somercet 1 point ago +1 / -0

Carter failed to help the Shah


And the Democratic view (WaPo).

The money quote: "This rivalry contributed to U.S. strategic mistakes such as supporting Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s."

Considering his army was equipped almost entirely with Soviet tanks and arms, and that Henry Kissinger famously quipped "Can't they both lose?" about the Iran-Iraq War, our "strategic mistake" was entirely limited to making sure Iran did not win.

An Iranian opposition of Islamists and Iranian nationalists wanted to take down the Shah, just as in Vietnam it was Communists and nationalists. (The nationalists got purged after their usefulness had ended, go figure.)

Everyone likes to talk about how the U.S. fatally compromised its standing with Iran after the ouster of Mohammad Mosaddegh.

But no one ever talks about Mosaddegh's predecessor, Haj Ali Razmara, who was assassinated by an Islamist who later went on to have tea with Mosaddegh, and got pardoned.

(Imagine if some crazed Christian Kluxer killed Barack Obama in summer 2007, and John McCain went on to have tea with the assassin after he was elected.)

You will find out a lot more about the 1953 ouster of Mosaddegh here:

As a member of the Parliament, Mosaddegh once threatened Razmara’s life in an angry outburst amidst an official parliamentary session... Razamara was taken aback by Mosaddegh’s threat and pointed out to him that despite his vast wealth and influence as a Qajar prince, he had done very little to help the poor in Iran.

Yes, "poor" Mosaddegh was a prince.

Iran used to be a relatively normal ('westernized") country before Carter fucked everything up.

A Middle Eastern country being "westernized" is not normal, any more than an easternized or Communized United States. A very small elite were Westernized, yes, but the vast majority of Iranians were not (of course, neither were they Islamic terrorists).

But don't worry: President Jo-Jo is on the lookout, the man behind such amazing ideas as, "let's send $200 million to Iran as a good will gesture," right after 9-11:

somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

For every good thing the government does it does 10 negative things. Governments always create more problems than they solve.

I was just thinking about this old saying, "Any attempt to reform a bureaucracy makes it bigger, worse, and less efficient."

And I realized why:

  1. the existing bureaucracy is doing something wrong, either as positive policy ("outlaw guns," "outlaw private drug use") or as a side effect ("We created Social Security!" "Great, now the banks are insolvent because no one's saving money for their old age."), producing bad effects;
  2. rather then eliminating the problems they caused, directly or indirectly, they double down and pour more resources into it ("We started confiscating assets without trial to make the War on Drugs more efficient"; "We created Medicare because no one was saving money for their old age, but now the banks are even more insolvent.");
  3. Doubling down makes everything bigger, worse and less efficient.

There's nothing wrong with the Republican platform

Aside from the fact that it is Democrat Lite? The GOP platform is weak beer.

somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

The part of government we "can't live without" would be a judiciary, juries, and a local sheriff. (Less an executive official than a judicial one, who serves the court's writs and the like.)

Of course, with the latest decisions, it turns out we can't afford those, either.

somercet 2 points ago +4 / -2

Our money is watermarked. Our checks. Even fake ballots can be watermarked, if you arrange to "accidentally" print a few more than needed.

More Q "guh-laxy" brain BS.

somercet 1 point ago +2 / -1

Anyone telling me to "sit tight, trust the plan" instead of "organize and fight back" is an enemy.

Stop dividing, and UNITE!

Right back at you, divider: why don't you drop your bizarre worship of an anonymous troll account? Why do you value a vaporous Q over your flesh-and-blood MAGA 'pedes?

somercet 3 points ago +3 / -0

That would be qualitatively different.

Sanctuary cities/states have refused to hand over illegal immigrants to ICE, but they don't deploy their police to attack ICE.

These same politicians, however, are pleased to catch-and-release Antifa/BLM rioters who attack ICE facilities/Federal buildings/etc.

A similar policy on the right would be the next step in escalation.

somercet 4 points ago +4 / -0

"Defund the police" is code. It doesn't mean privatizing the police; it means "more police, more instrusive police, more politicized police, that we won't call police."

somercet 3 points ago +5 / -2

You're replying to copypasta.

Check the comments above and below you.

somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

No need to go bonkers. A safety razor works great, and Feather (a Japanese company) makes the sharpest DE blades around.

somercet 5 points ago +5 / -0

I would sell my soul to that devil for a better life for me and my family.

You did.

I only wish that the price of your idol worship was limited to you and your family, but that's not how it works, is it? In fact, that's the point:

In economics, this is often known as the problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Someone who has a million or two to gain lobbies for the issue, but the cost is so dispersed that no one complains. Only years down the road, when there’s a budget crisis, do citizens finally pay attention.

Yeah, without a union, you might only be making $25/hour.

Who can blame you for funneling cash to Obama/Hillary/Biden?

somercet 1 point ago +11 / -10

Add John F. Kennedy assassination

Just remember: many of those "conspiracy theories" are in fact pushed by other conspirators to create dissension.

If you want to read two books on the Kennedy assassination, I strongly recommend:

  • Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK by Gerald Posner, 2003. Amazon, Barnes & Noble
  • Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism by James Piereson, 2007. Amazon, Barnes & Noble

The first book is, in effect, the biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, showing you how he was definitely the only man in Dallas with the means, motive and opportunity to shoot Kennedy, and who was also ID'ed on the scene by witnesses. (He also took a shot at the chief of the John Birch Society.)

The second book shows you how the first conspiracy theory about JFK's death was promulgated by Jackie Kennedy and The New York Times within 24 hours of the shooting.

somercet 1 point ago +2 / -1

"Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that 'we are holding our position.' We're not holding anything. Let the [Commies] do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose!"

Conservatism is just an attitude. It's stand-pat-ism.

We need radical action, based upon the ancient verities, but translated forward into the new age.

  1. Right-to-work should be a Federal amendment.
  2. Employer-sponsored (health) insurance was a boondoggle.
  3. ESI led directly to Medicare and Medicaid.
  4. Milton Friedman felt bad about tax withholding. He was wrong.
  5. Withholding is great, so long as you require people to withhold money for medical emergencies/old age.
  6. Health and retirement savings accounts (HRSA) could entirely replace all of ESI/Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare overnight.
  7. HRSA accounts would turn the Federal Reserve into a rump organization that does nothing but buy and sell Treasury bonds again.
  8. Ignore the current health savings accounts, they are entirely inadequate, just another limp-wristed GOP do-nothing maneuver.
somercet 5 points ago +5 / -0

Have you ever gone "on the bum"?

It means to become homeless, like a hobo.

somercet 3 points ago +3 / -0

Taxation is not equivalent to stealing.

Well, it's a matter of degree, isn't it?

I mean, a mugging is a mugging, and someone B&E'ing your house and taking everything of value down to your saintly mother's wedding ring is burglary, regardless of how much they took.

But when it comes to taxation, it takes a moment's thought to realize that when the politicians say, let us tax the rich to pay the poor, and then tax half of all the working class make, but return to them only a few pennies for each dollar, then that is theft by fraud, and should never be tolerated.

somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cringe comment. I smoked weed from 18 to mid-20s, but that just made me a scofflaw, not a political freedom fighter.

I realized I was a classical Liberal when I was 14. But I was a lousy, squishy libertarian until the fall of 2006, * when I was deeply radicalized (and it's only gotten worse since then).

Most people have libertarian leanings, but they, and a lot of self-described Libertarians, are a bunch of damned squishes, almost useless in any fight against the Democrats/Pantifa.

I would love to be wrong about that, but I'm not. Tough. Let's keep red-pilling the normies en masse.

* When the sight of Bush 43 driving the GOP into a bridge abutment nauseated me, and I realized the GOP need to be replaced wholesale, or at least gutted and rebuilt.

somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, you don't. Obscenity laws did not stop our great-grandparents from viewing or purchasing erotic art, they governed the public display of such.

Back in the days of the Motion Picture Production Code (1934–1968, AKA the Hays Code), people still watched naughty pictures: American B-movies and racy European "cinema." They just went to "art houses" to see them. Hays Code theaters were built around residential neighborhoods (esp. with lots of kids), while the art houses were relegated to seedier neighborhoods.

Obscenity laws did nothing wrong.

view more: Next ›