Or it's targeted coincidentally because political motives have provided the resources to investigate it. That's just convenient.

You seem to be taking issue with the fact that corruption, if investigated, might not be equally available to everybody. You're arguing that corruption needs to be equitable if it cannot be 100% squashed out. Others are saying we have to start somewhere, and you're arguing for equitable corruption. Since we can never squash it all out, we should never fight it because we might be unequal! Crackhead.

Please name other corrupt organizations "getting away with it."

If you can name them and back up your claim, you'll find many (all?) of us would avidly support prosecution. Thus, there'd be no selectivity or inequality. If you can't, then we have no idea what you're going on about.

...as opposed to what Biden is doing?

Is it lost on you that he's the laughing stock of the world? He acts like he's drunk all of the time. And he's a moron. He's an embarrassment. I don't doubt Palin would too, but it's not a given that she'd be worse than Biden. He sets the bar for embarrassment really, really high.

I'm not suggesting I want to see Palin as anything, let alone a VP. But what part of she has executive experience Biden lacks and her gaffes aren't as bad as Biden's don't you understand? Maybe you think she's said dumber stuff because of your socialistic leanings? That's legit. But it's silly to pretend there's no contest.

I'm sick and tired of retards who hear a lot of Palin jokes and presume she's the biggest moron on the planet and everybody knows it. They can't think for themselves. They shouldn't talk about politics with anyone. Ever. Or vote. I'm not a Palin fan, but give me a break. She's not the dumbest person who ever ran for office and it's certainly not a given that she'd be more embarrassing than Biden.

"But he is still making moves to try and keep Israel and Iran from going at each other."

I disagree. Israel has made it clear they won't tolerate a nuclear Iran. Obama has made it clear he will not do anything to stop Iran from going nuclear.

Therefore, he's doing nothing to help the situation. Insofar as he could have left the thread of force on the table to dissuade Iran from going nuclear, he's made the problem worse by removing any threat of US force of arms. Iran knows Israel will have to strike alone if it strikes, and this is a comfort to Iran while it develops nuclear arms. Obama gave them this comfort, encouraging them to remain on the path of going nuclear.

I also mentioned about the policing issue that it's no economically feasible. That is, it is physically impossible to maintain. We're 15.5 trillion in debt. I don't know how much further we can go, but there will be a limit at some point. My point about policing (one of them, the economic one) was that we literally cannot keep policing the entire world (and we haven't even tried to police the _whole_ world) forever. We don't have the money. It's not possible. That part of it was not opinion.

Thanks for the link, HotDogBun.

I haven't read particularly much (and there's not particularly much to read) about this story and haven't presumed to know what happened. Though it's funny how, though I have caught a number of TV news stories on it, none of them mentioned the eyewitness or injuries to Zimmerman.

Edit: OR the age of the photos shown. I was curious about that, because the photos suggest he was a hell of a young looking 17 year old.

xeno syndicated:
"If neither governs with the consent of the willing, how is one any more legitimate than the other?"

What evidence do you have that the US's leaders don't govern with the consent of the "willing"? I presume you meant people they govern.

"The only difference I see is that one presents itself with the facade of being a democratic state, while the other doesn't bother with the facade."

Are you some new level of conspiracy theorist who believes that all elections are completely fraudulent? Would you be so kind as to provide us with the evidence of this? You're making massive presumptions and not even bothering to explain your basis for them. It's [fudging] weird.

"I would have to disagree with this in so far as it is not the public's fault.  You can't blame the voting public for their selection of candidate when every candidate presented is trashy, deceitful, corrupt, and moronic."

Yes, you can. Who is selected starts at the local level where small groups' and even individuals' contributions to the selection and campaign processes start. We don't magically get big party candidates in offices and at conventions: They're all voted in, generally to more local offices first, and up they go. Real human beings support them with votes.

"The question is not why we keep electing trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons.  The question is why is it that trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons are the only options presented to the public as candidates."

You sound confused. Do you live in Sudan? Do you need an in-depth explanation of our electoral processes? Obviously. Such people are not the only people in the United States. They are, however, by and large the only ones getting elected. You are completely wrong to claim that nobody else runs. Other people do run. They don't get votes. Surely you would know this if you cared to, so you look like you're trolling.

"No. Has the public had the opportunity to keep themselves well-informed?  No."

The answer to the second question is "Yes." Again, you're simply wrong. Anyone who cares to educate themselves has access to cheap internet and, if they responsibly choose other priorities, they still have free internet access at libraries all across the nation.

"Democracies succeed when society is reasonably egalitarian in its wealth distribution. "

This is just HILARIOUS. Where do you come up with this? No society (that is, more than a small community) on Earth has ever had such a system. The Greeks who thought it up certainly didn't conform to your ridiculous notion. The Americans who created unprecedented wealth certainly didn't conform to your ridiculous notion. Where the [fudge!] do you come up with such idiotic notions? If you want to naively claim that janitors should be compensated at the same level as doctors and rocket scientists, you can go ahead and try to make that ridiculous argument. But to just presume this is the case (hahaha!) without even an explanation and come to conclusions on such a basis is absolutely categorically retarded.

"Democracies succeed when its democratic process is as more akin to that of a direct democracy rather than representative democracy. "

Except in the case of Americans being the most free (past history, forget arguable present) and quickly becoming the most wealthy nation on earth in a short period of time. Again your claim has what basis?

You're just making up all kinds of crazy and factually wrong presumptions (without any attempt to pretend they have any basis) and building nonsense on them. Good trolling.

The Riddler:

There's nothing silly about national sovereignty and not sending young people to die because of some academic, political bullshit. There are other sources of oil. The whole world's economy does not depend on any nation in the Middle East. To claim that it's "childish" to demand more responsible governance because you want a big [fudging] world babysitter to police [ie, violate the sovereignty of] other nations is... well, childish.

Forget philosophy and morality, it's simply uneconomical to pretend that anyone can afford to "police" the world. Nations can act responsibly and protect themselves or get bent over and [hugged!]. You're stating that it's childish to not want to police other nations of the world, but the fact is nobody can afford to do it. To ignore the economic reality and just pretend is childish.

That the US _massively_ [fudged, again!] up after its initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is pretty much indisputable. For anyone who doesn't know, in addition to tribal politics and corruption, there are no suitable banks "over there" so everything is dealt with in cash. ie, HELLO EMBEZZLEMENT!

"I do not feel that he is pushing our country towards war with Iran and is rather trying to avoid an altercation between Israel and Iran"

How has his soft stance on Iran avoided conflict? Israel has been clear that they will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Obama, on the other hand, has assured the Iranians he absolutely will not attack them. This only encourages Iranians to continue their arms race and provoke Israel into attacking them.

If Obama wanted to grow up, lead the free world, and avoid conflict, he'd actually pressure and threaten Iran in the interest of deterring them from developing The Bomb and subsequently deterring Israel from attacking Iran. He's made it very clear he won't attack Iran or back Israel in such an attack, encouraging Iran to continue on the course it has maintained for decades.

To pretend he's being diplomatic and attempting to stop Iran is laughable. You don't discourage anyone from doing anything by assuring them that you absolutely will not make them stop.

He's holding his hands up, saying "Not before the election! I told everyone to chill! I didn't do or say anything! You can't blame me if something happens!"

This does nothing to discourage Iran. This assures Iran they have another 6+ months with a guarantee of no US attack. This is not diplomacy to "fight" Iran, this is political posturing at a cost to stability in the region.

I do agree with a lot of what you posted, The Riddler. On the region, what's going on there, etc. I just have some spirited disagreements on "policing" and Mr. Obama's diplomatic performance I have outlined above.

lol @ xeno syndicated pretending the world would explode tomorrow and we missed the opportunity to invest in space research. I'd remark, but I must move on so I can stop laughing.

Genesis:
"As far as the topic goes, Obama adopted had anti-war stance for years before he was even elected president, and has kept to that commitment as much as possible."

He was forced to bomb Libya for the interests of other nations which had nothing to do with the Americans who blew them up?

Yes. The United States is ruled by pieces of trash because the American people, by and large, are ignorant, apathetic morons who don't know what's best for themselves and don't care enough to better themselves into aware, principled human beings who don't elect trailer trash who get us 15.5 trillion in debt and bomb other nations whose business is none of ours.

Ridiculously long sentence award goes to me!

My point is that it's our fault that we elect trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons. If enough Americans cared about the truth, responsible decision making, and minding our own business, we wouldn't have been interfering where we don't belong for decades. There is a mechanism by which we can fix our nation, dependent purely on the people wanting to.

Iranians have no such mechanism. When they try to communicate messages of change, they're gunned down in the streets.

Needing only to have the will VS getting gunned down if anyone tries is a pretty big difference.

He's not disagreeing that others should be investigated and prosecuted--on the evidence--as well. You've gone and owned yourself again.

My point remains. The actions of Israel go on with the consent of the governed. Whether or not the governed have become ignorant, apathetic masses who rule themselves irresponsibly is another matter. Such irresponsibility can never detract from the fact that tyrants and dictators do not have the consent of the governed, and their rule can never be considered legitimate by any measure. Peoples can have rights to do things for themselves. Dictators cannot.

Dictators get away with whatever they can in regard to their people and the rest of the world. There's no moral or philosophical equivalency between democratic nations having things and dictators having things. A democratic nation (ie. a people) may argue it has the right to something. Dictators have no such rights, they have whatever they can get and whatever we let them get. There's no moral or philosophical obligation to let a dictator do something as there is to let a people.

The Riddler
"And according to the religion this country was based on, having multiple spouses is wrong."

This is not a core belief of Christianity. Christianity is about wisdom, righteousness, and most importantly, love. Christianity is about loving and setting an example, not demanding others live by your standards.

I can't even find any information about marriage laws enacted or supported by Founders of this great nation or any before the 19th century. They were too busy mutilating people over sodomy and bestiality.

Regardless, we can all accept that you only want to limit my wives because you're jealous of my good looks, high income, sharp wit, and questionable intelligence which allows me to gain and maintain these relationships with more beautiful women!

His/our objection is to their hypocrisy, not their wealth. You... almost seem like you have no idea what's going on.

Unfortunately, when the regime was most destabilized, Elder Statesman President Dr. Obama told the people to go [play by] themselves; he wanted to negotiate with their tyrant dictator leadership, not support the people having a democratic role in their own fates.

Fail.

The urgent problem now is that Iran is so close that this fact alone makes convincing them to abandon their nuclear arms aspirations willingly all but impossible. They've been working toward this--and preparing for and enduring Western sanctions--for _decades_.

Sure, it hurts them. This, much more than the joke sanctions before now. But they're prepared to weather this storm for the very brief period between now and a nuclear-armed Iran. They're not without peers with beneficial economic arrangements in the region whose assistance can be bought.

Their people could stop them. But they're going to try.

Paininside:
"with israel having nukes and several other countrys in the area. why shouldnt they?"

Israel is a democratic nation. It's the only democratic nation whose rules have the sovereign consent of those they govern in the entire region. The Israeli people have no desire to use their nuclear weapons. Contrast this with the Iranian officials (w/o democratic consent, w/o accountability to the Iranian people) who have spoke of their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and you get the answer to your question.

Edit: no masking X(