent gone way beyond a time to compromise, I just dont know. Nearly everything these people do is full of coruption. What is there to compromise about? NSA spying on, well, everyone? Spending money on things we clearly cant afford? The constant stripping of constitutional rights? Where is there room for compromise? Far as Im concerned, these people have done all they can to betray our trust. I for one am going to keep the pace, even if it stays this slow.

We're compromising everything, bro. Compromise is code for bipartisan status quo.

Where are the great Constitutional debates on the floors of Congress? Where are the people demanding them? Out to lunch. So yeah I presume that if I'm going to have to work with these people, I have to assume a compromised position.

I just have to get down on my hands and knees like this and...hope the nurse is female this time....