waitforufo

Hans Blix or equivalent to the rescue? I'm sure Iran trembles at the thought of getting a stern letter from the UN.

The OP states that "most world powers don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb." I'm simply stating two of the obvious whys. Your links do not imply that the US wants the death of Iran. The US is applying sanctions to change the behavior of Iran, not to cause it's death. Similarly with Israel. Israel is not suggesting that it wants to wipe Iran off the map, it is stating that it will take military action to stop Iran from getting nukes. There is a big difference between those two statements. Iran states as frequently as possible that it intends to wipe Israel off the map. Military action is a natural response to when another country makes such statement while working to build nukes and ICBMs. That is why we are there negotiating with Iran. If Iran would accept international controls on its nuclear material, it can have all the nuclear power it wants. Gee thanks!

Perhaps Iran should be considered different from others with regard to nukes. I don't recall the US calling for the death of Iran, but Iran never misses the opportunity to call for the death of America. Also I don't recall Israel calling for Iran to be wiped off the map, but again Iran never misses the opportunity to call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Your list above matches up nicely with mine listed in post 327. So the KKK, created by the Democratic party, continues with the traditional Democratic party positions. Are you surprised? The Democrats made the KKK. They own the mess they created. Nice try, but the Republican party will never own that stink or shame.

and men's right to sexually exploit women.

You don't think money in politics is a problem? Who has deeper pockets than Uncle Sam? John Lewis was in Selma on Bloody Sunday fighting for civil rights. Something Republicans had been fight for since it's founding. He was fighting Democrats and their terrorist arm the KKK.

It seems to me that you confirmed the topic name here.

So please, where is your log comparable list of Republican party racist actions. You know, pulled off by the great savior of the Democratic Party Dick Nixon and his successors? Do Democratic voters and politicians simply stop being racists when the become Republicans? You should be able to give some examples. The US will be remembered for at least three great racist epochs. 1) Slavery 2) Jim Crow 3) Welfare All three perpetrated by the Democratic party. The insane thing is that Democrats just cant acknowledge the third as racism and all they have to do is read Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Racist epoch number 3 above.

My favorite part of your above quote is "it is clear that the racist southern vein vote Republican today" To me it says the Democratic party can change by individuals can't. What is it with liberals that you just can't see individuals, but only groups. Both you and Overtone have a hard time staying on topic. Again, why are conservatives insane and what should be done about it. But since you insist. For your reading pleasure. Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery. Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery. Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision. Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers. Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well-known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage. Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans. Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces. Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson. Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever. Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools. Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act. Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King. Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI. Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation. Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67. Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. By the way everything after 1959 occurred during my lifetime. Not ancient history. Just yesterday really. How some people choose to forget.

What still no solutions? Still whining? Try being a little more creative. But since you bring it up I can't help myself. So you really think Richard Nixon was the savior of the Democratic party? All by him self did it really erase all that Democratic party history? From slavery, sedition, succession, the revolutionary war, Jim crow, lynching, segregation, etc.? Did Nixon wipe from the history books that the KKK was the terrorist arm of the National Democratic Party? All that wiped away by Richard Nixon? Even the taint? No kidding? From the slave owning of the party founder Thomas Jefferson, to slavery promoter John C. Calhoun, to KKK member Robert Byrd, and segregationist George Wallace all suddenly irrelevant? Wow, you must think of old Dick Nixon as the pied piper of the Democratic party. Isn't this topic about Conservatives being mildly insane?

Better check your history books about the origins of slavery and Jim Crow. Both are firmly enshrined in the Democratic party. you're welcome

I think we can all acknowledge that the camps will be almost exclusively white and males. That should actually expedite the process. I think you need to go look at the map showed earlier. Those insane folks have a lot of room to roam. In fact looking at that map I would say the opposite of the above is true. Sure they have their own agenda, but stopping the sane is right their at the top of their list. By having work camps we can change their exercise from chasing weed smokers to generating electricity. Listening to phone calls? Who is doing that at the moment? Somewhat insane. Isn't that like being a little pregnant? Which brings to mind other possible solutions. Political eugenics. Brilliant. Acme requested solutions in post 302, after 301 posts of whining examples of conservative insanity. I don't think the whining is working. At least I'm providing solutions to the insanity. You are just moping. Now who's world view is on display. I like the "spawn of evils" comment the best. Now not insane, but evil. But who was more insane/evil than Ronald Reagan? I seem to recall old Ronnie having quite the affinity for the US Military. Funny how we are still free. The above whining won't fix a thing. I read "quit adding to the means" as doing less then nothing toward a solution. Come on, you can do better than that. edit----- Hey, Didn't Ronnie get in trouble for calling people evil? In fact I think it was an entire country. Overtone and Ronnie. Birds of a feather.

Yeah, I'm sure the conservatives felt something very similar when Bush was elected after Reagan. All nonsense. The pendulum swings. The danger today however is that when it swings back those insane Conservatives will take control of Obama's pen and phone. Chaos! Yep, for the safety of the sane (aka progressives), we will just have to lock them down in re-education work camps. Besides those conservatives like work. It sets them free. Oh Yeah, stay on topic. As Acme states in post 302 the topic is why do conservatives behave the way they do (insane) and what can be done about it.

Not true. Those insane folks think that a government that does nothing does best. I with the Senate they can stop the appointment of any judge.

What you actually said was..... We have three co-equal branches of government. If they don't work together nothing happens. Nothing happening is what those insane conservatives want. Look at that map again. Don't count the insane out yet. I said camps not ghettos. To protect progressives against the insane you need a lock a key. That's the only way to stop the insane from anti-progressive-activities. You are not looking at the big picture. The education is simply to help them understand the necessity of keeping them locked up. To explain the need of their work walking on the big electrical generating treadmill whenever the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. A frequent forced watching of "An Inconvenient Truth" will help them appreciate the virtue of their labor. Before you know it we will be living in a progressive paradise.

You don't understand how Senators get elected?

You are right. Taking away there wealth and capacity to make wealth simply isn't enough. I know, we can re-educate them as well. So we don't waste to much money on the effort we should first concentrate them in camps and make them work to pay for there education. By concentrating them in camps we can also keep them away from their guns. Last leg? Perhaps you missed the last election. The sooner we round them up, take there wealth, and stick them in re-education concentration camps the better.

Why do they behave the way they do? Because they have jobs and money. What can be done about it? Take away there jobs and money. Is that the obvious answer you are looking for? What other answer could a liberal possibly want?

Perhaps if the subject of this topic should be asked a different way. Instead of “Why is the female crowd not attracted to STEM Fields”, the question should be “Why aren’t more women pursuing Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral degrees in STEM fields?” To answer that alternate question one might first want to start with “Why does anyone attend a college or university?” One obvious reason would be to gain further knowledge in a field of personal interest. Another would be to gain knowledge in a field with future high earning potential. Still another might be to improve a personal understanding of the human condition and our place in the universe. There are many other reasons as well. Many of them have to do with who attends colleges and universities and what motivates those individuals. I would imagine that the vast majority of those studying for Bachelor’s degrees are students between that ages of 19 and 25. So what motivates 19 to 25 year olds? Sure they have personal fields of interest, desire for future earning potential, and yearning to understand the human condition better, but are those there primary motivators? Perhaps their interests are more social. Perhaps they are also motivated by procreation. How would this impact the fields that they study? Now imagine you are a 19 year old choosing a field of study. Would you choose a field of study dominated by the opposite sex? How many friendships are you going to form with your classmates? Will these friendships have sexual tension? Are you comfortable with that? Will studying in a field dominated by the opposite sex encourage or discourage same sex friendships with those studying in other fields? Is that a positive or a negative? Will it help you succeed or fail in your studies? How will this opposite sex dominance impact your social motivations? How important are those motivations to you, a 19 to 25 year old? Now let’s consider an individual’s desire to procreate. Does future earning potential motivate women in the same way as men in our culture? Does future earning potential make women more attractive to potential mates? Does it make men? How important is answer to that question to a person that feels their sexual attractiveness needs a major upgrade? Finally, how sexually attracted is the 19 to 25 year old in question to the opposite sex members dominating the potential field of study? How would selecting a typical member of that group impact their social interactions with others? Perhaps the solution to attracting more women to STEM fields is to make the men studying in STEM fields more sexually attractive to 19 to 25 year old women. Future earning potential may not be enough for women 19 to 25 years olds. Perhaps the men that study STEM fields should be assigned personal physical trainers and be required to also study the social graces.

I love how you blame the blue dogs for every folly of the democratic party but see no hypocrisy in your comments about republicans. I'm done. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Well, If what I provided didn't dismiss the fact that Newt was never a "key contender for president" then you can't be convinced. Newt is a Republican. He can run for president as a Republican. Sure there was an off chance that he might have pulled off an upset. The fact that he did not shows his opinions are moot as far as Republicans are concerned. Newt is a side show. He is not even under the big top. This is a much stronger argument. Romney was the standard bearer. Oops, got a meeting.

Republicans primaries for president are simply a coronation of the party selected candidate that has shown longstanding party loyalty. Name one surprise Republican presidential candidate since Ford? The purpose of Republican presidential primaries is primarily to select the next presidential candidate and/or the vice president. If their presidential candidate does not win the vice presidential candidate generally is not considered the automatic heir apparent. That generally falls to the party loyalist also ran. Yes, there could be a surprise candidate that wins but when has it last happened? That is why I said that Obama knew who is likely opponent would be for his second term. Newt's last run was simply a desperate attempt on his part to get back into the game. He is currently an outcast in the Republican party. This outcast status was only worsened by his presidential run. Why do you think he is now on crossfire? Knowing that, my guess is knowing Romney would be is opponent helped Obama pick up ACA. My comprehension on this matter is complete. If a party doesn't have a majority they have no power to move their agenda. Do you disagree with this? Obviously the Democrats do because they keep the Blue Dogs in their ranks. What part of that don't you comprehend? I also appreciate that some politicians are influenced by the financial/insurance industry. Politicians in both parties. Democrats caved to these interest in creating ACA. You know, just based on the above comment from you I'm surprised you don't go along with my opinion that it's all a circus provided for our entertainment. No, not the Clintons. No, not Obama. No not Al Gore, but he is still just a spoiled Senator's child. I'm sure you will have no problem selecting your own idiot republicans. If he hadn't become an independent I would have offered up Jim Jeffords. Republicans constantly had to keep there thumb on him making sure he didn't expose his stupidity in public. That dropped away as soon and he became an independent and he started sounding like Baghdad Bob. From my state, Patty Murray and Jim McDermott. Yes these are Democrats but the Democratic party does not hold a monopoly on idiots. These idiots are in congress simply because their parties want majorities. More of the circus. One more step and you will see it is all just for our entertainment. We have been conversing in this way for only a short time. While it is off topic, please list all the conspiracies I have been seeing or promoting. Nixon worked diligently as a party insider after losing to Kennedy. This party loyalty payed off with the nomination. Reagan was picked after he bowed out and through his political clout behind Ford. There you go again with your "southern strategy" slander. Gee how did Nixon miss the Blue Dogs? Nixon's southern strategy simply pulled Democrats tired of racism over the Lincolns party of freedom. It was the beginning of the end for the solid Democratic South and 40 years of Democratic majorities. Perhaps this is the driving force behind your slander. Romney was picked for the same reason as Reagan. He bowed out before he damaged the heir apparent and he worked to get Bush elected. McCain is and has always been a loyal Republican, but on this one you are likely correct. Bob Dole is the most interesting case. I did not know one Republican that thought he could win. Clinton was very vulnerable. Almost any Republican could have beat him. Dole's long standing party loyalty made him the heir apparent and the rest is history. In conclusion, Newt is a has-been Republican. The party pays no attention to him because he is all about Newt. He held no office in 2005. His opinions about ACA are irrelevant to the Republican Party.

Key contender? I don't know a single Republican or conservative that thought he would win the nomination. I don't even remember how many states or delegates he won. Did he even make it past the spring primaries? I always personally speculated that the Democrats picked the Massachusetts health care plan because they knew Romney would be Obama's second term contender. Republicans have a bad habit of picking presidential candidates based on party loyalty in stead of electability. That explains Nixon, Reagan, Bob Dole, Romney and I am sure others. By going against Romney, Gingrich just further angered republican leaders. Gingrich had little chance of wining the nomination.

Newt Gingrich was not in congress in 2005, and has-been Republican is more like it. (Does anyone really listen to Jimmy Carter anymore.) State level plans are just that, state level. Edit....... Sorry I didn't see the rest of your post. I meant no insult by paraphrase or informed speculation. I assumed your comments were genuine, informed, and on the mark. By the way, one could look at your video and say ACA is just a planned bait and switch by the Democrats. In effect lets create a plan that is bound to fail and then the pliable public will be ready for single payer. Maybe not such a bad plan, but if it fails too fast the public may be turned off to any federal health care plan. Remember that I have often said single payer would be much better than ACA.

Yes, thank you, and no my OP was not intentional misrepresentation. So there were Republican bills two decades ago that died in committee. Thank you. I appreciate your Obama comment was informed speculation or a paraphrase but it clearly points out that Obama picked up this then 14 year old legislation that died in committee and promoted it. Does he then not bear the responsibility for it? This all seems a bit conspiratorial to me. iNow's explanation is much more straight forward. Our political universe is divided into Democrats and Republicans along with the coalitions they form. That is how legislation gets moved to passage. That is also why both parties push candidates with known low IQ's. Stupid people vote as they are told and the parties need majorities to pass legislation. I don't it find confusing at all. It appears to me that you have described ACA as a Democratic party bill cobbled together to gain enough support from the Democratic Party and their coalition partners for passage. It doesn't matter that some Democrats held there noses when voting yes. They voted yes. They cobbled together the coalition, they scheduled the vote, and they passed it. No Republicans participated. From these two posts, if I may be afforded the luxury of my own informed speculation, Obama picked up an old dead bill and promoted it under the idea that Republicans would have to vote for it since it was their old dead bill. My recollection is that from the beginning of his Presidency Republicans said no to this. So Obama and his party held out to the bitter end and passed into law something that no Republican voted for and even Democrats thought it wasn't a particularly good plan. True?