[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.


Belize? Riots? This is not marginalizing, it is super-minimalizing and smearing. It was Zakaria, not you, that left out "right wing" opinions in ALL the countries to whose select media he referred.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.



Your picture is not the GOP. Is code pink the Democrat party?

I'll argue that the current conservative position is that most if not all treaties we've signed up to do more to constrain than enable. I listen to a lot of conservative pundits and this theme is very consistent.

It is the nature of treaties to constrain. Without the constraint, anything goes. On the other hand, if too much constraint already exists, a treaty may remove it. That is usually the object of "free trade." I have not followed "current" conservative position on trade. It has traditionally been for open markets. It is the nature of law, in a society such as ours, to constrain government from infringing on the rights of the people.

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.-spence

Where did you find these beliefs? I am not aware of them.