The Friday Political Thread: "We Are All Neville Chamberlain Now" Edition

I'm on Inside Washington Weekly with esteemed Orange Line Mafia members Jamie Kirchick, Amanda Carpenter, and host David White. (I don't think any of us actually live on the Orange Line.) And if you live in or close to D.C., be sure to RSVP for reason's forum on the libertarian vote with Mike Gravel, Bobb Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, and Vern McKinley.

Unconvincing Quote of the Week
"Conservatism is alive and well in America; don’t let anyone tell you differently. And by conservatism, I don’t mean the warmed-over 'raise your hand if you believe …' kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle." - Fred Thompson, making his... uh... comeback.

The Week in Brief
- Bob Barr officially tossed his chapeau in the ring for the Libertarian Party nomination.
- Hillary Clinton ground Barack Obama into dust in the West Virginia primary, carrying all 55 counties.
- Republicans lost their third straight special election of the year as Democrat Travis Childers took Mississippi's first district—a seat whose voters went 62-37 for Bush over Kerry.
- John Edwards endorsed Obama. (The only ex-candidates who haven't endorsed so far are, I think, Biden and Kucinich.)
- The Senate passed the farm bill.
- George W. Bush baited Barack Obama into a three-way battle on foreign policy with John McCain. One of these guys, of course, would pop Cristal if his approval rating broke 30 percent.
- The Huckabee for vice president boomlet came to a thudding end.
- Mike Gravel and Wayne Allyn Root debated on Fox Business:

Below the Fold
- The people behind "Stop Her Now," claiming they've "cancelled her show," launch "Stop Him Now."
- Congress's lone atheist endorses Obama.
- RiShawn Biddle takes on the black church.
- Bill Kauffman reviews Ron Paul.
- Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Barr, and three other LP candidates get profiled (briefly) by Fortune.
- J. Patrick Coolican talks with Rick Perlstein, author of the brilliant Nixonland.
- FDR never talked to Hitler, except when he did.
- Brian Beutler accuses McCain of selling out vets.

I couldn't find a copy of the Robert Fripp-produced and enhanced "Hammond Song" by the Roches, so he's a folkier version for Politics 'n' Prog.

SATURDAY UPDATE: Bob Barr responds to Mike Huckabee:

Mike Huckabee showed incredibly poor taste when he joked about a gun pointed at Senator Barack Obama. His words were reckless, callous and harmful to the sports men and women of America and to those of us who fully support the Second Amendment.

Every candidate for public office inflames the passions of people who fervently disagree with them. To suggest, as Governor Huckabee did, the misuse of a fire arm toward a political candidate is reckless. His attitude toward proper, legal and safe use of fire arms was demeaning to all of us who advocate the right to bear arms. His reprehensible use of a threatening and violent scenario involving a firearm at the NRA's National Convention was vile beyond belief.

I call on all supporters of the Second Amendment and all supporters of civil discourse in our political races to demand a public apology from Governor Huckabee.

He knows whereof he speaks.

Comments

Elemenope | May 16, 2008, 6:03pm | #

FDR never talked to Hitler, except when he did.

A judicious application of salt in the wounds of historically-misinformed retards; well done.

brotherben | May 16, 2008, 6:10pm | #

This just in: Huckabee jokes about Obama diving for cover because someone is aiming a gun at him. Remarks are made at an NRA fundraiser.

Sandy | May 16, 2008, 6:10pm | #

A Hammond song without an organ? Blasphemy.

Kolohe | May 16, 2008, 6:11pm | #

When FDR talked to Hitler, McCain was almost 2 years old. And Obama's *mother* hadn't even been born yet.

The only point of the sentences above is to link to this.

My latest favorite: The area code is younger than John McCain.

Kolohe | May 16, 2008, 6:15pm | #

I reversed Aug and Sept when I looked at the dates, McCain had already had his 2nd birthday when the telegram was sent.

Aresen | May 16, 2008, 6:25pm | #

I'm no fan of FDR, but I have to admire his use of language in that document.

It is clear without oversimplification, does not attempt to intimidate, and does not contain bluster.

One wishes that either the current president or any of his would be successors were half so eloquent.

Jorgen | May 16, 2008, 6:32pm | #

Why does anyone take Wayne Allen Root seriously? His whole candidacy is based on the idea that he's the only one who can communicate effectively, but listening to him talk makes me want to smash my own head in with a hammer.

JimmyChanga | May 16, 2008, 7:01pm | #

listening to him talk makes me want to smash my own head in with a hammer

Effectiveness: judge only by the amazing results.

Colin Clout | May 16, 2008, 7:07pm | #

Do Bush's comments actually help Obama?

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter | May 16, 2008, 7:54pm | #

"The two points I sought to emphasize were, first, that all matters of difference between the German Government and the Czechoslovak Government could and should be settled by pacific methods; and, second, that the threatened alternative of the use of force on a scale likely to result in a general war is as unnecessary as it is unjustifiable. It is, therefore, supremely important that negotiations should continue without interruption until a fair and constructive solution is reached."

Damn Neville Chamberlain - oh wait - I forgot, that is FDR. It's OK then I guess.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | May 16, 2008, 7:57pm | #

"The Government of the United States has no political involvements in Europe, and will assume no obligations in the conduct of the present negotiations."

How odd it is to read those words.

jtuf | May 16, 2008, 7:57pm | #

Some of people make a big deal about age during elections, but I don't buy it. Remember, don't trust anyone over 30? Now it's don't trust anyone over 70. I'm sure around 2015 the newspapers will be full of articles about how fit people in their 70's can be.

Adolf Hitler | May 16, 2008, 7:58pm | #

I suppose it's okay to admit it now: Franklin and I were gay lovers.

The People's Righteous Friday Political Thread | May 16, 2008, 8:09pm | #

1. Dave Weigel should get drunk and then ask McCain about one of his fun foreign links.

2. Then, he should take a cab to a BHO appearance and ask Obama one of these questions.

3. Then, he should top up and ask Bob Barr why he sounds like McCain on McCain's most vulnerable issue.

4. The preceeding three suggestions will, of course, never happen. Weigel is no MaxBlumenthal!

4. Prog sufferers will note that RickWakeman used to dress like this, he just didn't look anywhere near as good.

Neil | May 16, 2008, 8:24pm | #

The best anti-Obama ad yet!

Squeal | May 16, 2008, 8:46pm | #

I can't wait to hear Neil when the ads come out attacking drug-addict-thief Cindy McCain. The wives are fair game now, right?

joe | May 16, 2008, 8:49pm | #

For the entire adult lives of every Republican holding office, all they had to do was raise military or foreign policy issues in a way that cast aspersions on the Democrats, and they carried the day.

And now it doesn't work.

What happens to a one-trick pony when it can't do it's trick anymore?

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | May 16, 2008, 8:54pm | #

"I can't wait to hear Neil when the ads come out attacking drug-addict-thief Cindy McCain. The wives are fair game now, right?"

One way John McCain could deal with this is to come out against the War on Drugs and cite personal experience with the unintended consequences of the Drug War as what opened his eyes on that issue.

MK2 | May 16, 2008, 9:11pm | #

Kauffman's review of Ron Paul's silly book is a piece of soft-ball tripe.

Elemenope | May 16, 2008, 9:20pm | #

One way John McCain could deal with this is to come out against the War on Drugs and cite personal experience with the unintended consequences of the Drug War as what opened his eyes on that issue.

But he won't, because this isn't Bizarro America.

Travis | May 16, 2008, 9:47pm | #

"Adolf Hitler | May 16, 2008, 7:58pm | #
I suppose it's okay to admit it now: Franklin and I were gay lovers."

I knew it! A country full of hot german chics & Hitler goes for a old crippled man.

Happy Jack | May 16, 2008, 10:23pm | #

I can deal with an obsession about MexicanInvaders. I can deal with an obsession about Boston Market cornbread. But Natalie Merchant, now that is what I call aural terrorism.

BakedPenguin | May 16, 2008, 11:33pm | #

...think [Obama is] responsible for bringing millions of new voters, new Democrats into the party, and I haven't seen that kind of movement among young voters since I first ran and saw (George) McGovern do the same thing in 1972...

Wow. I don't know if that's the best example for Pete Stark to use.

kwais | May 17, 2008, 1:26am | #

Well, here is why I could never vote for Obama then. I actually didn't dislike the guy that much before this.

From the link:

Obama supports extending the assault weapons ban, limits on gun sales, and a national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel.

kwais | May 17, 2008, 1:39am | #

Travis | May 16, 2008, 9:47pm | #
"Adolf Hitler | May 16, 2008, 7:58pm | #
I suppose it's okay to admit it now: Franklin and I were gay lovers."

I knew it! A country full of hot german chics & Hitler goes for a old crippled man.

Well, they were pretty with their clothes on and all, but they had nasty hairy armpits, and big hairy unkempt bush.

Every watch any old school European porn? It is not pretty.

tarylcabot | May 17, 2008, 1:44am | #

The studio version of the Hammond Song - with fripperies - is available from You Tube. nothing to look at except the album cover - so not much fun to look at - but it does exist.

roches never equaled that first album as a trio.

Edward | May 17, 2008, 1:50am | #

Kwais

Somebody should stick your gun up your ass and pull the trugger.

shecky | May 17, 2008, 2:14am | #

Only appeasers duck when somebody points a gun at them.

kwais | May 17, 2008, 2:29am | #

I just watched the debate between Wayne Allen Root, and Gravel. Man that was about a disappointing debate. Various orders of magnitude more disappointing that Ron Paul's most disappointing debate performance.

And I was very disappointed by many of Ron Paul's debate performances.

Seriously those two said NOTHING. I don't think anyone anywhere was interested in what they were talking about.

kwais | May 17, 2008, 2:39am | #

Edward, why the vitriol?

I didn't insult your favorite ambulance chaser for president.

Are you disappointed that I won't be voting for Obama?

Or that I think the Bill of Rights is important? Like maybe a constitutional scholar should have read the constitution?

Or maybe you are married to a hairy German chick? Aah, yes, if that is what floats your boat, more power too you.

shecky | May 17, 2008, 2:51am | #

Kwais:

Does Obama actually support those things? I know the CNN page says so, but one thing I've noted so far from him is the general lack of specifics regarding gun control issues, this would seem a major revelation. I'm wondering if that was just a laundry list of standard rallying cries from the NRA convention, instead.

Bramblyspam | May 17, 2008, 3:34am | #

On the issues: Obama on gun control.

Doesn't sound like your kind of guy, kwais.

hlm | May 17, 2008, 6:05am | #

Why does Reason sponsor a debate regarding the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination without inviting any of the actual libertarians seeking the nomination?

Instead you pick a Leftist, a neocon and a theocon. No libertarians. This is the first time I've really be disappointed with you guys.

VM | May 17, 2008, 9:53am | #

hlm:

they originally had James Watts's coal committee, but they were busy...

P Brooks | May 17, 2008, 10:20am | #

Obama now has ads in Montana touting his devotion to preserving some nebulous "western way of life." An obvious reference to guns; it's all about the "sportsmen."


Somehow, I suspect if you asked him point-blank(!) if he favors the individual's right to keep a handgun in easy reach, he would run, stuttering and stammering, for the hills.

joe | May 17, 2008, 10:24am | #

kwais,

I don't think any new gun control laws are in the cards, regardless of Barack Obama's personal opinions. The Democrats owe their majority to pro-gun candidates in the mountain west, southwest, midwest, and the outlying areas of blue states.

I also wouldn't take anyone's prognostications about his position on issues at face value. He's spend the primary season being the cipher, so people just project their own opinions onto him, favorable or un-.

Bramblyspam | May 17, 2008, 10:46am | #

It sounds to me like Obama's main concern with guns is stopping all the inner-city shootings. He doesn't sound like a Brady-style anti-gun crusader type. His rhetoric sounds pretty reasonable.

However, the bottom line is "how does he vote" - and his track record there is pretty definitively anti-gun. Perhaps he'll moderate his views now that he's seeking to represent rural/western people as well as inner-city Chicagoans, but it would be wishful thinking at this point to count on that.

I don't think gun legislation is a high priority for Obama, but if an overwhelmingly democratic congress passes some harsh anti-gun legislation, it's a pretty fair bet that he'd sign it.

P Brooks | May 17, 2008, 11:19am | #

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is planning to spend sixty million dollars building a big new prison in Afghanistan; a monument to American exceptionalism, one might say.

J sub D | May 17, 2008, 11:36am | #

I can't wait to hear Neil when the ads come out attacking drug-addict-thief Cindy McCain. The wives are fair game now, right?

The London blitz ----> Dresden.
Yeah, it's gonna get really ugly. The McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Incumbent Protection Act is partly responsible for the coarsening of political advertising.

J sub D | May 17, 2008, 11:52am | #

I don't think gun legislation is a high priority for Obama, but if an overwhelmingly democratic congress passes some harsh anti-gun legislation, it's a pretty fair bet that he'd sign it.

Nancy Pelosi would never allow that to happen.

joe | May 17, 2008, 12:00pm | #

Obama could lock up the election tomorrow, if he gave even a moderately-pro-gun policy speech. Expand on his vision of the 2nd Amendment as protecting an individual right, and explaining the limits that such a right puts on that "common sense gun regulation" he likes to make vague references to.

BakedPenguin | May 17, 2008, 2:27pm | #

joe - he's soft on the Second Amendment! Soft!

Guy Montag | May 17, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Anybody have anything on FDR having an open dialogue with any of the Axis Power leaders after Germany began sinking American ships in the North Atlantic on the way to England?

Especially interested in any dialogue with Hitler after 11 Sep. 1941.

Thanks in advance!

Elemenope | May 17, 2008, 3:46pm | #

Anybody have anything on FDR having an open dialogue with any of the Axis Power leaders after Germany began sinking American ships in the North Atlantic on the way to England?

I normally wouldn't say this to anyone (but Neil), but you, sir, are a fucking idiot.

No, we did not have top level (i.e. FDR did not fucking visit Germany during WWII) talks with a country who was perpetrating blatant casus belli. Which, idiot, is nothing at all like what Obama is suggesting he would do.

However, oddly enough, we *did* have top level talks with Japan right up until Pearl Harbor. Oops, was that the sound of your idiotic historical parallel being deflated like a blown-up condom which got pinholed? I think it was.

SIV | May 17, 2008, 4:12pm | #

# Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

Well that should increase sales of doubles after the ban.

Travis | May 17, 2008, 4:22pm | #

"joe - he's soft on the Second Amendment! Soft!"

It's a stupid position for Obama to take the gun control folks are going to vote for him anyway. Most people including democrats and independents are against gun control. If McCain is smart he will exploit this issue.

Ayn_Randian | May 17, 2008, 4:44pm | #

Elemenope - well, to the neocons, we cannot delineate and define our "enemies"...if you talk to Iran, well, because Iran has *some* radical Islamist leaders, that means You're Talking to The Terrorists...because, you know, the Middle East is just one angry, nebulous Brown Arab Mass of Hostile Forces, doncha know.

Seriously, Guy, no one said anything about sitting down and talking to Osama Bin Laden, did they?

joe | May 17, 2008, 4:46pm | #

That was a stupid thing for Huckabee to say, but it obviously wasn't premeditated or malicious.

He made a stupid joke, realized it flopped, tried to make it topical for his audience, and stuck his foot in his mouth.

You can tell, watching the video, that he knew it as soon as the words were out of his mouth.

joe | May 17, 2008, 4:51pm | #

Because piling on Tuff Gai is so much fun:

Anybody have anything on FDR having an open dialogue with any of the Axis Power leaders after Germany began sinking American ships in the North Atlantic on the way to England?

We had open diplomatic relations with Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey - each of whom provided services to Germany throughout the war - throughout the war.

And since Iran isn't actually at war with us, just providing support for parties in Iraq, some of whom are at war with us, that's the more appropriate parallel.

I love this debate. It's like watching a fat kid who used to be able to dive scream "Look at me everyone, look at me!" and then belly-flop off the ten-meter platform.

Neil | May 17, 2008, 5:50pm | #

Obama is squishy soft on terror Joe.

He wants dialogue with Iran--a country that wants to wipe Israel off the map and whose President called Israel a "stinking corpse" and whose buildings in their capital city have DEATH TO THE USA printed on their sides.

I know you and your Democrat Party thinks is all one big misunderstanding but we are realists and know there are many evil leaders in this world who actually do mean what they say when they threaten us harm.

Obama=Carter.

Neil | May 17, 2008, 5:51pm | #

Was there any dailogue with Hitler after he started sinking our ships in the Atlantic Joe?

Tell us. Did he talk after that?

This is before the DOW on Germany, mind you.

Find one example. ONE!

Neil | May 17, 2008, 5:57pm | #

Hey Joe Gallup Tracking today McCain +2 and tied in Rasmussen Tracking.

So much for your Obama surge, McCain and Bush's speech must've worked!!

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 7:21pm | #

"And since Iran isn't actually at war with us, just providing support for parties in Iraq, some of whom are at war with us, that's the more appropriate parallel."

"Seriously, Guy, no one said anything about sitting down and talking to Osama Bin Laden, did they?"

Yeah, I thought Obama's point was that we would talk to Iran, Syria, Cuba, and the like. Not so much those who we are directly "at war" with.

But you know what? Wouldn't it be fucktarded not to talk even to people we are at war with? For example, the Israeli's and the PLO must have talked sometimes, they would initiate prisoner exchanges and what not. I for one hope we talk to our friends, enemies and everyone. I can't see how that would hurt our interests...

"Obama=Carter."

Man I hope so, Carter is a great American. When he was President we did not have thousands of American boys dead or the Constitution fucked right up the ass on a daily basis...He also seems to be a Christian, which would be nice in a President for a change...

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 7:23pm | #

"Hey Joe Gallup Tracking today McCain +2 and tied in Rasmussen Tracking.

So much for your Obama surge, McCain and Bush's speech must've worked!!"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Neil, WTF are you talking about?

Elemenope | May 17, 2008, 7:33pm | #

I know you and your Democrat Party thinks is all one big misunderstanding but we are realists and know there are many evil leaders in this world who actually do mean what they say when they threaten us harm.

What are they gonna do? Switch out our falafel with a less tasty and filling substitute?

Honestly, intending someone harm has nothing to do with having *the ability* to do that person harm. Talking with countries that are so weak that a single aircraft carrier could obliterate their entire armed forces before dinner is *never* a threat to our security. (I mean, geez, the only difficulties we've even had have to do with *invading and occupying*, which is not necessary if you just wish to set the country on fire.)

Unless we give them the super secret codes to Area 51 or something. Then there might be a problem.

Elemenope | May 17, 2008, 7:39pm | #

He also seems to be a Christian, which would be nice in a President for a change...

I maintain that true fidelity to Christian principles is unavoidably incompatible with the duties of national office.

Mostly, to be president you have to be a shitty Christian, both in getting the job and in doing the job.

B | May 17, 2008, 7:46pm | #

"George W. Bush baited Barack Obama into a three-way battle on foreign policy with John McCain. One of these guys, of course, would pop Cristal if his approval rating broke 30 percent"


Whoowhoowhooo, non sequitur alert. Whoowhoowhoo non sequitur alert.

B | May 17, 2008, 7:55pm | #

"For the entire adult lives of every Republican holding office, all they had to do was raise military or foreign policy issues in a way that cast aspersions on the Democrats, and they carried the day."

Joe, you are such a fucking dummy, why do you even bother to wake up in the morning? The generalizations you make are so fucking broad, they are fucking worthless, just like you. Exactly where did you earn that masters you used to brag about? Beverly Hills Upstairs College? I remember back in 1994 when the Republicans swept into office because they capitalized on national security fears. Oh wait, that didn't happen, once again proving that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, you fucking nitwit.
Not to mention you are wrong, unless one believes you instead of about ten polls that show McCain has more than a 2:1 lead when people are asked about who is trusted more on national security. Who knew that promising to sit down and lunch with tyrants could make one look like an ass on the issue of how best to secure the United States?

B | May 17, 2008, 7:59pm | #

"What are they gonna do? Switch out our falafel with a less tasty and filling substitute?"


Hahahahahaah, yeah, because those 3000 people killed seven years ago by a STATE-sponsored terrorist group all died of rapid-onset food poisoning.
Hahahahaah, you hilarious comedian you.

prolefeed | May 17, 2008, 8:07pm | #

However, the bottom line is "how does he vote" - and his track record there is pretty definitively anti-gun. Perhaps he'll moderate his views now that he's seeking to represent rural/western people as well as inner-city Chicagoans, but it would be wishful thinking at this point to count on that.

Ummm, if you look at the blue population spikes on this map

and note that Clinton generally thumped Obama in the rural, red areas of this map and lost the big cities to him, Obama likely knows who his base supporters are and will pander to them -- which means trashing the Second Amendment if given the chance.

Neu Mejican | May 17, 2008, 8:08pm | #

Some music that has the organ included...

http://cdbaby.com/cd/mrgriddles

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 8:08pm | #

" because those 3000 people killed seven years ago by a STATE-sponsored terrorist group all died of rapid-onset food poisoning."

Hey B, which STATE sponsored that hit? Afghanistan (yes)? Saudi Arabia (maybe). Iraq (almost certainly not)? Iran (nope)? The Palestiniant Authority (whoops, not a state, eh?)?

Now, who is Obama talking about talking to?

I have a premonition that you have little answer to this, so let me go ahead and use this response, borrowed from you:

"Hahahahahaah"

prolefeed | May 17, 2008, 8:12pm | #

It sounds to me like Obama's main concern with guns is stopping all the inner-city shootings. He doesn't sound like a Brady-style anti-gun crusader type. His rhetoric sounds pretty reasonable.

Because, you know, disarming law-abiding innner-city residents so they can't defend themselves against criminals toting illegal firearms has resulted in Washington D.C. having the country's lowest gun homicide rate.

/sarcasm

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 8:13pm | #

"Not to mention you are wrong, unless one believes you instead of about ten polls that show McCain has more than a 2:1 lead when people are asked about who is trusted more on national security. Who knew that promising to sit down and lunch with tyrants could make one look like an ass on the issue of how best to secure the United States?"

You know, joe would probably say this, but let me say it first for a change: go ahead and count on that strategy (and, uh, this is joe's point). Count on the "Republicans are more trusted on foriegn policy and national security issues." Shit, I'm on record that Obama is a bad candidate for us, but if you think the GOP can easily trump the Dems on these issues, post-the Iraq screw up, then good luck buddy. Good luck...

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 8:15pm | #

prolfeed
Do you deny that the above average gun availibility in the US has something to do with the above average homicide rate in the US?

Elemenope | May 17, 2008, 8:16pm | #

Hahahahaah, you hilarious comedian you.

Why, thank you!

Is it too early for the AIDS jokes?

Travis | May 17, 2008, 8:22pm | #

"Do you deny that the above average gun availibility in the US has something to do with the above average homicide rate in the US?"

As opposed to the above average homicide rates in Maynamar & China?

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 8:24pm | #

The above average rate in developed nations.

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 8:28pm | #

Table 15.4: Homicide Rates per 100,000 people. Country Rate
Lithuania 10.6
Latvia 6.5
United States 5.6
Bulgaria 3.9
Finland 2.9
Turkey 2.7
Czech Repub. 2.5
Hungary 2.3
Poland 2.1
Australia 1.9
Belgium 1.8
France 1.7
United Kingdom 1.7
Netherlands 1.5
Greece 1.4
Austria 1.2
Portugal 1.2
Germany 1.2
Spain 1.1
Switzerland 1.1
Norway 0.9


Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 2003.

Elemenope | May 17, 2008, 8:28pm | #

MNG -

Switzerland and Israel (both with higher gun availability than US) seem to do just fine.

Much as it pains me to say it, M. Moore's Bowling for Columbine was on to something when it said that no one factor can really explain the high incidence of violence (gun or otherwise) in the US. It cannot be explained entirely by incidence of gun ownership, racial or ethnic tension, cultural affinity for violence, population density...but it is likely that each of these and many more besides factor into why USians off each other at ridiculous rates while equally or better-armed analogues in other countries are not so homicide-prone.

Ali | May 17, 2008, 8:42pm | #

I haven't read all comments, but...

MNG-

How do you explain that VT has the lowest crime rates (I do not have a reference, but it was mentioned on a NHPR show re gun control) in the nation despite the fact that they have the least gun control measures in the entire nation. In fact, the only gun laws there are the ones litigated by the federal government. And they do not enforce them, I think.

Chris Potter | May 17, 2008, 9:17pm | #

So, the probability of being a homicide victim is .004% higher in the US than in the UK (where handgun ownership is totally banned).

Guy Montag | May 17, 2008, 9:20pm | #

Wow E and A_R, hit a nerve there?

I normally wouldn't say this to anyone (but Neil), but you, sir, are a fucking idiot.

No, we did not have top level (i.e. FDR did not fucking visit Germany during WWII) talks with a country who was perpetrating blatant casus belli. Which, idiot, is nothing at all like what Obama is suggesting he would do.

However, oddly enough, we *did* have top level talks with Japan right up until Pearl Harbor. Oops, was that the sound of your idiotic historical parallel being deflated like a blown-up condom which got pinholed? I think it was.

Who the hell said anything about visiting Germany? The eveidence was presented that FDR sent a cable to Germany in 1938. I simply asked (apparently, much too simply for you two to understand) if FDR had talks with Hitler after Hitler was sinking our ships in the North Atlantic. Unstated in my comment, but you know, like the way Iran is supplying weapons right now to the insurgents.

So, if you bother to respond, please take a breath and respond as if you are not on some sort of hormone therapy, like you did earlier.

Quite simply, did FDR bother to chat with Hitler after Hitler was attacking us.

Pretty easy deal there boys. Please refrain from your girlie fits.

Guy Montag | May 17, 2008, 9:25pm | #

Ali,

How do you explain that VT has the lowest crime rates (I do not have a reference, but it was mentioned on a NHPR show re gun control) in the nation despite the fact that they have the least gun control measures in the entire nation. In fact, the only gun laws there are the ones litigated by the federal government. And they do not enforce them, I think.

The stupid answer I got to that from some DC residents and a fed cop about a decade ago had something to do with average population intelligence. Then the DC guys got mad when I asked if rural VT folk were incredibly more inteligent than retards from DC.

Chris Potter | May 17, 2008, 9:26pm | #

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of homocides in the US are related to the illegal drug trade. If so, we could chalk up a lot of the homocide difference to our drug laws.

Guy Montag | May 17, 2008, 9:27pm | #

Elemenope | May 17, 2008, 8:28pm,

Earth shattering news, E has something nice to say about Israel!

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 9:57pm | #

Elemenope-I like Bowling for Columbine for exactly the same reason: in a lot ways it is a "failed" movie, but as a movie that suggests that something like Columbine is very complicated and not amendable to easy answers, it is a great movie (whether it realizes it or not!).

Israel and Switzerland, as you know, actually have gun ownership in a very regulated way (most folks go through a militia training).

I'm for gun rights. I think the interesting fact is, as I read in a Wayne LaPierre book, 95%+ of legal gun owners in the US will never do a crime with a gun...So making laws against that group, based on the small percentage of folks who WILL abuse the gun laws in a way that hurts people, makes little sense...

But it seems to me crazy to deny the empirical fact that the US is a nation with a lot of guns AND a nation with a very high homicide rate.

Those two seem obviously connected.

My problem is that so many people want their cake and to eat it too: we have lots of liberty about guns AND we have much less gun related crime.

That simply ain't true from everything I've read....

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 10:01pm | #

"Guy Montag | May 17, 2008, 9:27pm | #

Elemenope | May 17, 2008, 8:28pm,

Earth shattering news, E has something nice to say about Israel!"

Remember what I've said about this:

You agree 100% with Israeli policy at whatever time: OK, you are OK.

You don't agree with Israeli policy, no matter what small degree: You are an anti-Semite who wants Jews to be eaten by Cerebrus.

That's Guy's reasoning. What intellectual nuance...

You GO GUY! Go! Intellectual honesty is overrated, you're SPEAKING FOR THE GOOD GUYS!

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 10:10pm | #

"Quite simply, did FDR bother to chat with Hitler after Hitler was attacking us."

Uhh, Guy, did we talk with N. Korea after they had killed literally thousands of our boys (I think we did, don't you?).

Did the U.S. have any diplomatic channels with Germany prior to Pearl Harbor (which did not even involve the Germans)? None?

"Unstated in my comment, but you know, like the way Iran is supplying weapons right now to the insurgents."

A nation whose military directly attacks your nation, and one which sells a weapon that your enemy then uses upon your forces, which happen to be occupying a neighboring nation, is the same thing, eh?

prolefeed | May 17, 2008, 10:16pm | #

prolfeed
Do you deny that the above average gun availibility in the US has something to do with the above average homicide rate in the US?

MNG -- Do you deny that the higher gun ownership rate in Canada compared to the United States has something to do with the lower homicide rate in Canada compared to the US?

Do you think that we should ignore any parts of the Constitution if cherry-picked statistics would appear to show correlation (albeit not exactly causation) for some posited negative consequence?

Are you willing to gut the First Amendment right to free speech because the much average freedom to criticize others in the U.S. is correlated to a much higher homicide rate, and someone posits that this free speech angers the recipients and causes them to be more likely to kill others in revenge?

There also is a higher statistical correlation between the disproportionately high number of lawyers per capita in the U.S. and the homicide rate. If I were to posit that the high availability of defense attorneys encouraged homicides because it increases the likelihood of getting acquitted, would you be willing to remove the right to an attorney, gut the Fifth Amendment, and dispense with Miranda rights?

prolefeed | May 17, 2008, 10:26pm | #

MNG -- There appears to be a very strong statistical correlation between carrying the XY chromosome pairing and homicide rates. Should we pre-emptively deport or imprison all those people with XY chromosome pairings in order to get lower homicide rates?

There appears to be a strong correlation between minorities and urban living versus homicide rates. Do you propose bulldozing urban cores and forcibly relocating those residents to the countryside? How about preemptively deporting all those citizens who are minorities because of that statistical correlation?

Are you willing to dispense with any Constitutional or civil rights whenever a more or less plausible-sounding causation can be dredged up to explain a statistical correlation?

Neil | May 17, 2008, 10:32pm | #

MNG Can you fucking read?

The very link you sent me says

Gallup Tracking: McCain +3

Rasmussen Tracking: McCain +1

Carer a great American? LOL and Chamberlain was a great Englishman! Carter was a complete total and utter failure as President.

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 10:34pm | #

prolfeed

1. Are there more guns per person in Canada than in the US? You'll have to provide me with some cites for that...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/7381/Right-Bear-Arms-US-Canada.aspx

2. "Do you think that we should ignore any parts of the Constitution if cherry-picked statistics would appear to show correlation (albeit not exactly causation) for some posited negative consequence?" No, I'm just not sure the Constitution calls for individual gun rights (you gotta admit its an unclearly worded Amendment, as a gun owner I wish it were clearer!)

3. "Are you willing to gut the First Amendment right to free speech because the much average freedom to criticize others in the U.S. is correlated to a much higher homicide rate" I doubt you have any evidence there.


But hey, prolfeed, I agree with you. Even if it were shown that higher rates of gun ownership causes more bad outcomes, I would still be against most gun control laws, because I think whether a person uses a gun badly or well (i.e., self defense) cannot be predicted on an individual level. If it were shown (as it could) that blacks were more likely to committ crimes than whites, should we have different procedures for the fromer than the latter? Of course not, as these averages say little if nothing about any individual...

My point is this: let's not pretend that allowing high levels of gun ownership in the US makes the crime rate lower (or the homicide rate lower). It actually makes the murder rate much higher, and that's just facts...

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 10:43pm | #

Neil

You understand what an average is, yes (or is an average a liberal mathematical plot to discredit the conservative candidate?).

Here it is:

Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 05/07 - 05/16 -- 46.8 43.8 Obama +3.0

C'mon, I think Obama is a bad pick for us, but even in the middle of a hotly contested nomination process he is 3 percentage points ahead of your guy. You're just cherry picking results you agree with here.

You heard my points about Carter, supra, if you have some specific arguments to refute them, then make them. How many Americans died under Carter, compared to Bush II? How much taxpayer money did Carter spend relative to Bush II? Did Carter bend the Constitution over and fuck it like a bitch like Bush II has?

Make your points my faggoty friend (I mean Neil).

Neil | May 17, 2008, 10:46pm | #

MNG that "average" includes polls like the WaPo poll which just includes "adults" not even registered or likely voters just "Adults".

The NYT/CBS poll is alsoo included. Thats a liberal-lefty organization and shouldnt be trusted. Remember Rathergate MNG?? Remember Rathergate? Huh? Remember the MS Word "document" from 1970? LOL!

The average is clearly much closer to the Rasmussen/Gallup.

Poor Hussein still can't build a lead. Call a Waaaaaaaaaambulance!

Chris Potter | May 17, 2008, 11:00pm | #

MNG,

It actually makes the murder rate much higher, and that's just facts...

1. It's not "much higher". It's a difference of about 4 per 100,000, that is, 0.004%.

2. You still haven't proven the causation here, beyond asserting that it's "obvious" and "just facts". If analysis showed that knife ownership was higher in Lithuania than the US, would that prove that widespread knife ownership increases the murder rate?

Neil | May 17, 2008, 11:00pm | #

I hope you liberal Democrat Party members remember Rathergate.

Because it was the most influential moment of the last decade next to 9/11. It finally exposed the liberal media for what it is and pointed the folks towards more fair and balanced options. And finally go that Democrat apologist Dan Rather fired! YEAH!

Mr.Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 11:02pm | #

Neil
The Fox News poll is included, odd huh? Fox is way worse than CBS could ever be imagined...Remember the CBS newsman that went on to be the Democratic Press Secretary? No? Neither do I (Tony Snowe). Or the Democratic official who became the President of CBS? No? Neither do I (Roger Ailes, President of "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.) Yeah, it's all the same, eh?

Chris Potter | May 17, 2008, 11:04pm | #

I hope you liberal Democrat Party members remember Rathergate.

Because it was the most influential moment of the last decade next to 9/11.

No way. Steve Bartman trying to catch that foul ball was way more significant.

Neil | May 17, 2008, 11:07pm | #

I dont see any Fox News in the recent average.

Read Bernie Goldberg's book MNG.

He will tell you all you need to know about the liberal Democrat media and their liberal bias.

Like Rathergate? Still, remember Rathergate MNG? Huh? Tell me what Rathergate was MNG. Tell me now.

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 11:13pm | #

Chris
The US Murder rate is over 3 times the rate of a nation with a comparable level of development.

Add to that that the majority of our murders are committed with a gun.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31182006.pdf

And add to that we have way more guns per person than Belgium (or etc.) and do you really think there is no connection at all here? Jesus...

Uhh, Neil, can you address the specific points I made concerning FoxNews direct connections with teh GOP? Are or you, in truth, a faggot?

Neil | May 17, 2008, 11:16pm | #

Tell me all about Rathergate MNG.

Tell me.

BTW, as Orin Hatch said, "The Democrat Party is the Party of Homosexuality".

Mr. NIce Guy | May 17, 2008, 11:17pm | #

Do you have any connections between CBS or any of the "so-called" liberal media and the Democratic Party like the ones I have provided between Fox and the GOP? No?

Who got fired at Fox for the bullshit SwiftBoat reporting? No one? Yes, because unlike CBS FOX will not fire anyone who is acting against journalistic standards (that is why they hired them in the first place!)

Take a break from the taste of cum (GOP flavored, a la Mark Foley, I'm sure) and speak up on this.

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2008, 11:21pm | #

"as Orin Hatch said, "The Democrat Party is the Party of Homosexuality"."

I don't think there is anything wrong with that (a la Sienfeld).

But you have to admit, the GOP seems full of famous queers lately (Larry Craig, Mark Foley). The diffference: do as I say, not as I do (GOP Motto)

Neil | May 17, 2008, 11:21pm | #

Rathergate proves the liberal Democrat bias in the MSM.

Again, have you ever read Bernie Goldnerg (former CBS employee?)

Even Andy Rooney himself admitted CBS has a liberal Democrat Party bias.

Hey, what about Barney "Fag" Frank? LOL!

Chris Potter | May 17, 2008, 11:24pm | #

MNG,

The US Murder rate is over 3 times the rate of a nation with a comparable level of development.

Three times a tiny number is still a tiny number. You're five times more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to win a state lottery; that doesn't mean we need legislation to address the dangers of lightning strikes.

So, if a country with higher rates of knife ownership also has a higher murder rate, does that mean that knife ownership causes higher murder rates? Knives have as much to do with murder as guns.

prolefeed | May 17, 2008, 11:49pm | #

No, I'm just not sure the Constitution calls for individual gun rights (you gotta admit its an unclearly worded Amendment, as a gun owner I wish it were clearer!)

I have to admit no such thing. It is quite clearly worded -- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It gives individuals the right to bear arms, and says that right shall not be infringed, and explains that the primary purpose of the amendment is to allow individuals to band together in armed, well-trained militias to assert their freedom against would-be oppressors trying to take away their various freedoms.

The "confusion" has arisen from people who find this radical assertion of individual freedom to bear arms to stop tyranny:

1) inconvenient

and

2) impossible to rescind via amending the wording using the procedures spelled out in the Constitution.

isildur | May 17, 2008, 11:59pm | #

"I hope you liberal Democrat Party members remember Rathergate."

Actually, except for a few die-hard far right loons, most people have forgotten it. It's certainly not the definitive media event of this decade, or whatever hyperbole you're using to describe it. It was a nothing story then, and it's less than a nothing story now.

Tangentially: whenever I see the acronym 'MSM' used unironically, I automatically lose respect for the person using it. Bloggers who think they're being persecuted by the major media outlets... need a hobby. Other than blogging.

(Also, fake edit: did you seriously just use the word 'fag' to refer to a member of Congress?)

isildur | May 18, 2008, 12:03am | #

On further thought, I want to discuss this a bit more.

"Hey, what about Barney "Fag" Frank? LOL!"

This, to me, is identical to saying 'Hey, what about Barack "Nigger" Obama? LOL!'

On any forum I have moderated, it would be an instant banning offense.

prolefeed | May 18, 2008, 12:06am | #

"Hey, what about Barney "Fag" Frank? LOL!"

This, to me, is identical to saying 'Hey, what about Barack "Nigger" Obama? LOL!'

On any forum I have moderated, it would be an instant banning offense.

Fortunately, those who moderate this forum have seen fit to preserve the right of posters to be obnoxious pricks -- a right I heartily endorse, even if in practice it gets a bit messy.

kwais | May 18, 2008, 1:35am | #

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of homocides in the US are related to the illegal drug trade. If so, we could chalk up a lot of the homocide difference to our drug laws.

I don't think so. Most countries out there have similar or stricter drug laws than we do.

It might have something to do with the way we enforce drug laws though.

kwais | May 18, 2008, 1:37am | #

prolfeed
Do you deny that the above average gun availibility in the US has something to do with the above average homicide rate in the US?

MNG

I do indeed deny that.

I am going to guess it has more to do with single parent families.

tarran | May 18, 2008, 2:43am | #

Actually, the number of murders committed using guns are actually a subset of the far more critical source of violence: hands.

Almost every murder committed in the U.S. is committed by a person who uses their hands to effect the murder.

Why stop at half measures? We need a ban on hands. If we amputate everybody's hands below the wrist, we can ave a safer society without worrying about infringing on their right to bear arms, since the arm is typically thought to end at the wrist.

Guy Montag | May 18, 2008, 4:22am | #

Wow, drama night at H&R.

Okay, anybody rational have any info on the "dialogue" between the US and Germany past the 1938 memo mentioned above?

What about with Italy? You know, the Axis power that ended up voting out and jailing their leader before their mainland was invaded.

Also, anybody want to expand on how well those open diplomatic channels with Japan worked out, beyond it being a convenient way for their diplomats to be sitting outside the office of the President with a bit-too-late declairation of war in hand while bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor?

Thanks in advance!

Shout out to Kasey Kahne, 2008 Sprint Cup All-Star Race winner!!!

Guy Montag | May 18, 2008, 4:24am | #

tarran,

Don't forget the DHMO corrolation. That is like 100%.

Guy Montag | May 18, 2008, 5:07am | #

Appears that Sen. Kennedy had a seizure rather than a stroke. Latest reports are that he is in stable condition.

Mekong Boatman | May 18, 2008, 8:16am | #

There was nothing factually incorrect in the swiftboat veterans for truth campaign.
Why do posters here act is if it was a lie?
You can smear with the truth
If the hat fits....in cambodia...on christmas...

Elemenope | May 18, 2008, 9:05am | #

There appears to be a very strong statistical correlation between carrying the XY chromosome pairing and homicide rates. Should we pre-emptively deport or imprison all those people with XY chromosome pairings in order to get lower homicide rates?

I *really* like this idea. I shall go undercover to survive the purges, and then when I emerge, it shall be in a "target rich environment"!

Elemenope | May 18, 2008, 9:15am | #

Guy, re:Israel

I have lots of nice things to say about Israel. Also, lots of critical things. But here, thousands of miles from the Middle East, both your and my opinions are kind of like pissing in the wind.

Israel has a "neighbor problem" the way someone who was disemboweled has a "digestion problem". In such a hostile environment, of course they have the absolute right to defend their very existence. But that fact by itself does not justify *needless* antagonism, which Israel has *occasionally* engaged in.

The actions of Egypt and Israel over the last 20 years or so have demonstrated that their Arab neighbors are not as intransigent as was originally assumed, and that there is a way forward for the possibility of peace.

----------

None of this changes the fact that, at least for the past week or so, you have posted consistently like 10 IQ points below Neil. Head wound?

Elemenope | May 18, 2008, 9:16am | #

That sentence was supposed to say "The actions of Egypt and Jordan..."

Ah well.

Head wound.

Guy Montag | May 18, 2008, 9:18am | #

Done with your little cry E?

Elemenope | May 18, 2008, 9:44am | #

Done with your little cry E...

It would b helpful, I imagine, if your insults made sense. Otherwise all they seem to do is impugn the intelligence of the one speaking them.

Episiarch | May 18, 2008, 9:50am | #

"Neil" is getting more...aggressive. Whoever is performing him is changing the character a bit. This should be interesting.

Or they could have just been loaded, considering they were posting at nearly midnight on a Saturday.

Fluffy | May 18, 2008, 10:05am | #

Guy, you're an idiot.

Of course the US and Japan still had diplomatic relations in 1941. On what basis should they not have had diplomatic relations? Because FDR personally didn't like their China policy? Don't be absurd.

Would you seriously demand the withdrawal of the ambassador to the US of every nation with which you have any diplomatic disagreement whatsoever? That's absolutely idiotic.

Basically you're saying that right now, today, we should throw the Chinese ambassador out of DC. And the ambassador from Turkey. And the Israeli ambassador, for that matter.

Good plan. I'm sure limiting our diplomacy only to states which are completely subordinate to us and never act in a way contrary to our demands will work out great.

Fluffy | May 18, 2008, 10:11am | #

On the subject of Rathergate, since Neil wants to know what it was:

Individuals used forged documents to trick CBS News into running a story that was false.

Which means that it is very similar to the Judy Miller debacle, which went:

Individuals used forged documents to convince CIA agents of certain information, which they t hen leaked to Judy Miller, tricking her into running a series of stories which were false.

Millergate seems like a bigger deal to me, since there's the little matter of the 4000 dead US servicemembers and the trillion dollars shat down the toilet because of the war hysteria Judy Miller helped create. Tell me, how many soldiers died as a result of Rathergate? How much taxpayer money was pissed down the drain?

And I think Dan Rather should be embarrassed to have been played like a dumb bitch by whoever forged those memos, but it's not like he used my money to spread his false story. OTOH, the covert Pentagon propaganda campaign exposed by the NY Times DID use my money. They stole my money and used it to lie to the public. I'll get angry at Dan Rather only AFTER Donald Rumseld and Larry DiRita FUCKING PERSONALLY come to my house and give me my fucking money back. In cash, no checks.

Chris Potter | May 18, 2008, 10:15am | #

I must admit that I agreed totally with something Huckabee said this morning on Press the Meat: "It's not the first stupid thing I've said, and I'll guarantee it won't be the last." (Regarding his attempted "joke" at the NRA convention)

Guy Montag | May 18, 2008, 10:21am | #

Fluffy,

If you just read the questions then you will see who the idiot is. Especially since I do mention the US/Japanese relationship.

Perhaps you can share a box of tissues with Elemenope and figure out if it is at all possible for either of you to bother responding to anything that anybody actually asks without tripping over your incorrect biases.

Chris Potter | May 18, 2008, 10:23am | #

On that subject, I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to re-enact Bill Clinton's famous joke while he was speaking to disaster survivors in a church basement and there was a loud bang from above. He's probably been waiting this entire campaign for a loud noise during a speech, and he totally blew it.

Chris Potter | May 18, 2008, 10:27am | #

Q: What do Guy Montag and Iran have in common?

A: Talking to them just makes things worse.

Fluffy | May 18, 2008, 10:30am | #

Guy, there is no reason to ask your question about Japan unless you are implying that the US should not have had diplomatic relations with Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.

Which is fucking stupid, for the reasons I named.

By the way, you historically ignoramus, in 1941 most western observers assumed that it was quite likely that Franco's Spain and Turkey would enter the war on the side of the Axis. Franco was under extraordinary pressure to do so and was seen as part of the European Fascist movement overall, and Turkey was nearly surrounded either by Axis powers, Axis occupied territory, Axis-sympathetic territory like the Vichy French Levant, or historical enemies of Turkey like the Soviet Union, and was therefore thought to be a natural ally of the Axis. It was thought to be every bit as likely that the US would be at war with Spain and Turkey in 1942 as it was that we would be at war with Japan.

So, if you are going to have disdain for maintaining diplomatic channels with hostile powers, tyrannies, or potential enemies, you can't just pick out Japan. You have to include Spain and Turkey.

But then you have to account for the fact that extraordinary British and US diplomacy KEPT SPAIN AND TURKEY OUT OF THE WAR, and in so doing probably won the fucking war.

Chris Potter | May 18, 2008, 10:40am | #

But then you have to account for the fact that extraordinary British and US diplomacy KEPT SPAIN AND TURKEY OUT OF THE WAR, and in so doing probably won the fucking war.

Your points are valid, but I think you overestimate the importance Spain and Turkey joining the Axis would have had in the war. The Germans could have taken Turkey and the rest of the Middle East with little resistance early in the war. It was his foolish decision in 1940 to break his pact with Stalin and invade the USSR that won the war for the Allies.

jtuf | May 18, 2008, 10:47am | #

I don't see why some people think Obama should meet with Syria and Iran. They seem to think a visit from the US president is the default diplomatic relationship. Talks with the president are really the exception rather than the rule. US ambassadors in neighboring countries handle diplomacy with Andorra and Liechtenstein, because we do not even have embassies in either countries. When was the last time a US president held face to face talks with the leaders of Palau or Maldives? There is a wide range of diplomatic actions between sending a low level representative and holding talks between heads of state. No US president has met with the majority of countries in person.

Guy Montag | May 18, 2008, 10:50am | #

Back to Germany, the notion from the Rs was that note even FDR had a talk with Hitler, as many people, as we can see scrolling up on this board, want to do with several so-called "Axis of Evil" countries.

Some soert of great "revelation" is made when a well known cable is pointed out as being some sort of "proof" that 'SEE! FDR DID TALK TO HITLER!'

Hope this version of the same question is not too complicated: Is this the same kind of "talk" that many Leftists, to include Sen. Obama, plus a few on the other side of the fence, are talking about? Sure did not sound like it.

For one thing, for quite a while Hitler was trying to keep the US out of the war and going through a lot of hoops to do it, including leaning heavy on the head of the American Bund when they made noises of wanting the US to side with Germany.

As for the Japanese, they used the diplomatic channels, in part, to hide a sneek attack that ended up with much of our Pacific Fleet sunk. I am sure some would say they attacked us because we were messing around in the Pacific where we did not belong. Have heard worse.

No, Fluffy and Elemenope, we have already read your incoherant rantings on this so just skip my posts since you can not manage to respond without having a fit.

Guy Montag | May 18, 2008, 10:59am | #

jtuf,

True enough.

Episiarch | May 18, 2008, 11:27am | #

Fluffy, Spain had just been through a brutal and devastating civil war. Even if they could have mustered up the will for more war, their resources and manpower weren't up to it. What was Franco going to do, force Catalan separatists to fight for the Axis?

Daniel Reeves | May 18, 2008, 11:39am | #

"Neil" is getting more...aggressive. Whoever is performing him is changing the character a bit. This should be interesting.

Or they could have just been loaded, considering they were posting at nearly midnight on a Saturday.

I know this sounds hard to believe, but I really do think that there are people as stupid as Neil out there, living amongst us. Is it possible...?!

Elemenope | May 18, 2008, 11:41am | #

Fluffy, Spain had just been through a brutal and devastating civil war. Even if they could have mustered up the will for more war, their resources and manpower weren't up to it. What was Franco going to do, force Catalan separatists to fight for the Axis?

No, the issue would have been twofold:

One, the North African front would have been a *total loss* for the Allies if Germany could move troops and supply lines through Iberia. Rommel would have fucked up the Allies' shit at El-Alamein (1st Battle), and the Axis advance would not have been broken, and Tobruck would never been in Allied hands for so long.

Two, control over the Mediterranean would have been much more of an issue, allowing U-boat fleet an extended safe haven for a much longer period. That includes closing off Italy as a reasonable third front; the underbelly of Europe would not have been so soft. With Tobruk in Axis hands, there would have been a natural harbor basically impregnable to sustained air assault to serve as a sub base.

And even if Iberia were an Axis power (and so available to invade), taking it would have been next-to-useless (and a huge drain on resources) because the Pyrenees would have made troop movements into the mainland basically impossible.

Elemenope | May 18, 2008, 11:43am | #

I know this sounds hard to believe, but I really do think that there are people as stupid as Neil out there, living amongst us. Is it possible...?!

I've been in the minority on this one for a while, but I'm fairly convinced Neil is a for-real fucking idiot. I've met people like him in real life, so he isn't much of a stretch.

Neil | May 18, 2008, 12:07pm | #

I'd like someome to post an example of US-Axis dialogue past 1939.

Everyone with a brain knows what we face with Iran is very similar to WWII.

Episiarch | May 18, 2008, 12:10pm | #

LMNOP, you make many good points, but I think that it would have been suicidal for Franco to get involved. He would basically have have been inviting the Nazis to take over Spain, abuse an already war-ravaged country for their ends, and probably kill him as soon as they felt his usefulness was over in order to consolidate their power structure. Look what happened to Italy.

Franco made the best choice for himself (unfortunately, the bastard) but also ultimately the best choice for Spain.

Neil | May 18, 2008, 12:11pm | #

We shouldve just marched on Spain in 1945 after the war to finish off Fascism once and for all.

Episiarch | May 18, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Neil, what do think of the most recent season of Aqua Teen Hunger Force? Not my favorite.

Neil | May 18, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Nothing can beat the first season.

Neil | May 18, 2008, 12:19pm | #

What was the best season of King of the Hill Episiarch?

Elemenope | May 18, 2008, 12:29pm | #

Franco made the best choice for himself (unfortunately, the bastard) but also ultimately the best choice for Spain.

Absolutely agree. I don't put quite as much weight on US diplomatic involvement as Fluffy for keeping Spain out of war (as you say, it is very obviously a self-interested position to take). I just meant to outline how horrible it would have been if Spain has done the stupid thing and allied with the Axis powers.

---------

Honestly, your little pop culture exchanges are all that make me doubt Neil's existence as a person. His responses re: Television are too pat.

Episiarch | May 18, 2008, 12:35pm | #

I can't watch that show. I keep waiting for Beavis to show up and say "heh heh...he said 'Hank'"...but he never does, to my great disappointment.

Nothing can beat the first season.

1-4 were all great. "Global Grilling" is an example of later season mastery.

"He's not melting, he's 'chillaxin'. If you can't speak the language, go back to Mexico. Where you were born, and are from."

"That was my Alton Brown saucepot! I use it to make my Balsamic Reduction! Dammit! … You've seen me do it."

kwais | May 18, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Neil,

Who do you think is the 12th Cylon?

And do you think McCain is a RINO?

Neil | May 18, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Lincoln Chaffee is a RINO.

McCain is not a RINO. Sure, hes wrong on a few things (campaign finance "reform", global warming)but hes "right" on so many others. Judges, the war, fiscal conservatism, standing against socialized healthcare, and gun rights.

Hes with us 80% of the time.

Fluffy | May 18, 2008, 1:33pm | #

I don't put quite as much weight on US diplomatic involvement as Fluffy for keeping Spain out of war

But you have to consider the fact that Guy is asserting that we should treat potential enemies the same as actual enemies, in diplomatic terms. His evidence for this is the fact that Japan engaged in diplomacy while preparing to attack the US.

But had the US and Britain treated Franco the way Guy apparently thinks we should have treated Japan, it is pretty likely that Spain would have felt forced to make the best deal with Germany they could. And the best deal Franco could make with Germany was "we give you access to attack Gibraltar by land, and then we sit the rest of the war out". The loss of Gibraltar would have been a strategic disaster on a par with the loss of Singapore. Maybe worse.

And that doesn't account for the possibility of entry of Turkey into the war. Turkey entering the war would have made Palestine, Egypt and Iraq untenable for Britain strategically, and a loss of Suez inevitable. It also would have probably been the straw that broke the camel's back for the Soviets, who would have faced a two-front war.

Read Churchill's WWII memoir. There was real concern - it might be appropriate to call it "terror" - at the prospect of these events happening. And if Britain and the US had behaved the way Guy seems to think it would have been smart for us to behave diplomatically, they would have been much more likely to happen.

And with regard to Guy's claim that the US was kept out of the war by Hitler's diplomatic maneuvering - come on, that's simply absurd. The US was kept out of the war by profound domestic isolationist settlement, and by the fact that we had not been attacked by any belligerent prior to Pearl Harbor. No diplomatic or propaganda campaign by Germany had any effect on our presence in or absence from the war. Talking to Germany and Japan may not have benefitted the US in any way, but it's not like we were going to war before Pearl Harbor anyway. FDR didn't have the votes, knew he didn't have the votes, and sent telegram after telegram to Churchill saying [paraphrased] "Look, bitch, I'm doing all I can, so stop whining - I don't have the fucking votes!"