canonizer wrote:You've never been to montreal.

I've always thought I'd like to live in Vancouver. I hear it's not like the rest of Canada (what that means I have no idea).

bhodilee wrote:I've always thought I'd like to live in Vancouver. I hear it's not like the rest of Canada (what that means I have no idea).

I know little about Canada, but I've been told they have the very best strippers up there. For what it's worth.

chemvictim wrote:Missouri and Minnesota were actually on my list before. List getting smaller = easier decision.

WANT TO HUG! is wrong with MN?

OK, we tend to be a left-wing state...but the quality of life here is top notch.

otolith wrote:WANT TO HUG! is wrong with MN?

OK, we tend to be a left-wing state...but the quality of life here is top notch.

Santorum

otolith wrote:WANT TO HUG! is wrong with MN?

OK, we tend to be a left-wing state...but the quality of life here is top notch.

I tend to be a left-wing person, but Santorum got roughly 45% of the vote in MN. That scares me a little. This whole idea of state's rights (as opposed to fed controlling everything) is getting a lot of attention these days, and we could be moving more in that direction, including state's rights to (as I see it) tromp all over selected members of their populace at the whims of the majority. If MN is actually a left-wing state, I probably don't have to worry about being tromped on. If MN is Santorum-ish, then...*shudder*. Only about 50,000 people voted though, so I don't think I'm ready to declare the whole state as Santorum-land. I was (mostly) kidding about crossing MN off the list.

bhodilee wrote:Santorum

QFT! For a reminder of just how far outside the American mainstream Brother Santorum is, take a look at This is Rick Santorum on the conservative PJ Media website.

He could be the worst thing for Americans' views of Catholics since the pedophile priest scandals of several years ago.

chemvictim wrote:I tend to be a left-wing person, but Santorum got roughly 45% of the vote in MN. That scares me a little. This whole idea of state's rights (as opposed to fed controlling everything) is getting a lot of attention these days, and we could be moving more in that direction, including state's rights to (as I see it) tromp all over selected members of their populace at the whims of the majority. If MN is actually a left-wing state, I probably don't have to worry about being tromped on. If MN is Santorum-ish, then...*shudder*. Only about 50,000 people voted though, so I don't think I'm ready to declare the whole state as Santorum-land. I was (mostly) kidding about crossing MN off the list.

The people, a whopping 50K worth of people who got out to vote, were predominantly the Christian conservatives. It was meant to send a message to the Republicans to get a better candidate than what's out there. Not that it matters in this state. We've been voting for Democratics when it comes to voting for Presidents for the last 50 yrs...

rpm wrote:QFT! For a reminder of just how far outside the American mainstream Brother Santorum is, take a look at This is Rick Santorum on the conservative PJ Media website.

He could be the worst thing for Americans' views of Catholics since the pedophile priest scandals of several years ago.

That's the problem with this year's crop of Republican candidates - the more people find out about them, the less they like them. It happened to Bachmann, to Cain, to Perry, to Gingrich. Add Santorum and Romney to that group too. I won't even talk about Trump.

With a reasonably strong candidate, the Presidency looked to be theirs for the taking. That result is looking less likely with each passing day.

otolith wrote:The people, a whopping 50K worth of people who got out to vote, were predominantly the Christian conservatives. It was meant to send a message to the Republicans to get a better candidate than what's out there. Not that it matters in this state. We've been voting for Democratics when it comes to voting for Presidents for the last 50 yrs...

In that case, I stand corrected. I think it's too late for the Republicans to get a better candidate this time around, although it would be nice to have some viable options.

I'm researching nasal spray formulations this morning (for work), and I was reminded of your many warnings for us sicklings not to overuse. There is some suggestion in the literature that hyaluronic acid helps with avoiding that rebound effect...but I think if you look hard enough, you can find a suggestion in the literature for HA curing damn near anything.

coynedj wrote:That's the problem with this year's crop of Republican candidates - the more people find out about them, the less they like them. It happened to Bachmann, to Cain, to Perry, to Gingrich. Add Santorum and Romney to that group too. I won't even talk about Trump.

With a reasonably strong candidate, the Presidency looked to be theirs for the taking. That result is looking less likely with each passing day.

It's a pity T-Paw and Daniels don't have the charisma necessary - they're both a reasonable balance of fiscal conservatism and responsible social conservatism -- which I define as personally encouraging traditional values as a choice for people to make and not something to be legislated and ending the almost silly hostility to public generic religious expression which gets everyone's knickers in a twist (voluntary prayers at a football game, a nativity scene on the town square, suing to get 'under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.).

Rubio might well be good with seasoning - his CPAC speech yesterday was outstanding, setting exactly the right tone.

But the actual candidates? Weak tea. Romney is probably the least worst, but gad!, they're awful!!

Better than Obama, but that's like saying better than Jimmy Carter, or better than Lenin or Hitler. Sure, it's true, but what a low standard!!

otolith wrote:The people, a whopping 50K worth of people who got out to vote, were predominantly the Christian conservatives. It was meant to send a message to the Republicans to get a better candidate than what's out there. Not that it matters in this state. We've been voting for Democratics when it comes to voting for Presidents for the last 50 yrs...

Yeah, but you also voted Jesse "the body of conspiracy nuttiness" Ventura as Governor.

course, Cali had Arnold...

bhodilee wrote:Yeah, but you also voted Jesse "the body of conspiracy nuttiness" Ventura as Governor.

course, Cali had Arnold...

What about Al Franken? Don't forget about him!

chemvictim wrote:What about Al Franken? Don't forget about him!

And Ole and Lena jokes!

PetiteSirah wrote:Isn't hopium what got us into this mess in the first place?

I was thinking unfunded wars in the middle east (among other things) had something to do with our current mess...

bhodilee wrote:I've always thought I'd like to live in Vancouver. I hear it's not like the rest of Canada (what that means I have no idea).

Yeah, it doesn't get cold and snowy there!

klezman wrote:I was thinking unfunded wars in the middle east (among other things) had something to do with our current mess...

See, I'm curious what we'll do with all that "saved cash" after we get out of Afghanistan next year. Is it going to be like my plan where once we pay off the cars we'll use the money to pay down all the other debt we've accumulated or someone else's plan which is buy a new car? In this case substitute Iran or Syria for car.

klezman wrote:Yeah, it doesn't get cold and snowy there!

Socialism and temperate climates? SIGN ME UP!

bhodilee wrote:Socialism and temperate climates? SIGN ME UP!

I hear housing is ridiculously expensive. But maybe that's old info and things have gotten better.

bhodilee wrote:See, I'm curious what we'll do with all that "saved cash" after we get out of Afghanistan next year. Is it going to be like my plan where once we pay off the cars we'll use the money to pay down all the other debt we've accumulated or someone else's plan which is buy a new car? In this case substitute Iran or Syria for car.

There is no "saved cash" - we just won't have to borrow quite so much. We're still digging the hole deeper and deeper....

rpm wrote:There is no "saved cash" - we just won't have to borrow quite so much. We're still digging the hole deeper and deeper....

We need to confiscate the shovels.

kylemittskus wrote:We need to confiscate the shovels.

or beat them with it

without the war spending how far upside down are we? I had hoped absent that wed be much closer to balanced

bhodilee wrote:or beat them with it

without the war spending how far upside down are we? I had hoped absent that wed be much closer to balanced

Surely you jest. If the proposed deficit is $1.3 trillion, cutting the war spending might knock off something under 10% of that.

It's the entitlements that cause the deficit spending, the entitlements and all the stimulus/boondoggle spending Obama has added.

coynedj wrote:I hear housing is ridiculously expensive. But maybe that's old info and things have gotten better.

Nope, that's still accurate.

rpm wrote:Surely you jest. If the proposed deficit is $1.3 trillion, cutting the war spending might knock off something under 10% of that.

It's the entitlements that cause the deficit spending, the entitlements and all the stimulus/boondoggle spending Obama has added.

He inherited crap and proceeded to allow it to ferment into worse smelling crap. My turn to sigh.

rpm wrote:It's a pity T-Paw and Daniels don't have the charisma necessary - they're both a reasonable balance of fiscal conservatism and responsible social conservatism -- which I define as personally encouraging traditional values as a choice for people to make and not something to be legislated and ending the almost silly hostility to public generic religious expression which gets everyone's knickers in a twist (voluntary prayers at a football game, a nativity scene on the town square, suing to get 'under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.).

Rubio might well be good with seasoning - his CPAC speech yesterday was outstanding, setting exactly the right tone.

But the actual candidates? Weak tea. Romney is probably the least worst, but gad!, they're awful!!

Better than Obama, but that's like saying better than Jimmy Carter, or better than Lenin or Hitler. Sure, it's true, but what a low standard!!

Godwin's law! Godwin's law!!

edlada wrote:Godwin's law! Godwin's law!!

Indeed, but I think this would have to be seen as a very weak form of the law, since it was actually a reference to a reference, and it used Hitler as an exemplar 'horrible' conjoined with Lenin for the express purpose of making the reference independent of left or right judgments of which was more horrible.

rpm wrote:Indeed, but I think this would have to be seen as a very weak form of the law, since it was actually a reference to a reference, and it used Hitler as an exemplar 'horrible' conjoined with Lenin for the express purpose of making the reference independent of left or right judgments of which was more horrible.

Yes, I did ponder the issue, certainly about the mildest invocation of the dreaded name I have seen in any forum but I decided the mention of Hitler in that context was enough under the definition. Henceforth the smiley!

I mean you are a lawyer, you should be familiar with hair splitting right?

It sucks to be a teacher lately. According to this bill, teachers can't do or say anything that you can't do on television. I skimmed the text and it does not appear to be limited to when the teacher is in the classroom, or even in public. Don't they have anything better to do in Arizona? This is stupid.

chemvictim wrote:It sucks to be a teacher lately. According to this bill, teachers can't do or say anything that you can't do on television. I skimmed the text and it does not appear to be limited to when the teacher is in the classroom, or even in public. Don't they have anything better to do in Arizona? This is stupid.

What can't you do or say on tv these days? I think the fcc's attempt to fine cbs affiliates over "nipplegate" was overturned so teachers could potentially "accidentally" flash themselves indecently.

It bothers me more because it serves 0 point, merely introduces further ways to rile up constituents and justify a few legislators' existence.

Since Married With Children, television has only become more explicit (if not, MUCH chocolate about interrogating actual issues of races and acrimony).

That bill is so blatantly in violation of the First Amendment that it would never be enacted. It appears to be a case of a common legislative act - the introduction of a bill not in hope of getting it passed but for the sole purpose of saying during an election campaign that "I introduced a bill to blah, blah, blah".

The sad thing is that such a bill would be considered beneficial to anyone's reelection prospects.

coynedj wrote:That bill is so blatantly in violation of the First Amendment that it would never be enacted. It appears to be a case of a common legislative act - the introduction of a bill not in hope of getting it passed but for the sole purpose of saying during an election campaign that "I introduced a bill to blah, blah, blah".

The sad thing is that such a bill would be considered beneficial to anyone's reelection prospects.

It's actually not as egregious as you make it out to be. Whether or not that SHOULD be the case is another issue.

But, in short, government employees have far more limited free speech rights (vis-a-vis government speech restrictions) than do private sector employees. Government-as-employer has a lot more leeway than Government-as-censor.

PetiteSirah wrote:It's actually not as egregious as you make it out to be. Whether or not that SHOULD be the case is another issue.

But, in short, government employees have far more limited free speech rights (vis-a-vis government speech restrictions) than do private sector employees. Government-as-employer has a lot more leeway than Government-as-censor.

Are you saying that the state government can decree that employees of other levels of government must by law be fired if they say things in the privacy of their own homes that could not be broadcast? That this is not an abridgement of free speech? I have said before that I'm no lawyer, but this would amaze me. Could they also decree that road crews, bus drivers, and maintenance people at public utilities must also be fired for saying a naughty, in a bar maybe? Or while singing along with a song playing on the CD in the car?

Please note that the bill does not say that the prohibited conduct is only prohibited in certain circumstances, such as while engaged in school-related activities or on school property. It is a blanket statement. And the inclusion of the term "conduct" would certainly imply that sexual relations of any sort at any time in any place can get one fired.

I realize I'm probably the only person in the wine.woot community who reads Transmetropolitan, but I'm starting to wonder if Rick Santorum was the basis for "The Smiler" in that series. They seem awfully similar to me.

bhodilee wrote:I realize I'm probably the only person in the wine.woot community who reads Transmetropolitan, but I'm starting to wonder if Rick Santorum was the basis for "The Smiler" in that series. They seem awfully similar to me.

I'm not a comic book person, but I looked it up and I agree. I really wish he would drop out of the race and take up a life of solitude far, far, away.

I'm going to do what I do best, and point out how horribly offensive this totally insaney is. What am I "for?" Really? Not for James Poulos to decide or even to question, that's for damn certain.

For my impending bug-out:
free states

This thread has been pretty quiet for a while. Time to stir things up.

A lot of people, including most of the Republican contenders for the presidential nomination, seem to be eager to go to war with Iran (the exception being the highly principled Ron Paul). This eagerness may be electioneering (“I’m the one who supports Israel the most!” “No you aren’t – I am! I’ll even go to war to prove it!”). It may be based on faulty information (it seems that the people who most uncritically supported war with Iraq because of their supposed WMD stockpile are the same ones leading the charge for war with Iran). It may be based on overestimation of how easy it would be to blow up their facilities and to keep them from building them back up with renewed vigor after an American or Israeli attack. And, of course, it may be based on an honest belief that Iran’s attainment of nuclear weapons would lead to a nuclear attack on Israel.

To judge by a recent nonbinding bill introduced in Congress, even a rigorously monitored nuclear power plant should be enough to bring about an attack from America.

What do people think about this? As to myself, this drumbeat for war seems borderline irrational. Are we really so eager to go to war AGAIN in the Middle East, based on conjectures and incomplete information, against a country with a larger population that Iraq and Afghanistan combined (and we all know how well our wars in those countries went)? Are we willing to put troops into ground combat? After all, an air strike alone would (according to the military and intelligence communities in the U.S. and Israel) not be enough to stop all nuclear work, and could in fact just kick them into hyper-drive to develop nuclear weapons.

Long-time readers know that I’m no fan of radical Islam. But going to war with everyone we don’t like isn’t a path I’m eager to go down.

coynedj wrote:This thread has been pretty quiet for a while. Time to stir things up.

A lot of people, including most of the Republican contenders for the presidential nomination, seem to be eager to go to war with Iran (the exception being the highly principled Ron Paul). This eagerness may be electioneering (“I’m the one who supports Israel the most!” “No you aren’t – I am! I’ll even go to war to prove it!”). It may be based on faulty information (it seems that the people who most uncritically supported war with Iraq because of their supposed WMD stockpile are the same ones leading the charge for war with Iran). It may be based on overestimation of how easy it would be to blow up their facilities and to keep them from building them back up with renewed vigor after an American or Israeli attack. And, of course, it may be based on an honest belief that Iran’s attainment of nuclear weapons would lead to a nuclear attack on Israel.

To judge by a recent nonbinding bill introduced in Congress, even a rigorously monitored nuclear power plant should be enough to bring about an attack from America.

What do people think about this? As to myself, this drumbeat for war seems borderline irrational. Are we really so eager to go to war AGAIN in the Middle East, based on conjectures and incomplete information, against a country with a larger population that Iraq and Afghanistan combined (and we all know how well our wars in those countries went)? Are we willing to put troops into ground combat? After all, an air strike alone would (according to the military and intelligence communities in the U.S. and Israel) not be enough to stop all nuclear work, and could in fact just kick them into hyper-drive to develop nuclear weapons.

Long-time readers know that I’m no fan of radical Islam. But going to war with everyone we don’t like isn’t a path I’m eager to go down.

I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing at this point -- I think we should have dealt with the Iranian nuclear program a long time ago, rather as the French and the British should have dealt with Hitler in 1936 when the Wehrmacht marched into the Rhineland. Now we face a situation much more like the line drawn at Poland by the Brits and French after giving away Czechoslovakia. No one wants a war, but whether or not a war comes depends on the behavior of people who have a habit of trying to break the rules and have been getting away with it.

The idea of another war -- especially with the militarily incompetent Democrats in charge -- seems to me a very bad idea. The question is whether a war with Iran is worse than a nuclear armed Iran. For the US, it's a close question, since it threatens the balance of power in Southwest Asia and the Middle East, threatens the oil supplies of our European allies, and threatens our allies.

Yet, we're not the only key actor here. Israel has a very different perspective on what is and is not tolerable. Their appetite for the kind of risk nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs (who have vowed to wipe Israel off the map) represents is unsurprisingly limited. Even if the probability that the Iranians would actually pop a nuke on Israel is fairly low, the consequences for that small and densely populated country would be catastrophic. I think the Israelis take the Iranians seriously when they threaten Israel's existence, and I think both we and the Iranians should take the Israelis seriously when they say "Never Again!" This does not bode well for a peaceful outcome.

The real issue is whether the coming conflict will remain conventional or whether someone will pop a nuke or several. If the Iranians were to use a nuke (or to give one to Syria or Hezbollah), even a small one, I would not give a farthing for the survival prospects of any Iranian within 50 miles of a major military or population center.

Given all of this, I oppose a war, but think it inevitable - which means it should be fought insofar as possible on our terms, not the Iranians.

The most frightening thing about this is that in the interest of avoiding a bloody conventional war with Iran over the past decade, the situation has been allowed to get to the point there is a substantial risk nuclear weapons will be used, and used on a strategic rather than tactical scale.

What would be worse, the use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity (which is probably what it would take at this point) that might kill hundreds of thousands, or having a the Iranians or their surrogates use a nuke on the Israelis, triggering a strategic nuclear response from Israel which would kill tens of millions?

No good choices here! For us, or the Israelis. It's really in the hands of the Iranians, who have showed no inclination to back down.

chemvictim wrote:For my impending bug-out:
free states

And by the way, my current home state of South Dakota is supposedly the second-freest state but it has never been on a woot wine ship-to list.

Methinks the criteria must be incorrect!

coynedj wrote:This thread has been pretty quiet for a while. Time to stir things up.

A lot of people, including most of the Republican contenders for the presidential nomination, seem to be eager to go to war with Iran (the exception being the highly principled Ron Paul). This eagerness may be electioneering (“I’m the one who supports Israel the most!” “No you aren’t – I am! I’ll even go to war to prove it!”). It may be based on faulty information (it seems that the people who most uncritically supported war with Iraq because of their supposed WMD stockpile are the same ones leading the charge for war with Iran). It may be based on overestimation of how easy it would be to blow up their facilities and to keep them from building them back up with renewed vigor after an American or Israeli attack. And, of course, it may be based on an honest belief that Iran’s attainment of nuclear weapons would lead to a nuclear attack on Israel.

To judge by a recent nonbinding bill introduced in Congress, even a rigorously monitored nuclear power plant should be enough to bring about an attack from America.

What do people think about this? As to myself, this drumbeat for war seems borderline irrational. Are we really so eager to go to war AGAIN in the Middle East, based on conjectures and incomplete information, against a country with a larger population that Iraq and Afghanistan combined (and we all know how well our wars in those countries went)? Are we willing to put troops into ground combat? After all, an air strike alone would (according to the military and intelligence communities in the U.S. and Israel) not be enough to stop all nuclear work, and could in fact just kick them into hyper-drive to develop nuclear weapons.

Long-time readers know that I’m no fan of radical Islam. But going to war with everyone we don’t like isn’t a path I’m eager to go down.

We should have gone to war with them instead of Iraq in the first place. Saddam was a megalomaniac. He most likely wasn't a serious threat to us. Iran on the other hand is a direct threat to everyone and should have been dealt with long ago as RPM points out. Problem is, Iran isn't an easy "victory" like Iraq due to many factors like "terrain."

I think it wouldn't take much to foster a civil war in that country. From everything I've ever read the young people in Iran basically despise the ruling class, but he ruling class is so brutal you just can't do anything about it.

I don't think we get anywhere with direct conflict, but if we could foment, then support an insurrection that'd be alright. Of course, the CIA has a long keystone cops type history with this

If we do go in guns blazing though we can't tarry. That's what doomed us in Iraq. They loved us until a certain point. Like when Uncle Henry comes over for the Holidays and everyone is all like, Henry is awesome, I'm gonna get plastered with Uncle H. But then two weeks later everyone is like, JUST GO HOME UNCLE HENRY WE'RE SICK OF YOU.