ThePest179

Banned outside.

Banned for reusibg your previous post.

How often do you listen to their radio shows? They actually do cover all that... (and it's pretty comprehensive opinions too if you pay attention, but I don't have the time right now to find their opinions and put them here) The only problem with getting anything made into law, is that the 'status quo Democrats' control the majorities in the house, the senate, and the presidency... (kinda keeps all the good ideas from being able to be passed) Yes, just blame the democrats for everything. It's much easier than actually admitting there's a problem that Republicans cause. Ah, yes. "liberal/leftist bias" in the mainstream media. Read this article:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_Bias Excuse me? Right and left doesn't correspond to Democrats or Republicans, and hasn't for over 50 years. (it used to, but there's some kind of conspiracy or something going on trying to confuse people) Conspiracy theorist! A socialist. Another socialist. Red-baiting! This is why we can't do a damn thing about the rich's growing power or corruption: you're called a communist/socialist.

BaNNed fOr BeIng a cOmmIE.

Not necessarily. The efforts of Obama himself prove that (some) on the left want to fix the problem, and while the far right do want to fix the problem, some of their solutions are not necessarily the best (although what is the best is up for debate). So America is steadily turning into an oligarchy. Actually makes a lot of sense given you evidence, Ross, and the current Red-baiting methods only add to the sense that business rules America.

BannED foR NOt uusiN' BRoKeN spEEch.

Banned for hatin'.

Banned for no enthusiasm.

Banned because I was unable to start a new page.

Banned for starting a new page.

Banned for no Canadian.

The term "Balkanization" fits very well in this context.

Exactly. It would be much worse if Iran acquired nuclear capability as well. But that's another story. Also, I see a potentially horrifying pattern here: In Syria, protests cumulated in a bloody crackdown followed by war. A similar pattern seems to be evolving in the Ukraine (albeit, less bloody).

#Banned #for #no #hashtaggs.

Sure, Assad is a rational man, you still lose, because the losers spread out/blame America for their loss.....there is no winning. And then, what if Assad decides to act on his anti-Israeli rhetoric? And Iranian hegemony spreads, Hezbollah gets a new base of operations, it's like the Black Mesa incident: Xenians, Marines, Race X, and later on Black Ops, and to top it all off, none of them are willing to negotiate or surrender, and they all are very hazardous. Intervention or not, we lose. Exactly, in the end we still lose either way. But there are some key point's I think you are missing here, especially on Iran: I would not really call it Iranian "hegemony." Hegemony was when the US in the mid to late 1990s had total full spectrum dominance, and no other nation on earth could really oppose it via conventional military means, or economic influence. First off, Iran has problems, like difficulty purchasing modern weapons (they get some, but if you look at their air force inventory for instance, still not all that fantastic). On top of that, the Iranian economy is fragile, gas prices are high (believe it or not!), and there is a lot of discontent with weak economic performance. On top of that, you have the brain drain which began with the fall of the Shah, but has just continued. Iran has difficulty maintaining enough well educated people to advance science and technology. Militarily, they have some capabilities. But these are limited, for instance (and this is coming from a USNA grad, and a man who did a tour in the Persian Gulf), the Iranian Navy could inflict some damage to the US Navy if the Iranians hit first in a surprise attack. But besides that, their Naval forces can't do too much. Air force was already talked about. In general, Iran can't really project power. Finally, Iran can never achieve hegemony because there are other powerful Islamic world nations that oppose it, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The US is also allied with all three of these nations, and if need be can move in to inflict damage upon Iran. Iran, in a conflict might get some help from Russia, but this would most likely limited to supplying weapons. I doubt we would see any Russian troops (maybe some special forces) or planes in Iran. The day's when Russia/USSR could deploy up to 60,000 men to the Mideast in one week, are over. Russia could only deploy a few thousand paratroopers outside of Russia, if that. I stand corrected. Iran would still be somewhat difficult to handle, but victory is assured in a conventional war (an irregular one, however...).

Banned for alcohol.

Sure, Assad is a rational man, you still lose, because the losers spread out/blame America for their loss.....there is no winning. And then, what if Assad decides to act on his anti-Israeli rhetoric? And Iranian hegemony spreads, Hezbollah gets a new base of operations, it's like the Black Mesa incident: Xenians, Marines, Race X, and later on Black Ops, and to top it all off, none of them are willing to negotiate or surrender, and they all are very hazardous. Intervention or not, we lose.

That's a good game, if you can get past the PvP aspects.

Machinima is the perfect example of a business becoming corrupt. Let's hope it caves in on itself.

When I said oil, I was referring to the Middle East at large. And what better way to get that then with a puppet state? Yep, and there's the dilemma. Do we help the terrorists or a brutal tyrant? If we help the Syrian opposition, we run a major risk in the creation of a Sunni extremist state, bent on genocide of the Shiites and Jews, but if Assad wins, we get a similar genocide dilemma with Sunnis, and the risk of a safe haven for Hezbollah and an Iranian ally. And if we do nothing, someone will grow to hate the US for not supporting the losing side, and become a major terrorist, or the losers will spread out through the Middle East to wreck havoc somewhere else, or the winners will unite the region against Israel or the US, etc, etc. There's just too much potential for something bad to happen.

Banned for no drugs or caps.

Ah, Syria, Syria. I don't think there is a single solution for the Syrian problem. There's the Syrian "moderates", who claim they're fighting for democracy, the Sunni terrorists that are intent on creating a hardline Islamic state, the Syrian government that preaches fascism and Shiite ideals, aided by the anti Israeli group Hezbollah and Iran, a Kurdish rebellion throughout the area, and possibly chemical weapons that are still floating around....no end to madness. What to do is the million dollar question. As for US intervention in the Middle East, I give you two reasons for this: the threat of Islamic terrorism and bountiful oil.

Banned for trusting him with all your drugs, and mine.

Ah, thread necromancy (or not, depending on your viewpoint). Well, seems like a deal is finally taking shape, although they are particularly risky (lessening sanctions on Iran in return for a nuclear deal, about time something happened). Let's hope Iran isn't going behind our backs while sanctions are lessoned.

Are you kidding me? America is dominated by conservatives. If the extreme left control 95% of the media, how can an organization like Fox News attract so many viewers, and become "mainstream"? Name three major leftist radio commentators, for that matter. America is not fully "dominated" by anyone. You have CNN (fairly liberal) and MSNBC (very liberal) as two cable channels against Fox news already. Add on top of that the "big 3" original nightly news show, and you have an uninspiring picture if you are a right wing person. If conservatives "dominated" America, like you said, then why are states gradually legalizing same sex marriage, and why do the Democrats still control the Presidency and Senate (sure, it's not total control, but it's not nothing either)? Maybe I can't name you three radio commentators, but that is just a matter of media. How about TV or movies, or print/web media? Bill Maher, Ariana Huffington, and Michael Moore, to name a few? As for Fox News, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/frank-rich-fox-news-new-york_n_4672800.html Last I made a glance, Fox only had around 1 million viewers now. In a nation of 310 million. When I said dominated, I meant majority (even if by a slim minority). I was also trying to prove a point with BTG and his claim that 95% of the media is in leftist control. Additionally, your new comments now give me a better understanding of what exactly is going on.