AstroProdigy

See even from someone who wants Israel wiped from the map a willingness to see the reality of the military situation. Sever can hope that Israel can be easily beaten because he'd like it to be, but just because someone wants something to happen doesn't mean they should drop objectivity and move into the realm of !@#$%^&*uming something is true and then trying to prove it so.

You can't "dig in" to hostile territory because the entire population won't let you. By small groups specify extremely small and ineffectual because otherwise they'd be wiped out. Syria has a whole armada of effective guided missiles? News to me. In the 6 Day War Israel took 800 casualties compared to 21,000 on the other side. In the Yom Kippur War where Egypt played the sneaky surprise attack, but Israel still only took 2656 deaths for 8528-15000 dead Arabs. All I said was the same corrupt despot who i mentioned before as being in power is still the same guy who's in power whether N!@#$%^&*er or Sadat was in charge in 73. Thanks for looking for "scoring points" anyway though. You said Iran would take part in a war if we did. Meaningless speculation by you about Iran being able to establish a caliphate aside American support for Israel is not rational. You can take it or leave it because it doesn't matter. 1/3 of the population would defend Israel no matter what happens and the rest don't want to see another Holocaust. This isn't even Israel holding onto enemy territory. This would be Israel under attack in its home base. An air force doesn't mean much if you can't use it effectively. Egypt has never shown that it can whereas Israel has. Your speculation that Egypt's air force can hold its own against Israel's air force is not based in fact and, therefore, for issues as technical as this that require facts is worthless. Discipline and training mean a lot here. Why would Israel want to hold on a big flat desert the size of their whole state when they can just make peace with what is by far the largest Arab country and break any large scale resistance to its existence in the future? You fail to acknowledge the fact that although Israel's military hasn't been seriously tested in a long time Egypt and Syria are even less so. First of all there are no settlers in Gaza and the settlers in the West Bank are heavily armed with the benefit of incredibly fractured Palestinian chunks cut off with checkpoint after checkpoint. The reason Hamas and Hezbollah are had to root out by conventional means is because they're supported by their respective populations and thus can hide among them. Therefore, when another country goes to attack they'd basically have to not care at all about civilian casualties and just bomb the living crap out of them. Israel cares now because it doesn't want to be condemned for it, but in case of an invasion they won't care at all. I've seen two groups with bigger differences than Palestinians and Syrians where immigrants from one country have no problem !@#$%^&*imilating into the other. It's just a matter of political will that Arab countries tend to not have being run undemocratically in a universal manner.

Again you ignore what I said about asymmetrical warfare. You can only do it if you have a friendly civilian population or very difficult terrain. Hezbollah would have neither in northern Israel. It would have a hostile civilian population not only pointing them out, but also attacking them. When an unconventional force comes out of its stronghold its extremely vulnerable. How can you not understand this and decide to concoct a crazy "spread out scenario" which clearly would never work with a hostile population. How many chemical weapons does Syria have and how many missiles that wouldn't just be fired at random? Thousands? I don't think so. Even having chemical weapons still requires you to be able to get them to your target. Israel easily takes out 2,3,4,5 times the enemy force in your proposed alliance just for a stalemate. These countries need to maintain massive military forces just to stalemate. As for 2006 if Israel wasn't massively constrained by international public opinion crying foul and actually used its capabilities there would be a defeated Hezbollah and hundreds of thousands of dead civilians along with it. You really think Egyptian military personnel are better than Israeli ones per capita? Are you serious? Egypt has proven itself in a total of zero military victories and has enough trouble keeping itself from being infiltrated from Islamists to ever build an effective military. Sorry Sadat was in power, but you've got the same corrupt despot in power now. Now you don't just talk about Hamas, Hezbollah, Egypt, and Syria all attacking at once you add Iran, making this an even more impossible alliance. The thing about Iran's military is its all about throwing large populations of martyrs to be at the enemy. This takes time and effort. It only got a stalemate out of Iraq which was much weaker. Sure we'd take heavy casualties, but lose in a fight that isn't even on Iranian soil we won't. You think America won't rush to Israel's defense over Iraq? What country do you live in? Americans are hardcore Israel supporters and that support cuts across party lines. We'd see an invasion of Israel as neo Nazis coming to finish the Holocaust. Where the %!%^ did you ever get that idea into your head? Do you hope Israel will fall THAT much that you ignore blatant facts like this? Any American leader who abandoned Israel would give up his career in the process. What happened to Egypt's air force before? Oh right Israel preempted it and took it out before there were planes in the air. In 1973 Egypt had the best possible timing you can possibly imagine. They sneak attacked on a Jewish holiday. Today they'd have to go much further from their center of population to attack whereas Israel is much closer to its own to defend it. Sinai is much easier for Egypt to attack than Israel proper. Egypt's air force won't even do much good if its poorly trained with no experience. Israel gave up Sinai because it didn't want to have to occupy such a large area and just wanted peace with Egypt. Israel hasn't been trading land for prestige. It's been trading worthless land for peace. The only time Israel was forced out of occupied land was in southern Lebanon and that was with intense international pressure and an unconventional force that is patently defenseless when engaging in any offensive maneuver. Hamas can't exploit !@#$%^&*. It's nothing more than a glorified militia and a bad one at that. An Israeli militia would defeat it not even counting Israel's military. Heck a group of old Israeli men with guns would defeat it. I respect Hezbollah for doing very well with what its got, but Hamas is incredibly weak. Palestinians were always incredibly weak at warfare and Hamas is no exception. All they can do is bring attention to themselves. Even the suicide bombings they were famous for were just ripped off Lebanese Shiites. Palestinians were always somewhat different than the other Arabs? Says who? 60 years isn't very long to create a completely new iden!@#$%^&*y when your neighbors speak basically the same language. Other groups coming from a virtually identical base with much more time to differentiate themselves still don't. Walloons and French, Austrians and Germans, Dutch and Flanders, American and Canadian, Greek and Greek Cypriot are all just as different, but would have a fairly easy time living in each other's countries. 60 years means little on an ethnic time scale even though people in America and Canada can't understand this. Palestinian iden!@#$%^&*y is largely just a victim's iden!@#$%^&*y perpetrated by the Israelis who victimized them and the Arab "friends" in other countries who kept them victimized in impoverished refugee camps. I don't blame this on the people as this was the decision of dictators who ran these countries.

Gotta admit Tskhinvali was asking for it. He called for a ceasefire and then used that to attack South Ossetia's capital particularly brutally. The Russian fingerbang he's about to get up his Tbilisi is called for. McCain to Russia: Surrender and then we can negotiate on you losing everything. It's the same as the Iran propaganda. You can't ask the other side to surrender BEFORE you make a deal. There won't be a deal left to make if they surrender! McCain's "military experience" sure does make him a good leader.

They also say there was an epic battle between Jesus and Lucipher and the angels who sided with Jesus were blessed with being white whereas those who sided with Lucipher were cursed as demons and those who refused to take a side became black people. Explain that!

Well most Americans do it and many do it so they can identify their history. Sometimes it is just a label with little cultural relevance with regards to well integrated groups that came here many generations ago(Irish American, German American, English American, Italian American, etc). We live in more of a soup than a melting pot. We all mix together but groups don't disappear and those are the chunks of tomatoes and onions. You find the same thing in other countries like Brazil, Canada, etc. The problem isn't that African Americans have an extra label in their name its the cir!@#$%^&*stances in which they were brought here and the way their abuse was dragged on and on even 100 years after they were supposedly "free" that makes them have a tough time being proud of that unlike all the voluntary immigrant groups. You find a similar problem with Native Americans, but with more recent African immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa you see the same immigrant mentality we always saw with immigrants. The problem is unique to African Americans descended from slaves and until they feel like they belong here and can really get ahead this won't go away. That's what makes Obama's candidacy interesting because it creates all that enthusiasm among black people and some white people. If a black man is allowed to run the country by a white majority then who do they have left to blame? I think the effect is canceled out largely if not more than enough by lingering racism (especially among older generations) so you'd probably have a backlash among black people if he loses blaming racist white people for never REALLY letting them get ahead. That may not be rational, but it is how it is.

Oh my god do you know what asymmetrical warfare is? Do you think Israelis are going to sit there and protect Hezbollah militants so Israel needs to bomb them to get them? In asymmetrical warfare the insurgent force holds onto its own territory precisely as you said and NOT to the civilian territory of its enemy. Those civilians are hostiles. The Israeli military would have zero trouble taking them out with the entire population as eyes and ears (and guns because the civilians would fight back). Hezbollah would get very very easily annihilated if they did this and Hamas more so as they're weaker. If Israel were being invaded they would not hesitate to use whatever means necessary. Thousands of chemical weapons are where? *laugh* Syria's superior military capabilities? You think Israel's military would collapse in two weeks? Are you serious? You gave me a link that said a maximum of 1/5 of Israeli reserves aren't well trained. Most of Syria and Egypt's military is poorly trained. They certainly are far from the caliber of a western force and one of the most efficient ones at that. Israel's military hasn't been asleep for 35 years its run numerous occupations and even fought a semi war with Hezbollah. Syria and Egypt have fought zero in this time ABSOLUTELY ZERO. On top of that their military capabilities were !@#$%^&* to begin with and proved themselves to be weak. Egypt didn't even win that one surprise attack all it got was a stalemate and that was with N!@#$%^&*er not the weak despot they have now. You really think the US wouldn't intervene if it saw Israel being invaded? Over Iraq? Are you really that blinded to your own hopes of Israel being wiped out? You think the US would even lose Iraq? Egypt was always close to Israel's centers of population. It never could have done something that outlandish as you hope for. It'd be running in extremely hostile territory. The only "faux-truce" capable of making Israel vulnerable would be one where Israel gives up its control of the West Bank and Gaza and Jordan comes on board with your imaginary alliance. That unfortunately is all the more reason Israel won't give up its control of the occupied territories. Besides this US support for Israel won't go away. Conservatives support them because they have to based on their religion and Americans universally like Israel and support Israel, A Democrat would intervene and so will a Republican. In fact our politicians fight for who will support Israel more if anything. Turkey had a reason to invade sure, but that disappeared when it transferred 100 thousand or more settlers from the mainland to colonize the part of the island they controlled. Israel has been doing the same thing with the West Bank, but unlike the Arabs we actually care about our own more than geopolitical games. That's the comparison. I again remind you of Azerbaijan. These are despotic regimes that play with their own populations without any regard for their well being. It's not excusable in any case.

China is increasingly taking control of its economy, though. It's own exploding middle class is becoming appealing as a market itself and more and more native owned companies are taking root. You can say a lot about the rulers of China, but puppets of the west they are not. They want to see a strong China.

The reason they're called African Americans is because they don't know what their descent is. Nigerian immigrants are called Nigerian Americans because they're from Nigeria. Haitian Americans are called Haitian Americans because they're from Haiti. Greek Americans because they're from Greece. German Americans because they're from Germany in ancestry. Most Americans have something to put in front of "American", but African Americans (since they were brought in as slaves and mixed up to prevent unity and rebellion) don't know where they're from so they identify simply as African American. It's not that African American in and of itself is a bad term it's just where the African American community is today. That's why I enjoy the company of people descended from immigrant African groups from the Caribbean and Africa better because they don't get all bent out of shape about a joke. What you have to hope for is that somehow African Americans succeed in America in the future. The most important thing would be to have them no longer think they're being cheated (president Obama anyone?)

Aileron don't be a you know what showing off that you joined the army. You know and I know you only put it up to show off.

#1 That aid won't run dry because Americans and both parties universally support Israel. #2 Israel has an air force too and won't hesitate to use it to the fullest in a major war. #3 Israel may not have fought a major war for 35 years, but neither have any of the other countries around it! Egypt would throw away population and would then have Islamists fighting it from within for power. There's a reason no one respects Egypt's military despite its large size. It's US dependent #4 In your four front war 2 of the fronts are minimal. Asymmetrical warfare is great for defense against a reluctant enemy, but they're complete !@#$%^&* on offense. Syria would easily collapse in a long term war. An !!% minority runs a Sunni majority. Sunni Arabs in that area are conceited and think they're destined to rule (look at Sunni Arabs in Iraq) and here they actually have the numbers. They won't put up with Alawite run incompetence in a long war. When did Syria prove itself to run effectively? It's like Iraq was, but a lot weaker. It has no long term capability. Russia, China, and Ukraine can't take over US dominance in sales. Egypt would have to reorient its entire military to do so. That's very expensive and would take a long time. By that point sanctions would take care of everything. Ukraine isn't even going to do it since they want to suck the United State's !@#$%^&*. HAMAS IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL FORCE! IT'S AN ASYMMETRICAL TYPE FORCE! It's weaker than Hezbollah by far too. Israel could incapacitate Hamas easily, but it would probably kill tens of thousands of Gaza Palestinians in the process. Guess what; in a large scale war Israel won't care and neither will anyone else, especially not the US. If you come out in the open you can't run an unconventional style. They can't spread out anywhere because they'd be in enemy territory. As soon as they came out in the open they'd be blasted. Israel could also retaliate by carpet bombing the !@#$%^&* out of southern Lebanon. When they ran out of bombs they could easily be restocked by the US. You think Israeli "civvies" won't fight back against Hezbollah invading their territory? Egypt can't run a long war either because there would be discontent at a continuing war. A quick victory maybe, but that would never happen. Islamists want to come into power and they'd dam well do their best to blame Egypt for not having a quick victory. In the long run the US would cut off ties with Egypt and the Egyptian military would weaken. Even IF they can defeat Israel like you seem to dream they can the United States would come in and beat the living !@#$%^&* out of anyone who attacked Israel. It would do it with American support too as they'd see "evil Arabs" trying to commit a Holocaust. The US may be vulnerable in an occupation, but in a conventional military confrontation the US kicks some major !@#$%^&*. I should hope so too because we spend more than any other country by far. Egypt isn't even hard to push into. It's just a line along the Nile. Even IF the US doesn't intervene Israel has nukes! You think they won't use them if their country is being invaded? Israel will kill tens of millions of Arabs to save its !@#$%^&* and won't bat an eye about it. Sure the international community would condemn Israel, but there would be no Arabs left to attack anymore. You seem to be one of those people who gets excited at thinking about Israel's military finally being defeated, but it's not based on reality. Just because Israel does messed up things and you hope it could be ended doesn't mean it will happen. It's not just the ultra orthodox Jews with the birth rates. Secular Israelis have higher than replacement fertility and the rise in those birth rates is what's been accounting for a rising average. Palestinians have lower birth rates than you think The Palestinian government massively overestimates the Palestinian population and also the birth rates. Those birth rates could converge in 10 or 20 years and in the West Bank settler Jews already have a much higher birth rate than Palestinians. Israel also has a net immigration of Jews while the territories have a net emigration of Palestinians. Do you think Israel trusts the weak international community that condemns them to protect East Jerusalem's holy sites? The wailing wall is an easy target by suicide bombers if you have a weak force defending it. The problem isn't Palestinians moving back to the West Bank; it's Palestinians moving back to Israel which is one of their demands. Turkey was invading for strategic reasons. They also wanted to "protect" the Turkish minority and have sent settlers to colonize it from Turkey to create a de facto permanent annexation. Sounds a lot like Israel! Israel didn't invade for the !@#$%^&* of it either. How would we have had nothing to gain from keeping the group a poor refugee population and Arab countries did? This is what would have been done if we were like Arabs in that area. The population would be put into underfunded refugee camps. People looking for citizenship wouldn't be allowed to get it and the Cypriot government would cry about the suffering that those refugees continue to face decades later even though it would be the Cypriot government's fault, too for using them as bargaining chips. Cyprus was a very poor country at that time and taking in and integrating the refugees was very difficult. My people worked hard to do it and get where they are today as a modern, first world people because instead of just trying to look like the victims by becoming the villains we actually cared about our own. Arab governments don't care or else they would have at least allowed Palestinians to integrate themselves. Instead they kept them in camps. Now they !@#$%^&* about something of their own doing. They couldn't care less about those Palestinians they only use them as bargaining chips. There wouldn't be such a crisis if Arab governments just accepted their military defeat and took in their own. In fact you'd have a Palestine of the pre 1967 borders within Egypt and Jordan since Palestinian iden!@#$%^&*y, let's face it, is something that was concocted to create a victim whereas before the conflict they were just Arabs like the Arabs around them. Arab governments now realize that all these games they've been playing have only hurt them in the long run and have only recently started to cut the bull!@#$%^&*.

Intelligence doesn't wrap around. It does in bizarro world. The sad thing is this is the way conservatives actually think. They haven't even accepted the notion that learning makes you smarter so reasoning with them is literally impossible.

What's with the avatar you're both sharing?

Syria is like Iraq, but weaker. Instead of a 20% Sunni Arab minority running the country it's a 10-15% Alawite minority supported by Iran and seen as heretics fairly universally. Syria probably won't fall apart in terms of turning into multiple states, but there would likely be great upheaval with Sunni Arabs taking over in the end of incapacitating the state in the meanwhile. The Soviet Union is dead and there is no alternative and there won't be one of that caliber for decades !@#$%^&*uming China continues its trend and maybe even then won't be at that level for Egypt. The only real compe!@#$%^&*ion we'd have with Egypt is from Europe and they won't do what you propose. By the way South Korea and Singapore wouldn't either. Egypt is held together with western support otherwise you'd see a civil war between Islamists and the government. It's hardly capable of running a war against a very disciplined and efficient military. What makes you think Israel can't shut down an insurgency in Gaza? Israel could end Hamas control in Gaza tomorrow, but it would be billed "genocidal", but if its back was against the wall do you think Israel would care? This is especially since the US will back it no matter what. The West Bank is more under Israeli control than it ever was with checkpoints littering the area so Gaza is the only place where any attacks other than suicide bombings can take place. Hezbollah has already showed its capabilities in 2006. It can defend its territory and stay alive in an Israeli assault, but coming into Israel would require coming out in the open where it would promptly be annihilated by Israel's vastly superior conventional capability. Oh come on you have no proof of Israel being defeated by a combined Egyptian, Syrian, Hezbollah, and Hamas attack. Egypt's military is basically at the same level of Israel's despite 11 times the population and it's laughable to compare them in ability to use those capabilities effectively. Syria is a joke militarily and while Hezbollah can defend itself against a limited Israeli invasion going on the offensive is completely different. Hamas can't even defend itself against a limited invasion. This all !@#$%^&*umes that Egypt would even attack Israel for the Palestinians and screw itself in the long term for people they really don't care that much about beyond as a bargaining chip anyway. If Islamists were to take over the US would promptly cut military ties to Egypt and its conventional capability would collapse the way Iran's did after the 1977 revolution. They could barely defend against a poorly led Iraqi military after that and Israel is much stronger than they are. On all sides Israel is under no threat of losing a conventional war and even IF they could they still have hundreds of nukes! Is Egypt going to let most its population be turned to a crisp for some Palestinians? !@#$%^&* NO! As for Israel being screwed if it maintains its occupation, on what grounds is this? Israel has been doing it quite successfully for decades and the Hamas problems only came as a result of going back on some of that with the Gaza pullout and free elections in the territories. Israeli Jews also have remarkably higher birth rates than any other country in the western world with signs that they could go up even further. On top of that Arab birth rates are continually dropping and with just some development (but not at the level of the first world) they will probably drop to sub replacement fertility or close to it. If you exclude Gaza and just country Israel and the West Bank the Jews will keep a comfortable majority probably forever and may even start reversing the trend so Arab Muslims start screaming "those !@#$%^&* Jews are only good at spitting out babies!" Now I may see what Israel does as morally bankrupt, but that doesn't mean I'll take whatever is anti-Israeli or underestimates them as truth. There are also sticking points that Israel actually can argue on the ethical side of issues. Who should get to own East Jerusalem with its religious significance to both Jews and Muslims? Palestinians don't want to negotiate giving that up as they want it as their capital so even a complete pullout to 1967 borders plus East Jerusalem wouldn't end the problem and would only give Palestinians a stronger hand to attack Israel for East Jerusalem (as they were empowered to attack Israel from Gaza when Israel pulled out). On top of that Palestinians are demanding the return of refugees. Do you think the return of millions of refugees is a good idea because it isn't. The refugee problem is only the way it is because outside countries refuse to integrate Palestinians or even let Palestinians integrate themselves. Israel had to integrate almost a million Jews from Arab lands that were forced out by anti semitic violence, but no one cares about that. The same thing cannot be said for Arab countries who have free reign to use populations as bargaining chips. Azerbaijan keeps its refugees from its war with Armenia in terrible conditions so they can perpetuate the "conflict" indefinitely, but Armenians don't do the same with their own. In Cyprus, where I'm from, when Turkey invaded and pushed out a third of the population do you think my people would have been allowed to keep them impoverished refugee camps to strengthen our diplomatic hand? No we had to integrate them (and by that I mean us since my family were among those dispossessed) and we did, which allowed for the prosperous economy we have there today. That stacks up real well with the consistent failure of the Muslim countries that did the opposite. Only Jordan integrated Palestinians and that was because they had no choice as Palestinians outnumbered Jordanians and not integrating them would have led to a collapse. You can bet your !@#$%^&* that doing it brought more economic prosperity than they would have had otherwise. When Christians (and Jews too apparently) have to take in their own they have to do the right thing and provide a future for them instead of forcing them to live in misery as bargaining chips. It's a disgusting double standard that is unhealthy for the global community. Let's not forget that the difference between Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese is the fake borders drown for them by the British and French. Before that they were all Levant Arabs with an extremely fluid iden!@#$%^&*y with only religion distinguishing them. Even today this is the strongest factor there; its much stronger than the imaginary dividing lines drawn up by the west. What this long rant means is that no Palestinians don't have a right of return to Israel. It's terrible the way they're forced to live in refugee camps, but the blame can be spread all around and Jews who fled from Arab lands won't get the conditions under which they can return in safety so its only fair. The only reason there are so many more Palestinians descended from those who were forced to flee than there are Jews is that they spit out a lot more babies and rewarding populations for having too many kids is a bad idea. Think Kosovo.

Let's not overestimate here. Syria is a basket case run by a minority religious group that would easily collapse, Egypt's military is dependent on the US, Hamas is weak and can't do much of anything beyond Gaza since the West Bank is under heavy Israeli occupation and even Gaza is completely blockaded and can be starved into submission (cruel but effective), and Hezbollah may be powerful enough to attack Israel, but mow down half the civilians in Israel requires a complete collapse of Israel's military and confiscation of its weapons.

Uhmm... trying to avoid looking racist isnt being PC. Theyre just covering their !@#$%^&*es, you would do the same. Honestly think about it "Lets run a segment on how ridiculously sensitive people can be, and at the same time do something that we now know those sensitive people might try to get us in trouble for!" Uhmm... yes it is. They may only be doing it to cover their !@#$%^&*es and I may do the same, but its still PC. People are PC nowadays because they fear the consequences of not being so. FOX News or NBC its the same thing really. They're covering their !@#$%^&*es.

Well this explains why Obama hates the troops so much.

Aileron probably thinks the quotes you pasted are liberal elitist propaganda made by gay transves!@#$%^&*e feminist professors at Yale and Harvard anyway since Obama is an Islamofascist black supremacist created from the mating of Osama bin Laden with a female member of the Black Panthers and raised in the mountains of Afghanistan for a while until he got his education in Zimbabwe where he was taught by Mugabe himself to come to America and destroy it as a Trojan Horse. Oh Osama you player you when did you get the jungle fever?

Yup you're absolutely right. Let me go tell the sociology department in my school that they should shut down because they've been wasting their time. A society is just the individuals in it and nothing else.

From a logical point of view an us versus them mentality is important in deteriorating relations between two groups. It's impossible to do it with women since they are part of every subset of our society and can't be removed. African Americans can, however, be separated because there's no necessity for them not to be. In fact they are separated into poor inner city areas and unless that changes things won't get better. Sexism is more acceptable in terms of public statements and action because there isn't as much of a stigma on it, but the hidden aspects of racism that show themselves in policy decisions are worse and threaten to be self sustaining. Also, women are over 50% of the population whereas African Americans are a minority of less than 13% so while women can themselves make things better African Americans are dependent on the goodwill of the white majority.

Personally I think racism is more prevalent. I know Hillary Clinton lost the nomination, but it wasn't because of sexism as she'd like to have you believe. Obama is much more likable than Hillary Clinton and her poor Senate record came back to bite her in the !@#$%^&*. If anything it was racism that didn't allow Obama to wrap up the nomination in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc. People in West Virginia even came out and said "I'm not voting for Obama because he's a black Muslim". That being said Obama also got a boost because he's black, but those people voted for him because he's black and NOT because Hillary is a woman. The fact is Hillary was trying to make this a race about gender and she paid for it when people rejected that kind of campaign. Obama tried in every way he could to avoid being the "black candidate," but his luck ran out and the comments of his pastor were broadcast to America 24/7 in an odd media orgy. If Obama doesn't win in November do you really think it has anything to do with McCain? McCain runs a shoddy campaign and makes media sound byte nightmares that would easily sink Obama if he did the same. The base social conservatives hate him and would only vote for him as their "lesser of 2 evils" (reminiscent of the way Kerry was the lesser of two evils and that lack of excitement lost him the race) while at the same time the Democrats have a massive advantage in party identification because of 8 years of Bush. All indicators say McCain should have absolutely no chance and if he were running against someone like Edwards, a white male, he'd be way down in the polls. I just love how mainstream journalists keep scratching their heads wondering how a charismatic Democrat in an election year when Republicans are way down can't be trouncing an old, unexciting Republican. Maybe they haven't realized that the civil rights movement didn't just erase all racist sentiments for those born before it and that it took a gradual transition in later generations for it not to matter significantly. Why do you think Obama is way ahead with young voters as a charismatic candidate in a time when Republicans are down for the count whereas McCain is trouncing Obama with those middle aged older white voters for "mysterious" reasons. I do think racism will fade away, though, as the voting patterns based on age show, but do we really want to elect another markets do no wrong bomb bomb bomb Iran Republican while we wait for racism to stop being a major force?

When an individual fails you can blame it on the individual. When a whole society of individuals fail you can't just blame it on all of them and go on your merry way not caring. Clearly you yourself developed an antipathy towards poor people as you've described your own personal experience with them "gaming the system". Therefore whenever there's a problem in poor communities you blame it on them and throw all sociological reasoning out the window. It's pretty predictable actually.

Yup the Democrats taking over magically creates fundamental problems that were taking place before the Democrats were in power. I suppose if Republicans were still in power you'd still blame the Democrats, though, so there's no point arguing with you.

No, you cited Brazil - I replied. Rest of your message isn't worth responding to. Thanks for conceding.