So your saying people should not work

I'm pretty sure, I said the exact opposite... Let me check... Yes, I did...

You're able to read about as good as your writing is...

various nutballs like yourself

Q: How do you tell an Illiberal by his first sentence? A: An Illiberal would typically start talking with a personal attack.

Why do you think he ran for President? Because he was actively trying to sabotage the country? With what motive?

I do not know the answers to these questions and don't wish to offer you mere speculations.

But the fact that he dislikes America is evident in his — personally stated — desire to "fundamentally transform" the country.

People may agree with his assessment of the country or disagree with them, but there is no denying the fact — he did not like America as it was (before his presidency).

Seriously - the two biggest (ab)users of the H1B system are Tata and Infosys... and they're both Indian corporations.

I have very little problem with engineers — or anyone else — coming here to work. Sure, they make it harder for Americans to find work, but I never believed, Americans should be entitled to better jobs simply by birthright.

What worries me are the very bottom — the folks, who come over here knowing, that they may be able to get foodstamps and other hand-outs, that our schools and hospitals will teach and treat them for free.

And, whereas the Indians come by the mere thousands (and knowing English), the Latin Americans — even those who sincerely plan to work for a living — come in millions (and most of them knowing only one language). That they come from dirt-poor countries, where the government is the primary source of what little wealth there is, is my main fear, however — for they are likely to turn America into a government- rather than an enterprise-centric country even more than it is already, widening poverty and accelerating the loss of citizens' rights.

He can finally do what he thinks is right.

Sadly, you are right. And, given his dislike for America, he'll have two years to turn her into a 3rd-world country. Our only hope is that, being an incompetent nincompoop, he is unlikely to succeed simply for lack of ability. But not for lack of trying...

Your jump to that logic tells us volumes about you.

So, instead of answering "yes it may" or "not, it is unlikely", you make it about my person? Wow...

Can the availability of these data help me — or Iran — develop a nuclear weapon faster?

You even fail at Russian

That may be, because I'm actually from Ukraine... But, more likely than not I did not "fail at Russian" — you are just being overly pedantic.

Russian spelling is not phonetic, there are often significant differences between what is said and what is written.

There are some exceptions, yes, but there far fewer of them, than in English. That was my point.

Writing that the distinction between "w" and "v" makes no sense is also wrong. The right answer is that Russian simply lacks the [w] phoneme (labio-velar approximant)

"Vinnie" (as in "Cousin") and "Winnie" (the Pooh) sound exactly the same to all native Russian and Ukrainian speakers (and readers) and both names are transcribed exactly the same.

uses either "v" or "u" in transcriptions of foreign texts

You'd have had a point, if we were talking about names like "Watson" or "Welles" — which are, indeed, written differently in different editions of "Sherlock Holmes" and "War of the Worlds" respectively. But "Vinnie" vs. "Winnie" — no. These two would always be written with (a Cyrillic equivalent of) "v".

The anti-tobacco fight is just about over, as is the one over asbestos/mesothelioma. The new generation of lawyers will be getting obscenely rich fighting large investment funds over their investing in fuel companies.

There was once a time when most members of congress listened to scientists and other learned minds in their fields.

Yeah? When was that?

With scientists (and the lobbyists behind them) asking for taxpayers' money, it is only proper to be skeptical. Not distrustful, no, but skeptical nonetheless.

It is the right thing to do — not much different from you being skeptical, when the car-company or a cell-phone maker try to sell you some super-duper advance, that you probably don't need...

Oh, so that makes it ok then?

I didn't say so.

No, it doesn't.

Strawman much?

I don't usually moderate AC-posts for it does nothing to the authors' karma, but I would've done than had I had any points to spend.

I don't, so here it goes: thank you, sir, for raising awareness and letting the healing begin!

It's definitely become more right-wing and reactionary.

Indeed. So much so, arguing with your kind has become more like shooting fish in a barrel. Too easy.

I would've gone to a place like DailyKos or HaffPo to hunt you in your natural environment — with some equivalent of bright orange sign sport-hunters wear to make it harder for themselves — but those places tend to ban KKKonservatives under the bogus accusation of "trolling". So, here we are...

Please, don't hate.

What does "acceptable" mean to you?

To me? No, not to me — I was referring to the meaning OP attached to the word. When Illiberals declare something "unacceptable", their next move is to try to make it illegal...

Bush drafted the pullout plan...

Yes, the plan drafted by him years earlier — but it was Obama's execution, and his failure to make corrections when new developments made it obvious, the plan's original projections were too optimistic. Face it, Obama wanted to do it for political reasons — to look better...

You mean, like Reagan did with the USSR and Afghanistan invasion?

Hah! You lie, but that's a good example, thank you! USSR invaded Afghanistain in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was is office — another example of a weak "it is all America's fault" excuse for a President. But even he imposed sanctions against USSR. And the whole world boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

Reagan assumed Presidency in 1981, with the invasion over a year-old, and proceeded to arm Russia's opponents in Afghanistan. He did not lift Carter-era sanctions — he expanded them. Obama, on the other hand, would not send Ukraine anything lethal, and even to get him to agree to supply blankets and body-armor took some arm-twisting and was delayed by months.

1) Gitmo is still open. 2) Drone strikes were started by Bush.

Yes, which is an embarrassment for Obama. To reduce the embarrassment, he is doing two things both of which are far worse: 1) he is releasing the current detainees — including bona-fide enemies of the US; 2) he vastly expanded the drone strikes "started by Bush". Bush used air-strikes to kill enemies, who could not be detained. Obama is using against all — such is his reluctance to increase the number of inconvenient detainees, he prefers to lose the intelligence value of interrogating them. That the remotely-killed people have no chance of clearing up any confusion makes Obama's policy even more immoral.

So far you've listed exactly the things that Republicans do.

Nonsense. You have no leg to stand on in this argument — the extrajudicial killing of bin Laden (ordered by Obama) defeats your point by itself... That you chose to ignore the earlier-raised point of Obama taking the drone-strikes to the whole new level, and his order to kill rather the detain bin Laden, shows your dishonesty.

On top of that you got Reagan's reaction to USSR's invasion exactly backwards, which demonstrates the level of ignorance so deep, I'm unlikely to respond again...