That's not what I mean by context.  By context, I mean what did he write immediately above and immediately below those words?  What was the piece about?

@damkira
Yes, we all know about the Israeli-Arab conflict. And we know the Muslim world is not exactly keen on Israel being the only nuclear power in the region. But the recent nuclear overtures from countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Turkey are not due to Israeli aggression, nor were they in response to a potential war between Israel and Iran. They arose when the possibility of a nuclear Iran became more real. While those countries hate Israel, they are also interested in maintaining a balance of power in the region. Make no mistake about it, none of those would stand for being without nukes if Iran developed their own.

What the heck are you talking about enrichment for? Of course they are not enriching anything. That’s why I said they had just started to TALKING about it more seriously. But it does demonstrate the calculus countries will go through when they are up against the military build up of a neighbor. And that is my point. The vacuum the US leaves behind in any quarter of the world has consequences. Don’t sound so certain you have it all figured out because your approach seems rather 2-dimensional.

Of course you don’t think you are being irrational. If you thought so we should hope your rhetoric would be less apocalyptic. We’ll just need to agree to disagree about Bush. I can give you a list of frustrations I have with the man, but you are just too far over the top. Frankly, it’s almost juvenile. It’s as if you’ve been sucked into some kind of cult that has warped any sense of proportion. Look, I get it. You’ve got a narrative in place and everything you see, hear or read will be interpreted through the lens of that narrative.

Your logic on Pakistan is rich. You take the time to point out that neither the military dictatorship or the Islamic fundamentalists are good guys for the US to be dealing with. Not only that, but they are a greater threat than Iran, not that you would advocate doing anything about them. So while we remain at this tortured state of indecision, we might as well forgo any help they may offer in clearing out terror camps? I really don’t get it.

And of course many in the Islamic world see the US as doing exactly what bin Laden accuses the US of doing. Because he has this uncanny ability to add whatever the US happens to be doing to the ever growing list of unforgiveable grievances. I’m really not partial to the US dancing to whatever tune bin Laden happens to be playing. I doubt the US could win any PR game anyway. So why play it?

I consider any attack on US citizens, embassies or properties to be an attack on the US. Yes, I know OKC and the Olympics were not initiated by Islamic extremists. Geez, give me some credit.

Some semblance of a stable democracy would be a measure of success in Iraq. But no “discernable progress”? Again, your inability to admit that there has been a stunning turn around in Iraq over the last 6 months is an example of how little objectivity you bring to this. It’s so obvious that some of the war’s most vocal critics begrudgingly admit to it (only to then run and hide, waiting (praying?) for the next negative headline to come out so that they can jump back up and start beating Bush over the head with it). I find it telling that you can’t say whether you would hope for the US to be victorious (by whatever measure).

So it seems your thoughts on the matter are sealed. Anything that runs contrary to your story rolls away like water off a ducks back.  In a way, a form of fundamentalism.

"meh// dont feel like replying to this bs..."

Well then you fail and my points stand. He has a history of overly racist tendencies that he has had to damage control for years and as such he remains unelectable because of it.

Kucinich has had his moment just like this, when he answered a question about a UFO sighting that he had seen up close. You just DON'T answer a question like that, just like you don't accept Neo Nazi and White Supremacist money under any circumstance and make a big issue about how you aren't going to be influenced by the White Supremacists that support you. He did not handle that well. He handled that piss poorly.

He's polling at about 2-5% in the race which means he is not going to win the Republican primary, which means talking about his potential presidency is a waste of valuable time, because he won't win as a Republican or a third party. I'm sure he's hot shit on the internet, but so was Snakes on a Plane and that movie sucked AND bombed. In the REAL WORLD, he's dead in the water. Anybody hoping for a conservative president should probably try to back Romney, because his crippling electoral flaws are minor. Being a Mormon isn't as bad as Huckabee's problem, having released a rapist from prison because he thought he got a "raw deal" by being punished hard for raping a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, only to have said rapist graduate from rape to rape+murder. Good judgment on that guy. Nor is it as bad as Guiliani's downright debilitating personal life flaws, what with having three wives and cheating on the first two in succession with the next, and charging New York City for the trysts.

But even then Romney probably won't win against any liberal challenger, mainly because evangelicals won't vote for an icky Mormon, so they'll vote for a third party or hopefully stay home and let the adults vote. A Democratic President seems almost inevitable now, although I'm not one to count chickens before they're hatched.

Ron Paul is simply a non-factor.

Is your point that Ron Paul is a racist, or is your point that no one will vote for him because people think he's a racist?

What do you guys think of Kucinich?
I just started to watch some debates and read into a few of the candidates, and Kucinich has really stood out for me.

I'm still unsure of Ron Paul. His policies look good on paper, but having a extremely small government in the 1700's is a lot different than having an extremely small government in the 21st Century.
Not a big fan of the way he talks about Religion either, although I assume he understands what separation of Church and State means.

"Generally tax reductions are followed by increased tax revenue. It happened under both Reagan and Bush."

Numbers please. Even if the tax base increased, which may or may not have been significantly aided by the tax cuts, the tax revenue decreased for three years running. Those are three of the five years since 1962 that revenue has decreased in absolute numbers.

The claim that tax cuts in general increase tax revenue in the short term has virtually no support among economists, and I only add the word "virtually" to guard against nutsos who happen to have degrees in economics.

"My poorly worded point was to say that politicians often assume tax increases translate into greater revenues (hopefully I don’t need to explain why this is a dubious assumption)."

You do, at least in terms of tax increases from levels the U.S. is currently at to anything remotely likely. Tax hikes do translate to revenue decreases at some point, but we are not anywhere near within shouting distance of that point.

"I hate debt as much as you do, but what I hate even more is government involvement in society. I wonder if you have any real sense for how bad US debt levels are on a relative basis. Have you looked at Europe lately? And they have already happily taken your advice on increasing taxes!"

I don't in fact know how much our debt relative to Europe is; please do enlighten me. But in any case that's not the point; the point is that the debt we DO have (over $9 trillion -- more than 2/3 the GDP -- and rising) is a huge burden on our nation that will only get worse until our descendants are forced eventually to face up to the problem our fathers and you are creating.

The national debt must be dealt with, and by "deal with" I don't mean "cause to grow by well over 50% in two terms of office". In fact, since World War II the debt has never increased dramatically out of proportion to inflation except under Reagan and Bush(es?). Whatever you think fiscal responsibility is, it's not maxing out the nation's credit card.

CUTTING TAXES DOES NOT CAUSE POLITICIANS TO CUT SPENDING. IF YOU WANT TO CUT SPENDING, CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING. DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO WILL CUT TAXES AND NOT CUT SPENDING, BECAUSE THAT IS A VOTE AGAINST THE FISCAL SOLVENCY OF OUR NATION. That is my point.

Oh, yeah, and pay down the debt. Call it an early Christmas present to your unborn grandchildren.

I did read your response, but I don't have to agree with it.

As it turns out, not only have Republicans (starting with Reagan) increased the debt more (way more) than [edit:  Democrats] -- they've increased spending more too!  LAWL.
(1978-2005.
(source here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf
(short version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms )