Who is Yuri?

"Today in America, unions have a secure place in our industrial life. Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice. I have no use for those -- regardless of their political party -- who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when organized labor was huddled, almost as a hapless mass. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice." Dwight D. Eisenhower

If you like Ike, I won't quibble with your reasons. I like him too. You call him conservatve, I call him socialist, you call him traditional, I call him disestablishmentarian, potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto...

I've read a couple biographies on Eisenhower and his war memoirs. Alot of what Thomas Ricks has written about Eisenhower resonated with me. I am impressed by Ike's political savvy. For his time, I think Ike would be considered a moderate. I'm not sure he would be considered conservative by todays standards, but "conservative-" I'm not even sure what that stands for, with libertarians and social conservatives at odds sometimes.

Here's the video. Unfortunately, when you lauch it using the link in Youtube, it autolaunches a "Brady is the Best QB Alive" video after the 7 second Nate Clements smackeroo. At least for me. That's why I embedded it here.

Arab World's Wealthiest Nations Doing Next to Nothing? I'm sure that they're at least watching CNN and adjusting their investments to the projected American response. Question: did we have some sort of unspoken treaty with Kuwait? Do we have an unspoken treaty with Qatar, UAE, etc.?

Iran's stated goals (down with america, etc.) are based upon the unfinished business that they have with us. Iran nationalized their oil industry. That resulted in a CIA sponsered coup in the '50's so that the war-torn British would get the imperial cut of oil proceeds that they were used to. The anger at America dates back to a time when they voted for a leader, for once, he called the nations oil their own, and we deposed him to help out the British. That's what they're thinking. There's some depth to it. On the other end, we don't have compelling reasons to hate Iran. If you think of Iran's neighbors, from Iran's perspective, the way that we think of our own neighbors, you'd understand Iran's antipathy toward us. In other words, if you put yourself in Iran's shoes, our assertive involvement in the Middle East would be threatening. Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil.

I agree. It's a small-time glory-hunter riding the coat-tails of big-time glory hunter. Trump'd been fired after the first campaign if he made it that far.

Maybe we could raise the bar a little bit more?

Seven charging buffaloes below thy name.

Does this mean that they'll be able to patrol their own trade routes?

It really bugs me, as a bit of an Eisenhower fan, how Trump says that he'll discover the next General Douglass MacArthur to advise him. He sometimes says, "or Patton." Both of those men are admirable fighters, but without Marshall and Eisenhower making the important decisions and compromises, I don't believe we'd have been able to work nicely enough with others to win World War II. With nobody holding the bridle reigns, those two generals would go out in a tremendous blaze, but lose the war ingloriously. I do not put Trump on the level of Marshall or Eisenhower. He's not even a Patton or MacArthur. Therefore, I don't think that Trump is qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Thanks.

Is the Trump candidacy for President just an excuse for major media outlets to pass off tabloid trash as real news? Isn't there a choice regarding what is newsworthy? CNN looks like the worst offender to me. They've been covering the insults, not the issues. Government should be serious business, but I am getting a Hollywood Insider Edition vibe from recent coverage, especially from CNN. I will be looking to other sources for principled journalism.

The Bernie Sanders campaign has entered Stage 2: Legitimacy. It's where the rubber meets the road. Likability figures are still great. Hillary has started to take him seriously, and she seems to be mounting some sort of polite attack. The way it's looking, now that Sanders is becoming well known, the first two primaries are projecting to fall to Bernie. South Carolina will be the biggest test, and if he can beat Hillary in the polling there sometime before November, I see her folding

I fail to see the connection.

I'm rural and own a gun. I work in Buffalo, and have lived there. .22 Ruger. I'm pissed about the availability of ammo. I think that Bernie is the candidate that most speaks to my needs. I need ammo, and I'm sure that the Independent Senator from Vermont is on top of this issue. He's the one candidate that I'm not worried about getting confused on gun rights issues.

He is talking about representing the rights of hunters. I would have thought that the video title that he owned a gun activist would have tipped you off that the posted video had a conservative slant.

Yes. But Iranians are Shia.

Watch it... then comment.

I would rather cheer from the sidelines, halfway around the world, for our new powerful ally, Iran, than send troops into a quagmire that we know nothing about and are resented for even participating in. There is zero strategic advantage to our engagement in Iraq, and it is not advantageous to prevent the Saudis and Iranians from solving the issue on their own. We have enough oil, and should be looking past fossil fuels anyway. I actually think that Iran does have peaceful nuclear ambitions. We think that we're on the cusp of nuclear fusion, but any other country that has an interest in such science gets deemed the enemy. Examples are Russia, Iran, Great Britain, France, Mexico. I am for the United States having the biggest and best military in the world. No one else will try to challenge us, because it would be too expensive. It's a major tax burden, but it has it's advantages also. We are basically stuck, maintaining the peace. I think that we're pretty powerful as it is, and that we don't need to go instigating new battles in Iran, Poland (e.g.), or the Ukraine (e.g.). For those two former Soviet Bloc countries, try to put yourself in Russian shoes. If they sidled up to Mexico or Cuba, we'd go apeshit, and be on the verge of mutual destruction. So don't feel like you need to mingle in Polish or Ukranian affairs haphazardly. You're not calling a bluff. The Russian do actually have some trump cards to play, if you force their hand.

Not only do we own it, we're also celebrating it. Now maybe Iran can throw their Sunni weight around in their neighbor state Iraq. That's a load off of our US shoulders. I'll be giving them a high five, WWF style for stepping into the battle for real at this time.

Here is a candidate that is willing to talk at length about this issue. I'm not aware of any other candidate that has talked about this issue at such length and detail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgH6nhusfEM

I've got fuzzy fond memories of Rob Riddick jumping the line like a trout to score touchdowns. I'm glad he got a mention.

This little gem could be sign of things to come. It was civil, well articulated, and without insult. Each party let the other speak, and actually seemed to address each others' arguments. It turns out that there was some agreement between the two. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T73LS6e1Rc

So, you like fisting mens' butts against their will. You've confessed to us. Are you, by any chance, posting from prison, yet?