Just as United States had "no grounds" to remove Hitler from power. Nazi Germany did not attack the United States in Pearl Harbor. Did United States illegally fight the war against Nazi Germany, too? Everyone knew that it was Imperial Japan which attacked Pearl Harbor.

It was the combination of good cause and opportunity. Arguing that it was just an opportunity or just a good cause would produce an easily refutable argument. But having both good and opportunity together in one situation makes it a simply inexcusable not take action. Oh, and since it was a good cause calling it a crime against humanity is blatantly wrong.

I would love to see that trial. So you are trying me for removing from power Saddam Hussein, who gassed his own people, took shots at my county's air force, invaded his neighboring country. And those are crimes against humanity? What's next? Trying Eisenhower for killing employees of the Nazi Germany who were simply going about their business trying to solve their labor problems??

It's a political attack on a selected conservative group. Most former Russians in the US are conservative. This administration has already shown that they have no scruples in attacking their political enemies by using the instruments of state. This is just another example. You can accuse me of paranoia all you want, but Obama's entire election was done through Bayesian inference micro-targeting of special groups. Since Russian Jews are (almost overwhelmingly) Republican and well-educated, they represent a very target-rich environment for any leftist trying to smear the right.

I hear the Russians implanted someone as high as the owner of the company. And now you can use it for free anywhere in Russia. Theft. Plain and simple.

And there should be have a law requiring Linus to backport everything to 2.2 and 2.4 kernels... in the interests of national security (or something). </sarcasm>

Mad. But then I was provoked. My point stands. Left is a tyranny. Obama is just being true to himself to those who elected him when he solidifies the power of the tyranny.

Oh, I know exactly what I am talking about. And you can try to get me to accept voluntary insanity all you want. But as much as absolute understanding is impossible, basic understanding is inevitable. And faculty of reasoning is based on abstractions which, by their nature, do not require full details but only underlying principles. And the natural logical conclusion of every left philosophy is tyranny. Left is a pro-tyranny philosophy. Show me a leftist and I'll show you a supporters of most tyrants in the world (if not a tyrant himself). Left is pro-crime, pro-slavery, anti-human, pro-insanity, pro-subjugation.... with a smile... a smog obnoxious condescending smile. And you can attempt to continue your assault on reason all you want. You can have people with funny hats or funny hair cuts or even funny beards telling you that insanity is inevitable or indistinguishable from sanity. But sanity not indistinguishable from insanity. And the fact that they haven't got a way to describe the difference between the two doesn't change the fact that the difference is there. And if you are really stupid enough to think that I don't understand the left, then you have not business talking. I get it. I just happen to know why it is flawed. It is not that I don't get the underlying assumptions of the left and disagree with it's conclusions. I get them. And they are wrong. They ultimately confuse cause and effect. And based on that confusion they try to view the world. That is why the left are always the ones attempting to get everyone to volunteer insanity. Because their view of the world is based on a wrong premise they can't make sense of the world despite their otherwise-well-developed faculty of deduction. But their insanity will not be mine. Oh, and "ignorant"? Fuck off.

No, I was the one who said it.... And the question remains. Do any of the members embrace a fully-leftist ideology? If they embrace a mix of leftist and market-based ideologies, then their regimes only become tyrannical in as much as the amount of leftist ideologies they accept.

No, he didn't. He didn't provide an example of any fully-leftest regime. The examples he provided are mixes of left and market-based regimes. That's why they didn't succumb to dictatorships.

And I was accurate. All lefitst regimes do. The most leftist a regime is, the more it tends towards tyranny. All fully-socialist regimes are tyrannies. Even Communist China is no longer fully Communist. That's why it is not a full tyranny anymore. Leftist ideology is abandoned of volition in favor of coercion. The only possible outcome of embracing that fully is a full totalitarian state. In as much as a regime does not embrace coercion and allows for cooperation of willing participants, such participation has to be accounted for with tokens of exchange (aka money). Without accounting of individuals' contributions, you quickly get non-cooperative members who live to take advantage of others and the whole thing descends into anarchy and collapses. Once the accounting is established, you have a market-based system which is not leftist by any means.

It's not a true scotsman argument if I point out that they don't meat the hypothesis criteria without mentioning the conclusion criteria. If they are a mixed system of leftist and market-based philosophies, then they are not (by definition) fully leftist. How is that a no-true-scotsman-type argument? No mention of the conclusion was made in pointing that the criteria of the hypothesis were not met.

No, but it is on you to prove that the criteria of the hypothesis were met if you wish to use as a counterexample.

He is clearly a leftist President. Left is pro-tyranny. It always has been. GW Bush was a "compassionate conservative" which was a code word for left-leaning conservative. Obama is full-on leftist. The only natural outcome of leftist philosophy is government control of as many aspects of citizens lives as possible. The more leftist they are, the more control they want. Obama is not stopping NSA because he is being true to who he is. He is not doing it despite of his world view. He is doing it because of it.

And which member of OECD has a fully socialist (rather than mixed) economy?

All leftist ideologies have always resulted in totalitarian dictatorships. It's not incompatible. Dictatorship is the only logical conclusion of any leftist philosophy.

You seem to be arguing with me, but you are actually agreeing. I said they were in the business of seduction. Seduction requires suspension of reason.

That's true. But the same is true of reporters. They are all interested in power and power structures. They are not in the business of improvement. They are in the business of seduction. Reason is a liability in that setting.

Yes, you do when the government policy directly changes the market. The fact that the government used one form of influence over another form of influence speaks of their methods. But it doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their accomoplished results. Their followed a policy which created encouraged self-destructive behavior among banks. How do you let them have pass on that just because the banks were already there to begin with?

No, it's not. It's a subtle way to pretend that you understand more than you really do by insinuating that familiarity without providing any evidence of it.