coal

She really is remarkably bad. I was shocked Biden chose her, especially given his age she is the heir apparent and is just a bottom tier politician 

If Biden and Trump don’t run I think he’s a slam dunk to be the next President. I think he could beat Biden but it would be a closer thing than against Harris, who would get thrashed. Even Trump would probably beat Harris 

And BTW, people are often too stupid to make their own decisions. That’s just a fact.

I'd absolutely support DeSantis.

Mask mandates are vapid, absurd and politically motivated security theater

Was this your position before, or do you only take this position now because vaccines are available?

The ideas is that germs theory of disease is a real thing, so the further you are away from someone the less likely you are to contract a disease they are carrying. 6 feet is a fairly arbitrary number, the point is to avoid close contact. 

So  according to you, there is no statistical difference in the potential spread between a room with 10 people in it vs. a room with 100. Is that correct? 

Taking issue with the fact that other people politicized a pandemic is not politicizing a pandemic.

• Mask mandates are vapid, absurd and politically motivated security theater.  Anyone who supports mask mandates where any one of three commercially available vaccines are widely accessible to anyone who wants it, does so at the expense of public confidence in the vaccines. The vaccines work, there is no added safety whatsoever to masking if you're vaccinated and there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone, vaccinated or not, benefits directly/indirectly from any such mandate. Likewise, non-vaccinated people pose no risk whatsoever to vaccinated people.  
  
• So called "social distancing" is based on junk science.  The idea is that respiratory particles do not travel more than 6 feet.  Yet, the virus is airborne and with every exhaled breath in a closed room, the concentration of aerosolized viral material increases significantly --- which is why time spent in closed, non-ventilated spaces is the predictive factor of an outbreak (albeit only now among non-vaccinated persons) as opposed to "social distancing" or other such nonsense. Same goes for "capacity limits."  There is not now, nor has there ever been, evidence supporting efficacy of those "safety measures" in accomplishing their intended purpose.  
  
• It is very clear that COVID is very political for you.  It shouldn't be.  According to the evidence, as Bill Maher correctly noted on Real Time, Democrats profoundly over-estimate the risks COVID presents to all people at all age groups and with or without any risk factors.  Their understanding of COVID's risks has no connection to reality whatsoever.  Republicans, for their part, while still wrong to some extent, were less wrong on every relevant point of consideration than Democrats.  There is clear evidence linking media-based fear-pornography-reporting on COVID to these collective delusions of Democrats in this country.  It's time people actually followed the science, rather than following the politics --- which is what you're doing in this thread.  
  

IMHO, i don't know anything about leftists but the islamist propaganda you speak of is not restricted to Iran. In a way, if what you're saying is true, then the left (or whatever) is pandering to fundamentalist islam all across the globe. This includes Indonesia, malaysia, brunei, saudi arabia, turkey, afghanistan, iran and iraq.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Though you don't appear to be in a country that the United States would send drones to.  I have no involvement in any of that.

- My green card is safe then.

Who or what does the Democrat party represent? I have no clue. I could make some statements based on direct actions and observations. But I am sure some how what I am actually seeing and observing  is in fact not what I am seeing and observing. 

ome say revolution happened because shah was taking his way too quickly and maybe if he slowed down iran would have been a great country today and many muslims did not like the women's rights part

The cocktail reception was held shortly before sundown in the gardens of pink and red geraniums and 10‐foot rose bushes of the exquisitely tiled stucco Bagh‐e Eram, a public palace. Invited were perhaps 600 courtiers, affluent Iranians, visiting Iranologists, scholars and the press—not the presidents, prime ministers, assorted royalty and highly placed commoners from 63 countries due here for the national celebration.

The guests, mostly strangers to one another, stood in little clusters. The Austrians searched out other Austrians and the French hunted up the French while waiters in dinner jackets passed drinks on mirrored trays.

It was a very simple party, particularly in view of the partridge stuffed with foie gras and truffles Maxim's of Paris is preparing for Thursday's dinner honoring the heads of state.

Aside from the dabs of runof‐the‐mill caviar in tiny pastry cups, the hors d'oeuvres, apparently prepared by the Shah's chef, ran to hot dog cubes with mustard, deviled eggs and bread squares topped with garlic‐flavored salami and maraschino cherries.

• In 1951, Mossadegh was appointed to be prime minister by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. 
  
• Mossadegh was a nationalist reformer, and introduced a number of political changes, several of which were widely popular among Iran's cities, youth and rising professional class. This is important because at the time, Iran was little more than a feudal economy.
  
• As a part of Mossadegh's "reforms," he unilaterally nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company --- i.e., British Petroleum's predecessor --- including its assets, wells and refineries.  Months later, Iranian oil exports essentially ceased (which continued well into 1952) as a result of this decision. 
  
• Mossadegh blamed sabotage, but in reality it was because he didn't know how to run the wells or refineries.  
  
• By  late 1951, opposition to Mossadegh's "reforms" had grown. 
  
• While always unpopular with Iran's religious/conservative elements; his so called progressive reforms translated into rapidly deteriorating economic conditions inside Iran. 
  
• The youth "activists" who once stood behind him became dissatisfied with what they regarded as a frustration of their vision for the future of Iran.  As such, they were united with the religious/conservative elements in their opposition to Mossadegh. 
  
• Mossadegh blamed British intelligence for his unpopularity among both groups.  However, at most, British and American intelligence  did little more than encourage forces already in motion and opposition held by a growing majority of the Iranian electorate.  Mossadegh's decision to nationalize the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and its assets, again, was to blame for the lack of oil revenue coming into the Iranian economy.
  
• The British government tried, repeatedly, to negotiate with Mossadegh, though their efforts at peaceful resolution bore no fruit. Mossadegh took a hardline position against the British and in October 1952, declared England an enemy of the people of Iran and ended all formal diplomatic relations. 
  
• The United States had largely ignored Mossadegh, up to this point.  Washington regarded this as England's crisis, though once Mossadegh severed diplomatic ties with the UK concerns, Washington feared Mossadegh would turn to the Soviet Union for support.
  
• Washington's concern was not, contrary to several speculative, revisionist accounts, to protect British access to Iran's oil --- as that would have been counterproductive to their own interests. American-interested Saudi Aramco doubled production and gained considerable market share of global oil exports after Mossadegh's nationalizing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company --- directly benefiting the United States.
  
• In 1953, the United States and British Intelligence coordinated primarily to finance what is now known as Operation Ajax.
  
• This measure was intended to restore the Shah's rule, dismiss Mossadegh and replace him with Fazlollah Zahedi and Abbas Farzanegan --- who would restore the Iranian economy and resume Iranian oil production, reversing Mossadegh's expropriation of British assets.
  
• However, as a condition of restoring the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's assets, the former British monopoly on Iranian oil was ended and international competition was permitted. The Shah argued that this helped reduce British influence in Iranian politics, and created economic conditions for vast public infrastructure spending and modernization.
  
• From 1978-1979, a series of events took place that resulted in Shah Reza Pahlavi's overthrow and replacement with the current theocratic Iranian government (and its successor leaders).  
  
• This so called "revolution" was the result of naive leftist students who were exploited and manipulated into believing that they were somehow "allied" with the religious/conservative elements of Iran's political environment.   
  
• The Islamist right of Iran claimed that they and the leftist students they manipulated had a common enemy in "Western imperialism," which they passed off as causing Iran's economic decline following Mossadegh's nationalizing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.  
  
• Mossadegh's actions were the sole proximate cause of that economic downturn; not "Western imperialism" or other such nonsense.  Yet, the 1953 actions were cited by Iranian religious extremists who led Iran's so called "revolution" as evidence of western influence in Iran's domestic politics, and continue to profoundly exaggerate the CIA's role in interfering with Iranian domestic politics to this day.
  
• It turned out that the students who conspired with Iran's religious fundamentalists were sold a bill of goods. They wanted more of Mossadegh's secular nationalist reforms; instead they got fundamentalist theocracy, a tragedy yet to be rectified to this day.
  
• Most Iranians do not have the kind of deeply held animosity towards the United States that figures of the Iranian government have articulated. They, especially the older generation of Iranians who remember life before 1979, see Khamenei's nonsense for exactly what it is.
  

->@oromagi

Any law making people recite an affirmation of a single, present deity is a clear violation of the First Amendment.  Better to toss that silly pledge written by a newspaper out the window and if any pledge seems necessary, write one that adheres more closely to the spirit of our Constitution.

The words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance during the Cold War to distinguish the United States from the Soviet Union.  It was, oddly enough, during that same time that the United States' closest alliances with the Muslim world were formed.  

The idea was, from the Capitol to the CIA, that the Christian West and Muslim East shared a common opposition to godless, atheistic communism that was as destructive to Christianity as it was to Islam.  As "men of the book," their interests in preventing their religion from being driven from this earth was shared and existential.  That was at least the thinking in Washington, Riyadh and Tehran at the time.  Strange to conceive of all three as allies now, but once we were all on the same team.  

While I'd agree that offering counterpoint to the state atheism of the Communist Bloc  was certainly one argument favoring the addition, I'm skeptical that the Daughters of the American Revolution were thinking about their fellowship with the Muslim world when they awarded Louis Bowman for coming up with the notion.  I'm sure Eisenhower had the bigger picture in mind but made no mention of the Sons of Ishmael at the 1954 ceremony signing the "under God" bill into law:

 

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

the United States does not compel its citizens' allegiance any more than it compels recitation of any pledge. 

Except the presidential oath of office and Article IV of the Constitution which requires that members of Congress, state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers are to be bound by oath to uphold the Constitution and all branches of the US military likewise require the same oath.  By any road, an oath is a solemn pledge but of course all such offices are held voluntarily (except drafted soldiers which we haven't done since Vietnam).

You do not have to say the pledge.  Laws requiring any compelled speech are themselves unconstitutional, not for violating the establishment or free exercise clauses; but for intruding onto the domain of free thought (i.e., the principle behind each of the rights protected by the First Amendment).  So your point is moot.  There is no law compelling anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance.  You can do it.  Or not.  It is your choice.  The government cannot compel you to do otherwise.  

Well, that has not always been true. 

So while I'd agree generally that the govt. does not compel the pledge, I'd hardly call my point, which was that pledging to flags was silly and the whole thing needs a rewrite, moot.

Off topic, I'm also a little skeptical about placing Washington and Tehran on the same team in in 1954, considering the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister to prevent oil nationalization.  I mean, I'm sure the Shah and the clerics were relatively pro-US in 1954 but can we really say that the people of Tehran were our friends after we imprisoned  Time's Man of the Year 1951 and the new govt was still executing his ministers?

Any law making people recite an affirmation of a single, present deity is a clear violation of the First Amendment.  Better to toss that silly pledge written by a newspaper out the window and if any pledge seems necessary, write one that adheres more closely to the spirit of our Constitution.

Yes it is - capital "G" god, specifically refers to the gods of the abrahamic religions, don't try to pull that semantic stuff. 

But there are large segments of the population that refuse to get the vaccine.

And dangerous variants are still popping up all over the world. The threat that the vaccines might be less effective on these variants causing another surge is certainly a real possibility. 

But as I said, the reason for the restrictions still existing is if people are still getting sick and dying.

So if that is happening, there damn well better still be restrictions. People would demand it.