Gorgon

Humbug. The Finnish aren't really Nordic, they're arctic.

Somehow I suspect that violence is here to stay.

It's been interesting reading all the back and forth. Federalism and small government is something politicians have been talking about for ages, but not unlike campaign finance reform it's not a desire for change that comes from within the system. I suppose it attracts people who don't fit into the established system anywhere else. Is there really a new ideological front here, that is to say does the Tea Party represent a popular movement stirred by the recession and the Obama administration compromised of people who were not politically active before, or not active to the point that they would ever consider going to a rally. How much is genuine and to what degree is it amplified by Fox. To me the fact that they would blunder by launching so vicious attacks on Obama that they could be interpreted as racism either means that political discourse is off the hook and that yelling the loudest means getting the most attention (and the Tea Party is certainly not alone here) or that these people actually aren't as media savey as we would like to think. Maybe it's that they have to tap into anger and outrage to connect with their base. As a protest movement they are free to say things established politicians can't , but in doing so they have also landed the republicans in trouble, and the Republicans must - all things being equal - be their closest allies. This must count against the notion of the Tea Party being their lapdogs. Maybe this is the wave of the future. A rigid two party system can't accommodate much in the way of differing direction and ideologies, and voting gets you practically nowhere as regards exercising political influence. A movement like this on the other hand can affect the system quite effectively.

I am currently doing research for a paper on protest movements in the American political system taking the so called 'Tea Party' movement as a point of departure. I recall Guard Dog writing something about the role of government in the 2008 bailouts following the housing crash. As this idea of negative government interference in the economy is also very much at the heart of the Tea Party I am looking to identify sources, commentators, analysts, ideologues who believe government was directly or indirectly to blame for the state of affairs which led to the global recession.

Seeing what's over the next hill. That's sortof the Bethesda trademark, and it's pretty enjoyable too until you have seen all the real estate. I just hope we get more than 'go there, fetch 20 of those, come back'

Opps wrong thread

The game looks pretty crappy.

So, this is a punishment. Not more like doing the kid a favor ?.

Jeremy Clarkson should do Larry King. Come on it would be a blast, he hates everything American and has borderline tourettes syndrome.

It might be argued that when you start dreaming about playing games it would be advisable to take a break from playing them.

He has been looking rather long in the tooth for a while. Also I propose that nearly any idiot can do what he does with an army of researchers at their disposal. Real reporters go out and dig up the story themselves. News readers and talk show people, they just don't impress.

Yes, but do you really want it gone.

Erh, get pummelled almost to submission before developing air escorts with range enough to cover the whole convoy route ? Air power is arguably one of the reasons we are not winning the battle for hearts and minds. Smart bombs are great when you have good intelligence, drop them in the middle of a large engagement without being entirely sure who's who however, and civilians still get killed at alarming rates.

Lost interest

I don't do the face book thing, so I have no collection of narcissistic black and white studies. I have some plastic in my wallet with my picture on, but no scanner. Chap ass notebook doesn't have a webcam. Whenever my photo-buff friend tries to sneak a shot off I flail my arms frantically, he's got a whole bunch of me like that.

Not to mention that the Viet Cong had considerable popular support. I don't know that there exists an inexhaustible will to continue fighting until the western powers give up and go home among the population.

They did... They did.

Expendables. Wow, getting so many A list and B movie stars to phone it in, I just didn't think it possible. I didn't even stick around for the ending. The scene with Arnold was bizarre, were they even in the same room, or did they blue screen it..... What little there was of Dolph Lundgren was the highlight, but he's dead now, so the sequel can go suck eggs. The scenes with Rourke and Stallone were pretty funny though, they are some of Hollywood's worst mumblers. You were constantly doing a mental 'What ?, speak up man !'

No one would have given Joseph Smith the time of day if he had shown up today talking about God and Jesus revealing to him that the native Americans were descendants of Israel.

Awesome thread.

I'm just guessing here, but there are going to be a lot more new hunter/gatherers than there are going to be natural resources to support them. No, we'd be eating each other inside a month.

That's where you are wrong, the Taliban can run the country with an iron fist regardless of popular support levels. They did once remember.

But we are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, not an abstract noun. We don't pretend that winning means defeating the whole of militant Islamism.

Defeating the Taliban is not an abstract, it's not a hopeless endeavour , it's just difficult.

By the way it's been suggested that we can't win, and that therefore we should negotiate with the Taliban. The notion seems to be gaining ground in our little Danish political weather system, and I actually found myself defending the war. Must be a first. Yes you can win against an irregular opponent, it just takes a long time, in the case of Afghanistan probably a very long time. The important question is : 'what's the alternative.'