What if they get hold of the nuclear weapons. Plus, the demographics of Iran has changed. Most of them are younger than 30, and are pro-American. And you know this how?

Author David Frum’s book Conservatism that Can Win Again.

Plus, we can’t forgive terrorists, and therefore, talk to them. Just want to add that.

Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Why should we dip that low, and talk to them? It’s called perspective. from their point of view. the US is a state sponsor of terror, by pumping billions of dollars to Israel to maintain military control of all the resources in Palestine. What if they get hold of the nuclear weapons. Plus, the demographics of Iran has changed. Most of them are younger than 30, and are pro-American. And you know this how? . Can you say naive & inexperienced? I sure can.

The market forces are supposed to take of itself. But the shocks in the market require fed intervention. That’s why the Fed was created. Government intervention is the reason why we’re in this mess. If the government didn’t force banks to give loans to individuals who put down 0%, the fed interest rates wouldn’t be low (gas wouldn’t be expensive, food wouldn’t be expensive, etc). Democrats shaft the little guy once again.
You can say all you want about the Iraq war. However, the Palestinian terrorists are hurting their own people by engaging in these activities. And in addition, what will talking to Ahmedinijad (however you spell his name) accomplish? Khomeini and his disciple want to eliminate us…why would we talk with them? They shafted us in 79, and as a result, we ignore those bastards.

It’s called perspective. from their point of view. the US is a state sponsor of terror, by pumping billions of dollars to Israel to maintain military control of all the resources in Palestine.

What if they get hold of the nuclear weapons. Plus, the demographics of Iran has changed. Most of them are younger than 30, and are pro-American.

And you know this how?

. Can you say naive & inexperienced?

I sure can.

Iran has the second most oil in the world next to Saudi Arabi. Wrong. Iraq does. My opinion, let Iran crumble on its own, and go back to the good days of the pro-American leaders like Shah That worked real well too, didn’t it. There’s a difference between appeasement, and saying “we are so high, we won’t even consider speaking with you” Secondly, None of these arab nations would ever dare invade other countries in a post-nuclear age. Germany was a strong nation with infrastructure behind it.

Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Why should we dip that low, and talk to them? They’re a lot of radical Shiite & Sunni Muslims. What if they get hold of the nuclear weapons. Plus, the demographics of Iran has changed. Most of them are younger than 30, and are pro-American. Did detente work in the 70′s? Nope.
He complains that people are losing their jobs to oversea companies. Yet he wants to increase the corporate tax rate (of 35%) to something even higher; that will end up sending more jobs overseas. Can you say naive & inexperienced?

Is this a joke? California is a one party state. Nobody has to go there. When you guys figure out how to become a swing state then you’ll see some candidates.

Not true. California becomes a swing state when you either a) run a (seemingly) moderate Republican, or b) run a Republican from in-state. While CA is the first “majority minority” state in the U.S., the demographics of its voting population are not quite the same. Additionally, while better known for its Democratic core (Bay Area, central and west LA), there is a VERY strong and present Republican population. In short, it depends on who you run.

Since South Asians make up less then 1% of the total population they don’t matter as much in the States. Now in Canada and England it’s a different story.

That might be more accurate if you were thinking of the national level, but much different in California where there is a VERY large desi population (and, in a broader sense, a very large APIA population). Also, keep in mind that the % of desis born abroad only “waters down” the population effect if they are not moving towards citizenship.

I think it’s misleading to think Latinos will break predominantly McCain. I think we’ll see a split in voting patterns, both by age and by party.

Wrong. Iraq does.

My opinion, let Iran crumble on its own, and go back to the good days of the pro-American leaders like Shah

That worked real well too, didn’t it.

There’s a difference between appeasement, and saying “we are so high, we won’t even consider speaking with you” Secondly, None of these arab nations would ever dare invade other countries in a post-nuclear age. Germany was a strong nation with infrastructure behind it.

Why talk to your enemies (such as Iran)? Isn’t isolating them (also economically) the best possible mechanism for a regime change in Iran That worked pretty well in Iraq didn’t it. Isn’t that a poor lack of judgement for a person wanting to become president of the U.S.? No, it’s not. Because it’s a right step in actually looking at the way the US has carried itself, and a huge deviation from the rah rah america, f*ck yeah! nonsense you’ll get from a mccain admin. THe macho bullshit approach was tried for 8 years.

Iran has the second most oil in the world next to Saudi Arabi. However, they’ll be forced to cut of their oil exports in half in 2011 due to the lack of foreign investment and technology (due to their inward oriented economic policy). In 2014, they’ll virtually have no oil exports. Their economy is on the verge of bankruptcy. Plus, look at the times Western powers have spoken to their enemies (it emboldened them). Chamberlain spoke with Hitler in 1938, and Hitler agreed that he wouldn’t invade a European country. This appeasement doctrine made England look weak in the eyes of Germany. In ’39, HItler invaded Poland, and WWII started. In the 1940′s there was Yalta, and Truman spoke with Stalin. They agreed that they wouldn’t invade countries. The Soviets found the Americans as weaklings. They took over Czecholsovakia, Turkey, and Greece. That’s why Truman implemented the Truman Doctrine after that. Talking doesn’t do jack; it strengthens the enemy. However, Reagan did talk with Gorbachev in the 80′s, but he was more accepting of American powers (if compared to their other Bolshevik leaders). My opinion, let Iran crumble on its own, and go back to the good days of the pro-American leaders like Shah (minus the human rights violations).

That worked pretty well in Iraq didn’t it.

Isn’t that a poor lack of judgement for a person wanting to become president of the U.S.?

No, it’s not. Because it’s a right step in actually looking at the way the US has carried itself, and a huge deviation from the rah rah america, f*ck yeah! nonsense you’ll get from a mccain admin. THe macho bullshit approach was tried for 8 years.

the heinous things your pastor has stated

What heinous things has he said?