Probably.   The US government talks to Iran regularly.  The fiction that the Bush administration refuses to talk to countries they don't like is pure nonsense.  Obama's just the only idiot that will drop to the guys level and have an in person meeting with no point.

"Ok Mister President, hey, we've got the same name!  This is really cool!  Anyway, I know you've got that whole inferiority complex going and you want to wipe out a certain country because it exists, but let's let bygones be bygones.  I'll pretend you're not blowing up our soldiers and you can pretend we're not blowing up your terrorist camps, friends?"

psychoak: I think the very fact Obama's willing to meet with the guy, even though he knows it's pointless in terms of achieving anything, shows that he understands that gestures can mean so much to the rest of the world. To see an American president willing to make that move would be almost unprecedented in the current era, and might go some way to showing other countries that the US isn't some imperialist power whose president only talks to people he likes. It's all about gestures and appearances for me.

GW Swicord: Slated as in I am expecting a lot of people to react very negatively to my comments. Very good point about the presumption of meaning behind the term 'conservative'. I would actually say the opposite in terms of what a British conservative would think - most would be proud of the legacy of the Empire and proud of the very fact that it was achieved. I actually don't disagree with that point of view; I have the luxury of being able to tell myself that my country's empire was forged in a very different time and, althought it was obviously established for the benefit of Britain alone, did also bring a lot of good things to many areas of the world, as well as of course being extremely exploitative of others. Conservatives in the UK can be summed up as in favour of individual freedoms and responsibilities, in favour of the family and marriage, small government, free trade, low taxes, low public spending where possible, controlled immigration, protecting Britain's areas of influence, a strong military (to an extent), less government monitoring of the population, etc. I hope that makes things reasonably clear for you.

I actually can't really think of any appropriate way to describe my views with one word or term. It's probably because my views are so confused! I'm still traditionally conservative in the sense that I believe strongly in individual responsibility, from the person right up to the state. I'm pro-choice (but then in the UK I think most people are) and I'm absolutely terrified by the concept of creationists or any kind of religious morality governing the direction of the state. At the same time I'm in favour of small government and individual freedoms.

And then over-riding all of my views is this concept, which I know is ridiculously high-minded and probably a bit pretentious, that the human race is capable of so much, and that we all have so much potential, that it's frankly ridiculous that we still fight and kill each other over lines in the sand and because some people are different colours and speak different languages to the rest of us. All our energies should be put into helping those who can't help themselves (NOT those who WON'T help themselves - scroungers are a curse on society and hold us all back), and breaking down the barriers which keep us apart from each other. If we didn't have to worry about war or famine or other man-made disasters (I count famine as man-made because there is no excuse for any person to be hungry in this world) there is so much more we could do.

A very dangerous simplification to make.  Its always easy to vilify an individual. But one man alone could not have held the sway he did. At the time Germany was suffering economically and was humiliated by the terms of the peace after WWI. The country could have easily have fallen to either fascism or communism, both looked likely to gain control, both pandered to slightly different extremist elements. He was a product of extreme circumstances, Circumstances that could easily have produced another monster. If Hitler had been assassinated I don’t think there are many in his inner circle that would have been a better replacement. Fast forward 50 years and I don’t think Uday Hussein would have been a preferable replacement for Saddam either.

But I digress.

One of the aspects none of you have touched on yet is the role of religion in American politics. From a British perspective the role of Religion seems worryingly pervasive. Is that how the locals regard it? I said in my OP I think someone like me would be effectively barred from any meaningful office due to my lack of any faith. I notice in Obama’s book he is keen to spell out his finding of faith as if it was an essential element for advancement.  

Is it possible to be politically successful in the states and an atheist? 

If you mean at the presidential level, not any time soon. I believe there's only one member of Congress who's ever come close, and I believe he does not claim atheism, just non-theism. For a host of complex reasons, most in the US seem to have a very strong distrust of anyone who rejects the idea of a single, all-powerful god. It's a fascinating irony for students like me because the Constitution very explicitly forbids religious tests for office holders, yet the voters very much enforce such testing.

At least we're dipping our toes in the religious diversity waters at last. We managed to elect a Catholic president in 1960 and an evangelical Baptist one in 1976. We had a Jewish VP candidate in '04, and the first Muslim was elected to Congress in 2006. The VA even lets Wiccans have a pentacles on their gravestones in military burial grounds.

Quite a contrast to the UK then. Here politicians keep quiet about their faith in case it makes them look like a bit woolly headed. I wouldn’t say any hide it, but they certainly don’t talk about it either. The only time I hear about religion in politics here is when it is applied to Muslims. That’s only because of the extremist minority that feel blowing up bits of public transport might be a good idea.

Indeed, recently in London a group of Christians ran a campaign to put slogans in tube trains and on busses advising that unless you where Christian you would unfortunately burn in hell. Or that Jesus has all the answers etc.

In response a bunch of atheists wanted to raise money to run a campaign on the side of buses saying that “there is probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life” their plan was to raise $10,000 to do this. Within a week they had raised over $250,000 from the general public and are now rolling out a nationwide campaign of billboards, tubes trains, busses.  

We are quite seriously non-religious here. And to us the hold of religion in the States is worrying.  You guys are the Advent!

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

I'm right wing, I'm just not foaming at the mouth "zomg the government is trying to get me", "I need an armoury" type right wing. 

Reminds me of talking to one American, he argued that the 2nd admendment says the peoples right is to bear 'arms' not 'guns', so he was entitled to own mortars, landmines, attack gunships, heavy cannons the lot. And that because the government would not allow this they where a comminist force.  

[edit:] Hang on a minute, California happens to have a republican govener don't they. Or is Arnie a lefty too?

Yes, the Governator is a member of the GOP, but not at all beloved of the national party elite, at least on policy grounds--he's a "liberal" Republican, and some in the party probably think he's a RINO (Republican In Name Only). The California state legislature and congressional delegation are dominated by Democrats.

That "Left Coast" stuff is a bunch of hooey, at least for this Florida boy who'd vote Green if we had a real multi-party system like the UK. California gave us Nixon and Reagan. LA is brimming with unbridled greed, unregistered weapons, and an unbelievably strong Cult of the Car. San Francisco, the "gayest city in the world," has tried to privatize the sidewalks of its financial district so clearing out the homeless people would not cause political trouble for City Hall. And they are the well-spring of the McMansion problem that has savaged our national housing market. There is no real left in this country, except possibly Bernie Sanders' distict up in Vermont.

I won't get into the housing market argument at length again, but it is important to understand that the sub-prime sector is just where the symptoms first became extreme enough to start what is going to be a *very* long process of re-evaluating our credit practices across the board and getting some sanity back into assessing real estate values. I used the McMansion sticker as shorthand for the larger problem of living beyond our means at every level, from the individual, through the private sector, and all the way up our layers of governments. Credit is our national crack, and we've been binging really hard for my entire adult life. It has to stop sometime, or the inevitable heart attack will come and we'll all be learning Mandarin, Japanese, or German depending on how the international bankers divvy up the corpse of our nation.

Re Fannie & Freddie, AFAIK, the biggest push to spew out questionable mortgages came from the current administration with the acceptance of a GOP-controlled Congress. It was part of their smoke-and-mirrors game to wish away the recession that followed the .com bust & the 9-11 attacks. And if it makes me sound at least a little less crazy-lefty to you, the Democratic appointees in the upper management are from the side of my party I wish would grow up or go away. I can rail about the Clintons just as passionately as any ditto-head, if for some different reasons. Frakkin' DLC sell-outs.

Edit: Reagan was a hugely popular governor of California and made his career in Hollywood. He was about as much a heartland boy as Arnold.

And I've heard folks say that if the West dismantled every nuke, burned every weapon, and taught peace, that everyone would be able to get along.  So what, each side has their nuts.  We don't have to follow them.

It is nearly impossible to shoot a semi-auto as fast as an auto.  Even if you manage, the accuracy is horrendous.  I've emptied 20 rounds from an Ar-15 and hit a target, 20 feet away, 4 times.  That took a good 4-5 seconds.  The target was 4 feet by 3 feet.  You can't get the same results as an automatic because of the need to repull the trigger (adding force that pulls the gun off target).  Don't pay attention to movies or sensationalism.  Firing quickly from the hip doesn't work, and when I shot, it was shouldered.  You don't hit jack at speed, which is why many US automatics have been 3 round burst, not full auto.  You miss.

If you want a real clue, here's one for ya: many cops aren't afraid of seeing one while they're patrolling, you can't really lug an AK-47 with you without drawing attention to yourself.  Pistols are the problem since they're concealable.  What we call assault rifles are used in less than 3% (highest figure I've seen) of gun crimes (which are less than 50% of violent crimes),  And, per capita, gun violence is decreasing in many areas.  Want to know how to decrease violence more?  Gun education (not anti-gun education).  Hunters are less likely to commit crimes.  The politicians wanted a scapegoat, and the assault rifle was perfect.  If bans help you brits over there, it's fine, but we have another culture entirely.  It really doesn't do much here.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/

Has, in the past 4 years without a ban, automatic weapon violence gone up?  Not really.

The NY Times has a habit of being left.  Even so, think about premeditation.  Remove gang violence from the killings (going in a car to shoot someone is premeditation), getting a gun to talk to someone you have issues with(premeditation), threatening before shooting (premed), If you go into a situation going "if this happens, I will shoot" is premeditation, the only way it isn't murder is if it's for self-defense, protection of another, and some argue for property.  Stupidity accounts for a large portion of the leftovers.

Religious crap spews out of politicians because...they have nothing better to say.  A good libertarian would be nice, but Bob Barr is...not.

It's the thumbs up button on the bottom of each post.

(I wonder if anyone would notice/care if Idaho seceeded from the union, or if the'd even bother taking us back.....)

Three cheers for the Socialist States of America!!!!  May we live long, poorly (but equaly) and without our basic CONSTITUTIONAL (guns, free speech, whatever else) rights!

My take on redistribution of wealth (does not take into account leaving the old USofA):

1) Rich people get taxed + become middle class.

2) Government gives all that money to poor people who then become middle class.

3) Rich people (who control most businesses) no longer are motivated to keep their businesses, start new ones, or stay/try to become rich.

4) Rich people thus become poor.

5) The goverment no longer has money to give to the poor people, who then go back to being poor.

6) The middle class people, who now have no jobs becuase of the lack of businesses become poor.

7) Everyone is poor, no one is happy, nothing can happen, and the government is just simly "there."

Not bloody likely, the guy's too stupid to be that successful with the senate still locked down.