Pangloss

Sure, but the question was actually when it's okay to change your country's constitution in order to run for another term in office.

Well, that goes back to the point I made in post #3 about constitutionality. He'd have a point, but he would also be incorrect, by way of the caveat I brought up and Aardvark supported, which is that there's no objective measurement of what (if you'll forgive the pun) constitutes a constitution.

Let's not go down the old "please re-read" road, if we can help it. Maybe you could go into greater detail about how you feel the technical merits of missile defense from a staging area in the Czech Republic? I'd be interested. Israel already has ballistic missile defense, btw.

One point twenty-one gigawatts??!!

Very much so. In fact if it weren't for Iraq and the chickens finally coming home to roost on gas prices, he would probably be enjoying Clinton-esque approval ratings right now, and likely with a Republican majority in Congress. Very much like the situation in 1940. In fact, had Saddam actually had nukes ready to roll, you could add an ongoing war to the list of similarities as well. Fortunately for the ABB crowd, we now have the 22nd amendment. (And so we will have our first two-term president to be seen as a "failure" since Ulyses S. Grant, who, ironically, did run for a third term.)

When do we start?

I wonder how we would feel if the Russians were to build one of their fully-functional ABM systems in Cuba.

Not Dewey (but perhaps I should have brought up the '44 election in my previous post as well). FDR was the closest thing we have had to a demagogic dictator, yes. But only because the actions he took were legal as well as popular. Demagogic dictators are also very popular, of course, but they're not democratic.

I just don't think it can be dismissed out of hand like that, iNow. We're going to have to dig a little deeper. What is the cost of protection of a missile defense system on a per-person basis? I don't know, but it seems worth looking at.

T. Boone Pickens made headlines yesterday regarding his new wind power venture. Today he writes in the Wall Street Journal, explaining his overall energy strategy from an investor's perspective. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556087828237463.html?mod=djemEditorialPage line[/hr] US Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt writes about Congress' lobby-driven efforts to stop competitive bidding in Medicare equipment purchasing for the elderly. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556116413437535.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

For what it's worth, this is at least a semi-serif font. Note the serifs on the capital "I".

Rofl, I'm not sure what's more complicated, Alan's puzzle or Sayo's mod note.

Well I think you were just being humorous, but I can't let that comparison pass. At the time there was no law against running for a third term, just a tradition dating back to Washington that the 30 (?) presidents after him had followed. But of course none of those previous presidents were leading the country through war when his second term expired. And even so FDR said he wouldn't run; he was drafted by the delegates at the convention. And, most importantly, he had an opponent in a real, honest-to-god election that fall (10 pts if you can name him without looking it up, playas! (one of my favorite sports-bar-trivia questions, hehe)). Anyway, that makes him quite unlike, for example, Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe.

I don't understand. Why wouldn't that have any relevance to the technical issue? The Aegis-Standard system is the ones that shot down that malfunctioning satellite recently, btw. THAT's not relevant, of course, just an interesting example of the system's capabilities. Regarding the politics of the issue, it's worth noting that Russia actually HAS a deployed domestic ballistic missile defense system in operation. As do we. Neither covers more than a fraction of the respective country. But the issue here, as I see it, is really whether the Czech Republic is to be allowed to have one.

Nah they'll use scrith. Much easier to work with; all you need is an appropriately-sized cziltang brone.

I find myself oddly agreeing with virtually every post in this thread.

That's what I'm thinking, that it's going to be $1 billion vs $86 million. The third-party spending will be a lot more balanced, but I'm not sure if that's a positive sign or a negative one.

I've no idea who was there; it doesn't really say.

Holy cow!!!! When the heck did THIS happen?! I had no idea we'd invaded the Czech Republic and were installing missile systems there against their will! How come I've not heard about this in the news? Were there any casualties?? Probly had something to do with those Czech weapons of mass destruction. Damn that Václav Hussein Klaus! If only he'd submitted to UN mandates demanding inspections! That's okay, though, we can pay for it with all that Czech oil, and we needed another star on the flag to balance out the rows after we annexed Iraq and Afghanistan anyway. Yes, well I don't know if it's inertia or just a desire to keep feeding the military-industrial complex with worthless-but-expensive projects. I agree with this sentiment, however. I also think domestic missile interception strategies are not worth the cost, though I might support a limited application of them under the right plan. This is also a good observation, IMO. These are the boys we have to dance with, though, so we might as well get used to it.

An interesting New York Times editorial today suggests that perhaps the main reason Obama has been getting so much of its money from small donors is because it just hasn't had time for the big wallets yet. In fact one Obama staffer actually said so: Well they seem to be finding time for them now. The Times piece focuses on a fundraiser in Atlanta last night. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/obama-campaign-reaps-gilded-haul/ My my. So much for campaign finance reform.

Perhaps we can look to the American "founding fathers" for an answer. Below is the little-known "second and a half" amendment to the Constitution: <scratches head> Okay, maybe not.

Thank you for answering my question. That's fine, unfortunately the tariffs and subsidies are firmly entrenched, with zero political movement in that direction. Both presidential candidates are talking about increasing protectionism, and most of the protectors of Big Sugar are Democrats, who are predicted to increase their control over Congress. These things spell a long road for removing those subsidies. But my back yard gets fixed in six years, period. So I respect your opinion on it, and I admit you make some interesting points, but I think this deal makes a lot of sense.

I'm not defending it, I'm saying it's one of the standard complaints. It has been used as the basis for frequent criticism against Hugo Chavez, for example.

Fair enough, but your podium pounding won't clean up my back yard. You're preaching to the choir, and you haven't answered my question, which is why we should assume that such a removal of subsidies would immediately cause the Florida cane sugar industry to fail and its land revert to the state. You haven't made that case at all, but it is your contention that that's what would happen.

No, but bombs aren't as easily limited to just killing the suicider.