Mr. Obama is ahead in the polls by 5-6 points, and that isn't likely to change. Thanks to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama has all ready dealt with a lot of attacks, and he is still doing very well. The Rev. Wright problem has pretty much gone away and it isn't going to do him anymore political damage.
America wants change, and Senator McCain isn't going to do that. He still represents the party of President Bush, who has become the most unpopular president in recent memory. The Republican Party isn't going to do anything to do the following: end the Iraq war, create Universal Health Care, lower gas prices, create more jobs, etc.
Finally, these are my opinions, and I have been wrong before. This is America, and we are allowed to disagree with each. I know that there are people on the Far-Right who believe that anyone who speaks out against the current President's policies (Iraq War) are traitors, but they are wrong. Speaking out against the government is as American as apple pie, Football (not Baseball), the Fourth of July, and D&D.
No one is going to change anything. Our government has been crippled in that regard for a very long time. Surface issues may take on a different hue, but that will be the extent of any "changes" that B.O. or J.M. make.
J.M. is far and away removed from the Bush camp. As a matter of fact, the biggest arguments against him came from the Republican camp. Why? He's not Republican enough. He's a moderate, to be sure.
The Iraq war will not be fixed over the course of one year alone- no matter what any candidate tells you. Remember also that it's easy to be an armchair general, but the fact is that if you have not been in a military command position (B.O., H.C., etc) you cannot possibly expect to know what you're doing. There will be no rapid pull out. If there is, expect to see Vietnam-esque footage of fleeing military and civilians. All you need to do to visualize it is to take one of the more iconic vid sequences of the Huey being pushed off the carrier deck. Replace it with a Blackhawk and you'll get the picture.
Just remember that we are pretty far gone as a country. B.O. will not save us. Neither will J.M. I'm just glad H.C. is out.
But remember, you never know what could happen.
I am hoping he wins. I'll be voting for him.
What really sucks is Barak is at best neutral (undecided, with no plan but that which he has taken from others to dispute vainly that he has no plan). He's probably Neutral Evil though, since his early campaign and motivations are to gain power for powers sake with lots of rhetoric but no details which shows a big "out for myself" attitude just like Bush had in his campaign.
Of course, John Mcain is Lawful Evil, he cares about tradition and his own personal code but often tries to take what he wants and push his views on others by telling them when and how they can run for office and other such controlling minutia.
Then again, George Bush is definitely Chaotic Evil, doing whatever his greed, hatred and lust for destruction drive him to do with no regard for others opinions, the law or the reasonable conduct of civilized people.
I guess either John or Barak is better then George but they really all suck. Maybe someday we'll get another Washington (Chaotic Good) or Lincoln (Neutral Good). But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Incidentally, Hillary is probably LN, an honerable judge concerned with code and personal tradition but not a zealot. She might be at the edge of NG though since most of her plan was to help others generally.
Incidentally, Hillary is probably LN, an honerable judge concerned with code and personal tradition but not a zealot. She might be at the edge of NG though since most of her plan was to help others generally.
She was faaaaaar too selfish for this assessment. She lied openly and refused to admit to it even when faced with friggin' video evidence proving she was, in fact, not mis-speaking but lying through her teeth. Add this to the fact that she openly supported and campaigned for NAFTA and now, all of a sudden, decided it's bad without owning up to the fact that it was her husband and herself that put the country where it is in regard to said policy and we start to see that she is far from NG. Pile on (why not?) the whole Whitewater stink and it should be fairly obvious that she has no love for anyone but herself. She cares for nothing but her own agenda and would be happy with nothing less than total control to mold the world in her demented image. This last bit, of course, squarely puts her in the mold of "politician". In short, she is no better than the rest. Possibly worse, but most assuredly not better. Let's hope she gets drummed out of the Senate so that she can never again try to bamboozle the country into allowing her to come even as close as she did to power.
This is America,
It is? Here I was thinking it was the internet. Damn, did you guys take over the whole world and nobody even noticed! Well done!
It is? Here I was thinking it was the internet. Damn, did you guys take over the whole world and nobody even noticed! Well done!
You didn't get the memo? Well, to be fair, Mr Bush is not exactly the best at communicerationalisms and whatnot. Mission accomplished ...
She was faaaaaar too selfish for this assessment.
...
I didn't say LG pali, LMAO, I said NEUTRAL Good.
That leaves room for bending the truth or acting both within and outside the established system. Heck, if even if I did say LG, we pali's have our faults too. ;) Even Sir Galahad knew error and temptation in his search for the Holy Grail.BTW, IMO most politicians would be Rogues with training in Diplomacy. :P The military men might be fighters or rangers, but any of them are obviously buffing Cha and using Int/Wis as dump stats. :D
but as far as alignment,
I would say that knowing you screwed up and trying to right the wrong (by ending NAFTA) is a Good trait, whether you admit the mistake on video or not is irrelevant and it could just have been a series of bad rolls on her Diplomacy skill challenge. Whitewater, after investigation, by the dems and reps, supposedly by experienced (high level) personnel with high insight and perception scores, found nothing by either Clinton, so I'm not sure where you were going other then propoganda land with that.
Regardless and more to the point, Hilary had a plan to aid everyone, Noble or Serf, Human, Elf, Dwarf or Halfling - as far as being safe, secure, housed and healthy right from the beginning of her campaign. Maybe Barak or McCain will pick up some of it out of political necessity, but either way the fact that she thought of it as a priority is a Good trait.
Note, I'm not saying I would or wouldn't vote for any of them. Just making comparisons of an off topic but D&D related nature.
Also, if B.O. loses the other nations are going to think the U.S. is rascist ('cause even if all the South votes against him he still wins).
I'm sure that when BO and JM got into politics, they probably had altruistic motives ... possibly even held LG ideals.
Speaking from a 4e standpoint, though, I'd say they're both Unaligned. It's the political process. You have to be--you say what you need to say and do what you need to do to get elected.
Unfortunately, the process by which we elect a president (or any politician) in the USA has been so corrupt for so long that the best candidates--the ones who could really do the job--tend to either get weeded out, or forced to conform to a system of constanly trying to get re-elected.
Personally, I think BO is the best choice. Mostly because the crew at Faux news doesn't like him.
However, if I really had my druthers, it'd be Cthulhu for President. Why vote for the lesser evil?
I'm fine with political opinions running rampant and flames shooting from this thread laced with enough venom and malice to drop Keith Richards.
BUT, keep it inside the thread. For the love of whatever God you believe in, what happens in this thread, unlike Vegas, it STAYS here.
Or is he a cylon?
----------
About Vietnam war; After the retreat from Vietnam (and the horror of boat-people) this country in 1978 started other war againts their neighboring land Camodia. Vietcong versus Pol Pot´s Khmer Rouge. Where were hippies and Jane Fonda to stop this new war?
Ideal is dimplomacy to avoid all wars but always it isn´t possible. Do you rebember Neville Camberlain and the 1938 Munich Agreement?. Teorically the second world war has to be avoided by the Appeasement but the reality.....
"He was given a choice between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor and he will have war anyway."
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last"
[INDENT][INDENT]Wiston Churchill.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
--------
Warning, controversial comment about politics.
Show
If Sadam Husseim wouldn´t be overthrown he would have reconstruited his army and program of weapons of mass destruction to try again a second invasion. If we would allowed S.H. became stronger again the war woud have more number of deaths and destruction. S. H never had the presumption of inocency. He wanted having again WMD when he would have oportunity.
Please, be careful, my country has suffered a false flag operation in the 11-March Madrid train bombings to made Aznar (then Spanish president) losing the elections of 14-March. Aznar was acussed of causing the terrorist attack by the rage of al-Qaeda because he suportted George Bush and his Irak war againts Sadam Husseim. Now the oficial version isn´t credible because there is a lot of black holes. (Do yo imagine? Killing people to made changing the opinion of the public and winning the 2004 elections. Watergate nest to this is Sesame Street.
Please, be careful, my country has suffered a false flag operation in the 11-March Madrid train bombings to made Aznar (then Spanish president) losing the elections of 14-March. Aznar was acussed of causing the terrorist attack by the rage of al-Qaeda because he suportted George Bush and his Irak war againts Sadam Husseim. Now the oficial version isn´t credible because there is a lot of black holes. (Do yo imagine? Killing people to made changing the opinion of the public and winning the 2004 elections. Watergate nest to this is Sesame Street.
Sen Obama gets elected President.
Some Femi-nazi or skinhead assassinates Pres. Obama.
Vice-President Clinton becomes President.
Some Black Panther militant assassinates Pres. Clinton.
Sen Nancy Pelosi becomes President.
Shudder...
(If I have my chain of succession correct).
I express amusement and resentment at the poster from California who thinks that George Bush is Chaotic Evil.
Let's count off B.O's support list: The leader of Hamas, Fidel Castro, Chavez (you know, the guy who publicly told his people that Americans are crap? Yeah, that guy), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the guy who said he's going to blast every other religeon off the face of the earth).
Sounds to me like B.O has everyone on the axis of evil except Bin Laden himself, although I'm sure he's rooting for B.O in whatever hole he's hiding in.
McCain: Block + Low Punch
I express amusement and resentment at the poster from California who thinks that George Bush is Chaotic Evil.
Of course he's CE. How could he not be. CE="I don't care what I have to do to get what I want". That's Bush to a "T". A perfect representation of his attitude from Day 1 when I attended his inauguration (representing an oil company).
He thinks it's ok to torture people then to avoid criticism by trying to change the definition of the word. I'd like to see him try waterboarding for a day or two THEN come back and say it's not torture. Torture is evil, since it is illegal it is also chaotic. CE.
He thinks it's just too damn bad if poor Americans are starving to pay for his war of conquest in Iraq. If he cared about "the people" at all he would lengthen benefits to the millions of people that have lost their livlihood on his watch... since he wants to be noblity/royalty he could opt to fulfill the duty of royalty to care for the "peseants" but he doesn't because he is selfish and greedy. CE
Lets talk about Iraq. They never attacked the US (the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis trained in Afghanistan). They never could have attacked us, with no air force or navy how could Iraqi paratroopers have even gotten to Florida or Hawaii, let alone invade them. Lying about motivations and then launching an unprovoked war, even against a country led by a CE leader (Saddam), is still CE.
His word is meaningless, since he just does what he wants. He is NOT the Education President, as nearly any teacher who has had their budgets sliced (meaning almost all of them) or any college student whose tuition has skyrocketed (again, nearly all of them) can tell you. He is NOT working in a bipartisian fashion and never has from day 1 despite pledging to. Etc, etc. Again, CE.
His world view is so warped that he destroys anything and anyone that doesn't support his lies and positions. Just look at Valerie Plame who was a valuable asset for the US Intelligence being exposed just because HER HUSBAND, not even her, disagreed with Bush's lies and told the truth in writing. Exposing our spies puts their lives in danger AND harms the countries intel gathering abilities. He got even with her husband at the expense of the common Good. That's very CE.
Bush fan-boiz may not like the implications of their hero being exposed as Evil. They may even insist that he is the best leader because of it all, perhaps they are right, but there is absolutely no doubt at all that Bush is CE.
just my opinion, but I don't care for BO or JM. why not go libertarian.
Cause I want my vote to matter.
If George Bush was Chaotic Evil, I suppose Suddam Hussien was Lawfull Good.
Let's count off B.O's support list: The leader of Hamas, Fidel Castro, Chavez (you know, the guy who publicly told his people that Americans are crap? Yeah, that guy), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the guy who said he's going to blast every other religeon off the face of the earth).
Sounds to me like B.O has everyone on the axis of evil except Bin Laden himself, although I'm sure he's rooting for B.O in whatever hole he's hiding in.
How has BO ever shown any support for these people? Closest thing I can think of is that he did not support going to war in Iraq.
They like BO because he is LIKEABLE. They like him because he would be the first US president of any sort of minority. They like him because he might be a good diplomat. But the reason they like him the most, in my opinion, is because he is everything George W Bush is not, and frankly there is a part of the world that doesn't like George W. Bush. That part is: Almost all of it. Including 75% of his own country. So they like Barack Obama just to spite W.
Then again maybe some of those people like him for the same ignorant reason people hate him in this country: Somehow they think he is Muslim.
Show
This came up because he went to some sort of Muslim-founded school as a kid for a few years. If that makes him Muslim, then I am Jewish for watching Fiddler on the Roof. He was born Christian, raised Christian, plus I wouldn't have a problem if he WAS Muslim.
Religious convictions in politics gets you into trouble. Do you honestly want a president who instead of deciding on a situation by actually assessing the situation instead asks "What does my invisible man want me to do?" because you can find yourself doing some crazy stuff if you justify it by saying it was the invisible man's idea.
This came up because he went to some sort of Muslim-founded school as a kid for a few years. If that makes him Muslim, then I am Jewish for watching Fiddler on the Roof. He was born Christian, raised Christian, plus I wouldn't have a problem if he WAS Muslim.
Religious convictions in politics gets you into trouble. Do you honestly want a president who instead of deciding on a situation by actually assessing the situation instead asks "What does my invisible man want me to do?" because you can find yourself doing some crazy stuff if you justify it by saying it was the invisible man's idea.
Cause I want my vote to matter.
How has BO ever shown any support for these people? Closest thing I can think of is that he did not support going to war in Iraq.
They like BO because he is LIKEABLE. They like him because he would be the first US president of any sort of minority. They like him because he might be a good diplomat. But the reason they like him the most, in my opinion, is because he is everything George W Bush is not, and frankly there is a part of the world that doesn't like George W. Bush. That part is: Almost all of it. Including 75% of his own country. So they like Barack Obama just to spite W.
Then again maybe some of those people like him for the same ignorant reason people hate him in this country: Somehow they think he is Muslim.Show
This came up because he went to some sort of Muslim-founded school as a kid for a few years. If that makes him Muslim, then I am Jewish for watching Fiddler on the Roof. He was born Christian, raised Christian, plus I wouldn't have a problem if he WAS Muslim.
Religious convictions in politics gets you into trouble. Do you honestly want a president who instead of deciding on a situation by actually assessing the situation instead asks "What does my invisible man want me to do?" because you can find yourself doing some crazy stuff if you justify it by saying it was the invisible man's idea.
* What is the Obama Intelligence stat? Has USA 57 states? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
* I´m thinking about my own d20 modern superheroes campaign where Obama wins elections and his international politics is wu wei (no action),with other words, he doesn´t lift a finger.
A jihadist secret society, the IC (99 with Roman numbers) leaded by Ibrahim Maghid (a supossed clon with DNA of prophet Muhamad and Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, his first wife) bring down king of Morocco and it imposes the sharia. A group of super-heroines, the Otrera´s daughters of helps the djinn- blood (let´s get the genasi race from Fogorten Realms) comunity because they are persecuted (Islam declare evil the no-Muslim djinns).
The new goverment of Marocco accuses Algeria and Mauritania helping Otrera´s daughters and declare war. The demiplane of Pontus, homeland of amazons and Otrea´s daughters, declares war to IC and Ibrahim Maghdi. Waves of refugees run away to European coast.
Moroccan businnes, members of immigrant comunity and mosque in Spain are atacked. The main suspect is a vigilante named Francisco "Castigador" Castillo, a ex-GEO whose family was killed by al-Jambiya (d20 Menace). Morocco accuse Spain and invades Canary Islands.
NATO doesn´t take part but only some lands (France, Germany and Italy suffer waves of night disturbance).
Obama doesn´t lift a finger when a report of CIA warn IC is supply the Kaaba, a stone (perhaps a meteor?) what gives superpowers to jihadist groups. After some street of Europe are atacked by werebeast and other monsters.
The Auctoristas, a western independent super-group bring down the goverment of Burma and North Corea. When the dictator Kim Jong-il was going to be captured is discovered it´s a android. North Corea send secret army of android to invade South Korea.
Northamerican multinational of war technology is charged of responsable of the terrorist atack by the robots soldiers. Japan Mechas (Big robots) are send to help South Korea.
Venezuela invades Colombia. When It was goint to lose the war Ernesto Bolivar, Venezuelan "democratic president for life" order activaten the biological weapon "racoon". The virus react with a neuro-toxin present in adulterated narcotics and it changes the infected in flesh-eater monsters.
Meanwhile Obama still doesn´t lift a finger. Some USA super-groups disobey the order of no participation in foreing land.
Really I think either JM or BO would do a equal job. I do plan on voting for BO. Realistically no matter who wins they will spend most of their first term cleaning up Bush's mess so any real work will have to wait 4 years at least.
Man I really love when people take things and blow them out of proportion. Obama obviously meant 47, he misspoke so what.
Well being a Canadian I'm no expert, but last I checked there were 50 states, so he'd be wrong regardless.
In any event I can't currently support B.O., his stance on NAFTA (removing/redrafting it) is wrong/dumb/bad. NAFTA has been of great economic benefit to both the U.S and Canada(and to a severely lesser extent Mexico) for almost two decades. The fact of the matter is mostly Protectionists who can't compete and anti-globalizationists(who are usually the same animal) are the ones who feel this way. It's a rediculous argument in the modern global economy especially considering the close relations the countries enjoy.
In any event I wish my southern neighbours luck in their coming elections regardless of who they pick and to remember they have a responsibility to make an informed choice; it effects the whole globe, don't take it lightly.
In any event I wish my southern neighbours luck in their coming elections regardless of who they pick and to remember they have a responsibility to make an informed choice; it effects the whole globe, don't take it lightly.
*Determines his voting allegiance this year with a trusty old D20*
Kidding, of course :P
Personally in this election I don't like the fact that a lot of people are going to elect Obama simply because he is young and African-American. I mean, I acknowledge the significance of blacks and women running in this race as positive, but judging by his inexperience and how hollow his speeches are, I don't think Obama's going to take this country anywhere.
That's basically the point I was trying to make. Regardless of if I believe they would be a good president, and regardless of if the facts point one way or the other, whichever makes it on the ballot (hillary/obama) is going to be the next president. They basically could say anything short of "I'm going to eat babies and shoot everyone I come in contact with while in the oval office" and (maybe even then) still get elected because of their 'uniquness' as a candidate. While i have nothing against either denomination, a presidential vote shouldn't be based on it.
Of course he's CE. How could he not be. CE="I don't care what I have to do to get what I want". That's Bush to a "T". A perfect representation of his attitude from Day 1 when I attended his inauguration (representing an oil company).
He thinks it's ok to torture people then to avoid criticism by trying to change the definition of the word. I'd like to see him try waterboarding for a day or two THEN come back and say it's not torture. Torture is evil, since it is illegal it is also chaotic. CE.
He thinks it's just too damn bad if poor Americans are starving to pay for his war of conquest in Iraq. If he cared about "the people" at all he would lengthen benefits to the millions of people that have lost their livlihood on his watch... since he wants to be noblity/royalty he could opt to fulfill the duty of royalty to care for the "peseants" but he doesn't because he is selfish and greedy. CE
Lets talk about Iraq. They never attacked the US (the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis trained in Afghanistan). They never could have attacked us, with no air force or navy how could Iraqi paratroopers have even gotten to Florida or Hawaii, let alone invade them. Lying about motivations and then launching an unprovoked war, even against a country led by a CE leader (Saddam), is still CE.
His word is meaningless, since he just does what he wants. He is NOT the Education President, as nearly any teacher who has had their budgets sliced (meaning almost all of them) or any college student whose tuition has skyrocketed (again, nearly all of them) can tell you. He is NOT working in a bipartisian fashion and never has from day 1 despite pledging to. Etc, etc. Again, CE.
His world view is so warped that he destroys anything and anyone that doesn't support his lies and positions. Just look at Valerie Plame who was a valuable asset for the US Intelligence being exposed just because HER HUSBAND, not even her, disagreed with Bush's lies and told the truth in writing. Exposing our spies puts their lives in danger AND harms the countries intel gathering abilities. He got even with her husband at the expense of the common Good. That's very CE.
Bush fan-boiz may not like the implications of their hero being exposed as Evil. They may even insist that he is the best leader because of it all, perhaps they are right, but there is absolutely no doubt at all that Bush is CE.
hmmm didn't think liberals believed in good and evil...only gray. Everyone is NG ! well Bush isnt ce. I don't think he does what he does on purpose. It is more akin of CN where he's just stupid. I think he believes he is doing the right things to help the country. I am a conservative but don't like Bush and i dont care for Mcain. I will be voting for Mcain come november though...because Barack Obama as president is a scary proposition. His only views are Hope...Change...Yes we can. He has terrorist ties and radical ties throughout his history. People voting for him for the change rhetoric have to wonder what kind of change he will bring. He hasn't really said. The only ironclad views he has made so far consist of not drilling for US oil and disarming the USA. That being said it is a free country and everyone should vote for the person that would make the best president...do research before you go vote. If you do the research, then youll probably come to the same conclusion i did. Neither candidate is very good for the US. Mcain is the best of two evils in MHO. I will hate voting for him, but I am not really. Its more like voting against BO. Well i guess i got baited into posting on politics. Grats to OP. I hate posting political posts. Is anyone really going to change their mind? Those to the far left or Far right believe so firmly in their ideals that they cannot change their mind no matter the evidence thrown at them. So whats the point of a political thread on a dnd forum? Just to stir up some flame wars? So this is the last post ill be posting in this thread.
In any event I can't currently support B.O., his stance on NAFTA (removing/redrafting it) is wrong/dumb/bad. NAFTA has been of great economic benefit to both the U.S and Canada(and to a severely lesser extent Mexico) for almost two decades. The fact of the matter is mostly Protectionists who can't compete and anti-globalizationists(who are usually the same animal) are the ones who feel this way. It's a rediculous argument in the modern global economy especially considering the close relations the countries enjoy.
Umm. NAFTA has not been good to the US. Really. We've opened trade with China, for instance. Sounds great. Until you see that we buy everything from them (replacing a market for American produced goods in the process) and sell them practically nothing. They get software from Microsoft and jets from Boeing. As monopolies. That's really friggin' stimulating for our economy. The US has been losing most of it's industry for a while now. It's cheaper to make things overseas. And the companies we allow to set up shop here from other countries pay no taxes while their American competitors are taxed into oblivion. Something needs to be done and fast. Not that I think BO is the man for the job, of course, but try looking at it from the American side. We shafted ourselves with this program. I'm sure all of the participants are loving the hell out of it, though. I know China does. But, as an American, I feel it leaves much to be desired.
In any event I wish my southern neighbours luck in their coming elections regardless of who they pick and to remember they have a responsibility to make an informed choice; it effects the whole globe, don't take it lightly.
Thanks for that. We'll need all the luck we can get to pull out of the talespin we've found ourselves in. I really didn't want to vote this time, though. Why? Both candidates suck. They always do. Career politicians care nothing for the country or the world. Nothing. It's all about furthering their outside interests, finding a place in the history books and guaranteeing lucrative book deals and speaking tours. Gotta love capitalism. Well, at least some of the best capitalists continually find their way to the top, right? I think I will vote now. If only to vote against B.O. McCain isn't on my favorite people list (much respect for his sevice, however). Don't particularly like where he's like to steer us. I do like his plan ever so slightly more than B.O.'s. I guess that's it, then. Another election of voting against a candidate instead of for one. And we wonder why we always feel stuck with a loser. We are.
Personally in this election I don't like the fact that a lot of people are going to elect Obama simply because he is young and African-American. I mean, I acknowledge the significance of blacks and women running in this race as positive, but judging by his inexperience and how hollow his speeches are, I don't think Obama's going to take this country anywhere.
And this is why he's going to be elected. You know what they say: Better safe than another Bush.
The Republican Party isn't going to do anything to do the following: end the Iraq war, create Universal Health Care, lower gas prices, create more jobs, etc.
1) Regardless of whether we should have invaded in the first place, simply pulling out now would be a mistake. It would present us as weak and non-committed. The best way to get out is to get IN eliminate the opposition and get out. Peace through superior fire-power, it works.
2) Socialist programs are not the answer. You want to lower cost of health care? Stop frivolous lawsuits and get people to stop using emergency rooms as primary heath care providers. (And, yes prevent illegals from using them at all. When they come in, treat their life-threatening issues and send them back to their country of origin.)
3) Lower gas prices? What has the Democratic Congress done to lower gas prices? Have they even attempted to do anything? No. Gas prices have doubled since the Dems took over congress. That doesn't mean they are to blame, but it illustrates their lack of action.
4) It is not the government’s responsibility to create jobs, but for sake of argument; Unemployment was at record lows, 4.4% or so. The Democratic congress raised minimum wage forcing small business to downsize so they could afford to pay their very low-skilled workers. Now the number is around 5.5%.
Points 1 and 2 are strictly my opinion. You can agree or disagree no hard feelings. 3 and 4, however are facts that anyone can research. And, I encourage anyone interested to do so.
Now, as far as JM/BO are concerned... Man, vote Cthulhu. If you want an evil, go for broke. :coolcthul
(Seriously, I'll likely vote for JM, if for nothing else then for the fact that he's not going to try to take my guns away.)
1) Regardless of whether we should have invaded in the first place, simply pulling out now would be a mistake. It would present us as weak and non-committed. The best way to get out is to get IN eliminate the opposition and get out. Peace through superior fire-power, it works.
It also should be stated that the reason we are there in the first place is that a Dem Pres (B.C.) kept telling Saddam that if he didn't let our inspectors in, we'd kick his butt. Welp, he never kicked Saddams butt and was conveniently out of office when things escalated. You can't maintain face after threatening an action in response to defiance of your policy and then not act on it. Whoever was the next Pres, the result would have been the same. We were forced to go by the empty threats of B.C.
(Seriously, I'll likely vote for JM, if for nothing else then for the fact that he's not going to try to take my guns away.)
+1
Crazy, off topic rant
[rant]It's amazing how many people mistakenly believe that gun control is something used to target criminals. Criminals are Constitutionally protected from incriminating themselves. Criminals are also more likely, believe it or not, to disobey laws. Odd, I know, but true nonetheless. Gun control laws pertain solely to law abiding citizens. There are already laws in place to deal with criminals that use guns. Any type of registration, etc is simply an attempt to find where the guns are so that they can eventually be taken. Doubt it? Here's some historical precedent: the UK and Australia. Ask gun owners there how "harmless" their registration programs were. Guess what - criminals still have guns. Why? They don't obey laws. How many laws are there against owning/purchasing/selling illegal drugs? How many drugs are bought and sold every day? Legislation means nothing to the criminal and everything to the law abiding citizen. Remember that when we look to laws to "save" us. [/rant]
hmmm didn't think liberals believed in good and evil....
Who said I'm liberal?
I'm not, I'm moderate and I choose individuals to vote for, some Republican, some Democrat and even a Libertarian once. I'm the swing voter you better not p*ss off or I'll vote for the other guy. ;) :P For JM/BO I really haven't decided. I have serious concerns about both though neither is all bad.For my alignment posts I just took the definitions from the PH and compared it to their actions.
Is Bush LG? LG "puts even more emphasis on the need of the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden". That's not what Bush has done. He exploits the weak and trods on the middle/lower classes. He is not LG.
Is he Good? Well that would include protecting the weak and placing the good of others above your own. Bush has never put anyone else above himself. Quite the opposite. In fact the good definition points to "when law becomes exploitation, it crosses into evil territory." By working his tax cuts for the wealthy into the system, he has exploited the poor/middle classes even more and confirmed his Evil alignment.
3) Lower gas prices? What has the Democratic Congress done to lower gas prices? Have they even attempted to do anything? No. Gas prices have doubled since the Dems took over congress. That doesn't mean they are to blame, but it illustrates their lack of action.
4) It is not the government’s responsibility to create jobs, but for sake of argument; Unemployment was at record lows, 4.4% or so. The Democratic congress raised minimum wage forcing small business to downsize so they could afford to pay their very low-skilled workers. Now the number is around 5.5%.
3- QFT, there is nothing Congress has done to lower gas prices. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the war has increased them dramatically and the oil industry has been favored the last few years. Which was his promise to us (big oil) when he was elected. My petrochemical holdings definitely gained in value the last 5 years so I guess he at least kept his word on that. ROFL.
4- We don't really know the unemployment numbers because of how they (don't) count them on Bush's watch.
A) If a person is laid off and files for unemployment he counts as "unemployed". But 6 months later when his benefits run out he is not counted as "unemployed" even if it takes another 6 months to find a job. This is why Bush doesn't want to extend benefits, his unemployment numbers will spike hugely.
B) Since they only count people getting benefits, those who are fired or quit are considered "Employed".
Conclusion: Since it took an average of 9 months to find a career job even in boom years it is certain that the current figures are dramatically understated, are statistically likely to be 50% higher then those reported and could be as much as double what the Dep of Labor claims at this time.
Oh, and ZombieBabies gets a
for the "rant". :D That is so obvious I can hardly believe it has to keep being said.Oh, and ZombieBabies gets a
Yup. One o' the many political thingies that hurts my poor, poor brain. Oh well. You'd think the Dems would get a clue and seperate from the party line on this. It does make a big difference to voters. But they'd rather pretend they care about outdoorsmen/gun owners and come across as liars in the process. If they only had a brain ...
Umm. NAFTA has not been good to the US. Really. We've opened trade with China, for instance. Sounds great. Until you see that we buy everything from them (replacing a market for American produced goods in the process) and sell them practically nothing. They get software from Microsoft and jets from Boeing. As monopolies. That's really friggin' stimulating for our economy. The US has been losing most of it's industry for a while now. It's cheaper to make things overseas. And the companies we allow to set up shop here from other countries pay no taxes while their American competitors are taxed into oblivion. Something needs to be done and fast. Not that I think BO is the man for the job, of course, but try looking at it from the American side. We shafted ourselves with this program. I'm sure all of the participants are loving the hell out of it, though. I know China does. But, as an American, I feel it leaves much to be desired.
NAFTA only affects trade with Canada, the US and Mexico. But, yes practically slave labor overseas decimates the tax base and is extremely bad for both of our nation's economies. As consumers and perhaps governments we need to take a hard look at what we are buying and if "cheap" goods are worth the long term impact.
NAFTA only affects trade with Canada, the US and Mexico. But, yes practically slave labor overseas decimates the tax base and is extremely bad for both of our nation's economies. As consumers and perhaps governments we need to take a hard look at what we are buying and if "cheap" goods are worth the long term impact.
Yeah. Got a lil' ahead of myself there, didn't I. :embarrass Hopefully something can be done, but I am starting to feel like this is the beginning of the end. Everyone knows what needs to be done. No one with the power to do anything about it will, though. They're making enough money as it is. Why make waves?
He's just not smart or alert enough to grasp the reality of the world around him.
I'm the wrong side of the pond to voice my opinion properly, but BO is my choice for the next president. I think he has a level of common sense that Bush and co lacked. I also think that BO's foreign policies are a lot less reactionary than Clinton's, so I'm glad it's him leading the democrats in this politiacl climate.
Who said I'm liberal? .
You said something not nice enough about Bush. That makes you a liberal. The "conservatives" did that to me in 2001.
On the other hand, liberals seem to be funnier, nicer, smarter, and cuter - so I'll stick with them. :D
1) Regardless of whether we should have invaded in the first place, simply pulling out now would be a mistake. It would present us as weak and non-committed. The best way to get out is to get IN eliminate the opposition and get out. Peace through superior fire-power, it works.
Yeah, and we've already been in Iraq longer than WWII. So how's that "peace through superior firepower" thing working out?
Why don't we try "peace through not killing people who weren't terrorists until we invaded their country"? Why don't we see how that works for a while? Or "peace through not machine-gunning civilians at checkpoints"? Or "peace through not torturing taxi drivers to death to try to get them to confess to being terrorists"? "Peace through not reopening Saddam's torture pits, and then torturing people in them"? Let me know if any of these begin to sound like a good idea.
Iraq is their country. The insurgents are going to outlast us and claim victory when we leave, now or a hundred years from now. Why not now? Why does the opinion terrorists have of us become so important we're willing to spend 4100 American lives and 2.7 trillion dollars to "keep from looking weak"?
And before you call me weak on terror, you'd better have Osama bin Laden in a jail cell.
I literally do not know where to begin to talk to people that think that anyone connected to the Bush Administration or the Republicans in majority until 2006 ever get a shot at public service again. Hello, warrantless wiretapping? Torture? Denial of habeas corpus? I think the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights the Bush Administration hasn't violated is the Third, and it would not surprise me a moment to hear that he's quartering troops in private homes.
And "Hundred Years" McCain wants to keep it up. That, for no other reason, is enough to vote for Obama.
NAFTA only affects trade with Canada, the US and Mexico. But, yes practically slave labor overseas decimates the tax base and is extremely bad for both of our nation's economies. As consumers and perhaps governments we need to take a hard look at what we are buying and if "cheap" goods are worth the long term impact.
Well, as an economist I feel it's a duty to point out the universal fallacy that protectionism is good for anyone besides the lobbies of the domestic industries affected. It's amazing that from Brazil to Norway the common man's perception is that protectionism is better than free trade. However, it isn't! It's even illogical that people rant about monopolies and oligopolies and then defend this severe hampering in competition that is protectionism.
Free trade is good in the sense that it lowers the prices in a market and improves quality. The industries and firms that want to stay in the market have to work harder to get their clients attention and fidelity. Also, the lowering in prices affects other industries as well, as some of the imported goods may be used in the production proccess of other firms. Some industries may run out of business and the trade balance may be shifted, however, quoting Allan Greenspan, we do not live in the times of mercantilism anymore, and a positive net trade balance isn't fundamental for the health of an economy. Good competition, however, is. And hampered competition means efficiency is hurt. And that is very bad for any economy.
Just my 2 cents.
It's amazing how many people mistakenly believe that gun control is something used to target criminals. Criminals are Constitutionally protected from incriminating themselves. Criminals are also more likely, believe it or not, to disobey laws. Odd, I know, but true nonetheless. Gun control laws pertain solely to law abiding citizens.
You know like murder laws only target law abiding citizens.
There are already laws in place to deal with criminals that use guns. Any type of registration, etc is simply an attempt to find where the guns are so that they can eventually be taken.
Or to keep people from being shot and helping solve crimes. Oh I'm sorry. Spouting off all these conspiracy theories.
Doubt it? Here's some historical precedent: the UK and Australia. Ask gun owners there how "harmless" their registration programs were. Guess what - criminals still have guns. Why? They don't obey laws.
You make the assumption that criminals are criminals from birth. Law abiding citizens turn to criminals fast. Especially when they have easily obtainable murder machines.
How many laws are there against owning/purchasing/selling illegal drugs? How many drugs are bought and sold every day?
If drugs is a suitable metaphor for this so is murder.
Legislation means nothing to the criminal and everything to the law abiding citizen. Remember that when we look to laws to "save" us.
They aren't separate.
You know like murder laws only target law abiding citizens.
Or to keep people from being shot and helping solve crimes. Oh I'm sorry. Spouting off all these conspiracy theories.
You make the assumption that criminals are criminals from birth. Law abiding citizens turn to criminals fast. Especially when they have easily obtainable murder machines.
If drugs is a suitable metaphor for this so is murder.
They aren't separate.
There are some fallacies there. First, there really is no correlation between guns per household and criminality indexes. Switzerland is the country with the highest gun/household ratio in the world. Norway also has a high ratio. And both countries aren't nearly as violent as Brazil, which has very tight restrictions on gun ownership, like minimum age of 25. Now ask me if the drug dealers that almost own the city of Rio de Janeiro have any kind of license... :P
Though, to be true, all of these countries have very distinct realities, and I believe in the regulation of gun ownership (and I really dislike the "conspiracy theory", if a country's institutions are so decadent that you do not want to let the authorities be aware of your gun ownership then the country has bigger problems than that).
But no one should think that guns are responsible for crimes, people are responsible for crimes and guns are only tools, as can be cars, knives, remedy pills, bottles, and swimming pools. Do the high percentage of ownership among the population raise the chances of a possible crime? That's highly debatable.
And do the people screaming about it even own firearms? And if they're so sensitive about their rights, why aren't they screaming to their Congressmen about telcos getting immunity for warrantless wiretapping - which Obama does support and which he's wrong to do so?
Or is that because he's an eeeeeevul librul and all the eeeevil libruls want to take everyone's guns and force them into gay marriages?
C'mon, that would be totally hilarious :D
As long as it wasn't with me... :P
And do the people screaming about it even own firearms? And if they're so sensitive about their rights, why aren't they screaming to their Congressmen about telcos getting immunity for warrantless wiretapping - which Obama does support and which he's wrong to do so?
I don't know if I am part of the screaming people but, if that's the case, I'm not even american, I'm just here for debate's sake ;)
You know like murder laws only target law abiding citizens.
Who obey laws? Criminals do not. So what do laws do? They keep the law-abiding, well, law-abiding.
Or to keep people from being shot and helping solve crimes. Oh I'm sorry. Spouting off all these conspiracy theories.
Gun control laws do not keep people from being shot. Just like pot laws don't keep people from smokin' it. Registration has also been demonstrted to be a huge failure on the crime solving front. Why? The people that obey the laws to register their weapons do not usually break the law with their weapons. Once a gun is stolen and then used in a crime, it doesn't really matter what name and address are on the registration papers, does it? Registration programs have, however, been demonstrated to be useful for confiscation. England and Australia have both proven that these laws are simply the fist step on the path to total confiscation.
Edit: Please explain how a registration law keeps someone from being shot? I'd like to know how a piece of paper protects me from someone deciding to ignore it and shoot me anyway.
You make the assumption that criminals are criminals from birth. Law abiding citizens turn to criminals fast. Especially when they have easily obtainable murder machines.
Now, where did I say any of that? Criminals break the law. It doesn't matter when they choose to do so. What's important is that the laws are not a deterrent to people that choose to break them.
Easily obtainable murder machines? Do you know anything about firearms at all? Besides what the 6:00 news tells you, of course. The UK banned firearms, right? Did murder stop? Nope. Guess what. They now have a huge problem with teens stabbing each other to death. Maybe they need to ban steak knives and such to get these "murder machines" away from the abusers, no? News flash: people have been killing each other long before guns were even an idea. They will no matter what. Guns kill less people than car accidents, no? If all we care about is the life in question, shouldn't we then ban cars? And knives? And alcohol (didn't we try that one? How'd it work, again?)? And bats? And screwdrivers? And plastic bags? And rope? If all you care about is banning guns, you have an agenda. You don't like or understand guns so you want to get rid of them. A human response. Just don't make it out that you actually care about murder victims or the loss of life. That's not the issue here. If it was, you'd have to want to ban a hell of a lot more than guns for me to take you seriously.
If drugs is a suitable metaphor for this so is murder.
Yup. It is. A criminal is a criminal, no matter what law they break. And both drugs and murder still happen regardless of the laws in place. Law abiding citizens abide. Criminals do not. Laws are not an effective deterrent. Those that follow them are predisposed to do so anyway. I don't need laws to tell me not to murder people. I just won't do it. I also don't need laws to tell me not to use my firearms to do harm. I just don't. So what good do those laws do concerning others like myself?
Yeah, and we've already been in Iraq longer than WWII. So how's that "peace through superior firepower" thing working out?
The problem is that we are not in fact practicing Peace Through Superior Firepower. Instead it's peace through a weak show of force, oh and after we send troops in give them a list of things they cannot do to win. Hellooo, Vietnam? You'd think that lesson had been learned.
The problem is that we are not in fact practicing Peace Through Superior Firepower. Instead it's peace through a weak show of force, oh and after we send troops in give them a list of things they cannot do to win. Hellooo, Vietnam? You'd think that lesson had been learned.
Agreed. Though, in large part this is due to the current opinion of Americans. We'd like to fight a "kinder, gentler" war. In the process, we have crippled our military and made it impossible for any victory to be achieved. War is a terrible business. People die. Non-combatants die. If we are to fight a war, these will happen. Unfortunately, we are no longer permitted to actually fight a war to win it. Armchair Ambassadors have finally taken the place of Armchair Generals. In all of this, a simple fact has been lost. You cannot win a war without killing. Basically, if you want our boys out, let them fight. Worrying over collateral damage and what targets we, as non-combatants, feel are to valuable to be lost only prevents them from leaving.
The problem is that we are not in fact practicing Peace Through Superior Firepower. Instead it's peace through a weak show of force, oh and after we send troops in give them a list of things they cannot do to win. Hellooo, Vietnam? You'd think that lesson had been learned.
Having no clear reason to be there doesn't help. Having ever shifting reasons to be there makes it look like our only interest is to hang on until we get the oil.
So, what would a "win" in Iraq look like, and is it, at this point even achievable through military means, specifically through American military means?
I submit to you, that with eighty percent of the Iraqi populace against the verypresence of coalition forces and with the unwillingness or inability of the Iraqi government to provide basic functions, our best path for "victory" may be to say "Yay! We got Saddam!" and go home.
Is there going to be chaos and anarchy and blood in the streets? Yes. Maybe even more than there is now. We may need to send in UN peacekeepers to prevent this - but the Iraqis are not tolerating American military personnel now, and won't tolerate them if the UN calls them "peacekeepers" instead of "invaders". No, not even if we drive the white vehicles and wear the blue berets. The whole "hearts and minds" thing is done, and we blew it.
It will not get any better if we stay. We've been hearing "just give it six more months" for how long? And when the next six months roll around, it's worse. We've done "go big", we've done "go long", it's time and past time for "go home".
I'm still waiting for the part when someone shows where Obama said he's going to take everyone's guns. Or is that because he's an eeeeeevul librul and all the eeeevil libruls want to take everyone's guns and force them into gay marriages? Just wondering where that particular philosophical argument comes from, Hannity or Limbaugh?
And do the people screaming about it even own firearms? And if they're so sensitive about their rights, why aren't they screaming to their Congressmen about telcos getting immunity for warrantless wiretapping - which Obama does support and which he's wrong to do so?
Maybe, from his own voting records...
GUN CONTROL
McCain: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. "I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved -- which means no gun control."
Obama: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.
Obama: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.
How is this voting to take away all your guns? Explain. Remember to cite today's Supreme Court ruling regarding the Second Amendment, and the checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of government.
Compare with the effect McCain and Obama's support of retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretapping wil have on the Fourth Amendment.
How is this voting to take away all your guns? Explain. Remember to cite today's Supreme Court ruling regarding the Second Amendment, and the checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of government.
By allowing the gun manufacturers to be open to suit he is tacitly approving frivilous lawsuits directed at said manufacturers for the sole purpose of tying them up in litigation and bankrupting them with legal fees. He backs the assinine assumption that gun makers are responsible for what the people that buy their products do with them. If that's the case, automakers should be held liable for every accident one of their cars is in. Or, at the very least, every time someone uses a vehicle to commit a crime. Ludicrous, no? But that same, ridiculous line of thinking is what B.O. backs. Didn't see him voting that car makers should be held responsible, too, did we? Since he has no equality of action in his seeking of parties responsible, it can be determined that he has an anti-gun agenda. It's really that simple.
The second bit, about semi-autos, also demonstrates a lack of knowledge about firearms and his agenda yet again. He wants to rid us of all semi-autos. Does he realize that these weapons are used in pretty much every type of hunting and competition shooting? What's so wrong with them? How are they more dangerous than any other firearm? They aren't. Which, again, demonstrates an anti-gun agenda. Why understand what you hate? He makes no attempt to do so whatsoever. And it shows.
This is because "Obama's going to take your guns" is a Republican talking point, and not an expression of actual intended policy.
If you don't agree, perhaps you can explain why McCain can support tightening restrictions on gun shows in Oregon and Colorado - going so far as to record ads in support of that position -without you saying "OMG!! McCain's going to take all your guns away!!"
Congratulations. You have proven that Obama favors restrictions on gun ownership. You have not, however, proven that he is against anyone owning guns anywhere, for any reason, or, in short "that he's going to take your guns". Consider, perhaps, that the experience of an inner-city political organizer from Chicago may be just slightly different from yours when it comes to firearms. Consider, also, that the recent Supreme Court affirmation of the Second Amendment as a personal right means that, even if he wanted to, it would be unconstitutional for Obama to ban gun ownership. Even if he could.
Ok. B.O. never stated that he would personally come and take guns away from their owners. But by allowing the companies to be bankrupted and voting for an irrational, knee-jerk ban of all semiauto weapons, he isn't exactly supportive of my right to bear arms, is he? He has also demonstrated that he will vote with the party line instead of educating himself to what he's actually voting on (in this case). He may not come out and say he's all for taking guns away, but he sure as hell wouldn't care if they became impossible to obtain.
At least the Supreme Court made the right decision on this. The problem is that this could eventually be re-interpreted. It's not quite safe just yet. Safer, yes, but not safe. Especially with the assinine new tactics of trying to force firing pin microstamping, banning lead ammo and attempts to create ammo taxes that will make it unaffordable to shoot. We've had one small victory, but there remains plenty in the arsenal of those that would like to ban firearms.
This is because "Obama's going to take your guns" is a Republican talking point, and not an expression of actual intended policy.
It is. And it isn't. Like I said above, he's not opposed to allowing firearms to disappear altogether. That's problem enough, IMO. BTW, it's been found by the Dems that taking the stance of the active anti-gunner has been proven to be a fatal mistake in many cases. The policy has been quieted. It's still there but they are much less verbal about it.
If you don't agree, perhaps you can explain why McCain can support tightening restrictions on gun shows in Oregon and Colorado - going so far as to record ads in support of that position -without you saying "OMG!! McCain's going to take all your guns away!!"
The post that started this particular conversation shows that McCain is better on the issue. Better. Not the best. I've already stated in this thread somewhere that I'm not voting for McCain. I'm voting against Obama. It sucks, but that's the state of our political system, IMO. To answer your question more directly, I don't agree with McCain on that one. But it is very different than allowing gun companies to be sued into nonexistance. Regulating a gun show is a far cry from allowing gun makers to be held responsible for what the buyers of their products do, no? What it boils down to is that McCain is less likely to impinge on this particular freedom. He ain't the best, but he's better than the alternative. Traditional American politics.
Ok. B.O. never stated that he would personally come and take guns away from their owners.
Thank you. No, I'm guessing his experience as an inner-city community organizer leaves him less than enthused about this. And he'd probably be very happy to see guns impossible to obtain, but that's a long way from trying to ban them himself.
Just as there's no way McCain's going to ban abortion, no matter what he tells the evangelicals.
He has also demonstrated that he will vote with the party line instead of educating himself to what he's actually voting on (in this case).
McCain voted 100% with Bush in 2007. McCain voted 90% with Bush in 2006. Are you sure you want to go there?
[EDIT] You know, I thought that "never bucked the party line" comment sounded familiar.
From Mike Allen's "Playbook" on Politico - at 8:30 this morning:
McCAIN CAMPAIGN MEMO OUT THIS MORNING -- Steve Schmidt, McCain 2008 Senior Advisor, writes on "Country First Vs. Self-Serving Partisanship": "There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance. ... We don't need to trade Republican partisanship for Democratic partisanship. We need to put our country first and put our politics second. That is what John McCain has done his whole life, and that is what he will do as President."
Man, you guys work fast. And thus the talking points are spread. And this is what we observers of the Vast Right-Wing Noise Machine call "projection", by the way - given "Maverick" McCain's slavish adherence to the Republican party line.
At least the Supreme Court made the right decision on this. The problem is that this could eventually be re-interpreted. It's not quite safe just yet. Safer, yes, but not safe. Especially with the assinine new tactics of trying to force firing pin microstamping, banning lead ammo and attempts to create ammo taxes that will make it unaffordable to shoot. We've had one small victory, but there remains plenty in the arsenal of those that would like to ban firearms.
Small victory? The closest the Supreme Court has come to ever ruling this clearly on the Second Amendment is 1936, and as far as I know they've never before unequivocally stated that gun ownership is a personal right and not a collective one. While types and situations still remain to be fought over, the only way firearms can be completely banned for private ownership is to repeal the Second Amendment, considering the precedent this ruling sets.
BTW, it's been found by the Dems that taking the stance of the active anti-gunner has been proven to be a fatal mistake in many cases. The policy has been quieted. It's still there but they are much less verbal about it.
Or that the rise of the Libertarian Left and the Mountain West Democrats are killing this platform plank in the Democratic Party. Certainly, there are still Democrats who are against guns, but as formerly-red states elect Democrats, those Democrats are becoming the minority.
And another long-cherished Republican straw man bites the dust.
The post that started this particular conversation shows that McCain is better on the issue. Better. Not the best. I've already stated in this thread somewhere that I'm not voting for McCain. I'm voting against Obama. It sucks, but that's the state of our political system, IMO. To answer your question more directly, I don't agree with McCain on that one. But it is very different than allowing gun companies to be sued into nonexistance. Regulating a gun show is a far cry from allowing gun makers to be held responsible for what the buyers of their products do, no? What it boils down to is that McCain is less likely to impinge on this particular freedom. He ain't the best, but he's better than the alternative. Traditional American politics.
This is very nearly exactly what I say about McCain, and the reason I'm supporting Obama. Except, of course, for the single issue part. Obama isn't even close to perfect on many issues - but he'll work harder on ending the war, promoting alternative energy, fiscal responsibility, disaster preparedness, civil liberties, ending torture and investigating those responsible, revitalizing New Orleans and Iowa, repairing the economy, bringing some sort of even playing field to taxes, having a foreign policy grounded in - if not cooperation - at least sanity, rebuilding the wall between church and state...and I'll keep pressure on the Blue Dog Democrats and the Mountain West ones to keep him honest on guns.
So yeah, I see your single-issue and raise you.
And maybe, if we get the oilmen out of the White House, we'll be able to afford gasoline again. Although personally I doubt it.
I'll take that over McCain's repeat of Bush's policies.
Yeah, as I said before the Democratic Congress hasn't done much about gas prices have they? As for Obama himself, how about those Chicago gas prices? Some of the highest in the country aren't they? Come to think of it, $.10 - $.40 higher than in Phoenix, depending on the station. Hmmm...
And it wasn't the Democratic Congress that promised to "jawbone" with Saudi Arabia to get those prices down, it was Bush.
So how's that going, again?
And the highest gas prices in the country? Pacific Northwest and the Bay Area in California. Hmmm, indeed.
And it wasn't the Democratic Congress that promised to "jawbone" with Saudi Arabia to get those prices down, it was Bush.
This:
Pelosi: ‘With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford Rubber Stamp Congress’
Monday, April 24, 2006
Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616
Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure to address gas prices follows Pelosi’s statement.
With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.
“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.
“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”
The famous Democrat, 'I have a Plan' line.
So how's that going, again?
And the highest gas prices in the country? Pacific Northwest and the Bay Area in California. Hmmm, indeed.
You were saying about strawmen... I did not say the highest, I said some of the highest.
Same as I didn't say BO was going to come take my guns, I said that I knew JM wouldn't. Of course, I believe BO would like to, but that's not the same thing.
Yeah, and we've already been in Iraq longer than WWII. So how's that "peace through superior firepower" thing working out?
You know we still have troops in Germany and Japan, right?
You know we still have troops in Germany and Japan, right?
* A suicide bomber struck Thursday inside a municipal building west of Baghdad, killing at least 20 people at a meeting of tribal sheiks opposed to al-Qaida, police said. The U.S. confirmed American casualties but gave no further details.
* Another 18 people were killed and about 60 wounded in a car bombing near a government headquarters in the northern city of Mosul, officials said.
* Ten people, including four Americans, were killed Tuesday in a bombing in a municipal council office in the Shiite area of Sadr City in Baghdad.
* Two Americans were shot dead and four wounded Monday when a disgruntled official opened fire as they left a municipal building in Salman Pak about 15 miles south of the capital.
* At least 11 American soldiers have been killed this week in a spike of violence. That has pushed the monthly death toll for American troops in Iraq to at least 27.
* And if anyone out there is still keeping tabs on such things, this week's violence means at least 4,110 U.S. military service members have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Please cite the casualties our soldiers have taken in Germany and Japan from insurgent operations since the end of major combat operations in World War II, August 15, 1945.
This:
The famous Democrat, 'I have a Plan' line.
So how's that going, again?
About as well as this did.
You were saying about strawmen... I did not say the highest, I said some of the highest.
Same as I didn't say BO was going to come take my guns, I said that I knew JM wouldn't. Of course, I believe BO would like to, but that's not the same thing.
So what were you implying about gas prices being high in Chicago? That Obama's buddies in the oil business are getting richer while he pretends to do something about it?
Here, let me help...the guys with the buddies in the oil business are the ones already in office right now.
And if you want to vote for the guy you know is not going to come take your guns, and I've already proven to you that Obama won't either...guess you have a choice this November.
Unless, of course, that isn't the real reason at all.
Please cite the casualties our soldiers have taken in Germany and Japan from insurgent operations since the end of major combat operations in World War II, August 15, 1945.
That was EXACTLY McCain's point. EXACTLY what he was comparing it to. You seem to have bought the sound-bite edited version trolling around Kos and Olberdork.
Here's the actual quote -
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — ” (cut off by McCain)
McCain: “Make it a hundred.”
Q: “Is that …” (cut off)
McCain: “We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …”
Q: [tries to say something]
McCain: “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
And the youtube video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM
About as well as this did.
At least he has actually tried. What was that Pelosi plan again?
Right.
And if you want to vote for the guy you know is not going to come take your guns, and I've already proven to you that Obama won't either...guess you have a choice this November.
'Proved'? Not really, no. But I guess if you think so.
Unless, of course, that isn't the real reason at all.
I don't even want to ask what that's supposed too mean...
'Proved'? Not really, no. But I guess if you think so.
.
Do you want to try again with showing how Obama's going to take your guns? Because I went over that with Zombie Babies.
And Bush has had a lot longer to try than Pelosi. And did I miss the part where the Speaker of the House has some impact on foreign policy?
McCain: “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.]
And my point is that Americans are dying there. Every single day. And it's not getting any better. And staying there and getting our soldiers killed waiting for it to get better isn't going to work. Especially when nobody who says they should stay can tell me why, besides some strange, amorphous "victory".
Dayum, how many of y'all are there here?
And my point is that Americans are dying there. Every single day. And it's not getting any better.
Do you really believe that? Have you been there? Know anyone that has? Guess what - even Pelosi and Surrender Reid have conceded that the surge is working.
And staying there and getting our soldiers killed waiting for it to get better isn't going to work. Especially when nobody who says they should stay can tell me why, besides some strange, amorphous "victory".
To restore order to the region. To prevent strengthening Al Qaeda by handing them a new playground.
You can argue it's our fault that Iraq's screwed up now (Note: and you wouldn't be wrong), but then how can you legitimately argue that we should leave it since we broke it? Is that what you do at home? Break something and then leave it for someone else to clean up? At worst, we owe it to them to give them back the country they live in instead of handing it over to violent misogynistic murdering barbarians who abuse children, **** young girls, preach violence and death to anyone who is not a Muslim and use kids as suicide bombers. (Note: I'm referring specifically to extremist Islamic groups like Al Qaeda, Mujahadeen Shura Council, Islamic State of Iraq, and Ansar al-Sunna, among others -- not Islam as a whole.)
Dayum, how many of y'all are there here?
If by y'all, you mean Republicans, you can count me out. If you mean McCain voters, you can count me out. Don't like him. Never have. Respect the heck out of him. Don't like him. If you mean veterans who believe there's something to be won, you can count me in. If you mean people who would rather vote for Mickey Mouse than a socialist like Obama, I guess you can include me.
Do you really believe that? Have you been there? Know anyone that has?
Yes, I do know people that have been there - and compared to them I'm being generous. I have, in fact, formed my opinion of the war in Iraq by speaking to people that have been there. Not like we're hearing about it on the news.
Guess what - even Pelosi and Surrender Reid have conceded that the surge is working.
Cite, please.
To restore order to the region. To prevent strengthening Al Qaeda by handing them a new playground.
Too late. We 've set up a lovely training ground for Al-Qaeda to learn how to kill Americans and look like heroes doing it. Or were it your country - would there be anything you wouldn't do, anything at all, to make a foreign invader give up and go home?
You can argue it's our fault that Iraq's screwed up now (Note: and you wouldn't be wrong), but then how can you legitimately argue that we should leave it since we broke it? Is that what you do at home? Break something and then leave it for someone else to clean up? At worst, we owe it to them to give them back the country they live in
Iraq isn't Pottery Barn. At least eighty percent of the populace want us out. We will be paying for Iraq for decades, and we should, but at this point American military power enforcing the peace in Iraq is not working. We've lost their hearts and minds. And at this point, given how we've treated the UN, they're perfectly happy to let us stew. How, given the near-universal despite the Iraqi people have for their occupiers, do you think we will be the ones to fix this?
Let me answer your metaphor with one of my own. No matter how much horsecrap we shovel in Iraq, we will not find the pony. There is no pony.
instead of handing it over to violent misogynistic murdering barbarians who abuse children, **** young girls, preach violence and death to anyone who is not a Muslim and use kids as suicide bombers. (Note: I'm referring specifically to extremist Islamic groups like Al Qaeda, Mujahadeen Shura Council, Islamic State of Iraq, and Ansar al-Sunna, among others -- not Islam as a whole.)
.
First, two words.: Abu Ghraib. Thanks to that, what standing do we have to point the finger at others who torture, ****, and abuse children when the President has authorized our interrogators to do or allow the very same thing?
Second, lovely picture you paint of the "bad guys". Do you understand how many factions of "bad guys" there are in Iraq, how many of them are local or foreign, and how many have the blood of sectarian, ethnic cleansing violence on their hands? Because I sure don't, and I'd like to see someone in office who has the intellectual capacity to try to find out.
And how long are we supposed to stay there and referee their civil war? Until there are three countries there, all of whom hate us equally?
Obama? A socialist? Seriously?
Well, as long as you don't like or trust McCain either - and I'd vote for Mickey Mouse before I voted for Bush's third term.
And I'm stepping away for a while - let's let another Obama supporter rotate in.
But hey, we've had four conservatives rotate through here I'm done for a while.
Yes, I do know people that have been there - and compared to them I'm being generous. I have, in fact, formed my opinion of the war in Iraq by speaking to people that have been there. Not like we're hearing about it on the news.
Funny. The people you know must not know the people I know. Vastly different stories from my friends still in uniform.
Cite, please.
Nancy Pelosi on Youtube "The military portion of the surge is working." This is from February. Harry Reid on Youtube.The surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that.
Too late. We 've set up a lovely training ground for Al-Qaeda to learn how to kill Americans and look like heroes doing it. Or were it your country - would there be anything you wouldn't do, anything at all, to make a foreign invader give up and go home?
Really? Read the news lately? We appear to have Al Qaeda in Iraq in sight.
Iraq isn't Pottery Barn. At least eighty percent of the populace want us out.
Citation please.
We will be paying for Iraq for decades, and we should, but at this point American military power enforcing the peace in Iraq is not working.
But it is.
We've lost their hearts and minds.
There's that hearts and minds talking point. That's why just recently one of the extremist grounds has shifted positions and started rooting out Al Qaeda in its neighborhood.
And at this point, given how we've treated the UN, they're perfectly happy to let us stew.
The UN is a bunch of useless twits. Kofi Annan was corrupt as heck. And now, despite IAEA (a UN body) and Iranian assurance that they aren't weaponizing nuclear material, El-Baradei says Iran could have working weapons in 6 months. How, pray tell, does what the UN do mean crap? They can't even convince the Burmans to take international aid after a natural disaster.
How, given the near-universal despite the Iraqi people have for their occupiers, do you think we will be the ones to fix this?
Citations please. Also - US troops are providing a lot more than security. Ultimately, the Iraqi government has to fix it, but they can't do that if they're overrun by terrorists. That's what we can do best - give them space and time to fix things.
First, two words.: Abu Ghraib. Thanks to that, what standing do we have to point the finger at others who torture
I'll give you this one, but not these
****, and abuse children
or this
when the President has authorized our interrogators to do or allow the very same thing?
Some methods are torture and I deplore them (waterboarding) but I refuse to say we won't do it because I can't say for sure that it will never be necessary. But sleep deprivation, temperature changes, and interrogation are not torture. The other crap has to stop. Gitmo needs to close, but they don't deserve habeas rights. No prisoner captured during wartime has ever been granted habeas rights to the country they were held in.
Second, lovely picture you paint of the "bad guys". Do you understand how many factions of "bad guys" there are in Iraq, how many of them are local or foreign, and how many have the blood of sectarian, ethnic cleansing violence on their hands?
I named the biggest ones. The characterization is pretty accurate for those groups I named.
Because I sure don't, and I'd like to see someone in office who has the intellectual capacity to try to find out.
You think that person is Obama? I don't.
And how long are we supposed to stay there and referee their civil war? Until there are three countries there, all of whom hate us equally?
If it were up to me, we'd stay there until we fixed what we broke.
Obama? A socialist? Seriously?
Yeah. Higher taxes, universal healthcare that functions as well as Cuba's, restrictions for constitutional rights (gun ownership), government (read you and I) funded social programs which have a proven record of failure, and an overall disdain for state's rights. Socialist. The farthest left of any person to ever run for President. Farther left on everything (except healthcare) than even HRC herself. I'd sooner vote for Kerry, and I physically despise Kerry.
Well, as long as you don't like or trust McCain either - and I'd vote for Mickey Mouse before I voted for Bush's third term.
Another talking point! McCain is about as much the same as Bush as Obama is to Jeremiah Wright. Some philosophies are the same. There are some common roots, but there are gigantic fundamental differences. I don't like McCain's politics but that's because he's thumbed his nose at people like me for years and now he wants my votes. It's like the Kos kids and Lieberman.
And I'm stepping away for a while - let's let another Obama supporter rotate in.
Sadly, as much as I despise every political philosophy that Obama supports, I can't honestly say I think he'll lose. I'm already preparing for the worst.
Thank you. No, I'm guessing his experience as an inner-city community organizer leaves him less than enthused about this. And he'd probably be very happy to see guns impossible to obtain, but that's a long way from trying to ban them himself.
It's really not that long of a way. If he'll not fight for my rights as a gun owner, he'd allow others to persue legislation to eliminate them. To me, that's bad.
Just as there's no way McCain's going to ban abortion, no matter what he tells the evangelicals.
Well, let's hope whoever we end up with doesn't.
McCain voted 100% with Bush in 2007. McCain voted 90% with Bush in 2006. Are you sure you want to go there?
Umm. You're the one going there. I stated Obama didn't buck party lines. Not that McCain did. It's just that for this particular topic, Rep party lines are much more in my favor. I'm not trying to make McCain out to be some maverick savior. He's not and I know it.
[EDIT] You know, I thought that "never bucked the party line" comment sounded familiar.
From Mike Allen's "Playbook" on Politico - at 8:30 this morning:
See above. This is irrelevant. I never said McCain was not toeing the party line.
Man, you guys work fast. And thus the talking points are spread. And this is what we observers of the Vast Right-Wing Noise Machine call "projection", by the way - given "Maverick" McCain's slavish adherence to the Republican party line.
It's not my talking point. It's a fact. Just like McCain is also most likely going to fall into step (er, stay in step would be the actual way to put it) if he gains the Presidency.
Small victory? The closest the Supreme Court has come to ever ruling this clearly on the Second Amendment is 1936, and as far as I know they've never before unequivocally stated that gun ownership is a personal right and not a collective one. While types and situations still remain to be fought over, the only way firearms can be completely banned for private ownership is to repeal the Second Amendment, considering the precedent this ruling sets.
The reason I consider it a small victory is because of the many, many issues that it does not address. So Big Bro can't come and get my guns. I can keep buying new ones. Doesn't mean jack if they make ammo so ridiculously expensive I can't actually use my weapons, does it? A great example of why there is so much to be done still is the beginnings of the anti-drug movement here. They kept certain drugs legal - if you owned a stamp. Of course these stamps were impossible to get. So they basically created a ban without explicitly doing so. It's legality is questionable at best, but since when has that stopped our government from doing something? It's also not the best example as it cannot really be repeated in this case, of course. But it demonstrates that politicians are experts at circumventing the rules to achieve their goals. So, as you say it is a very significant victory. No doubt. But there's still a lot to be done before gun rights are actually secure.
Or that the rise of the Libertarian Left and the Mountain West Democrats are killing this platform plank in the Democratic Party. Certainly, there are still Democrats who are against guns, but as formerly-red states elect Democrats, those Democrats are becoming the minority.
I'm sure there are. They just choose not to run on that platform. It has been difficult for those that do use it to win. People like their guns. There's plenty of good reasons they do.
This is very nearly exactly what I say about McCain, and the reason I'm supporting Obama. Except, of course, for the single issue part. Obama isn't even close to perfect on many issues - but he'll work harder on ending the war, promoting alternative energy, fiscal responsibility, disaster preparedness, civil liberties, ending torture and investigating those responsible, revitalizing New Orleans and Iowa, repairing the economy, bringing some sort of even playing field to taxes, having a foreign policy grounded in - if not cooperation - at least sanity, rebuilding the wall between church and state...and I'll keep pressure on the Blue Dog Democrats and the Mountain West ones to keep him honest on guns.
So we differ. Bound to happen. I'm not trying to convince you that you should vote for McCain. Not at all. You're obviously well educated on the issues at hand so I trust your judgement enough to respect it. We just have a slightly different view and different aims. No problems there, IMO. I happen to feel, however, that there will be no change no matter who wins. Seriously. Why? One, it just doesn't really happen anymore. Two, politicians will all go around telling you what you want to hear in the form of what they're going to do for you. They never tell you how. Empty promises. All. From both sides. That's why I kind of pick a few ideas that someone "promises" they'll support or change and go with it. Hoping for the best. Again, with our political system in it's current state, I vote against people. Not for them. That, I believe, demonstrates my lack of faith in all of the people seeking power.
And maybe, if we get the oilmen out of the White House, we'll be able to afford gasoline again. Although personally I doubt it.
One can hope. Though I doubt it as well. Too much money to be made.
I'll take that over McCain's repeat of Bush's policies.
And that's your decision to make. And you have made it well, IMO. Mine differs from yours, of course, but at least you know what you're voting for. And that cannot be said for many these days. I'll not wish you luck in your candidate's victory, of course, but I will wish us both luck in that no matter who wins things will somehow improve. God knows we need it.
I saw in another post you're out of this. Can't say that I blame ya'. No matter how well an argument on politics is crafted it's chances of actually accomplishing something are pretty slim. At least we've all been pretty much civil. Heated, of course, but civil. I must say that though I don't personally agree with the direction you've decided on, it's been interesting debating with you. Happy posting.
We need to keep perspective. Many have been killed, yes. Every loss of life is tragic, yes. But war is hell. It also happens to involve killing. The next time the numbers seem to be too extreme, consider this: in 1941, the pride of the Royal Fleet, the HMS Hood engaged the German Battleship Bismarck. She was sunk. The time it took her to go under was about three minutes. In those three minutes, the lives of 1415 Royal Navy sailors were lost. Three minutes. 1415 men. Remember, people die in war. It's horrible, but that's what war is.
It's horrible, but that's what war is.
And remember that since WWII, post '45, Dems have thrown our soldiers into the meat grinder (engaged in oversees wars) that have cost FAR more lives than wars Repubs have started. By many 10's of thousands...
And remember that since WWII, post '45, Dems have thrown our soldiers into the meat grinder (engaged in oversees wars) that have cost FAR more lives than wars Repubs have started. By many 10's of thousands...
I didn't think this would prompt an intelligent response.
Who obey laws? Criminals do not. So what do laws do? They keep the law-abiding, well, law-abiding.
You obviously don't understand what the second amendment is for.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This means that we get to keep weapons in order to oppose a government that has gotten out of line. In other words, in order to fully excersize your 2nd amendment rights you have to have A) a state that is decidedly less free (check) and B) break that "State's" laws in order to oppose its tyranny. (whoops). So the 2nd amendment in effect says, when it is necessary you have to take up arms against tyrants and become criminals. Your analysis is facile and flawed. See the second amendment is tied to all the others so intricately. It is saying in effect that if your government isn't obeying the constitution you have a way to deal with it.
Incendentally, I think that most of the people in the NRA are hypocrites and wimps. Or perhaps most genially they really only obsessively care about one amendment to the Constitution to the exclusion of all the others. Isn't that the grand irony of it all. By sidestepping the NRAs monomaniacal drones one hot button issue the right is able to trample all over the other rights that the 2nd amendment should support. Twould be funny were it not so sad. Bottom line, the NRA member has effectively marginalized themselves by becoming a one issue voter. Did the president wipe his tucas with the Bill Of Rights? NRA: well I don't see any suspicious smears next to the number 2 (no pun intended, but duly noted) so we'll will mindlessly pull that lever. Not that I am saying we need an armed revolt. I'd settle for the NRA growing some stones and saying, I dunno, warrentless searches are bad - lets just start with that atrocity shall we...... If the NRA figures that one out we can move on to Torture is unconstitutional, puts our troops and citizens in danger, undermines attempts and civilization, and despite the fact that it makes you feel all manly, is almost always less effective than any other interrogation option. But I don't want to rush into this!
Personally I am not for gun control, and I am for B.O. Sometimes I imagine he makes a speech where he says "I don't care about regulating guns, there are real issues to worry about here." Yeah, right, but wouldn't it be so grand. Really - what folks want to do on their own time and doesn't hurt me is just fine in my book. (As an aside any D&Der who lived through the 80s really otta get that sentiment.)
Anyway, I just tire of that stupid "If guns are illegal, then only illegals will have guns" (or something like that, right) Your pithy saying should go "If guns are illegal then maybe finally I'll get off my rump and try to stop the denigration of our hard fought freedoms and really defend the second amendment."
And remember that since WWII, post '45, Dems have thrown our soldiers into the meat grinder (engaged in oversees wars) that have cost FAR more lives than wars Repubs have started. By many 10's of thousands...
How is that are argument to support, well, anything. Lets pick an arbitrary date that best supports my marginal statistical analysis then come up with a figure that says nothing about what is happening in Iraq or what each candidate might do about our current mess. But say it strong, and don't cite references and act like it means something!
Nancy Pelosi on Youtube "The military portion of the surge is working." This is from February. Harry Reid on Youtube.The surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that.
Well I'd trust their judgment about the war a mite more than ole GWs, but not to much. Especially since they are demonstrably wrong in this case, at least they are not actively lying about it. But their error can be forgiven - correlation is often confused with cause and effect. To whit, the US military (despite GWs ignorant - we don't talk to terrsts "policy".) brokered a truce with Al-Sadr, and this is what mainly caused the decline in violence - not the surge as purported.
It would be nice to have real universal healthcare. I know lots of people feel it is too socialist, but you have to understand how hard it is for many people to pay for healthcare every month. Both me and my wife work. But health insurance is so expensive that we have to sacrifice a lot just to be able to afford our doctor visits and pay for medicine. There have been several months when we couldn't afford our premiums, and that has put us a little in debt. From what I am hearing, a lot of middle class and lowe middle class people have the smae struggle. If some of the people on top need to pay a little more, and the lines are going to be alittle longer, I am fine with that. It seems to be that quality healthcare access should be treated as a basic human right.
The war, I think, is very complicated. I did not agree with going in. I do not agree with remaining indefinitely. But I do think we have responsibilities to the region (since we went in and removed the government). But our presence there is not deterring the growth of terrorism in the middle east. If anything it is fueling it. Ask anyone from that region what they think of America and they will likely point to Iraq before giving their answer. You have to understand that images of American soldiers on Middle East soil, firing weapons, has a strong impact on them. Even if we are trying to do the right thing, it is not being interpretted that way.
I personally want Obama to win, but I like many of McCain's positions as well, so this election is kind of win-win for me.
It would be nice to have real universal healthcare. I know lots of people feel it is too socialist, but you have to understand how hard it is for many people to pay for healthcare every month. Both me and my wife work. But health insurance is so expensive that we have to sacrifice a lot just to be able to afford our doctor visits and pay for medicine. There have been several months when we couldn't afford our premiums, and that has put us a little in debt. From what I am hearing, a lot of middle class and lowe middle class people have the smae struggle. If some of the people on top need to pay a little more, and the lines are going to be alittle longer, I am fine with that. It seems to be that quality healthcare access should be treated as a basic human right.
The war, I think, is very complicated. I did not agree with going in. I do not agree with remaining indefinitely. But I do think we have responsibilities to the region (since we went in and removed the government). But our presence there is not deterring the growth of terrorism in the middle east. If anything it is fueling it. Ask anyone from that region what they think of America and they will likely point to Iraq before giving their answer. You have to understand that images of American soldiers on Middle East soil, firing weapons, has a strong impact on them. Even if we are trying to do the right thing, it is not being interpretted that way.
Krugman made a great point in today's New York Times. The key election issue isn't about rebuilding Iraq. It's about rebuilding America. Our crumbling infrastrucure, education system, health system, and eventually our depleted military will put us behind the rest of the world. How can we compete when foreign companies don't have to worry about providing health care because all other industrialized nations have universal health coverage? How can we compete if our transport system is inferior to European and Asian countries'? If our education system is lacking?
We simply can't compete. America can't rest on its laurels as a superpower. All empires fall once their people take their dominance for granted. You better believe the Chinese and Europeans are plenty hungry and willing to constantly innovate in order to compete.
Krugman made a great point in today's New York Times. The key election issue isn't about rebuilding Iraq. It's about rebuilding America. Our crumbling infrastrucure, education system, health system, and eventually our depleted military will put us behind the rest of the world. How can we compete when foreign companies don't have to worry about providing health care because all other industrialized nations have universal health coverage? How can we compete if our transport system is inferior to European and Asian countries'? If our education system is lacking?
We simply can't compete. America can't rest on its laurels as a superpower. All empires fall once their people take their dominance for granted. You better believe the Chinese and Europeans are plenty hungry and willing to constantly innovate in order to compete.
This. All this, and nothing but this. If a tree branch falls in Ohio does it take out the entire NE power grid?
I don't feel that either of the democratic candidates offered have the experience to run this country well. I don't like JM all that much either to be honest, but he seems like a much more capable leader than either Hilary or Obama.
I would rather have a capable and experienced leader than a popular one. But thats just me, and my silly opinions
love,
malkav
Especially since they are demonstrably wrong in this case, at least they are not actively lying about it.
Besides the link to Sadr and truce (which happened long after the surge started, and not long after the full surge force was present in Iraq. Gee, I wonder why Sadr signed a truce after the US military showed up with more power, more action, and more results? Maybe Sadr agreed to the truce because he saw that the Americans meant business through the surge.) do you have evidence that I don't? Because everything I see is that the war is shifting gears because the surge is working? If so, I'd love to see it. Anything is better than this last pathetic attempt to say that it was Sadr and not the surge. Without the surge, there would not have been a peace with Sadr. Cause and effect. Surge brings Sadr to table which lessens sectarian violence in Sadr City (but not elsewhere) which means the surge can focus on other strongholds to lessen violence there. Looks like a pretty straight chain to me.
As a final note, combining that wiki entry with that February article has revealed something interesting. Didn't the Sadr truce not really amount to much since much of the Mahdi army doesn't listen to him anyway? So, if the truce hasn't done much because people don't listen, and the truce has effectively gone away anyway, shouldn't their be a rise in violence? Oh right, the exact opposite has happened as violence has dropped.
What happens when you use leftist talking points is you don't do independent research. You only read what like-minded people send you to read.
Besides the link to Sadr and truce (which happened long after the surge started, and not long after the full surge force was present in Iraq. Gee, I wonder why Sadr signed a truce after the US military showed up with more power, more action, and more results? Maybe Sadr agreed to the truce because he saw that the Americans meant business through the surge.) do you have evidence that I don't? Because everything I see is that the war is shifting gears because the surge is working? If so, I'd love to see it. Anything is better than this last pathetic attempt to say that it was Sadr and not the surge. Without the surge, there would not have been a peace with Sadr. Cause and effect. Surge brings Sadr to table which lessens sectarian violence in Sadr City (but not elsewhere) which means the surge can focus on other strongholds to lessen violence there. Looks like a pretty straight chain to me.
As a final note, combining that wiki entry with that February article has revealed something interesting. Didn't the Sadr truce not really amount to much since much of the Mahdi army doesn't listen to him anyway? So, if the truce hasn't done much because people don't listen, and the truce has effectively gone away anyway, shouldn't their be a rise in violence? Oh right, the exact opposite has happened as violence has dropped.
What happens when you use leftist talking points is you don't do independent research. You only read what like-minded people send you to read.
The problem with Iraq isn't that we are losing. It is that it has become a beacon for Muslim Extremists throughout the middle east. If you read Middle East newspapers and magazines, you will see this. If you talk to people who live there, or visit the region yourself, you will see this. As I said before, the image of an american soldier on Middle East soil firing a gun, is a potent one- even if he is firing it to save a child. I don't pretend to have a solution to Iraq. I wasn't for going in, but we are there now, and this is what the American people signed up for (by electing Bush and by favoring the invasion in most US polls). We removed the government on little more than a whim. It would be extremely unethical for us to simply pull out when the government isn't yet stable (and it might not be for the next thirty years). We are going to need troops there in some capacity, for some time. We are also going to need to work on our image in the Muslim World. It sucks. Americans don't like having to worry about the sensitivities of another culture, but it hurts us in the long run if we are percieved as bullies who use torture, and invade sovereign countries. For these reasons we should seriously consider bringing the Bush administration to trial. For these same reasons, even though I am voting for Barrack on domestic policy issues, I do believe McCain has a much more sensible approach to Iraq.
What happens when you use leftist talking points is you don't do independent research. You only read what like-minded people send you to read.
All the Ad-Homenem attacks in the world won't change the facts here. What I gave you were facts, calling facts names only shames yourself. The reality on the ground is neither leftist or far-right, it simply is, and no amount of verbal belligerence will change this reality. If the facts support one conclusion you shouldn't dismiss them because they present a painful reality! (In this case the reality the facts present are a political reality the US leaders have known for a while. We do have to at least talk to the political nasties of the world. Blanket statements like we don't talk with 'terrests' are short-sighted, ill-thought out, bad strategy, and the words of a person with a tiny pud.)
If you are really interested in a discussion, then come up with a few of your own sources, or dispute the claims with other evidence. And, for the record, quoting politicians (Dem or Rep) is not a valid source. For that mater quoting anyone who isn't a middle east expert, or isn't there in a command position, isn't a valid source. Which was my original point here as I recall. Nor is someone with knowledge or expertise saying 'the surge is working' a valid refutation of the fact that Al-Sadr's truce is a major contribution to the decrease in violence. Which is again, the point I was making.
Anyway, why is it that you have to always explain the basic points of logic and civility to these Neo-Cons? And why do I keep trying when it never seems to stick? I hate that you irrationalists took over my party. Give the Republican party back to the true Conservatives!
...
Anyway, why is it that you have to always explain the basic points of logic and civility to these Neo-Cons? And why do I keep trying when it never seems to stick? I hate that you irrationalists took over my party. Give the Republican party back to the true Conservatives!
YAYAYAYAYAY!!!!
All the Ad-Homenem attacks in the world won't change the facts here. What I gave you were facts, calling facts names only shames yourself.
Ad hominen that was not. It was also a statement of fact. Those truly are leftist talking points. I've seen them published for distribution from places like Kos and ThinkProgress and heard them uttered by liars like Olberman.
Also, they are not facts. They are misrepresentations of the truth, as I pointed out. The Sadr peace came after the surge. Ergo, the surge brought about the Sadr peace.
We do have to at least talk to the political nasties of the world. Blanket statements like we don't talk with 'terrests' are short-sighted, ill-thought out, bad strategy, and the words of a person with a tiny pud.
Urm, did I ever indicate that we shouldn't? Bush may have, but he's a far cry from being the same person as me. I just don't think we should do it unconditionally, which was what BO initially came out and said. He has since backpedaled, probably after talking to people like Jim Webb.
If you are really interested in a discussion, then come up with a few of your own sources, or dispute the claims with other evidence.
I did. I used your own sources to prove my point. And wikipedia hardly counts as evidence. The fact that you think it does is sad.
Nor is someone with knowledge or expertise saying 'the surge is working' a valid refutation of the fact that Al-Sadr's truce is a major contribution to the decrease in violence. Which is again, the point I was making.
And why is Al-Sadr's truce in existence? Because of the surge. Also, if you would read your own darn sources, you would see in plain factual presentation that Al-Sadr himself has minimized the effect of the truce because he doesn't even control the entire Mahdi army. But I wouldn't expect irrational people like you to even read your own sources.
Anyway, why is it that you have to always explain the basic points of logic and civility
Civility? Is that what you call name calling? You're a joke.
to these Neo-Cons?
Whoa, pal. Way to jump to conclusions! Who ever said I was a Neo-Con? I don't agree with why we went to Iraq any more than you do, so get off your high horse. I think there have been serious issues with this administration. Serious problems starting with the erosion of civil liberties. Don't even try to play the neo-con name calling on me. I hated the fact that I had to vote for Bush in 2004. Detested it, but my alternative was someone even worse, and I wasn't having any of John Kerry.
I hate that you irrationalists took over my party. Give the Republican party back to the true Conservatives!
Who in the party is not irrational? What is a true conservative? I'm not one. Hell, I'm not even part of any party. I'm about as libertarian as they come - get the gov't out of my bedroom and my wallet.
Just because I think we need to fix what we broke doesn't make me a Neo-Con. There is always more than one issue at stake. In case you missed it earlier, I'm not voting for McCain. But there's no way in hell I'm voting for BO. (And in case you haven't noticed, and my guess is you have turned a blind eye towards it, BO has specifically tacked away from the left on the Iraq war. He's starting to make statements about "finishing the job" and "making sure it's stable." Again, it's probably too much to ask someone to fully check out what their own candidate is saying.)
And lay off the name-calling. One issue (our foul-up in the Middle East) does not mean you have to resort to being a jerk.
If you want to know Barack Obama's position on Iraq, you could always ask him.
As he's said, repeatedly, that he will have combat troops out of Iraq in the first sixteen months of his presidency (save for guarding our embassy), I don't see him McCaining on that issue anytime soon.
And yes, I'd like to see the real conservatives take the Republican Party back as well. Considering that the Republicans have taken us from an arguable surplus to an unarguable nine trillion dollars in debt, have presided over the largest expansion of federal government since the New Deal, and have actively worked to dismantle the Constitution with warrantless wiretapping and the Unitary Executive theory, I can't help but wonder about what happened to the people that were for "fiscal responsibility", "smaller government", and "strict interpretation of the Constitution".
Just sayin'.
As for your last paragraph, I can't help but agree with you whole-heartedly. I think many of my more conservative friends feel the same.
Also, JWT wanted evidence that the surge is working. Read this and weep.
America is about to make a major political shift. Most Americans call themselves Democrats. Most Americans agree with the Democrats on a majority of the political issues. For example, pro choice on abortion, pro stem cell research, against the Iraq War, pro civil unions for gays, pro higher taxes on rich people, pro universal health care, etc.
The Republican Party has convince the American people to vote for them, even though their own platform shows us that they believe the majority of Americans are wrong. The only way they know how to win is to tear down the other guy...to make Americans more afraid of the Democrat.
This year, that is not going to happen. Obama is too "likeable" a guy. This year the Republican Party, as we know it, will come to an end. The final nail in the coffin of the GOP. Yes, it will still exist in some form, but it will not be the same.
One candidate seeks to further the goals of the Democratic party, the other seeks to further the goals of the Republican party...
Who seeks to further the goals of America, and the American people?
America is about to make a major political shift. Most Americans call themselves Democrats.
Do they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, but that doesn't add up to "most" Americans calling themselves Democrats.
Note, too, that this data is from January of 2004. And we all know what happened in Novermber 2004, in spite of that supposed preponderance of Democrats.
In the end, though, I must admit that I also think Barack Obama is going to win in November, and I lament that. However, I hold out hope that the Republicans will make gains in congress, if not this year, then in midterm elections. I do not want to see the socialism the espouse triumph. To me, the Democrats represent the punishment of success and stifling of ingenuity since they resent the rich so much. All they want to do is take my money and dole it out to my less-deserving neighbors. I do not agree that I should have to share in the unfortunate consequences of my neighbors' financial mistakes, yet that is precisely what the Democrats want. They are the party of pandering to the lowest common denominator. If it has finally come to the tragedy of most Americans being willing to vote nothing but these vicious, hateful socialists into office, then I pity us. God save us from the Party of Bread and Circuses...
I will say that it's usually at this point when I'm talking to conservatives that the ad hominem attacks and death threats against me and my family start. Thanks for not doing that.
But hey, we've had four conservatives rotate through here I'm done for a while.
S.F. Bay melodrama. They always were mad L.A. got Hollywood. Everyone knows the bay does drama better.
Uh -huh. Go post a pro-liberal article on Little Green Footballs or Free Republic, post a pro-conservative article on Daily Kos, and come back and tell me that.
Why would you go to a bastion of what you oppose in the first place? Do you really think your 'golden post of political clarity' is going to shift beliefs?
You've confirmed my previous assertion.
The Republicans are not really capable of running the government. They failed to prevent 9/11, they failed to respond appropriately to 9/11, Bush's policy of devaluing the dollar has had massive and negative effects on the US economy (and yes, he did this intentionally; it was a policy of his starting from early in his first term. Lots of people don't know this because they didn't do the research), and their stances on a lot of policy issues just has people mad at them. The Iraq War and the economy will sink them, and the Democrats getting out of Iraq will get them the presidency.
I think the real question is whether the Democrats will gain total control over the Senate. Some Republicans (such as Gordon Smith, the Republican senator from Oregon) are basically running as "we're democrats, really!", while others are pretty much just screwed.
The Republicans are not really capable of running the government. They failed to prevent 9/11, they failed to respond appropriately to 9/11, Bush's policy of devaluing the dollar has had massive and negative effects on the US economy (and yes, he did this intentionally; it was a policy of his starting from early in his first term. Lots of people don't know this because they didn't do the research), and their stances on a lot of policy issues just has people mad at them. The Iraq War and the economy will sink them, and the Democrats getting out of Iraq will get them the presidency.
"The Republicans are not really capable of running the government."
As opposed to say Kennedy/LBJ's handling of Vietnam, or Carter's handling of Iran, or Clinton's handling of Somalia...
From the combination of our two posts, I'd like to amend your statement:
"The politicians are not really capable of running the government."
If you are still waving an elephant or jackass flag, you're missing the point.
Stop voting for an animal/symbol and back people with a suite of good ideas rather that ones that have charisma, money, and the ability to smile and nod when a hot topic is brought up in their presence.
"The Republicans are not really capable of running the government."
As opposed to say Kennedy/LBJ's handling of Vietnam, or Carter's handling of Iran, or Clinton's handling of Somalia...
To be fair, its difficult to assign blame for Vietnam. Whose fault was it? Truman's, for not saying no to the French to begin with? Eisenhower's, for sending people in? Kennedy, for sending more people in? LBJ, for escalating the war further? Nixon, for not getting us out on time?
That was was a bipartisan disaster.
Carter handled Iran fine. Reagan committed treason (the ONLY president ever to do so) in handling Iran (oh, I know, lets sell weapons to enemies of the US! Brillant plan).
And it was the Republicans who got us out of Somalia, and ultimately, they shouldn't have as what we were doing there was -actually justified-. That was the fault of the Republican party, not the democratic one. If you're going to insult Clinton for anything, it'd be Rwanda, though that was at least in part due to the Republican opposition to what happened in Somalia. But he should have gone into Rwanda anyway, Republican support or not.
Clinton ultimately didn't get us into any wars, which is a good thing, and he fought terrorism far more effectively than any Republican ever did. He also brought the US into the 21st century via his correct handling of the economy - keep the dollar strong and futz with the interest rates a little while creating wealth via new technologies.
From the combination of our two posts, I'd like to amend your statement:
"The politicians are not really capable of running the government."
Not really. Many politicans have been VERY capable of running the US.
The best may very well have BEEN Carter. This may seem strange, but had we kept Carter's policies from the 1970s we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today with oil.
We might also be overrun by angry rabbits, but hey, you can't have everything, right?
FDR also did an excellent job, as did Lincoln, as did Thomas Jefferson. Heck, Clinton did a fine job being president, as did Bush Sr. (though the whole first Gulf War could have been avoided, he ended up handling it fine. He basically ended up getting screwed by Reagan's policies from the 1980s. As VP, he committed treason, but he was a fine president).
Stop voting for an animal/symbol and back people with a suite of good ideas rather that ones that have charisma, money, and the ability to smile and nod when a hot topic is brought up in their presence.
Barack Obama is a moron, its just that he's preferable to John McCain. For once, I'd like to vote for someone I actually consider to be compentant, but unfortunately the African American voters decided to be racist and vote en masse for Obama, and thus we're left with a man with no stones versus a man who is clearly not capable of being president and will be actively bad for the country. Clinton, while far from the ideal policy positions, actually has backbone and is willing to take action, something Obama lacks, and given her positions are very nearly strictly better than Obama's, I would have been much happier with her as our next president.
Just because I vote for Democrats doesn't mean I like it; it means that I know the alternative is worse and I have no real option. Maybe in 10 years, my generation will start throwing up competant politicians to vote for.
The Republicans are not really capable of running the government. They failed to prevent 9/11,
Actually most of the planning and execution took place on Clinton's watch (8 years).
Now, if you want to talk war, Dems = Pearl Harbor, Dems = Korea and mass US deaths, Dems = Vietnam = 50k dead.
40 years of Dem controlled congress stealing from the SS Trust Fund.
Are you sure you want to hold dems up as being able to run the gov't?
To be fair, its difficult to assign blame for Vietnam. Whose fault was it? Truman's, for not saying no to the French to begin with? Eisenhower's, for sending people in? Kennedy, for sending more people in? LBJ, for escalating the war further? Nixon, for not getting us out on time?
That was was a bipartisan disaster.
Not in the least. The two people you mention that are Republican are Eisenhower and Nixon. You can't cause a problem at the end of the problem, so Nixon is removed. And Eisenhower gave South Vietnam money and training only, while being a predominantly domestic minded president (education, infrastructure, social security, and science). Kennedy and LBJ were the ones that turned it into an American war. If you actually want to talk about Eisenhower, then look at the fact that he didn't even really seek out the presidency. He was pushed into it due to his war hero status and when he got there he basically tried to do the things I talk about; seeking to improve the lives of American citizens. He is probably the least politically minded president of the 20th century.
Carter handled Iran fine.
Crying on national television does not denote 'fine' in a world leader. Carter was one of the three weakest, most ineffectual American leaders in the 20th century along with Harding and Hoover. He took a nation with failing morale and only made it worse. He dumped off the Panama Canal without infrastructure to help the people manage their new nation and left the anti-American students to grow up and eventually back a drug lord. Presided during our first major fuel crisis, did nothing to alleviate that or promote alternate fuels that would have set us up for true oil independence by now. He promoted SALT II which we know now was entirely ignored by the Soviet Union.
And it was the Republicans who got us out of Somalia, and ultimately, they shouldn't have as what we were doing there was -actually justified-. That was the fault of the Republican party, not the democratic one. If you're going to insult Clinton for anything, it'd be Rwanda, though that was at least in part due to the Republican opposition to what happened in Somalia. But he should have gone into Rwanda anyway, Republican support or not.
It's not our place to be world police. Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, Shattered Yugoslavia. If you don't want us in Iraq telling them not to kill their own people, why would you want us in Somalia telling them not to kill their own people, or Rwanda or Zimbabwe?
We use our military to protect us, not to judge other nations.
Clinton ultimately didn't get us into any wars, which is a good thing, and he fought terrorism far more effectively than any Republican ever did. He also brought the US into the 21st century via his correct handling of the economy - keep the dollar strong and futz with the interest rates a little while creating wealth via new technologies.
He didn't get us into wars, or do much of anything else. How did he fight terrorism? His effect on the economy was nothing more effective than signing a bill he had nothing else to do with.
Not really. Many politicans have been VERY capable of running the US.
The best may very well have BEEN Carter. This may seem strange, but had we kept Carter's policies from the 1970s we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today with oil.
You mean that we would have still been distracted by the cold war? I agree with you on that point. As far as oil, he had the opportunity to do a massive money dump on alternate fuels that would have really gotten us out of our oil situation, but didn't.
FDR also did an excellent job
By letting all but the last of our allies be overrun by two terrible conquering nations? How about the Japanese internment camps, or the blatantly racist propaganda, or maybe it was the porous security on the Manhattan project that give the atomic bomb to Stalin? No, I don't think any of that qualifies as an excellent job.
as did Lincoln, as did Thomas Jefferson.
Let's try not to go as far back as the Athenians for inspiring our democratic system.
Just because I vote for Democrats doesn't mean I like it; it means that I know the alternative is worse and I have no real option. Maybe in 10 years, my generation will start throwing up competent politicians to vote for.
I never said you ascribed to either party. I simply added to your critique of the recent republicans with a critique of the preceding democrats. As far as my assessment, most of the modern presidents have been glory hounds seeking either party or personal aggrandizement.
And quite frankly about your generation, I don't see anything promising coming, it's only been recently where we seem to be voting for the High School popularity winners... An Actor, the Actor's VP, a Saxophone player, the Actor's VP's son. And the democrats hand us The Saxophone player's wife or a token black man.
Anybody of you has readen any article by Thomas Sowell, Michele Malkin or/and Larry Elder about Obama?
* I think Obama is a new Chamberlain and a bit of Jimmy Carter.
I worry if Obama is president....what if Morocco invades Spanish zone. Do you rebember the incident about Isla Peregil in 2002? and the the Green March in 1975?
Do rebember this, diplomacy didn´t stop the civil war in Yugoslavia, nor the 1938 Munich agreementavoided the Second World War.
Al-Qaeda is a menace. If terrorist aren´t killign people in Irak then it would be in othe place, perhaps Europe o even USA. Pacifism isn´t the right answer to jihadist terrorism nor the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Not alwyas the nice words are enoguh to stop th violence.
I have suffered bullyin in my chidhood. The lesson is somepeople only obey the law of strongest. If you don´t fight againts them they slave you.
I have suffered bullyin in my chidhood. The lesson is somepeople only obey the law of strongest. If you don´t fight againts them they slave you.
I think the problems of terrorism and international politics are more subtle than this. But pacifism is also not the answer. Short response, if Americans are going to solve the terrorism problem, we need to have a better informed public, stronger Arabic programs in the schools, and real information about the middle east. Force will sometimes be the answer. But soundbites like "we fight them over there so they don't come over here" is a terrible over-simplification. But it is probably a little late to "bring home the troops". You can't just invade a country, remove the leadership, and expect to hand over responsibility to the native population without long term consequences.
I think the problems of terrorism and international politics are more subtle than this. But pacifism is also not the answer. Short response, if Americans are going to solve the terrorism problem, we need to have a better informed public, stronger Arabic programs in the schools, and real information about the middle east. Force will sometimes be the answer. But soundbites like "we fight them over there so they don't come over here" is a terrible over-simplification. But it is probably a little late to "bring home the troops". You can't just invade a country, remove the leadership, and expect to hand over responsibility to the native population without long term consequences.
Actually, the problem is oil. Until we get off the oil kick and stop funding that area of the world there will be these problems. If there is no money flowing to that area then it becomes a poor 3rd world area once again. No $ means no financial support and no engine for the terrorism.
Actually, the problem is oil. Until we get off the oil kick and stop funding that area of the world there will be these problems. If there is no money flowing to that area then it becomes a poor 3rd world area once again. No $ means no financial support and no engine for the terrorism.
Oil is part of the problem. Do you think it would alleviate the problem though if the entire region became poor (depending on the place, there is still lots of poverty in the Muslim World anyways though). A lot of the terrorist tactics are pretty low-tech anyways, so I am not convinced that reducing the cash flow is going to get rid of the problem. For sure rich backers play an important role, but suicide bombings do not require a huge budget. In fact as oil becomes less important (which it eventually may) the middle east will only become less, and less stable. I think the last thing we need is a sharp economic decline in that part of the world.
A lot of the terrorist tactics are pretty low-tech anyways, so I am not convinced that reducing the cash flow is going to get rid of the problem. For sure rich backers play an important role, but suicide bombings do not require a huge budget. In fact as oil becomes less important (which it eventually may) the middle east will only become less, and less stable. I think the last thing we need is a sharp economic decline in that part of the world.
A 9/11, on US soil, costs a lot. Without oil revenue the ME will be in such sad shape that the major undemocratic regimes will fall to civil war. That'll keep the maniacs busy at home killing each other. On top of that if the western powers block travel from those areas it will bottle up the insane.
A 9/11, on US soil, costs a lot. Without oil revenue the ME will be in such sad shape that the major undemocratic regimes will fall to civil war. That'll keep the maniacs busy at home killing each other. On top of that if the western powers block travel from those areas it will bottle up the insane.
Al Qaeda only spent between 400,000 to 500,000 to pull off and plan 9/11. Not that much when you think about it. When you consider the scope of the project. Assuming less funds, they could probably pull off some less spectacular stuff on our own soil without oil money. Particularly if there are a large number of Muslim governments that are oil poor, and dealing with angry populations.
Al Qaeda only spent between 400,000 to 500,000 to pull off and plan 9/11. Not that much when you think about it. When you consider the scope of the project. Assuming less funds, they could probably pull off some less spectacular stuff on our own soil without oil money. Particularly if there are a large number of Muslim governments that are oil poor, and dealing with angry populations.
A saw the spreadsheet too.
A saw the spreadsheet too.
It is an estimate from the national commission on terrorist attacks on the United States:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf
It is an estimate from the national commission on terrorist attacks on the United States:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf
Yes, we've all seen that. THAT is the money they could directly find and link to the plot. Tip of the iceberg.
Yes, we've all seen that. THAT is the money they could directly find and link to the plot. Tip of the iceberg.
No its not, it is an estimate of the total amount the hijackers spent.
1 - where are you going to hold a referendum about change in your sacred constitution?
2 - The sate protecionism isn´t the right answer. I give you a example. The Spanish goverment gives a lot of millions of subvention to Spanish cinema industry. The trouble is Spanish cinema only makes/does a type of flims the Spanish people don´t like. We don´t go to cine to see Pedro Almodovar nor films about the Spanish Civil Ware where comunist are alwats the heroes o victims. The Spanish cinema is a failure almost always but the Spanish cinema industry, a lobby pro-"progres" always the same tye of movies. The protecionism avoid the necesary competitiveness.
3 - Popularity and efficiency are two very different things. If my car is broken I don´t want a charismatic mechanic, but a competent. If I feel sick I don´t want a friendly doctor and beaty nurse but good medic help.
Be careful with populism like Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador) or even here in Spain Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, alias "Bambia".
Barac Obama is very popular but...is he a good administrator?
--------
"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."
[INDENT]Ronal Reagan 1980 Campaign [/INDENT]
4 - If in Authority, the comic superheroes group, topple a dictator is good, but if George Bush overthrow Sadam Husseim because he wanted cheat UN with the crisis of inspector....why Bush is evil?
USA is winning the Irak war againts the insurgency. Irak is a great wear for al-Qaeda, what it became weaker and weaker. If USA had gone from Irak a new war between sunnites and chiites would started. Perhaps a new dictator. (Do rebember the 1978 ware between Vietnam and Camboda).
5 - Iran with nuclear bomb is a greate menac, not only for Israel. (Imagine; a submarine in Mediterranea Sea pointing Rome) Mahmud Ahmadineyad is cracy, mad, fool. Iran support Hezbollah. Are we going to let having nuclear missiles?
6 - Not all Muslims are jihadist but the Islam is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bassorah
Do you know how is the live being Copt in Egypt or nor-Muslim in Saud Arabian?
I don´t want Barac Obama like a new Nevile Chaberlain or th Northamerican version of Spanish president Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and his stupy Aliance of Civilations.
He has terrorist ties and radical ties throughout his history. People voting for him for the change rhetoric have to wonder what kind of change he will bring. He hasn't really said. The only ironclad views he has made so far consist of not drilling for US oil and disarming the USA. That being said it is a free country and everyone should vote for the person that would make the best president...do research before you go vote. If you do the research, then youll probably come to the same conclusion i did. Neither candidate is very good for the US. Mcain is the best of two evils in MHO. I will hate voting for him, but I am not really. Its more like voting against BO. Well i guess i got baited into posting on politics. Grats to OP. I hate posting political posts. Is anyone really going to change their mind? Those to the far left or Far right believe so firmly in their ideals that they cannot change their mind no matter the evidence thrown at them. So whats the point of a political thread on a dnd forum? Just to stir up some flame wars? So this is the last post ill be posting in this thread.
What a pack of lies. Seriously. Obama has no terrorist ties. And the definition of 'radical' ties probably depends on whether you're a christian evangelical right wingnut.
And yes, I have done the research. I reach an absolutely contrary position than you.
Clinton ultimately didn't get us into any wars, which is a good thing,
the only thing clinton didn't do was call them wars. rwanda, bosnia, haiti, and multiple air strikes around the globe.
read up on clinton
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/1990s/clinton.html
1) Regardless of whether we should have invaded in the first place, simply pulling out now would be a mistake. It would present us as weak and non-committed. The best way to get out is to get IN eliminate the opposition and get out. Peace through superior fire-power, it works.
But it is not the only road to peace.
2) Socialist programs are not the answer. You want to lower cost of health care? Stop frivolous lawsuits and get people to stop using emergency rooms as primary heath care providers. (And, yes prevent illegals from using them at all. When they come in, treat their life-threatening issues and send them back to their country of origin.)
Yeah, lawsuits are really driving up the cost
No. The problem is that demand for Health care is universal and nearly limitless. Other than food and housing, people will sacrifice a lot to receive health care. You essentially have HMOs/providers taking advantage of that limitless need and milking it for all it's worth. They know they can charge a high price because people will pay it.3) Lower gas prices? What has the Democratic Congress done to lower gas prices? Have they even attempted to do anything? No. Gas prices have doubled since the Dems took over congress. That doesn't mean they are to blame, but it illustrates their lack of action.
Wow, a conservative asking for government to interfere with markets. Let me guess, if and when Congress intervenes, you'll bash them because they regulated capitalism. I smell a hypocrite.
The reason congress hasn't done anything is that it is unclear where the issue lies. No one knows the exact cause of the rise in prices...is it underhanded speculating? Legitimate speculating? Real world supply and demand issues? Is it a bubble like the housing market?
Congress does not act swiftly. That is the nature of Democracy. Sorry. If you want universally swift action, than tyrrany is your option.
4) It is not the government’s responsibility to create jobs, but for sake of argument; Unemployment was at record lows, 4.4% or so. The Democratic congress raised minimum wage forcing small business to downsize so they could afford to pay their very low-skilled workers. Now the number is around 5.5%.
Do you take yourself seriously? Here's a chart, put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
And another:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsa2007.pdf
Wow, look at all those OTHER years when the minimum wage wasn't raised and unemployment was over 5.0 %. There's absolutely NO correlation between the minimum wage and unemployment. But I know it fits your agenda to try to make it fit, and tell people only half truths.
Points 1 and 2 are strictly my opinion. You can agree or disagree no hard feelings. 3 and 4, however are facts that anyone can research. And, I encourage anyone interested to do so.
Well if your opinion is as loosely founded in reality as your 'facts' then I don't give either much credence.
Clinton ultimately didn't get us into any wars, which is a good thing,
No, we just lost our 1st F117 during a joy ride. OMG, I hope you aren't eligible to vote.
Wow, a conservative asking for government to interfere with markets. Let me guess, if and when Congress intervenes, you'll bash them because they regulated capitalism. I smell a hypocrite.
This:
3) Lower gas prices? What has the Democratic Congress done to lower gas prices? Have they even attempted to do anything? No. Gas prices have doubled since the Dems took over congress. That doesn't mean they are to blame, but it illustrates their lack of action.
was written only as a direct reply to this:
The Republican Party isn't going to do anything to do the following: end the Iraq war, create Universal Health Care, lower gas prices, create more jobs, etc.
Nowhere do you see me say that congress should force the prices of gasoline down.
Now, in reply to this:
The reason congress hasn't done anything is that it is unclear where the issue lies. No one knows the exact cause of the rise in prices...is it underhanded speculating? Legitimate speculating? Real world supply and demand issues? Is it a bubble like the housing market?
Congress only has to do one thing to lower gas prices. Allow us to DRILL in our own back yard. Drill in ANWR. It's NOT going to kill the wildlife. Drill off the continental shelf. You know what? China is getting ready to build drilling platforms off the coast of Florida. China, for fraks sake. Do you think China will be more careful of the ocean life than we would? C'mon...
What a pack of lies. Seriously. Obama has no terrorist ties.
This is false. The Weatherman are and were terrorists. They were classified as such during the 60s and are still classified as such now. If by terrorist you mean Islamic fundamentalist terrorist, then you are correct. But I didn't engage in the stereotyping of all terrorists as Islamic, as your statement appears to do.
And the definition of 'radical' ties probably depends on whether you're a christian evangelical right wingnut.
This is also false. I am neither a Christian nor an evangelical nor a nut, but I firmly believe that many of Obama's ties are radical. Organizations like MEChA and PETA (and their associates in the ELF) are radical and (as with the ELF) are on federal terror watchlists. Organizations as seemingly banal as Code Pink are radical, and resort to violence and destruction of government property. So, yes, I believe Obama does have a touch of the radical. Considering his voting record in the Senate is 100% liberal (that's higher than even Ted Kennedy and crazy Kucinich, by the way), I'd say he's about centrist and non-radical as Robert Mugabe.
And yes, I have done the research. I reach an absolutely contrary position than you.
Ditto. Lots of research. Even going so far as to slog through moonbat websites like Kos, TP, and Democratic Underground as well as wingnut sites like Malkin and Ace of Spades.
Who seeks to further the goals of America, and the American people?
The Guy who couldn't get campaign funding and thus couldn't run for office.
You can't cause a problem at the end of the problem, so Nixon is removed
No, but you can BE a problem. Nixon tried to win the Vietnam war the same as his predecessors, and only quit so he'd get reelected. To be fair, he was actually a fairly competant president otherwise, though - he simply was a scumbag. What he did pales in comparision to the crimes of Reagan and Bush Jr. though.
No one really was willing to get out of the war without trying to win it; everyone just followed what their predecessor did.
Eisenhower was something of a dangerous man, though; he did escalate the arms race with the Soviet Union, an enormous waste of money, and thought of nuclear weapons as something which could be used in war.
It's not our place to be world police. Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, Shattered Yugoslavia. If you don't want us in Iraq telling them not to kill their own people, why would you want us in Somalia telling them not to kill their own people, or Rwanda or Zimbabwe?
We use our military to protect us, not to judge other nations.
First off, our military is offensive, not defensive; the last time we fought a war where we were actually defending ourselves was World War II. Everything else has just been proxy wars in third world countries, or in some cases just us killing people we didn't like.
Secondly, the US basically made it their job to be something of a world police by spending so much on a largely-useless military; if we don't act as the world police, our military spending goes to waste. Cutting military spending is certainly a viable option, but as long as we keep it high, we need to be pointing our guns somewhere - might as well be at bad guys.
But third, and I think most importantly, we need to choose our fights. Zimbabwe would actually be a reasonable country to fight in, as there are actually "good guys" there - people who are actively better than those in power, and people who understand what democracy IS. Fighting in Iraq is fairly pointless because the Iraqis don't want democracy - they want to be in charge. This is why a lot of our wars haven't worked out too well - we don't pick the right targets.
He didn't get us into wars, or do much of anything else. How did he fight terrorism? His effect on the economy was nothing more effective than signing a bill he had nothing else to do with.
His effect on the economy was not messing it up; compare to Bush, Jr. who has completely screwed up the economy and is incompetant, incapable, and/or unwilling to fix it. Your job as president is to not mess up the economy when it is healthy, and to help it out when it is in trouble, as well as controlling spending and making sure our tax dollars help out the economy. Republicans often criticize "tax and spend" policy, but there's nothing wrong with it at all - the problem comes if and only if the money is not flowing back into the hands of the populace.
As for terrorism, he fought Osama Bin Laden and caught a bunch of terrorists in the US. Moreover, he didn't fund terrorists, unlike most of the presidents of the 20th century, though Reagan and Bush Jr. both have heavily funded terrorists.
By letting all but the last of our allies be overrun by two terrible conquering nations? How about the Japanese internment camps, or the blatantly racist propaganda, or maybe it was the porous security on the Manhattan project that give the atomic bomb to Stalin? No, I don't think any of that qualifies as an excellent job.
You're just bitter that your guy lost the war :P
More seriously, not really. The US was highly isolationist at the time; FDR wanted to intervene before most people in this country did, and did what he could to supply the UK with funds.
This isn't to whitewash our evils; the US is far from the paragon of good and purity it likes to make itself out to be. But we weren't too horrible; the Japanese internment camps were pretty terrible, and many of our soldiers committed atrocities (though they were banned from doing it, unfortunately I don't think we really prosecuted many, if any of our own for war crimes). And whining about security on the Manhattan project is silly; yeah, the Russians had spies. That wasn't FDR's fault, and ultimately, it wouldn't matter in the long term anyway. Building a nuclear bomb is really, really, really easy, and very obvious. You can look up how to build one online. Indeed, you can look up how to build a hydrogen bomb online. It isn't particularly useful though, given that the essential ingredients (weaponized uranium, plutonium, neptunium, ect.) is pretty hard to acquire.
Nuclear weapons are science, and science is pretty readily replicable.
I never said you ascribed to either party. I simply added to your critique of the recent republicans with a critique of the preceding democrats. As far as my assessment, most of the modern presidents have been glory hounds seeking either party or personal aggrandizement.
Leaders aren't perfect, and frankly, if you want a perfect leader, you won't get one - those who are wise enough to rule are wise enough to not.
And quite frankly about your generation, I don't see anything promising coming, it's only been recently where we seem to be voting for the High School popularity winners... An Actor, the Actor's VP, a Saxophone player, the Actor's VP's son. And the democrats hand us The Saxophone player's wife or a token black man.
My generation is the most promising one so far, but that doesn't mean it will change the fact that people are worthless; my generation is simply less worthless, on average, than those which preceded it. That's pretty much the way history goes, though, barring major disasters.
I think the problems of terrorism and international politics are more subtle than this. But pacifism is also not the answer. Short response, if Americans are going to solve the terrorism problem, we need to have a better informed public, stronger Arabic programs in the schools, and real information about the middle east. Force will sometimes be the answer. But soundbites like "we fight them over there so they don't come over here" is a terrible over-simplification. But it is probably a little late to "bring home the troops". You can't just invade a country, remove the leadership, and expect to hand over responsibility to the native population without long term consequences.
Pacifism IS the answer to war; its how you stop it. But the problem is that pacifism can only exist if people engage in altruism. Pacifism is a good thing.
I doubt we'll ever get to the point where universal pacifism exists, though.
Oil is part of the problem. Do you think it would alleviate the problem though if the entire region became poor (depending on the place, there is still lots of poverty in the Muslim World anyways though). A lot of the terrorist tactics are pretty low-tech anyways, so I am not convinced that reducing the cash flow is going to get rid of the problem. For sure rich backers play an important role, but suicide bombings do not require a huge budget. In fact as oil becomes less important (which it eventually may) the middle east will only become less, and less stable. I think the last thing we need is a sharp economic decline in that part of the world.
The reality is that the only way to fix the problem is to educate the populace. The problem is that the populace doesn't WANT to be educated. However, without us needing oil, we won't be in the middle east, and they only attack the West because we're over there. Sure, they may not like us, but they simply can't mobilize the populace against us without our presence, and when they're all wallowing in poverty, they'll be too busy killing each other than us. That's mostly what they do anyway; Western casualties in the middle east are pretty much trivial.
While people are dying in Iraq, the real waste is not the people but the money.
the only thing clinton didn't do was call them wars. rwanda, bosnia, haiti, and multiple air strikes around the globe.
Those aren't wars. Since World War II, the US has only been involved in four wars:
The Korean War.
The Vietnam War.
The war in Afganistan (ongoing).
The war in Iraq (ongoing).
The first "Gulf War", our intervention in Bosnia, Haiti, ect., the invasion of Grenada, Reagan's sponsorship of Iraq, Iran, and Al Quaeda, and various random airstrikes aren't wars. Why?
Because a war involves TWO things:
Actual invasion.
Large numbers of casualties on both sides.
Pretty much everything we've done has just been us curb-stomping a third world nation or people in a third world nation, save Bosnia, which was a war, but we weren't -at- war because we did not take sufficient casualties. The first Gulf War wasn't even a war; it was the US walking in and stomping the Iraqi military. Our casualties were so few in number that it would have been about as safe for them to stay home and drive cars.
2 - The sate protecionism isn´t the right answer. I give you a example. The Spanish goverment gives a lot of millions of subvention to Spanish cinema industry. The trouble is Spanish cinema only makes/does a type of flims the Spanish people don´t like. We don´t go to cine to see Pedro Almodovar nor films about the Spanish Civil Ware where comunist are alwats the heroes o victims. The Spanish cinema is a failure almost always but the Spanish cinema industry, a lobby pro-"progres" always the same tye of movies. The protecionism avoid the necesary competitiveness.
Actually, protectionism is fine, so long as what you're doing is keeping large numbers of people employed.
4 - If in Authority, the comic superheroes group, topple a dictator is good, but if George Bush overthrow Sadam Husseim because he wanted cheat UN with the crisis of inspector....why Bush is evil?
Because Bush is evil. You see, in superhero comics, heroes are good guys. In real life, Saddam Hussien was a bad man, this is true. But George Bush is also evil. He has tortured POWs, denied them rights, violated the geneva conventions, violated the United States Constitution, given war contracts out to companies he and his staff get money from, and he stole the election in 2000.
Basically, when you put evil versus evil, there's no "good guy". More to the point, Hussien wasn't actually violating the directives of the UN; Bush CLAIMED he was, but in reality he had no WMDs, no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and no plans to acquire them in the short term. He wasn't even killing that many people in his country. He wasn't a good guy; he was a bastard. But just because he's a bastard doesn't mean its worth taking him out, as he was really the best Iraq could hope for.
USA is winning the Irak war againts the insurgency. Irak is a great wear for al-Qaeda, what it became weaker and weaker. If USA had gone from Irak a new war between sunnites and chiites would started. Perhaps a new dictator. (Do rebember the 1978 ware between Vietnam and Camboda).
First off, Iraq isn't spelled with a K. But more to the point, we aren't winning. We CANNOT win. Iraq is like Vietnam; the people don't WANT our form of democracy. They want a dictatorship. They don't respect other people's right to live. As such, a dictatorship is pretty much the best we can hope for; it is, after all, preferable to theocracy.
There is no winning in Iraq. We CANNOT beat the insurgency, because killing every single person in the country of Iraq isn't a victory.
5 - Iran with nuclear bomb is a greate menac, not only for Israel. (Imagine; a submarine in Mediterranea Sea pointing Rome) Mahmud Ahmadineyad is cracy, mad, fool. Iran support Hezbollah. Are we going to let having nuclear missiles?
We have little choice. Bush is a nut, yet he runs the US; if we only allowed SANE people nuclear weapons, we'd need a different president.
More to the point, Iran isn't really capable of building nuclear weapons at the moment, and if they do, so what? No one has used nuclear weapons in war other than the UNITED STATES. No one is stupid enough to do so, because they know they'd die horrible deaths if they ever nuked anyone. Having nuclear weapons is largely pointless at this point due to MAD and the fact that the US and Russia probably both have functional enough missile defense systems that no country can nuke them.
6 - Not all Muslims are jihadist but the Islam is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bassorah
Do you know how is the live being Copt in Egypt or nor-Muslim in Saud Arabian?
If we are going to get rid of religious extremists, do you suggest we go and kill all the fundamentalist Christians in the United States? They're far more dangerous than crazies in the Middle East.
3) Lower gas prices? What has the Democratic Congress done to lower gas prices? Have they even attempted to do anything? No. Gas prices have doubled since the Dems took over congress. That doesn't mean they are to blame, but it illustrates their lack of action.
There is nothing Congress can do to lower gas prices. Bush has screwed us with his devaluation of the dollar. The only possible way to fix it is to increase taxes on the wealthy and use that money to manipulate currency markets to our advantage. That's the solution. The Republicans won't allow that to happen, though.
Additionally, the DoJ is under the control of Bush appointees at the moment, and thus not prosecuting the energy companies for their profiteering. This is still a Republican issue, and will be for quite some time.
More to the point, though, NOTHING anyone does will lower gas prices in the long term. Nothing. You know why? Because of supply and demand.
There's just nothing that can be done for the fact that we're running out of oil. We will run out sooner or later; the correct strategy is to panel every house in the United States with solar panels and switch to electric vehicles.
2) Socialist programs are not the answer. You want to lower cost of health care? Stop frivolous lawsuits and get people to stop using emergency rooms as primary heath care providers. (And, yes prevent illegals from using them at all. When they come in, treat their life-threatening issues and send them back to their country of origin.)
Socialism actually is the answer; every single successful country in the world today is socialist. The US is falling behind because we are insufficiently socialist. Additionally, the Republicans don't understand what they need to do to fix it.
What we need to do to fix it is simple: completely do away with most of the insurance industry. Insurance is what drives the costs. Why? Because of the way it works.
Health insurance is a scam. You cannot pay more to them than they pay, ultimately, so in the long term the public is screwed by it. Additionally, because the insurance industry is quite evil, they also deny care and also refuse to pay hospitals for care already rendered, which forces hospitals to further raise prices, ect.
Socialism is the ONLY answer to public health care. NOTHING else works. The reason is that health care is ultimately highly individually expensive regardless due to the nature of the industry (extremely well-educated, well-trained profiessionals) and the more middlemen you add the more expensive it gets. But individuals simply cannot afford certain extremely nasty procedures for severe problems - car accident victims, for instance, even in a socialized system are going to cost a lot of money. However, private health insurance doesn't work; it has to be done via the government or similar non-profit organizations. This way, everyone has "insurance" against crippling injuries.
And blaming immigrants is just plain old silly; people have been doing it for hundreds of years, and it is pretty much never the problem. Yeah, deporting illegals is a good thing, but ultimately we have to choose between spending a little money now or a lot of money later. A little money now (treating preventitively) is MUCH better than treating them for life-threatening conditions later.
4) It is not the government’s responsibility to create jobs, but for sake of argument; Unemployment was at record lows, 4.4% or so. The Democratic congress raised minimum wage forcing small business to downsize so they could afford to pay their very low-skilled workers. Now the number is around 5.5%.
Actually, the entire purpose of the government is ultimately to employ people. The US government is the largest employer in the United States. That's what taxes are FOR; they pay people wages. Those people then do useful stuff for us, such as build roads, run regulation agencies, ect.
Minimum wage has NOTHING to do with unemployment. The only people who say it are liars. If you raised it insanely high, it'd be a problem, but it isn't insanely high - indeed, at the moment it is insanely low. Not even OREGON, the state with the highest minimum wage, pays a high enough minimum wage. Minimum wage needs to be enough to survive on, and right now it isn't.
No, we just lost our 1st F117 during a joy ride. OMG, I hope you aren't eligible to vote.
People dying doesn't a war make. And I'm 23.
This is false. The Weatherman are and were terrorists. They were classified as such during the 60s and are still classified as such now. If by terrorist you mean Islamic fundamentalist terrorist, then you are correct. But I didn't engage in the stereotyping of all terrorists as Islamic, as your statement appears to do.
Are you a Christian? Then you have terrorist ties. Sorry, terrorist!
Are you a Republican? If so, then you have terrorist ties (via, of course, the crazy Christians, not to mention Bush Jr., Cheney, ect., who are all terrorists by defintion).
Are you a Christian? Then you have terrorist ties. Sorry, terrorist!
Err, did you even read my post? Nice how you cropped out the rest of my response. Anyway - NO, I am not a Christian. But I also don't associate with clinic bombers like Obama actually physically in-person associates with William Ayers of the Weathermen. They served together on political boards, and Ayers donated money to Obama as a politician.
Are you a Republican? If so, then you have terrorist ties (via, of course, the crazy Christians, not to mention Bush Jr., Cheney, ect., who are all terrorists by defintion).
Nope, not a Republican either, but nice try! You jump to conclusions so much, you must be trying to exercise or something.
And how are Bush and Cheney terrorists by definition? Last I remember terrorism was defined by unlawful attacks against non-combatants with the express purpose of sending a society or country into a state of fear. As far as I can tell, the only thing that would qualify them is if you buy the ridiculous moonbattery that says our presence in Iraq is unlawful. Well, hate to break it to you, but 16 other countries were present and our own government voted lawfully in a lawful manner to support the lawful actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. And since we are targeting only enemy combatants (and doing our damnedest to avoid civilian casualties on a scale never seen before in modern warfare) and out express purpose is to bolster the society and government to free them from harm by terrorists, I'd say your proposed definition of Bush and Cheney as terrorists hasn't got a leg to stand on.
...And how are Bush and Cheney terrorists by definition? Last I remember terrorism was defined by unlawful attacks against non-combatants with the express purpose of sending a society or country into a state of fear. As far as I can tell, the only thing that would qualify them is if you buy the ridiculous moonbattery that says our presence in Iraq is unlawful. Well, hate to break it to you, but 16 other countries were present and our own government voted lawfully in a lawful manner to support the lawful actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. And since we are targeting only enemy combatants (and doing our damnedest to avoid civilian casualties on a scale never seen before in modern warfare) and out express purpose is to bolster the society and government to free them from harm by terrorists, I'd say your proposed definition of Bush and Cheney as terrorists hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Terrorism is an assault by a state, organization, or individual on the right of an individual to life and the right to live it freely and without dispute or trespass.
So yes...in the true sense of the word even the elected leaders of a democracy occupying a foreign state and preventing the right of said victim state from living their lives free of the point of view of another is pretty much Terrorism.
Similarly the USA had (before they watered down the US Constitution with centralist thinking) an obligation to seek the direct and regular approval of every citizen in regards to every act of Government, Law, and Constitution.
Also If the US president didnt have the direct and regular approval of every US citizen in going to war he was guilty of Treason. Because he feels above acountability, that is Resisting arrest under charge of Treason which carries the Death sentance enforced by individual citizens. SO it falls on the Populace of the USA to Shoot President George W Bush Dead for Treason if even one citizen thinks he is guilty.
Either you believe in the rule of Law and your obligation to it or you are guilty of Treason. Which is it?
Terrorism is an assault by a state, organization, or individual on the right of an individual to life and the right to live it freely and without dispute or trespass.
That's not the definition in my Merriam-Webster's or my American Heritage. In fact, I'll quote the definition from the OED here.
terrorist - In early use also applied spec. to members of one of the extreme revolutionary societies in Russia. The term now usually refers to a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects.
Read that last sentence again - a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. Since the US gov't is not either of those organizations and is working with the rightfully elected governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just not technically true.
So yes...in the true sense of the word even the elected leaders of a democracy occupying a foreign state and preventing the right of said victim state from living their lives free of the point of view of another is pretty much Terrorism.
Err, your version of occupation is different from mine. The military is there, but they aren't running Iraq's gov't. And the state is living its life pretty much free from US POV. If they were kowtowing to our views, it wouldn't have taken years to finally agree on oil money distribution -- as they did last week, I might add. Meaning that 17 of 17 goals for the surge have now been met.
Similarly the USA had (before they watered down the US Constitution with centralist thinking) an obligation to seek the direct and regular approval of every citizen in regards to every act of Government, Law, and Constitution.
Thank goodness someone had the sense to shift the gov't to a representative democracy. Trying to get everyone's approval before anything happened would mean nothing would ever get done. You will never convince everyone to do anything. I'm just glad the founding fathers knew enough to see that.
SO it falls on the Populace ... if even one citizen thinks he is guilty.
Careful there. First, that's pretty close to a threat. Second, that's stupid thinking. By that right, we'd have an obligation to have almost every senator and representative in the country destroyed.
Either you believe in the rule of Law and your obligation to it or you are guilty of Treason. Which is it?
You have an incorrect reading of treason. Treason is not disobeying the law. Treason is actively seeking to sabotage or harm the gov't. The way you just described it, people who go faster than the speed limit would be guilty of treason.
Now, in reply to this:
Congress only has to do one thing to lower gas prices. Allow us to DRILL in our own back yard. Drill in ANWR. It's NOT going to kill the wildlife. Drill off the continental shelf. You know what? China is getting ready to build drilling platforms off the coast of Florida. China, for fraks sake. Do you think China will be more careful of the ocean life than we would? C'mon...
Well, at least we know you get your reality from conspiracy theories and urban legend. Here's a quote for you, from a Republican Senator from Florida:
"no one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba's shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.
"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight. . . . "
But your statements are typical of the fear mongering tactics that the neo-cons are fond of. Almost 8 years of fear mongering, and I'm tired of it.
As for drilling for oil, it isn't going to lower the price of gas. If you believe that, you're naive. Even where states have introduced 'tax holidays' for gas, the price barely goes down -- a few cents at most. The oil companies simply take a larger profit and any 'tax break' disappears. Not only will drilling not lower the price, if it somehow did we wouldn't see that savings for decades. Even Bush admits that. The whole debate is a red herring.
What would give us results in a matter of years, not decades, would be ramping up electric and hybrid car production. It's happening already, but the government could give tax breaks to anyone purchasing them (some states already are), and this would accelerate production. Now sure, some of you don't want a sexy Tesla electric sport car. But the more Americans driving such vehicles as these, the cheaper the gas will be for you hold-out idealogues.
Frankly I'm tired of giving my gas money, not only to crazy dictators like Chavez or Middle Eastern Sheiks, but to any oil company. Period. Screw them.
This is false. The Weatherman are and were terrorists. They were classified as such during the 60s and are still classified as such now. If by terrorist you mean Islamic fundamentalist terrorist, then you are correct. But I didn't engage in the stereotyping of all terrorists as Islamic, as your statement appears to do.
Nice witch hunt. Apply just enough innuendo, and you can make anyone seem guilty, eh? The Republicans are fond of their witch hunts...there's of course the McCarthy era, then there's Willie Horton. Oh, let's not forget the Swiftboat debacle. Heck, the witch hunt machine even aimed its guns at McCain when he ran against Bush for president. Not surprising that the same machine is out in force again.
Here are the facts regarding Obama and Ayers (of the Weathermen)
- Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002.
- Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001.
- They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago.
THAT'S IT. But hey, don't let the facts interrupt a perfectly good conspiracy based on innuendo and guilt by association. It's quite despicable actually.
This is also false. I am neither a Christian nor an evangelical nor a nut, but I firmly believe that many of Obama's ties are radical. Organizations like MEChA and PETA (and their associates in the ELF) are radical and (as with the ELF) are on federal terror watchlists. Organizations as seemingly banal as Code Pink are radical, and resort to violence and destruction of government property. So, yes, I believe Obama does have a touch of the radical. Considering his voting record in the Senate is 100% liberal (that's higher than even Ted Kennedy and crazy Kucinich, by the way), I'd say he's about centrist and non-radical as Robert Mugabe.
Wow...just wow. Are you seriously comparing him to Mugabe? Seriously? Mugabe who supports institutionalized raping of women as rewards for his supporters? That Mugabe? The Mugabe that put out hits on political opponents. That Mugabe? Wait, maybe because they're both Black? You, sir, no longer deserve any response in this debate. You've shown yourself to be a good little soldier in your role of spreading fear and lies. Nicely done.
Why would you go to a bastion of what you oppose in the first place?.
"A bastion of what you oppose"? Drama much?
Because you don't learn anything by talking to people that agree with you.
Admittedly, you don't learn anything at Free Republic, Little Green Footballs, or Red State because the moment you post something counter to the party line, they ban you. If you're lucky.
And call you a Stalinist while they do it. Ironic as an Alanis Morrisette song.
Whereas, at Daily Kos, you only get autobanned if you decide to be a jerk about it - I've seen several conservatives and McCain supporters post there. McCain even gives credits to people that post to support him on Daily Kos.
And yet Daily Kos is the one labeled the hate site.
Shall we start discussing projection, then?
People that arrive at their beliefs through reason can be reasoned with. People who haven't arrived at them through reason cannot - and not all the facts in the world can sway them.
Although I certainly admire Droid's efforts at doing so.
And your dismissal of my suggestion shows that you're afraid to try it - for you know it would only prove my point.
Although you surprised me - I was expecting you to accept and try to portray some random user's angry response as the functional equivalent of having the site administrators close your account due to the content of your posts.
Wow...just wow. Are you seriously comparing him to Mugabe? Seriously? Mugabe who supports institutionalized **** as rewards for his supporters? That Mugabe? The Mugabe that put out hits on political opponents. That Mugabe?
Appalling, isn't it? I'm still not sure if they actually believe this or if they're yanking our chains.
Can you imagine what they'd say about McCain if he were the Democratic nominee?
And they keep up with the "most liberal Senator" bit, too. I thought they said John Kerry was the "most liberal", or was that only when he was running?
And they keep up with the "most liberal Senator" bit, too. I thought they said John Kerry was the "most liberal", or was that only when he was running?
Obama was a US Senator when Kerry was running?
Well, at least we know you get your reality from conspiracy theories and urban legend. Here's a quote for you, from a Republican Senator from Florida:
But your statements are typical of the fear mongering tactics that the neo-cons are fond of. Almost 8 years of fear mongering, and I'm tired of it.
First, I said ‘getting ready to drill’, not ‘are drilling’. Yes, there is a difference. You think China is developing technologies and doing seismic testing there because it’s convenient? (Actually, it is convenient. IF they plan on drilling close by.)
As for drilling for oil, it isn't going to lower the price of gas. If you believe that, you're naive. Even where states have introduced 'tax holidays' for gas, the price barely goes down -- a few cents at most. The oil companies simply take a larger profit and any 'tax break' disappears. Not only will drilling not lower the price, if it somehow did we wouldn't see that savings for decades. Even Bush admits that. The whole debate is a red herring.
’Tax holidays’? How, exactly is that going to effect oil prices? Approval for drilling now would cause the countries making a killing off of us now scramble to lower prices in an attempt to keep our money rolling in. It would have an effect, and it would happen fast.
What would give us results in a matter of years, not decades, would be ramping up electric and hybrid car production. It's happening already, but the government could give tax breaks to anyone purchasing them (some states already are), and this would accelerate production. Now sure, some of you don't want a sexy Tesla electric sport car. But the more Americans driving such vehicles as these, the cheaper the gas will be for you hold-out idealogues.
Uh, I don’t know what 1040 you filled out this year, but mine did indeed offer a tax break if you had purchased a hybrid. As for your ‘sexy Tesla electric sports car’… I’m not a poor man, but I also don’t have $110,000+ to spend on a vehicle that can only run 220 miles from home before needing a 3.5 hour recharge.
Read that last sentence again - a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. Since the US gov't is not either of those organizations and is working with the rightfully elected governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just not technically true.
The U.S. Army has got the acts of violence done, the coercion of the Iraqi Govt. (terrible govt. I know, but still a govt.). The only thing it's missing is being clandestine. Okay, I get it now. Small army = Terrorist. Big Army = Freedom-lovers. I guess that's why America spends so much on the military: they don't want to become terrorists. :P
Ad hominen that was not. It was also a statement of fact. Those truly are leftist talking points. I've seen them published for distribution from places like Kos and ThinkProgress and heard them uttered by liars like Olberman.
Ahhhh. I see you meant leftist to be a compliment then - not an effort to use name calling, rather than facts, to dispute an argument. Well let me also point out to you, trying to bolster my points with happy name calling is not a rational debate tactic either.
And lay off the name-calling. One issue (our foul-up in the Middle East) does not mean you have to resort to being a jerk.
Using rhetoric instead of logic is what gets you labeled as irrational. Not understanding that you are being illogical just adds fuel to the fire.
Considering his voting record in the Senate is 100% liberal (that's higher than even Ted Kennedy and crazy Kucinich, by the way), I'd say he's about centrist and non-radical as Robert Mugabe.
Your doing it again. What the hell does it matter if a politician is 100% liberal or 100% conservative. You act as if he just aligned themselves with the League of Baby and Infant Punchers (LBIP). Can we look at what they support and if it works? You seem more interested in making political points than helping our country. And when someone calls you out on that you call them leftist. Shameful. I defy you to find an objective definition of what is liberal and then approve that voting that agenda is aways a bad thing. Conversely, I defy you to find to prove that always voting Conservative will fix all that ails this country. Take off your blinders - there is much more at stake here than a political party's ego. It is your mindless hewing to the radical right that effectively ends real debate, and that is quite frankly a blight on our nation - one that may very well destroy it.
And thats all for me - 'cause I got better things to do than argue over the internet.
Obama was a US Senator when Kerry was running?
Both Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich were, and they're well to the left of John Kerry. They're also well to the left of Barack Obama. But I guess Obama gets to be the "most liberal" because he's the nominee.
Or do you have some actual voting records to show that Obama is the most liberal Senator? Even more liberal than Sanders, the actual Socialist?
’Tax holidays’? How, exactly is that going to effect oil prices? Approval for drilling now would cause the countries making a killing off of us now scramble to lower prices in an attempt to keep our money rolling in. It would have an effect, and it would happen fast.
To coin a phrase: Sadly, No:
An analysis by the Department of Energy of crude oil production in ANWR:With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively.1 Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil2 prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, theOrganization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.
Link to source.
$1.44 per barrel - divided by 42 gallons in a barrel, means a reduction in price of crude oil of three cents a gallon.
And it will take ten years to start drilling - covered in the same report. That's a best case estimate by the way, and the price estimate is based on the most generous resource and production figures.
Uh, I don’t know what 1040 you filled out this year, but mine did indeed offer a tax break if you had purchased a hybrid. As for your ‘sexy Tesla electric sports car’… I’m not a poor man, but I also don’t have $110,000+ to spend on a vehicle that can only run 220 miles from home before needing a 3.5 hour recharge.
This, however, is a valid point. People aren't going to switch to electric if they can't afford the cars. Now, if we only had between three-quarters of a trillion and two trillion dollars to spend on alternative energy...but we don't. We spent it on Iraq.
Yes, I know I said I was done. I'm going to try being done again, and hope I can do better at it.
Appalling, isn't it? I'm still not sure if they actually believe this or if they're yanking our chains.
I don't believe he's as crazy as Mugabe. It was hyperbole. But I also cannot ever consider Obama in any way a centrist.
Can you imagine what they'd say about McCain if he were the Democratic nominee?
DUDE - I've said it at least three times in this thread; I'm not voting for McCain because I don't like his politics.
And they keep up with the "most liberal Senator" bit, too. I thought they said John Kerry was the "most liberal", or was that only when he was running?
Err, I have never said he was the most liberal. He's not. I personally despise Kerry. I don't despise Obama. I think I'd probably like him. But there's no denying his voting record. I love how you shift the focus away from the facts (100% liberal voting record, more liberal than space alien Kucinich) to deflect a legitimate argument.
Or do you have some actual voting records to show that Obama is the most liberal Senator? Even more liberal than Sanders, the actual Socialist?
You want me to do your work for you? Check the Roll call votes for the time Obama has been a Senator. If it's not a "Not Present" it's invariably liberal. Liberal think tank groups did a study that I found on Kos that specifically listed Obama as earning a 100% liberal rating, something even Sanders doesn't have (he has a 98% rating). Here's a link to VoteSmart with Obama's record. Here's a non-partisan review National Journal that shows Obama with a 95% rating from 2007.
Here's a link to the NYTimes lifetime rating of Obama at 85% (the most liberal)
Here's one to the Examiner Boston that gives a him a 95%, also the most liberal rating.
And here's a link to a PDF from the Americans for Democratic Action (a liberal think tank) that gives Obama's 100% ratings on at least 5 issues.
Need me to do any more of your research for you? Just ask. All it took was five minutes and Google.
As for the Ayers-Obama link, I came across the same article you did that shows little ties. I also came across a few more that indicate a lot more personal involvement than $200 bucks and a post on the same council. But I'm through doing moonbat research that they can't even do themselves.
Wait, maybe because they're both Black?
Liberals always throw that race card, don't they? You brought race in here pal, not me. Who's the racist? I hadn't even thought about race. I don't give two craps what color Obama is.
You, sir, no longer deserve any response in this debate. You've shown yourself to be a good little soldier in your role of spreading fear and lies. Nicely done.
And you have proven that you can't reason outside moonbat talking points, whereas I've actually posted links, evidence, and proof to back up my arguments. Try again.
Err, did you even read my post? Nice how you cropped out the rest of my response. Anyway - NO, I am not a Christian. But I also don't associate with clinic bombers like Obama actually physically in-person associates with William Ayers of the Weathermen. They served together on political boards, and Ayers donated money to Obama as a politician.
So McCain is a terrorist because he has physically associated in-person with George W. Bush and other members of the Bush administration?
By your argument every single person in the world has terrorist ties. I know a federal judge who knows a senator who knows the president; the president knows Ashcroft, who knows Saddam Hussien (a sponsor of state terrorism). Therefore, I have terrorist ties?
That's a little silly. And its even shorter if you consider that Bush has tortured people and some of the things the US has done in Iraq pretty much constitute terrorism.
And I gave those as two examples which would offend lots of people.
Ultimately, there's a pretty high chance that you've known someone at one point or another in your life who could be constituted as a terrorist, or someone with terrorist ties. I'm in Oregon; what are the odds that I DON'T know any ecoterrorists, or at least someone who knows them? :P
And how are Bush and Cheney terrorists by definition? Last I remember terrorism was defined by unlawful attacks against non-combatants with the express purpose of sending a society or country into a state of fear.
You mean like, say, raping Iraqi children and not punishing the soldiers who did it or making an effort to look into it? Or having our mercenaries (such as Blackwater) shoot Iraqi civilians for no reason?
That's terrorism.
But actually, that isn't the definition of terrorism.
All terrorism is is the use of violence and the threat of vioence to intimidate people or coerce them. Falsely claiming that the US would be attacked by terrorists when we weren't was terrorism of the populace of this country, for instance.
Basically, if you threaten people with violence to try and get them to behave in a certain manner, you're a terrorist.
Oddly, we call eco-terrorists terrorists, despite most of them actually only engaging in property damage.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that would qualify them is if you buy the ridiculous moonbattery that says our presence in Iraq is unlawful.
Our presence in Iraq is definitely unlawful; it violated numerous treaties. There was no justification for the war in Iraq. Afganistan was actually a lawful invasion.
Well, hate to break it to you, but 16 other countries were present and our own government voted lawfully in a lawful manner to support the lawful actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
By your logic, it is legal for Al Quaeda to kill Americans.
Read that last sentence again - a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. Since the US gov't is not either of those organizations and is working with the rightfully elected governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just not technically true.
The problem is that ISN'T the only definition of terrorism. And have you ever heard of state terrorism? Of course you had, that was one of Bush's many and varied "justifications" for invading Iraq.
Ultimately, all terrorism is is the threat of violence to manipulate people; its really just a type of intimidation.
You have an incorrect reading of treason. Treason is not disobeying the law. Treason is actively seeking to sabotage or harm the gov't. The way you just described it, people who go faster than the speed limit would be guilty of treason.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Its really, really hard to convict someone of treason in the US, and no one has been convicted of it since the 1950s. We may see a conviction for it relatively soon though.
Ultimately, committing treason is pretty difficult to do anyway, and you pretty much have to do it willfully.
Saying someone has committed treason is pretty serious, and pretty difficult.
Congress only has to do one thing to lower gas prices. Allow us to DRILL in our own back yard. Drill in ANWR
Drilling in ANWR will do two things: kill wildlife and make money for the oil companies.
It will not lower gas prices, and anyone who says it will is either a liar or misinformed.
This has been demonstrated time and again.
Ultimately, absolutely nothing we do will lower gas prices save direct governmental regulation, and even then that's a stop-gap measure - we will run out of oil sooner or later, and we have passed peak oil.
And they keep up with the "most liberal Senator" bit, too. I thought they said John Kerry was the "most liberal", or was that only when he was running?
YEah, the Republicans are what is known as "terrible liars".
Hillary is the 6th to 8th most liberal Senator from what I've read; Obama is in the middle for the Democrats, being considerably more moderate. Neither is the "most liberal" (not that this is exactly shocking, given their policy positions).
’Tax holidays’? How, exactly is that going to effect oil prices? Approval for drilling now would cause the countries making a killing off of us now scramble to lower prices in an attempt to keep our money rolling in. It would have an effect, and it would happen fast.
Obviously you know nothing about oil drilling.
If ANWR made any difference at all, it'd be in 10 YEARS.
Both Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich were, and they're well to the left of John Kerry. They're also well to the left of Barack Obama. But I guess Obama gets to be the "most liberal" because he's the nominee.
Kucinich isn't a member of the Senate; he's a Representative. He's also one of the, if not the single most liberal member of Congress.
I don't believe he's as crazy as Mugabe. It was hyperbole. But I also cannot ever consider Obama in any way a centrist.
He's a centrist relative to the US population, and a conservative relative to, say, European politics. Indeed, very few people in US politics are liberal by european standards.
And Obama's voting record is definitely not 100% liberal. It was really liberal to vote for funding for the Iraq war, right?
Hillary is the 6th to 8th most liberal Senator from what I've read; Obama is in the middle for the Democrats, being considerably more moderate. Neither is the "most liberal" (not that this is exactly shocking, given their policy positions).
This is patently and demonstrably false. 100% not factual.
There is one thing (and only one, as far as I can tell) that Hillary is more liberal than Obama on - socialized healthcare. That's actually one issue where I might even concede Obama has a decent idea - an idea he pretty much stole from the government here in Massachusetts (a gov't, incidentally, that was headed by Mitt Romney at the time, and he approved of it).
And Obama's voting record is definitely not 100% liberal. It was really liberal to vote for funding for the Iraq war, right?
Did you read any of the links I posted? Some to left wing organizations, even?
Didn't think so. Try again.
Obviously you know nothing about oil drilling.
If ANWR made any difference at all, it'd be in 10 YEARS.
Yes, obviously.
I love this argument. It assumes that somehow, magically in 10 years we will no longer need oil. Not gonna happen. Less? Maybe. But cars aren't the only culprit. Most of our electricity comes from petroleum as well. What's your plan for that, eh? The price will be higher in 10 years than it is now, I can nearly guarantee that. Drilling now would be planning ahead. And that's if it didn't have an immediate effect.
There is one thing (and only one, as far as I can tell) that Hillary is more liberal than Obama on - socialized healthcare. That's actually one issue where I might even concede Obama has a decent idea - an idea he pretty much stole from the government here in Massachusetts (a gov't, incidentally, that was headed by Mitt Romney at the time, and he approved of it).
.
The "Romney/kennedy" healthcare plan was terrible. I am scrounging to pay my other bills because of it. Forcing people to buy health insurance was an awful, awful plan. Making people pay 900$ because they cannot fit healthcare into their budget is simply wrong. It isn't working here. Premiums are still high here. It was just a way for the insurance companies to get more customers.
That's not the definition in my Merriam-Webster's or my American Heritage. In fact, I'll quote the definition from the OED here.
Read that last sentence again - a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. Since the US gov't is not either of those organizations and is working with the rightfully elected governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just not technically true.
Err, your version of occupation is different from mine. The military is there, but they aren't running Iraq's gov't. And the state is living its life pretty much free from US POV. If they were kowtowing to our views, it wouldn't have taken years to finally agree on oil money distribution -- as they did last week, I might add. Meaning that 17 of 17 goals for the surge have now been met.
I loved it when the US Government pushed that definition through. Like they have a say in th right of the individual to life...
Thank goodness someone had the sense to shift the gov't to a representative democracy. Trying to get everyone's approval before anything happened would mean nothing would ever get done. You will never convince everyone to do anything. I'm just glad the founding fathers knew enough to see that.
That is pretty much what the people bulldozing your house to build a mall owned by the Governors drinking buddy said. they said that you having a direct say proportional to your citizenship would be inconvenient to people who think representation should be proportional to your income and then having got rid of your right to say no, shot you while you were protesting.
Careful there. First, that's pretty close to a threat. Second, that's stupid thinking. By that right, we'd have an obligation to have almost every senator and representative in the country destroyed.
Yup. If they perpetrate an act of government, Law, constitution that ignores their obligation to seek everyone's approval then that is Conspiracy to Sedition. People who profit from the destruction of the weak never like this law.
You have an incorrect reading of treason. Treason is not disobeying the law. Treason is actively seeking to sabotage or harm the gov't. The way you just described it, people who go faster than the speed limit would be guilty of treason.
Treason is an assault on the obligation of the state to all its citizens. That obligation extends to an obligation to seek the approval of every citizen.
Kucinich isn't a member of the Senate; he's a Representative. He's also one of the, if not the single most liberal member of Congress.
Dammit, I knew that. My bad.
Dammit, I knew that. My bad.
But is he accountable to Commonwealth law as Mugabi? Mugabi has committed Conspiracy to Sedition and Treason under Commonwealth law. That carries a death sentance for resisting arrest.
So at some point any law abiding Commonwealth citizen can shoot him dead...
which brings up my favourite phrase. We have a "wild geese" situation in Zimbabwee...
All terrorism is is the use of violence and the threat of vioence to intimidate people or coerce them. Falsely claiming that the US would be attacked by terrorists when we weren't was terrorism of the populace of this country, for instance.
Terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.
Terrorism is also a form of unconventional warfare and psychological warfare. The word is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.
Our presence in Iraq is definitely unlawful; it violated numerous treaties.
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
Amnesty International estimates that 75% of the world's governments currently practice torture as they define it.
Besides Pres. Bush 43rd is just cutting out the middle man. Clinton/Bush Sr/Regan/ect. used to get our allies to torture for us.
Drilling in ANWR will do two things: kill wildlife and make money for the oil companies.
It will not lower gas prices, and anyone who says it will is either a liar or misinformed.
This has been demonstrated time and again.
Ultimately, absolutely nothing we do will lower gas prices save direct governmental regulation, and even then that's a stop-gap measure - we will run out of oil sooner or later, and we have passed peak oil.
Well, where to begin. You have a lot of logical fallacies in there.
1) Appeal to Fear - "Drilling in ANWR will do two things. Kill and make rich people rich." I paraphrased. I also find it interesting that you would put companies making money in the same breath as killing animals.
2) Appeal to Authority - "This has been demonstrated time and again." When? Where?
3) Ad Hominem Attack - "Anyone who says it will is either a liar or misinformed." Yes. By disagreeing with you, they're automaticaly liars or misinformed" even through you provided no evidence to support your statements.
4) False Dillemma - "Ultimately, absolutely nothing we do will lower gas prices save direct governmental regulation". In fact this is not absolute and I can provide you with a list of economist who would disagree with this statement completely.
5) There's also disagreement about us having reached "Peak Oil". The president of Royal Dutch Shell's US operations John Hofmeister, for example.
Obviously you know nothing about oil drilling.
Another Ad Hominem Attack.
Hillary is the 6th to 8th most liberal Senator from what I've read; Obama is in the middle for the Democrats, being considerably more moderate. Neither is the "most liberal" (not that this is exactly shocking, given their policy positions).
Actually:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.
In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.
Full Article HERE.
Actually:
Full Article HERE.
I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the ranking. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton took the conservative. The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote. Joining Obama on the "liberal" side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.
The second was Jeff Bingaman's S.Amdt. 1267 to S.Amdt.1150 to S.1348, the Immigration Reform bill. The Amendment was "To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa." Here's the roll call of the 41-57 vote (60 votes needed to pass, so it failed by 19). Joining Obama on the "liberal' side were Richard Shelby, Chuck Hagel, and Tom Coburn.
You need to look at analysis before you go "Oh, look, he's the most liberal!"
Most ranking systems are worthless.
The best ranking system I've seen (which was the one which put hillary at 6-8 and obama in the middle of the democrats, incidentally) was a system wherein rather than using subjective evaluations, they used a system of "how often do these people vote together on an issue". Basically, the two ends represented how far apart people were via how often they voted differently; the closer together you were, the more often you voted similarly. As you might expect, the democrats and republicans in the senate form a continuum with democrats all on one side and republicans all on the other, with a few democrats and republicans on the other side of the "line" in the middle.
I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the ranking. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton took the conservative. The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote. Joining Obama on the "liberal" side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.
The second was Jeff Bingaman's S.Amdt. 1267 to S.Amdt.1150 to S.1348, the Immigration Reform bill. The Amendment was "To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa." Here's the roll call of the 41-57 vote (60 votes needed to pass, so it failed by 19). Joining Obama on the "liberal' side were Richard Shelby, Chuck Hagel, and Tom Coburn.
You need to look at analysis before you go "Oh, look, he's the most liberal!"
Most ranking systems are worthless.
The best ranking system I've seen (which was the one which put hillary at 6-8 and obama in the middle of the democrats, incidentally) was a system wherein rather than using subjective evaluations, they used a system of "how often do these people vote together on an issue". Basically, the two ends represented how far apart people were via how often they voted differently; the closer together you were, the more often you voted similarly. As you might expect, the democrats and republicans in the senate form a continuum with democrats all on one side and republicans all on the other, with a few democrats and republicans on the other side of the "line" in the middle.
Thank you for the article. Evidence good. On the other hand, this website is interesting in marking where everyone fall on "the Nut Scale" as I like to call it.
GO HERE!!!
For reference, I fall a little to the left of Michael Gravel, which is why Democrats and Republicans are all facists to me.
Thank you for the article. Evidence good. On the other hand, this website is interesting in marking where everyone fall on "the Nut Scale" as I like to call it.
Oh, I wasn't endorsing the site that produced the article; I just found the article interesting and the analysis, backed up by actual evidence, worthwhile. I actually have no clue who produced the article; I know nothing about them.
And I'm very "liberal" as well, though I tend to agree with the political compass that there's more than just one axis of liberal vs conservative; socialists and libertarians can both be liberal, but their views on how government should be are pretty far apart, and many libertarians can be considered "conservative" as well while still endorsing a small government.
Of course, I also hold some views which are a bit bizzare for someone of my political orientation.
Oh, I wasn't endorsing the site that produced the article; I just found the article interesting and the analysis, backed up by actual evidence, worthwhile. I actually have no clue who produced the article; I know nothing about them.
And I'm very "liberal" as well, though I tend to agree with the political compass that there's more than just one axis of liberal vs conservative; socialists and libertarians can both be liberal, but their views on how government should be are pretty far apart, and many libertarians can be considered "conservative" as well while still endorsing a small government.
Of course, I also hold some views which are a bit bizzare for someone of my political orientation.
I wouldn't call myself Liberal. I'm just a bit north of being an Anarcho-Capitalist. I consider both the Democrat and Republican parties to be facists.
Take the last election as an example. I disagreed with Bush and Kerry on quite a bit. Enough that I wouldn't vote for either. I did like Bush more than Kerry though, as I think Bush actually believes what he's saying, even if I disagree with it. Kerry, on the other hand, came off an an oppurtunistic bastard who said whatever he thought would get him elected.
I consider both the Democrat and Republican parties to be facists.
Sadly true.
When USA went away and after the horror of boat-people... a new war betwenn Vietnam and Camboda. Comunist Vietcong versus comunist Khmer Rouges. The runway of USA didn´t give peace to that land.
* Look South Korea and North Korea. Do you think the Korean war was bad?
* What do you do to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan? Only nice words?
* USA has to be the world police. Never mind if you like it or you don´t. Would you let a new Hitler start other conquest campaing?
Closing the eyes and look other answer isn´t the right solution, because like the butterfly the happenings in the rest of world ending affecting USA (for example in the economy or inmigration).
Pacifism IS the answer to war
Do you rebember the Munich agreement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
Don´t be naive, ingenuous. In the real world some goverments boss have pshicology of school bull. The negotiations anytimes aren´t enough.
Western casualties in the middle east are pretty much trivial.
What do you know about the Christians maronites in Libane or Copts from Egypt? Do you read anytime news about north of Nigeria (Amina Lawal, Safiya Hussini..) for example? What about when Indonesia invaded East Timor?. And Abu Sayaf in Philipines?
The Korean War.
South Korean people has to thank you.
The Vietnam War.
Read mi first line.
The war in Afganistan
Afganistan is better without talibans.
The war in Iraq
Irak is better a lot without Sadam Husseim. The post-war is other issue.
* Protecionism causes the stagnation of industry. It´s like give money to a lazy universty son who neve studies. Without pression there isn´t changes.
* My English level isn´t enogut to talk about George Bush. Some time a no-good person does the right one with the wrong causes. In internet there is some webs and blogs pro-Bush wich can trying refute those charges.
We have to heard the point of view of everybody before made our own opinion. Don´t you think it?
And sometimes the good heroes allie with a bad boy to defeated a worse evil faction.
reality he had no WMDs, no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons,
Are you sure? The reality Sadam wanted having WMDs when UN inspectors had gone. Have you forgotten the diplomatic crisis with the UN inspectors?. Sadam had a lot of time to hide or destroy the proofs. This isn´t a CSI chapter. There isn´t a smoking gun to prove the truth.
and no plans to acquire them in the short term
No plans? And I am the secret son of Batman and Spidergirl!.
He wasn't even killing that many people in his country
Don´t be naive. He was going to start a new war when his army were ready againg. He wanted to be a modern Alexander the Great or Napoleon.
we aren't winning
There isn´t victory without sacrifice. USA is winning the Irak post-war, but the enemy propaganda is too strong.
We CANNOT win
You can win. You are the best army in the world. You have a learnt a couple of lesson about the guerrilla and the fourth generation war, but if you endurace the enough the victory is yours.
Iraq is like Vietnam
It´s, the propaganda is the main enemy weapon. They want demoralize you. Don´t make the same mistake. The psicology is the main factor in this war against the terrorism.
people don't WANT our form of democracy. They want a dictatorship
Please, be more inteligent. Irak people hated Sadam Husseim.
They don't respect other people's right to live
I´m a great jihadphobic (but not a xenophobe nor a racist).
We CANNOT beat the insurgency
You can. the wear of insurgency is bigger you thing. Only you have to continue resisting.
because killing every single person in the country of Iraq isn't a victory.
Avoiding members of al-Qaeda kill American and European people is a great victory. If USA goes away Irak al-Qaeda will be killing in other places of the world. Don´t fluff you.
*
Please, be more inteligent. Irak people hated Sadam Husseim.
.
The IRAQI people have a saying now. Before the war, I would have sacrificed a sheep to get rid of Saddam. Now I would sacrifice a bull to have him back. What the Iraqi people want now, is order. Democracy is useless if it cannot provide the most fundamental things people need to survive. Also, not all Iraqi people hated Saddam. He was Sunni, and did a lot to elevate Sunni's to positions of power. Many Sunni's liked Saddam.
we'd need a different president.
I´m afraid if Barack Obama is presidente then North Korea and Iran will have their nuclear missiles because Obama won´t want avoid it.
Iran isn't really capable of building nuclear weapons at the moment,
I would rather have not risk. Perhaps not in the next year but it would be after.
No one has used nuclear weapons in war other than the UNITED STATES.
I hope it never has to hapening again.
No one is stupid enough to do so
You don´t know Mahmud Ahmadineyad. That guy is a crazy, nut, fool, silly. Be careful. He isn´t afraid the mutual sured destruction with nuclear bombs. Sometimes he says nonsense about maghdi and destruction of Israel. Don´t ignore the warning signs.
do you suggest we go and kill all the fundamentalist Christians in the United States? They're far more dangerous than crazies in the Middle East.
You ignore a lot of thing about jihadism. Has any Christian fanatic killed people by the cartoon of Jesuchrist in FOX TV shos "Family guy" or from South Park?.
The IRAQI people have a saying now. Before the war, I would have sacrificed a sheep to get rid of Saddam. Now I would sacrifice a bull to have him back. What the Iraqi people want now, is order. Democracy is useless if it cannot provide the most fundamental things people need to survive. Also, not all Iraqi people hated Saddam. He was Sunni, and did a lot to elevate Sunni's to positions of power. Many Sunni's liked Saddam.
Do you rebember when in official elections Sadam was voted by the 99´9%?. He said be winning until the Northamerican arrival to Bagdad. He was only apperiance, a loudmouth. Some people were loyalty to him, but they weren´t the true majority.
I hope my level English has been enought this time. Perhaps in other ocassion I will write here again.
Do you rebember when in official elections Sadam was voted by the 99´9%?. He said be winning until the Northamerican arrival to Bagdad. He was only apperiance, a loudmouth. Some people were loyalty to him, but they weren´t the true majority.
I hope my level English has been enought this time. Perhaps in other ocassion I will write here again.
To be sure he used propoganda and orchestrated fake elections. But that is not what I was talking about. I don't dispute that many dislikedhim while he was in power.
My point was 1) many, many Sunnis (who are not a majority, but a good chunk of the population) like him because he was their boy. 2) People in Iraq, even if they didn't like him when he was in power, are starting to like him now because of the lack of order in Iraq. A lot of people believe he at least kept the peace, and now that is all they want.
Take the last election as an example. I disagreed with Bush and Kerry on quite a bit. Enough that I wouldn't vote for either. I did like Bush more than Kerry though, as I think Bush actually believes what he's saying, even if I disagree with it. Kerry, on the other hand, came off an an oppurtunistic bastard who said whatever he thought would get him elected.
Because, clearly, the worst president we've EVER HAD is worse than a politician.
*rolls eyes*
Just because someone believes what they say doesn't make them a better person, especially if they believe things like "torture is fine", "freedom of speech is bad", ect.
What kind of person votes for an evil man because he is consistantly evil?
I consider both the Democrat and Republican parties to be facists.
Republicans ARE facists, actually. Well, the party stance is, more or less.
The Democrats are not facists, and saying they are is pretty horribly misleading. They're really just kind of for very gradual progress and a constant mild increase in government socialization. They lack balls, but calling them facist is pretty silly; they're clearly pretty far away from facism.
* USA was to going to win the Vietnam War, Vietcong had a great wear but USA has a mistake; the propaganda.
When USA went away and after the horror of boat-people... a new war betwenn Vietnam and Camboda. Comunist Vietcong versus comunist Khmer Rouges. The runway of USA didn´t give peace to that land.
The US never should have been in Vietnam. We should have accepted the election of a Communist government and been friendly towards them, trying to pull them into our sphere of influence while excluding the Soviets, despite being a Communist country.
Vietnam was a simple waste of human lives and resources.
* Look South Korea and North Korea. Do you think the Korean war was bad?
Yes and no. I think the Korean war was somewhat justified. It was also winnable, unlike Vietnam; more of the populace of Korea wanted us there, enough to make it legitimate.
* What do you do to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan? Only nice words?
Honestly, Africans killing Africans at this point is a good thing, as the continent's overpopulation problem is only getting worse. It may sound cold, but what will our intervention do?
* USA has to be the world police. Never mind if you like it or you don´t. Would you let a new Hitler start other conquest campaing?
If any country was going to produce another Hitler at this point, it'd BE the United States.
Another Stalin could come out of Russia, though, and that isn't any better.
No third world despot is capable of being another Hitler.
What do you know about the Christians maronites in Libane or Copts from Egypt? Do you read anytime news about north of Nigeria (Amina Lawal, Safiya Hussini..) for example? What about when Indonesia invaded East Timor?. And Abu Sayaf in Philipines?
None of those are Western casualties.
Afganistan is better without talibans.
The Taliban is still around in Afganistan; someone hasn't been paying attention.
And you do realize Bush gave them millions upon millions of dollars just a few months before we invaded Afganistan, right? And that Bush Sr. and Reagan basically put the Taliban in power?
Irak is better a lot without Sadam Husseim. The post-war is other issue.
You're wrong. It is a heck of a lot worse off.
Previously, it was one country. They had electricity and potable water, and very few people were killed on a daily basis.
Now hundreds of people are killed on a daily basis and they don't have electricity and potable water.
Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussien. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or completely ignorant of what is going on in Iraq.
Saddam Hussien was the best Middle Eastern leader. He was secular and he kept half of his populace from killing the other half.
This doesn't mean he wasn't an evil man; he was. But when your alternatives are civil war, anarchy, theocracy, and Saddam Hussien, Saddam Hussien starts looking like a pretty good option.
Are you sure? The reality Sadam wanted having WMDs when UN inspectors had gone. Have you forgotten the diplomatic crisis with the UN inspectors?. Sadam had a lot of time to hide or destroy the proofs. This isn´t a CSI chapter. There isn´t a smoking gun to prove the truth.
You are wrong. It is absolutely certain that there were no WMDs. All of the weapons inspectors said the same. It was all posturing on Saddam's part. He had no WMDs. He had no plans to acquire them. This is known to be fact at this point. This is incontrovertible. He would have liked to have them, but the reality is he couldn't, so he didn't.
Claiming "he hid them all" is simply false. They never were there to begin with. All of the things that the US said to go to war with Iraq were lies. None of it was true.
Don´t be naive. He was going to start a new war when his army were ready againg. He wanted to be a modern Alexander the Great or Napoleon.
You obviously have no grasp of reality.
This is Republican propaganda. It isn't at all true.
Yes, he would have liked to own Kuwait. That doesn't mean he wants to conquer the world. He knew he couldn't. He wanted to control his country, and maybe beat on Iran a bit. That's it.
Incidentally, did you know that the US said that it was okay if Iraq invaded Kuwait?
There isn´t victory without sacrifice. USA is winning the Irak post-war, but the enemy propaganda is too strong.
Ah yes, just like we were "winning" Vietnam.
You should probably try to learn something about what is actually going on there.
It is unwinnable.
The only people in Iraq who aren't trying to kill us are the Kurds. Everyone else hates us and everyone in Iraq hates each other. The populace is killing itself. Its a socioeconomic religious war. Its stupid. And we caused it by removing the guy who was preventing it from happening.
The reality is that we cannot establish a Democracy in Iraq, and the Kurds simply lack the power to control the entirety of the country. The best case scenario is that the Kurds break off and form their own country and we somehow keep the Kurds and Turkey from killing each other and get them to get along. Then we let everyone else just kill each other in the anarchic mess that's left. That's the BEST CASE scenario; the country stays in anarchy for years as tribal warlords go and kill one another.
The people of Iraq don't understand nor believe in Democracy, because they don't think people have the right to exist if they aren't in their group.
You can win. You are the best army in the world. You have a learnt a couple of lesson about the guerrilla and the fourth generation war, but if you endurace the enough the victory is yours.
You cannot win. Having a strong army does NOTHING to help you win a war against a populace. NOTHING. The ONLY way to "win" is to kill everyone in Iraq. That isn't victory.
You are wrong and understand nothing about war. Some of us understand warfare, and understand the lessons of Afganistan and Vietnam. You cannot win a war against the population of a country. It is impossible.
It´s, the propaganda is the main enemy weapon. They want demoralize you. Don´t make the same mistake. The psicology is the main factor in this war against the terrorism.
It isn't propaganda. You know how much the US hears from groups in Iraq? Nothing. The ONLY way we hear anything is if we try.
Propaganda is "the war is winnable." Propaganda is "The Sunnis/Shiites will win."
REALITY is "The populace of Iraq does not understand the concept of democracy, nor that people who are different from them have a right to live. Instead, they're all busy killing each other. Nothing we do will change this fact, unless we are willing to spend the next thirty years in Iraq building schools and shooting pretty much everyone while reeducating the populace."
We have TWO options:
Spend trillions of dollars on schools in Iraq, which only might work, and will take 30 years of killing people.
Leave.
There is no "beat them down with military force".
Please, be more inteligent. Irak people hated Sadam Husseim.
No they didn't. Some Iraqis hated him; others liked him. What they DO hate is each other.
And claiming they don't want a dictatorship is just plain old false. They do. They want their side to be in charge and to be able to do whatever they want, and the other sides to all die.
It may be a theocratic dictatorship, and quite likely will be.
Just because many of them disliked Saddam doesn't mean they don't want someone in charge like that. They just want THEIR guy in charge like that.
Avoiding members of al-Qaeda kill American and European people is a great victory. If USA goes away Irak al-Qaeda will be killing in other places of the world. Don´t fluff you.
You know that Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda are two different organizations, right? No? They are. Al Qaeda in Iraq changed their name to screw with Americans.
And guess who allowed terrorists into Iraq in the first place?
That's right, the United States!
Obviously you're in denial of reality.
And the reality is that if we left Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq wouldn't attack anywhere else; they lack the manpower to do it, or the resources, and really, they ultimately don't care that much as long as we aren't there.
Claiming "If we don't get them there they'll attack the US." is what is known as "propaganda". It is also known as a lie.
I´m afraid if Barack Obama is presidente then North Korea and Iran will have their nuclear missiles because Obama won´t want avoid it.
Because Bush has done SO much to stop them. Oh wait, that's right, he hasn't! He in fact allowed them to do so, instead invading countries that had NO WMDS WHATSOEVER.
Reality: the Republicans are incapable of stopping the spread of nuclear arms. If 8 years of Bush cannot stop them, McCain certainly cannot do so.
This is because they don't want to do so.
I would rather have not risk. Perhaps not in the next year but it would be after.
So we should kill you, because you might be a terrorist?
That's your logic.
You don´t know Mahmud Ahmadineyad. That guy is a crazy, nut, fool, silly. Be careful. He isn´t afraid the mutual sured destruction with nuclear bombs. Sometimes he says nonsense about maghdi and destruction of Israel. Don´t ignore the warning signs.
Bush is just as bad, and he hasn't used ours.
You ignore a lot of thing about jihadism. Has any Christian fanatic killed people by the cartoon of Jesuchrist in FOX TV shos "Family guy" or from South Park?.
No one has killed anyone for those.
And yes, many Christian fanatics have bombed abortion clinics in the US. Claiming they haven't is pure ignorance.
Virtually all violent terrorist acts in the US are committed by Christian fanatics.
Google "children need heroes" for an example of Christian terrorists in the US.
To be sure he used propoganda and orchestrated fake elections. But that is not what I was talking about. I don't dispute that many dislikedhim while he was in power.
My point was 1) many, many Sunnis (who are not a majority, but a good chunk of the population) like him because he was their boy. 2) People in Iraq, even if they didn't like him when he was in power, are starting to like him now because of the lack of order in Iraq. A lot of people believe he at least kept the peace, and now that is all they want.
Evidence please. I read now that the Sadr army is all but crushed, the gov't has agreed on oil revenue distribution, and they have met all 17 of the stated goals for the surge. As well, I read that the Iraqis are ready to set withdrawal timetables of their own because they have the situation so well in hand.
I think your "a lot of people" sounds like "a lot of hogwash."
Many people claim that Vietnam was winnable, and that the US was stabbed in the back by the left. They're saying the same thing about Iraq now.
These people are Nazis.
For those of you who do not remember the Nazis, they were one of the antagonists of World War II. They claimed that the Germans would have won the first World War, but the Jews stabbed them in the back.
You may say "it is unfair to invoke the Nazis!" I disagree. The Nazis used many strategies used today by propagandists, and they really are the same thing. Its just not true.
Blinding yourself to the past of your propaganda means you're falling for it. No one should ever fall for propaganda.
And when you're using the same tactics of propaganda as the Nazis, you really must examine whether or not what you're doing is justified. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Goering: "Of course the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
The Nazis may have been evil, but they weren't stupid. I'd like for people today not to be stupid enough to fall for the same sort of thing which caused World War II.
Evidence please. I read now that the Sadr army is all but crushed, the gov't has agreed on oil revenue distribution, and they have met all 17 of the stated goals for the surge. As well, I read that the Iraqis are ready to set withdrawal timetables of their own because they have the situation so well in hand.
The only person who claimed that was Patreas. Congress said "Yeah, right."
There hasn't been significant political progress in Iraq, and the surge was ineffective at creating any progress. Indeed, the main reason for the decrease in violence in Iraq is because we allied ourselves with militias, the same people who were killing us before. This isn't progress, given that they're still killing each other; its just they're killing fewer of us.
Incidentally, we're over 4000 dead now. Our average number of dead per day has decreased by a whopping .3 since the surge started. However, the lowest rate of casualties remains the period between "Mission Accomplished" and when we handed over control to the Iraqi government (or at least, said we did); we're still suffering casualties at a higher rate now than we were then.
Because, clearly, the worst president we've EVER HAD is worse than a politician.
You really don't know anything about American presidents if you think Bush is the worst of them all.
Many people claim that Vietnam was winnable, and that the US was stabbed in the back by the left. They're saying the same thing about Iraq now.
These people are Nazis.
Many of the Veterans from Vietnam feel this way. You call them Nazis? You sit here safe in the USA and call THEM Nazis?
Would you have spit on them coming home? Would you have called them baby killers? No, there wasn't an internet then and you wouldn't have had the guts to even look them in the eye much less open your suck hole to say something like that to them.
It's easy to sit in your room and spank the keyboard to boost your iEgo, it takes a real person to step out into the real world and take a chance.
Republicans ARE facists, actually. Well, the party stance is, more or less.
Are you sure you know what the term "fascist" means, or are you just using it as a general slam on right-leaning politics in general like an awful lot of leftists do?
Because, clearly, the worst president we've EVER HAD is worse than a politician.
*rolls eyes*
Just because someone believes what they say doesn't make them a better person, especially if they believe things like "torture is fine", "freedom of speech is bad", ect.
What kind of person votes for an evil man because he is consistantly evil?
1) I didn't say he was a better person. I said out of the two choices, I liked Bush better than Kerry.
2) I also said I voted for neither Candidate. I don't vote for the Lesser of Two Evils. I still get Evil
Republicans ARE facists, actually. Well, the party stance is, more or less.
The Democrats are not facists, and saying they are is pretty horribly misleading. They're really just kind of for very gradual progress and a constant mild increase in government socialization. They lack balls, but calling them facist is pretty silly; they're clearly pretty far away from facism.
The Democratic Party, as a party, believes using force to take property (i.e. money) from it's owner and gives it to those who don't own it, even though those who have the property don't want to give up their property. They believe in using force to make private organizations (i.e. country clubs/Boy Scouts as two examples) into accepting people they don't want to accept.
To an Anarcho-Capatialist, and Libertarian, as I am, that IS fascism.
Yes, he would have liked to own Kuwait. That doesn't mean he wants to conquer the world. He knew he couldn't. He wanted to control his country, and maybe beat on Iran a bit. That's it.
This is true. The Iraqi people, generally, believed that Kuwait was part of Iraq. It's thought that the two main reasons that Saddam invaded Kuwait was 1) Their refusal to forgive War Debt that Iraq accumulated during their war with Iran, and 2) Kuwaits direct opposition to Iraqs request for OPEC to recduce Oil production so as to help Iraq pay off their War Debt.
Iraq was broke, Saddam was still trying to pay off it's war debt.
Incidentally, did you know that the US said that it was okay if Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Evidence of this would be nice.
People in Iraq, even if they didn't like him when he was in power, are starting to like him now because of the lack of order in Iraq. A lot of people believe he at least kept the peace, and now that is all they want.
Then the solution is easy. If they want a new dictator then we have to give a new dictator, but this time is pro-USA.
Do you rebember the black legend of Spanish Empire? Be careful because USA has now its own black legend. (It´s surprising Comunist killed hundred millions of human beings but they haven´t bad fame. Better propaganda?).
Iraki people thanks USA the fall of Sadam Husseim.
Republicans ARE facists
Please, the politicaly correct term of fascis is "alternative socialism". Mussolini was socialist before creating his own party.
Please, George Bush isn´t the senator Palpatine from Star Wars.
Republican party obey of law of Northamerican democracy. They don´t want change the Constitution to be elected again and again like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. They don´t call "enemy of the people" the people who are disagreement.
The Democrats are not facists
The "progres" ares the new wolfs with lamb skin. Here in Spain they don´t let having other differen point of view or opinion if it´s different to their "dogmas".
The US never should have been in Vietnam
And US never should have been in Korea....nor Camboda.
We should have accepted the election of a Communist
Your are........ not inteligent. Comunist of North Vietnam started the war invaded South Vietnam!!!!
In your school you learnt about the Mi Lai doom of but...what do you know about the massacre at Hue by vietcong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF
Comunism has the best propaganda. You can look movies about the McCarty´s witch hunt but....and about the Venona project?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
I think the Korean war was somewhat justified.
Vietnam too was justified. There were some mistakes and abuses, but it was a just cause. If USA had been resisting more time the Vietcong had been defeated because the wearing.
It was also winnable, unlike Vietnam
Vietnam was winnable too. The trouble was the propaganda showed it like a Pyrrhic victory. Then the public opinion presurred American goverment to go out.
The modern terrorism has the same pshicology estrategy.
Africans killing Africans at this point is a good thing, as the continent's overpopulation problem is only getting worse
And do you condemn the racism? The war at Irak is inmoral but if Blackafrican kill each other isn´t your matter/trouble.
It may sound cold, but what will our intervention do?
Sometimes intervention is the lest bad solution. Do you rebember the civil war in Yugoslavia?
If any country was going to produce another Hitler at this point, it'd BE the United States.
Our troublem/problem is USA (and Spain too) is too too criticed-itself.
Sadam Husseim was other Hitler, Sudan genocide is other Soah, and Ethiopia had his marxist dictator Mengitsu Haile Mariam.
USA has the power to do a great good too.
No third world despot is capable of being another Hitler
What do you say about Pol Pot from Camboda? Did you seen the movie "the killing fields"? The 33% of Cambodan people died!!!
Omar Hassan al-Bashir, "for live" president of Sudan is a genocide who kill the Blackafricans of South Sudan.
None of those are Western casualties
Japan and South Korea aren´t Western but they are our friend and allies. It´s like you said the Jews killed by the Soah weren´t Western enoguh.
Muslims are intolerant with No-Muslim in their lands, specially in Saud Arabian. And now the Muslim is migrating to Europe, my land. It can be a very, very great trouble in a near future. Be sure of this.
The Taliban is still around in Afganistan
But they don´t impos their f***ed law.
And that Bush Sr. and Reagan basically put the Taliban in power?
To stop the soviet invasion. The ally in the past became our new enemy.
They had electricity and potable water, and very few people were killed on a daily basis
Iraki situation is improving. The trouble is al-Qaeda, and if USA go out from Irak, all those effort, all those life will be lost for nothing. Have more hope.
Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussien.
Iraq will be very better a lot when al-Qaeda be defeated.
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or completely ignorant of what is going on in Iraq.
Or perhap only he doesn´t believe the enemy anti-West propaganda.
The runway of USA from Irak would be worse. Rebember the boat-people from Vietnam.
Saddam Hussien was the best Middle Eastern leader.
Perhaps Sadam´s mother would be a saint, but Husseim was a great son of b***. He was a genocide who used chemist weapon againt civil population.
But when your alternatives are civil war, anarchy, theocracy, and Saddam Hussien, Saddam Hussien starts looking like a pretty good option.
If Sadam Husseim had the WMDs and invaded Kuwait and Saud Arabin, and target a nuclear missile to Israel...do you say he was the lesser bad option?
Do you rebember the west civil peolpe caught to be human shields?
It is absolutely certain that there were no WMDs.
Have you readen the David Kay´s report about Iraqi WMDs?
He had no plans to acquire them
HE HAD THEM!!
I don´t accept your "progre" dogmas.
He would have liked to have them
It was enough reason to restart the war.
but the reality is he couldn't
He had could if we had let him. The war would be better, with bigger number of deaths (civils ad American soldiers).
They never were there to begin with
What ingenous you are!
You obviously have no grasp of reality
I don´t only read geek fiction but lot of news webs about international policy. Have you read anything about the violence of Maluku Islands againts the Christians in the past? Did you know Cyprus was invaded by Turkey in 1974? Did your know 14 school girls from Saud Aabian died in 2002 in a fire because religious police (Mutawa'een) prevented them from escaping from the fire because they were not wearing headscarves and their male relatives were not there to receive them.
http://archive.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE230032002?open&of=ENG-SAU
THIS IS THE REAL WORLD!!!!
That doesn't mean he wants to conquer the world.
No, only half od Middle East. Do you thing is little?
He knew he couldn't
He wanted to try it once and again and again.
Ah yes, just like we were "winning" Vietnam.
The real fact the loses of Viecong were bigger.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/forty_years_of_the_tet_offensi.html
Forty Years of the Tet Offensive
The Tet Offensive was a desperate ploy by the Communist enemy in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of his troops were flung simultaneously at more than 100 South Vietnamese towns, and into the heart of Saigon. The Communists announced a general uprising, but that did not occur. The tide was actually turned within a few days by the U.S. and South Vietnamese armies. As they re-took town after town, they discovered massacres the Communists had committed while in possession. The enemy's real object had been to decapitate a whole society.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_general_giap.htm
General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:
"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it.
But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"
General Giap has published his memoirs and confirmed what most Americans knew. The Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam -- it was lost at home. The exact same slippery slope, sponsored by the US media, is currently well underway. It exposes the enormous power of a Biased Media to cut out the heart and will of the American public.
A truism worthy of note: ....
Do not fear the enemy, for they can take only your life. Fear the media far more, for they will destroy your honour.
The Tet Offensive ended not only in a huge allied victory in the field -- some 45,000 of the Communist soldiers had been killed, and their infrastructure destroyed. It was victory after an event that showed sceptical South Vietnamese, and should have shown the world, the nature of the enemy our allies were fighting.
The media turned a tremendous victory into a tremendous defeat.
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/measure_nation.html
In a recent article in the Washington Times, Arnaud de Borchgrave noted that during the Vietnam War, General Giap relied on the American peace movement to weaken American resolve. That had the effect of turning an American military victory into a political defeat. Former North Vietnamese General Staff officer Bui Tin once said that the peace movement was "essential to our strategy." In America, the open support of Hanoi by Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (now head of International ANSWER, which coordinates the largest protests) and others "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses," Bui Tin said. "Through dissent and protest," the US "lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."
As a result, the surprise 1968 Tet Offensive (which involved suicidal attacks by the Viet Cong in some 70 cities and towns, and 30 other strategic objectives simultaneously) turned the political tide of the war against America and eventually led to the protest movement that (in turn) led to the American defeat in Vietnam. From a military perspective, it is important to note that the Tet Offensive was a singularly unmitigated disaster both for Hanoi and for its Viet Cong troops in South Vietnam. Not one of the objectives of the Viet Cong in that Offensive was achieved. Yet, it proved to be a major turning point in the war.
Being the first major "television war," Americans watched the carnage in horror and concluded (incorrectly) that it was a military disaster for America. One of America's most trusted newsmen, CBS's Walter Cronkite, even appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a backdrop. Donning a helmet, Cronkite declared the war lost. Eugene McCarthy carried New Hampshire and Bobbie Kennedy stepped forward to challenge the policies of an already distraught President. Six weeks later, Lyndon Johnson, in the midst of national protest, announced that he would not seek re-election. His ratings had plummeted to 30 percent after Tet. Approval of his handling of the war had dropped to 20 percent. He had concluded that the war was unwinnable.
In the end, American support for the Vietnam War faded. Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a "conditional surrender," Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.
http://www.vietquoc.com/whylost.htm
In the psychological warfare, or psywar, that mostly known in Western countries as propaganda, the Communist leaders paid their greatest efforts and their largest available resources with highest priority to schemes of winning the people's hearts and minds by every means possible, even gross lies. Their schemes included propaganda idolizing Communist leaders (Soviet leaders, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh) and Communism with tall tales, and slanderous counter-propaganda against everything that belonged to the South Vietnamese government, the Americans and their allies.
The most effective propaganda tactic has been likening American troops to the French in the 1946-1954 War. North Vietnamese people easily believed in trumped-up stories about how American soldiers were committing war crimes much more horrible than the French, whose atrocities were still fresh in their memories after only about twenty years. How could people doubt the allegation when seeing that by facial figures, skin color and uniform, the Caucasian and African American soldiers were not different from the French troops.
The Communist propaganda has been extremely sophisticated and aimed at targets all around the world, not only in Vietnam. Propaganda materials often disguised under forms of short stories, news reports, and topics that seemed to be non-political, were smuggled into Western countries on a large scale.
Total spending for propaganda of the whole Communist bloc is never known, but according to RVN intelligence, the Vietnamese Communist government budget for the whole psychological front must have been multi-million dollars. The budget might have included staggering funds to buy every one who could help Hanoi influence public opinion, especially in America.
Meanwhile, Washington obviously paid very little effort on the same front. The United States Information Service, the Voice of America Radio were the two institutions that took care of "providing accurate information" or to tell "the truth," with some light strokes of propaganda. In a war where truth is elusive, such humble means to fight the lies are too inadequate.
Hanoi took advantage to the most extent the low knowledge of the majority of the North Vietnamese, and forbade them from all access to information from outside. Hanoi was successful in making its people become so credulous that they believed the most barefaced lies fabricated by Hanoi propaganda branch.
10. The average Americans hated propaganda. Therefore, any effort that sounded like propaganda was rejected. The American soldiers sent to fight in Vietnam since 1965 had not been well informed of the conflict history, the right cause of the South Vietnamese people, the Americans' interests in commitment to the war, the true nature of the Communist tyranny and its crimes in Vietnam.
These are not propaganda, but true "information" that any soldier must know if his superiors want him to perform his combat duty with the strongest willing. The Americans were conducting many "civic actions" operations that resulted in excellent success, but they didn't have any considerable attempt in the psychological battles.
The South Vietnamese had profound knowledge about such matter but they got inadequate support to fight their enemy on the psywar front. Take the RVN 1969 budget as an example: only 23 million South Vietnam piasters (about 160,000 dollars) was allocated to the information activities in foreign countries, including personnel salary and office rent.
It could be said that the American and RVN governments were on the defensive in the psywar front instead of offensive. Like in pure military front, attack is the best way to defend. So by "freedom of press," South Vietnam and the United States were open to Communist propaganda while hostile Western media agencies were free to attack Saigon and Washington with ammunition provided by Hanoi. On the same front, the Communist regime in Hanoi only had to confront sporadic small-size attacks from its foes in Saigon and Washington.
Today some people still deny the fact that many American media agencies and defeatists were responsible for a part of Washington's failure in Vietnam and the collapse of the RVN. But realities increasingly support the allegation.
The Americans, like other rich Westerners, haven't had the patience required in supporting such an unconventional war. The Western media and Communist propaganda made them lose patience, especially after the 1968 Tet Offensive, turning a military victory in Vietnam into a morale defeat in Washington.
During the war, every bit of news or statement, especially the unfavorable, published in America and reported via magazines and radios - BBC, VOA - all produced extreme negative effects among South Vietnamese soldiers who were free to listen to the radio broadcast even while they were in operations. A fib fabricated by a third-rated American politician, however silly it might have been, would deal a severe blow to the morale of South Vietnamese troops.
In the 1968 Tet Offensive, Communist surprise attacks at most major cities did promote South Vietnamese soldiers' willing to fight instead of dampening their morale as Hanoi had expected. Their morale only worsened by news and statements from anti-war protests and defeatism from America, that showed a twisted image of the offensive to the American public.
The only person who claimed that was Patreas. Congress said "Yeah, right."
There hasn't been significant political progress in Iraq, and the surge was ineffective at creating any progress. Indeed, the main reason for the decrease in violence in Iraq is because we allied ourselves with militias, the same people who were killing us before. This isn't progress, given that they're still killing each other; its just they're killing fewer of us.
Incidentally, we're over 4000 dead now. Our average number of dead per day has decreased by a whopping .3 since the surge started. However, the lowest rate of casualties remains the period between "Mission Accomplished" and when we handed over control to the Iraqi government (or at least, said we did); we're still suffering casualties at a higher rate now than we were then.
DUDE, have you read the news AT ALL in the last month? You're so sadly mistaken about the actual facts on the ground that I can only believe you have your head stuck in the sand. Why don't you go outside your nice little world and buy a goldarn newspaper! EVEN THE NY TIMES has conceded to the facts. Even your holy roller Obama has stated that he's rethinking his position based on recent developments. Hell, even the "worst president ever" (which is a whole other topic you can discuss elsewhere because Bush may be a lot of things, but he is definitely not the worst ever. That just goes to show how little historical knowledge you truly have.) has now begun to discuss drawdowns seriously because of the fact that we are now demonstrably winning. Cripes kid, learn to read outside your crazy moonbat blogosphere.
4000. I don't want to minimize that casualty number in any way because it sucks when any of my brothers and sisters in arms die, but 4000 in FIVE YEARS! How long was WWII? Four years? And how long would 4000 deaths have taken in that time period? (answer - less than a month) Geezoo. I'm so glad we didn't have then the same amount of people with the same amount of ridiculous opinions we have now. I'm firmly convinced that you people who throw this statistic around would have lost us the frickin' Spanish American War. (Incidentally, the US lost 3,289 people in that war, which lasted only 4 months!)
DUDE, have you read the news AT ALL in the last month? You're so sadly mistaken about the actual facts on the ground that I can only believe you have your head stuck in the sand. Why don't you go outside your nice little world and buy a goldarn newspaper! EVEN THE NY TIMES has conceded to the facts. Even your holy roller Obama has stated that he's rethinking his position based on recent developments. Hell, even the "worst president ever" (which is a whole other topic you can discuss elsewhere because Bush may be a lot of things, but he is definitely not the worst ever. That just goes to show how little historical knowledge you truly have.) has now begun to discuss drawdowns seriously because of the fact that we are now demonstrably winning. Cripes kid, learn to read outside your crazy moonbat blogosphere.
4000. I don't want to minimize that casualty number in any way because it sucks when any of my brothers and sisters in arms die, but 4000 in FIVE YEARS! How long was WWII? Four years? And how long would 4000 deaths have taken in that time period? (answer - less than a month) Geezoo. I'm so glad we didn't have then the same amount of people with the same amount of ridiculous opinions we have now. I'm firmly convinced that you people who throw this statistic around would have lost us the frickin' Spanish American War. (Incidentally, the US lost 3,289 people in that war, which lasted only 4 months!)
Some people will not listen to the facts of those on the ground in Iraq, and would rather take the word of a Congress with the lowest approval ratings of all time: Rasmussen Poll Results
Some good information:
Times UK story from July 6, 2008 about Iraq.
Michael Yon
I contend that "Titanium Dragon" is nothing less than a Democratic party shill.
Are you sure you know what the term "fascist" means, or are you just using it as a general slam on right-leaning politics in general like an awful lot of leftists do?
I think my mind just exploded with hypocrisy.
Evidence please. I read now that the Sadr army is all but crushed, the gov't has agreed on oil revenue distribution, and they have met all 17 of the stated goals for the surge. As well, I read that the Iraqis are ready to set withdrawal timetables of their own because they have the situation so well in hand.
I think your "a lot of people" sounds like "a lot of hogwash."
I never said the surge failed. Nor did I say we should leave. If you paid attention to my posts, you would see that I believe we should not have gone in initially, but since we are we should remain in some capacity until the situation is workable. My only concern is that our presence there is something of a rallying cry for extremists. My opinions are based on having been to the middle east, reading arabic and Israeli news papers, and discussions with friends from that part of the world. Things are getting better, but there is still a lot of violence and disorder. Yes the surge is working. No doubt. I was arguing that prior to our invasion, many Sunni's supported Saddam. After our invasion, and in the ensuing chaos, many Iraqis became nostalgic for Saddam's rule. Despite the the effectiveness of the surge, there is still violence and disorder. It remains less safe than when Saddam was in power. This is an argument for why we should stay until the Iraqi government is more stable.
- The Battle of Antietam: 3654 dead. 22,719 wounded. One day.
- The Guadalcanal Campaign: Est. 30,000 Japanese dead alone. 7 Aug 1942 to 7 Feb 1943.
- The Tet Offensive: 543 dead. 2547 wounded. American only. Week of 28 Feb 1968.
- The First World War: Est. 20 million dead. Military and civilian. Four years.
Not to marginalize the sacrifices made by the men and women lost in Iraq or those of their families, but let's try to keep things in perspective. 4000 is a high number. It is. Hell, when it comes to our boys, one is a high number, IMO. But the reality is they are doing a damned good job - especially with the ridiculous limits to their ability (Vietnam-esque, actually) that have been forced upon them. War is a bloody business. People die. Generally speaking, a hell of a lot more people usually die than what we've seen so far. If we were actually allowed to fight wars - which we are not - this would all have been over long ago. The administration is, ultimately, at fault (and no, a Dem Pres would not have taken a different route). But the real culprits are the people. We have become so squeamish that we do not allow our military to operate as a military any longer. Not since WWII, actually. So this is how our fights will be until we allow our men to fight again. Extended police actions where the men in harms way are not allowed to properly engage the enemy. Why? Because people see 4000 and forget how low that number actually is.
Vietnam War (1965-75). Two millios deads. 58,159 USA soldiers..
(1,176,000 North Vietnam soldiers)
Total dead soldiers;
Pro- South Vietnam 285,831.
Pro - Vietcong. 1,177,446.
The lesson is the defeat can be turned victory if you can break the morale of your enemy.
The terrorist strategy isn´t winning the battle field but desmoralizing the civil population to they pressure their government a soon retreat/surrender.
Bush isn´t losing the Irak War. Irak isn´t a second Vietnam.
Sadly the good news about post-war Irak aren´t news in the media.
I think my mind just exploded with hypocrisy.
How does my statement make me a hypocrite?
No third world despot is capable of being another Hitler.
Best they could manage is Pol pot.
How does my statement make me a hypocrite?
Rightists, god I feel dirty, call people who say things the democratic party believes "shills". It is a silly general slam on democrats. That is totally immature and the antithesis of good argument and debate. Like calling you guys fascist or you calling us marxist. Unless of course either of the two apply to a point as they sometimes do.
On an unrelated note, but something else to indicate Barry O's gigantic flip-flops - Barack Obama caught whitewashing his Iraq policy.
And shill didn't apply to a point?
On an unrelated note, but something else to indicate Barry O's gigantic flip-flops - Barack Obama caught whitewashing his Iraq policy.
I can't open the link for some reason. Is it the OP he "wrote" for the New York Times. I have to be honest, I am a Democrat. I support social programs and will be voting for Barrack because domestic issues are more important to me. But I believe the Dems are wrong about Iraq at this time. Granted we should never have gone in in the first place, and republicans are sometimes blind ot how we are percieved in the MIddle East as a result of the war (and how this breeds more terrorism), however I do not think it is ethical for us to remove a nation's government and then leave before peace can be restored. Yes we have spent a trillion dollars. But we were the ones who took Sadam out of power and then completely disbanded the Iraqi army. We underestimated the among of sectarian conflict inside Iraq, and now we are paying a just price for our actions. It would be the height of irresponsibility for us to abandon either Iraq or Afghanistan at this point.
...One thing people should really think about is that George W was perfect for the terrorists. Here was this white American rich kid whose family made a fortune off the product of these far less affluent countries. He is not only Christian, but very religiously Christian. He also is completely ignorant of these countries outside this narrow view. This is a person who probably doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiites (sic). This person who never went to war or served in any military group that ever saw war. And he leads a charge on soil he is unfamiliar with. He is the perfect posterboy for the stereotype of Americans, who are rich, spoiled, ignorant, and yet trying to tell them how to live...
sigged!
I can't open the link for some reason. Is it the OP he "wrote" for the New York Times.
No. It's to the NY Daily News. Apparently Obama has tried to covertly change his Iraq position statement on his website. He conveniently removed the parts where he says the surge isn't working and replaced it with text that says something to the effect of "the surge is working and we are winning, now we need to start bringing troops home." As if that wasn't shocking enough, he did so before even setting foot in Iraq on his "fact-finding" mission. Apparently he's found facts before even starting.
No. It's to the NY Daily News. Apparently Obama has tried to covertly change his Iraq position statement on his website. He conveniently removed the parts where he says the surge isn't working and replaced it with text that says something to the effect of "the surge is working and we are winning, now we need to start bringing troops home." As if that wasn't shocking enough, he did so before even setting foot in Iraq on his "fact-finding" mission. Apparently he's found facts before even starting.
I am not going to fault him for being a politician. This is exactly the sort of mud digging stuff that ruins every election (for both parties). I don't doubt that he changed his position on the surge, though. But that is what politicians do, they change their position in order to get more votes. I do think he is wrong about Iraq. Again, don't get me wrong. I don't like that we are in Iraq. I wish we never went. But we are there, and the disorder in that country is our fault. We removed their leader, tyrant though he was, and he was the thing keeping that place under control. Without our presence Iraq would already be knee deep in a civil war. So I believe we have to stay, because it is our responsibility (though I do believe Bush and his cabinet should be tried in criminal court for starting the war in the first place). I also believe we have to take note of how our presence in Iraq is fueling extremism in other parts of the Muslim world. It is being labeled an occupation by much of the middle east media, and that is a big problem. We have to remember that much of Osama Bin Laden's views toward the US were in fact shaped by our involvement in the first Gulf War. It doesn't make him correct by any stretch. BUt we do need to be wary of creating more extremists while we are in Iraq.
I am not going to fault him for being a politician. This is exactly the sort of mud digging stuff that ruins every election (for both parties). I don't doubt that he changed his position on the surge, though. But that is what politicians do, they change their position in order to get more votes.
The point is not that he is changing his opinion* but that he is surreptitiously scrubbing his old comments. It's one thing to say "I was wrong, and after visiting Iraq, I see that the surge is working." It's another to sweep your old statements under the rug, pretend they never existed, and then claim that you never said it to begin with, which is what this appears like.**
*Although that is a valid topic for someone who keeps pointing out flip-flops of other candidates. If you choose to make that accusation and mean it negatively, then you should be prepared for it to be thrown back in your face.
**Incidentally, I have this same problem with Wizards of the Coast and the Rules Compendium crap. Say one thing, then sweep those comments away, pretend they were taken out of context, and then ignore anyone that points out the previous statements. If Barack would simply acknowledge his policy changes, rather than say one thing to one audience and another to a different one, it would look better for him and for his credulity. Right now it's too much to do to believe him at his word anymore. I didn't like his politics before, but I thought he was at least a straight shooter. Now I think he's every bit as big a liar as Hillary.
The point is not that he is changing his opinion* but that he is surreptitiously scrubbing his old comments. It's one thing to say "I was wrong, and after visiting Iraq, I see that the surge is working." It's another to sweep your old statements under the rug, pretend they never existed, and then claim that you never said it to begin with, which is what this appears like.**
*Although that is a valid topic for someone who keeps pointing out flip-flops of other candidates. If you choose to make that accusation and mean it negatively, then you should be prepared for it to be thrown back in your face.
**Incidentally, I have this same problem with Wizards of the Coast and the Rules Compendium crap. Say one thing, then sweep those comments away, pretend they were taken out of context, and then ignore anyone that points out the previous statements. If Barack would simply acknowledge his policy changes, rather than say one thing to one audience and another to a different one, it would look better for him and for his credulity. Right now it's too much to do to believe him at his word anymore. I didn't like his politics before, but I thought he was at least a straight shooter. Now I think he's every bit as big a liar as Hillary.
I am not disagreeing with your assessment, I just think that is what every politician does. I am not happy about having Barrack as a candidate, there is a serious gap between theory and practice with him I think...in that he understands problems on a theoretical and ideological level, but I am not sure he really can handle how things actually work out in practice. In Mass, where I live, his poliical soul-mate, Deval Patrick is our governor. And he seems to suffer from the same problem. I think there is a tendancy, on the democratic side (and I do count myself on that side) to rely too heavily on the academic. But there is often a a huge space between academic understanding of a problem, and the reality (i.e. if you look at how the arab world was assessed pre-911 by many of the MIddle East studies departments in this country, you can see how unprepared we were for a Sunni extremism-- the academic model was too pretty and simple to fit with the reality). If there is something Barrack needs to work on, it is getting his hands dirty and actually getting some first hand info on the Iraq situation.
That said I expect we will be seeing a lot of white washing from both political parties this season.
Wasting taxpayer cash on lavish and unnecessary expenses (an SUV? Really? I mean, I'm conservative as all get out, and even I'm driving a hybrid to the public transportation line), zero accomplishments in 2+ years of executive leadership, and animosity abounds, including his from own party.
I am not disagreeing with your assessment, I just think that is what every politician does. I am not happy about having Barrack as a candidate, there is a serious gap between theory and practice with him I think...in that he understands problems on a theoretical and ideological level, but I am not sure he really can handle how things actually work out in practice. In Mass, where I live, his poliical soul-mate, Deval Patrick is our governor. And he seems to suffer from the same problem. I think there is a tendancy, on the democratic side (and I do count myself on that side) to rely too heavily on the academic. But there is often a a huge space between academic understanding of a problem, and the reality (i.e. if you look at how the arab world was assessed pre-911 by many of the MIddle East studies departments in this country, you can see how unprepared we were for a Sunni extremism-- the academic model was too pretty and simple to fit with the reality). If there is something Barrack needs to work on, it is getting his hands dirty and actually getting some first hand info on the Iraq situation.
That said I expect we will be seeing a lot of white washing from both political parties this season.
*nods* Valid points. I have found the farther away from my college days I get, the more conservative I have grown in my politics. I do think that often academia has noble ideas in theory, but often they fall short in real world application. I lean more towards a Heinlein style libertarianism than anything else, with the belief that the less involved the government is in everyday life, the better.
*nods* Valid points. I have found the farther away from my college days I get, the more conservative I have grown in my politics. I do think that often academia has noble ideas in theory, but often they fall short in real world application. I lean more towards a Heinlein style libertarianism than anything else, with the belief that the less involved the government is in everyday life, the better.
Don't get me wrong, I do support social programs. I have become more conservative the further away I get from college as well. But in the opposite direction. I have become more socially conservative and fiscally liberal as I get older. Which makes me an odd fit for either party really. I support the democrats because of their position on social programs. But I am reluctantly democratic because I am pro-life (though anti-death penalty), believe that there should be more focus on the family, believe there is too much sex on tv, etc.
I live in MA too, which is exactly why I won't vote for Barack. I've seen what happens--a political record of backtracking and inactivity.
Wasting taxpayer cash on lavish and unnecessary expenses (an SUV? Really? I mean, I'm conservative as all get out, and even I'm driving a hybrid to the public transportation line), zero accomplishments in 2+ years of executive leadership, and animosity abounds, including his from own party.
The SUV thing, and the other sensational stuff 96.9 and the Herald have latched onto don't really bother me. What gets me is the Zero accomplishments in 2 years, not doing anything about the big dig (remember the 2 ton concrete block that crushed someone), pushing casinos (I really think the last thing a place like revere and east boston needs is more gambling and gangs), and his inability to convey what his vision is for making Mass a good place to live again.
I have become more socially conservative and fiscally liberal as I get older...I am pro-life (though anti-death penalty), believe that there should be more focus on the family, believe there is too much sex on tv, etc.
I'm the opposite. I've become more socially liberal and fiscally conservative the farther I get from college. I'm finding that I'm becoming more and more Heinleinian as well - Time Enough For Love and Number of the Beast are pretty good starting points for where I'm evolving. I'm pro-choice to a point. I'm pro-death penalty, but anti-drug laws. Pro-gay marriage, etc. Government out of private life as well as out of the money business.
The SUV thing, and the other sensational stuff 96.9 and the Herald have latched onto don't really bother me.
It didn't bother me personally, but it was the first in a series of things that indicated he was full of crap.
pushing casinos (I really think the last thing a place like revere and east boston needs is more gambling and gangs)
I live in Revere and grew up near Atlantic City and have spent a few days at both Mohegan and Foxwoods. I can say if the casinos are run and managed like AC, I agree with you completely. If they are done like the Indian Reservation casinos, I disagree. Revere could use the shot in the wallet. It would help to reestablish it as a mecca for beach culture, like it used to be.
I live in Revere and grew up near Atlantic City and have spent a few days at both Mohegan and Foxwoods. I can say if the casinos are run and managed like AC, I agree with you completely. If they are done like the Indian Reservation casinos, I disagree. Revere could use the shot in the wallet. It would help to reestablish it as a mecca for beach culture, like it used to be.
Grew up in Lynn, my father is from Revere. Revere could use a boost for sure. I am just concerned given the history of underground gambling and the mob in that area. I agree with you about the Indian Reservation thing. But as a local you probably know there are already shady people just waiting to get a piece of the action. If there is a fleet of G&J towing trucks in the parking lot, I am going to keep my family away from the casino. lol.
If there is a fleet of G&J towing trucks in the parking lot, I am going to keep my family away from the casino. lol.
Absolutely. Wouldn't go anywhere near the place.
Michelle Malkin has some articles about ACORN.
Other Obama´s friend is Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
And George Soros?
Please, be careful with wolfs with lumb skin, I´m sorry, I mean with sheep´s clothing.
And shill didn't apply to a point?
It never does. It is a silly insult with no meaning in a debate.
I have a problem with people who dislike politicians who change their opinions based on fact.
Do you REALLY believe that's what Obama is doing? Really? Honestly, whole-heartedly, deep down in the pit of your stomach, you truly believe that Barack Obama believes that the surge is not only working, but has worked? Seriously? Come on. You really think that? And not that he's just some appeasing flip-flopper who is lying through his teeth just to get elected?
If he TRULY believed it, then why is he surreptitiously erasing parts of his campaign speeches and denying/lying about what he said even in the face of Youtube catching his exact words? I'm sorry, but when even liberals are starting to call him on this, it's time to recognize that he's awful. At this point, Hillary is starting to look a lot better.
And if you really believe that he's honest and changing his opinion based on facts (and not because he's simply a flag that takes whatever position the wind blows) you are not only naive, but dangerous. You need your BS meter recalibrated and pronto.
It never does. It is a silly insult with no meaning in a debate.
But fascist and "rightist" are not silly insults lacking meaning? How about one that you've used. I'm sure it's not "a silly insult with no meaning in a debate." That word is--hypocrite.
I have a problem with people who dislike politicians who change their opinions based on fact.
It never does. It is a silly insult with no meaning in a debate.
What facts caused him to roll over on warrantless wiretapping and telco retroactive immunity?
Waiting for a real response...
Do you REALLY believe that's what Obama is doing? Really? Honestly, whole-heartedly, deep down in the pit of your stomach, you truly believe that Barack Obama believes that the surge is not only working, but has worked? Seriously? Come on. You really think that? And not that he's just some appeasing flip-flopper who is lying through his teeth just to get elected?
You didn't know? When a Republican changes his mind, he's waffling. When a Democrat does it, he's making a decision based on critical analysis of all facts presented from both sides of the argument after a long period of evaluation and focused thought. ;)
Do you REALLY believe that's what Obama is doing? Really? Honestly, whole-heartedly, deep down in the pit of your stomach, you truly believe that Barack Obama believes that the surge is not only working, but has worked? Seriously? Come on. You really think that? And not that he's just some appeasing flip-flopper who is lying through his teeth just to get elected?
If he TRULY believed it, then why is he surreptitiously erasing parts of his campaign speeches and denying/lying about what he said even in the face of Youtube catching his exact words? I'm sorry, but when even liberals are starting to call him on this, it's time to recognize that he's awful. At this point, Hillary is starting to look a lot better.
And if you really believe that he's honest and changing his opinion based on facts (and not because he's simply a flag that takes whatever position the wind blows) you are not only naive, but dangerous. You need your BS meter recalibrated and pronto.
Don't really care. I don't know or care what a politician believes. I care about what they say and what they do.
But fascist and "rightist" are not silly insults lacking meaning? How about one that you've used. I'm sure it's not "a silly insult with no meaning in a debate." That word is--hypocrite.
Did you read my post? I said fascist was a silly insult and I said I felt dirty after calling someone a rightist. Hypocrite however has a very specific meaning. Maybe not for debate but it was a fitting response for his post.
You didn't know? When a Republican changes his mind, he's waffling. When a Democrat does it, he's making a decision based on critical analysis of all facts presented from both sides of the argument after a long period of evaluation and focused thought. ;)
Excuse me? Does anyone remember the awful time Kerry had with republicans and their stupid use of of waffling and flip-flopping.
Don't really care. I don't know or care what a politician believes. I care about what they say and what they do.
If you care about what they say and do, then you wouldn't be supporting Obama. He says different things everyday, and he hasn't done anything. I have tried to avoid getting involved with this thread, because it gets so tense when talking politics; however, I read your comment and couldn't notice that you gave the best argument to not support Obama.
Flip Flopping is changing your position within a matter of weeks/days based on political circumstance. This is what Obama has been doing. Since winning the Primary, he has simply been trying to court the independents by showing himself to be middle of the road (which he is not based on his minimal voting record).
Changing opinion based on the changing facts is something that takes place over time. McCain has allegedly changed his opinion on certain things, mainly the Tax Cuts, and this is because he sees that he was wrong for opposing them. He sees the good the tax cuts brought, and he admits to being wrong on that issue. That was, if memory serves, 6 years ago in which he voted against them. He has been supporting them since then.
That is changing one's mind based on fact. And let's not forget the most current and important change of stances.... drilling. McCain realizes the need to develop our OWN oil, so he has changed his previous (and wrong) stance on the drilling ban, and now he is pushing for domestic drilling. Obama is moronically opposed to this. That alone shows he is not in touch with logical thought.
I have a problem with people who dislike politicians who change their opinions based on fact.
It never does. It is a silly insult with no meaning in a debate.
What facts caused him to roll over on warrantless wiretapping and telco retroactive immunity?
STILL Waiting for a real response...
You didn't know? When a Republican changes his mind, he's waffling. When a Democrat does it, he's making a decision based on critical analysis of all facts presented from both sides of the argument after a long period of evaluation and focused thought. ;)
Funny, from what I saw from US political debate it seemed the other way around. Wasn't there a guy called George Kerry or some such? I remember hearing about him around, what, 2004?
@Kursk: I personally think the "facts" are that his party pressured him on it. I think it's disgusting, but I guess some of them want to be reelected and may come from relatively conservative districts, where this may be an issue. What is more surprising is why there is such a push for such (unnecessary, as afaik it's practically impossible not to be able to wiretap if you request it) presidential prerogatives coming from the Republican side. It's a little strange that they want the presidential office to have more powers when the other party has a good chance at claiming it.
Well, I personally prefer Obama over McCain for all that matters, but neither of them is a saint. They are politicians, for Kopyrka's sake.
I have readen some articles by Mark Steyn and ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caryl-rivers/black-brains-and-green-ch_b_100165.html
Wright argued that African-American children have a different way of learning than white children, with whites focusing on objects and African-American children focusing on people.
"The Left brain is logical and analytical, " he said. "Object-oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carrel in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning."
African American children, he said, " Are right-brain subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain -- that means creative and intuitive. Subject-oriented means they learn not from an object, but from a subject. Because they learn from a subject, not from an object. Tell me a story. They have a different way of learning."
------
That man is who married the Obamas and baptized their children. How can a Caucasian trust a men whose pastor says America started AIDS (to kill the black people).
This will hopefull create more social wellfare programs and lead to universal healthcare (something most middle class and lower middle class Americans desperately need). The country needs more regulation (particularly in area like the FDA and Financial institutions), more social programs, and higher taxes for the wealthy.
And here is where you and I completely disagree. The last thing we need is more goverment interference in our lives, and establishing more bloated, ineffective goverment mandated handholding.
And here is where you and I completely disagree. The last thing we need is more goverment interference in our lives, and establishing more bloated, ineffective goverment mandated handholding.
Okay. If you consider regulating businesses, having a social safety net, and universal healthcare, the government interfereing in our private lives, fine. You can name call to make these things sound "sissy" or for people who are "spoiled" but that doesn't change the fact that they would improve most peoples' way of life in this country, and result in more opportunities. If you are okay with a 200-500$ monthly health insurance premium (which doesn't even cover everything anyways), creditors taking advantage of people, tainted food getting into the food supply, roads falling and infrastructure falling apart and a lack of assistance for people who fall on hard times, then keep voting republican. Personally I want a governement that is more pro-active in solving problems, is held accountable, and regulates vital industries.
Okay. If you consider regulating businesses, having a social safety net, and universal healthcare, the government interfereing in our private lives, fine.
Which it is.
You can name call to make these things sound "sissy" or for people who are "spoiled" but that doesn't change the fact that they would improve most peoples' way of life in this country, and result in more opportunities.
Not a fact that they would improve most people's way of life. There are better, privately funded ways to take care of the issues that UHS and Social Security cover, and that don't require Govermental Regulations.
Health Care Savings Accounts, Private Retirement Accounts are just two examples.
If you are okay with a 200-500$ monthly health insurance premium (which doesn't even cover everything anyways),
You mean the $70 that I'm currently paying out of my pocket for insurance, or the $150 that my boss pays for his family of three?
creditors taking advantage of people
People need to read and understand what their signing before signing it. And there is a need for Goverment protection from Fraud.
tainted food getting into the food supply
Yes, because poisoning people if good for business.
roads falling and infrastructure falling apart
Roads and infrastructure being paid for by taxes is one of the few things I do believe is the Goverments responsibility. I'm not that much of a nut.
and a lack of assistance for people who fall on hard times,
Which can be handled by Private Charities.
then keep voting republican.
I don't vote Republican. They scare me. Of course, Democrats scare me too...
Personally I want a governement that is more pro-active in solving problems, is held accountable, and regulates vital industries.
I want a goverment that stays out of out people's lives except in a few instances. Roads, Police and Fire Dept, Court System being examples.
This will hopefull create more social wellfare programs and lead to universal healthcare (something most middle class and lower middle class Americans desperately need).
We have universal healthcare. What you want is universal health insurance.
Most people who want health insurance have it already. Those who don't want it are free to not buy it, and there's no moral reason why they should be compelled to.
Don't be fooled by Obama's plan to require people to buy health insurance--that would be illegal and would probably be struck-down by the courts. What they'll have to resort to is a massive expansion of Medicare so they can tax people. As if Medicare didn't have enough problems.
The obvious and least-intrusive "fix" to the problem would be to mandate an "assigned risk" pool for health insurance providers so that the canard of "people can't buy health insurance" dies a quick and painful death.
But that won't happen--reason has left the building.
Do you know anything about the controversy of Obama´s pastor the reverend Jeremiah Wright?
Dude, isn't that very old news? IIRC Obama broke with Wright what, several months ago? Well, the piece is from May anyway.
Now, I've seen quite a few people speak in defense of Rev. Wright, not all of them black. The Reverend may be bit of a racist on some issues and slapped in the mouth, as we say here, so he's a walking PR disaster. However, he's not half as bad as some of those hit pieces say, and afaik has done some good community work for people who needed it. If you go through 20 years of speeches for any public speaker, chances are you will find a few pearls anyway. Plus, the fact that he married the Obamas doesn't mean Barack shares all his beliefs to the iota.
Well, you seem set against the guy anyway, so HF.
We have universal healthcare. What you want is universal health insurance.
Most people who want health insurance have it already. Those who don't want it are free to not buy it, and there's no moral reason why they should be compelled to.
Don't be fooled by Obama's plan to require people to buy health insurance--that would be illegal and would probably be struck-down by the courts. What they'll have to resort to is a massive expansion of Medicare so they can tax people. As if Medicare didn't have enough problems.
The obvious and least-intrusive "fix" to the problem would be to mandate an "assigned risk" pool for health insurance providers so that the canard of "people can't buy health insurance" dies a quick and painful death.
But that won't happen--reason has left the building.
This has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever seen. Apparently, there are approximately 40 million uninsured Americans who don't have health insurance, not because they cannot afford it, but because they don't want it! Well, that certainly makes me feel better.
The simple facts are that, in the U.S., the infant mortality rate is higher per 1,000 births, the average life expectancy is lower for both men and women, and the general quality of life is lower than in most other Western 1st world nations. This is in spite of the fact that we also spend on healthcare nearly double the amount per capita of any other nation.
Faelar
This is in spite of the fact that we also spend on healthcare nearly double the amount per capita of any other nation.
So, clearly spending MORE money is the answer!
Make ya a deal. I'll agree to the socialized medicine scam as long as I don't have to pay & I won't use it. Deal?
This has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever seen. Apparently, there are approximately 40 million uninsured Americans who don't have health insurance, not because they cannot afford it, but because they don't want it! Well, that certainly makes me feel better.
The simple facts are that, in the U.S., the infant mortality rate is higher per 1,000 births, the average life expectancy is lower for both men and women, and the general quality of life is lower than in most other Western 1st world nations. This is in spite of the fact that we also spend on healthcare nearly double the amount per capita of any other nation.
Faelar
I am all for allowing Health Saving Accounts, and such. I have one myself. I am against universal healthcare or mandatory insurance run by the government for a few reasons.
First, there is already one healthcare system run by the federal government. The VA. It is low quality and horribly inefficient in a lot of cases.
Second, we have already seen how the federal government handles a similar thing in Social Security. SS was established as a safety net for those that did not have a retirement plan. As Social Security stands now, the money has been used as a cash cow for Congress, and will soon be insolvent.
Third, living near the Mayo Clinic, we frequently see visitors from all over the world coming to the US to receive our healthcare, in spite of having coverage in their own home nations. Why is that? It could be the result of health rationing in their home countries, or the lack of advances that we have in the United States, by virtue of a free market system.
I am curious about your last paragraph. Where did you get your numbers from? I am not disputing your facts, but "quality of life" is a pretty vague term. I am just curious, because the infant mortality rates I saw, while not as good for the US as they could be, showed the US having numbers lower than the majority of the nations in the world, in the bottom 20% according to the UN and the CIA Factbook, as a matter of fact. The numbers for life expectancy are similar also. The problem with a lot of the ideas for mandated universal health care are that they can lead to rationing of healthcare, inefficient costs due to adding another layer of bureaucracy, long waiting periods, and due to cost controls, both a lack of technological advances and a lack of incentive for the best and the brightest to become health care professionals.
Dude, isn't that very old news? IIRC Obama broke with Wright what, several months ago? Well, the piece is from May anyway.
Now, I've seen quite a few people speak in defense of Rev. Wright, not all of them black. The Reverend may be bit of a racist on some issues and slapped in the mouth, as we say here, so he's a walking PR disaster. However, he's not half as bad as some of those hit pieces say, and afaik has done some good community work for people who needed it. If you go through 20 years of speeches for any public speaker, chances are you will find a few pearls anyway. Plus, the fact that he married the Obamas doesn't mean Barack shares all his beliefs to the iota.
Well, you seem set against the guy anyway, so HF.
Here's the problem with your statement. Regardless of how "old" the news is, the relevance is still as important today as it was then. As per your statement that Obama doesn't share all of Wright's beliefs, well you are partially right. While they may not agree on everything 100% of the time, the key is that they share in ideology. If you disagree, then you are out of touch with the role religion plays in peoples' lives.
People who hand pick pastors and have those pastors advise, marry and guide their lives, well, those people do this because they share in the ideology of those pastors. That's why they are hand picked. This wasn't some "crazy uncle" as Obama claims. You see, "crazy uncles" are not chosen in life; you are born with them in the family. However, crazy pastors with crazy ideals are chosen.
So for those of you who don't believe that pastors are hand picked based on ideology stances, I implore you to go do your own social experiment and interview religious folk who have hand picked their pastors. Ask them why they picked their pastors, and you will see how relevant all of this is to Obama.
Lastly, just because Obama canned Wright does not mean he should be absolved of his involvement. He canned him due to public pressure and political expediency, not out of personal issues with his radical views. Let's not be fooled by Obama's deceptions, please.
And that is exactly why I think Barack Obama will be the next president. It doesn't make any sense at all (the method of selection I mean, I don't care about the conclusion), but that's how we pick presidents in this country: how much we hear about him. It's the same way we pick cola or Budweiser vs. Miller or w/e. Sure there's a B.S. slogan about the high quality or w/e, but both are pretty much the same with some minor differences. The main thing is to get the name out. Both are so-so, they just have a lot of money to push the product.
I just think we should pick presidents the way the Constitution says to pick them instead of "technically" following the Constitution using a work-around. Democracy is nothing more than rule by those with the most advertising dollars. Heck Perot almost had a shot w/o party funding, thanks to his own fortune. It's time we went back to a Republic like it originally was, or even knew the difference between "Republic" and "Democracy" (hint: it has little or nothing to do with the two modern political parties).
I'm just ranting, I don't expect anyone to read this. Try reading some old historical writings if you want to see the details. A lot of libraries have the full collections of works by certain historical figures, and more.
If you care about what they say and do, then you wouldn't be supporting Obama. He says different things everyday, and he hasn't done anything. I have tried to avoid getting involved with this thread, because it gets so tense when talking politics; however, I read your comment and couldn't notice that you gave the best argument to not support Obama.
Flip Flopping is changing your position within a matter of weeks/days based on political circumstance. This is what Obama has been doing. Since winning the Primary, he has simply been trying to court the independents by showing himself to be middle of the road (which he is not based on his minimal voting record).
Changing opinion based on the changing facts is something that takes place over time. McCain has allegedly changed his opinion on certain things, mainly the Tax Cuts, and this is because he sees that he was wrong for opposing them. He sees the good the tax cuts brought, and he admits to being wrong on that issue. That was, if memory serves, 6 years ago in which he voted against them. He has been supporting them since then.
That is changing one's mind based on fact. And let's not forget the most current and important change of stances.... drilling. McCain realizes the need to develop our OWN oil, so he has changed his previous (and wrong) stance on the drilling ban, and now he is pushing for domestic drilling. Obama is moronically opposed to this. That alone shows he is not in touch with logical thought.
What is Obama supposed to do? Not change his position to please the people? You do remember that a president exists for the citezins. If a change in position gets more votes then he is pleasing more people and is becomming a better candidate. Whatever from me.
What facts caused him to roll over on warrantless wiretapping and telco retroactive immunity?
STILL Waiting for a real response...
I don't know. I'm not his teacher/informer.
I don't have health insurance. Because I can't afford it. It hurts my credit, because whenever I have to go to the hospital, I end up with a 2,000 dollar bill I can't afford to pay right away. But insurance premiums are just too high, and I don't qualify for any special programs. I will be voting for the democrats, for the first time in my life, because I need to get health insurance, and they look like they are interested in providing it. I don't know how anyone can look at our healthcare system and say it isn't broken, unless they have really good coverage from their job, or just have a lot of cash laying around.
Point one: I understand your frustration, but I promise you the last thing you ever want to happen in this country is for the government to socialize our health care system. You say it's broken, but we have the best medical treatment in the world. This is fact. As someone who works in the medical industry, I can tell you that our treatments are far superior to any other nation. There is a reason that Canadians, who are burdened with Socialized Medicine, come to USA for their treatment. It's because we can treat them better than any of their doctors can, and that is due to the capitalistic system that our country has in place. Like it or not, money and competition breeds incentives, and these are the reasons why we have so many advancements in medical science here. I work in oncology, and I can tell you that Canadians travel to America everyday to receive treatment. That's because we are the best.
The biggest flaw with socialized healthcare is that everything is budgeted. This may not seem too significant, but it is. For instance, take a heart bypass patient. Under a government controlled system, they will budget 10,000 bypasses in a year (arbitrary number, so don't take that literally). Let's just say you are in need of a bypass, and you are patient number 10,002 in October. Well guess what, you are not receiving that bypass. There is so much red tape and beuracracy when the government gets involved that we absolutely do not want them screwing up our health care system.
Point two: The Dems are not going to give you health insurance. They have been saying this for 40 yrs now, and they haven't given it to you yet. What makes you think they will give it to you now? As long as there are people struggling in this country, the Dems have votes; therefore, they do not want you to get your health coverage. Remember, they were in control of congress for 30 yrs before the Repubs took it over in '96, and they never gave you your health care. And really don't forget that between '94 and '96 they had the "great" Bill Clinton with that Democratic controlled congress, and you never got your health care. It is strictly a talking point.
Finally, the one point that everyone overlooks is that everyone gets treated in our country. If you have an emergency and you go to the ER, they have to treat you. They absolutely cannot turn you away. They get paid a certain percentage by the govt, and they eat the costs that you can't pay. Plus, we have medicare and medicaid. Sure they aren't perfect, but that's in large part due to the fact that they are run by our government. Most government run programs have been ruined by the people in charge. It's very difficult to deal with medicare and medicaid, because it's a hassle and there are so many hoops to jump and so much red tape.
But I ask you this. If they were to take over our health care system completely, what makes you think they will run it any better?
Finally, the one point that everyone overlooks is that everyone gets treated in our country. If you have an emergency and you go to the ER, they have to treat you. They absolutely cannot turn you away. They get paid a certain percentage by the govt, and they eat the costs that you can't pay. Plus, we have medicare and medicaid. Sure they aren't perfect, but that's in large part due to the fact that they are run by our government. Most government run programs have been ruined by the people in charge. It's very difficult to deal with medicare and medicaid, because it's a hassle and there are so many hoops to jump and so much red tape.
?
They don't eat the cost. I have a 2,000 dollar bill from an emergency room visit I couldn't afford to pay. They expect 100$ a month every month toward the debt.
The Canadians I have spoken with are happy with their system. Everyone gets treated. It may take a while, there is a waiting list for certain procedures, but having the best quality healthcare means nothing when over half the people can't afford it.
The canadians who come here for treatment are predominantly highly wealthy Canadians looking for the best doctors. Most Canadians simply couldn't afford to utilize our healthcare system.
Finally, the one point that everyone overlooks is that everyone gets treated in our country. If you have an emergency and you go to the ER, they have to treat you. They absolutely cannot turn you away. They get paid a certain percentage by the govt, and they eat the costs that you can't pay.
Right. Go to an emergency room and they have to treat you. But you better hope that the emergency room you go to isn't one of the ones who is crowded with some of the 40 million Americans without health insurance because they have to go to the emergency room to get any sort of treatment because they cannot afford primary health care and so they usually wait until the problem is so bad that it is life threatening or nearly so before finally seeking treatment. That sounds like a wonderfully efficient way of doing things doesn't it, especially when primary and preventative health care is so much cheaper.
Of course, what you're leaving out is that many of those people might need extended courses of medication that they cannot receive from the emergency room. Where are they supposed to get their medication since they probably cannot afford to buy it from the pharmacy? Well, guess they'll just have to wait until they need to go to the emergency room again. This is, of course, if you haven't gone to an emergency room that is TOO overcrowded and you end up dying before the doctor is able to see you.
The point is that it is a vicious cycle of poor health and outrageous debt that the people who can least afford to pay must constantly deal with. It infuriates me when people compare socialized medicine to a "nanny" state or some such nonsense, saying that these people should be responsible for their own problems. It's like telling a drowning man to save himself while you're pushing him back down with your foot in his face.
But I ask you this. If they were to take over our health care system completely, what makes you think they will run it any better?
What makes you think it would be run any worse? I mean, should we take the word of white, affluent Americans that the American health system works? Of course it works...for them. But what about those who are not white, nor affluent? Does the system work for them? I think not.
Faelar
Of course, what you're leaving out is that many of those people might need extended courses of medication that they cannot receive from the emergency room. Where are they supposed to get their medication since they probably cannot afford to buy it from the pharmacy? Well, guess they'll just have to wait until they need to go to the emergency room again. This is, of course, if you haven't gone to an emergency room that is TOO overcrowded and you end up dying before the doctor is able to see you.
Faelar
You're talking two different points now. Availability to drugs is different from medical treatment by a doctor. Patients are treated to the point that they are healthy enough to leave the hospital. Now the drug availability is a different story and argument. The problem is that the Dems combine the two issues, but they can't be. They need to be separate. Either way, there are ways to get everyone health insurance without government controlling and running the programs. Mitt Romney was able to establish an excellent system in Mass., and his plan called for little Govt involvement.
What makes you think it would be run any worse? I mean, should we take the word of white, affluent Americans that the American health system works? Of course it works...for them. But what about those who are not white, nor affluent? Does the system work for them? I think not.
Faelar
What a negative and pessimistic statement to make.... and ignorant. First of all, it can get worse. You completely ignore the entire contention I posted, which explains why it would get worse. As for "affluent white Americans", you really need to get out of your racist world and look at reality. Believe it or not, there are millions of wealthy Black Americans that live in this world too. Or do you not think Blacks are capable of achieving anything other than being poor? You are pathetic, buddy. And insulting to the minorities of this country.
And to address the less fortunate AMERICANS (black and white, you racist prick), yes, the system does work for them. I am originally from New Orleans, and do you know what the best hospital was there? The answer is Charity Hospital. And guess what, it was mostly those "non white nor affluent" patients that mostly got treated there. Most everyone who gets trained in the med field in NO got trained there, because it was THE BEST hospital in town.
This is generally true throughout the country, because these hospitals treat the most patients and see the most diverse cases of any facility. And you know what? Majority of these patients don't have health care.
And to the poster who says that the hospitals don't absorb the payments that the government does not cover, well you are seriously misinformed. Go do some research before posting fallacies. I work in hospitals, and I can guarantee you from experience that they absorb plenty of debt that patients cannot pay. Your experience may be different, but you probably have circumstances that dictate this.
Ultimately, none of your reasons state why we should put the health care system into the hands of a government that has time after time destroyed and ruined every program they have created. And you haven't retorted to my position that a socialized health system would ruin the best health treatment in the world.
Heving dealt with insurance, I also know that most companies (insurances and facilities alike) are willing to work with people on payments. A hospital might like to get $100 a month, but if you speak with the management (not the Custmomer Service Rep).
SpearSpike, how often are you going to the hospital, and for what? There might be cheaper alternatives for you, depending on you need.
I don't know. I'm not his teacher/informer.
Then why do you make excuses for him if you don't know? Since he IS blowing with the wind and changing his mind JUST to get votes and doesn't believe what he's saying.
So, he is dishonest AND has no major exec experience AND no accomplishments since hitting the senate. Great guy to vote for
As for healthcare, and most likely other social programs as well, I'm willing to bet that no matter who is the next US president, the US won't end with healthcare half as "socialized" as that of Germany or, heck, the UK. Although it might be an improvement - what I've seen in Germany wasn't half bad.
Although it might be an improvement - what I've seen in Germany wasn't half bad.
Funny you mentioned Germany. I just compared my ins to my friends in Germany.
His costs 3X what mine costs + his employer contributes. It's expensive crap.
Then why do you make excuses for him if you don't know? Since he IS blowing with the wind and changing his mind JUST to get votes and doesn't believe what he's saying.
You vote for someone so they can do what they believe? This isn't American idol. I vote for people who say they will do what I want them to do. I don't give a darn what they believe.
So, he is dishonest AND has no major exec experience AND no accomplishments since hitting the senate. Great guy to vote for
I said none of that. It isn't really my argument though so whatever. Think what you wish.
Depends where he is and what insurance the two of you have. I used TK as a student, and though I admit it was pricey, I could count on it to cover whatever I needed at the time. Some friends had cheaper stuff as they got an insurance before going there, but it had some disadvantages - i.e. they needed to pay and then get reimbursed (which may be a slow process, not to mention inconvenient in emergencies) and their packages covered less areas altogether. TBH, the biggest thing I got out of my package was a few fixed teeth, but a few guys got more out of it.
What I find most intriguiging is that the the US spends a notably higher share of its GDP on health care (the OECD site has this table that I found highly interesting), and the difference doesn't seem to be diminishing. So if the US pays much more per capita for a smaller percentage of its population than, say, France, where does the rest of the money go to? Part of it may be due to more expensive medications, and indeed according to the table on the page I linked, pharmaceutical costs are notably higher (though that is surprising and indicative in itself). Even then something seems to be missing. Are cosmetic etc procedures covered under health care costs?
Edit: hmm, that table was rather fascinating. Does anyone have an explanation for the chart breaking health care expenditure into public and private? That may be the key to the puzzle.
@Kursk:
Depends where he is and what insurance the two of you have. I used TK as a student, and though I admit it was pricey, I could count on it to cover whatever I needed at the time.
He lives near Bonn. I live near LA. My insurance covers EVERYTHING with almost no deduct. His is similar. Govt pgms are never as efficient as private sector. Proven fact.
This has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever seen. Apparently, there are approximately 40 million uninsured Americans who don't have health insurance, not because they cannot afford it, but because they don't want it! Well, that certainly makes me feel better.
Nice try at twisting what I said, but I'll clarify. Assuming the 40 million number is correct, that means 260 million people are already insured. Americans don't like breaking what already works, so any plan that can screw-over those 260 million people isn't likely to fly. Hence Obama/Hillary "mandatory health insurance" plans, which as I pointed out are illegal on their face. The remaining 40 million are composed of young people, people in transit and, unfortunately, many illegal aliens. If you want to expand coverage, extending COBRA would be a good place to start. Or offer more coverage through universities (public ones already have health services.)
The simple facts are that, in the U.S., the infant mortality rate is higher per 1,000 births, the average life expectancy is lower for both men and women, and the general quality of life is lower than in most other Western 1st world nations.
What skews these numbers are the indigent, and they're already covered, mostly at the state level.
Make ya a deal. I'll agree to the socialized medicine scam as long as I don't have to pay & I won't use it. Deal?
Indeed, this is why Hillarycare failed 15 years ago. Seriously, I think the Dems are too enamored with tiny European nations for whom the socialist calculation problem is much less of an obstacle than it is for the US Govt. The feds created most of the healthcare issues with things like employed-offered health insurance (from WWII), HMOs, excessive mandates, etc. They can undo it all and keep up with the times. Who knows--they might even make the field attractive again and turn-around the doctor shortage.
But a take-it-or-leave-it system with no alternatives? That won't fly in America.
He lives near Bonn. I live near LA. My insurance covers EVERYTHING with almost no deduct. His is similar. Govt pgms are never as efficient as private sector. Proven fact.
NO one is disputing that private sector health insurance can be very efficient, but not everyone can afford them. And those that can are frequently drained by the cost. You may have a job where you get a good deal on insurance. I don't so my premium would be something like 300-400$ last I checked. I don't qualify for assistance of any kind, so when I made an emergency room vist last year and had to have an emergency colonoscopy, I ended up with a bill of 2,000$. They will not work another payment plan out with me. They want 100$ every month. Anytime I miss a payment I get harrassed with phone calls. I wouldn't mind a little less efficiency if it meant (like in does in Canada) that I don't have to foot the bill. Not only that but even if you do have insurance, it doesn't always cover everything. I know people who have insurance and still get stuck with bills of 500 dollars or more for procedures.
NO one is disputing that private sector health insurance can be very efficient, but not everyone can afford them. And those that can are frequently drained by the cost. ...
Like I said earlier, I have no problem as long as I don't have to pay or use the system.
The only problem I see with these "progressive" health care systems is that if I want CHOICE and decide not to join the poorly run gov't system, the police will eventually come and take me by force or shoot me. But this is the same for most "progressive" pgm's I've seen. Probably why "progressives" want to make sure no one but the state has weapons.
Nice try at twisting what I said, but I'll clarify. Assuming the 40 million number is correct, that means 260 million people are already insured. Americans don't like breaking what already works, .
I think very few Americans would agree that our healthcare system isn't broken.
Like I said earlier, I have no problem as long as I don't have to pay or use the system.
The only problem I see with these "progressive" health care systems is that if I want CHOICE and decide not to join the poorly run gov't system, the police will eventually come and take me by force or shoot me. But this is the same for most "progressive" pgm I've seen. Probably why "progressives" want to make sure no one but the state has weapons.
You would have to pay, because your taxes would go toward it. You make tons of cash you should have to give more. You make less, give less. Its called compassion, and libertarians have a hard time understanding it.
Its called compassion, and libertarians have a hard time understanding it.
Compassion at gunpoint isn't compassion. It's one thing to redistribute income so people don't have to watch poor people die in the streets, but let's not go crazy and cheapen the language.
I think very few Americans would agree that our healthcare system isn't broken.
Something with the system is broke. When my parents had ins for all 5 of us kids it was great coverage for not a lot of $.
Now, here's the fun part (politicians + non scientific types, this will be over your head so don't read) when you have a system that is working then it breaks down you analyze what CHANGED.
There will ALWAYS be an external change introduced. You revert that or those changes and the system will function again.
Now, it you have a car that is running, and one day it doesn't run you take it a mechanic to see what changed. If you come back and the mechanic says that in order to fix it he'll need to hook a trailer onto the back of the car and ADD a GE 105 gas generator to make the car go. You know you are being scammed.
This is of course analogous to the pols saying that they will "fix" the health care system. NONE of them know WHAT broke (changed).
Compassion at gunpoint isn't compassion. It's one thing to redistribute income so people don't have to watch poor people die in the streets, but let's not go crazy and cheapen the language.
Last I checked we were a democracy. It isn't exactly at gun point if we are collectively making hte decision to be compassionate.
Sounds to me like lots of libertarians have a problem with democracy, not socialism.
It isn't exactly at gun point if we are collectively making hte decision to be compassionate.
If you have trouble seeing where guns are involved, I invite you to flout next year's tax bill.
If you have trouble seeing where guns are involved, I invite you to flout next year's tax bill.
You mean if you break the law? Yes the police will come to arrest you for that. How else do you expect laws to be enforced? That is the way every society works. We all have civic obligations. The obligations were determined by democratically elected officials. If you want it changed vote for a different party and try to change peoples' minds. But don't complain when you break the law, and the police come to your house. If you want anarchy, I suggest you start your own nation somewhere.
You mean if you break the law? Yes the police will come to arrest you for that. How else do you expect laws to be enforced? That is the way every society works. We all have civic obligations. The obligations were determined by democratically elected officials. If you want it changed vote for a different party and try to change peoples' minds. But don't complain when you break the law, and the police come to your house. If you want anarchy, I suggest you start your own nation somewhere.
You haven't explained how this is compassion.
Further, would it be safe to assume that if, say, a dictatorship were redistributing wealth to the poor, you would also call that compassion? If so, then your appeal to democracy is, as I suspect, a red herring.
You haven't explained how this is compassion.
Further, would it be safe to assume that if, say, a dictatorship were redistributing wealth to the poor, you would also call that compassion? If so, then your appeal to democracy is, as I suspect, a red herring.
Both are examples of compassion. The act of redistributing the wealth is compassioate (regardless of how it is achieved). It is the means that are questionable in the case of Dictatorship, because people have no voice, and can't make the choice to be or not to be compassionate. In a democracy we have a choice. Who we vote for determines which direction our nation moves. In a democracy, we are allowed to weigh the optinons and choose which direction to go. Again both are examples of compassion. But the issue you raise is do the ends justify the means.
Both are examples of compassion. The act of redistributing the wealth is compassioate (regardless of how it is achieved).
Would redistributing love-making under duress be compassionate? I'm confident there are some lonely men who wouldn't mind being on the dole for that.
If not, then I suggest you rethink the premise of "regardless of how it is achieved".
You're talking two different points now. Availability to drugs is different from medical treatment by a doctor. Patients are treated to the point that they are healthy enough to leave the hospital. Now the drug availability is a different story and argument. The problem is that the Dems combine the two issues, but they can't be. They need to be separate. Either way, there are ways to get everyone health insurance without government controlling and running the programs. Mitt Romney was able to establish an excellent system in Mass., and his plan called for little Govt involvement.
I really don't care how it is provided, but the system, as is, is not working. There are too many uninsured people who just cannot afford the insurance and who are not covered by Medicaid. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the single payer system and I'd like to see the government provide primary health care for all while keeping specialist procedures, etc., in the hands of private insurance. This will bring down premiums for those services and may make that insurance more affordable.
What a negative and pessimistic statement to make.... and ignorant. First of all, it can get worse. You completely ignore the entire contention I posted, which explains why it would get worse. As for "affluent white Americans", you really need to get out of your racist world and look at reality. Believe it or not, there are millions of wealthy Black Americans that live in this world too. Or do you not think Blacks are capable of achieving anything other than being poor? You are pathetic, buddy. And insulting to the minorities of this country.
And to address the less fortunate AMERICANS (black and white, you racist prick), yes, the system does work for them. I am originally from New Orleans, and do you know what the best hospital was there? The answer is Charity Hospital.
And to the poster who says that the hospitals don't absorb the payments that the government does not cover, well you are seriously misinformed. Go do some research before posting fallacies. I work in hospitals, and I can guarantee you from experience that they absorb plenty of debt that patients cannot pay. Your experience may be different, but you probably have circumstances that dictate this.
Yes, because I said that black people can't be affluent.
When you look at health care statistics and you notice, for example, that the national rate for number of infant deaths per 1,000 live births is 6.9, but that for African-Americans it is 14.1, or that the gap is even wider between the affluent and poor, you cannot help but point out that poor people and minorities get worse health care. This is a fact, not a racist statement.
And I think you don't really understand about the hospitals absorbing unpaid accounts receivable. Hospitals do NOT absorb payments of patients. If a particular account receivable is not able to be collected, usually after 90 days I believe, then the hospitals sells the debt to a debt collection agency for pennies on the dollar. Yes, the hospitals books take a hit, but it is not as if the patient's debt suddenly disappears. It is just now they have to deal with unscrupulous and sometimes criminal debt collectors calling them instead of the hospital.
So the point stands. The people who can least afford it get caught up in a vicious cycle of debt from which they have few opportunities to escape.
Faelar
Nice try at twisting what I said, but I'll clarify. Assuming the 40 million number is correct, that means 260 million people are already insured. Americans don't like breaking what already works, so any plan that can screw-over those 260 million people isn't likely to fly. Hence Obama/Hillary "mandatory health insurance" plans, which as I pointed out are illegal on their face. The remaining 40 million are composed of young people, people in transit and, unfortunately, many illegal aliens. If you want to expand coverage, extending COBRA would be a good place to start. Or offer more coverage through universities (public ones already have health services.)
What skews these numbers are the indigent, and they're already covered, mostly at the state level.
COBRA is a joke because all it does is let you pay the full bill of your insurance for six months during the period you are unemployed. Yippee!!
I have some experience with this because I was laid off last year. The insurance I had through my company was really good. I contributed $180 a month for my wife and me, we had $20 co-pays for PHP, $40 co-pays for specialists that we were referred to, $5 co-pay on generic prescriptions, I had free vision and dental and hers were very cheap. No deductibles. Then I get laid off and got my COBRA letter. In order to continue coverage for both of us, I would have had to pay close to $1000 a month, for just myself, it would be close to $500. While I was unemployed.
What actually skews those numbers are those people who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private health insurance and who are not lucky enough to get insurance through their employer, or whose employer only offers insurance for the employee. Y'know, the uninsured.
Faelar
Would redistributing love-making under duress be compassionate? I'm confident there are some lonely men who wouldn't mind being on the dole for that.
If not, then I suggest you rethink the premise of "regardless of how it is achieved".
The compassion is coming from the person who is forcing you to redistribute (though I think love-making is a case of apples and oranges here). The person who is unwilling to give up his stuff because he wants to be selfish is the one who lacks compassion.
You mean if you break the law? Yes the police will come to arrest you for that. How else do you expect laws to be enforced? That is the way every society works. We all have civic obligations. The obligations were determined by democratically elected officials. If you want it changed vote for a different party and try to change peoples' minds. But don't complain when you break the law, and the police come to your house. If you want anarchy, I suggest you start your own nation somewhere.
Cool. So I understand you.
1) If a majority of people want something it is good and right?
2) Resisting that is wrong?
Right?
The compassion is coming from the person who is forcing you to redistribute
No, it is compassionate to freely share what is yours with others because it is a free exchange of values. It is not compassion to give other peoples' property away as though it were your own. It is Pragmatism, but it is not compassion.
(though I think love-making is a case of apples and oranges here)
You haven't demonstrated why.
The person who is unwilling to give up his stuff because he wants to be selfish is the one who lacks compassion.
There is no ethical mandate to be charitable.
Right?
Afraid so. Under social contract theory it is unethical to resist the government because, presumably, those rights have been ceded. Of course, Camp 22 in North Korea is also kosher with SCT, which is why I haven't bought into it.
Cool. So I understand you.
1) If a majority of people want something it is good and right?
2) Resisting that is wrong?
Right?
In a democracy what the majority wants eventually becomes the law, and you do have to obey the law or deal with the consequences. I would love to smoke pot freely, but it is against the law. I work to change that law, but I am not going to complain if I get arrested for using it.
In a democracy what the majority wants eventually becomes the law, and you do have to obey the law or deal with the consequences. I would love to smoke pot freely, but it is against the law. I work to change that law, but I am not going to complain if I get arrested for using it.
That truism doesn't give you the right to pervert language, though.
In a democracy what the majority wants eventually becomes the law, and you do have to obey the law or deal with the consequences. I would love to smoke pot freely, but it is against the law. I work to change that law, but I am not going to complain if I get arrested for using it.
So, just so I'm clear. You view the will of the majority to be always right? Or, is it only right if YOU agree with it?
So, just so I'm clear. You view the will of the majority to be always right? Or, is it only right if YOU agree with it?
No it isn't. This is why we are a nation of laws not a nation of men. But in a democracy their are proper channels to follow to create change. If you disobey a law the majority has enacted, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
No it isn't. This is why we are a nation of laws not a nation of men. But in a democracy their are proper channels to follow to create change.
This is a distinction without a difference. According to SCT, the majority is still sovereign even with an ad hoc government.
This is a distinction without a difference. According to SCT, the majority is still sovereign even with an ad hoc government.
The majority of people pay their taxes and support taxes. Should the majority be deprived of programs it believes in and wants because a minority of anarchists and libertarians think taxes are unjust?
Maybe it is time for this thread to get back on track.
Sorry for the digression. OT, Obama will not become president.
Sorry for the digression. OT, Obama will not become president.
i think you might be correct. Obama is going to hit some serious waves when the election heats up.
As I have said, while I fully want their to be a democratic president after the election (so that for the first time in a long time we will control the congress and the presidency), I feel Obama is a very poor candidate. Actually he and Hillary were both very poor choices. They both lack real experience, and both of them have a good deal of baggage (particularly Hillary). The dems really need to adopt a different system for the primaries. We keep picking people too left of center on social issues, which makes things difficult in a general election.
I have to admit I am myself torn. I feel McCain is right about Iraq (though I feel Bush was wrong and largely responsible for the mess we are in). But of the two, McCain obviously has a better nose for foreign policy. Obama's recent "Trip" only shows that he has much to learn. But right now, social programs are the most important thing to me and my family. Particularly healthcare and getting more regulations for the FDA and with Lenders. But healthcare is number one for us.
However, I am torn because I am pro-life and socially conservative. I am very concerned that our culture is motivated more and more by gratification. One needs only to look at young people to see how hedonistic we have become in the past 10 years. Television apppears to be spectacle and exhibition. For this reason, I am very uncomfortable with my choices this election season. I really, for once, would like to see a democratic (or even republican) candidate, that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal.
I have to admit I am myself torn. I feel McCain is right about Iraq (though I feel Bush was wrong and largely responsible for the mess we are in). But of the two, McCain obviously has a better nose for foreign policy. Obama's recent "Trip" only shows that he has much to learn. But right now, social programs are the most important thing to me and my family. Particularly healthcare and getting more regulations for the FDA and with Lenders. But healthcare is number one for us.
While I do not share many of his ideas, what I've seen from McCain makes me rather doubtful of his actual experience and touch. Remember that part about his misspeaking about the insurgents Iran trained, when Lieberman spoke in his ear to correct him? Obama might be relatively fresh (what exactly from his trip did you mean, btw), but that doesn't mean he can't do a decent job at it. He is a bit of an unknown in that area, though. Still, he seems to be a fairly decent speaker and I think that his ideas on domestic policy might be better.
While I do not share many of his ideas, what I've seen from McCain makes me rather doubtful of his actual experience and touch. Remember that part about his misspeaking about the insurgents Iran trained, when Lieberman spoke in his ear to correct him?
Obama might be relatively fresh, but that doesn't mean he can't do a decent job at it. He is a bit of an unknown in that area, though.
I don't fault McCain for mispeaking. I also do not believe it is indicative of a lack of knowlege of the middle east, particularly since he has been there numerous times. It is true that most Americans (and even our politicians) are woefully ignorant of that region of the world. We really could have used more Arabic and mIddle east history programs in High Schools after 911. This would have really beefed up the number of Arabists in homeland security.
As I said, I am voting for Obama. But I have my reservations. What troubles me most is he really appears to come out of the far, far left of the democratic party. I am much more well disposed toward moderates.
IAs I said, I am voting for Obama. But I have my reservations. What troubles me most is he really appears to come out of the far, far left of the democratic party. I am much more well disposed toward moderates.
I've heard such a rumor, but iirc it also appeared for Kerry in 2004, so I remain rather sceptical. Are you thinking of any specific policy area?
I've heard such a rumor, but iirc it also appeared for Kerry in 2004. Are you thinking of any specific policy area?
No. More with the campaigns he has worked on, his record as a state senator, and the language he used in his speech at the Democratic Convention in 04. I also do think belonging to a radically left church for twenty years, while it shouldn't lose him the presidency, is very revealing.
i think you might be correct. Obama is going to hit some serious waves when the election heats up.
I used to think the excessively long campaign "season" was a bad thing--now I know its worth: it took this long for Obama's facade to crumble like cheap stucco. Now he's racing to the middle, which certainly isn't going to fool anyone. All that's done so far is to alienate his supporters.
In contrast, McCain doesn't have to go anywhere--he started there. Remember that McCain use to be the media's little darling because he's a "maverick" with more McCain-Hyphenated-Democrat bills than you can shake a maraca at. No one's going to vote for or against McCain based on the next 3 months--we know the guy already. Also, everyone knows he's only going to serve 4 years tops due to his age. If Obama gets in, he'll be in for 8 years, guaranteed. It took a guy like Regan to knock-out Carter I, but there's no one on the horizon to oust Carter II.
Personally, I am a rather disappointed by the guy - enough to put me firmly in the Obama camp as far as the two are considered. He has recently cozied up to the religious fundamentalists, embraced the Bush-style tax cuts he opposed in 2001-2003, departed from the campaign reform proposals he himself backed several years ago, turned over on Roe vs Wade (which he supported around the 2000 campaign), and after opposing any form of torture for so long supported a Bush veto of a bill that would have prohibited the CIA from using it.
Seriously, I get the feeling this guy would cozy up to anyone if he could get more votes out of it. Now, I'm cynical enough to almost expect this, and Obama is far from perfect on that issue either, but McCain's shenanigans together with his reputation as a maverick and a straight-talker it leave a particularly bitter taste in my mouth.
@Harlequin: Strange, I thought Bush Sr. was doing quite well - and he still couldn't get reelected.
Two words: Perot & recession.
@Harlequin: Strange, I thought Bush Sr. was doing quite well - and he still couldn't get reelected. At any rate majoritarian, two-party system naturally rewards mainstream candidates, just as party primaries reward a more unique position. I'd say that if the Republican primary lasted longer, McCain might be a little more, shall we say, individualistic.
Personally, I am a rather disappointed by the guy - enough to put me firmly in the Obama camp as far as the two are considered. He has recently cozied up to the religious fundamentalists, embraced the Bush-style tax cuts he opposed in 2001-2003, departed from the campaign reform proposals he himself backed several years ago, turned over on Roe vs Wade (which he supported around the 2000 campaign), and after opposing any form of torture for so long supported a Bush veto of a bill that would have prohibited the CIA from using it.
Seriously, I get the feeling this guy would cozy up to anyone if he could get more votes out of it. Now, I'm cynical enough to almost expect this, and Obama is far from perfect on that issue either, but McCain's shenanigans together with his reputation as a maverick and a straight-talker it leave a particularly bitter taste in my mouth.
All politicians lie in order to get elected. It may be a sad statement, but I fully expect both candidates to flip-flop and lie in order to get elected. Remember how McCain used to be anti-drilling?
I think the "surge" in Iraq was effective if what you mean is a less aggressive counter-insurgency doctrine. When we were just throwing everyone and their brother into Abu Ghraib, there was of course more violence.
There is considerable evidence that intervention by Sunni leaders to quell the violence has contributed as much, if not more than, total troop levels. It is fully possible that some kind of face-saving deal was struck to smooth the rapid exit of US forces. After we leave, if a Democrat is in the White House when Iraq implodes, so much the better.
No it isn't. This is why we are a nation of laws not a nation of men. But in a democracy their are proper channels to follow to create change. If you disobey a law the majority has enacted, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Good. So when slavery was the law of the land because the majority of people wanted it so, then it was right?
Skipped the last few pages, but just out of curiosity, all of you who bring up concerns about Obama being too far in the left, you are aware that social democracy works perfectly well in... oh, I don't know... the whole rest of the western world, no?
That depends on what you mean by work well. ;)
That depends on what you mean by work well. ;)
I believe he means the trains run on time. Again, even in small, homogeneous European nations, the reality of socialism doesn't live up to the hype. To say nothing of 50 very diverse states containing 300+ million, each of which wants something different. If you want to see how well the Left runs things, just look at the states they control--most of the large ones, and all run very, very poorly. Why anyone would advocate something 10x to the left of that is unfathomable.
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
I believe he means the trains run on time. Again, even in small, homogeneous European nations, the reality of socialism doesn't live up to the hype. To say nothing of 50 very diverse states containing 300+ million, each of which wants something different. If you want to see how well the Left runs things, just look at the states they control--most of the large ones, and all run very, very poorly. Why anyone would advocate something 10x to the left of that is unfathomable.
Ok, first, to say that the US Democratic party would do something to the left of most European governments is quite a big assumption - and judging from what the last Democratic president did, (and, from what I know about recent history, the previous ones - if you compare Carter or LBJ to their contemporaries in Europe), a flat-out wrong one. From what I've seen, the US democrats are generally be to the RIGHT of most European political systems, and Obama is not that much of an outlier. Oh, and tbh even the country where socialists and social democrats had the most influence - Sweden - is hardly a socialist one. Besides, it's not doing half that bad either, though I do admit that they have gone a bit to the right on market policies.
Of course, if by socialist you mean the USSR satellites during the Cold War, you would be right on their economic problems - but then your claim that anyone even close to the US political scene wants someone to the left of that is absurd. I've repeat what I said before - even after 8 years.
Edit: or do you mean the US states? I was under the impression that the big ones on the coast provided most of the funds for the federal budget, so I think they may not be that poorly run anyway.
Good. So when slavery was the law of the land because the majority of people wanted it so, then it was right?
Yes.
I wouldn't mind a little less efficiency if it meant (like in does in Canada) that I don't have to foot the bill. Not only that but even if you do have insurance, it doesn't always cover everything. I know people who have insurance and still get stuck with bills of 500 dollars or more for procedures.
Haven't read the rest of the thread but I had to address this. You don't want to have to foot the bill. But guess who does have to? ME!!!!!!! I don't want to have to foot your health expenses. That's a bunch of socialist bullcrap. I have enough of my money already taken up paying for myself and my own family.
Also, you "can't" afford healthcare, but you can afford $100 a month in a payment plan for your emergency room visit? Anyone else notice a problem with that statement? Let me ask you a few questions. Cable? TV? Internet? Cell phone? Eating at restaurants? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Do you have any of those? If the answer is yes to even the three of those I suspect to be the truth (cable, internet and cell phone) then you can afford fricking health insurance.
I'm sick and tired of hearing about how people can't afford this or that and want ME to have to buy crap for them. I don't work in society just to pay for your bills. It's not my job to take care of you. It's not my neighbor's job to pay for you. You wanna know whose job it is to take care of you? Yours.
Haven't read the rest of the thread but I had to address this. You don't want to have to foot the bill. But guess who does have to? ME!!!!!!! I don't want to have to foot your health expenses. That's a bunch of socialist bullcrap. I have enough of my money already taken up paying for myself and my own family.
Also, you "can't" afford healthcare, but you can afford $100 a month in a payment plan for your emergency room visit? Anyone else notice a problem with that statement? Let me ask you a few questions. Cable? TV? Internet? Cell phone? Eating at restaurants? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Do you have any of those? If the answer is yes to even the three of those I suspect to be the truth (cable, internet and cell phone) then you can afford fricking health insurance.
I'm sick and tired of hearing about how people can't afford this or that and want ME to have to buy crap for them. I don't work in society just to pay for your bills. It's not my job to take care of you. It's not my neighbor's job to pay for you. You wanna know whose job it is to take care of you? Yours.
Actually we would all pitch in to foot his Bill. The wealthiest Americans (like the top 2%) would pay the lionshare. If you are having difficulty paying now, it would probably get much easier for you with a Universal Healthcare plan. The purpose of Universal Healthcare is to reduce the overall cost of healthcare for most Americans (through taxes or through premiums).
Funny, from what I saw from US political debate it seemed the other way around. Wasn't there a guy called George Kerry or some such? I remember hearing about him around, what, 2004?
Never said Republicans don't or never have done the same. That postwas generated with the context of this thread in mind. Nothing more.
Also - you said "probably" because you know full well that it won't make it easier.
Finally - you avoid that whole middle part of my post. If you can afford cable (~$40 a month for basic), internet (~$10 a month for dial-up) and a cellphone (~$50 a month for a cheap plan), then you can afford health insurance.
I'm not the wealthiest Americans - but my tax burden (including federal and state income, state sales, and property) is almost 45% of what my wife and I earn. And we earn less than $100k joint. Universal Healthcare would do nothing but lower my standard of living AND lower my standard of healthcare. I'm firmly in the middle class, and the middle class is going to be the one that gets effed in the a by any socialization of medicine.
Also - you said "probably" because you know full well that it won't make it easier.
Finally - you avoid that whole middle part of my post. If you can afford cable (~$40 a month for basic), internet (~$10 a month for dial-up) and a cellphone (~$50 a month for a cheap plan), then you can afford health insurance.
I think you are confusing me with the other poster. I am in the middle class as well. Universal Healthcare is intended to improve the middle class lifestyle the most. Right now, I pay a substantial sum every month to remain insured. It is money I could be using for other things. Don't let the rightwing pundits mislead you. Universal Healthcare will cost you less than your insurance premiums do now (if your company is footing part of your bill already, don't think for a second that they aren't taking out of your potential salary).
Universal Healthcare will cost you less than your insurance premiums do now (if your company is footing part of your bill already
How do you get around the socialist calculation problem?
Haven't read the rest of the thread but I had to address this. You don't want to have to foot the bill. But guess who does have to? ME!!!!!!! I don't want to have to foot your health expenses. That's a bunch of socialist bullcrap. I have enough of my money already taken up paying for myself and my own family.
Also, you "can't" afford healthcare, but you can afford $100 a month in a payment plan for your emergency room visit? Anyone else notice a problem with that statement? Let me ask you a few questions. Cable? TV? Internet? Cell phone? Eating at restaurants? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Do you have any of those? If the answer is yes to even the three of those I suspect to be the truth (cable, internet and cell phone) then you can afford fricking health insurance.
I'm sick and tired of hearing about how people can't afford this or that and want ME to have to buy crap for them. I don't work in society just to pay for your bills. It's not my job to take care of you. It's not my neighbor's job to pay for you. You wanna know whose job it is to take care of you? Yours.
First let say, I used to have a good job. I could make enough to live comfortably and buy most of the stuff I felt I needed to stay happy (cable, internet, cell, movies etc). But my job was physical, and I ended up getting a serious illness. Soon after my emergency room visit, I was told I have cancer. Because of the nature of my cancer, it made doing my job very difficult. It also made it difficult for me to work a lot of hours (which is how I used to make good money) at any job. I am down to the bare essentials now. I still have cable and internet, but those will probably be gone in the coming months. Yes it is my job to take care of myself, but that is tough to do when your dying.
I think you are confusing me with the other poster. I am in the middle class as well. Universal Healthcare is intended to improve the middle class lifestyle the most. Right now, I pay a substantial sum every month to remain insured. It is money I could be using for other things.
I agree. But your taxes will go up to compensate. You may not think it's true, but it will be. I pay roughly $100 a month for family health and dental for me, my wife and my daughter. That's $5 office copays, $5 dollar prescription off-brand and $15 prescription brand, full dental exams, cleanings, and fillings, 80% of any major dental work, and full coverage for medical expenses. $100 - if you really don't think your taxes are going to go up by at least $100 a month (that's less than 2% increase in federal income taxes) then you really don't know how this government works.
This isn't rightwing pundits - this is after talking to my financial adviser* and doing math calculations myself. Plus, I have friends in the UK and France who tell me all about how (not) good the care is. (Six months for cavity fillings and crowns, etc is unacceptable. By the time I could get the filling or crown, I'd need a root canal instead.)
*I have IRAs because I think both SS and Medicare will be insolvent when it's time for me to retire - plus, unlike most of the country, I actually feel obligated to pay for my own life. I don't believe in entitlements and think all that crap needs to go away. If I had all my SS money back and reinvested it in IRAs and mutual funds, I would be well ahead of my SS value. My IRA after only 6 years of investments is already worth almost triple my SS which has 10 years of investing into it, but that's another topic completely.
First let say, I used to have a good job. I could make enough to live comfortably and buy most of the stuff I felt I needed to stay happy (cable, internet, cell, movies etc). But my job was physical, and I ended up getting a serious illness. Soon after my emergency room visit, I was told I have cancer. Because of the nature of my cancer, it made doing my job very difficult. It also made it difficult for me to work a lot of hours (which is how I used to make good money) at any job. I am down to the bare essentials now. I still have cable and internet, but those will probably be gone in the coming months. Yes it is my job to take care of myself, but that is tough to do when your dying.
And you're telling me your company hung you out to dry and/or that Medicare is insufficient?
Also, as a veteran with experience with the VA, you get what you pay for. The US gov't is the most bloated mismanaged financial entity on the planet. It's already a giant black hole that lacks any kind of innovation and is seriously lacking oversight. Walter Reed is not an outlier in the VA healthcare system. It is all too typical of how the socialized medical entities that already exist in this country (VA, Medicare, Medicaid) are (mis)managed.
I think you are confusing me with the other poster. I am in the middle class as well. Universal Healthcare is intended to improve the middle class lifestyle the most. Right now, I pay a substantial sum every month to remain insured. It is money I could be using for other things. Don't let the rightwing pundits mislead you. Universal Healthcare will cost you less than your insurance premiums do now (if your company is footing part of your bill already, don't think for a second that they aren't taking out of your potential salary).
This is an important point that I think most of the "Socialism is the TEH EBIL!" people are failing to recognize. I've seen quite a few people bragging about their cheap health insurance. My guess is that these people work for middle to large size companies (more than 500 or so employees) and that they contribute a small amount each month, along with a co-pay when they visit the doctor. What they (seemingly) fail to realize is that their health insurance is part of their overall benefits package, and that their employer pays the lion's share of their premium.
If we move to a universal system, there is a good chance that they will actually benefit with their employers raising their salary to at least part of the difference between their salary and their benefits package, or at the least, nothing will change.
Finally - you avoid that whole middle part of my post. If you can afford cable (~$40 a month for basic), internet (~$10 a month for dial-up) and a cellphone (~$50 a month for a cheap plan), then you can afford health insurance.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to which universe I would have to visit to get health insurance for $100 a month. Even the catastrophic coverage plans I've seen are about $150 a month and you're still on the hook for the $5000 deductible should you require medical care of that serious a nature.
I looked into private insurance for my wife and me. For two 30 year old nonsmokers in good health, with a low deductible ($500 or less), full coverage, and a $40 co-pay whenever you visit the doctor, we were looking at total payments of nearly $12,000 a year for the both of us. Hell, we could buy a really, really nice house in our area for 75% of that. It's nearly twice our current mortgage payment.
It's actually cheaper for us to not have insurance, since we visit the doctor so infrequently, but you can't do that these days because you never know when you'll get struck by lightning and run up a $100,000 medical bill.
Faelar
If you are sick then you go to a private clinic, and State pays a part (or all, in same cases) of your health expenses.
I have read the same idea about education ("school-check").
If I had all my SS money back and reinvested it in IRAs and mutual funds, I would be well ahead of my SS value.
You know, if you could actually invest that ~13% of your salary that goes to SS, you wouldn't need to save another 15% on top of that. As is, the middle class has to save up twice just to retire. And yet they clamor for more.
And you're telling me your company hung you out to dry and/or that Medicare is insufficient?
Also, as a veteran with experience with the VA, you get what you pay for. The US gov't is the most bloated mismanaged financial entity on the planet. It's already a giant black hole that lacks any kind of innovation and is seriously lacking oversight. Walter Reed is not an outlier in the VA healthcare system. It is all too typical of how the socialized medical entities that already exist in this country (VA, Medicare, Medicaid) are (mis)managed.
When you work for a contractor there isn't much they can do for you in this situation.
Correct. Not eligable for medicare.
My guess is that these people work for middle to large size companies (more than 500 or so employees) and that they contribute a small amount each month, along with a co-pay when they visit the doctor. What they (seemingly) fail to realize is that their health insurance is part of their overall benefits package, and that their employer pays the lion's share of their premium.
I don't deny that. That is exactly the case.
If we move to a universal system, there is a good chance that they will actually benefit with their employers raising their salary to at least part of the difference between their salary and their benefits package, or at the least, nothing will change.
Do you really believe that's what will happen? Let's take your $12,000 analogy for private insurance - you honestly believe that my yearly salary would jump up $12,000 if my employer didn't pay benefits? No, of course not.
It's actually cheaper for us to not have insurance, since we visit the doctor so infrequently, but you can't do that these days because you never know when you'll get struck by lightning and run up a $100,000 medical bill.
That's always been the case - not just "these days." Insurance hasn't changed that much in the last 20 years.
You know, if you could actually invest that ~13% of your salary that goes to SS, you wouldn't need to save another 15% on top of that. As is, the middle class has to save up twice just to retire. And yet they clamor for more.
You misread. I am not saving up "twice". I'm counting on SS going bankrupt before I retire. If I truly thought that money meant jack to my retirement calculator, I wouldn't be investing all that money in the IRA. I'd be putting it into a college fund for my daughter instead. I'm saving "twice" because one of those investments is like throwing money into a bonfire.
That SS money is wasted funds for me. Completely wasted. It will be depleted long before I can retire and since retirement age has already been recalculated several times, by the time I get to 67, they'll have raised the retirement age to 70+.
So, rather than doubling up, I'm actually investing the money the way it ought to be invested in the first place.
EDIT - Sorry for the double post. I thought I hit edit and accidentally hit quote.
I don't deny that. That is exactly the case.
Do you really believe that's what will happen? Let's take your $12,000 analogy for private insurance - you honestly believe that my yearly salary would jump up $12,000 if my employer didn't pay benefits? No, of course not.
That's always been the case - not just "these days." Insurance hasn't changed that much in the last 20 years.
So then what about those people who aren't lucky enough to be in your shoes? Not everyone can work for companies with 500 or more employees, and small businesses employ a lot of people in the U.S.
I doubt your salary would jump up by $12,000, because your employer probably gets a discount on how much they pay on your premium, but what if it jumped up by $6,000? Even if your taxes went up by $6,000, and I doubt they would, you'd still be breaking even.
Faelar
You misread. I am not saving up "twice". I'm counting on SS going bankrupt before I retire.
As am I. I mean that you spend the money twice, yet only get back what's actually yours. The SS money is lost.
Disappointed with both the Dem and Repub canditates. Thankfully this is not a 2 party system.
Only works on paper.
In practice the Dems and Repubs lockout the other partys.
When was the last time you saw a third party canidate at a Debate.
Only works on paper.
In practice the Dems and Repubs lockout the other partys.
When was the last time you saw a third party canidate at a Debate.
And the "news" organizations are in bed with both parties.
So then what about those people who aren't lucky enough to be in your shoes? Not everyone can work for companies with 500 or more employees, and small businesses employ a lot of people in the U.S.
Luck had nothing to do with it. Hard work, diligence, and knuckle grinding had everything to do with it.
I doubt your salary would jump up by $12,000, because your employer probably gets a discount on how much they pay on your premium, but what if it jumped up by $6,000? Even if your taxes went up by $6,000, and I doubt they would, you'd still be breaking even.
You don't think they would? $6000 is about 6% of my family income. You don't think the federal taxes would need to jump at least that in order to cover universal health insurance?
As am I. I mean that you spend the money twice, yet only get back what's actually yours. The SS money is lost.
Then we're saying the same thing in different ways. The problem is that I need to spend the same money twice just to ensure I have half of the total investments available when I retire. I'd advocate for dropping SS completely and giving me that money back to invest as I see fit. It seems like others advocate for increasing that burden at the cost of decreasing my independent investments. Every dollar of tax increase is one more dollar I don't have to do what I need. Employers aren't going to raise salaries commensurate with the growing tax burden. They have had plenty of time to do that and have yet to do so at all.
The only way for socialized healthcare to work in the US is if everything in society becomes socialized to the point that money becomes obsolete and everyone simply has what they need. It's fantastical and impossible.
Even in Massachusetts, where they enacted a mandatory health insurance program, they are going broke doing so. This state's policy is the direct forerunner and inspiration for what Obama intends to do, and it's failing miserably. What's that say? The state (and its hospitals) is losing more money with the mandated coverage than they were when they gave out free care to those who didn't have insurance. The burden on state revenue jumped so high the governor wants to use casinos as a way to pay for the shortfall.
Back to Obama directly - On top of the ****-poor healthcare system in the state, the school systems that are increasingly falling behind, and having the distinction as being near the top of the list of most expensive places to live and highest tax rates, there are the wasted finances on roads and infrastructure that still fail inspections and require increases in gas taxes, tolls, and public transportation fares. You don't get a state much more socialist and liberal (in the US) than Massachusetts and if this is a vision of what people like Obama want to do for the country at large (and it is since he and Deval Patrick are very much on the same page in all things political) then we're in for a world of hurt. About the only thing that can save us is if Obama is as worthless and inefficient an executive as Patrick and the do-nothing liberal Congress continues its record of zero accomplishments and approval ratings that are even lower than President Bush's.
...and the do-nothing liberal Congress continues its record of zero accomplishments and approval ratings that are even lower than President Bush's.
As an aside, I think it's a perfect sign of the times that the party which controls a Congress with an approval rating in the single digits is expected to pick up more seats in November. Incredible.
Luck had nothing to do with it. Hard work, diligence, and knuckle grinding had everything to do with it.
Ah, yes...the meritocracy. I'm going to give you a list, and I want you to tell me how many of them apply to you.
Based on the averages (i.e., this doesn't apply to you personally, but to the average "you") you were (1) born a U.S. citizen to (2) a middle class mother and father who are (3) white; you are (4) male and your mother and father even if they eventually split up were (5) active in encouraging the importance of education and provided (6) a stable home environment and even help (7) pay for your college education. You have never (8) experienced severe chronic physical or mental health problems, etc., etc.
Now, can you honestly say that everything in your life has been gained solely through hard work and merit? Or have you had a pretty privileged life compared to a lot of people?
You don't think they would? $6000 is about 6% of my family income. You don't think the federal taxes would need to jump at least that in order to cover universal health insurance?
Well, the amount your taxes would increase would be based on your taxable income, not your gross income. An average increase of $6,000 per taxpayer would net about $700B in new revenue. I'd estimate we'd need about 3/4 of that along with the budget for Medicare/Medicaid to cover a single-payer system.
I'm not personally a fan of the single payer system. I'd like the government to cover primary health care while private companies continue with a system similar to what we have now for specialist health care, with perhaps a tax credit or voucher for families below a certain income.
Faelar
Based on the averages (i.e., this doesn't apply to you personally, but to the average "you") you were (1) born a U.S. citizen to (2) a middle class mother and father who are (3) white; you are (4) male and your mother and father even if they eventually split up were (5) active in encouraging the importance of education and provided (6) a stable home environment and even help (7) pay for your college education. You have never (8) experienced severe chronic physical or mental health problems, etc., etc.
I love these games. I'll answer.
1: y
2: n
3: n
4: y (male) but my sister is even more successful than I.
5: n
6: y
7: n
8: n (have experienced)
So, what are trying to point out? I'm successful because I WANTED it and WORKED for it, including supporting myself from age 16 through college (while paying for college).
Ah, yes...the meritocracy. I'm going to give you a list, and I want you to tell me how many of them apply to you.
You play a lot on race, something that doesn't even come into my head. Who's more likely to be racist?
1. Yes, a born US citizen.
2. Parents were middle class
3. Race has no bearing on anything. I grew up in the predominantly black town of Fredericksburg VA, where I was in the minority at elementary school (~80% black, 20% white)
4. Gender has no bearing on anything. I am male, but my wife is not (obviously) and is every bit as successful as I am (perhaps more since she earns more)
5. Mom and dad were teachers, primarily at lower income inner-city schools, like the one I work at now.
6. Stable sure, but not the Cleavers.
7. Nope. Not one cent. They patently refused. Both of my parents paid their own ways through college and they told me that was my job.
8. Not as such. Although I am genetically predisposed to diabetes, heart problems, high cholesterol, alcoholism, nicotine addiction, Alzheimer's, ADHD, and cancer. Oh, and depression and bipolarity run in the family too. None which I have through deliberate measures to stay healthy.
Now, can you honestly say that everything in your life has been gained solely through hard work and merit?
My current station in life? You're darn tootin'. Anyone can get to where I am now.
Well, the amount your taxes would increase would be based on your taxable income, not your gross income. An average increase of $6,000 per taxpayer would net about $700B in new revenue. I'd estimate we'd need about 3/4 of that along with the budget for Medicare/Medicaid to cover a single-payer system.
Estimate based on what? Keep in mind that Massachusetts as almost twice as many people register for health insurance than they had anticipated. With that as a possible trend, double your budget.
You play a lot on race, something that doesn't even come into my head. Who's more likely to be racist?
My current station in life? You're darn tootin'. Anyone can get to where I am now.
.
I used to work with kids in Dorchester, and I think they would have to work a lot harder (with maybe a few very lucky exceptions) to get to the point where they are making half of what you are. Being black, being raised poor, in a broken home, sets you back more than the average middle class kids. That is why most people who are succesful, come from succesful families.
I used to work with kids in Dorchester, and I think they would have to work a lot harder
I work with kids in Somerville. If they worked at all, they could make what I make. The problem is not race or class. It's lack of doing work despite constant personal attention. Deliberate class skipping, not doing homework or classwork. Turning in tests without answers and an overall lack of any sense of what working hard is about. Even the ones who have jobs complain when they get fired for being late, skipping shifts, or not doing their jobs.
In my previous job as a scholarship coordinator for the Navy ROTC scholarship, I had the privilege to meet hundreds of kids from homes like you describe who worked hard and were able to earn scholarships for full college tuition, and they did not work harder than middle class white kids who got the scholarships too. In fact, the white kids had to work harder. The standards for SATs were higher. The requirements for sports and extra-curricular activities were higher. The GPA was higher.
I used to work with kids in Dorchester, and I think they would have to work a lot harder (with maybe a few very lucky exceptions) to get to the point where they are making half of what you are. Being black, being raised poor, in a broken home, sets you back more than the average middle class kids. That is why most people who are succesful, come from succesful families.
Being white, being raised poor, in a broken home, also sets you back more than the average middle class kids. Again, race has nothing to do with it. A good start has nothing to do with skin pigment. Whites are poor, too. Whites come from broken homes as well. And they are set back as much as anyone else.
Being white, being raised poor, in a broken home, also sets you back more than the average middle class kids. Again, race has nothing to do with it. A good start has nothing to do with skin pigment. Whites are poor, too. Whites come from broken homes as well. And they are set back as much as anyone else.
You honestly think black people get equal opportunities in most work environments? What a joke.
You honestly think black people get equal opportunities in most work environments? What a joke.
Umm. Ok. Tell that to the black people that are in higher positions than I. Or my friends that own their own businesses. Or Barack himself. Are all forms of racist discrimination gone? Nope. But they're a hell of a lot better. And where I come from you can be hired for a job because you are black (or Hispanic, Asian, etc). Not because you are white. 'Cuz that'd be discrimination. ;)
Being white, being raised poor, in a broken home, also sets you back more than the average middle class kids. Again, race has nothing to do with it. A good start has nothing to do with skin pigment. Whites are poor, too. Whites come from broken homes as well. And they are set back as much as anyone else.
Citizenship, class, race, gender. This, IMO, is the order of circumstances that most affect the chances of someone to succeed in the U.S. and is the order in what degree they affect that success. It is also the order I presented in my little questionnaire.
Faelar
Umm. Ok. Tell that to the black people that are in higher positions than I. Or my friends that own their own businesses. Or Barack himself. Are all forms of racist discrimination gone? Nope. But they're a hell of a lot better. And where I come from you can be hired for a job because you are black (or Hispanic, Asian, etc). Not because you are white. 'Cuz that'd be discrimination. ;)
the statistics don't support you. Black men are more likely to end up in prison than in good jobs. It is not their fault. It is the fault of a society that lets its inner cities rot, underfunds inner city schools and doesn't care about black people.
Black men are more likely to end up in prison than in good jobs. It is not their fault. It is the fault of a society that lets its inner cities rot, underfunds inner city schools and doesn't care about black people.
Yes, this situation really started to explode after the LBJ social engineering legislation of the 60's. Prior to that black families were actually MORE stable than white families. Afterwards... Really sad.
I work with kids in Somerville. If they worked at all, they could make what I make. The problem is not race or class. It's lack of doing work despite constant personal attention. Deliberate class skipping, not doing homework or classwork. Turning in tests without answers and an overall lack of any sense of what working hard is about. Even the ones who have jobs complain when they get fired for being late, skipping shifts, or not doing their jobs.
Where did you learn your work ethic? Did you have someone that cared about you, someone important in your life, like your parents, tell you every day that it is important to work hard to get ahead? That it is important to do well in school? That checked your homework after you were done with it? That made sure you did your homework?
How many of these kids have that? Can you honestly say that they have the same opportunities as you did when you were a kid?
Faelar
Where did you learn your work ethic? Did you have someone that cared about you, someone important in your life, like your parents, tell you every day that it is important to work hard to get ahead? That it is important to do well in school? That checked your homework after you were done with it? That made sure you did your homework?
I just figured that since I didn't see any money trees around that if I wanted something I had 2 choices; steal it, or work my butt off.
I didn't want to steal because being in jail or shot didn't appeal to me. So, I worked hard.
How many of these kids have that? Can you honestly say that they have the same opportunities as you did when you were a kid?
Lots. Sure, I didn't have any special opportunities. Except, the "opportunity" to have to support myself while I was still a child.
Yes, this situation really started to explode after the LBJ social engineering legislation of the 60's. Prior to that black families were actually MORE stable than white families. Afterwards... Really sad.
Funny I always thought it was Reagan's policies that caused the problem. LBJ actually got a lot of black men into good jobs with the Job Core.
the statistics don't support you. Black men are more likely to end up in prison than in good jobs. It is not their fault. It is the fault of a society that lets its inner cities rot, underfunds inner city schools and doesn't care about black people.
From what I've seen myself, the opportunity is there. Since we as a society have let a lot of people down, though, a great many never get to see that. But ending up in prison and not getting a promotion are two very different things. I'm not going to comment on the idea that society doesn't care about black people. That's just not a road I'd like to go down right now. Still, I cannot argue that many are never made aware of the opportunities that do exist because of where they are now thanks to us as a whole.
Funny I always thought it was Reagan's policies that caused the problem. LBJ actually got a lot of black men into good jobs with the Job Core.
Actually, no.
Research it if you'd like.
Actually, no.
Research it if you'd like.
I did. You are wrong I am affraid.
I did. You are wrong I am affraid.
You must be VERY young if you think the stability of black families wasn't at crisis stage BEFORE Reagan. LOL!
You must be VERY young if you think the stability of black families wasn't at crisis stage BEFORE Reagan. LOL!
Oh, it may have been. But Nixon got the ball rolling and Reagan kicked it out of the park with his racist policies.
Oh, it may have been. But Nixon got the ball rolling and Reagan kicked it out of the park with his racist policies.
I work with kids in Somerville. If they worked at all, they could make what I make. The problem is not race or class. It's lack of doing work despite constant personal attention. Deliberate class skipping, not doing homework or classwork. Turning in tests without answers and an overall lack of any sense of what working hard is about. Even the ones who have jobs complain when they get fired for being late, skipping shifts, or not doing their jobs.
In my previous job as a scholarship coordinator for the Navy ROTC scholarship, I had the privilege to meet hundreds of kids from homes like you describe who worked hard and were able to earn scholarships for full college tuition, and they did not work harder than middle class white kids who got the scholarships too. In fact, the white kids had to work harder. The standards for SATs were higher. The requirements for sports and extra-curricular activities were higher. The GPA was higher.
Seconded. I live in a **** neighborhood and see *plenty* of "troubled youth" (more like little ****-heads). They're given nothing but attention by the state schools, by social workers, and by caring people, but it doesn't work. Why? Because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I know some incredibly intelligent poor-people who are poor for other reasons, most often because they just don't care that much about money and are happy to work in a warehouse and read and write on their free time. However, for every poor person like that, there are 10 who are happy to live on welfare or the drug trade, and throwing money at them isn't going to fix a thing.
I'm not gonna check back into this thread because I really, really hate internet political debates. Just throwing in my two cents. Everyone is *not* equal, crime is *not* caused by "society" or "poverty", it's caused by choosing to be a criminal.
As for Obama: I'm a conservative - albeit a "traditional" conservative, i.e. I think neoconservatism is quite liberal and the christian right has destroyed the republican party - but I couldn't give a rat's ass who wins in this election. For me, being a conservative means being prudent and cautious . . . the war in Iraq was about as far removed from "conservative" as it gets. Not just the war in Iraq, but our entire foreign policy at this time. It's not our job to be the world's police force (the liberals, men like Wilson and FDR, were the ones who originated this idea).
McCain is a war-hawk and a borderline socialist to boot. He pays lip-service to the free-market, but if he's elected (and I doubt he will be), it'll be more of the same: corporate subsidies, "free-trade agreements" that regulate more than they open, and a more efficient welfare state. On the war front, it will again be more of the same: letting us get pushed around by Israel, and generally going to war on ideological grounds rather than on true national security grounds.
Obama is the same. The only war he has ever opposed in his life was the Iraq war. He has said repeatedly that he will take "nothing off the table" (yes that includes nukes) in dealing with the "Iranian threat" (threat to Israel perhaps, not to us). Obama supports war just as much as the neoconservatives, he just supports different wars. He's probably more socialist than McCain, but really you can't trust what he says.
They're both following the same old routine: run as a radical to win the nomination, then become yet another centrist to try to win the presidency. Ron Paul was my candidate, and he never had a chance. I won't be voting. McCain and Obama have both proven themselves so disgustingly opportunistic that I can't reliably predict which one is the "lesser of two evils", and even if they weren't opportunistic, they're both so horrible in different ways that I couldn't pick.
Also, I'm opposed to the Christian Right but I am *not* opposed to Christianity. I'm a Roman Catholic, go to confession and church and take communion and all that. I believe that most "religious" questions, like abortion or prayer-in-school, should be left up to individual communities. If you live in a highly religious community, why not allow prayer in school? The problem with the Christian Right is that it, like political protestant groups of times past, is forcing its religious views on other people through the might of the federal government. I'd say the same thing about multiculturalism, political correctness, and the other manifestations of secular marxism. I am far more offended by the "leftist" side, but I still think that the Christian Right as a powerful political group is as much an enemy to liberty as the secularists.
My personal views are closer to the Christian Right, I just don't think those views should be forced on people.
You are in serious need of a real education. Read Howard zinn's a Peoples' History of the US. It will open your eyes.
You are in serious need of a real education. Read Howard zinn's a Peoples' History of the US. It will open your eyes.
Just look up the stats. Like I said you must be very young and naive.
You are in serious need of a real education. Read Howard zinn's a Peoples' History of the US. It will open your eyes.
You do know that Zinn was a supporter of Mao & the USSR? You really want to hold him up as unbiased? LOL
Where did you learn your work ethic? Did you have someone that cared about you, someone important in your life, like your parents, tell you every day that it is important to work hard to get ahead? That it is important to do well in school? That checked your homework after you were done with it? That made sure you did your homework?
They would have if I let them. I had a pretty rough time being picked on when I was younger, first because I was white and second when I moved up to New Jersey just before high school. I didn't talk to my parents much until after things settled down near the end of my freshman year of high school. My work ethic was based on trying to show the a-holes at school that they could make fun of me all they wanted, because I was going to kick the crap out of them when it came to grades. I wanted to show the teachers that too because they turned blind eyes to the deliberate pervasive harassment present in my schools. That and I honestly enjoyed reading, writing, and exploration of sciences. So, did I have a supportive family? Sure. Did they check my homework and turn into the overbearing nurturers you described above? Nope.
How many of these kids have that? Can you honestly say that they have the same opportunities as you did when you were a kid?
I think they have more. They have afterschool activities like I never did. They have teachers that give a crap, like I didn't. Some of their parents may not care at all, but a large portion of the ones I've met (including parents of students who just don't care) seem to be more involved than my parents were. Social workers and guidance counselors actually counsel, unlike in my experience where they did their best to cover the school's butt and to quash any indication of systematic racism and/or bullying. They get preference in college admissions and job hiring.*
Show
* I was actually told in 1996 by a representative for University of Virginia that although I was more qualified academically and athletically than most of the applicants, that they had "filled their quota of white kids from New Jersey." Yes, that's a direct quote. And it was followed up with, "I hate this policy here, but we had to give your spot to a black girl whose overall application barely meets school minimums." That admissions counselor was later fired for talking to the local news about the kind of institutional racism present in contemporary college admissions.
[/irony]
Seriously, I'd say students' lack of performance in school may be a bit too complex to reduce to "they aren't trying" or "it's society's fault" alone. All of these, and more, may be true for some. Same for family problems, or just about any social problem. There will be some cases where no matter what you do, it won't work.
@mountc: You have met some who did have all these chances, and maybe did not use them - or did. The problem is, how representative of the average situation were they? I would be more than a little surprised if teachers and councelors in low-income schools were found to be, on average, better trained and more motivated than those in high-income ones. What I myself have seen - though I admit I am a layman and have not studied the issue in detail - suggests the opposite. Better-funded schools tend to attract more skilled teachers and councilors, and generally offer a higher-quality education, both in terms of factual knowledge and involvement of the students.
Likewise, there may be anecdotal evidence of a failure of even the best program, or of success of a poor one. Just because a program does not work in every case need not mean it is does not deliver value for the money.
What, you guys were expecting the other side to agree to your views?
Right, of course not. Clarity is a realistic goal, Shaman. But I'll admit I'm surprised the collectivists have condoned outright slavery so readily this time. Usually they're slippery like eels, and when you finally do get them cornered they just hiss at you. It must be later than I thought.
But I'll admit I'm surprised the collectivists have condoned outright slavery so readily this time.
Yes, it usually takes about 10 posts to corner one of them and then they start cussing and won't admit to it.
You do know that Zinn was a supporter of Mao & the USSR? You really want to hold him up as unbiased? LOL
Seconded . . . I'm a History major, and Howard Zinn is not a good source of information. Read unbiased history books, not politicized, communist propaganda.
Study history first, and then go out and read the Zinns of the world; you'll be able to see where they go right, and where they go wrong, much easier than if you read them without much knowledge going in. This goes for "politicized historians" I *like* even, such as Pat Buchanan.
@mountc: You have met some who did have all these chances, and maybe did not use them - or did. The problem is, how representative of the average situation were they? I would be more than a little surprised if teachers and councelors in low-income schools were found to be, on average, better trained and more motivated than those in high-income ones.
I think they definitely are when they start out. Young teachers at the low income schools are more idealistic and ready to change education. When they spend a few years dealing with a bunch of misfits and layabouts, their idealism is broken by reality. The good teachers who stay do so because they can take pride in reaching even one student. The bad teachers who stay develop apathy. The good teachers who leave leave a serious hole behind as they seek students who care. Bad teachers who leave are weak and can't deal with the stress of kids who can be outright violent in class.
In the well-funded schools, teachers aren't put to those tests in the same way. An idealistic young teacher shows up at a private school and meets kids who challenge him and push back. The kids are motivated and try to do well. A few years of dealing with these kids breaks some idealism too. These kids don't need teachers. They need guides and supporters to cheer them on. The good ones stay around because they find new ways to challenge kids. The bad ones stay because it's easy and they fall into a sense of apathy. The good ones who leave try to find students who need teachers to challenge perceptions. The bad ones who leave do so because they feel wasted in their position.
generally offer a higher-quality education, both in terms of factual knowledge and involvement of the students.
It's definitely more the latter than the former. In higher quality schools, teachers aren't forced to teach to a standardized test. The kids there are usually motivated enough by intra-scholastic competition to do well on standardized tests. That was me. As such, only a small portion of the curriculum revolves around the test itself. But these kids ace the tests and set standards into the stratosphere.
In lower quality schools kids don't care about the standardized test scores. And in reality, those scores don't mean crap since kids get advanced and earn diplomas anyway. Since they don't care and therefore do poorly, the state steps in and mandates that the curriculum is dumbed down to teach only the competencies required by the standardized tests. Since kids aren't going to pay attention to a portion of the curriculum that's just because it's about a test, they aren't going to pay more attention when the focus becomes solely about that test. In fact, they'll tune out more often and become even worse students. These kids fail the tests and drop standards into the substrata.
So what is done about it? Revamp the standardized test. Not change the education plan and revise the curriculum while completely dropping the standardized test. Not fail students who don't belong in the next class. Not hold kids accountable for their actions. Just pass them and make the test easier for the next group of kids.
It's a self-defeating cycle. Lazy kids do badly, everyone blames the teachers, the standards get lower, and lazy kids do even worse, everyone blames the teachers, etc. No one thinks to hold 14-18-year-olds responsible for their actions. And what is the system of public education ultimately? That's right, socialized.
That's what happens in socialized systems. Government by government interference and collective hand-holding leads to dropping standards and failing results. And don't bring in European countries like Switzerland or Iceland in as paragons because those countries the most xenophobic, racist, and elitist of the modern world. Look at the immigration policies as a start. For all the posturing about US immigration policy it remains one of the most liberal in the world and is trying to get moreso. Even if the Republicans get their way on securing borders and deportation and whatnot, our immigration policy here is still more lenient than just about anywhere else.
And don't bring in European countries like Switzerland or Iceland in as paragons because those countries the most xenophobic, racist, and elitist of the modern world. Look at the immigration policies as a start. For all the posturing about US immigration policy it remains one of the most liberal in the world and is trying to get moreso. Even if the Republicans get their way on securing borders and deportation and whatnot, our immigration policy here is still more lenient than just about anywhere else.
Strange you bring up the Swiss. They have a decentralized education system. Each Canton (State) has more power over their school system than the Federal Goverment. The Canton determines curriculum, and moving from one Canton to another can cause havoc on a student. An example would be that in some Cantons foreign languages might be taught in the 4th grade, while in others, they might be taught in 7th grade.
Oh, and 17-20% of Swiss students attend traditional High School, while 3% attend college. 70% of students (age 16 to 19 years) attend a dual system of schooling and apprenticeship (1 or 2 days of school, and the rest of the time on-the-job training) The rest attends technical high schools or other programs.
Thats right. The Swiss get rid of the students who can't perform in schools, leaving the 20% who want an education. This would be why the Swiss have better results than the US.
When did these boards get overtaken by talk radio?
I haven't listened to talk radio in 5 years, ever since I moved and started taking public transportation instead of sitting in traffic.
Next person ready to hoist themselves on their own petards? Ready to fulfill confirmation bias? Or to demonstrate exactly how tolerant of differing viewpoints you are?
Yet another baseless ad hominem attack from someone on the left! Yay for hypocrisy.
I haven't listened to talk radio in 5 years, ever since I moved and started taking public transportation instead of sitting in traffic.
Next person ready to hoist themselves on their own petards? Ready to fulfill confirmation bias? Or to demonstrate exactly how tolerant of differing viewpoints you are?
Yet another baseless ad hominem attack from someone on the left! Yay for hypocrisy.
i am not on the left. I am a compassionate conservative.
I haven't listened to talk radio in 5 years, ever since I moved and started taking public transportation instead of sitting in traffic.
Next person ready to hoist themselves on their own petards? Ready to fulfill confirmation bias? Or to demonstrate exactly how tolerant of differing viewpoints you are?
Yet another baseless ad hominem attack from someone on the left! Yay for hypocrisy.
Thank you Bill O'Reilly.
When did these boards get overtaken by talk radio?
Who? You kids remind me to tell you about Usenet one of these days.
Right, of course not. Clarity is a realistic goal, Shaman. But I'll admit I'm surprised the collectivists have condoned outright slavery so readily this time. Usually they're slippery like eels, and when you finally do get them cornered they just hiss at you. It must be later than I thought.
Yes, because advocating for universal health care is exactly the same as advocating for slavery.
Faelar
P.S.
Ayn Rand called. She wants her schtick back.
Yes, because advocating for universal health care is exactly the same as advocating for slavery.
Hi. I guess you missed this exchange:
Good. So when slavery was the law of the land because the majority of people wanted it so, then it was right?
Yes.
l2read. kthxbye.
Seconded . . . I'm a History major, and Howard Zinn is not a good source of information. Read unbiased history books, not politicized, communist propaganda.
Why you are looking this up, look up the origin's of "politically correct". Not quite what you think. Fight political correctness in all forms. (Note: This does not mean to be rude or inconsiderate of others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_correct
Hi. I guess you missed this exchange:
l2read. kthxbye.
No, I was quite aware of that particular exchange, which, if you had not been so eager to misappropriate the context of that particular exchange in order to post a condescending and inflammatory response to me you would have realized that SpearSpike and Krusk were discussing the notion of democracy as a coercive system. SpearSpike's position, which I think is the correct one, was that there is a system of laws in place that are proposed by our democratically elected representative and that if we choose to flout those laws, we must deal with the consequences, even if those laws are held to be immoral, like slavery.
This is from where civil disobedience movements gain their power. They are deliberately breaking the law they consider immoral, and are dealing with the consequences of breaking the law.
You still haven't proposed how a universal health care system would be the same as slavery. In fact, you haven't even shown how a universal health care system would be immoral.
Faelar
No, I was quite aware of that particular exchange...
Then it should have been obvious that when I mentioned slavery I was talking about slavery. You confusion is confusing.
In fact, you haven't even shown how a universal health care system would be immoral.
As was pointed out pages ago, social contract theory vis-a-vis natural rights is OT, so I was happy to let it go. But since you brought it up again: do you equate morality with legality? Was slavery moral?
As for which kind of school produces more motivated students, that really depends on the students themselves. Motivated parents may choose private schools due to real or perceived advantages, but that doesn't mean the students become more motivated because of the school.
"Not hold kids accountable for their actions. Just pass them and make the test easier for the next group of kids."
Please, these are far from limited to public schools. Private schools, which depend on the parents' funding, may have very good reasons to pass students and artificially inflate grades, and quite a few do. Public schools can be no less critical of the students and demanding. Whether they are depends on the principal and on the state authorities. Yes, if there is a policy that everyone and their pet goat should be able to go to university, the test will be made passable by everyone.
Of course, public schools - just as every public institution - will not work well if the people in charge of it do not believe it won't work well. If it is treated as a second-class education, and thus underfunded and understaffed, then it will be a second-class institution. "Public institutions are ineffective" can be a self-fulfilling prophecy if mouthed by the person in charge of said institutions.
"It's a self-defeating cycle. Lazy kids do badly, everyone blames the teachers, the standards get lower, and lazy kids do even worse, everyone blames the teachers, etc. No one thinks to hold 14-18-year-olds responsible for their actions. And what is the system of public education ultimately? That's right, socialized."
Weren't you just saying that if things go bad, tests are made easier so no one fails? By and large, lazy kids don't go to university, so your theory doesn't seem to hold well. Also, no, a well-run school - public or private - does not always blame the teachers when things go downhill. Neither are private schools immune to such forms of blame-shifting. Sure, in theory the market would unfailingly punish the bad schools. In theory, so would the state. In practice, it simply doesn't work that way.
"And don't bring in European countries like Switzerland or Iceland in as paragons because those countries the most xenophobic, racist, and elitist of the modern world."
I haven't been to either, so I won't dispute the claim - though using public institutions doesn't strike me as elitist, to be quite honest. But even if it were all true, what does it have to do with the topic at hand? Oh, right, these people are so bad that they couldn't possibly think of a better idea than we tolerant, democratic folk. Give me a freaking break. Also, I don't want to get personally insulting, but if you brush aside the people of several countries as xenophobic and elitist, you come off as xenophobic and elitist yourself.
@The_Harlequin: the way the original slavery quesiton was put was somewhat misleading, imo. Yes, there can be such a thing as "tyranny of the crowd," but historically a tyranny of a minority has been much more prevalent. All other things being equal, a policy supported by 70% of the people is more legitimate, and more just, than one supported by 30%.
Then it should have been obvious that when I mentioned slavery I was talking about slavery. You confusion is confusing.
I'm not confused at all. I was merely pointing out that you completely took SpearSpike's comment out of context and used it to make a fallacious argument.
As was pointed out pages ago, social contract theory vis-a-vis natural rights is OT, so I was happy to let it go. But since you brought it up again: do you equate morality with legality? Was slavery moral?
If you read any of my previous post beyond the first line, you should be able to answer that question. No, I do not equate morality with legality. Morality will often clash with legality and until the laws are changed, people breaking the law on moral grounds must be prepared to be treated as criminals...because they are criminals.
Faelar
@The_Harlequin: the way the original slavery quesiton was put was somewhat misleading, imo. Yes, there can be such a thing as "tyranny of the crowd," but historically a tyranny of a minority has been much more prevalent. All other things being equal, a policy supported by 70% of the people is more legitimate, and more just, than one supported by 30%.
Actually it was a very good question--he wanted to understand Spearpike's premises. Now we know. Also, popular does not equal ethical. A law may be unpopular, but according to SCT, it is still unethical to break it. In a representative government, this happens all the time. Further, an act cannot be both ethical and unethical, 70/30 or some such. Taking is either a "tax" or it is "theft" but not both.
I'm not confused at all. I was merely pointing out that you completely took SpearSpike's comment out of context and used it to make a fallacious argument.
Your straw man up there is either the result of confusion or mendacity--at this point I don't really care.
No, I do not equate morality with legality.
Then how do you derive the ethical truth value of any action executed under color of authority? And, to the point, how do you claim that nationalizing the labor of doctors and nurses is prima facie moral?
All other things being equal, a policy supported by 70% of the people is more legitimate, and more just, than one supported by 30%.
Uh, no. Just because a majority of people support something, even all things being equal, does not mean that it is legitimate. Legitimacy is not the sole perview of the majority. The US consitution is written to protect the nuts.
All things being equal, everyone still has a right to free speech, including those whose speech is supported by only the vast minority (like the KKK, or the "God Hates Gays" people). The Constitution protects them from the Vast Majority *(i.e. us rational people).
Uh, no. Just because a majority of people support something, even all things being equal, does not mean that it is legitimate. Legitimacy is not the sole perview of the majority. The US consitution is written to protect the nuts.
All things being equal, everyone still has a right to free speech, including those whose speech is supported by only the vast minority (like the KKK, or the "God Hates Gays" people). The Constitution protects them from the Vast Majority *(i.e. us rational people).
The protection of unpopular speech does not negate the fact that this protection rests on the majority of people agreeing that the protection of unpopular speech is a good thing. If ever the vast majority (i.e. enough to amend the Constitution) got together and decided that the protection of unpopular speech was a bad thing, then the right to unpopular speech would no longer be legitimate.
Faelar
Uh, no. Just because a majority of people support something, even all things being equal, does not mean that it is legitimate. Legitimacy is not the sole perview of the majority. The US consitution is written to protect the nuts.
I think you mean the Bill of Rights which lists rights not ceded to the Feds, and a wise thing it was: the Constitution itself was a total victory for the collectivists.
The protection of unpopular speech does not negate the fact that this protection rests on the majority of people agreeing that the protection of unpopular speech is a good thing. If ever the vast majority (i.e. enough to amend the Constitution) got together and decided that the protection of unpopular speech was a bad thing, then the right to unpopular speech would no longer be legitimate. Faelar
The majority would have to follow the process established by the Constitution to amend It. A mob couldn't just decide to outlaw free speech, and start having people arrested. The Mob would have to follow the established rules of goverment in their attempts to change that law. The legitimacy once again comes from the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), not the Majority.
The majority would have to follow the process established by the Constitution to amend It. A mob couldn't just decide to outlaw free speech, and start having people arrested. The Mob would have to follow the established rules of goverment in their attempts to change that law. The legitimacy once again comes from the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), not the Majority.
Not true. If the majority successfully overthrew the government (unlikely in the age of counter-terrorism) in a coup, the resulting order, assuming people went along with it, would be legit according to SCT. There is no other objective criterion other than people just going along with it.
Not true. If the majority successfully overthrew the government (unlikely in the age of counter-terrorism) in a coup, the resulting order, assuming people went along with it, would be legit according to SCT. There is no other objective criterion other than people just going along with it.
That would be the establishment of a seperate sytem of goverment with a different rule of law (even if that rule of law is "Might Makes Right"). I refer only to the United States of America, and the Legitimacy of Majority Rule within that Goverment System.
In the United States of America, the Legitimacy of Law comes from the United States Constitution and the Amendments to it, not the Majority of people.
In the United States of America, the Legitimacy of Law comes from the United States Constitution and the Amendments to it, not the Majority of people.
Again, the legitimacy of the law (in our case, a constitution) is predicated on acceptance en masse. The law has no authority on its own. That the law is self-referential and prohibits certain other laws or enumerates rights not ceded is fortunate, but not what the law rests on. I think we can agree on that.
Again, the legitimacy of the law (in our case, a constitution) is predicated on acceptance en masse. The law has no authority on its own. That the law is self-referential and prohibits certain other laws or enumerates rights not ceded is fortunate, but not what the law rests on. I think we can agree on that.
But without rule of law, Majority rule, is nothing more than an overly complicated form of Mob Rule, or an Ochlocracy. Would you consider Mob Rule a Legitimate Govermental System?
Would you consider Mob Rule a Legitimate Govermental System?
It doesn't matter what you or I think--if people go along with it, it's "legit." That's how SCT works.
But since Social Contract Theory is a Philisophical Tool, I'd question it's use in a political discussion.
But, from my limited understanding of Social Contract Theory, if I choose not to subjegate myself to the Majority Rule, then that rule is no longer legitimate in regards to me, because I don't accept it's authority.
Not at all--they impute consent by the fact that you live under its auspices. They don't ask for explicit consent. We're getting into a very esoteric topic that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.
Then any force that majority applies to the minority to conform to their rules is not legitimate as that minority didn't make the social agreement with the majority toward the issue at hand.
You're saying something I agree with here: that duress makes the exact determination of consent impossible. IMO it's a fragile thing. Yet the existence of every state is predicated on duress.
But since Social Contract Theory is a Philisophical Tool, I'd question it's use in a political discussion.
Politics is part of philosophy. But it is OT with regards to what a douche Obama is.
Not at all--they impute consent by the fact that you live under its auspices. They don't ask for explicit consent.
Explicit rejection of the majority decision in this case would take precident over implicit consent. If I say I don't want to pay for Universal Healthcare and the majority chooses to use threat of violence to force me to pay for it, this isn't me consenting to their rule. It's the majority using violence to take my property.
We're getting into a very esoteric topic that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.
But it still comes back to the legitimacy of the majority vrs the lefitimacy of the minority. And it is very esoteric. I also dislike philosophy...
You're saying something I agree with here: that duress makes the exact determination of consent impossible. IMO it's a fragile thing. Yet the existence of every state is predicated on duress.
Which brings us back to why I don't think Mob Rule is a legitimate govermental system, and rule of law (what ever that rule of law might be) is required for legitimacy.
Politics is part of philosophy. But it is OT with regards to what a douche Obama is.
I don't know about Douche. I don't think he's malicious, just very, very wrong.
@Mountc: If you indeed claim that the best teachers are the young, idealistic ones, I must disagree.
Strawman alert, strawman alert, strawman alert.
Experienced teachers tend to be somewhat better, as even with internships it takes young teachers to start applying all their training in practice - even presuming that their training has been flawless, which imo is not always the case.
True, and in order to get to that experience, one must not lose the sense of idealism in educating youngsters, which is what I did say.
While a private school may be somewhat more fluid in structuring teachers' work, in most cases teachers in either school have to prepare students for similar exams - such as the SATs.
SATs are not make or break for school funding. That's the difference. If a kid fails the MCAS in Massachusetts, theoretically that's a black mark on the school. If too many fail, they'll lose funding. If they continue to fail, the state can take over. It is in the public school's best interest to teach directly to information on that test, to which end most of the public school curriculums are exactly that. The SAT and ACT are different animals and colleges are increasingly dropping those as requirements.
I think you are all too willing to put all public schools under a common denominator, and that is a big mistake.
Strawman. I never said all. I did implicate "public schools" primarily those in lower income neighborhoods, but I didn't say all. I do think "most" is an accurate statement however.
As for which kind of school produces more motivated students, that really depends on the students themselves.
Is that not what I've been saying the whole time?
Motivated parents may choose private schools due to real or perceived advantages, but that doesn't mean the students become more motivated because of the school.
True. And motivated is the wrong word for parents who can afford to choose private schools. Rich would be closer.
Please, these are far from limited to public schools. Private schools, which depend on the parents' funding, may have very good reasons to pass students and artificially inflate grades, and quite a few do.
Name one. Most private schools do not depend on parents' funding. Most have boards of trustees and executors of humongous trust funds.
Of course, public schools - just as every public institution - will not work well if the people in charge of it do not believe it won't work well. If it is treated as a second-class education, and thus underfunded and understaffed, then it will be a second-class institution.
Here you're starting to sound like you might be moving towards the same page I'm on. But how are you going to increase staff? Increase salaries? That might work in some places, but I'll tell you what will work--ejecting kids who don't belong and aren't performing. If they fail 3 quarters out of 4, why should they move on to the next grade? If the administrators and the state would stop cowing to "No Child Left Behind" nonsense and actually start holding kids accountable for their roles in their own education, I guarantee teachers would be more inclined to teach at "harder" schools.
Weren't you just saying that if things go bad, tests are made easier so no one fails?
No. I said they were made easier to try to make it so no one fails. And it doesn't work because kids try even less.
By and large, lazy kids don't go to university, so your theory doesn't seem to hold well.
Who said anything about college? I'm just talking about getting through high school.
Also, no, a well-run school - public or private - does not always blame the teachers when things go downhill.
You don't read much about education theory do you?
Neither are private schools immune to such forms of blame-shifting. Sure, in theory the market would unfailingly punish the bad schools. In theory, so would the state. In practice, it simply doesn't work that way.
Strawman. I didn't indicate that blame shifting was localized to public schools. Teachers are not the cause of falling academic standards.
I haven't been to either, so I won't dispute the claim - though using public institutions doesn't strike me as elitist, to be quite honest.
Except that they aren't really "public" the ways ours are. Schools there routinely fail and/or drop kids who can't perform. But we have this need in society to make sure everyone goes to school, despite 4-year high school graduation rates that are just over 50% nationwide.
Oh, right, these people are so bad that they couldn't possibly think of a better idea than we tolerant, democratic folk.
Err, not sure where you get that idea. Another strawman. I was pointing out that it "looks" like they have a better system for education. Until you start researching and see that they stack the deck, so to speak.
Also, I don't want to get personally insulting, but if you brush aside the people of several countries as xenophobic and elitist, you come off as xenophobic and elitist yourself.
Pointing out a country's recognized xenophobia does not make me xenophobic in the slightest. Iceland is demonstrably one of the most xenophobic countries on the planet, as is Switzerland. Read up about their immigration policies and how they treat tourists. It's not the good and enlightened idea that Americans seem to romanticize about Socialism.
All other things being equal, a policy supported by 70% of the people is more legitimate, and more just, than one supported by 30%.
How do you rationalize the public's stand on gay marriage then? Per CBS and Gallup, it's roughly 68% against and 32% for. Is it just and legitimate to prevent two loving gay people from legalizing their union under law? (Hint - this is a major point where I break with "conservatives") I sure don't think so.
i just want to add that while I disagree with Harlequin and Mount on issues of taxation (though I think they have done an excellent job of defending their positions philosophically) I think some valid points have been made about Barrack's shortcomings. I am really concerned about his ability to handle the middle east situation. I am concerned because his resume is thin in that area and he is far too liberal on issues of foreign policy (though he has made some wierd attempts to sound tough).
Strange you bring up the Swiss. They have a decentralized education system. Each Canton (State) has more power over their school system than the Federal Goverment. The Canton determines curriculum, and moving from one Canton to another can cause havoc on a student. An example would be that in some Cantons foreign languages might be taught in the 4th grade, while in others, they might be taught in 7th grade.
Oh, and 17-20% of Swiss students attend traditional High School, while 3% attend college. 70% of students (age 16 to 19 years) attend a dual system of schooling and apprenticeship (1 or 2 days of school, and the rest of the time on-the-job training) The rest attends technical high schools or other programs.
Thats right. The Swiss get rid of the students who can't perform in schools, leaving the 20% who want an education. This would be why the Swiss have better results than the US.
Yeah I really like Switzerland, even if it's kind of euro-socialist like everywhere else in Europe, at least it's very decentralized.
You still haven't proposed how a universal health care system would be the same as slavery. In fact, you haven't even shown how a universal health care system would be immoral.
Faelar
It is immoral because it relies on thievery. Taxation is simply thievery, with the money being stolen from and spent on whatever 51% of the population happens to want.
It is immoral because it *rewards* laziness and *punishes* productivity.
I agree healthcare costs are insanely high, and insurance too. Want to know why? Regulation! Excessive regulation raises prices to unacceptable levels, and the healthcare/insurance industries are the most heavily regulated businesses in the country. Hospitals are forced to treat everyone, no matter how poor, and for whatever they want. You might think "oh good", but in practice this ends up being the ER literally chock-full of trailer-trash coming in because they can't afford a regular MD and go to the ER every time they get a cold or throw-up.
Insurance is hugely expensive because labor unions pushed for companies to provide "free" insurance to them way back when, of course with a hefty dose of government fiat to protect them. TANSTAAFL. The employers either cut wages to pay for the insurance, or just laid off employees - more often the latter. Now, because most health insurance companies, besides being HEAVILY regulated, do their business with *large employers* instead of *individuals*, there is even less competition, and thus even higher prices.
Oh and let's not forget inflation. Inflation raises prices. In adjusted dollars, gas only cost about 20 cents less 50 years ago than it does now (I think it was 50 years ago; might've been 30 or 70).
So yes, universal healthcare is immoral, and foolish to boot. Like all socialized systems, including the public schools/public roads, it will be extremely costly and inefficient.
Did you know the average cost to educate a child in public school is 10k a year, more than 2k more than the cost per/ year to send him to a *good* private school?
True. And motivated is the wrong word for parents who can afford to choose private schools. Rich would be closer.
Name one. Most private schools do not depend on parents' funding. Most have boards of trustees and executors of humongous trust funds.
*Clears throat* Not fully correct. Many smaller private Christians schools depend heavily on tuition. And many of the parents aren't rich. Maybe not below the poverty line, but certainly only middle-class. Motivated describes them well.
I'll name my school: well, I'll PM you the name, if you'd like. I'm just paranoid enough... But certainly no huge funds.
Just FYI.
Oh, and on thread title; I'd rather not, but I've got a sinking feeling...
It is immoral because it *rewards* laziness and *punishes* productivity.
snipped for content
This is sooooooo wrong. Being able to obtain medical treatments for illnesses should be a universal right, not something that is earned through "productive" works. Now I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but let's give everyone a fighting chance to be productive. I get that there are some people that don't necessarily deserve treatment (an argument could be made smokers don't deserve cancer treatment), but basic healthcare should be a given for any person of any wealth level.
It is immoral because it relies on thievery. Taxation is simply thievery, with the money being stolen from and spent on whatever 51% of the population happens to want.
Here is my response the last time I debated a libertarian on taxation:
Ideally, a government is structured to provide for the common defense, to ensure the development and maintenance of infrastructure, and to provide the necessities for commerce to occur. When you earn wages, or make a profit, taxation is essentially you paying for the privilege of conducting your business in a safe environment where you are assured protection of your person and possessions, where you need not worry about providing your own infrastructure or about protecting yourself from invasion by external forces. By living and conducting business in a certain nation, you are giving your implied consent to being subject to the laws, including tax laws, of that nation. Because consent is granted, taxation cannot be theft.
It is immoral because it *rewards* laziness and *punishes* productivity.
So you're saying that it is axiomatic that "laziness" is synonomous with "low wage earners" and "productivity" is synonomous with "high wage earners"? You seriously cannot conceive of a situation where a low wage earner happens to be very productive or a high wage earner is not so productive? Because I can come up with hundreds of situations.
I agree healthcare costs are insanely high, and insurance too. Want to know why? Regulation! Excessive regulation raises prices to unacceptable levels, and the healthcare/insurance industries are the most heavily regulated businesses in the country.
Riiiiiight. Because the deregulation of the investment banking and savings & loans industries were such stellar successes. You need only look at the current housing mess to see how many problems even a relaxing of industry can cause. They relaxed the requirements for due diligence on applications for mortgages and all of a sudden banks are selling CDOs and NIMs by the truckload, Moody's is rubberstamping the whole thing and Mr. and Mrs. Johnny Taxpayer are paying for the bank bailouts.
The simple fact is that if you deregulated the healthcare and insurance industries, the next time you went to the doctor your insurance provider would be arguing with you constantly about whether your visit was covered or not.
Hospitals are forced to treat everyone, no matter how poor, and for whatever they want. You might think "oh good", but in practice this ends up being the ER literally chock-full of trailer-trash coming in because they can't afford a regular MD and go to the ER every time they get a cold or throw-up.
Yeah! Those trailer trash scum don't deserve to live because they're lazy and unproductive!
And if you know anything about ER's, you would know that most of the uninsured that are there are there because they tried to tough out their cold because they couldn't afford a doctor and ended up getting pneumonia or experienced a similar situation where if they had access to free or cheap healthcare, the problem could have been solved much cheaper ($60 doctor visit and $40 prescription vs. $4,000 dollar ER visit that the hospital will have to write off its books and that will further downgrade the credit rating of the poor schmuck that didn't have insurance).
So yes, universal healthcare is immoral, and foolish to boot. Like all socialized systems, including the public schools/public roads, it will be extremely costly and inefficient.
Private roads!?!?! You're actually advocating that private roads would be a more efficient alternative to the current system of centralized infrastructure maintenance and construction? Okay, but good luck with that when your road building company is either constantly tied up in court because it does not have the force of eminent domain behind it, or when it is hiring people to harrass home and business owners to move out or sell, because it would be cheaper than paying fair market value for their land.
Did you know the average cost to educate a child in public school is 10k a year, more than 2k more than the cost per/ year to send him to a *good* private school?
Jiminy Christmas, I knew this sounded like another Cato Institute screed.
Faelar
And if you know anything about ER's, you would know that most of the uninsured that are there are there because they tried to tough out their cold because they couldn't afford a doctor and ended up getting pneumonia or experienced a similar situation where if they had access to free or cheap healthcare, the problem could have been solved much cheaper ($60 doctor visit and $40 prescription vs. $4,000 dollar ER visit that the hospital will have to write off its books and that will further downgrade the credit rating of the poor schmuck that didn't have insurance).
I'm so glad I live in Canada. Free Healthcare = Win.
I'm so glad I live in Canada. Free Healthcare = Win.
By this you actually mean Socialized Healthcare. It's not Free, you just don't pay at the visit. Instead, you pay with your taxes. If you guys prefer that way, good for you up in Maple Leaf Land (sorry, couldn't resist). I'm still hesitant on the whole debate. Mostly becaue I'm cynical about government doing something this widespread correctly...
This is sooooooo wrong. Being able to obtain medical treatments for illnesses should be a universal right, not something that is earned through "productive" works. Now I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but let's give everyone a fighting chance to be productive. I get that there are some people that don't necessarily deserve treatment (an argument could be made smokers don't deserve cancer treatment), but basic healthcare should be a given for any person of any wealth level.
Yeah I should've emphasized that I am not opposed to altruism, to helping your fellow man. I think there are plenty of people who are poor through no fault of their own, and that charitable institutions are a good thing. Just look at how many people, both conservatives and liberals, support the welfare system. If there was not a government-run charity, people would still give money to help the poor, and this wouldn't necessarily be wrong.
Also, medical treatments for illnesses is *not* a right, imo. Rights arise from our nature or from God (depending on your religious views), and are built into our status as H. Sapiens. Ever since a caveman picked up a piece of flint and chipped it into an arrowhead, there have been property rights. When we, as humans, find something in nature and alter it, it becomes our "property". This is one of the constants built into the concept of the human species, as is the concept of self-ownership.
Now I understand that we are operating under different definitions of "rights". Your view appears to be that a "right" is a guarantee by the government of some sort, like the right to free speech or the right to a fair trial. These are positive rights, and must be viewed as separate from the natural, god-given rights our country was founded on.
So what you're really saying is that there should be a law allowing all access to healthcare. This is not the same thing as a philosophical "right", and I think it's a distinction that should be better respected.
Here is my response the last time I debated a libertarian on taxation:
Ideally, a government is structured to provide for the common defense, to ensure the development and maintenance of infrastructure, and to provide the necessities for commerce to occur. When you earn wages, or make a profit, taxation is essentially you paying for the privilege of conducting your business in a safe environment where you are assured protection of your person and possessions, where you need not worry about providing your own infrastructure or about protecting yourself from invasion by external forces. By living and conducting business in a certain nation, you are giving your implied consent to being subject to the laws, including tax laws, of that nation. Because consent is granted, taxation cannot be theft.
Yeah I understand that taxes are necessary for the provision of defense. I am not a Rothbardian, I do not believe in the privatization of protection, so we agree here: taxes are a necessary payment for the provision of protection, defense, and law. Still, I believe taxation should be as minimal as possible. The government's job should be to provide us with collective defense, not collective health-insurance or collective charities or whatever.
I know this was my fault for not being clearer, so I won't go on since you were responding to something based on my miswordings
So you're saying that it is axiomatic that "laziness" is synonomous with "low wage earners" and "productivity" is synonomous with "high wage earners"? You seriously cannot conceive of a situation where a low wage earner happens to be very productive or a high wage earner is not so productive? Because I can come up with hundreds of situations.
Wages are based on productivity; this is an economic law. If employers pay their employees *less* than they produce, then other companies steal their workers by providing better wages. If they pay *more* than their employees are worth, they lose money. The problem here, and it's one I used to fall under myself, is a faulty definition of productivity. The miner obviously does much more physical labor than the CEO, but one produces more than the other.
And "low wage earners" are NOT lazy. I have to really emphasize that; again this is my bad for not being clear enough, not your fault. Many "low wage earners" are some of the hardest-working, most honest people I've met in my life. I'm saying that low-wage earners *would* be able to, and historically *have* been able to afford healthcare if the costs were not so artificially inflated. The real beneficiaries under a universal healthcare system would be those who do not work, not because they *can't* but because they *choose not to*. They will not be paying for it, because they don't earn any money and ergo do not pay much in taxes.
Riiiiiight. Because the deregulation of the investment banking and savings & loans industries were such stellar successes. You need only look at the current housing mess to see how many problems even a relaxing of industry can cause. They relaxed the requirements for due diligence on applications for mortgages and all of a sudden banks are selling CDOs and NIMs by the truckload, Moody's is rubberstamping the whole thing and Mr. and Mrs. Johnny Taxpayer are paying for the bank bailouts.
The simple fact is that if you deregulated the healthcare and insurance industries, the next time you went to the doctor your insurance provider would be arguing with you constantly about whether your visit was covered or not.
The savings & loans industries are not deregulated; they've been propped up for two centuries by centralized banking, giving them the right to loan out more money than they have, inflate the money supply without oversight encouraging rabid borrowing by depreciating your savings and keeping interest rates artificially low - and thus, more money for them through interest.
The housing bubble was caused by the government has, since the race riots in the late 60s, been very concerned with spreading home-ownership to the impoverished - particularly minorities. They believe that home ownership was some sort of magic wand spreading responsibility and childcare payments wherever it went. The government, through many laws passed over the past 40 years or so, have forced realtors to sell houses to people who shouldn't be owning houses. This really picked up in the 90s, and now the bubble has burst. Of course this also has to do with inflation, but I'm not going to get into that because I don't want to turn this into a debate on economics :P
Deregulation does not mean that companies would be able to "do whatever they want". They would be forced to conform with consumer demands through competition. Companies which were better would succeed, those which were bad would fail.
The largest supporters of regulation and licensing are often big businesses themselves. Why? Because regulation boosts costs to the point that small businesses cannot afford to pay them, and therefore large companies have less competition, and can raise their prices higher while providing worse services.
Yeah! Those trailer trash scum don't deserve to live because they're lazy and unproductive!
And if you know anything about ER's, you would know that most of the uninsured that are there are there because they tried to tough out their cold because they couldn't afford a doctor and ended up getting pneumonia or experienced a similar situation where if they had access to free or cheap healthcare, the problem could have been solved much cheaper ($60 doctor visit and $40 prescription vs. $4,000 dollar ER visit that the hospital will have to write off its books and that will further downgrade the credit rating of the poor schmuck that didn't have insurance).
Actually I do know something about the ER. Both of my parents worked there - both fairly traditional moderate social democrats too I might add, hardly biased against the poor. They do not tough out their colds, they go there as soon as they catch a sniffle. That's just what happens.
Now I do think poor people shouldn't be dying in the streets. I think that privately run charities would be more efficient at a.) deciding who is really deserving of aid, and who is just cheating the system; and b.) getting them up on their feet again and off the dole faster.
This is simply because government monopolies - like the welfare system - function as any other monopoly. In fact, quite possibly worse. They essentially have access to unlimited funds; since the bureaucrats get paid no matter what unless they COMPLETELY f**k up, they don't have as much motivation to do a good job at providing the given service - like charity, in this case.
Private roads!?!?! You're actually advocating that private roads would be a more efficient alternative to the current system of centralized infrastructure maintenance and construction? Okay, but good luck with that when your road building company is either constantly tied up in court because it does not have the force of eminent domain behind it, or when it is hiring people to harrass home and business owners to move out or sell, because it would be cheaper than paying fair market value for their land.
First of all, privatization gets a bad name because the government's "privatization" is usually "we give a contract to a large company to provide us with a given service, and pay them with taxes", i.e. not much different from public goods. Also, I believe that the respect of inalienable rights like property are more important than a bit of inconvenience for a large road company.
Hiring someone to harass home and business owners is *illegal*, as it violates their property rights. I don't see why you assume that business would be able to subvert the law so extensively, then put your faith in an institution that is by definition *above* the law.
Jiminy Christmas, I knew this sounded like another Cato Institute screed.
Faelar
I ****in' do not like CATO man. I have to make that clear too. I am no objectivist or left-libertarian. I do not glorify big business, or believe that selfishness is a virtue, or that helping the poor is a bad thing. I just think that big government monopolies always do a worse job at providing services - like charity - than the free market would.
I believe that capitalism is driven by greed, but at least it is held in check by direct consumer participation. I cannot say the same thing for government, where so many decisions are passed which both defy our natural god-given rights, and take place with limited or no involvement of the people.
By this you actually mean Socialized Healthcare. It's not Free, you just don't pay at the visit. Instead, you pay with your taxes. If you guys prefer that way, good for you up in Maple Leaf Land (sorry, couldn't resist). I'm still hesitant on the whole debate. Mostly becaue I'm cynical about government doing something this widespread correctly...
I like it up here in Maple Leaf Land. :D It's fun. We have lots of maple syrup.
And dogsleds ;)
So what you're really saying is that there should be a law allowing all access to healthcare. This is not the same thing as a philosophical "right", and I think it's a distinction that should be better respected.
This is a fair distinction to make. Sure.
And don't get me wrong, our healthcare system isn't perfect, and sometimes waits in clinics and ERs get pretty long. The thing I like about it is that it is universally available to everyone (although some people pay private clinics to get faster/better service - quite often these are in the USA - personally I don't really have a problem with this, as long as basic healthcare is provided to all).
The fact is though, it is easily accessible and works reasonably well. Sure we all pay for it with taxes - but this is one of the few things I think are actually worth it. You put defense, infrastructure, etc. on your list of things taxes should cover ... Heathcare should be on your list too. You have some interesting Ideas and theories about insurance and medical treatments should work in the USA, but honestly, your whole system seems completely screwed up to me as it stands right now, and something should be done.
In practical application I don't know if your ideas would work quite the way you say they would (kinda like the communist government was supposed to disappear according to the theory of communism as opposed to take advantage of the system which is what actually happened). Our system here, though not perfect, does work.
This is a fair distinction to make. Sure.
And don't get me wrong, our healthcare system isn't perfect, and sometimes waits in clinics and ERs get pretty long. The thing I like about it is that it is universally available to everyone (although some people pay private clinics to get faster/better service - quite often these are in the USA - personally I don't really have a problem with this, as long as basic healthcare is provided to all).
The fact is though, it is easily accessible and works reasonably well. Sure we all pay for it with taxes - but this is one of the few things I think are actually worth it. You put defense, infrastructure, etc. on your list of things taxes should cover ... Heathcare should be on your list too. You have some interesting Ideas and theories about insurance and medical treatments should work in the USA, but honestly, your whole system seems completely screwed up to me as it stands right now, and something should be done.
In practical application I don't know if your ideas would work quite the way you say they would (kinda like the communist government was supposed to disappear according to the theory of communism as opposed to take advantage of the system which is what actually happened). Our system here, though not perfect, does work.
It might work, in the sense that yes you *do* get healthcare, and I'm not necessarily debating that. It just works less well than a truly privatized system. The prices are higher and the services provided less good than they would be if private. You spend more money on healthcare than necessary, and therefore less money is spent on what you want (or less savings depending on your preferred ratio of saving to consumption), leading to less efficiency at satisfying consumer demands in general.
I wouldn't call the free-market just a "theory" like Communism. It is based on natural economic laws which apply to every industry, from shoes to soda to house-building. The problem is that we do *not* have privatized healthcare right now; it's actually very socialized, very regulated.
Basically I'm saying that the high prices are caused by government, and that our (and your) proposed solution is more government instead of less.
If anything it'll work less well here than in Europe and Canada. At least Europeans and Canadians are responsible enough to understand that there is no such thing as a "free" government service, and that taxes will have to rise to pay for them. Here, the average voter wants it both ways: he wants both low taxes AND "free" services. The US government's solution is inflation, i.e. borrowing heavily and printing new money, causing our money to be devalued and trade deficits to occur. That's why the Euro is kicking our ass so bad.
Not to mention the fact that while we may be less "socialist" than Europe or Canada, the amount of money wasted on our military-industrial complex, a relic of the Cold War era that the feds refuse to let go of, might actually be more than the money Europeans spend on socialized services.
I wouldn't call the free-market just a "theory" like Communism. It is based on natural economic laws which apply to every industry, from shoes to soda to house-building. The problem is that we do *not* have privatized healthcare right now; it's actually very socialized, very regulated.
The "theory" think is something that I am going to have to disagree with you on. Privatization does not always mean less expensive. For Example:
The difference in Auto Insurance between Alberta (the province I live in-Privatized Auto Insurance) vs. Manitoba (a province that has government run Auto Insurance) is over $1000 more expensive in Alberta on average. The Insurance companies in Alberta got so greedy and out of control that the provincial government had to step in and put a "cap" on what Insurance companies could charge because it started to get really out of hand. There is no reason our insurance should be significantly more than theirs. Driving conditions are relatively the same. Our population is a little higher, but the difference should not be an average of $1000 per customer.
I realize this isn't going to be how things operate all the time, but I just don't think privatization is always necessarily the best solution - especially when it comes to Insurance companies.
EDIT: For those of you that don't know, a province in Canada is roughly equivalent to a State in the USA.
The "theory" think is something that I am going to have to disagree with you on. Privatization does not always mean less expensive. For Example:
The difference in Auto Insurance between Alberta (the province I live in-Privatized Auto Insurance) vs. Manitoba (a province that has government run Auto Insurance) is over $1000 more expensive in Alberta on average. The Insurance companies in Alberta got so greedy and out of control that the provincial government had to step in and put a "cap" on what Insurance companies could charge because it started to get really out of hand. There is no reason our insurance should be significantly more than theirs. Driving conditions are relatively the same. Our population is a little higher, but the difference should not be an average of $1000 per customer.
I realize this isn't going to be how things operate all the time, but I just don't think privatization is always necessarily the best solution - especially when it comes to Insurance companies.
Hmm interesting, though I think there is a danger in comparing raw economic data like this. There are many, many factors that go into the cost of a good besides whether it is privatized or socialized. There could have been other factors in Alberta keeping prices high.
The only way companies can greedily raise prices above their value is through monopoly/coercive lack of entry into a given industry. I suspect that Canada has the same employer-provided health insurance system we have in the States, and that this alone would keep the prices high, not to mention the myriad other things that are factored into the costs of something.
Prices don't just rise out of "greed" like that; it's just not how economics works. If a "greedy" company could simply charge as much as it wanted, everything would be impossibly expensive. Prices are influenced by supply and demand (and government). If the government steps in and sets price-caps, there are merely shortages. There's no way for government to magically fix a price besides a.) somehow raising the supply of the good (like allowing oil companies to drill offshore, etc.) or b.) allowing more companies to enter a given industry by reducing taxation and regulation.
Without knowing about Alberta Auto Insurance, I can't comment on the reasons for the extremely high rates, but I would question how free market it was before the goverment stepped in. Was is a true free market system, with a contract between the company and the individual, or was it a highly regulated system where there were extensive goverment mandates that might have directly influence the cost? If it was highly regulated, then what were those regulation.
Well it was a fairly inexpensive government run service before it became privatized. The government here in Alberta is very "freedom of business" oriented and just decided to step out of the insurance industry. There are some basic guidelines in place for the Insurance companies to follow, but they aren't any more stringent than those in the other province.
By what your saying though, I would guess A) There just was too much demand for auto insurance that the companies in the business couldn't keep up, or B) the Insurance companies got their heads together and said "we aren't making enough money" (an effective monopoly). Still, I'm not saying it shouldn't work, I'm just saying it doesn't always work. Perhaps south of the border it will be different for you though?
Also, For the record, I am all for our "freedom of business" oriented government here. There are a lot of things I do like about having a free economy and businesses having a lot of incentive to come to Alberta. Heck, business in Alberta is one of the big reasons the Canadian dollar is so strong right now. Love it here. Healthcare is just one of those things I don't think should be left in the hands of "Big Business" is all.
Too many unanswered questions for me to say that it was Free-Market Privitization that led to greed on the Auto Insurance part.
Now I understand that we are operating under different definitions of "rights". Your view appears to be that a "right" is a guarantee by the government of some sort, like the right to free speech or the right to a fair trial. These are positive rights, and must be viewed as separate from the natural, god-given rights our country was founded on.
Close. There are natural rights which are deduced from your status as a person. Then there are arbitrary or conventional rights and duties, as they're called, established by social contract. Confusion arises because the word "right" is applied to both apples and oranges. I'm not entirely convinced that the confusion isn't intentional--muddled thinking aids con men.
Examples of the former include your right to get up in the morning and earn your daily bread or your right to speak and trade with your fellow man in a free exchange of goods and ideas.
Examples of the latter include the right to health care or a right to education or a right to own slaves or a duty to travel across the sea and "die for your country." These are involuntary exchanges, but the ethical soul of the collectivist is soothed with the salve of the social contract since these rights, as I explained before, have been (presumably) "given away."
I believe that capitalism is driven by greed, but at least it is held in check by direct consumer participation.
What drives capitalism is man's need to use his mind to produce to survive. Looters exist everywhere, but do not confuse production with theft.
What drives capitalism is man's need to use his mind to produce to survive. Looters exist everywhere, but do not confuse production with theft.
Oh yeah that's not what I was trying to disprove; I'm radically pro-capitalism. I'm just saying that large corporations are driven by the profit motive - for the most part - and that they often become "wings of the state" when it suits their interests. I see a tendency amongst the CATO-institute-surfing Reason-Magazine-reading crowd to see it as a black-and-white conflict between political power and corporate power, when they're often very comfortable working together.
Corporations would not be nearly so large if it wasn't for the regulation which prevents freedom of entry, and big government projects - particularly war - which make huge purchases from private corporations (steel for tanks, fabric for uniforms, refrigeration for refrigeration, and on and on and on). These large corporations don't only profit by getting money, they profit by receiving inflated dollars *first*, i.e. before they've entered the market at large and fallen in value, and thus benefit from that too.
Of course I don't have a problem with big corporations in theory . . . I just think lots of big corporations are dependent on government - whether through regulation, taxation, patronage, licensing, or corporate subsidies - for their very largesse. It's not black-and-white "people vs. big government and big business" either, there are plenty of examples of the government punishing good companies simply for being "too big" (ALCOA, Microsoft, etc.), it's just a lot murkier than the objectivists often portray it.
Personally, I'm a bit sceptical about corporations and the good they provide - much of the value of the free market economy theory is based on the premise of free competition, and large companies - such as the big corporations - distort competition like few others can. Monopoly, or near monopoly, has many failings whether it is in public or private hands.
Anyway, back to the PotUS thing - does anyone of you think about voting for some of the independent candidates? I think Nader was in, and I think there was a(nother, I consider Ron Paul to be one) Libertarian candidate on the list.
Hey, when one starts to differentiate between good vs bad big corporations, things ARE murky.
Personally, I'm a bit sceptical about corporations and the good they provide - much of the value of the free market economy theory is based on the premise of free competition, and large companies - such as the big corporations - distort competition like few others can. Monopoly, or near monopoly, has many failings whether it is in public or private hands.
Well here's the thing: true monopolies always have the hand of government in them. If you have a company which simply outcompetes all others to the point where it is the sole provider of a certain good or service - a very unlikely scenario in the first place on a free market with constantly shifting and variable consumer demands - and then it starts to raise its prices, new competitors would move in and it would lose its monopoly status.
Then you have monopolies, like ALCOA, which attained monopoly status by being *excellent* at what they did, by providing extremely low prices and outcompeting the other businesses fairly. Their prices stayed low, even fell further, when they had become a "monopoly", but they were punished anyway.
The only dangerous monopoly is a coercive monopoly, or a monopoly that keeps its monopoly status through the use of force. This almost always manifests itself as government-backed monopolies, through the various methods we've gone through already.
Ron Paul isn't the Libertarian Candidate. Bob Barr is the current Libertarian Presidential Candidate.
Just because the Libertarian Party supports Bob Barr doesn't make him more libertarian than Ron Paul; he's objectively less libertarian than Paul, in multiple areas. The Libertarian Party is very disconnected from the roots of libertarianism, so much so that the founder of the libertarian party and figurehead of the modern libertarian movement itself left in disgust.
Just because Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate doesn't make him the libertarian candidate :D The Libertarian Party today does not concern itself with the greatest egresses on individual, familial, and community liberty - like war - but rather wastes its time trying to win the "youth vote" by supporting abortion, hedonistic drug usage, and a secular Marxist multicultural society in general, which they believe would arise spontaneously if the federal government would allow it. Not to say that I'm anti-drugs ;) It's primarily a difference of strategy: the LP tries to change the "system" from within (and has become corrupted in the process), the "old" wing (paleolibertarianism/paleoconservatism) is more populist. There are many, many other differences too - significant ones at that - but I won't bore you further.
Just because the Libertarian Party supports Bob Barr doesn't make him more libertarian than Ron Paul; he's objectively less libertarian than Paul, in multiple areas. The Libertarian Party is very disconnected from the roots of libertarianism, so much so that the founder of the libertarian party and figurehead of the modern libertarian movement itself left in disgust.
Just because Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate doesn't make him the libertarian candidate :D
Very true. I apperently misread the statement, cause I thought he wrote Ron Paul is the Libertarian Candidate.
"Remember, the only wasted vote is the one you cast."
Oh yeah that's not what I was trying to disprove; I'm radically pro-capitalism. I'm just saying that large corporations are driven by the profit motive - for the most part - and that they often become "wings of the state" when it suits their interests.
While it's unfortunately true that big business and big government have had incestuous relationships even before the Civil War, don't discount the price businesses pay by trying to ignore that power while their competitors don't. Again, looters. It's something of a prisoner's dilemma: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Anyway, back to the PotUS thing - does anyone of you think about voting for some of the independent candidates? I think Nader was in, and I think there was a(nother, I consider Ron Paul to be one) Libertarian candidate on the list.
Ron Paul is out. Nader is certain to be a spoiler, maybe at least in 1 state, for Obama, and I wish Nader all the best of luck for it.
@Harlequin: Strange, I thought Bush Sr. was doing quite well - and he still couldn't get reelected. At any rate majoritarian, two-party system naturally rewards mainstream candidates, just as party primaries reward a more unique position. I'd say that if the Republican primary lasted longer, McCain might be a little more, shall we say, individualistic.
He couldn't get reelected because the economy soured and Clinton was highly charismatic.
Two words: Perot & recession.
Perot, had he not pulled out, had a chance of being elected president. Pulling out killed his support. Perot wasn't a spoiler in the way Nader was in 2000; he was a legitimate presidential candidate.
It really was just one word: recession.
Skipped the last few pages, but just out of curiosity, all of you who bring up concerns about Obama being too far in the left, you are aware that social democracy works perfectly well in... oh, I don't know... the whole rest of the western world, no?
Obama isn't even all that liberal. He's a middle democrat, and would be a conservative by European standards.
I believe he means the trains run on time. Again, even in small, homogeneous European nations, the reality of socialism doesn't live up to the hype. To say nothing of 50 very diverse states containing 300+ million, each of which wants something different. If you want to see how well the Left runs things, just look at the states they control--most of the large ones, and all run very, very poorly. Why anyone would advocate something 10x to the left of that is unfathomable.
This is simply false. Conservative states are poorer, less educated, and have higher crime rates relative to population density than liberal states.
Look at the South and Midwest as compared to the Northeast and West Coast. Its a pretty solid and consistant trend, and exactly what you'd expect.
Good. So when slavery was the law of the land because the majority of people wanted it so, then it was right?
Yes.
Incidentally, the correct answer to that is "no".
The reality is that democracy is a terrible system for this very reason; the tyrrany of the majority. The problem is it is very difficult to rely on an oligarchy or dictatorship to be benign; its entirely possible for them to be, but there's no real control on them.
Haven't read the rest of the thread but I had to address this. You don't want to have to foot the bill. But guess who does have to? ME!!!!!!! I don't want to have to foot your health expenses. That's a bunch of socialist bullcrap. I have enough of my money already taken up paying for myself and my own family.
Also, you "can't" afford healthcare, but you can afford $100 a month in a payment plan for your emergency room visit? Anyone else notice a problem with that statement? Let me ask you a few questions. Cable? TV? Internet? Cell phone? Eating at restaurants? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Do you have any of those? If the answer is yes to even the three of those I suspect to be the truth (cable, internet and cell phone) then you can afford fricking health insurance.
I'm sick and tired of hearing about how people can't afford this or that and want ME to have to buy crap for them. I don't work in society just to pay for your bills. It's not my job to take care of you. It's not my neighbor's job to pay for you. You wanna know whose job it is to take care of you? Yours.
First off, you're wrong. Second off, you're wrong.
You can't afford healthcare. The reason for this is that you aren't rediculously wealthy. And yes, I'm talking about you, specifically. Do you know how much it costs for some surguries? Do you know how much it costs to fix you after a car crash? Heart attack? What if you chop off your fingers with a table saw?
So the reality is that yes, I am footing your healthcare costs because I, unlike you, can actually afford to pay medical costs. And thus because you can't pay for it, they charge me what they can't charge you, and more on top of it because the insurance company pays out less than it gets from you.
The upshot of all this is that people are making money from me being able to pay for your health care. This is bad.
The way it should actually work is a socialized society; if the government does it and sets the rates, I pay x amount in taxes. I pay more than I'd have to pay for my own health care, but less than I'd have to pay now. The reason for this is that they no longer have to overcharge me massively for the insurance company's profits as well as because you can't afford your health care.
Most health care doesn't give full coverage, and they often squirm out of paying as much as possible.
I don't mind paying taxes if I'm seeing benefits back for it. in this case, I'm seeing improved care, for less money out of my pocket ultimately, and there are fewer desperate people or people going bankrupt due to health care costs, thus making it so I have more people to sell my stuff to as well as decreasing the crime rate through increased prosperity.
The only people who lose are the people who own the insurance companies, and frankly, tough. Health insurance is a scam and if you have a stake in it its your own life.
I'm not the wealthiest Americans - but my tax burden (including federal and state income, state sales, and property) is almost 45% of what my wife and I earn. And we earn less than $100k joint. Universal Healthcare would do nothing but lower my standard of living AND lower my standard of healthcare. I'm firmly in the middle class, and the middle class is going to be the one that gets effed in the a by any socialization of medicine.
This is simply untrue. You'll pay less in increased tax costs than you do for health insurance currently, and get more from it.
Incidentally, in a socialized society you do more in terms of preventative medicine, which ALSO saves us scads of money. When it is free to go to the doctor, you get more preventitive care. This is part of why citizens of other industrialized nations live longer than we do.
You don't think they would? $6000 is about 6% of my family income. You don't think the federal taxes would need to jump at least that in order to cover universal health insurance?
Nope. Health care costs go down because everyone can pay for their care. Additionally, by cutting out the insurance companies, which make massive profits off of us, we again decrease the amount we have to pay.
As an aside, I think it's a perfect sign of the times that the party which controls a Congress with an approval rating in the single digits is expected to pick up more seats in November. Incredible.
That's because people are less likely to just blindly approve of Congress.
Seconded . . . I'm a History major, and Howard Zinn is not a good source of information. Read unbiased history books, not politicized, communist propaganda.
Thing is, its best to see things from multiple points of view. Many people suffer from this inability to do that. I've read many things, both conservative and liberal, about history.
As it turns out, they're largely worthless as far as learning history is concerned, but they ARE useful as far as thinking about how people think.
For instance, by reading Nazi and anti-Communist propaganda, I saw the long history of the right-wing "stabbed in the back" mythology, and how it fits into their idealogy. If you think the left wing is responsible for losing Vietnam or the Iraq war, you're no different from the Nazis, who claimed the Jews caused the Germans to lose World War I.
Every once in a while they DO point out something important though, which mainstream history neglects but which is probably actually at least somewhat relevant to understanding why the world is the way it is today.
But I prefer to read about reality, as it contains much less. Ironically, many people feel that people like myself who point out reality have a liberal bias, which is why I enjoy the quote:
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
That's what happens in socialized systems. Government by government interference and collective hand-holding leads to dropping standards and failing results. And don't bring in European countries like Switzerland or Iceland in as paragons because those countries the most xenophobic, racist, and elitist of the modern world. Look at the immigration policies as a start. For all the posturing about US immigration policy it remains one of the most liberal in the world and is trying to get moreso. Even if the Republicans get their way on securing borders and deportation and whatnot, our immigration policy here is still more lenient than just about anywhere else.
And don't bring in countries which... make more money than we do and have better economies and standards of living?
See, here's the problem: you have no clue. None.
The reality is that this isn't a problem with socialism at all. This is a problem with Americans. In other countries, you know what happens when you fail standardized tests? You FAIL. They don't lower standards so people can pass them; that's an American sense of entitlement thing. That's not socialism; that's Americans having this idea that "all men are created equal" meaning "all men SHOULD BE equal". And when some of you are like "Isn't that kind of like Communism?" you see the irony.
If you can't pass the test after 10th grade in France, you either wait a year and try it again or go to vocational school.
It is immoral because it relies on thievery. Taxation is simply thievery, with the money being stolen from and spent on whatever 51% of the population happens to want.
The problem is that this is a lack of comprehension of reality.
The reality is that taxation benefits the rich far, far more than it benefits the poor, and a society in which the bottom moves upwards is a good society for the rich as well as the poor.
The problem is that many people simply are short-sighted and lack comprehension of the greater socioeconomic picture.
The reality is that I wouldn't have as good of computers as I do if there wasn't a huge market for them.
The reality is that I wouldn't have as good of health care as I do if there weren't a lot of people who could afford it.
The bottom being stable and not destitute and desperate is good for me because it decreases the odds of revolution (which could lose me lots of money) and it also decreases crime - crime is inversely linked to propserity, particularly violent crime. If I'm wealthy, I'm much less likely to kill you than if I'm poor.
Taxation is for the good of the upper class. The purpose is to give us lots of stuff we wouldn't have otherwise, to give us large scale stuff we wouldn't build ourselves (highways, for instance, as well as bullet trains and similar conveniences), to give us better consumer goods by having more people with disposable income with which to purchase such goods.
Making the poor less poor benefits ME, because they're less likely to kill me or start a revolution.
This is what lots of wealthy people haven't figured out. A lot of middle class people don't understand this either. I suspect this particular line of thought is why the super rich are overwhelmingly democratic, even if the merely rich are Republican.
I agree healthcare costs are insanely high, and insurance too. Want to know why? Regulation! Excessive regulation raises prices to unacceptable levels, and the healthcare/insurance industries are the most heavily regulated businesses in the country. Hospitals are forced to treat everyone, no matter how poor, and for whatever they want. You might think "oh good", but in practice this ends up being the ER literally chock-full of trailer-trash coming in because they can't afford a regular MD and go to the ER every time they get a cold or throw-up.
Insurance is hugely expensive because labor unions pushed for companies to provide "free" insurance to them way back when, of course with a hefty dose of government fiat to protect them. TANSTAAFL. The employers either cut wages to pay for the insurance, or just laid off employees - more often the latter. Now, because most health insurance companies, besides being HEAVILY regulated, do their business with *large employers* instead of *individuals*, there is even less competition, and thus even higher prices.
Sheer unmitigated ignorance. People who claim regulation drives up prices are liars or gullible, because it doesn't.
I know you've fallen for the propaganda, but none of it is true.
Hospitals have to treat everyone, but it is a horrible system because they turn people away until its an emergency. THIS IS BAD. It turns what were simple preventitive things into major health crises which WE have to pay for. People like YOU cause this problem, by preventing socialized medicine. You are the problem.
Insurance is hugely expensive because of how it works, and health insurance in particular because everyone needs some health care, so to make money, they have to massively overcharge everyone. They also refuse to pay out as much as possible, thus screwing people and hospitals.
And the idea that health insurance forced people to lay off workers is hilariously incorrect and is pure propaganda.
This is simply false. Conservative states are poorer, less educated, and have higher crime rates relative to population density than liberal states.
Look at the South and Midwest as compared to the Northeast and West Coast. Its a pretty solid and consistant trend, and exactly what you'd expect.
True, but as I've said before there is much more that goes into poverty than government regulation or lack thereof. There are an astounding number of factors that go into why the south is poor, many of them cultural. I think that an "average" southerner is more likely to aspire to be a laborer in a lower-skilled job than an "average" northerner. It must also not be forgotten that the south got "f---ed in the a" during the Civil War, and this alone threw it out of skew with the north. There's a lot more as well . . .
Obama isn't even all that liberal. He's a middle democrat, and would be a conservative by European standards.
You are aware that conservatism and liberalism mean very different things in Europe aren't you?
The way it should actually work is a socialized society; if the government does it and sets the rates, I pay x amount in taxes. I pay more than I'd have to pay for my own health care, but less than I'd have to pay now. The reason for this is that they no longer have to overcharge me massively for the insurance company's profits as well as because you can't afford your health care.
Another logical leap. Why would the costs of health insurance outweigh the costs of a monopolized healthcare system? And who's forcing you to buy health insurance anyway?
Nope. Health care costs go down because everyone can pay for their care. Additionally, by cutting out the insurance companies, which make massive profits off of us, we again decrease the amount we have to pay.
I agree that health insurance is a scam . . . so why do we have health insurance? Because labor unions forced their employers to provide "free" healthcare through insurance, causing an artificial boom in huge, unnecessary insurance companies. Adding a middleman between yourself and the hospitals only raises costs further.
For instance, by reading Nazi and anti-Communist propaganda, I saw the long history of the right-wing "stabbed in the back" mythology, and how it fits into their idealogy. If you think the left wing is responsible for losing Vietnam or the Iraq war, you're no different from the Nazis, who claimed the Jews caused the Germans to lose World War I.
Well that is just not true. So, the Nazis blamed losing the war on Jews, ergo blaming us losing a war on the left-wing makes us Nazis? Sorry, but that does not follow logically whatsoever. Why wouldn't, in that case, blaming us losing the Vietnam war on guerillas make us Nazis? Because you happen to believe one view is correct and the other wrong? So if we blame something on a group of people, and you blame it on a different one, we're Nazis?
Not to mention the fact that Fascism has nothing to do with Conservatism. It has more in common, if anything, with the New Deal Left; Roosevelt's policies, love 'em or hate 'em, were remarkably fascist. I don't mean that as a slur, I just mean they were extremely similar to what Mussolini and Hitler did on the economic front. The "right-wing/left-wing" dichotomy is honestly a useless model; just because both Fascism and Conservatism are considered "right-wing" doesn't mean they have anything in common with eachother.
The reality is that this isn't a problem with socialism at all. This is a problem with Americans. In other countries, you know what happens when you fail standardized tests? You FAIL. They don't lower standards so people can pass them; that's an American sense of entitlement thing. That's not socialism; that's Americans having this idea that "all men are created equal" meaning "all men SHOULD BE equal". And when some of you are like "Isn't that kind of like Communism?" you see the irony.
The Europeans are better at running their socialized systems, I accept that. That does not prove that socialism is *better* than a free market because, as you pointed out yourself, we live in a pseudo-socialist society too! The idea of government-mandated standardized tests is very socialist, as are a lot of things our government does. So you're saying that Americans run a pseudo-socialist system - and do a horrible job at that - and that a total socialist system would be better?
Taxation is for the good of the upper class. The purpose is to give us lots of stuff we wouldn't have otherwise, to give us large scale stuff we wouldn't build ourselves (highways, for instance, as well as bullet trains and similar conveniences), to give us better consumer goods by having more people with disposable income with which to purchase such goods.
So because the rich are usually interested in an improvement of the general welfare (which they often are in many areas for the same reasons you point out), and the rich support taxation, taxation must be good? Is it not possible that the position of the rich merely reflects the fact the the people at large have been lost to the siren-call of public services?
And if you really think the government is necessary to build highways and bullet trains, you show an astounding ignorance of economics. There is absolutely no good reason behind your point. Some of the largest, most complex things happen within the free-market system. Highways are profitable, people want highways, therefore companies can make money from building them, and will. That's just the way the market works. Also, because they have DIRECT feedback on how good of a job they're doing in the form of profits and losses, they will do a better job at providing the right number of highways, etc.
You do not see this kind of direct feedback in democracy; you get one or two chances a year to vote, and you only get *ONE* vote which is meant to cover your opinion on every single thing the government does. Under capitalism, every corporation gets constant feedback by the second as to how well they're doing, and the consumer has the power to pull the plug . . . easily.
Sheer unmitigated ignorance. People who claim regulation drives up prices are liars or gullible, because it doesn't.
I know you've fallen for the propaganda, but none of it is true.
Hospitals have to treat everyone, but it is a horrible system because they turn people away until its an emergency. THIS IS BAD. It turns what were simple preventitive things into major health crises which WE have to pay for. People like YOU cause this problem, by preventing socialized medicine. You are the problem.
Insurance is hugely expensive because of how it works, and health insurance in particular because everyone needs some health care, so to make money, they have to massively overcharge everyone. They also refuse to pay out as much as possible, thus screwing people and hospitals.
And the idea that health insurance forced people to lay off workers is hilariously incorrect and is pure propaganda.
Explain to me why my views are pure propaganda. I am not a rabid ideologue; I'm willing to listen to other people and, if I find them convincing, change my mind. I've changed my mind on politics more times in my life than I can count.
Unions did cause layoffs. There is a direct correlation between a raise in the minimum wage and increased unemployment for high school dropouts (i.e. the least skilled of the work-force). If you explain to me how it's propaganda, I'll listen, but it does make sense. Wages are based on the same laws any price is, i.e. subjective consumer demands. When you set a price-cap, i.e. a minimum wage law, the companies cannot afford to hire as many people and therefore lay off the least skilled.
Explain to me how preventing entry into a business wouldn't cause a rise in prices. Explain to me how being forced to retrofit your bathrooms to make them handicap-accessible doesn't cost money. Explain to me how being forced to rent houses to anyone, no matter their credit, doesn't cost money (and thus of course raise prices).
I'm not responding to everything because a.) Reno 911 is on, and b.) much of what you say rests on your disproving my viewpoint that regulation raises prices, and that deregulating the healthcare industry is the best way to lower prices - something which you didn't do, you just called it propaganda and moved on.
But yeah . . . tell me why I'm wrong and I'll listen, promise ;) Not that I'm very hopeful given the generally dismissive and condescending tone of your post, but you get another chance. Just lay off the ad hocs plz; I could easily call your views "communist propaganda" but I don't, because it's just not in keeping with a civil debate. And don't try to compare my political views with Nazism . . . if you're going to mindlessly flame, at least be original maybe?
Incidentally, the correct answer to that is "no".
The reality is that democracy is a terrible system for this very reason; the tyrrany of the majority.
No, Spearpike had it right for the very reasons I demonstrated above. In our representative republic, slavery was legal, thus moral, right up until 1865.
To this day we still have things like conscription and jury duty, forms of temporary slavery. If Obama has his way, he'll introduce some 200+ hours a year (or whatever it was) of mandatory volunteerism (har har).
-snip-
Luckily I bowed out of this thread because reading your nonsense, lies, and utter falsehoods practically made my eyes bleed. Simply put, everything you said about socialism as a positive simply doesn't work in a country as disparate, vast, and independently minded as the US. Evidence - the complete collapse of the Soviet supernation. Evidence - Canadians (and others) who come to the US for medical services rather than sit in some ridiculous queue for days, months, years. Evidence - we have THE biggest problem in the world with illegal immigration despite having THE most liberal immigration policies on record. Which means...people want to come here because of the capitalist society and because their more socialized countries are failing them, particularly the Central and South American economies. Don't forget the "paragon" of healthcare, Cuba, which has had more publicity because of people doing everything in their power to leave that hellhole that they risk their lives on makeshift rafts and boats and have contributed to one of the most conservative areas in Miami - Little Havana.
I'm done because I don't have the time or energy to refute the stupid talking points of socialists who will do everything in their power to steal money from successful workers.
And if you really think the government is necessary to build highways and bullet trains, you show an astounding ignorance of economics. There is absolutely no good reason behind your point. Some of the largest, most complex things happen within the free-market system. Highways are profitable, people want highways, therefore companies can make money from building them, and will. That's just the way the market works. Also, because they have DIRECT feedback on how good of a job they're doing in the form of profits and losses, they will do a better job at providing the right number of highways, etc.
It is a generally accepted economic axiom that governments are the best entity for building and maintaining infrastructure, mostly because the costs of entry are so prohibitive that either the fee charged to consumers who utilize the product excludes most consumers from using the product, or at lower fees, the time to show a profit is so long that the company fails. The same goes for military expenditures, etc.
In addition, the reason why the freeway system has resulted in such extensive economic growth is because they were free. Thousands of individual corporations building freeways would have taken decades and a shipping company's business model would look much different if they had to stop to pay tolls every five miles.
Explain to me how preventing entry into a business wouldn't cause a rise in prices. Explain to me how being forced to retrofit your bathrooms to make them handicap-accessible doesn't cost money. Explain to me how being forced to rent houses to anyone, no matter their credit, doesn't cost money (and thus of course raise prices).
It does raise prices. But the social alternatives are worse. Take the renting example.
Currently the housing market is in meltdown. Due to a relaxing of the restrictions on obtaining mortgages, unscrupulous lenders took advantage of naive borrowers through loan vehicles such as ARMs, CDOs, and NIMs and unscrupulous borrowers overstated their income on no document loans.
Some economists estimate that there will be 2.5 million home foreclosures in 2008. Let's say there is an average of 3 people per foreclosed home. Suddenly you are looking at 7.5 million new homeless people nationwide because they can't rent since their credit score is FUBARed. Now you're looking at increased stress on social services for indigents and on charities designed to provide food and clothes for homeless people. There is a corresponding increase in crime.
So regulation often allows us to pay a modest premium to avoid more serious consequences down the road.
Also, increased regulation might have prevented the whole mortgage industry meltdown in the first place.
So regulation is not automatically bad. I think regulation should be reviewed to ensure that the benefits it provides outweighs the negative effects it has on market factors.
Faelar
Simply put, everything you said about socialism as a positive simply doesn't work in a country as disparate, vast, and independently minded as the US. Evidence - the complete collapse of the Soviet supernation.
I have yet to see anyone on these boards suggest that we should turn the U.S. into another U.S.S.R. No one here is advocating that either 1) the proletariat should revolt and seize the means of production, or that the 2) government should collectivize the means of production.
Instead, the suggestions I've both seen and made reveal that these suggestions are made by social democrats. We believe that a mixed economy combines the best aspects of capitalism and socialism while minimizing the negative aspects of both.
It has been demonstrably proved time and time again that the government is simply better at providing some services than private industry, notably in the areas of infrastructure investment and military defense. Some of us believe this also extends to social services such as healthcare.
I personally believe that the best combination would be for the government to insure primary health care and emergency medical care for all citizens, while the insurance companies would insure secondary health care (specialists, elective surgeries, etc.) much as they do now, mostly because primary health care and emergency care are already unprofitable. This is already done in instances such as vaccinations.
Doing so would free up resources for the insurance providers, driving down costs for secondary health insurance and avoiding creating too much of a tax burden.
Evidence - we have THE biggest problem in the world with illegal immigration despite having THE most liberal immigration policies on record. Which means...people want to come here because of the capitalist society and because their more socialized countries are failing them, particularly the Central and South American economies.
To be fair, the economic woes in Central and South America can be attributed as much to the imperialism of the 18th and 19th century, racism against the indigenous people there, slavery, continuous guerilla warfare, and drug trafficking as it can to the socialist policies of many of the nations there.
I'm done because I don't have the time or energy to refute the stupid talking points of socialists who will do everything in their power to steal money from successful workers.
Whoa there partner. Can we leave the hyperbolous statements at the door? I haven't seen anyone making statements like this:
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It ... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment” ... for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation ... Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. - (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party).
So relax. No one here is advocating revolution, or a seizing of the means of production, or is describing an eternal struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Personally, I believe in a system of nationalized health care because I feel it will be more profitable in the long term because it will increase the productivity and longevity of workers, will minimize the deleterious effects on society of a vast group of people with no or limited access to health care, and will increase the general quality of life.
Faelar
I personally believe that the best combination would be for the government to insure primary health care and emergency medical care for all citizens, while the insurance companies would insure secondary health care (specialists, elective surgeries, etc.)
So long as I can still pay out of pocket or buy insurance to cover everything, I could tolerate it just like I tolerate FICA, property tax and every other wealth transfer. It's the wholesale criminalization of trade and forcing people into the socialized system that's unconscionable.
Evidence - Canadians (and others) who come to the US for medical services rather than sit in some ridiculous queue for days, months, years.
Whoah. Now to be fair to us Canadians, yes, sometimes we do have to wait in a queue for people that need the services more. But this has been getting better as the government is refining the system and they are starting to get it right. A good number of those people that wait for hours are in emergency rooms, when they could have gone to a clinic and been in/out in hours or minutes.
Most of the Canadians going to America, go specifically for elective surgeries, or to see a specialist. It isn't like we are going there to have them prescribe some medicine for a cold or fix our broken legs. And, here in Canada, we have a phenomenon we call "The Brain Drain" where our doctors quite often want to move to the USA because they can make more money there as a specialist or in some kind of "elective" private practice (like as a plastic surgeon).
Thanks for stealing all of our Doctors USA :P (Joking). But honestly, it isn't close to what your are making it out to be. According to the UN, we have the 4th best living conditions in the world as of 2007-2008. USA ranked 12. So give us some credit up in the North here. We are doing something right. And we aren't so socialist that we don't know how to make a buck or two. ;)
It is a generally accepted economic axiom that governments are the best entity for building and maintaining infrastructure, mostly because the costs of entry are so prohibitive that either the fee charged to consumers who utilize the product excludes most consumers from using the product, or at lower fees, the time to show a profit is so long that the company fails. The same goes for military expenditures, etc.
In addition, the reason why the freeway system has resulted in such extensive economic growth is because they were free. Thousands of individual corporations building freeways would have taken decades and a shipping company's business model would look much different if they had to stop to pay tolls every five miles.
First, just wanted to say thanks for being nice and reasonable; I don't mind 'net debates when they stay like this
I'll have my response written up in a bit.Now: It isn't really an "axiom" of economics that the government is better at providing certain services - like highways, in your example - than private enterprise. More like a disputed theory - and not just by a small, politicized minority, but actually by some fairly 'mainstream' Wall-Street-style economists. The costs of entry, and time required, are not sufficient to require the government to do the job for us. Oil rigs take 10 years from ground-breaking to the first drop of oil. Skyscrapers take up to 2 years, sometimes more, to build. Hell my Uncle has a good portion of my family savings tied up in an investment that will take 20 years to see fruition.
The "cost of entry" doesn't hold up either. Of course very few people or even entire corporations will have the funds to build a highway right off the bat . . . most entrepreneurs don't even have the funds to start up the restaurant they want. This is where investment comes in. You present your model to a bank or whatever, and if the idea seems sturdy, they fund you. Highways aren't even the most expensive projects that private corporations undertake - not by a long shot.
Also, as I'm sure you already know, the highways were not free. They cost just as much, if not moreso, than they would have if they were privately built. The only difference is that they were built with taxpayer money - i.e. money taken involuntarily in many cases - than on voluntary investment. I know that taxation is a necessary evil in some cases - like the military, as you pointed out - but shouldn't we try to minimize it as much as possible?
There's also the point that, because the highways are publicly built, nobody really assumes responsibility for it. Bureaucrats would not have the same sort of vested interest in doing a good job that a private corporation would, because they get paid either way, and besides they can always blame their failure on some vague scapegoat - Jews, global warming, terrorists, greedy capitalist pigs, whatever.
It does raise prices. But the social alternatives are worse. Take the renting example.
Currently the housing market is in meltdown. Due to a relaxing of the restrictions on obtaining mortgages, unscrupulous lenders took advantage of naive borrowers through loan vehicles such as ARMs, CDOs, and NIMs and unscrupulous borrowers overstated their income on no document loans.
Some economists estimate that there will be 2.5 million home foreclosures in 2008. Let's say there is an average of 3 people per foreclosed home. Suddenly you are looking at 7.5 million new homeless people nationwide because they can't rent since their credit score is FUBARed. Now you're looking at increased stress on social services for indigents and on charities designed to provide food and clothes for homeless people. There is a corresponding increase in crime.
So regulation often allows us to pay a modest premium to avoid more serious consequences down the road.
Also, increased regulation might have prevented the whole mortgage industry meltdown in the first place.
So regulation is not automatically bad. I think regulation should be reviewed to ensure that the benefits it provides outweighs the negative effects it has on market factors
First, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for most people facing foreclosure. They shouldn't have been trying to buy a house in the first place if they couldn't afford it, and this is just the inevitable result of their foolishness. Nobody forced them to overstate their income or take out a subprime mortgage; nobody forced them to spend more money than they earn and go into debt.
Secondly, I think much of the blame for the mortgage crisis falls on the shoulders of the government. The federal government, particularly Clinton and Johnson but really every president, was very set on the idea of expanding home ownership. They did this through a variety of laws that basically force realtors to sell to buyers who would not normally be considered credit-worthy. And let's not forget artificially low interest rates, making buying a house seem like a wiser idea than it actually was.
I'm generally suspicious of the idea of using violent force, i.e. the almighty power of the federal government, to attain the goals of one's pet social cause, whether it's handicap-accessible bathrooms, more blacks in college (regardless of the merit of the applicant), or more home ownership. The sort of utilitarianism you espouse, the holy writ of moderate social democrats, pretends to be value-free when it is actually one of the most biased models one can use. It always assumes at the outset some social goal, and then decides arbitrarily whether the costs, both tangible and intangible, outweigh this goal. The utilitarian will almost never admit that they do ;)
Now, there is a legitimate demand for regulation. When we eat at a restaurant, we want to know that the cook washed his hands; when we take out a loan, we want to know that the lender isn't going to break our knees if we miss a payment, etc. etc. Why does this regulation have to come from government? Is it so inconceivable for private, competing businesses to review these areas, and publish their findings in, say, a magazine? Of course there would be room for bribery, but because you have multiple groups competing to provide this service, those which prove untrustworthy would fail - and of course you can't forget the sickening amount of bribery and corruption one finds in the government's regulatory complex (which is to be expected given its monopoly status).
For what it's worth, I would much prefer to live in a social democratic state a la Canada or France than the system we have here in the states. At least millions of innocent civilians won't be bombed for the sake of universal healthcare, and at least the levers of political power aren't held by dangerously fanatical ideologues. At least they tax their citizens instead of borrowing irresponsibly and printing out new money. I probably wouldn't be so opposed to universal healthcare in this country if it wasn't for the fact that our government is remarkably inefficient when judged against other governments, and that we're sinking trillions into foreign adventurism as it is, and neither candidate seems to care (McCain likes war in Iraq, Obama likes war in Afghanistan - which is even harder to invade, if anything).
First, just wanted to say thanks for being nice and reasonable; I don't mind 'net debates when they stay like this
This is truth. I am enjoying this thread and it doesn't even have anything to do with where I live. It has been very informative and a great exchange of Ideas. Believe me, I have a lot to consider from what I have read here.
So long as I can still pay out of pocket or buy insurance to cover everything, I could tolerate it just like I tolerate FICA, property tax and every other wealth transfer. It's the wholesale criminalization of trade and forcing people into the socialized system that's unconscionable.
I'm really at a loss when it comes to understanding the objections to providing even basic health care for everyone. My cynical side keeps saying to me that these objections are based on the belief that poor people are just lazy and stupid, but I prefer to be more charitable than that. So I'll ask.
1.) Do you believe that people who are unable to pay should be denied health care? If so, why?
2.) Have you considered that there could be hidden costs for uninsurance of the U.S. population that is estimated at 15%-18% of the under 65 population?
3.) Is it in the interests of the government and citizens of the U.S. to limit as much as possible the spread of communicable diseases, many of which can be fatal? If so, how do you limit the spread among the uninsured population, many of which do not see a doctor because they cannot afford it?
4.) Is it in the interest of U.S. business to have a healthy, long-lived populace from which to draw future producers and consumers?
5.) Health care and insurance premium costs are increasing at double the rate of inflation and have been for years. What is your personal point at which you will be squeezed out?
6.) People covered under employer plans are, on average, paying more for less coverage every year. Real wages are stagnant and a larger chunk of people's compensation plans are being eaten up by insurance costs. If you're an employee, how much longer can you afford to keep yourself insured? If you're an employer, how long can you continue to offer coverage without the cost cutting too far into your profits?
At this point, the only thing that will bring down the price of health care is as the demand lessens because the life expectancy of Americans will start dropping significantly as more and more people are unable to afford health care. Would you be willing to trade 5, 10 or 15 years of your life or your children's lives to ensure you did not have to participate in a nationalized health care system? What about the poor and the working class? Many of them are already trading years of theirs and their children's lives because they cannot afford health care and many of those don't get the luxury of opting out.
Faelar
I'm really at a loss when it comes to understanding the objections to providing even basic health care for everyone. My cynical side keeps saying to me that these objections are based on the belief that poor people are just lazy and stupid, but I prefer to be more charitable than that. So I'll ask. ...
I'm pro choice. All I want is the RIGHT to choose. I'll be responsible for what happens to me. Deal?
Wages are based on productivity; this is an economic law.
No they are not. The predominant "economic law" driving wages is supply and demand. If 8 years of increasing productivity with a loss in real wages isn't enough evidence of that, then nothing can convince you.
In fact this "spend your way out of terrorism" mentality coupled with decreasing spending power is a large cause of the housing crisis.
I'm pro choice. All I want is the RIGHT to choose. I'll be responsible for what happens to me. Deal?
This is the suggested model. As for who pays for it? Your a fool if you think you are not paying for the uninsured right now. And paying an inflated price at that, for the insurance companies gotta make a profit right? Even if you are not insured, your tax money is still going to pay for the uninsured right now - again at an inflated price.
My biggest problem with the gov't has to be smaller and out of all things is that it makes just as much sense as the gov't controlling everything. That is none whatsoever. I suspect anyone who has a one size fits all answer to every problem. Its snake oil. You know the pitch - it cures corns, bursitis, and helps with the love making. Only not so much. The reality is every real issue we face deserves careful examination of all the evidence. But we seem incapable of doing this. I look at BOTH parties at failing on this front, but I am constantly amazed at the willful ignorance of our current crop of so-called-leaders.
A country run by corporations is just abdicating your governance to a company. And there is less you can do to change their governance policies. Drowning the gov't in bathtub (a stated NeoCon goal) is just creating a power void for some other entity to step in. This is where the comparison to Nazis is especially apt. Turning public goods over to private entities is a hallmark of Fascism. So those of you who advocate privatization, think about what may happen when you get refused medical service because it may cost your insurer too much. Or when your troops are inadequately armored because its damn expensive for those contractors to plate those hummers.
I hired an accounant to do my taxes, and she charges and arm and a leg, but she is well worth it. I have watched my taxes go down IN TOTAL DOLLARS (not just as a % of gross) even as my income has more than doubled. Tell me thats not screwed up. But I ain't firing her!
I'm really at a loss when it comes to understanding the objections to providing even basic health care for everyone.
The government already provides basic health care, but I don't go to county hospital. They also provide basic food, but I don't take food stamps. They also provide basic education which I don't use.
Since you've already said you're not for a Glorious People's Republic of Worker's Paradise, I don't understand this aversion to personal choice.
This is the suggested model.
Whose? Not Obama. His is a payroll tax w/o opt out. Do you have a link?
No they are not. The predominant "economic law" driving wages is supply and demand. If 8 years of increasing productivity with a loss in real wages isn't enough evidence of that, then nothing can convince you.
In fact this "spend your way out of terrorism" mentality coupled with decreasing spending power is a large cause of the housing crisis.
I agree with you about the housing crisis, and of course supply and demand influence the cost of labor, but it is a generally accepted economic formula that W=MRP, or wages = marginal revenue of product. This is built into supply and demand: the "marginal revenue of product" is based on the price of the final good, and the degree to which your labor contributed to this. There are many, many reasons for the wage rate being stagnant, the main one being the variety of credit expansion which is currently fashionable within the hallowed meeting-rooms of the Federal Reserve, but I'm not going to write pages on it here; W=MRP is already pretty well accepted.
A country run by corporations is just abdicating your governance to a company. And there is less you can do to change their governance policies. Drowning the gov't in bathtub (a stated NeoCon goal) is just creating a power void for some other entity to step in. This is where the comparison to Nazis is especially apt. Turning public goods over to private entities is a hallmark of Fascism.
I totally understand where you're coming from, but I think you're misunderstanding neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is, before all else, a pro-Israel movement. No, I'm not blaming it on "the jews" - jews are actually much less likely to be neoconservative. It has more to do with a small jewish minority coupled with radical southern evangelists, who are also zionists because they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. Neoconservatism pays lip-service to "drowning government in a bathtub" and "free markets", but this is all talk. Look at George W. Bush. He was no more economically libertarian than Clinton.
Also, Fascism was based on corporatism, *not* privatization. It's easy to confuse them, since the government treats them as synonyms, but there's an important distinction: in corporatism, the government hands over a given task to a large corporation instead of doing it themselves. This corporation becomes the monopoly instead of the government itself, and the results are the same. In privatization, companies compete with eachother to provide something the government did before.
Yes this would be handing "power to corporations", but as I've said before, at least corporations are completely dependent on consumer participation. The consumers have a vast amount of power in the success of a given corporation, and I would not say the same of government.
1.) Do you believe that people who are unable to pay should be denied health care? If so, why?
I think that altruism should not occur at gunpoint, and that poor people would be able to afford health care if it was not for the heavy regulation of the healthcare industry. Of course I believe that poor people should receive health care, but should we be forced at gunpoint to assist them when many would do so voluntarily, and they wouldn't be in this mess if we rolled back government?
2.) Have you considered that there could be hidden costs for uninsurance of the U.S. population that is estimated at 15%-18% of the under 65 population?
First, I would not trade the sacred rights of myself and my fellow man for a little economic efficiency, even if the scare-mongering statistics are accurate (which they often aren't). Second, like I said is the solution to this problem more government or less?
3.) Is it in the interests of the government and citizens of the U.S. to limit as much as possible the spread of communicable diseases, many of which can be fatal? If so, how do you limit the spread among the uninsured population, many of which do not see a doctor because they cannot afford it?
Of course it is in our interests; I'm not disputing that. But, again, why is the solution more government?
4.) Is it in the interest of U.S. business to have a healthy, long-lived populace from which to draw future producers and consumers?
See above.
5.) Health care and insurance premium costs are increasing at double the rate of inflation and have been for years. What is your personal point at which you will be squeezed out?
a.) Is health insurance necessary? Are people incapable of saving money themselves?
b.) Is it possible that regulation is behind the rise in the cost of health insurance?
c.) Is the only solution universal healthcare, and why?
6.) People covered under employer plans are, on average, paying more for less coverage every year. Real wages are stagnant and a larger chunk of people's compensation plans are being eaten up by insurance costs. If you're an employee, how much longer can you afford to keep yourself insured? If you're an employer, how long can you continue to offer coverage without the cost cutting too far into your profits?
Health insurance is a scam anyway; good riddance, I say. Maybe it'll encourage people to start saving again. If more people were content with simple pleasures and humble houses, maybe they wouldn't rely on health insurance in the first place.
Health insurance is a scam anyway; good riddance, I say. Maybe it'll encourage people to start saving again. If more people were content with simple pleasures and humble houses, maybe they wouldn't rely on health insurance in the first place.
Well, no one should put a gun to your head and make you buy it, but I think there's plenty of demand for medical insurance just as there's demand for things like life & disability insurance. Hedging isn't just for gamblers and Wall St. sharks.
Well, no one should put a gun to your head and make you buy it, but I think there's plenty of demand for medical insurance just as there's demand for things like life & disability insurance. Hedging isn't just for gamblers and Wall St. sharks.
True, though universal health insurance would be exactly that: putting a gun to your head and making you buy it :P
Also, to go further on the "W=MRP" tangent, and why wages are stagnating - figured it was extremely unfair of me to just dismiss you like that JWT, and I apologize. The reason wages are stagnating is because businesses are forced to spend untold billions of dollars on things that would normally be spent on further labor. The neoconservatives have not ushered in an era of laissez-faire; there are still 70,000 pages of regulation in The Federal Register (kudos to George Reisman for this statistic). There is also the fact that saving - which is synonymous with investment in most instances - is being extremely discouraged. Things like Social Security discourage people from saving, thus discouraging them from investing in higher-order capital goods, thus causing a slower growth in technology than would naturally occur.
The social security contribution of employers is a loss to wage earners, because it is a cost of employment no different than the payment of take-home wages. Financially, it is a matter of indifference to employers whether they pay this sum to the government or to their employees. The cost to them is the same. It is money that the employees could and would have had, if the government had not taken it from the employers.
The same goes for employer-provided health insurance, and all the other "benefits" they're forced to hand out in lieu of plain ol' cash that the employees can choose to spend on what they want.
There is also the fact that, besides rabid regulation and discouragement of savings, huge amounts of company profits which would normally be spent on capital goods (increases in wages, more labor, machines and technology which would increase wages further, etc.) get taken by the government through taxation to pay for endless wars and the New Plan de jour.
Of course, as George Reisman also points out, the real wages are depreciated even further by excessive government regulation of consumer goods in general, like oil, which keeps the prices of those goods artificially higher than they would be, making workers further impoverished.
Well, no one should put a gun to your head and make you buy it, but I think there's plenty of demand for medical insurance just as there's demand for things like life & disability insurance. Hedging isn't just for gamblers and Wall St. sharks.
Good. But, unfortunately the plans being floated call for criminal prosecution & imprisonment of those who don't buy in. Are you going to support a candidate who wants to throw your neighbor into prison for not paying for health ins. ?
The "cost of entry" doesn't hold up either. Of course very few people or even entire corporations will have the funds to build a highway right off the bat . . . most entrepreneurs don't even have the funds to start up the restaurant they want. This is where investment comes in. You present your model to a bank or whatever, and if the idea seems sturdy, they fund you. Highways aren't even the most expensive projects that private corporations undertake - not by a long shot.
The interstate system was developed over a period of 35 years at an estimated cost of $114 billion (approx. $500 billion in 2008 dollars). It costs hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year just to maintain. The original goal was to facilitate a quick method of travel to anywhere in the U.S. in the case of invasion. A company could raise revenue by charging tolls & private investment, but this would in turn have a negative effect on interstate commerce. How much more would it cost to ship goods cross country when not only would you have to worry about revenue to cover maintenance, capital investment and wages, but also dividends, bonuses, etc.?
Now, there is a legitimate demand for regulation. When we eat at a restaurant, we want to know that the cook washed his hands; when we take out a loan, we want to know that the lender isn't going to break our knees if we miss a payment, etc. etc. Why does this regulation have to come from government? Is it so inconceivable for private, competing businesses to review these areas, and publish their findings in, say, a magazine? Of course there would be room for bribery, but because you have multiple groups competing to provide this service, those which prove untrustworthy would fail
Probably because I don't want to have to go through the trauma of getting kneecapped to determine if my mortgage lender has scruples. ;)
But seriously, can you imagine how many individuals would end up in financial ruin if they didn't have the government acting as a heavy on their side to (try to) ensure that a system of fair practices are in place? Not to mention I'd like to have a system of recourse in case my mortgage lender tries to deal with me fraudulently. And both of those ignore the fact that the most probably outcome would be the companies colluding to screw the individual.
I probably wouldn't be so opposed to universal healthcare in this country if it wasn't for the fact that our government is remarkably inefficient when judged against other governments, and that we're sinking trillions into foreign adventurism as it is, and neither candidate seems to care (McCain likes war in Iraq, Obama likes war in Afghanistan - which is even harder to invade, if anything).
My personal belief is that the inefficiency you see in government is partly due to the collusion of the government and corporate entities. The corporate welfare that gets tossed around like candy these days infuriates me, because the failure of these entities is entirely their own fault. They have either pursued outdated and downright bad business models for decades (most of the airline industry) or have been involved in outright fraud (Enron, investment banking, etc) but these industries are not allowed to fail, so they get to collectivize risk and privatize profit, which encourages even riskier behavior and ensures ever worsening cycles of greed.
In your favor, at least you're consistent for someone adhering to the Friedman school. ;)
Faelar
The government already provides basic health care, but I don't go to county hospital. They also provide basic food, but I don't take food stamps. They also provide basic education which I don't use.
Since you've already said you're not for a Glorious People's Republic of Worker's Paradise, I don't understand this aversion to personal choice.
I'm sorry, but this has an "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" (George Orwell - Animal Farm) tone to it.
The poor, the working class and increasingly the lower-middle class are faced with this personal choice when they need health care: ignore it and hope it doesn't get worse, or ignore it and wait until it is serious enough to need to go to the emergency room, after which declare bankruptcy because you can't afford the $12,000 ER bill you ran up for the 6 hours you were there.
That's not much of a choice if you ask me.
It's nice to have the ability to opt out. But opting out is a privilege that not everyone has.
Faelar
Good. But, unfortunately the plans being floated call for criminal prosecution & imprisonment of those who don't buy in. Are you going to support a candidate who wants to throw your neighbor into prison for not paying for health ins. ?
Are you kidding, I'm only sad that John "we will make you go to the doctor" Edwards is out of the running.
For my part, I plan to be the first man killed by the police for not carrying health insurance, if for nothing but the irony.
The interstate system was developed over a period of 35 years at an estimated cost of $114 billion (approx. $500 billion in 2008 dollars). It costs hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year just to maintain. The original goal was to facilitate a quick method of travel to anywhere in the U.S. in the case of invasion. A company could raise revenue by charging tolls & private investment, but this would in turn have a negative effect on interstate commerce. How much more would it cost to ship goods cross country when not only would you have to worry about revenue to cover maintenance, capital investment and wages, but also dividends, bonuses, etc.?
I actually don't think a private interstate would rely on tolls; that would be extremely inefficient and unpopular. It'd more likely be something like you mail a check to the company and get a piece of paper stuck to your bumper or whatever, and then cops would pull over those who were using the highway without a license. That said, why would a highway system relying on private investment mess up interstate commerce? I'm not being glib, it's an honest question.
I don't see why you would have to worry about dividends and bonuses unless you were the owner of the highway. Because the corporations are competing, the resulting system would tend to be more efficient than that imposed by government monopoly.
But seriously, can you imagine how many individuals would end up in financial ruin if they didn't have the government acting as a heavy on their side to (try to) ensure that a system of fair practices are in place? Not to mention I'd like to have a system of recourse in case my mortgage lender tries to deal with me fraudulently. And both of those ignore the fact that the most probably outcome would be the companies colluding to screw the individual.
Hmm I think you've hit on a major break between the social democrats and the Old Right-style conservatives. I do not think the government is any more 'on our side' than big corporations. The people who make up the government are just as greedy and manipulative as the caricature of a fat-cat capitalist. Why is the government, an institution which arrogantly places itself above the rule of law, less likely to "collude against us" than the corporations? The corporations may certainly try to screw us over when they think they can get away with it, but I think it is much, much harder for them to do this than the government.
There's just less participation of the people in the democratic government than there is in a corporation, and the competition between corporations would help to ensure that they *didn't* try to screw us over because those that did and were caught wouldn't last very long. The government can screw us over as much as they like; they'll still be in power next year. The person in power might just happen to have an "R" next to his name rather than a "D", or vice versa, and even this is hardly a guarantee if recent history is any guide.
My personal belief is that the inefficiency you see in government is partly due to the collusion of the government and corporate entities. The corporate welfare that gets tossed around like candy these days infuriates me, because the failure of these entities is entirely their own fault. They have either pursued outdated and downright bad business models for decades (most of the airline industry) or have been involved in outright fraud (Enron, investment banking, etc) but these industries are not allowed to fail, so they get to collectivize risk and privatize profit, which encourages even riskier behavior and ensures ever worsening cycles of greed.
You're absolutely right. Corporate welfare is just as damaging as . . . well, welfare; possibly moreso, since at least welfare has some sort of parallel on the free market (charity). I think another major contributor to the inefficiency of our government is because we have a public that supports the free market *and* social democracy simultaneously. Americans really, really hate taxes, and this has been a facet of our culture for hundreds of years. They also have bought into European-style government programs (and European-style imperialism) at the same time, and they don't realize that you can't have it both ways.
Good post, you're fun to argue with
I actually don't think a private interstate would rely on tolls; that would be extremely inefficient and unpopular. It'd more likely be something like you mail a check to the company and get a piece of paper stuck to your bumper or whatever, and then cops would pull over those who were using the highway without a license. That said, why would a highway system relying on private investment mess up interstate commerce? I'm not being glib, it's an honest question.
Mainly because whenever critical infastructure gets privatized the people get screwed. Where I live lakeland electric is charging a 300 dollar surcharge, but they are essentially a monoply and the better buisness burau here cannot do anything. Roads, powerlines and utilities should all be government owned and operated.
I don't see why you would have to worry about dividends and bonuses unless you were the owner of the highway. Because the corporations are competing, the resulting system would tend to be more efficient than that imposed by government monopoly.
unless they colluded with each other and charged a fortune like the insurance companies which charge ridiculously high fees, then refuse to pay for certain treatments at all, or only pay part of it. Privitization of things like that is bad. The government needs rein in the private companies that exist not continue to sell the remaining infastructure that they do own.
There's just less participation of the people in the democratic government than there is in a corporation, and the competition between corporations would help to ensure that they *didn't* try to screw us over because those that did and were caught wouldn't last very long. The government can screw us over as much as they like; they'll still be in power next year. The person in power might just happen to have an "R" next to his name rather than a "D", or vice versa, and even this is hardly a guarantee if recent history is any guide.
no there isnt. People have no say in how a corporation is operated only the board of directors. People do not participate in the american system because they feel disinfranchized, and in part they are right. The electoral coledge needs to be removed, and a cap put on the amount that any special interest group can give to canidates. Oh and much higher penalties for corruption and bribery. A senator who takes a bribe should be found guilty of treason and shot, as well as the person giving the bribe, and if it is a corporation that corporation should be completley dismantled.
You're absolutely right. Corporate welfare is just as damaging as . . . well, welfare; possibly moreso, since at least welfare has some sort of parallel on the free market (charity). I think another major contributor to the inefficiency of our government is because we have a public that supports the free market *and* social democracy simultaneously. Americans really, really hate taxes, and this has been a facet of our culture for hundreds of years. They also have bought into European-style government programs (and European-style imperialism) at the same time, and they don't realize that you can't have it both ways.
No they really cannot have it both ways, however corporate welfare is bad, but individual welfare serves a purpose, does the welfare system need a major overhaul yes, however companies, especially those that have factories overseas and only their headquarters here in the US should sink or swim on their own merits. The government should not be wasting precious resources on bailing out already failing buisnesses.
a.) Is health insurance necessary? Are people incapable of saving money themselves?
b.) Is it possible that regulation is behind the rise in the cost of health insurance?
c.) Is the only solution universal healthcare, and why?
A.) At this point in time, yes, health insurance is necessary. Paying for health care costs out of pocket is prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people. As far as saving, the 2006 median household income in the U.S. was $48,000. Let's assume that after paying taxes, the mortgage, food, utilities, one car payment, retirement planning, and miscellaneous expenses, you're able to save 10% to go toward medical expenses. That's $4800 a year in savings. Better hope you don't get pregnant that year. Delivery and prenatal expenses cost about $10,000 (and that seems absurdly low based on my experiences for how often my wife had to visit the doctor, number of labs, number of days in hospital, etc.). The most common major surgery in the U.S. is a double bypass, which runs about $76,000 (now these are just the hospital/surgeon bills & do not include medication, etc.) so it would take you about 13-14 years to save for that.
B.) The major factors behind the rise in health care costs are 1) much higher demand as a result of an aging populace, specifically a huge increase in the number of people over age 65, 2) much higher expenditures on administrative costs when compared to other first world nations, expressed as a percentage of overall expenditure on health care, and 3) you receive the best care in the world (sometimes), so you have to pay the best doctors and pay for the best equipment.
C.) I'm not advocating universal healthcare, but rather a Keynesian mixed economy approach. The problem from your view is how to reduce demand for healthcare (the only way to decrease cost, and this depends on how elastic healthcare costs are) without causing a corresponding drop in quality of life (life expectancy, etc.).
Health insurance is a scam anyway; good riddance, I say. Maybe it'll encourage people to start saving again. If more people were content with simple pleasures and humble houses, maybe they wouldn't rely on health insurance in the first place.
But simple pleasures and humble houses flies entirely in the face of what the capitalistic economic system is founded on.
Faelar
Mainly because whenever critical infastructure gets privatized the people get screwed. Where I live lakeland electric is charging a 300 dollar surcharge, but they are essentially a monoply and the better buisness burau here cannot do anything. Roads, powerlines and utilities should all be government owned and operated.
unless they colluded with each other and charged a fortune like the insurance companies which charge ridiculously high fees, then refuse to pay for certain treatments at all, or only pay part of it. Privitization of things like that is bad. The government needs rein in the private companies that exist not continue to sell the remaining infastructure that they do own.
First, you're confusing corporatism with privatization. Second, let me show you how your line of reasoning would apply to any given industry:
"The food industry must be reigned in! They've been profiting off of us for years, and I say it's time to nationalize. If we don't, they'll just keep raising prices higher and higher, and they'll keep getting rich off us. The various companies will undoubtedly band together and engage in price-setting if something is not done soon."
It shows a simple ignorance of the way prices work. Companies cannot simply raise prices haphazardly, because prices are controlled by supply and demand. To take one example, oil isn't expensive because those fat-cat oil companies are meeting in some cigar-smoke-filled room deciding to raise prices . . . it's expensive because the government artificially closes up the supply of oil, and raises operating costs through excessive regulation. It's also expensive because of the excessive credit expansion, which causes a rise in the costs of capital goods/natural resources. The real price of oil hasn't risen all that much, it's just an industry that's pumped up with pieces of paper.
I've just never heard a good reason why road-industries and utilities somehow operate under different economic laws from any other industry, and your argument rests on that assumption. Your energy costs were expensive because of environmental regulation, and, likely, increasing demand for energy. If the government were to step in, the prices would either remain the same, or the government would try to sell at a lower price than the market dictates, thus causing shortages of energy.
no there isnt. People have no say in how a corporation is operated only the board of directors. People do not participate in the american system because they feel disinfranchized, and in part they are right. The electoral coledge needs to be removed, and a cap put on the amount that any special interest group can give to canidates. Oh and much higher penalties for corruption and bribery. A senator who takes a bribe should be found guilty of treason and shot, as well as the person giving the bribe, and if it is a corporation that corporation should be completley dismantled.
People do not have a direct say in how a corporation is operated on the inside, that goes without saying, but they sure as hell play a huge role in whether the corporation succeeds or fails. If you don't like a corporation, don't patronize it. It's that simple. By ignoring them, you're taking money right out of their pockets.
A corporation can't just decide to do something bad and face no consequences - not without the assistance of the feds. The government can and does.
No they really cannot have it both ways, however corporate welfare is bad, but individual welfare serves a purpose, does the welfare system need a major overhaul yes, however companies, especially those that have factories overseas and only their headquarters here in the US should sink or swim on their own merits. The government should not be wasting precious resources on bailing out already failing buisnesses.
We agree here
The major factors behind the rise in health care costs are 1) much higher demand as a result of an aging populace, specifically a huge increase in the number of people over age 65, 2) much higher expenditures on administrative costs when compared to other first world nations, expressed as a percentage of overall expenditure on health care, and 3) you receive the best care in the world (sometimes), so you have to pay the best doctors and pay for the best equipment.
Why is so much money spent on administrative costs and book-keeping? Regulation. Why are all healthcare providers forced to be the best in the world, when often it is unnecessary? Regulation.
You still haven't answered me on this. Demand is part of it, of course, but regulation drives up prices even further, and a keynesian mixed-economy approach would dictate even more of it (as well as further credit expansion/monetary inflation and all its assorted problems).
But simple pleasures and humble houses flies entirely in the face of what the capitalistic economic system is founded on.
Not at all. Capitalism is not synonymous with consumerism. If anything, capitalism is a system that benefits from saving and thriftiness. Consumerism is supported by social security, i.e. the government saving your money for you, and inflation which makes borrowing appear more tempting than normal as well as depreciating your savings, and thus discouraging it. Keynesianism prescribes the same corporate bail-outs you were arguing against earlier.
It should also be emphasized that "Keynesian mixed economy" is basically what we have *now* in the healthcare industry. Healthcare costs started rising 40 years ago with the institution of Medicare, and they've been rising steadily with every expansion of that evil program.
C.) I'm not advocating universal healthcare, but rather a Keynesian mixed economy approach.
Yes, the same economic nuttiness pushed by Labour that almost sunk the UK in the 60's & 70's. It's amazing how history is ignored
B.) The major factors behind the rise in health care costs are 1) much higher demand as a result of an aging populace, specifically a huge increase in the number of people over age 65, 2) much higher expenditures on administrative costs when compared to other first world nations, expressed as a percentage of overall expenditure on health care, and 3) you receive the best care in the world (sometimes), so you have to pay the best doctors and pay for the best equipment.
Faelar
Wrong. The number one cause of high health care costs is litigation. You may not like to hear that, because it goes against what Democrats stand for, but frivolous law suits are the fundamental reason behind high costs. Physicians pay an exorbitant amount on malpractice insurance, and guess what, they aren't the only ones who have to carry it. Most employees with patient contact and care have to carry it; it's just that it is usually payed for by the hospital, not said employee. These crooked lawyers (s/a Sen John Edwards, who made his millions on Medical Malpractice suits) keep pounding the system with tedious law suits that cost the insurance companies, hospitals, physicians and workers tons of money.
You are partially wrong on the increase of demand from the aging population. Your logic is flawed, in that you're saying that more business breeds higher costs. This is fundamentally flawed economics. When business is booming, there is no need to overprice services. I think what you're referring to is that there aren't enough Physicians in the country to take care of the rising demand. It's a supply and demand thing. Right now, the demand (patients) is high, but the supply (Doctors) is falling short. Now let me ask you this. Do you really think Socializing Healthcare, which would significantly decrease the pay of Physicians, would inspire people to go through 8 yrs of school and 4-5 yrs of Residency in order to become a Doctor? Who would go through that much time and effort (along with the THOUSANDS of dollars in student loans) to have no pay off in the end? You, I and everyone else know the answer to this question.
You see, money drives people. It is what gives us the means to buy and do things in life, and it is the spoils of all our hard work. Once you take the great reward from the years of hard work (and it is brutal what Med students go through... quite often 80 hour week clinicals without pay, along with the studying that is involved), you then quell the drive and desires of people to pursue this great field.
The ultimate result of this is a faltered health care system that significantly loses advances in science and medicine, and that does not give the great care that we can currently give.
You see, it's just not as simple as "people need to be treated, so let's regulate it all so that everyone gets treatment". It's a great goal to strive for, and I do hope that we can achieve it one day; however, we must do this in an effective manner that will not destroy the great health care system we currently have in place. You and people who think like you are willing to destroy the greatest health care system in the world, and all for people who have the means to get treatment as is. Medicare and Medicaid, while flawed, are means for the poor to receive treatment. I will also point this out. My friend had to get on Medicaid a few years back for the birth of her daughter. She says it was the worst experience she ever went through, not because of the lack of treatment, but rather due to the red tape and bureaucracy of the government run system. Once the government decides that they know what's best for us and take over our decision making, then they just screw it all up and make things exponentially more difficult, i.e social security.
We need to find a way to get everyone insured through private means that does not require the government to get involved with controlling the insurance companies and the medical system. Until that path is found, we have to just keep doing the best we can.
Well here's the thing: true monopolies always have the hand of government in them. If you have a company which simply outcompetes all others to the point where it is the sole provider of a certain good or service - a very unlikely scenario in the first place on a free market with constantly shifting and variable consumer demands - and then it starts to raise its prices, new competitors would move in and it would lose its monopoly status.
Oh, come on. Big companies have several advantages over small ones, such as much larger resources and economies of scale, and can easily discourage competition in any single market where there is a newcomer. Usually, they are only punished when they try such tricks (i.e. the ground over Microsoft's monopoly case being whether it used its resources to hamper Navigator and Opera browsers). Whether they actually reach "true"monopoly status or not, the market is not a very level playing field when one player has 50x the resources of the other.
The only dangerous monopoly is a coercive monopoly, or a monopoly that keeps its monopoly status through the use of force. This almost always manifests itself as government-backed monopolies, through the various methods we've gone through already.
Only if you limit yourself to physical force, and even then you do not need actual government backing - just assent, and that can readily enough happen in developing countries. A large company - thus a monopolist - can easily discourage competition through the possibility of lawsuits, which it has much more resources to wage, even if it loses a few.
Wrong. The number one cause of high health care costs is litigation. You may not like to hear that, because it goes against what Democrats stand for, but frivolous law suits are the fundamental reason behind high costs. Physicians pay an exorbitant amount on malpractice insurance, and guess what, they aren't the only ones who have to carry it. Most employees with patient contact and care have to carry it; it's just that it is usually payed for by the hospital, not said employee. These crooked lawyers (s/a Sen John Edwards, who made his millions on Medical Malpractice suits) keep pounding the system with tedious law suits that cost the insurance companies, hospitals, physicians and workers tons of money.
Interesting, could you provide a link to an official source supporting that claim? Not that there would be no malpractice suits in a differently regulated system, or there are no rightful malpractice suits, but that's a different story.
Also, here are just a few links that reference the malpractice insurance costs and the burden on doctors.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/eveningnews/consumer/main610102.shtml
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/11/loc_doctor.day2.html
http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2005/obgyn.htm
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2005/01/10/49477.htm
You see, money drives people. It is what gives us the means to buy and do things in life, and it is the spoils of all our hard work.
Hold it right there pardner.
You are saying that if people are naturally rewarded for behavior A (hardwork, risk, education, success) and penalized for behavior B (opposite, or lacking those) you will have more of A than B?
I was taught by the liberals that if you penalized A and rewarded B, you would end up with more A.
Now you tell me different!
I agree with you about the housing crisis, and of course supply and demand influence the cost of labor, but it is a generally accepted economic formula that W=MRP, or wages = marginal revenue of product. This is built into supply and demand: the "marginal revenue of product" is based on the price of the final good, and the degree to which your labor contributed to this. There are many, many reasons for the wage rate being stagnant, the main one being the variety of credit expansion which is currently fashionable within the hallowed meeting-rooms of the Federal Reserve, but I'm not going to write pages on it here; W=MRP is already pretty well accepted.
I believe you are speaking of Microeconomics. W=MRP is a model of how a firm with the goal of maximizing profits would go about performing that action. It really doesn't model the labor market in aggregate. That is modeled best using standard supply and demand curves. Just as you can not use Marginal utility of a can of coke to determine GNP you can't model the labor market with W=MRP.
That being said, W=MRP has some other big issues. Yes government regulation interferes with the model; true; but so does the market for a companies securities (ie there is a STRONG motive for a firm to make its stock look good as this provides money to the company); it also assumes that the wages get distributed to those who increased their productivity (in reality any extra profits will go to jobs that do not have an excess of supply of labor, no?); it also assumes NO friction in the labor market (which is naive at best - workers can't easlily move across the state, they may not be able to afford the time it takes to find another job, your model doesn't allow for placement firms eating up excess wages, etc., etc.). But the biggest flaw with the model is the assumption that the people who run the firm wish to maximize the firm's profit. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the owner's of the firm's need to maximize personal profits vs that of maximizing the firms profit. In other words - the boss always gets paid.
Again, I point you to the evidence that W=/=MRP given the real world increase in productivity coupled with the drop in real wages. All this under the auspices of 'drown the public sector' leadership, that has decreased gov't regulation (except for executive power and interference in personal rights - but don't get me started there.....) If W=MRP is inviolate, you can't explain the prevailing conditions of the past decade - not even with accounting for Government regulation.
Its the Phillips curve in the 70s all over again. The accepted wisdom does not match the reality.
Oh, come on. Big companies have several advantages over small ones, such as much larger resources and economies of scale, and can easily discourage competition in any single market where there is a newcomer. Usually, they are only punished when they try such tricks (i.e. the ground over Microsoft's monopoly case being whether it used its resources to hamper Navigator and Opera browsers). Whether they actually reach "true"monopoly status or not, the market is not a very level playing field when one player has 50x the resources of the other.
You're missing the point. Yes large companies are easier able to outcompete smaller companies because, due to their size, they can keep prices low. But what the hell is wrong with a "monopoly" if its prices are so low and service so good that nobody else can compete with it? If this "monopoly" were to suddenly raise its prices, it *would* be outcompeted, regardless of size, unless the monopoly
a.) lowered prices again, or
b.) somehow forced others to not compete with them,
Only if you limit yourself to physical force, and even then you do not need actual government backing - just assent, and that can readily enough happen in developing countries. A large company - thus a monopolist - can easily discourage competition through the possibility of lawsuits, which it has much more resources to wage, even if it loses a few.
Lawsuits aren't like guns . . . a company can only threaten you with lawsuits if you're doing something illegal. If you're not doing something illegal, you'll win the case, and getting a defense lawyer good enough to beat a bad lawsuit is not very hard.
The government IS physical force. If the government merely says "yeah sure do what you want", that's not backing. Backing is making tons of laws that make entering business prohibitively expensive - something we love to do here - or by banning the good outright like with prostitution and drugs (nobody supports the war on drugs more than the drug cartels themselves). If you don't believe the government is physical force, try telling the IRS you don't want to pay taxes. First they'll fine you, then they might try to fine you further if you refuse the first fine, then they'll try to throw you in jail, and if you fight the men who come to take you away you'll probably be shot on site.
I believe you are speaking of Microeconomics. W=MRP is a model of how a firm with the goal of maximizing profits would go about performing that action. It really doesn't model the labor market in aggregate. That is modeled best using standard supply and demand curves. Just as you can not use Marginal utility of a can of coke to determine GNP you can't model the labor market with W=MRP.
That being said, W=MRP has some other big issues. Yes government regulation interferes with the model; true; but so does the market for a companies securities (ie there is a STRONG motive for a firm to make its stock look good as this provides money to the company); it also assumes that the wages get distributed to those who increased their productivity (in reality any extra profits will go to jobs that do not have an excess of supply of labor, no?); it also assumes NO friction in the labor market (which is naive at best - workers can't easlily move across the state, they may not be able to afford the time it takes to find another job, your model doesn't allow for placement firms eating up excess wages, etc., etc.). But the biggest flaw with the model is the assumption that the people who run the firm wish to maximize the firm's profit. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the owner's of the firm's need to maximize personal profits vs that of maximizing the firms profit.
Again, I point you to the evidence that W=/=MRP given the real world increase in productivity coupled with the drop in real wages. All this under the auspices of 'drown the public sector' leadership, that has decreased gov't regulation (except for executive power and interference in personal rights - but don't get me started there.....) If W=MRP is inviolate, you can't explain the prevailing conditions of the past decade - not even with accounting for Government regulation.
Its the Phillips curve in the 70s all over again. The accepted wisdom does not match the reality.
Hmm you might indeed have me beaten on this point. I think you know more about it than I do, at any rate.
The way I see it, labor is a capital good, and therefore its demand is ultimately based on the subjective demand for the final product. Capital goods have no other purpose than to become consumer goods, and consumer wants greatly influence their prices.
Also, were we arguing politics? I'm just asking because we were both talking about wage-rates, but neither one was talking about the "solution" to the wage-rate problem or whatever. I'd be glad to hear your views on the matter
I really, honest-to-god wouldn't say that this administration has been even remotely anti-public-sector though. He's raised spending . . . exponentially. He's shifted money from traditional leftist paragons to "faith-based initiatives" and an unwinnable "War on Terror", but both of those things are still firmly in the realm of the public sector. He's just focused on some public sectors and not others, and he has done nothing to roll back regulation or cut taxes. Republicans cut the income tax 1% and celebrate a victory for free markets. He didn't even do very much to cut back the money spent on traditional areas; there's really very, very little different between his administration and Clinton's, in terms of the economy.
And yes, Clinton "balanced the budget" . . . of course tons of things don't go *on* the federal budget because they don't abide by their own accounting laws, but still he came closer to doing it than W did. But the only reason Clinton could balance the budget was because there was a traditional stock-market boom during his presidency, a boom which provides huge tax revenues through the capital gains tax. W's presidency was characterized by a boom in the housing industry - something which *doesn't* provide much in taxes to the federal government. Of course now it's characterized by recession
And of course we mustn't forget that the liberals (well post-Roosevelt liberals at any rate, since the meaning of the term changed) have been the group most in favor of taking power and liberties from the people and putting them in the hands of the government. Only since the 50s have Conservatives been war-hawks, and really it wasn't until Reagan and, to a greater extent, Bush Sr. that neoconservatives, the "conservatives" who *are* very anti-freedom, came to power within the Republican party. In all of the four major wars we participated in during the 20th century - WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam - we were drawn in by liberals.
I have to say, the whole "liberal/conservative" dichotomy is almost as ridiculous and faulty a model as the "left-right" one. Liberalism and Conservatism are more states of the mind than political ideologies, and there's often significant overlap. For example, Murray Rothbard was as Liberal as Marx, in that he wanted radical change in the political power structure, but most would classify him as "conservative" anyway, because his liberal goals happened to be a shrinking - or even elimination - of government in favor of capitalism. Liberalism could be defined as a love of the new, a love of change and upheaval, and Conservatism would best be defined as a resistance to change, or going back to old ways of doing things. These true definitions are so vague as to be practically useless, and I would love to see a day when people are defined by their actual views rather than a clunky system of labels.
True, but as I've said before there is much more that goes into poverty than government regulation or lack thereof. There are an astounding number of factors that go into why the south is poor, many of them cultural. I think that an "average" southerner is more likely to aspire to be a laborer in a lower-skilled job than an "average" northerner. It must also not be forgotten that the south got "f---ed in the a" during the Civil War, and this alone threw it out of skew with the north. There's a lot more as well . . .
The midwest isn't exactly wealthy, either.
You are aware that conservatism and liberalism mean very different things in Europe aren't you?
There are multiple meanings of liberal, but its irrelevant in this case, given I was using the American definitions.
Another logical leap. Why would the costs of health insurance outweigh the costs of a monopolized healthcare system? And who's forcing you to buy health insurance anyway?
Because one involves two entities which need to make a profit and the other one involves one entity which needs to make a profit.
I agree that health insurance is a scam . . . so why do we have health insurance? Because labor unions forced their employers to provide "free" healthcare through insurance, causing an artificial boom in huge, unnecessary insurance companies. Adding a middleman between yourself and the hospitals only raises costs further.
The reason we have health insurance is because people realized they could make money this way and Republicans are dinosaurs who hate socialization.
The problem is that health insurance is a scam because, sooner or later, everyone needs health care, and the cheapest way of preventing poor health is proactive prevention. This is a public health thing best handled by the government, because it is a public need which can only be served by specialists.
Well that is just not true. So, the Nazis blamed losing the war on Jews, ergo blaming us losing a war on the left-wing makes us Nazis?
Well, more cut from the same cloth.
Why wouldn't, in that case, blaming us losing the Vietnam war on guerillas make us Nazis? Because you happen to believe one view is correct and the other wrong? So if we blame something on a group of people, and you blame it on a different one, we're Nazis?
No. Its a matter of blaming it on people in your own country who ultimately have nothing to do with the military reality (or at least, nothing more than any other group). Losing the Vietnam War was not the fault of people in the US any more than losing WWI was the fault of people in Germany.
Not to mention the fact that Fascism has nothing to do with Conservatism.
Many people termed "conservatives" in the United States are facist. They are authoritarian and nationalist (and/or racist) and rely on the idea of preventing or reversing cultural decline.
George W. Bush and his supporters are good examples of what I'm talking about, actually - the whole nationalistic, jingoistic rigamarole, their constant claims of our culture/civilization/way of life being under attack, ect.
Its not identical to fascism, to be fair, but it does resemble it.
It has more in common, if anything, with the New Deal Left; Roosevelt's policies, love 'em or hate 'em, were remarkably fascist.
Roosevelt's policies were not fascist.
The "right-wing/left-wing" dichotomy is honestly a useless model; just because both Fascism and Conservatism are considered "right-wing" doesn't mean they have anything in common with eachother.
No, but they are pretty close in certain ways. It isn't a useless model, its just more complex than that. Many Republicans today are effectively fascist. Not all Republicans are! But many are. These are Bush's core remaining supporters, essentially. Well, them and some other groups.
The Europeans are better at running their socialized systems, I accept that. That does not prove that socialism is *better* than a free market because, as you pointed out yourself, we live in a pseudo-socialist society too! The idea of government-mandated standardized tests is very socialist, as are a lot of things our government does. So you're saying that Americans run a pseudo-socialist system - and do a horrible job at that - and that a total socialist system would be better?
Yes, because we don't take it far enough. We're in a limbo where we try to keep things private but socialize stuff, so everything ends up costing more than it should because we outsource jobs to external corporations which overcharge the government for their stuff.
The whole outsourcing of government stuff to external companies is a horrible idea and is a large part of why we have so many issues - rather than having socialized health care, we have requirements that employers purchase health insurance coverage from third party companies. We should just make the government the insurer and kill those health insurance companies.
Its the same deal with our mercenaries in Iraq - we hire mercenaries rather than increase the size of our military, but it actually ends up costing us more money to employ the mercs.
So because the rich are usually interested in an improvement of the general welfare (which they often are in many areas for the same reasons you point out), and the rich support taxation, taxation must be good? Is it not possible that the position of the rich merely reflects the fact the the people at large have been lost to the siren-call of public services?
Well, its good for our interests, so we should vote for it.
The problem is that the older you are, the less taxation benefits you - I'm young, so taxation greatly benefits me because I have an expected 60 years or so to benefit from it (and given my familial history of longevity can expect 70 or even 80 years). But someone who is 60 or 70 but is well off gains little benefit from it because they're going to die soon and a lot of the large-scale stuff taxation helps pay for will not benefit them before they die. Of course, this has its limits (poor old people definitely should vote for taxation, because they rely on it).
Indeed, we see this to some degree with education - old people who don't have children now tend to vote down education stuff.
I feel that many people are voting against their interests, ultimately, but are too short-sighted to realize it. Claims that tax cuts put more money in our pockets are ultimately false, but they do put more money in our pockets NOW, even if they cause problems for us in the future.
And if you really think the government is necessary to build highways and bullet trains, you show an astounding ignorance of economics. There is absolutely no good reason behind your point. Some of the largest, most complex things happen within the free-market system. Highways are profitable, people want highways, therefore companies can make money from building them, and will. That's just the way the market works. Also, because they have DIRECT feedback on how good of a job they're doing in the form of profits and losses, they will do a better job at providing the right number of highways, etc.
I think they are, if you're talking about the broad scale of the country. The reasons are capital costs as well as long pay-off time.
You do not see this kind of direct feedback in democracy; you get one or two chances a year to vote, and you only get *ONE* vote which is meant to cover your opinion on every single thing the government does. Under capitalism, every corporation gets constant feedback by the second as to how well they're doing, and the consumer has the power to pull the plug . . . easily.
Well, technically speaking we aren't a democracy. In a democracy, direct feedback is indeed possible. We're a republic; we mostly vote for people who vote for stuff we want, rather than voting for it ourselves, which is an awful lot of work and we're lazy and don't really have time to see whether or not bill X, Y, or Z is really good for us. So we elect people we trust to vote for our interests.
This is actually better, because, ultimately, democracy really sucks. Most people are too stupid to make good decisions. But we cannot trust an oligarchy or dictatorship to keep our interests in mind. Sometimes, though, the government does need to do things which are ultimately for our benefit but which the majority of the populace is too dumb to really understand. Raising taxes, for instance, is in the benefit of the poor, but many poor people vote Republican because they're too stupid to realize that those taxes end up coming back to them, and more to them than anyone else.
Unions did cause layoffs. There is a direct correlation between a raise in the minimum wage and increased unemployment for high school dropouts (i.e. the least skilled of the work-force). If you explain to me how it's propaganda, I'll listen, but it does make sense. Wages are based on the same laws any price is, i.e. subjective consumer demands. When you set a price-cap, i.e. a minimum wage law, the companies cannot afford to hire as many people and therefore lay off the least skilled.
Over time, we should expect highschool dropout unemployment to increase because unskilled labor is becoming increasingly valueless - or rather, the amount we have to pay for it falls due to increased mechanization and similar. Already I've seen supermarkets with half of their checkout stands being entirely automated, policed by 1-2 people who watch everyone. What used to take 12 cashiers now takes 2, and we should expect this trend to continue.
That aside...
Corporations blame unions for layoffs because it benefits the corporation, not because it is the union which is responsible for the layoffs. It is the corporation which is responsible for the layoffs; they may be justified or they may not be justified, but the layoffs are the decision of the corporation.
The reality is, however, that the reason that minimum wage must exist is because employers and employees have unequal market power. Corporations often collude in keeping wages low. You can see many examples of this, such as when the Screenwriter's Guild went on strike. The corporations many of them work for collude together, and thus there is collective bargaining.
However, even collusion isn't necessary to cause it. Because the market is segmented and employees have imperfect information, the people with more market power and more information, the corporations, are more likely to come out ahead.
Indeed, if the corporation uses a different curve for labor, they can adjust the point of intersection in a way favorable for them via adjusting their demand, thus causing unemployment and allowing them to pay their employees less money.
As that hardly makes sense even to me, I'll give an example:
Let's say you need 100 employees to make enough shoes to meet consumer demand.
Now let's say you find out you can hire 90 employees, which allows you to make 90% of the shoes you'd make normally, but you can hire those 90 employees for only 80% of the cost of hiring 100 employees - those extra employees demand more money.
The company can then say "Well, making 90% of the shoes isn't optimal from a supply-demand standpoint on that end, but as we can bump the price of the shoes up slightly as we're undersupplying them, we actually can make more profit by producing fewer shoes!"
So while they could sell more total shoes and thus have a much higher total revenue with 100 employees, they can get away with 90 employees. Additionally we, the consumer, actually end up paying a higher price for our goods, while the employees are being paid less than they "should be".
What minimum wage does is mess with this situation. If 90% of the employees for your shoe-making factory cost 90% as much as 100 employees, there's no reason to underemploy - you make more money if you produce the "correct" amount of shoes from the standpoint of your original curve intersection of supply and demand for your shoes. In fact, this can lead to the somewhat bizzare situation where a minimum wage causes worker wages to rise (up to the level) and the prices of consumer goods to fall (as they cease to be underproduced).
Explain to me how preventing entry into a business wouldn't cause a rise in prices. Explain to me how being forced to retrofit your bathrooms to make them handicap-accessible doesn't cost money. Explain to me how being forced to rent houses to anyone, no matter their credit, doesn't cost money (and thus of course raise prices).
If you make people desperate, they're more liable to commit crimes. If, for instance, they have to support their son who is paralyzed from the waist down, but are high school dropouts, thievery is one way to make ends meet - and many people will choose to do so. If we make it so that their handicapped son can get a job in more places, then they're less likely to be driven to desperation.
I'd rather have to pay some money to retrofit my bathrooms than have a one in a thousand chance of losing a thousand times as much money.
As for renting houses to everyone and anyone, the government has to analyze costs and understand whether making those people homeless (and thus increasing the crime rate) costs them/society less than covering for them not being able to pay their loans/rent.
No, Spearpike had it right for the very reasons I demonstrated above. In our representative republic, slavery was legal, thus moral, right up until 1865.
Except, of course, the slaves couldn't vote.
More to the point, this is a school of thought in cultural anthropology. It is also known as something which is likely censored on these forums.
In my culture, it is legal and therefore moral to eat cultural anthropologists who make such claims.
And man, are they tasty. :9
More to the point, its simply untrue.
Morality is entirely arbitrary, and anyone who claims differently is wrong. That includes cultural anthropologists.
Therefore, if my morality is absolute, then it applies everywhere. I can say whatever I want is moral or immoral, and I'm not wrong because there is no "absolute" morality.
There IS an arguable "universal" and very interesting form of morality, though, which is probably the closest thing there is to universal morality. That is the idea that you don't get to choose who you are; you are a completely random person. A moral society is one in which you are willing to be born into.
Therefore, slavery IS immoral because very few people would choose to be born into a society with slavery, due to the possibility of being born a slave.
To this day we still have things like conscription and jury duty, forms of temporary slavery. If Obama has his way, he'll introduce some 200+ hours a year (or whatever it was) of mandatory volunteerism (har har).
He won't. Heck, he can't.
So regulation is not automatically bad. I think regulation should be reviewed to ensure that the benefits it provides outweighs the negative effects it has on market factors.
Bingo. This pretty much summarizes my point of view on the matter.
I think it is entirely reasonable for reasonable people to disagree on the amount of reguluation which is optimal, but it is certainly true that regulation can and does act as a preventative measure for certain ills.
Instead, the suggestions I've both seen and made reveal that these suggestions are made by social democrats. We believe that a mixed economy combines the best aspects of capitalism and socialism while minimizing the negative aspects of both.
Right. Capitalism, as many people will readily point out, sucks. The model leads to all sorts of terrible consequences.
Problem is it also has some good attributes.
In an OPTIMAL society everyone would be strongly encouraged to work but there wouldn't be crime, homelessness, unemployment, ect.
Capitalism does capture some optimal elements - it very strongly encourages people to work via the best incentive of all, rewarding people for working better than other people. Not just MORE, but BETTER. It encourages people to innovate, to do a better job than anyone else, ect.
The problem is that you also end up with poor, desperate people who break the rules and commit crimes, and capitalism can produce a LOT of such people. Additionally, certain necessities can be horribly overcharged for, or simply be horribly expensive - catastrophic health care issues, for instance.
So long as I can still pay out of pocket or buy insurance to cover everything, I could tolerate it just like I tolerate FICA, property tax and every other wealth transfer. It's the wholesale criminalization of trade and forcing people into the socialized system that's unconscionable.
Ah, but the benefits of socialism benefit you, too. So if you truly want to be free of the socialistic system, you can't live with us.
No reason to allow people to opt out but still get the full benefits of the system.
As the socialization benefits you, you shouldn't be able to get out of it.
I'm pro choice. All I want is the RIGHT to choose. I'll be responsible for what happens to me. Deal?
I'm pro-death myself; I believe most children should be aborted.
Of course it is in our interests; I'm not disputing that. But, again, why is the solution more government?
Because no one else is willing to do it.
a.) Is health insurance necessary? Are people incapable of saving money themselves?
Yes, it is necessary. You get in an automobile crash. It costs you $400,000 to get your intestinal tract put back together. Unless you're wealthy, you simply cannot afford that.
b.) Is it possible that regulation is behind the rise in the cost of health insurance?
Nope, actually, quite the opposite.
c.) Is the only solution universal healthcare, and why?
Universal healthcare isn't the ONLY solution; we could also illegalize health insurance. That would drive down the cost of health care significantly, but at the cost of many people being unable to get health care at all. We then make it so hospitals only have to treat people who can pay, and we have the problem fixed. Sure, life expectancy drops like a rock, but watch the health care costs go down!
:P
For some reason, I don't think driving people to desperation is a good strategy, though.
Good. But, unfortunately the plans being floated call for criminal prosecution & imprisonment of those who don't buy in. Are you going to support a candidate who wants to throw your neighbor into prison for not paying for health ins. ?
Absolutely. Its the same as throwing someone into jail for not paying their taxes. Indeed, it just IS a tax.
Stuff about bailing out companies
I'm of the opinion that if the government has to bail out your company, it owns it.
Those loan companies which were going under, and Enron, shouldn't have been bailed out but should have simply been the property of the US Federal Government. Any additional debts could be taken out of the pockets of the people who profited from them.
"The food industry must be reigned in! They've been profiting off of us for years, and I say it's time to nationalize. If we don't, they'll just keep raising prices higher and higher, and they'll keep getting rich off us. The various companies will undoubtedly band together and engage in price-setting if something is not done soon."
This is actually a valid concern... sort of.
The issue is that necessities ARE necessary and you CAN be gouged for them; the oil industry does this, for instance. We HAVE to pay if we want to live, and we can't easily produce our own oil. Health care is even more capable of gouging, because it is literally impossible to give yourself open bypass heart surgury (though it may be possible in the future via advancements in machinery).
Thing is, food is far too decentralized to price fix effectively and, more to the point, many people can grow a great deal of their own food or otherwise do it on their own - its pretty impossible to gouge too much on food in most situations because it is too easy for me to feed myself out of my backyard/the woods. A human with a quarter acre of actual property could feed a family of four, in theory, and you certainly could do so if you went out and shot a deer or two.
While this isn't feasible for everyone, it is feasible for too many people to price gouge too well, and people might see a possibility for great profit by underselling.
Its too hard to price fix effectively in this way, as its too easy to undercut the food industry.
It shows a simple ignorance of the way prices work. Companies cannot simply raise prices haphazardly, because prices are controlled by supply and demand. To take one example, oil isn't expensive because those fat-cat oil companies are meeting in some cigar-smoke-filled room deciding to raise prices . . . it's expensive because the government artificially closes up the supply of oil, and raises operating costs through excessive regulation. It's also expensive because of the excessive credit expansion, which causes a rise in the costs of capital goods/natural resources. The real price of oil hasn't risen all that much, it's just an industry that's pumped up with pieces of paper.
This is what is known as a "blatent lie". Oil is expensive right now precisely BECAUSE of cigar-twirling oil company executives jacking up the prices of oil. It has nothing to do with "excessive government regulation"; these companies are making record profits.
They lie because they want even more money.
I've just never heard a good reason why road-industries and utilities somehow operate under different economic laws from any other industry, and your argument rests on that assumption. Your energy costs were expensive because of environmental regulation, and, likely, increasing demand for energy. If the government were to step in, the prices would either remain the same, or the government would try to sell at a lower price than the market dictates, thus causing shortages of energy.
He already explained it - excessively high capital costs.
Wrong. The number one cause of high health care costs is litigation. You may not like to hear that, because it goes against what Democrats stand for, but frivolous law suits are the fundamental reason behind high costs. Physicians pay an exorbitant amount on malpractice insurance, and guess what, they aren't the only ones who have to carry it. Most employees with patient contact and care have to carry it; it's just that it is usually payed for by the hospital, not said employee. These crooked lawyers (s/a Sen John Edwards, who made his millions on Medical Malpractice suits) keep pounding the system with tedious law suits that cost the insurance companies, hospitals, physicians and workers tons of money.
This is untrue.
The number one cause of high health care costs is that health care requires highly trained, highly competant professionals. Every single doctor has spent as much time in school as a PHD. That's expensive. And it requires a lot of special training, a lot of work, and you have to be at least so competant to get accepted to medical school in the first place.
Doctors are the same as lawyers in that regard, and if you've ever paid a lawyer, you know how much they charge for billable hours. Doctors are above laywers in terms of time invested, so are correspondingly even more expensive.
The number two cause of high health care costs is extremely high capital costs - it costs inordinately large amounts of money to produce a drug or new medical device or surgury, and thus those are all very expensive. The newer they are, the more expensive they are - penicillin and asprin are incredibly cheap, but a new MRI machine can cost over a million dollars. Assuming the hospital needs to pay that off in five years, and they have 10 MRIs per day, how much do they have to add to the cost of each MRI to pay off a $1.5 million dollar machine? The answer is about $82. And that's just the machine!
The number three cause is health insurance companies/people who refuse to pay them (which are more or less the same thing).
Lawsuits is probably #4.
The problem is that lawsuits are not always illegitimate; many ARE legitimate. And many people simply don't understand this fact.
I'm a BME. I know quite a bit about such things. The number of medical errors made in this country is absurd. It makes me glad I know the doctors around here, as I really wouldn't trust some random, strange doctor to not screw up.
You are partially wrong on the increase of demand from the aging population. Your logic is flawed, in that you're saying that more business breeds higher costs. This is fundamentally flawed economics. When business is booming, there is no need to overprice services. I think what you're referring to is that there aren't enough Physicians in the country to take care of the rising demand. It's a supply and demand thing. Right now, the demand (patients) is high, but the supply (Doctors) is falling short. Now let me ask you this. Do you really think Socializing Healthcare, which would significantly decrease the pay of Physicians, would inspire people to go through 8 yrs of school and 4-5 yrs of Residency in order to become a Doctor? Who would go through that much time and effort (along with the THOUSANDS of dollars in student loans) to have no pay off in the end? You, I and everyone else know the answer to this question.
Well, first off, you'd socialize payments for medical college as well. Its only fair, after all.
Indeed, our entire secondary school system should be more socialized. In Japan, you WANT to go to the public university, because the private ones are for the people who can't qualify for the public one. I'm not advocating socializing Vanderbilt; I'm advocating making state schools free (save for stuff like room & board) to those who qualify to go there. If you don't qualify (and we'd have reasonable requirements) then you can't go and have to go to trade school or pay to go to a private university.
You are saying that if people are naturally rewarded for behavior A (hardwork, risk, education, success) and penalized for behavior B (opposite, or lacking those) you will have more of A than B?
I was taught by the liberals that if you penalized A and rewarded B, you would end up with more A.
Liberals understand complexities. Many conservatives can't understand complexities, so try to oversimplify and fail.
We don't penalize A, we don't reward B. We just make B suck less.
Many conservatives simply say "A is its own reward, and B can go live out on the street", and then whine about how horrible society is and how the police don't do their job when one of the homeless shanks them and steals their wallet. Or how there should be police, but they aren't willing to raise their taxes to pay their wages, because they refuse to pay taxes.
We understand that desperate people are more likely to shank us than non-desperate people, so we make it so those people are not so miserable they have to go out and kill people to improve their lot in life.
While this costs A some money, the way we see it, A still gets the majority of the benefit - he's much better off than B, and he isn't going to get shanked by B in the street, thus greatly improving his quality of life.
You're missing the point. Yes large companies are easier able to outcompete smaller companies because, due to their size, they can keep prices low. But what the hell is wrong with a "monopoly" if its prices are so low and service so good that nobody else can compete with it? If this "monopoly" were to suddenly raise its prices, it *would* be outcompeted, regardless of size, unless the monopoly
a.) lowered prices again, or
b.) somehow forced others to not compete with them,
Which need not be very hard, in a segmented market. If a newcomers comes into the market in town X, a large company can simply funnel resources - financial and otherwise - from other cities to town X to limit it/run it out, and then redistribute.
Of course, this presumes that the corporation is effective and well-governed. But if it's not, we may as well have a government - at least we choose its office-holders every now and then, and it's supposedly protecting our interests first. Punishing a bad corporation by boycotting its goods works well in theory, but in practice may be rather hard to do effectively if it has a near-monopoly on important goods.
Lawsuits aren't like guns . . . a company can only threaten you with lawsuits if you're doing something illegal. If you're not doing something illegal, you'll win the case, and getting a defense lawyer good enough to beat a bad lawsuit is not very hard.
If there is a chance you may be doing something illegal, and that is quite often open to interpretation, you can be sued. Frivolous lawsuits may run both ways, after all, and if there is even a conceivable chance that the one is wrong the option to be taken to court is quite dangerous. Simply put, the company may afford to lose. You can not. Even if the system is completely fair to both sides, that doesn't negate the fact that you're not in the same category.
Except, of course, the slaves couldn't vote.
That's actually irrelevant to the social contract; the collective is sovereign. SCT applies to even prison states such as North Korea, Cuba--actually any existing government. As long as the people put up with it, they've ceded their rights, even slaves.
Morality is entirely arbitrary, and anyone who claims differently is wrong.
It's only arbitrated under SCT. Otherwise natural rights theory applies to all persons.
Ah, but the benefits of socialism benefit you, too.
How do you know my values? You don't, so you cannot make that claim. Fortunately I don't live in a socialist nation.
The number one cause of high health care costs is that health care requires highly trained, highly competant professionals. Every single doctor has spent as much time in school as a PHD. That's expensive. And it requires a lot of special training, a lot of work, and you have to be at least so competant to get accepted to medical school in the first place.
Doctors are the same as lawyers in that regard, and if you've ever paid a lawyer, you know how much they charge for billable hours. Doctors are above laywers in terms of time invested, so are correspondingly even more expensive.
The number two cause of high health care costs is extremely high capital costs - it costs inordinately large amounts of money to produce a drug or new medical device or surgury, and thus those are all very expensive. The newer they are, the more expensive they are - penicillin and asprin are incredibly cheap, but a new MRI machine can cost over a million dollars. Assuming the hospital needs to pay that off in five years, and they have 10 MRIs per day, how much do they have to add to the cost of each MRI to pay off a $1.5 million dollar machine? The answer is about $82. And that's just the machine!
The number three cause is health insurance companies/people who refuse to pay them (which are more or less the same thing).
Lawsuits is probably #4.
The problem is that lawsuits are not always illegitimate; many ARE legitimate. And many people simply don't understand this fact.
I am going to have to disagree with you. The primary factor in rising health care costs is due to the health care industry being divorced from the capitalistic model. The consumer does not make health care decisions based upon cost, but rather, other parties make the cost decisions.
Your employer determines which insurance coverage you have. At best, you may have 2-3 choices, but you do not have the opportunity to shop for providers.
Your HMO determines which in-system hospitals and doctors you use. I personally have a grand total of one hospital I may use. That is a monopoly.
The health care provider refuses to even discuss cost issues with the consumer. Next time you have some testing run, try asking how much it will cost. Your health care provider will not tell you. Your decision whether to have the testing performed is based upon whether you and your doctor think the testing is "medically necessary" with the cost not entering into the decision.
The only choice the consumer has regarding health care costs are whether to opt into purchasing health care insurance and pay whatever another party thinks you should pay, or opting to not purchase health care insurance and run the risk of catastrophic bankruptcy.
The factors you list (and other factors not yet mentioned) further compound the issue. Hence, health care costs significantly outpace inflation.
"In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color? In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters. In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor. In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure."
there is only one reason i think Barack Obama may not get elected.
It's poor form to neither attribute your quotes nor at least link them.
there is only one reason i think Barack Obama may not get elected.
"In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color? In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters. In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor. In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure."
Please note, this is not a news report. Be skeptical any time you see someone post sensationalist statements with the intent of raising money.
1) his voting record is full of abstentions (look on the congress site and they have voting records)
2) his ONLY platform is change
3) he is only good at reading speeches written by speechwriters
4) He would be the worse commander in chief... EVER
5) he is FAKE and disingenuous
Hillary was fake... we all knew it, and she knew we all knew it, and did not try to hide it.
Barak Obama is FAKE and tries to hide it.
The last president I voted for was Ralph NAder.
I did not vote in 2004 (The choices were bad (W) vs. worse (Kerry)
Now I might actually vote McCain because Barak Obama will be OWNED by lobbyists, and make our military worse than Rumsfeld watch.
There are so many reasons Barack Obama may not get elected...
1) his voting record is full of abstentions (look on the congress site and they have voting records)
2) his ONLY platform is change
3) he is only good at reading speeches written by speechwriters
4) He would be the worse commander in chief... EVER
5) he is FAKE and disingenuous
Hillary was fake... we all knew it, and she knew we all knew it, and did not try to hide it.
Barak Obama is FAKE and tries to hide it.
The last president I voted for was Ralph NAder.
I did not vote in 2004 (The choices were bad (W) vs. worse (Kerry)
Now I might actually vote McCain because Barak Obama will be OWNED by lobbyists, and make our military worse than Rumsfeld watch.
I think a lot of people share your concerns, but I think it is going to be hard for a Republican to win this election after 8 years of Bush. Lets face the Dems could have won by running John Edwards or even Hilary.
I think a lot of people share your concerns, but I think it is going to be hard for a Republican to win this election after 8 years of Bush. Lets face the Dems could have won by running John Edwards or even Hilary.
I agree with that statement.
The issue I concern myself most with is COnservation. Barak Obama is not as strong on Conservation as McCain.
Look at their recent speeches and records. McCain has done a lot for the environment during his tenure as Senator. Arizona is developing quickly, but McCain set the conservation laws to preserve large portions of the state.
I think overall McCain is a good man.
Lets face the Dems could have won by running John Edwards or even Hilary.
Against McCain? No, they're not even close. Independents hate those two. McCain is turnkey for the swing voter.
Because one involves two entities which need to make a profit and the other one involves one entity which needs to make a profit.
By that logic a monopoly is best because then it's only “one entity seeking profit” . . . completely ignores the force of competition.
The reason we have health insurance is because people realized they could make money this way and Republicans are dinosaurs who hate socialization.
The problem is that health insurance is a scam because, sooner or later, everyone needs health care, and the cheapest way of preventing poor health is proactive prevention. This is a public health thing best handled by the government, because it is a public need which can only be served by specialists.
Yeah, and Socialism is totally the wave of the future. Forgive me for being such a dinosaur, but I don't like the idea of “experts” managing my health for me. In fact it sounds strangely . . . fascist.
No. Its a matter of blaming it on people in your own country who ultimately have nothing to do with the military reality (or at least, nothing more than any other group). Losing the Vietnam War was not the fault of people in the US any more than losing WWI was the fault of people in Germany.
Many people termed "conservatives" in the United States are facist. They are authoritarian and nationalist (and/or racist) and rely on the idea of preventing or reversing cultural decline.
George W. Bush and his supporters are good examples of what I'm talking about, actually - the whole nationalistic, jingoistic rigamarole, their constant claims of our culture/civilization/way of life being under attack, ect.
Its not identical to fascism, to be fair, but it does resemble it.
George W. Bush and his supporters are NOT good examples of conservatives, for one thing, and preventing or reversing cultural decline is not fascist unless you enlist the power of the government to bring it about . . . which a traditional conservative wouldn't do: he would say “take the government out of culture, and it'll go back to normal.”
Roosevelt's policies were not fascist.
The “New Deal” certainly was. Again, I don't mean this as a slur; I'm not one of those people who cries “fascist, fascist!” against any view I don't like, but in the case of the New Deal I'm right. One only has to compare the economic policies of Mussolini to those of Roosevelt. The concepts of make-work programs and a collectivized economy are as decidedly fascist as nationalism is.
Yes, because we don't take it far enough. We're in a limbo where we try to keep things private but socialize stuff, so everything ends up costing more than it should because we outsource jobs to external corporations which overcharge the government for their stuff.
The whole outsourcing of government stuff to external companies is a horrible idea and is a large part of why we have so many issues - rather than having socialized health care, we have requirements that employers purchase health insurance coverage from third party companies. We should just make the government the insurer and kill those health insurance companies.
This rests on the assumption that the government is on our side. Again, government monopolies function as any other true coercive monopoly, often in spite of good intentions on the part of bureaucrats. I don't see why reducing competition will lower healthcare costs.
I think they are, if you're talking about the broad scale of the country. The reasons are capital costs as well as long pay-off time.
No you guys were wrong here. The figure posted (35 years, billions of dollars) ignores the fact that these are statistics for the highway system at large. Private companies would instead be building individual highways, or small highway networks – working together and sharing plans to ensure it all meshed, of course.
Also, as I pointed out before, investors often put their money in things which take a decade or more to pay off, and there are often millions or billions of dollars on the line in these projects. Just open up the Wall Street Journal.
Raising taxes, for instance, is in the benefit of the poor, but many poor people vote Republican because they're too stupid to realize that those taxes end up coming back to them, and more to them than anyone else.
Yeah, how dare those stupid poor people decline government assistance!
Have you ever considered the fact that some poor people don't like the idea of taking stolen handouts from strangers?
Over time, we should expect highschool dropout unemployment to increase because unskilled labor is becoming increasingly valueless - or rather, the amount we have to pay for it falls due to increased mechanization and similar. Already I've seen supermarkets with half of their checkout stands being entirely automated, policed by 1-2 people who watch everyone. What used to take 12 cashiers now takes 2, and we should expect this trend to continue.
The ol' “machines kill jobs” argument; how could I not see it coming? Machines merely allow employees to do more work in the same amount of time as before. This raises wages, not the other way around. Also, many machines do not require anywhere near a high school degree to work with. When I used to work on a farm, I was surrounded by high school dropouts, but they still made use of fairly complex machinery everyday. Why? Because it doesn't take 4 years of socialized education to learn how to press buttons.
The reality is, however, that the reason that minimum wage must exist is because employers and employees have unequal market power. Corporations often collude in keeping wages low. You can see many examples of this, such as when the Screenwriter's Guild went on strike. The corporations many of them work for collude together, and thus there is collective bargaining.
The Screenwriter's Guild striker proved that the screenwriters were unhappy with their wages, and nothing more.
Indeed, if the corporation uses a different curve for labor, they can adjust the point of intersection in a way favorable for them via adjusting their demand, thus causing unemployment and allowing them to pay their employees less money.
As that hardly makes sense even to me, I'll give an example:
Let's say you need 100 employees to make enough shoes to meet consumer demand.
Now let's say you find out you can hire 90 employees, which allows you to make 90% of the shoes you'd make normally, but you can hire those 90 employees for only 80% of the cost of hiring 100 employees - those extra employees demand more money.
The company can then say "Well, making 90% of the shoes isn't optimal from a supply-demand standpoint on that end, but as we can bump the price of the shoes up slightly as we're undersupplying them, we actually can make more profit by producing fewer shoes!"
So while they could sell more total shoes and thus have a much higher total revenue with 100 employees, they can get away with 90 employees. Additionally we, the consumer, actually end up paying a higher price for our goods, while the employees are being paid less than they "should be".
What minimum wage does is mess with this situation. If 90% of the employees for your shoe-making factory cost 90% as much as 100 employees, there's no reason to underemploy - you make more money if you produce the "correct" amount of shoes from the standpoint of your original curve intersection of supply and demand for your shoes. In fact, this can lead to the somewhat bizzare situation where a minimum wage causes worker wages to rise (up to the level) and the prices of consumer goods to fall (as they cease to be underproduced).
Sorry but that doesn't make an ounce of sense. If you sell less shoes than is optimal, and thus bump up the cost of shoes, you don't make any higher profit because you sell less shoes in the first place. Your entire argument rests on a hypothetical situation in which 10 necessary employees would be paid arbitrarily more than their 90 co-workers, and that undersupplying a product boosts profits. If you're idea was true, then before minimum wage laws any halfway decent company would be doing its best to produce as little of a good as possible...
If you make people desperate, they're more liable to commit crimes. If, for instance, they have to support their son who is paralyzed from the waist down, but are high school dropouts, thievery is one way to make ends meet - and many people will choose to do so. If we make it so that their handicapped son can get a job in more places, then they're less likely to be driven to desperation.
I'd rather have to pay some money to retrofit my bathrooms than have a one in a thousand chance of losing a thousand times as much money.
As for renting houses to everyone and anyone, the government has to analyze costs and understand whether making those people homeless (and thus increasing the crime rate) costs them/society less than covering for them not being able to pay their loans/rent.
There's a difference between legitimate altruism – giving money to people who deserve it – and throwing money and benefits at borderline-retards and criminals because added wealth will make them less desperate. There's also the fact that our government does a lot along your line of reasoning, and it's only made things worse. Why? Because by giving money to people who are criminals – not just poor, but criminals too – you are rewarding criminality. This is exactly what we do: spend tons of money on the worst communities.
And I live in a ghettoe; contrary to contemporary wisdom, it's not “99% decent hard-working poor people with 1% bad eggs” . . . more like “30% dangerous criminals, 70% lazy.” They don't work, they don't want to work, and they know they don't have to work.
Morality is entirely arbitrary, and anyone who claims differently is wrong. That includes cultural anthropologists.
Therefore, if my morality is absolute, then it applies everywhere. I can say whatever I want is moral or immoral, and I'm not wrong because there is no "absolute" morality.
There IS an arguable "universal" and very interesting form of morality, though, which is probably the closest thing there is to universal morality. That is the idea that you don't get to choose who you are; you are a completely random person. A moral society is one in which you are willing to be born into.
Therefore, slavery IS immoral because very few people would choose to be born into a society with slavery, due to the possibility of being born a slave.
Just because different cultures have different ideas of morality does not mean that morality is arbitrary. That's like saying the benefits of technology are arbitrary because there are tribes in the Pacific islands that haven't progressed past the stone-age.
Right. Capitalism, as many people will readily point out, sucks. The model leads to all sorts of terrible consequences.
Problem is it also has some good attributes.
In an OPTIMAL society everyone would be strongly encouraged to work but there wouldn't be crime, homelessness, unemployment, ect.
Capitalism does capture some optimal elements - it very strongly encourages people to work via the best incentive of all, rewarding people for working better than other people. Not just MORE, but BETTER. It encourages people to innovate, to do a better job than anyone else, ect.
The problem is that you also end up with poor, desperate people who break the rules and commit crimes, and capitalism can produce a LOT of such people. Additionally, certain necessities can be horribly overcharged for, or simply be horribly expensive - catastrophic health care issues, for instance.
Capitalism raises people out of poverty not the other way 'round. Just look at the only time in history when capitalism was allowed to go nearly unhindered: the industrial revolution. Conditions were horrible, but they were DRASTIC improvements over the conditions that preceded them. The only reason that was when you saw the birth of anti-capitalism is because before then, poor people were fairly isolated . . . now you had hundreds of unskilled laborers living very close together. It was a meteoric rise in the quality of life over the condition that preceded it.
I'm pro-death myself; I believe most children should be aborted.
Lovely.
Because no one else is willing to do it.
No, they're prevented from doing it with excessive regulation and unionism. They could make a hell of a lot of money doing it but they can't.
Universal healthcare isn't the ONLY solution; we could also illegalize health insurance. That would drive down the cost of health care significantly, but at the cost of many people being unable to get health care at all. We then make it so hospitals only have to treat people who can pay, and we have the problem fixed. Sure, life expectancy drops like a rock, but watch the health care costs go down!
:P
For some reason, I don't think driving people to desperation is a good strategy, though.
We could also get the government out of the healthcare industry, remove hundreds of billions of dollars in added costs, not to mention significant barriers to scientific progress, and watch the prices fall.
Absolutely. Its the same as throwing someone into jail for not paying their taxes. Indeed, it just IS a tax.
Yes, any coercion or thievery carried out by the government is perfectly acceptable because it's “just like taxes.”
This is actually a valid concern... sort of.
The issue is that necessities ARE necessary and you CAN be gouged for them; the oil industry does this, for instance. We HAVE to pay if we want to live, and we can't easily produce our own oil. Health care is even more capable of gouging, because it is literally impossible to give yourself open bypass heart surgury (though it may be possible in the future via advancements in machinery).
Thing is, food is far too decentralized to price fix effectively and, more to the point, many people can grow a great deal of their own food or otherwise do it on their own - its pretty impossible to gouge too much on food in most situations because it is too easy for me to feed myself out of my backyard/the woods. A human with a quarter acre of actual property could feed a family of four, in theory, and you certainly could do so if you went out and shot a deer or two.
While this isn't feasible for everyone, it is feasible for too many people to price gouge too well, and people might see a possibility for great profit by underselling.
Its too hard to price fix effectively in this way, as its too easy to undercut the food industry.
Just because something is a necessity does not remove the fact of competition. Oil companies could more easily engage in price-setting than, say, the walkie-talkie industry, but they're not. In fact, even the Democrats in congress who were holding the “oil company hearings” weren't suggesting that they were engaged in price-fixing.
This is what is known as a "blatent lie". Oil is expensive right now precisely BECAUSE of cigar-twirling oil company executives jacking up the prices of oil. It has nothing to do with "excessive government regulation"; these companies are making record profits.
They lie because they want even more money.
They're making record profits because they accurately predicted the future of the oil market, and responded accordingly by stock-piling oil for when it would be scarcer. This is not only a wise move on their part, but necessary for the capitalist system to work properly. It makes capital assets more liquid and facilitates trade.
Liberals understand complexities. Many conservatives can't understand complexities, so try to oversimplify and fail.
We don't penalize A, we don't reward B. We just make B suck less.
Many conservatives simply say "A is its own reward, and B can go live out on the street", and then whine about how horrible society is and how the police don't do their job when one of the homeless shanks them and steals their wallet. Or how there should be police, but they aren't willing to raise their taxes to pay their wages, because they refuse to pay taxes.
We understand that desperate people are more likely to shank us than non-desperate people, so we make it so those people are not so miserable they have to go out and kill people to improve their lot in life.
While this costs A some money, the way we see it, A still gets the majority of the benefit - he's much better off than B, and he isn't going to get shanked by B in the street, thus greatly improving his quality of life.
You ignore the fact that rewarding the impoverished necessarily involved taking money from the hard-working. There's actually fairly significant sociological data that suggests that there is something fundamentally different between the poor and the middle/upper classes besides lack of funds: they don't consider the future (and have lower IQs). They're fundamentally short-sighted, and my own experiences living amongst them (and being one, technically, though I think class has more to do with how you think than how much money you have) reinforces this every day.
I don't think giving them money fixes things, because it teaches them that living hand-to-mouth gets you rewards.
We don't penalize A, we don't reward B. We just make B suck less.
Interesting. I consider it a penalty to pay higher & higher %'s of what I make the harder I work.
Only a masochist would not consider it a penalty.
Do you really believe what you just wrote?
"Okay Tommy, you did all your homework and got A's, for that you get LESS allowance. Billy, you didn't work as hard and you got D's so we're going to give you the part of Tommy's allowance we took from him."
To be a lib you must be required to have a lobotomy.
I am going to have to disagree with you. The primary factor in rising health care costs is due to the health care industry being divorced from the capitalistic model. The consumer does not make health care decisions based upon cost, but rather, other parties make the cost decisions.
This is simply untrue. This is capitalism at its best! The alternative to having your product is unacceptable, and you talk him into purchasing more and more.
"In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color? In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters. In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor. In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure."
This is simply untrue. A fifth of all registrations in Colorado? Seriously? No.
1) his voting record is full of abstentions (look on the congress site and they have voting records)
2) his ONLY platform is change
3) he is only good at reading speeches written by speechwriters
4) He would be the worse commander in chief... EVER
5) he is FAKE and disingenuous
Oh come on. I may not like Obama, but let's look at these:
1) True. He skips out on work often (he's missed over 20% of his votes as senator, IIRC). That said, it is untrue that he has a massive number of present votes, as many people believe; THAT was in his state, not as a federal Congressman.
2) False. Change isn't his platform; it is his SLOGAN. Only the ignorant would claim it is his platform. I know what his platform is; clealry you haven't educated yourself, otherwise you would too.
3) He's very good at public speaking. He's charismatic. But this is how all politicians work. ALL politicians. Few politicians write their own speeches these days.
4) No he wouldn't. Worst? Seriously? He's certainly going to be better than our current president, who IS the worst president this country has ever had. Seriously, bar none, Dubya has been the worst president we've had. He's worse than Harding was! He's worse than a guy who died after a month in office! That takes skill. Obama is not going to lead us into two costly, disasterous wars, fail to prevent a terrorist attack, fail to respond properly to natural disasters, intentionally devalue the dollar, refuse to deal with environmental issues, intentionally fix the DoJ to hire no one but Republicans, endorse torture, ect. Seriously, no. Obama simply is not going to be as bad as Bush is.
5) Yes, he is fake and disingenous.
Now I might actually vote McCain because Barak Obama will be OWNED by lobbyists, and make our military worse than Rumsfeld watch.
You'll vote for:
A man who thinks torture is okay, despite previously saying torture was bad, because now it is politically expedient?
A man who IS owned by lobbyists? Seriously, have you been paying any attention at all? No? Yeah. He's got so many ties to lobbyists its not even funny.
A man who wants to continue the disasterous war in Iraq? Really? You think this is good for our military? Here's a hint: it isn't.
A man who is going to continue the current disasterous Republican economic policies?
A man who won't regulate industry sufficiently?
A man who won't condemn the actions of the Bush administration?
In short, you're voting for Bush III, except this one might die in office from cancer. Well, and is less stupid and evil (in a self serving sort of way; Bush is not a saturday morning cartoon characater, not even from Captain Planet).
I think overall McCain is a good man.
The man was tortured as a POW but backed off on preventing torture of American prisoners.
Not a very good man at all.
By that logic a monopoly is best because then it's only “one entity seeking profit” . . . completely ignores the force of competition.
Actually, you didn't understand my statement at all.
Currently, there are two entities which need to make money:
The insurance company.
The doctors.
Cut out one, and you have fewer entities trying to make a profit on every transaction.
THAT'S what I'm talking about. The government doesn't profit on such things.
Yeah, and Socialism is totally the wave of the future. Forgive me for being such a dinosaur, but I don't like the idea of “experts” managing my health for me. In fact it sounds strangely . . . fascist.
It sounds nationalistic/racist? It sure doesn't to me.
Its not fascist. People need to learn what "fascist" means.
George W. Bush and his supporters are NOT good examples of conservatives, for one thing, and preventing or reversing cultural decline is not fascist unless you enlist the power of the government to bring it about . . . which a traditional conservative wouldn't do: he would say “take the government out of culture, and it'll go back to normal.”
It can be, and I'd tend to say that's exactly what he has done/tried to do. And given Dubya and his supporters make up about two-thirds of the Republican party, they're probably what people think of when they think of "conservatives" in this country.
The “New Deal” certainly was. Again, I don't mean this as a slur; I'm not one of those people who cries “fascist, fascist!” against any view I don't like, but in the case of the New Deal I'm right. One only has to compare the economic policies of Mussolini to those of Roosevelt. The concepts of make-work programs and a collectivized economy are as decidedly fascist as nationalism is.
Just because fascists did something doesn't mean it is a fascist policy. That's like saying Christianity is fascist because many fascists were Christians. Well, its probably arguable, but still, you understand what I'm saying.
Roosevelt's policies weren't fascist but socialist, as were Mussolini's economic policies. Indeed, IIRC, Mussolini was a socialist prior to his career as a fascist.
Now, I suppose one could argue that fascism is a type of socialism (and given that Mussolini invented the term and thus his government was, in theory, the exemplar of it) or perhaps includes some socialist policies or is related to it, it does not follow that all socialist policies are fascist.
This rests on the assumption that the government is on our side. Again, government monopolies function as any other true coercive monopoly, often in spite of good intentions on the part of bureaucrats. I don't see why reducing competition will lower healthcare costs.
Well, first off, the government is on our side. They've got flamethrowers, after all; if we go up against them, we're pretty screwed, wouldn't you say? :P So its best to imagine they're on our side.
The government of the US is on our side; it may not always be best at it, and sometimes people (particularly Republicans like Reagan and Bush Jr.) try to subvert it, but it is so.
And when you've got a monopoly, it certainly is possible for it to be good for people. Monopolies can fix prices low as well as high, after all.
People worry about underpaying doctors, but I don't really think that's an issue. We can certainly pay doctors well enough, if not perhaps quite as well as they would like, but we could pay them a good deal. And assuming we make deals about medical school we shouldn't see other issues.
Yeah, how dare those stupid poor people decline government assistance!
Have you ever considered the fact that some poor people don't like the idea of taking stolen handouts from strangers?
Given their overall behavior patterns, not really.
The ol' “machines kill jobs” argument; how could I not see it coming? Machines merely allow employees to do more work in the same amount of time as before. This raises wages, not the other way around. Also, many machines do not require anywhere near a high school degree to work with. When I used to work on a farm, I was surrounded by high school dropouts, but they still made use of fairly complex machinery everyday. Why? Because it doesn't take 4 years of socialized education to learn how to press buttons.
Machines kill low end jobs; they don't kill jobs overall, and probably overall are positive for jobs. But its certainly true you need far fewer workers today to operate a thousand acre farm than you did two hundred years ago.
The Screenwriter's Guild striker proved that the screenwriters were unhappy with their wages, and nothing more.
So you're saying that the companies colluding together to fix wages is perfectly fine, but workers doing the same is not?
Sorry but that doesn't make an ounce of sense. If you sell less shoes than is optimal, and thus bump up the cost of shoes, you don't make any higher profit because you sell less shoes in the first place. Your entire argument rests on a hypothetical situation in which 10 necessary employees would be paid arbitrarily more than their 90 co-workers, and that undersupplying a product boosts profits. If you're idea was true, then before minimum wage laws any halfway decent company would be doing its best to produce as little of a good as possible...
It actually does make sense. The reason everyone doesn't produce as little as possible is because it won't always make them more money, as well as the economics of scale.
Typically, producing a large amount of something is cheaper per object than producing a small amount of something. But this doesn't necessarily scale linearly; there may be some point after which the price per object has plateaued, and each additional one costs no less to make than the previous one did.
Now, let's consider the supply/demand curve for labor. If you employ fewer people, you can pay them less as there is some number of people who will accept less than the optimum balance point. This is how and why that curve exists. Now, depending on the SLOPE of the supply of labor curve, you could potentially end up making more money by employing fewer people if your economics of scale aren't affected. The reason is that you can end up paying less per object produced because you had to pay fewer wages but the same amount of materials costs or what have you for the actual objects.
Additionally, you may end up moving your supply/demand curve over on the product end as well - you are producing fewer objects, thus you can sell them for more because there are fewer of them.
This could potentially end up with more profit for you, IF the curves are right.
There's a difference between legitimate altruism – giving money to people who deserve it – and throwing money and benefits at borderline-retards and criminals because added wealth will make them less desperate.
Well, we could institutionalize them/throw them into furnaces, but conservatives seem to be opposed to that, too. I mean, there's good arguments for preventing the poor from breeding, but people feel that is completely inhumane.
Why? Because by giving money to people who are criminals – not just poor, but criminals too – you are rewarding criminality. This is exactly what we do: spend tons of money on the worst communities.
Ah, but you see, the flaw in your thinking is "these people are innately criminal". As it turns out, the more prosperous, well-educated, ect. people are, the better they become. They have fewer children, commit fewer crimes, ect.
Success and opportunity make for fewer criminals and poor babies. This is why feeding Africa is a bad idea - we aren't making them more prosperous, all we're allowing them to do is have more babies. You have to combine such aid with stuff which will actually make the properous - it isn't enough to feed and clothe them, you need to educate them as well and give them a future.
Now, there is an argument to be made there is a rather large genetic component in intelligence, so ultimately the only true solution is a genetic engineering/selective breeding program. And that may be so. But it also has an environmental factor, and we should exhaust that possibility while we figure out which genes they are, first.
Besides, civil war is expensive.
Just because different cultures have different ideas of morality does not mean that morality is arbitrary. That's like saying the benefits of technology are arbitrary because there are tribes in the Pacific islands that haven't progressed past the stone-age.
It is not entirely fair to say it is arbitrary, given that natural selection will select for societies with morality which doesn't cause them to collapse, but natural selection itself simply IS - it isn't a moral force or anything. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way, or that that way is optimal, and it is possible that the optimal mode for survival is difficult for natural selection to select for due to a deep valley of non-success around its high point of "This society is awesome".
But even the survival of a society doesn't necessarily mean it is particularly moral. Is the Chinese government moral because it is stable?
Capitalism raises people out of poverty not the other way 'round. Just look at the only time in history when capitalism was allowed to go nearly unhindered: the industrial revolution. Conditions were horrible, but they were DRASTIC improvements over the conditions that preceded them. The only reason that was when you saw the birth of anti-capitalism is because before then, poor people were fairly isolated . . . now you had hundreds of unskilled laborers living very close together. It was a meteoric rise in the quality of life over the condition that preceded it.
The problem is that capitalism, unchecked, leads to increased dichotomization between the rich and the poor. Look at the people who worked in company towns; they had no opportunity, no chance for success. And it behooved the companies to keep people trapped in such situations. THAT is capitalism. That is why capitalism is bad. The more power corporations gain, the more screwed people become.
You end up with a rise as the corporations form; this is great for people. The problem is that eventually the corporations become too powerful and control too much, fix prices, and screw everyone. This is the end result of unchecked capitalism - the corporations eat many people.
This is not to say that capitalism is bad, but anyone who thinks unrestrained capitalism is good wasn't paying attention in history class. The end result is Super Ultra Mega Corp, a company which owns everything and effectively everyone. This is very bad.
We could also get the government out of the healthcare industry, remove hundreds of billions of dollars in added costs, not to mention significant barriers to scientific progress, and watch the prices fall.
To do that, we'd have to get rid of mandatory health insurance and make it so hospitals don't have to treat anyone who can't pay.
So your opinion is that we should let people die in the street.
This is a valid opinion, but I believe the poor carrying around tons of horrible communicative diseases and dying in the street is bad for society, and ultimately bad for me.
Yes, any coercion or thievery carried out by the government is perfectly acceptable because it's “just like taxes.”
Living in any society has costs associated with it, but the costs should outweigh the benefits.
Or are you saying you'd rather live in Zimbabwe?
Just because something is a necessity does not remove the fact of competition. Oil companies could more easily engage in price-setting than, say, the walkie-talkie industry, but they're not. In fact, even the Democrats in congress who were holding the “oil company hearings” weren't suggesting that they were engaged in price-fixing.
That's because they lack something we like to call "balls".
You ignore the fact that rewarding the impoverished necessarily involved taking money from the hard-working. There's actually fairly significant sociological data that suggests that there is something fundamentally different between the poor and the middle/upper classes besides lack of funds: they don't consider the future (and have lower IQs). They're fundamentally short-sighted, and my own experiences living amongst them (and being one, technically, though I think class has more to do with how you think than how much money you have) reinforces this every day.
I don't think giving them money fixes things, because it teaches them that living hand-to-mouth gets you rewards.
Well, first off, yes, I'm well aware that some poor people are likely poor due to genetic inferiority. Many people hate to think about this, but it is so. Worse still, many people equate this with racism, as evidence suggests that certain ethnic groups very likely have differing levels of these genes in their population - in particular, a certain population which has very long been in poverty in this country, despite several other waves of people who were also strongly discriminated against making their way into society and today not being any poorer than whites are.
Second, though, intelligence also has a large environmental component - many poor people may have the right genes but had the wrong environment to actually end up smart. Part of the purpose of the public education system is, in my eyes, to provide an environment which makes people smarter.
You don't just give them money. When you "give money to the poor" you should be educating them and vaccinating them while housing them and feeding them. Ultimately, the point is to make their children more intelligent than their parents and not be poor and stupid (or at least, AS poor and stupid) as their parents are. Long term social engineering is expensive but in my eyes ultimately worthwhile.
People may see this money, taxed from the people who work, as taking something away from them, but it isn't. Ultimately, keeping the lower class from being so poor and desperate to produce many people who will kill people for money or break into our homes benefits us a lot more than it benefits them, because they're still poor and we aren't. It also benefits us by creating a more useful workforce in the future.
It sounds nationalistic/racist? It sure doesn't to me.
Its not fascist. People need to learn what "fascist" means.
You're the one who doesn't know what Fascism means. Fascism is collectivizing the economy and putting the lives of everybody in the hands of the state, along with a general tendency towards nationalist or racist rhetoric. You're probably right though in the sense that "public health management" has a more Communist ring to it; still sucks, still wouldn't favor it
Communism is collectivizing the economy and putting the lives of everybody in the hands of the state, along with a general tendency towards anti-capitalist or internationalist rhetoric.
On a more positive note:
Kudos for being a non-egalitarian Leftist. You are a rare breed.
Also, I will be out of town until the 14th so unable to post. Maybe there are other Conservatives on gleemax?
McCain campaign compares the New York Times to bloggers who live in their mother's basement while "ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons".
McCain campaign compares the New York Times to bloggers who live in their mother's basement while "ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons".
Now that is just unfair--bloggers who live in their mother's basement are head and shoulders above the New York Times. Fact.
Now that is just unfair--bloggers who live in their mother's basement are head and shoulders above the New York Times. Fact.
Oh, Snap!
You're the one who doesn't know what Fascism means. Fascism is collectivizing the economy and putting the lives of everybody in the hands of the state, along with a general tendency towards nationalist or racist rhetoric.
Communism is collectivizing the economy and putting the lives of everybody in the hands of the state, along with a general tendency towards anti-capitalist or internationalist rhetoric.
Thing is, all collectivization of the economy involves some degree of putting the lives of everyone in the hands of the state. Indeed, pretty much ALL society involves it to some degree or another. Governments exist for the common welfare. Its just to what degree people consider the government to be involved in it. Some people see the government as "those guys who keep those other guys from killing us", while others see the government as something which should have a say in pretty much every aspect of life. Most people are somewhere in between; most people, for instance, are happy that the government does roads, though there are plenty of people who disagree, but many people are iffier about it, say, being involved in their healthcare (though the numbers are pretty close to even). (Un)surprisingly, many people on the Right in this country want many laws passed which actually add to governmental power - they want the government to be involved in marriage, to be involved in regulating what people can watch on TV, to prevent people from watching pornography, ect. I personally am not a big fan of the government being involved in our personal lives, but believe it is good for it to take a regulatory role in the economy - not too tight, not too loose, and to try to promote science, new products and forms of energy which can help the country, regulate the dollar's international value, and pay for health care.
I believe in some socialistic programs, and have no issue with paying taxes, because I see them coming back to me by various routes. But I also believe in capitalism as a means of helping society to act more like a meritocracy, as well as a means of motivating people to do more.
Of course, as I see capitalism as a sort of meritocratic system, I'm for a 100% estate tax and much shorter copyright terms (ones which extend, say, 10 years after the death of the creator, or 25 years, whichever is longer).
On a more positive note:
Kudos for being a non-egalitarian Leftist. You are a rare breed.
Yeah, tell that to my parents :P They think I dislike Obama because he's black.
I actually dislike him because I think he's got no balls like all too many of the democrats. I was more enthused about Hillary; I didn't think she'd make a great president, but I wanted to see some heads on pikes and I felt she was more likely to deliver and she had slightly superior positions on the issues I cared about. Well, metaphorically speaking on the pikes thing; we're a civilized people.
I really would have rather voted for Gravel; I voted for Kucinich in 2004 but he seems like he's getting a bit nuttier these days and I wouldn't have voted for him this year anyway, as I actually had (some) influence.EDIT:
Goldfarb compared the editors to a blogger "sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons."
Oh snap! He's just lost the crucial D&D player vote!
Oh come on. I may not like Obama, but let's look at these:
1) True. He skips out on work often (he's missed over 20% of his votes as senator, IIRC). That said, it is untrue that he has a massive number of present votes, as many people believe; THAT was in his state, not as a federal Congressman.
Go to the website, you can see for yourself. Even so in state or not I don't think he has the will to stick to any of his policies.
2) False. Change isn't his platform; it is his SLOGAN. Only the ignorant would claim it is his platform. I know what his platform is; clealry you haven't educated yourself, otherwise you would too.
Oh yes your right... his platform is to support the lobbyist... silly me. Ofcourse his platform is not LITERALLY change, but that is what he rides on. Barak Obama has no clear platform. He will ride on W's failures.
4) No he wouldn't. Worst? Seriously? He's certainly going to be better than our current president, who IS the worst president this country has ever had. Seriously, bar none, Dubya has been the worst president we've had. He's worse than Harding was! He's worse than a guy who died after a month in office! That takes skill.
Not defending bush.
Obama is not going to lead us into two costly, disasterous wars, fail to prevent a terrorist attack, fail to respond properly to natural disasters, intentionally devalue the dollar, refuse to deal with environmental issues, intentionally fix the DoJ to hire no one but Republicans, endorse torture, ect. Seriously, no. Obama simply is not going to be as bad as Bush is.
None of this has anything to do with commanding the military (Ok I know commander in chief means many things, but I was referring to military capacity). Bush's tenure is actually very good at preventing terrorist attacks. I was in the intelligence field in the military. It is a thankless job. When you do it right, no one knows... when you do it poorly it is disastrous. Obama would be disastrous and would actually NEGOTIATE with terrorists. 9-11 cannot be blamed on W. That could of been prevented in the Clinton years (A president I very much admire).
You'll vote for:
A man who thinks torture is okay, despite previously saying torture was bad, because now it is politically expedient?
I disagreed with McCain in the first place. I think water boarding is FAR from torture and should be used at will. I am not concerned about terrorists in Gitmo. Water board them all you want. I would rather get information than worry about how a prisoner at gitmo feels.
A man who IS owned by lobbyists? Seriously, have you been paying any attention at all? No? Yeah. He's got so many ties to lobbyists its not even funny.
Of course he does...
A man who wants to continue the disasterous war in Iraq? Really? You think this is good for our military? Here's a hint: it isn't.
Well why don't you describe the exit strategy? How are we going to leave without leaving a wake of terrorists behind. Yes he needs to keep them there until we figure out how to cleanup bush's mess. Hint: we won't be able to, so we need to stay there a long time.
A man who is going to continue the current disasterous Republican economic policies?
A man who won't regulate industry sufficiently?
Barak Obama will give to the poor while squeezing the middle class. McCain will give to the rich while squeezing the middle class. Either way most of america is screwed. At least I know McCain is better on environmental issues os I will just have to go with him.
A man who won't condemn the actions of the Bush administration?
I have a feeling he will.
In short, you're voting for Bush III, except this one might die in office from cancer. Well, and is less stupid and evil (in a self serving sort of way; Bush is not a saturday morning cartoon characater, not even from Captain Planet).
I would prefer Bush (Whom I don't like) Over Obama.
None of this has anything to do with commanding the military (Ok I know commander in chief means many things, but I was referring to military capacity). Bush's tenure is actually very good at preventing terrorist attacks. I was in the intelligence field in the military. It is a thankless job. When you do it right, no one knows... when you do it poorly it is disastrous. Obama would be disastrous and would actually NEGOTIATE with terrorists. 9-11 cannot be blamed on W. That could of been prevented in the Clinton years (A president I very much admire).
He has done a remarkably poor job as far as terrorism goes, actually. He discontinued the annual report because it was making him look bad.
The long, the short, and the middle of it is that 9/11 was readily preventable, and the reason it wasn't prevented was because Bush was massively incompetant and unwilling to deal with it. This is known at this point.
He also did a very, very, very poor job of tracking down Mr. I Send Anthrax Through The Mail. I seem to remember a multimillion dollar settlement/lawsuit after they went after the wrong guy for ages.
I also seem to remember them claiming that Iraq was responsible for both. As if.
The reality is that virtually no terrorist attacks in the US are the result of foreign terrorists, ever. 9/11 was outright bizzare. In 2001, of the terrorist attacks, all but two were unambigiously domestic, and one of them (the anthrax attacks) was very likely domestic as well. And this was a bumper year for international terrorism in the US.
Failing as catastrophically as he did in preventing 9/11 was the result of sheer incompetance on his part. The best of it was when he went in for the photo op rather than deal with hijacked aircraft. Only a truly horrible president would do that.
Would him have responding then have done anything? Very likely not. It MIGHT have prevented the attack on the pentagon, maybe. But the fact that he didn't care enough to interrupt his photo op indicates what sort of horrible president he was.
And Clinton couldn't have stopped 9/11 beyond catching Bin Laden, and I seem to recall the Republican party claiming he was going after him as a distraction from Monica Lewinsky. They were against us going into third world countries to fix their problems.
Clinton set Bush up with the intel necessary to stop 9/11, and the Bush administration ignored it.
9/11 wasn't Bush's FAULT; he didn't DO it. But it was his fault he didn't stop it. He's the commander in chief, its his problem, his fault. That's the nature of the job. Especially when you get reports warning you about it, then lie about it, as he did.
Bush was a failure, and his failure to both prevent and respond appropriately to 9/11 both were major failings as president.
And guess what? It's been 7 years, and we still haven't caught Bin Laden.
I know/have known people in the military lately, and they've spouted a lot of BS about what was going on - stuff which was later shown to be blatently false. I'm inclined to say at this point I know more than most people who are in the military do about what is going on, given their record in recent years.
I disagreed with McCain in the first place. I think water boarding is FAR from torture and should be used at will. I am not concerned about terrorists in Gitmo. Water board them all you want. I would rather get information than worry about how a prisoner at gitmo feels.
So its okay to torture people. Okay, well, when we send you to the middle east and you get captured and tortured, we'll be sure to say its okay.
Simulating death is torture. People who have undergone the process agree on this. This includes people who have done it voluntarily to see what it is like. I think its pretty difficult to argue any process wherein you think you are going to die is not torture.
Everything we do to "terrorists", everyone else in the world can do to Americans. And should, because CLEARLY, we think its okay.
So know that by saying waterboarding is okay, you're saying torturing our captured servicemen and civilians is okay.
This puts ME in danger, which I find unacceptable.
I know/have known people in the military lately, and they've spouted a lot of BS about what was going on - stuff which was later shown to be blatently false. I'm inclined to say at this point I know more than most people who are in the military do about what is going on, given their record in recent years.
I disagree with this. I know MANY people in the military, and I was in the NSA division. The military will not and SHOULD not tell american citizens everything that happens. It hurts the mission of the US military if the average citizen knows their procedure. When citizens learn of things that are classified, it hurts the ability of the US military to perform its job.
What stuff have they spouted that is false? Just because we are in a poorly planned war does not mean the military does not know what it is doing. The military is doing the best it can given the leash Washington is putting them on. There is no reason that the us military should not be able to bomb a mosque that terrorists are attacking from, and using as a shield. We are losing this war because we are more humane than our enemies.
So its okay to torture people. Okay, well, when we send you to the middle east and you get captured and tortured, we'll be sure to say its okay.
Doesn't matter as they will do it whether we say it is OK or not. ANd I have already been in the middle east... Bahrain for 4 months in 1992. I was in the demilitarized zone in Korea when we thought the North might run over back in 1993-94. South Korean soldiers told my watch that if the North runs through they will spare every South Korean but gut every american they see. Fun words. I say this stuff because I already put myself in harms way. Waterboarding is NOTHING compared to what these other countries do.
Simulating death is torture. People who have undergone the process agree on this. This includes people who have done it voluntarily to see what it is like. I think its pretty difficult to argue any process wherein you think you are going to die is not torture.
This is far less than they would do to us.
Everything we do to "terrorists", everyone else in the world can do to Americans. And should, because CLEARLY, we think its okay.
So know that by saying waterboarding is okay, you're saying torturing our captured servicemen and civilians is okay.
This puts ME in danger, which I find unacceptable.
I've already been in danger for US Policies.
They already do torture our servicemen in much more brutal physical ways.
We use temperature attenuation, sleep deprivation, and isolation to get information. I do not think these merit the same rank as physical torture. PLUS the average american public will never know how effective the waterboarding will be since NSA should not release any information they find.
Hold it right there pardner.
You are saying that if people are naturally rewarded for behavior A (hardwork, risk, education, success) and penalized for behavior B (opposite, or lacking those) you will have more of A than B?
I was taught by the liberals that if you penalized A and rewarded B, you would end up with more A.
Now you tell me different!
I have officially been OWNED :D
I disagree with this. I know MANY people in the military, and I was in the NSA division. The military will not and SHOULD not tell american citizens everything that happens. It hurts the mission of the US military if the average citizen knows their procedure. When citizens learn of things that are classified, it hurts the ability of the US military to perform its job.
Yeah, like when you're burning hazardous wastes illegally and causing cancer in people...
This is far less than they would do to us.
They already do torture our servicemen in much more brutal physical ways.
Irrelevant. We're supposed to be the good guys, not the slightly less evil guys.
We use temperature attenuation, sleep deprivation, and isolation to get information. I do not think these merit the same rank as physical torture. PLUS the average american public will never know how effective the waterboarding will be since NSA should not release any information they find.
Oh, but we already know how effective it is. Ineffective.
And anyone who claims that the military shouldn't be watched over by the civilian populace is dangerous.
Yeah, like when you're burning hazardous wastes illegally and causing cancer in people...
There are things for which the military should be brought to task.
Irrelevant. We're supposed to be the good guys, not the slightly less evil guys.
In an ideal world. That is why we do not use physical torture.
Oh, but we already know how effective it is. Ineffective.
And anyone who claims that the military shouldn't be watched over by the civilian populace is dangerous.
For every talking head that says it is effective, there can be one found to say that it is effective. If these techniques were not effective, they would not be employed. However, information has been gained for years and years and years. You use what works.
This is not used alone. It is matched up and verified with other information gathered through various means. The intelligence officers are quite proficient at determining garble from real information. I am not talking about heads of departments here, I am talking about the analysts that spend alot of time breaking it down. That is why Interogation techniques are still used. They work. You will never know when they work... only when they don't work is when the tragedies occur.
The military SHOULD be watched, and ultimately commanded by civilians. Civilians should not be micromanaging the military.
You can blame one man for putting us in a war, but what about the other representatives that we [americans] put in office. They failed their duty to act as a check and balance. How many members in the House and the Senate could have stood up and said 'No'? If your [collectively] elected representatives went along with the plan for war, then you are to blame.
Iraq is a mess. We created that mess. It would be profoundly short sighted on our part if we did not clean it up. The day we leave we will open up a power vacuum. We need to make sure Iraq can survive that day or we will create a much larger problem in the future.
I did not agree with the Iraq war, but once it started, everything changed. It is completely idiotic to offer a man a new house, tear down his old one, then walk out before finishing. Even if you disagree with ever making the offer, it was done in your name by people you [collectively] elected to make those decisions for you.
Pulling out our troops "because we shouldn't have been there in the first place" is the wrong idea, and I will never support a man/or woman who's thought process is so short sighted. Give me a real reason to pull out and I'll listen.
TLDR: Don't elect jelly fish, they have no backbone and float on the tide of public opinion. We [Americans] are all to blame for the things America does. Accept blame and vote accordingly.
Don't vote the lesser of two evils
Cthulu '08:coolcthul
Use a little forethought now so we don't create a bigger mess tomorrow.
You can blame one man for putting us in a war, but what about the other representatives that we [americans] put in office. They failed their duty to act as a check and balance. How many members in the House and the Senate could have stood up and said 'No'? If your [collectively] elected representatives went along with the plan for war, then you are to blame.
Iraq is a mess. We created that mess. It would be profoundly short sighted on our part if we did not clean it up. The day we leave we will open up a power vacuum. We need to make sure Iraq can survive that day or we will create a much larger problem in the future.
I did not agree with the Iraq war, but once it started, everything changed. It is completely idiotic to offer a man a new house, tear down his old one, then walk out before finishing. Even if you disagree with ever making the offer, it was done in your name by people you [collectively] elected to make those decisions for you.
Pulling out our troops "because we shouldn't have been there in the first place" is the wrong idea, and I will never support a man/or woman who's thought process is so short sighted. Give me a real reason to pull out and I'll listen.
TLDR: Don't elect jelly fish, they have no backbone and float on the tide of public opinion. We [Americans] are all to blame for the things America does. Accept blame and vote accordingly.Don't vote the lesser of two evilsCthulu '08:coolcthul
In an ideal world. That is why we do not use physical torture.
Waterboarding IS physical torture, last I checked.
And honestly, its not really any better than psychological torture anyway. The ultimate point of all torture, after all, is to crack the mind.
For every talking head that says it is effective, there can be one found to say that it is effective. If these techniques were not effective, they would not be employed. However, information has been gained for years and years and years. You use what works.
Except not, because, well, it doesn't, and that's what the analysis shows. They do spawn a lot of false alerts, though, due to inaccurate information just because they want to make it stop.
Claiming the US military is doing something because it is effective, and wouldn't be if it wasn't, is circular logic, and moreover, history has shown it to be inaccurate. Iraq and Vietnam are great examples, as is the Korean war.
You can blame one man for putting us in a war, but what about the other representatives that we [americans] put in office. They failed their duty to act as a check and balance. How many members in the House and the Senate could have stood up and said 'No'? If your [collectively] elected representatives went along with the plan for war, then you are to blame.
Well, given that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress when this happened as well...
Iraq is a mess. We created that mess. It would be profoundly short sighted on our part if we did not clean it up. The day we leave we will open up a power vacuum. We need to make sure Iraq can survive that day or we will create a much larger problem in the future.
No. This is short sighted thinking. Ultimately, what we do won't matter because ultimately, they don't want a western democracy.
We should also imprison everyone who committed a war crime, including the commander in chief and pretty much his entire administration, in order to discourage future leaders from doing the same.
A smart man knows when the situation is such that the correct thing to do is to not be involved in the situation any longer. This is that situation.
We never should have gone in, and we should leave because we aren't being helpful. The populace simply doesn't believe in a western democratic republic, so trying to force one on them is doomed to failure.
Waterboarding IS physical torture, last I checked.
And honestly, its not really any better than psychological torture anyway. The ultimate point of all torture, after all, is to crack the mind.
Except not, because, well, it doesn't, and that's what the analysis shows. They do spawn a lot of false alerts, though, due to inaccurate information just because they want to make it stop.
Claiming the US military is doing something because it is effective, and wouldn't be if it wasn't, is circular logic, and moreover, history has shown it to be inaccurate. Iraq and Vietnam are great examples, as is the Korean war.
You have no valid information or analysis to show that interrogation does not work. No one has that information. The analysis is agenda driven, and you would not find real statistics on the situation. There is no valid analysis besides what some talking head wants the public to believe.
I did not make the claim above in circular logic. Interrogation alone is just one component of the department. It is an important part, and has worked more often than not. Again because when the intelligence does its job correctly, you will not hear about when it works, and nor should you because then our sources would be revealed. Protecting intelligence sources is more important than uninformed public opinion.
Water boarding is cracking the mind and that is why, it and other interogation methods work. You cannot show me valid analysis on how it doesn't. At best you will be able to show spun statistics.
No. This is short sighted thinking. Ultimately, what we do won't matter because ultimately, they don't want a western democracy.
True they are still living in the 1300's.
We should also imprison everyone who committed a war crime, including the commander in chief and pretty much his entire administration, in order to discourage future leaders from doing the same.
This claim could never hold up at the hague.
A smart man knows when the situation is such that the correct thing to do is to not be involved in the situation any longer. This is that situation.
We never should have gone in, and we should leave because we aren't being helpful. The populace simply doesn't believe in a western democratic republic, so trying to force one on them is doomed to failure.
No we leave and it becomes a haven for terrorists. It is no longer about preserving Iraq, it is about terrorist control. We are going to be there a long time. We made the mess, yes, but now we are stuck in the mess and cannot pull out because they will follow us here with bomb vests.
Well, given that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress when this happened as well...
Everyone that voted 'yes' is to blame, not just the 55ish percent that wear red hats. A lot of blue hats were there as well.
No. This is short sighted thinking. Ultimately, what we do won't matter because ultimately, they don't want a western democracy.
Then don't give them what they don't want. Listen to them and give them what they want mixed in with what they need. I remember seeing a lot of happy faces the day they started voting with ink stained thumbs. Who are you to say what they want? Have you been there and asked?
Then don't give them what they don't want. Listen to them and give them what they want mixed in with what they need. I remember seeing a lot of happy faces the day they started voting with ink stained thumbs. Who are you to say what they want? Have you been there and asked?
The marines I have talked to (well one is an airmen, my brother) both agree it is possible. I don't care what a sociology professeur says in a university (And I am an academic environmentalist that tends to listen to professeurs over talking heads) the soldiers say the people they know over there want it. IN my circle are many iraq veterans and current fighters. They think they will win and turn it to democracy.
What you cite above is true... we must give them a mix. otherwise it will be a haven for the type of religious doctrine that will breed terrorism.
If the enemy did not use so many civilian shields, we could of wasted them long ago.
Well, given that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress when this happened as well...
I found the stats for the Senate and the House votes on the Call for War. Dems had the Senate, Reps owned the House of R.
I've been ingoring this thread, and really don't care what the current discussion on, but I just came across this article and thought you guys might get a kick.
McCain campaign compares the New York Times to bloggers who live in their mother's basement while "ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons".
Yeah and McCain and Obama are like politicians that trade insults while the Titanic sinks.
Not to mention all their little minions that carry on and on and on....
I may not be in my mom's basement, but I would rather play D&D while Rome burns than act like politicians deserve more than a slap in their respective faces.
*****
You have no valid information or analysis to show that interrogation does not work. No one has that information. The analysis is agenda driven, and you would not find real statistics on the situation. There is no valid analysis besides what some talking head wants the public to believe.
Actually, I do. Its called "Congress". You know, those people who do oversight?
Water boarding is cracking the mind and that is why, it and other interogation methods work. You cannot show me valid analysis on how it doesn't. At best you will be able to show spun statistics.
Well, since clearly waterboarding isn't torture, you won't mind being my guinea pig for the experiment, would you?
This claim could never hold up at the hague.
No, it would indeed hold up at the Hague.
No we leave and it becomes a haven for terrorists. It is no longer about preserving Iraq, it is about terrorist control. We are going to be there a long time. We made the mess, yes, but now we are stuck in the mess and cannot pull out because they will follow us here with bomb vests.
The people who say it will be a haven for terrorists also said we'd be greeted as liberators. Oh, and them following us here? Because clearly, the Vietcong continued their guerrilla warfare campaign against the United States to this very day. Man, isn't it great how we're all Communists today because the South Vietnamese government fell?
You that gullible?
The reality is that yes, there will be more terrorists there than there were previously. Guess what?
If we stay there, there will be MORE terrorists there who want to kill us. Why? Because our occupation of their country is what is making most of them become terrorists.
Then don't give them what they don't want. Listen to them and give them what they want mixed in with what they need. I remember seeing a lot of happy faces the day they started voting with ink stained thumbs. Who are you to say what they want? Have you been there and asked?
No, but other people have.
I found the stats for the Senate and the House votes on the Call for War. Dems had the Senate, Reps owned the House of R.
Incorrect. We are not in a war in Iraq. We never declared war. You are correct that the Democrats "controlled" the Senate at that time; however, it was not they who "fixed" the intelligence, not they who lied to the United Nations, and ultimately not them who ordered the invasion of Iraq.
Or do you believe that Saddam Hussien was involved in 9/11 / the antrhax attacks / random other made up garbage?
I am more of an independant. I'm a business conservative and social liberal. So I'm not a big fan of either candidates.
However, Barack Obama will not be recieving my vote in the upcoming election based on his defense policies. I don't agree with stripping our defenses to bare bones and dismantling our Nuclear weapons cache. I think that in this day and age it is a horrid idea.
Not a big fan of McCain either, but hes going to get my vote for the simple reason of cancelling out a vote for Obama.
Just to give information for the sake of giving it... The current congress has a lower approval rating than our president. Thats the lowest in history. Bush circa 30%... Congress circa 15% iirc.
You have no valid information or analysis to show that interrogation does not work. No one has that information. The analysis is agenda driven, and you would not find real statistics on the situation. There is no valid analysis besides what some talking head wants the public to believe.
May I suggest this372 page report on the subject?
Of course we could make the argument that since we do not know the effectiveness of torture then we should put ourselves above it and use techniques that have been proved. If we want to make the claim that we are better than others as Americans or whatever religion we follow then we should be better. Not torturing others is a great start.
Why argue for torturing others if there is no evidence that it works?
I did not make the claim above in circular logic. Interrogation alone is just one component of the department. It is an important part, and has worked more often than not. Again because when the intelligence does its job correctly, you will not hear about when it works, and nor should you because then our sources would be revealed. Protecting intelligence sources is more important than uninformed public opinion.
This is untrue by a very large margin. It has been shown that people will say almost anything for the torture to stop. This has been known for quite some time. Check out thisarticle for more information. You might notice some famous names in there like Napoleon and the Innocence Project.
Water boarding is cracking the mind and that is why, it and other interogation methods work. You cannot show me valid analysis on how it doesn't. At best you will be able to show spun statistics.
So you are going to automatically discount the data before it's even been shown? We have known for quite some time that torture is ineffective. Take a look at what waterboarding entails. Many experts believe that there are more effective ways of getting the information that do not involve torture.
No we leave and it becomes a haven for terrorists. It is no longer about preserving Iraq, it is about terrorist control. We are going to be there a long time. We made the mess, yes, but now we are stuck in the mess and cannot pull out because they will follow us here with bomb vests.
So you can predict the future? You know with 100% certainty that our leaving will create a safe haven for terrorists? With all the other safe havens out there, what's to say they don't just stay where they are? What makes you say that they are going to follow us here? Because they blew up a couple buildings after decades of trying? Honestly, if they really want to come over here and attack us, then they are going to do so whether or not we are still in Iraq. In fact it could be argued that they are going to attack us again to get us out of there. Since neither one of us can predict the future I doubt that we can have any significant arguments on this.
Actually, I do. Its called "Congress". You know, those people who do oversight?
And the reason congress than has not banned waterboarding is?...
What have they said about it? Was it unanimous? Was it the arms commitee? You have your information from the news, and it is spun.
Well, since clearly waterboarding isn't torture, you won't mind being my guinea pig for the experiment, would you?
I would not submit myself to waterboarding. I have no problem relegating terrorists to it however. I am not concerned about the rights of terrorists or their supporters.
No, it would indeed hold up at the Hague.
Along with George Bush's impeachment correct? No my friend it would not because no warcrime was committed. You need to talk to soldiers and not listen to the media.
The people who say it will be a haven for terrorists also said we'd be greeted as liberators. Oh, and them following us here? Because clearly, the Vietcong continued their guerrilla warfare campaign against the United States to this very day. Man, isn't it great how we're all Communists today because the South Vietnamese government fell?
You that gullible?
You need to analyze the difference between the goals of the two cultures to gain a proper understanding.
No I am far from gullible. This statement however shows, where you might understand BARAK OBAMA's policies batter than I; I understand the nature of this war better than you.
North Viet Nam was fighting for a political end. The enemy we are fighting believes they are fighting the great SATAN. They will continue to attack the US because we are a threat to their religion, where they are, now. They will carry their warfare on HERE, because we corrupt the world (in their warped vision).
When we left Viet Nam we did not have to worry about them attacking the US because they had nothing to gain. If we are not a threat to their immediate governemnt (Such as if they found us in their waterspace) they would not attack us. The Islamic Terrorists want our destruction. The Viet COng wanted their territory to be held under communism and were willing to fight for it. We did not have VIet Cong or Khmer Rouge here because they were no longer threatend by the UNiteds STates.
No I am not gullible. I have been in both the FAR EAST, and the MIddle east. I promise you, though an academic myself, there is far more to be gained from experiencing areas than reading about them. You do not understand the difference between the Communist enemy, and the Islamic terrorist. Call me gullible if you like but the difference is obvious. There is a strong difference between disagreeing with television and gullible.
The reality is that yes, there will be more terrorists there than there were previously. Guess what?
If we stay there, there will be MORE terrorists there who want to kill us. Why? Because our occupation of their country is what is making most of them become terrorists.
Not correct. The terrorists are allying with religious factions. The insurgents want a religious government. We cannot allow that. Religious governments like Syria, and Iran are funneling terrorists to the front.
We either have to figure out a way to eliminate the religious faction's power, or give them a government strong enough to limit the power. This will not happen for a long time.
I listen to people make their own uninformed analyses with inadequate information from the news. Yet I have not talked to a single veteran of Iraq that thinks we should leave.
No, but other people have.
I was in before this war, so I was not over there to ask. But the person playing Diablo II in the computer next to me right now has been. He says the people were happy. You are correct, other people have.
Incorrect. We are not in a war in Iraq. We never declared war. You are correct that the Democrats "controlled" the Senate at that time; however, it was not they who "fixed" the intelligence, not they who lied to the United Nations, and ultimately not them who ordered the invasion of Iraq.
Or do you believe that Saddam Hussien was involved in 9/11 / the antrhax attacks / random other made up garbage?
I agree we should of not have gone over there in the first place. Now we made a mess. WHat happens when we leave messes? Places will hate the US more than when we occupied. WHY? Because now the people that supported us must answer to those that are victorious after we cut and run.
Look at the many central and south american regimes we allow to take power after we cut aid.
Incorrect. We are not in a war in Iraq. We never declared war.
The call for war was just a short version of "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "
No, but other people have.
I need to be talking to those people then.
You are correct that the Democrats "controlled" the Senate at that time; however, it was not they who "fixed" the intelligence, not they who lied to the United Nations, and ultimately not them who ordered the invasion of Iraq.
Those are some serious allegations you are making. Why hasn't legal action been called? The media would love to crucify any administration over those allegations, so if there was something going on, I'm sure we would have heard.
The call for war was just a short version of "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "
Declaration of War is a very specific act that can only be initiated by Congress.
Those are some serious allegations you are making. Why hasn't legal action been called? The media would love to crucify any administration over those allegations, so if there was something going on, I'm sure we would have heard.
Check out:
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.impeach/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,383361,00.html
http://www.democrats.com/files/amomentoftruth.pdf
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/brattleboro_vermont_arrest_bus.html
The charges have been made and Nancy Pelosi is too much of a coward to even address them. Even if she disagrees with the charges, she certainly should not hand wave them away. Impeachment charges are very serious and should be treated as such by our Congressional Leadership.
Declaration of War is a very specific act that can only be initiated by Congress.
What do you mean by "initiate?" Article I gives the legislature the power "to declare war." The language is very plain and non-specific. What else are you reading?
Declaration of War is a very specific act that can only be initiated by Congress.
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
This is how specific it is.
There is NO rule about who can initiate a proposal. There is no format required of Congress. Congress authorizing a request to use military force would fall within the power listed in Section 8. That's why the Dems make noise but know they could never impeach on this basis.
What is strange though is that they could impeach on the wire tapping as that violates the 4th. Wonder why they won't...
Declaration of War is a very specific act that can only be initiated by Congress.
It is. I never meant to imply otherwise. I can't be held to the same standards as our media? Fooey.
So now all 35 articles got shredded down to 1 and resubmitted.
This is saber rattling at it's finest. Which is good, because if there was wrongdoing it needs to be spotlighted, and if there was no wrongdoing, then that needs to be spotlighted.
Accusation thankfully does not equate to truth. Let the checks and balances do their thing.
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
This is how specific it is.
There is NO rule about who can initiate a proposal. There is no format required of Congress. Congress authorizing a request to use military force would fall within the power listed in Section 8. That's why the Dems make noise but know they could never impeach on this basis.
What is strange though is that they could impeach on the wire tapping as that violates the 4th. Wonder why they won't...
They won't impeach on the wire tapping because the US has been engaging in wire tapping since the 1950's. It is only when it gets exposed that they have to try to make a law for it. This is what I said previously about protecting sources.
The wire tapping through the Patriot act is not illegal. They are not spying on US citizens. If it helps catch a terrorist I am all for it. They can tap my phone line all they want.
The wire tapping through the Patriot act is not illegal. They are not spying on US citizens. If it helps catch a terrorist I am all for it. They can tap my phone line all they want.
There were some shinanigans going on. Ex. The gov asked for private records of citizens from the Telcoms and the telcoms illegally(at the time) provided it. I believe the telcoms were given freedom from reprisal in law form for their actions after the fact. The important thing is the issue was brought to the public's attention and the public chose to do nothing about it. So it's a non-issue.
I want warning you my own socialist president is only words or words. (Its)His speech is state is a new Robin Hood wich "get" from the rich ones to give it to poor people, but the reality the goberment of my country is a great incompetent about the economy. Please, don´t make the same mistake. Don´t trust in only nice words about finishing the poverty. One thing is promissing the share-out of wealth and the reality is knowing making money and getting better the national economy.
Choose/vote the most competent, don´t the most charismatic or popular.
Other question... what if Obama is the new president and Morocco starts a new green march like in 1975 and it invades Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa?
A new war in Georgia has started a couple of days ago. There have been dead civil people. If Obama is president of USA....is he going to allow bloodshed like this example? Is Obama going to let North Korea get the nuclear bomb while its people are dying by the hunger? Would Obama pressure to stop the genocide againts the Blackafrican people in Sudan?
I haven´t read this thread since a lot of game, more a week, but I want tell you somethings.
I want warning you my own socialist president is only words or words. (Its)His speech is state is a new Robin Hood wich "get" from the rich ones to give it to poor people, but the reality the goberment of my country is a great incompetent about the economy. Please, don´t make the same mistake.
I personally knew P.M. Aznar. He was very effective when it came to the economy. I had worked on some consulting for Spain in the U.S. That gov't was interested and effective at promoting Spanish business & products abroad. When the Spanish foolishly voted his gov't out, I knew the economy would suffer...
Once I saw with my own eyes a cartoon, by the satiric magazine "El Jueves" (=the Thursday), like MAD magazine but ruder) where Aznar was with a long tongue (like a chamaleon) and he licked the back of nuked body of George Bush, with a words "Aznar, asslicker of Bush". Could you imagine? In your country those cartoon drawers would go to trial, but here in Spain...
Aznar´s party, the PP ("partido popular" or people party) lost 2004 elections by the terrorist attack of 11-March. For three days the Aznar goverment was acussed trying hide the truth... (the doom was by al-Qaeda to get revenge against Spain, the friend of USA).
Today 11-M 2004 terrorist atack in Madrid is a mistery, and the present goverment......wants forgotting the past. I´m afraid the 11-M was a "operation of false flag" with the goal of electoral victory by PSOE.
You have be very, very careful with the anti-Americanism. We need the healthy contrustive criticism, but the progres want USA hate itself by the fault complex. In 2004 Spanish people were manipulated by the "Bush-phobia" by means of dead people who was killed with bomb.
In this year, ETA, Spanish terrorist group, killed a man, Isaias Carrasco, ex-member of PSOE, two days before 2008 elections. PSOE winned again.
Our present president, Jose Luis "Bambi" (or "Mr Bean") Rodriguez-Zapatero, is a great...useless. He tried all time avoiding to say Spain has a economic crisis. He is pure facade (appareances). He(it) is only media image, propaganda, a true populist. They don´t know (can´t) managing money. You can not imagine the "brainwashing" on the people. The media (overcoat TV) has the control of public opinion. Here being conservative (Christian, pro-family and life...) is considerate almost fascit (the reality Hitler´s party was German National-socialist, and Benito Mussolini was socialist before creting his own party). Here a pro-Bush or pro-Northamerican republican party person has a bad image by the rest of people. The reason is here the conservative people is associated with Franco, our last dictator. Consequently here if you aren´t progre (pejorative term for progressive) nor anti-USA they label you like a suppoter or admirer of Franco. Sometimes PSOE has said the PP are the "Franco´s succesors".
Please, be careful USA wouldn´t be other Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador or present Spain. Choose with your brain, nor (only) your heart. Rebember Jimmy Carter... and the reason he lost his second election...(Ronald Regan won it). Don´t believe their lies. They promise you a utopia but they are the opposite of king Midas.
---------
What said Barack Obama about blackwater? Were Blackwater a bad boys or like this?......
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/07/29/blackwater_protected_barack_obama_in_afghanistan
Blackwater protected Barack Obama in Afghanistan
-----
Bill Clinton Says Obama Sex Life “Even More Sordid than Mine”
----
Look for Larry Sinclair (and) Donald Young in internet about Obama and....
Other question... what if Obama is the new president and Morocco starts a new green march like in 1975 and it invades Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa?
A new war in Georgia has started a couple of days ago. There have been dead civil people. If Obama is president of USA....is he going to allow bloodshed like this example? Is Obama going to let North Korea get the nuclear bomb while its people are dying by the hunger? Would Obama pressure to stop the genocide againts the Blackafrican people in Sudan?
Very well said! This 'feeling' you have the reason I will not be voting for Obama.
NOBAMA! Keep the Change!
Aznar´s party, the PP ("partido popular" or people party) lost 2004 elections by the terrorist attack of 11-March. For three days the Aznar goverment was acussed trying hide the truth... (the doom was by al-Qaeda to get revenge against Spain, the friend of USA).
Today 11-M 2004 terrorist atack in Madrid is a mistery, and the present goverment......wants forgotting the past. I´m afraid the 11-M was a "operation of false flag" with the goal of electoral victory by PSOE.
You have be very, very careful with the anti-Americanism. We need the healthy contrustive criticism, but the progres want USA hate itself by the fault complex. In 2004 Spanish people were manipulated by the "Bush-phobia" by means of dead people who was killed with bomb.
In this year, ETA, Spanish terrorist group, killed a man, Isaias Carrasco, ex-member of PSOE, two days before 2008 elections. PSOE winned again.
Our present president, Jose Luis "Bambi" (or "Mr Bean") Rodriguez-Zapatero, is a great...useless. He tried all time avoiding to say Spain has a economic crisis. He is pure facade (appareances). He(it) is only media image, propaganda, a true populist. They don´t know (can´t) managing money. You can not imagine the "brainwashing" on the people. The media (overcoat TV) has the control of public opinion. Here being conservative (Christian, pro-family and life...) is considerate almost fascit (the reality Hitler´s party was German National-socialist, and Benito Mussolini was socialist before creting his own party). Here a pro-Bush or pro-Northamerican republican party person has a bad image by the rest of people. The reason is here the conservative people is associated with Franco, our last dictator. Consequently here if you aren´t progre (pejorative term for progressive) nor anti-USA they label you like a suppoter or admirer of Franco. Sometimes PSOE has said the PP are the "Franco´s succesors".
Please, be careful USA wouldn´t be other Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador or present Spain. Choose with your brain, nor (only) your heart. Rebember Jimmy Carter... and the reason because he lost his second election...(Ronald Regan winned it). Don´t believe their lies. They promise you a utopia but they are the opposite of king Midas.
Nancy Pelosi shows just how powerless the Democrat party is. I do not want to see a powerless president as well.
Luis you bring up many excellent points. I especially agree with your last line.
Right on Mournblade94 your answers are concise, informative and rational. As for Titanium Dragon, it's like your mind has been brainwashed by the liberal fascists in the Democrat party. The hope I have for America's future is that there are more people who are as well informed and open minded like Mourblade94 and less drones like Titanium Dragon who believe all the force feed information from the biased media and other liberal sources. I would add more but Mournblade94 covered all the bases. Great job.
It's quotes like this that make me laugh. It's amazing how someone can claim that others are brainwashed and throw around terms like that. Note that it's not the Democrat party; it's the Democratic Party.
The media is biased. There's no denying that. However, they certainly aren't biased towards Democrats. They aren't really biased towards Republicans either. They are biased towards money. The media covers whatever parts of the stories will get people coming back for more.
Where do you get your information from? I'm willing to bet it's from some media source since you are probably not someone who is part of the inner circle of information.
The media covers whatever parts of the stories will get people coming back for more.
If that were the case the other cable news channels would be serving up stories like Fox News (much higher ratings than the other guys).
So, that's is obviously a false assumption on your part...
Of course, our world is so messed up that will never happen.
Heck, we can't even get a decent person to run for office. So we have to pick the lesser of two evils (a third choice would be nice but it's pretty much granted as throwing your vote away). So I vote as liberal as appears on the Democratic/Republican ballot, which is in my opinion moderate-conservative democrats. Meaningful change is impossible in this country unless it puts a few cold million in the pockets of somebody powerful enough.
If that were the case the other cable news channels would be serving up stories like Fox News (much higher ratings than the other guys).
So, that's is obviously a false assumption on your part...
Not really. I'm willing to bet that CNN pulls in more viewers with their multiple channels than Fox pulls in with their single channel.
I also have a hard time considering anything from Fox to be "news." To be fair, I feel that way about a lot of the stuff from CNN and MSNBC just less so.
All we need to do is find a system of government that isn't corruptable, that can keep the population from turning into a bunch of bandits and cowering helpless innocents, and keep the economy running, while funding arts and sciences, providing housing for the homeless and feeding them, giving jobs to the unemployed, and keeping wage inflation higher than price inflation, without putting spy cameras on every street corner and tracking cookies in our computers, and while letting us do more or less as we please, without the police bullying everyone around them all the time, and with a court and prison system that actually works the way it's supposed to.
Of course, our world is so messed up that will never happen.
Heck, we can't even get a decent person to run for office. So we have to pick the lesser of two evils (a third choice would be nice but it's pretty much granted as throwing your vote away). So I vote as liberal as appears on the Democratic/Republican ballot, which is in my opinion moderate-conservative democrats. Meaningful change is impossible in this country unless it puts a few cold million in the pockets of somebody powerful enough.
Regardless of how many parties are put forth, I have a feeling that you're still going to have problems with choosing between lesser evils. One of the problems that most people have is that they expect there to be a perfect candidate. It's never going to happen. Instead, you should choose a candidate that matches your most important views. The more you vote, the more people you can put into office that match your views. So if your positions are:
1) Off shore oil drilling: Yes
2) Abortion: Woman's right
3) Iraq: Good
4) Corporate Taxes: Good
Then you may have to vote for several candidates that will get your position more weight.
Also consider that the president really can't do much of what he claims he will do. He still has checks and balances to deal with, even the Bush administration can't get around them all.
My question for the presidential candidates right now is: "If your plan is so great, why aren't you in Congress pushing it as a bill so we can benefit from it now; why wait until 2009 when the problem is right here right now?"
I really don't think that they're plans are really any good and they know it. It would be nice if they didn't take a paid LOA from their day jobs while pursuing their new job.
I'm probably going with JM for my vote. While I like a lot of what BO has said he wants, and applauded him for not using government money for his campaign, I own guns and hunt.
I have looked back at BO and his track record on gun issues and I cannot give him my support as president.
In fact I know several very liberal people who feel the same way. They will also be voting for JM this nov.
Unfortunatly for this country the decision on who will become the next President has for me and a lot of others come down to 1 issue.
If you want to see my main views on the campaigns, check my sig...
Not really. I'm willing to bet that CNN pulls in more viewers with their multiple channels than Fox pulls in with their single channel.
I also have a hard time considering anything from Fox to be "news." To be fair, I feel that way about a lot of the stuff from CNN and MSNBC just less so.
Regardless of what you THINK, the cable news rating are what they are. Thus, your theory is wrong.
Our dream of a king Arthur who resolver all the problems is very dangerous because the most of time we don´t have a king Arthur but a Mordred, MacBeth or senator Palpatine (from Star Wars). Only a one with all the power is like betting all your money in a number of roullete....and the most of time you aren´t so lucky.
* Hollywood is clearly biased. You have seen a lot of allusion of the McCarthy witch hunt and the anti-comunism but...when has Hollywood said anything about the Venona project? Comunists did be so real menace!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
In media the total objectively is too difficoult but the honesty is possible. The secret is trying contrast of the different points of view to find the incoherences. About the discussions my advince is a good debate is like a chess game. Each player has to understand the mind of opponent to give the best answer. Don´t worry about convincing but teaching/learning.
My fear is Obama may be a new Chamberlain, but we need a new Churchill. Here in Spain our president tried finishing the terrorism (ETA) with negotiations...and the reality was the talks was a oxygen cylinder for ETA. Don´t make the same mistake. Obama must not be the oxygen cylinder of al-Qaeda (nor Iran nor North Corea).
And the reason congress than has not banned waterboarding is?...
What have they said about it? Was it unanimous? Was it the arms commitee? You have your information from the news, and it is spun.
Maybe if you actually watched the news, you'd know the answer to that.
Congress passed a ban on Waterboarding and President Bush vetoed it.
Republican politicians supported torture, and thus there were not enough votes to override the veto.
Shocking, I know.
I would not submit myself to waterboarding. I have no problem relegating terrorists to it however. I am not concerned about the rights of terrorists or their supporters.
You see, this statement contradicts itself.
The second statement says that it is okay to torture terrorists, but the first says it isn't.
Which way does it go?
Along with George Bush's impeachment correct? No my friend it would not because no warcrime was committed. You need to talk to soldiers and not listen to the media.
Ah right. Like the soldiers who formed naked human pyramids at Abu Gharib? How about the ones who raped the Iraqi girl? Slaughtered a bunch of civilians after an IED attack?
No, war crimes have indeed been committed in Iraq by the United States at the behest of the United States government, as well as elsewhere, when we waterboarded prisoners. Our imprisonment of people without trial also constituted such.
Not all soldiers are war criminals, but some are.
North Viet Nam was fighting for a political end. The enemy we are fighting believes they are fighting the great SATAN. They will continue to attack the US because we are a threat to their religion, where they are, now. They will carry their warfare on HERE, because we corrupt the world (in their warped vision).
Its just propaganda. By your logic, we're fighting in the Middle East for the same purpose. Remember, many Americans have been sent to the Middle East to convert Muslims since the invasion, and Bush himself called it a "Crusade against terror."
When we left Viet Nam we did not have to worry about them attacking the US because they had nothing to gain. If we are not a threat to their immediate governemnt (Such as if they found us in their waterspace) they would not attack us. The Islamic Terrorists want our destruction. The Viet COng wanted their territory to be held under communism and were willing to fight for it. We did not have VIet Cong or Khmer Rouge here because they were no longer threatend by the UNiteds STates.
Some, maybe. Most, not really. Most only care because we're over there, which is what many people in the United States simply don't comprehend. You are one of them.
In any event, if we want to talk about crazy religious terrorists, I vote we start with the ones in the United States - they are far more of a threat to us.
I hear there's a bunch of them in the South and Midwest. You remember those abortion clinic bombers? You know those people who run the website Children Need Heroes?
Yeah, those people are terrorists, and far more dangerous than the ones in the Middle East because they have some support here.
Then there's the people who tortured prisoners in Iraq, the people who think waterboarding is alright, ect. Those people, too, are terrorists, and the fact that they "work for us" is irrelevant.
If we want to deal with terrorists, we should start at home.
The call for war was just a short version of "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "
We are not at war, legally speaking. We haven't legally been at war since 1945.
Those are some serious allegations you are making. Why hasn't legal action been called? The media would love to crucify any administration over those allegations, so if there was something going on, I'm sure we would have heard.
Um, have you been paying attention at all to the media? At all? Seriously, there have been so many Bush administration scandals which warrant impeachment it is rediculous.
The problem is that the Democrats have made a deal not to impeach President Bush. The Speaker of the House has said outright she won't consider impeachment proceedings against the president. Why?
Because it is politically advantangeous for the Democrats to have the Republicans have someone as horrible in the presidency as Bush. There's a good chance Bush's behavior is going to win the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority and the presidency.
They won't impeach on the wire tapping because the US has been engaging in wire tapping since the 1950's. It is only when it gets exposed that they have to try to make a law for it. This is what I said previously about protecting sources.
Actually, the problem is warrantless (and therefore illegal) wiretapping. Though to be fair, yes, we probably have been engaging in such for ages.
The wire tapping through the Patriot act is not illegal. They are not spying on US citizens. If it helps catch a terrorist I am all for it. They can tap my phone line all they want.
Bush has abused his power. Witness the Justice Department. You think politicians wouldn't use information they acquired via wiretapping against their political opponents?
If so, I've got some nice oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.
A new war in Georgia has started a couple of days ago. There have been dead civil people. If Obama is president of USA....is he going to allow bloodshed like this example? Is Obama going to let North Korea get the nuclear bomb while its people are dying by the hunger? Would Obama pressure to stop the genocide againts the Blackafrican people in Sudan?
So you're saying the Republicans are going to handle it? I see Bush sitting there at the Olympic games while this happens, waving a little flag.
What leadership! Reminds me of him going to a photo-op instead of dealing with 9/11.
Republican leadership at its finest.
And Bush has done absolutely nothing to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Indeed, he invaded Iraq, a country completely without WMDs! Good job Bush! Way to stay on the ball!
Right on Mournblade94 your answers are concise, informative and rational. As for Titanium Dragon, it's like your mind has been brainwashed by the liberal fascists in the *Democratic* (for the **** retentive thanks)party than. The hope I have for America's future is that there are more people who are as well informed and open minded like Mourblade94 and less drones like Titanium Dragon who believe all the force feed information from the biased media and other liberal sources. I would add more but Mournblade94 covered all the bases. Great job.
Apparently you don't understand what the words "informative" and "rational" mean.
Very well said! This 'feeling' you have the reason I will not be voting for Obama.
This is in fact the opposite of rationality.
And this is your hope for the future?
Well, its no wonder the US is going downhill when it produces people like you.
Maybe its time for me to abandon the sinking ship and go to a real country.
If that were the case the other cable news channels would be serving up stories like Fox News (much higher ratings than the other guys).
Fox News no longer has the highest ratings, actually.
Incidentally, MSNBC is basically doing what Fox does, just for moderate democrats instead of corporate sponsors and fundies.
My question for the presidential candidates right now is: "If your plan is so great, why aren't you in Congress pushing it as a bill so we can benefit from it now; why wait until 2009 when the problem is right here right now?"
Some of them did, actually. Kucinich, for instance, has tried to impeach Bush fairly regularly.
Why aren't Obama and McCain doing anything? Mostly because they know they can't. McCain won't get his plans through congress and Obama won't get his plans through the president.
My fear is Obama may be a new Chamberlain, but we need a new Churchill. Here in Spain our president tried finishing the terrorism (ETA) with negotiations...and the reality was the talks was a oxygen cylinder for ETA. Don´t make the same mistake. Obama must not be the oxygen cylinder of al-Qaeda (nor Iran nor North Corea).
Ah, conservative propaganda has gotten you. Do you even realize you're falling for it?
No, probably not.
McCain has no courage. The man backed off on stopping torture, thus it proves that he really has no backbone. If you've been tortured yourself and talked about how awful it is, you can't turn around and stay silent when the US does it.
Obama won't be a great president, but he won't be a Chamberlain. Bush, now there's a Chamberlain.
McCain is like that. He won't deal with the real issues, because he hasn't done so in the past. He's shown his true colors.
Obama is less like that in that he actually understands that there are issues, and will deal with them.
NEITHER of them have the cahones required, but when I have the choice between someone I know to be spineless on important issues and who has very poor policies, and someone who I know to be spineless but who has okay policies, I'm going to consistantly choose the man with the okay policies.
I wanted Clinton. SHE isn't perfect, either, but she'll bite those who attack her.
Maybe its time for me to abandon the sinking ship and go to a real country.
If I had a dime...
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Let us know when you've left.
Maybe its time for me to abandon the sinking ship and go to a real country.
Cool. See ya.
Maybe its time for me to abandon the sinking ship and go to a real country.
Mr Baldwin?
Maybe its time for me to abandon the sinking ship and go to a real country.
Please do.
Try Zimbabwe. They'll love you there.
If I had a dime...
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Let us know when you've left.
Thing is, it really depends on how the next dozen years or so shape up. The current Republican policies have the economy going down, and unless they are corrected, the US will end up being a significantly less powerful country with less money. In just the last eight years our per captia income has dropped from second to ninth in the world. That's a pretty significant decrease, and unless the causes are addressed it will probably continue.
Basically, if I consider the country not livable in, you're headed towards being Mexico.
I don't think it will get that bad, but it might.
Fortunately, I live in a part of the country pretty far from the poor, uneducated, and generally bad South and Midwest, so it may never be that bad here. But I hate to see my tax dollars going towards people too stupid to understand that building below sea level is a bad idea and to states with less than a 99% literacy rate.
See, everyone says the North won the Civil War, but we ended up with the South still being in the US, so ultimately, it may be that the South won because they lost the war and thus got to act as an anchor around everyone else that much longer.
Maybe if you actually watched the news, you'd know the answer to that.
Congress passed a ban on Waterboarding and President Bush vetoed it.
Republican politicians supported torture, and thus there were not enough votes to override the veto.
Shocking, I know.
If I actually watched the news my information about the middle east would be as incomplete as yours.
Its just propaganda. By your logic, we're fighting in the Middle East for the same purpose. Remember, many Americans have been sent to the Middle East to convert Muslims since the invasion, and Bush himself called it a "Crusade against terror."
Simply and plainly, your wrong. it is not propaganda. They were trying to attack us here since the 60's. Do you remember the first attack on the WTC. We weren't invading any country back then.
You can comfortably say it is propaganda because of your source of information. Any soldier will tell you, and I will tell you as well, you don't know what is going on over there.
Some, maybe. Most, not really. Most only care because we're over there, which is what many people in the United States simply don't comprehend. You are one of them.
Again you are incorrect. You are not familiar with the mindset. You should study it more. Or go and experience it.
In any event, if we want to talk about crazy religious terrorists, I vote we start with the ones in the United States - they are far more of a threat to us.
I hear there's a bunch of them in the South and Midwest. You remember those abortion clinic bombers? You know those people who run the website Children Need Heroes?
If you want to go after them, I will be on the front lines with you.
Yeah, those people are terrorists, and far more dangerous than the ones in the Middle East because they have some support here.
Pro abortion crazies are not looking for nukes or biological agents. Those people are terrorists as well, but not nearly as well organized.
Then there's the people who tortured prisoners in Iraq, the people who think waterboarding is alright, ect. Those people, too, are terrorists, and the fact that they "work for us" is irrelevant.
Lets plant flowers.
If we want to deal with terrorists, we should start at home.
Correct and Right. There are many Al Qaeda cells operating here that must be hunted and destroyed.
We are not at war, legally speaking. We haven't legally been at war since 1945.
MOST of our military engagements happen during "peacetime".
Um, have you been paying attention at all to the media? At all? Seriously, there have been so many Bush administration scandals which warrant impeachment it is rediculous.
You obviously pay a lot of attention to the media. It shows. Preceding your post with UM is a good indication you are an expert in this.
Actually, the problem is warrantless (and therefore illegal) wiretapping. Though to be fair, yes, we probably have been engaging in such for ages.
They can tap my phone lines all they want. We have gained valuable intelligence through this means. We should never stop doing this... and we won't.
Bush has abused his power. Witness the Justice Department. You think politicians wouldn't use information they acquired via wiretapping against their political opponents?
Yes the slippery slope. Wiretapping has been in effect for decades. They are not going to wiretap political opponents now. The use of the tool is not going to suddenly change. No one was worried about this when they didn't know about it
Now of course it gives them something to gripe about. Keep griping about it, it makes the intelligence officers job easier because it keeps you off of our other sources.If so, I've got some nice oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.
HAve you bought some already?
Yes wiretapping is going to bring down the country. Basically what intelligence gathering means is good for you? Should we knock on someones door and ask if we can see their email?
Apparently you don't understand what the words "informative" and "rational" mean.
This is in fact the opposite of rationality.
Everything I said was informed and rational. You are a parrot of CNN.
And this is your hope for the future?
Well, its no wonder the US is going downhill when it produces people like you.
Maybe its time for me to abandon the sinking ship and go to a real country.
Sounds like you need to travel and see the world. Go ahead have fun. After you have been to other continents you will see just how bad this country really is, and you may just like to move to an accepting place like Saudi Arabia. Everyone is friendly there. Maybe then you can back your statements up with real experience and not trendy slogans.
Fox News no longer has the highest ratings, actually.
Incidentally, MSNBC is basically doing what Fox does, just for moderate democrats instead of corporate sponsors and fundies.
Fox/CNN same coin same entertainment.
NEITHER of them have the cahones required, but when I have the choice between someone I know to be spineless on important issues and who has very poor policies, and someone who I know to be spineless but who has okay policies, I'm going to consistantly choose the man with the okay policies.
I wanted Clinton. SHE isn't perfect, either, but she'll bite those who attack her.
I would have voted for Hillary over MCCain as well. I cannot in good concience vote for Obama. Certainly neither of them have the rocks to do anything. Hillary would of performed well.
Thing is, it really depends on how the next dozen years or so shape up. The current Republican policies have the economy going down, and unless they are corrected, the US will end up being a significantly less powerful country with less money. In just the last eight years our per captia income has dropped from second to ninth in the world. That's a pretty significant decrease, and unless the causes are addressed it will probably continue.
It will continue to decline. We have already lost status of world leader in everything but the military.
Fortunately, I live in a part of the country pretty far from the poor, uneducated, and generally bad South and Midwest, so it may never be that bad here. But I hate to see my tax dollars going towards people too stupid to understand that building below sea level is a bad idea and to states with less than a 99% literacy rate.
100% agreed
See, everyone says the North won the Civil War, but we ended up with the South still being in the US, so ultimately, it may be that the South won because they lost the war and thus got to act as an anchor around everyone else that much longer.
ALl the problems in the US are due to the south?
"Hope Neil Young will remember..
Southern man don't need him around anyhow"
http://www.memri.org/
You could leart a lot about the panislamism.
West isn´t the villain or bad guy of the movie, nor Muslims aren´t so victims.
If I actually watched the news my information about the middle east would be as incomplete as yours.
You asked why Congress didn't ban waterboarding. Therefore, you are showing that by not watching the news, you have remained ignorant. Or at least reading the news, as I do primarily.
You clearly are ignorant if you don't know that Congress tried to ban waterboarding.
Simply and plainly, your wrong. it is not propaganda. They were trying to attack us here since the 60's. Do you remember the first attack on the WTC. We weren't invading any country back then.
You do realize we've been "on their land" for a very, very long time, right? We've had troops in Saudi Arabia for absolute ages, and guess what? Many see our support of Israel as tantamount to an invasion of the Middle East, though largely its just an excuse their leaders use to make their poor hate someone other than them.
However, the people who actually understand the Middle East know that most people there really can't be bothered to kill Americans. Many LIKE Americans and would like to have our way of life and standard of living.
You can comfortably say it is propaganda because of your source of information. Any soldier will tell you, and I will tell you as well, you don't know what is going on over there.
Is that what they told you after you electrocuted their genitals?
Again you are incorrect. You are not familiar with the mindset. You should study it more. Or go and experience it.
You have the same seiged mindset as the fundamentalists over there, believing the entirety of another side is out to get you.
Most people in the Middle East aren't psychopathic, just as most people here aren't either. There are more poor, desperate people over there so there are more psychos than there are here, but we still have plenty as well.
But the idea that most people in the Middle East hate America is patently false. Many envy us and would like to have our way and quality of life. This has been demonstrated time and again via polls, among other things, as well as the fact that the vast majority of the population of every country in the Middle East isn't trying to kill us.
Pro abortion crazies are not looking for nukes or biological agents. Those people are terrorists as well, but not nearly as well organized.
Pro abortion crazies are exactly the same. And many religious fundamentalists are indeed seeking such things.
Yes the slippery slope. Wiretapping has been in effect for decades. They are not going to wiretap political opponents now. The use of the tool is not going to suddenly change. No one was worried about this when they didn't know about it Now of course it gives them something to gripe about. Keep griping about it, it makes the intelligence officers job easier because it keeps you off of our other sources.
Oh, people were worried about it, actually.
Yes wiretapping is going to bring down the country. Basically what intelligence gathering means is good for you? Should we knock on someones door and ask if we can see their email?
Do you understand what a warrant is?
Everything I said was informed and rational. You are a parrot of CNN.
Obviously you haven't watched CNN either.
Sounds like you need to travel and see the world. Go ahead have fun. After you have been to other continents you will see just how bad this country really is, and you may just like to move to an accepting place like Saudi Arabia. Everyone is friendly there. Maybe then you can back your statements up with real experience and not trendy slogans.
Saudi Arabia is a horrible country. Many Americans want to make the US more like it though, because they're crazy.
And Saudi Arabia isn't a "real country". A real country is Japan, Australia, Canada, the United States, Western Europe, and Scandanavia.
Fox/CNN same coin same entertainment.
CNN is far from perfect, but it isn't a propaganda mouthpiece for the Republicans and corporations.
Claiming they are the same is just silly.
CNN's website is better than its newscast, incidentally.
But if you want REAL information, you need NPR or the BBC.
ALl the problems in the US are due to the south?
I never said that all of the problems in the US are due to the South/Midwest. Only some. Pretty much everything Bush has done can be attributed to them, though.
West isn´t the villain or bad guy of the movie, nor Muslims aren´t so victims.
Anyone who is more than five years old should be able to tell you that there is no such clear distinction between good and bad.
We're generally much better people than the Muslims are because we're better educated, richer, more stable, and less religious. Europe is ahead of the US in some of these areas (particularly irreligion) but behind in others (they've got some stability issues due to large numbers of Muslim immigrants who basically cloister themselves, which is very bad for them, and also leads to increased discrimination as they don't assimilate).
The US and the West in general are supposed to be the good guys, but all too often we aren't. In Iraq, there are no good guys. The US is there for the oil and because we wanted another friendly government in the region. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are all out for themselves as well. We're all the bad guys, and we're all killing each other. The only "good guys" are the people who aren't fighting and who are getting killed by the bad guys - the US and the various other factions there.
Of course, part of the issue is that the military is basically what we do with the psychos who we think will be useful to us - we take a bunch of poor people, tell them that those guys over there are the bad guys, and let them loose to kill people under the direction of upperclass officers who join the military for social reasons (though some of them, too, are pretty psychopathic - there are many people in the military who are there essentially BECAUSE of a black and white mindset or simply because they want to kill people).
This is not to say that most of the military, or even the majority, are sociopaths, but all too many are and we use the lower class in our military because we, the middle and upper class, don't want to dirty our hands with killing because we think it is wrong.
As long as we don't see it, it doesn't happen for most of us.
The fundamentalists in the Middle East are bad guys, but that doesn't make the US military the good guys.
Actually, Titanium, judging from your posts, you seem to think that they only 'good guys' are... well.. Putin's Neo-Soviets or something. Definately you put the US Military and US people somewhere beneath 'filth' and 'human excrement' on your worth scale.
Didn't you hear? TinDragon is leaving the U.S. to move to a real country. He's yet to tell us where...
Didn't you hear? TinDragon is leaving the U.S. to move to a real country. He's yet to tell us where...
Sure he is, just like all those other people who swore, SWORE, that if Bush were elected, they would move to Canada (at the very least). Yet, all the boats seem to still be headed to the US... funny that.
Where do you get your information from? I'm willing to bet it's from some media source since you are probably not someone who is part of the inner circle of information..
I'm not sure about how you interperet information given to you but I don't need a media source to tell me the obivious bias towards Conservatives.
Not really. I'm willing to bet that CNN pulls in more viewers with their multiple channels than Fox pulls in with their single channel.
I also have a hard time considering anything from Fox to be "news." To be fair, I feel that way about a lot of the stuff from CNN and MSNBC just less so.
Fox News no longer has the highest ratings, actually.
Incidentally, MSNBC is basically doing what Fox does, just for moderate democrats instead of corporate sponsors and fundies.
Cable News Ratings for Monday August 11, 2008
August 12th, 2008 by Robert Seidman
Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for August 11, 2008
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,028,000 viewers
CNN – 532,000 viewers
MSNBC – 633,000 viewers
CNBC – 338,000 viewers
HLN – 289,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,168,000 viewers
CNN – 822,000 viewers
MSNBC- 695,000 viewers
CNBC – 136,000 viewers
HLN – 654,000 viewers
25-54 Total Day
FNC – 220,000 viewers
CNN –172,000 viewers
MSNBC – 281,000 viewers
CNBC – 136,000 viewers
HLN- 133,000 viewers
25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 430,000 viewers
CNN – 225,000 viewers
MSNBC – 291,000 viewers
CNBC – 69,000 viewers
HLN – 241,000 viewers
35-64 Total Day
FNC – 403,000 viewers
CNN – 274,000 viewers
MSNBC – 286,000 viewers
CNBC – 177,000 viewers
HLN – 160,000 viewers
35-64 Prime Time
FNC – 755,000 viewers
CNN – 401,000 viewers
MSNBC – 351,000 viewers
CNBC – 78,000 viewers
HLN – 356,000 viewers
Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends – 768,000 viewers (219,000) (411,000)
American Morning- 383,000 viewers (122,000) (220,000)
Morning Joe- 283,000 viewers (117,000) (143,000)
Squawk Box- 206,000 viewers (99,000) (153,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 218,000 viewers (125,000) (166,000)
6PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report with Brit Hume – 1,638,000 viewers (298,000) (535,000)
Situation Room- 827,000 viewers (314,000) (424,000)
MSNBC Olympics Update- 1,166,000 viewers (537,000) (601,000)
**S OLY 1**(5PM-8PM)– 805,000 viewers (345,000) 384,000)
Prime News- 213,000 viewers (75,000) (85,000)
7PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Fox Report w/ Shepard Smith – 1,453,000 viewers (270,000) (534,000)
Lou Dobbs – 930,000 viewers (307,000) (445,000)
Hardball w. Chris Matthews – 894,000 viewers (281,000) (384,000)
Glenn Beck – 371,000 viewers (185,000) (237,000)
8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor- 2,673,000 viewers (434,000) (867,000)
CNN Election Center– 704,000 viewers (232,000) (382,000)
Countdown w. Olbermann – 994,000 viewers (385,000) (512,000)
On the Money- 163,000 viewers (84,000) (98,000)
Nancy Grace – 1,084,000 viewers (439,000) (608,000)
9 PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity & Colmes – 2,158,000 viewers (472,000) (757,000)
Larry King Live – 946,000 viewers (220,000) (418,000)
Verdict w/ Dan Abrams– 543,000 viewers (252,000) (273,000)
Fast Money-129,000 viewers (66,000) (85,000)
Glenn Beck- 517,000 viewers (145,000) (274,000)
10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On the Record – 1,673,000 viewers (386,000) (642,000)
Anderson Cooper- 815,000 viewers (225,000) (404,000)
Countdown w. Olbermann – 548,000 viewers (237,000) (267,000)
Big Idea w/ Deutsch –a scratch w/ 118,000 viewers (58,000) (50,000)
Nancy Grace – 418,000 viewers (162,000) (226,000)
11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor – 1,069,000 viewers (331,000) (552,000)
Anderson Cooper – 514,000 viewers (209,000) (305,000)
MSNBC Investigates–379,000 viewers (224,000) (167,000)
Mad Money–144,000 viewers (75,000) (105,000)
Showbiz Tonight– 420,000 viewers (182,000) (232,000)
P2+ = viewers over the age of
(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing
(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing
Prime Time = 8-11pm
LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast.
Scratch = when a show’s audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels.
Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2008 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.
Actually, Titanium, judging from your posts, you seem to think that they only 'good guys' are... well.. Putin's Neo-Soviets or something. Definately you put the US Military and US people somewhere beneath 'filth' and 'human excrement' on your worth scale.
Didn't you hear? TinDragon is leaving the U.S. to move to a real country. He's yet to tell us where...
Ahh, the old "love it or leave it" crap. I enjoy hearing people spew that particular diatribe. Nothing like people that see only two possibilities. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps he's trying to sway your opinion (not likely) or the opinion of someone else reading this thread? Has the thought that "change it" might also fit?
If "live with it or get out" were the only options, we would still have things like slavery in this country, women would still not be able to vote, and you would probably be paying English taxes rather than American taxes. Although the english have a pretty good healthcare system, so maybe that third one isn't so bad.
P2+ = viewers over the age of 2
Now that bothers me.
Ahh, the old "love it or leave it" crap. I enjoy hearing people spew that particular diatribe. Nothing like people that see only two possibilities. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps he's trying to sway your opinion (not likely) or the opinion of someone else reading this thread? Has the thought that "change it" might also fit?
If "live with it or get out" were the only options, we would still have things like slavery in this country, women would still not be able to vote, and you would probably be paying English taxes rather than American taxes. Although the english have a pretty good healthcare system, so maybe that third one isn't so bad.
Who said "love it or leave it"? And the British have a pretty good health care system? How so?
Sure he is, just like all those other people who swore, SWORE, that if Bush were elected, they would move to Canada (at the very least). Yet, all the boats seem to still be headed to the US... funny that.
They were full of people who did not swear to move to Canada if Bush got elected, obviously. I would hazard a guess they swore to move to the US if Castro stayed president, but that is just my opinion.
But you know what? There is a lot, and I mean LOT, of space between Bush and Castro. In fact, the kind of country that I like to live in would be somewhere in the middle, maybe slightly leaning to the right - despite Mr. Bush Jr's best efforts, the USA is a pretty good country to live in. So all that talk about Obama making the US a communist country is pure BS as far as I'm concerned. I'm betting a cookie (hey, that's all I have on this forum) that even after possible 8 years of Obama, in terms of both social and political issues the US will in general be to the right of the UK or Germany.
My 2 coppers.
In any event, if we want to talk about crazy religious terrorists, I vote we start with the ones in the United States - they are far more of a threat to us.
I hear there's a bunch of them in the South and Midwest. You remember those abortion clinic bombers? You know those people who run the website Children Need Heroes?
Yeah, those people are terrorists, and far more dangerous than the ones in the Middle East because they have some support here.
I fail to see how this could even be considered as a legitimate argument. Yes, there has been some domestic terrorism in the U.S., but even if you combine all the acts of domestic terrorism in the last fifty years you wouldn't come close to either the death toll or the amount of property damage incurred just on 9/11.
Well, its no wonder the US is going downhill when it produces people like you.
Maybe its time for me to abandon the sinking ship and go to a real country.
What, in your estimation, is a real country?
Some of them did, actually. Kucinich, for instance, has tried to impeach Bush fairly regularly.
The reason Bush hasn't been impeached is most likely that there is no evidence he committed a crime. Not to mention the political considerations and the fallout for future Presidents.
Faelar
Fortunately, I live in a part of the country pretty far from the poor, uneducated, and generally bad South and Midwest, so it may never be that bad here. But I hate to see my tax dollars going towards people too stupid to understand that building below sea level is a bad idea and to states with less than a 99% literacy rate.
Right. So, like, instead of understanding that the South was, like, completely devastated in the Civil War and is still suffering from the repercussions of that, and understanding that the Midwest is really nothing but farmland, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that people there are poor and undereducated, let's just bash the racist, ignorant rubes and leave it at that.
Faelar
Ahh, the old "love it or leave it" crap. I enjoy hearing people spew that particular diatribe. Nothing like people that see only two possibilities. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps he's trying to sway your opinion (not likely) or the opinion of someone else reading this thread? Has the thought that "change it" might also fit?
If "live with it or get out" were the only options, we would still have things like slavery in this country, women would still not be able to vote, and you would probably be paying English taxes rather than American taxes. Although the english have a pretty good healthcare system, so maybe that third one isn't so bad.
No one here has said you must "love it or leave it". They were just responding to TitaniumDragon's post in which he proposed that he may end up moving to a "real country".
Faelar
You have no valid information or analysis to show that interrogation does not work. No one has that information. The analysis is agenda driven, and you would not find real statistics on the situation. There is no valid analysis besides what some talking head wants the public to believe.
Actually, I do. Its called "Congress". You know, those people who do oversight?
And the reason congress than has not banned waterboarding is?...
What have they said about it? Was it unanimous? Was it the arms commitee? You have your information from the news, and it is spun.
H.R.2082
Title: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] (introduced 5/1/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.388, H.RES.859, S.1538
Latest Major Action: 3/11/2008 Failed of passage in House over veto. Status: On passage, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 225 - 188 (Roll no. 117).
House Reports: 110-131; Latest Conference Report: 110-478 (in Congressional Record H14462-14490)
5/1/2007 Introduced in House
5/7/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent). H. Rept. 110-131.
5/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 225 - 197 (Roll no. 341).
10/3/2007 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence discharged by Unanimous Consent.
10/3/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
12/6/2007 Conference report H. Rept. 110-478 filed.
12/13/2007 Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by recorded vote: 222 - 199 (Roll no. 1160).
2/13/2008 Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 45. Record Vote Number: 22.
2/13/2008 Cleared for White House.
2/29/2008 Presented to President.
3/8/2008 Vetoed by President.
3/11/2008 Failed of passage in House over veto: On passage, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 225 - 188 (Roll no. 117).
Congress passed a ban on Waterboarding and President Bush vetoed it.
Republican politicians supported torture, and thus there were not enough votes to override the veto.
Shocking, I know.
Just to clarify, after reviewing your posts, you are correct the President did Veto the Bill and congress did not have the 2/3 vote to override the veto. So let me ask you or anyone out there this question, let’s suppose that at AT&T Park a terrorist plants a bomb and sources have found one the terrorist that planted it, also your son is in the stadium and you have no idea when this bomb is going to go off, do you torture him/her or not?
So let me ask you or anyone out there this question, let’s suppose that at AT&T Park a terrorist plants a bomb and sources have found one the terrorist that planted it, also your son is in the stadium and you have no idea when this bomb is going to go off, do you torture him/her or not?
No.
No.
No what? A least give an intelligent reply.
No what? A least give an intelligent reply.
Hmm I had thought it clear. I suppose thats the risk you take with one word answers.
You asked
do you torture him/her or not?
I responed with a "no", meaning "I would not".
Hmm I had thought it clear. I suppose thats the risk you take with one word answers.
You asked
I responed with a "no", meaning "I would not".
So your saying you would let your son die and that the rights of the terrorist should not be violated to save some 10-20 thousand people in the process. Take me through your logic if you will?
So your saying you would let your son die and that the rights of the terrorist should not be violated to save some 10-20 thousand people in the process. Take me through your logic if you will?
Yeah pretty much.
Not that I would just let my son die as easily as that. If I knew the bomb was in the stadium and he was in the stadium I would frantically try to get him out. However I imagine that would not work. In which case, as a parent there's not much I could do in any event. I would be hard for me not to kill him (the terrorist, of course) afterward, but I would not debase myself so much as to torture him. This is not to say that I would not snap, and go crazy, as I might be likely to do under the circumstances, but as the rational and moral man that I try to be, I would not.
I say this for certain reasons
a) We are dealing with a fanatic. Fanatics do not behave rationally. The terrorist would not likely divulge any information to a crazed parent in the mere moments before his bomb is detonated. At that point, he is at the cusp of victory. He would probably relish my torture as a sign of his victory over me. Me torturing him would harm me more than it would him.
b) I prescribe to an ethical philosophy that says "do not treat a human being as a means towards an end, but always as an end in itself", and the Kantian Categorical Imperitave that says "act only in such a way as you would will to become universal law". His torture would violate that.
c) To use the cliche, it would make me no better than him. I am a great believer in western civilisation and liberal democracy. If I am willing to become what I despise, I only end up destroying what I want to protect in being an opponent of terrorism. Our high civilisation isn't worth **** if some backwards goat-herder turned bomb jockey from half a world away can provoke us into abondoning every ounce of moral and ethical progress we have made over the last couple of thousand years.
d) As a poster included in another thread in the tavern
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
-Benjamin Franklin
I do not believe in consequentialist methods. The end does not justify the means.
I hope this answers your pseudo-confrontational question.
Who said "love it or leave it"? And the British have a pretty good health care system? How so?
The fact that they have any sort of socialized medicine puts them a step above the US, where we have hospitals that are for profit, health insurance companies that operate based on the bottom dollar and a government that take 22% of what I make and tells me about all the things it won't do to earn those bucks.
But I think we have the best paid and most well rested government in the world. How many Congressmen, senators and petty bureaucrats really need to visit Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever other new place our government thinks needs democracy?
So your saying you would let your son die and that the rights of the terrorist should not be violated to save some 10-20 thousand people in the process. Take me through your logic if you will?
No, I'm a vengeful bastard. I'd personally violate his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and you can bet I'd send said terrorist to meet his god directly and immediately if I thought he was planning to do anything that harmed my son. But I would be acting outside of the law and would expect the local jurisdiction to do everything in their power to bring me to justice for my crimes as well.
I'm not the government, I'm not the one that needs to hold the moral high ground. Torture? Nah, not worth the time and not all that effective, you only get what they think you want to hear.
But you know what? There is a lot, and I mean LOT, of space between Bush and Castro.
But that's just it. I'm so tired of mindless rant after mindless rant about the 'evil Bushitler', particularly in a forum full of people that, frankly really ought to know better. That because the US isn't magically perfect with Bush in office, we need Obama who will, through a plan similar to the one currently in my sig, make everything perfect.
Obama, along with Reid and Pelosi, won't make the US a communist country, but they are promising all of Carter's and Johnson's greatest hits along with a new age of 'submission to the will of the world'. And, you know what, the world sucks.
Our economy has slowed down to a rate that the New York Times called 'breathtaking' only a decade ago, yet now the same paper often referrs to it as The Great Depression.
It's just so tiring to see supposedly intelligent people use rhetoric for politics that, in the past, was reserved for your literal enemies on the literal battlefield. But then, I worry, that there's quite a few people that do see people with other opinons that way.
The fact that they have any sort of socialized medicine puts them a step above the US, where we have hospitals that are for profit, health insurance companies that operate based on the bottom dollar...
Hey, I operate on the bottom dollar, too! I must be evil not working for free...
But that's just it. I'm so tired of mindless rant after mindless rant about the 'evil Bushitler', particularly in a forum full of people that, frankly really ought to know better.
It's the gramscian memes, friend. I've seen predictions that it'll take 20-30 years to wear out, but that sounds optimistic to me. Hunker down.
I fail to see how this could even be considered as a legitimate argument. Yes, there has been some domestic terrorism in the U.S., but even if you combine all the acts of domestic terrorism in the last fifty years you wouldn't come close to either the death toll or the amount of property damage incurred just on 9/11.
The percentage of terrorist actions in the US which are foriegn is tiny. It varies between 2 and 0%.
9/11 was rediculously successful, and the main reason it caused so much property damage was shoddy construction of the WTC.
Right. So, like, instead of understanding that the South was, like, completely devastated in the Civil War and is still suffering from the repercussions of that, and understanding that the Midwest is really nothing but farmland, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that people there are poor and undereducated, let's just bash the racist, ignorant rubes and leave it at that.
No, the South isn't still suffering from the Civil War. The South is suffering from institutionalized ignorance, denial of responsiblity, and passing the blame.
The South LOVES to blame everyone else for its problems. The blacks. The mexicans. The North. The problem is them. They don't want to come to grips with it.
The South sucks because it refuses to take responsibility for itself.
Just to clarify, after reviewing your posts, you are correct the President did Veto the Bill and congress did not have the 2/3 vote to override the veto. So let me ask you or anyone out there this question, let’s suppose that at AT&T Park a terrorist plants a bomb and sources have found one the terrorist that planted it, also your son is in the stadium and you have no idea when this bomb is going to go off, do you torture him/her or not?
No.
So your saying you would let your son die and that the rights of the terrorist should not be violated to save some 10-20 thousand people in the process. Take me through your logic if you will?
Are you saying you would kill a hundred times those twenty thousand people by creating many more terrorists?
But that's just it. I'm so tired of mindless rant after mindless rant about the 'evil Bushitler', particularly in a forum full of people that, frankly really ought to know better. That because the US isn't magically perfect with Bush in office, we need Obama who will, through a plan similar to the one currently in my sig, make everything perfect.
Bush is a horrible person. That doesn't make him as bad as Hilter, but he has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and wasted trillions of dollars.
Obama, along with Reid and Pelosi, won't make the US a communist country, but they are promising all of Carter's and Johnson's greatest hits along with a new age of 'submission to the will of the world'. And, you know what, the world sucks.
The United Nations needs teeth.
Republicans simply don't understand why.
The reality is that there's no purpose to the UN if it can't enforce what it does.
The Democrats want to give more power to the UN for exactly this reason.
However, the UN is a poor model for world government. The EU does a better job of it. Which of course leads us to the inexorable conclusion:
We should either form the equivalent of the EU or just join it.
Our economy has slowed down to a rate that the New York Times called 'breathtaking' only a decade ago, yet now the same paper often referrs to it as The Great Depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Change_in_US_household_wealth_1946-2007.gif
In short, no. The economy is worse today than it used to be. Its actually even worse than the graph indicates, because the median income has dropped relative to real wealth after adjusting for inflation.
And I've not seen it referred to as the great depression, but the economy isn't up to what the 1990s economy was like, especially when you look at inflation.
But that's just it. I'm so tired of mindless rant after mindless rant about the 'evil Bushitler', particularly in a forum full of people that, frankly really ought to know better. That because the US isn't magically perfect with Bush in office, we need Obama who will, through a plan similar to the one currently in my sig, make everything perfect.
Obama, along with Reid and Pelosi, won't make the US a communist country, but they are promising all of Carter's and Johnson's greatest hits along with a new age of 'submission to the will of the world'. And, you know what, the world sucks.
The Hitler and fascism references were exaggerations, sure, but from the political discussions I've been in at their hight they were about equal to the liberal=comminist chants. I am not familiar with all the economic underpinnings of the Obama economic policy - do you have a comprehensive reference? What I have seen so far is a cease or restructuring of the tax cuts (not a bad idea when there is a huge deficit and a war going), federal investment in several areas such as infrastructure, science and green manufacturing that supposedly leads an economic boost (Keynes is often refered to on both sides of the spectrum), and tax support for small businesses. The labor policies he advertised seem more like a reversal of the Bush Jr ones, which imo did not have a great effect anyway. Then there is his medical policy, and as far as I am concerned if Germany, France or UK have comparable healthcare for several percents less of their GDP, the US system has room for improvement.
At any rate I very much doubt that it would reach Carter's levels, much less Johnson's - which were arguably sustainable if it were not for the small matter of the Vietnam War. If I were to make a guess I'd say it would be around Clinton's level, and Clinton was not exactly a left-winger on economy - arguably he "reformed" as much as Reagan did, and some of his budgets - iirc especially the 1996 one - were hailed by right-wing economists.
As for "submission to the will of the world" that is BS, the way I see it. When was the "old age" of submission that you imply, anyway? The USA has acted for its own interests, and its own interests alone as long as I can remember - even when imo it wasn't a good idea for the world*. At best, the interests of allies such as the EU/NATO would be heeded. At best. Obama would change little - he might bring the US closer to the EU, but I do not see that as a problem. So far I have not seen any indication that he would actually go further - the "I might negotiate without preconditions" thing means little, since the US was negotiating with the USSR pretty much throughout the Cold War. He might do some things with mostly symbolic meaning, such as lift the embargo on Cuba, which has proven completely ineffective in toppling Castro anyway, or send a diplomatic delegation to Iran if their next prime minister is less nationalistic. This may give the impression the US is more friendly towards other countries, but the actual concessions made would be negligible.
Our economy has slowed down to a rate that the New York Times called 'breathtaking' only a decade ago, yet now the same paper often referrs to it as The Great Depression.
I am not quite sure what you mean here, to be honest. Do you mean that the US economy is sluggish now, or is as good as it was a decade ago? The Great Depression that I know of was in the late 20s and 30s.
* not the rest of the world as in everyone but the US; the world including the US.
But that's just it. I'm so tired of mindless rant after mindless rant about the 'evil Bushitler',
Bush is not Hitler. Hitler had a charisma that Bush will never match. I'm not saying Hitler as we know him was good by any stretch, but he was a good leader up until the day his troops crossed the frontier and they started shipping their own citizens to the ovens. I don't think Bush could pull off half of what Hitler did. And Hitler was considered a good leader by the world until 1938-1939.
Unfortunately, no one can ever think of another leader that makes your skin crawl at the mere mention of their name. Personally, I would equate Bush and Cheney with McCarthy and Cohn, but I don't think Bush could carry his end of that comparison. McCarthy was far more rabid than Bush and more respected.
Frankly speaking, I don't think ol' GWB is smart enough to pull off all the crazy conspiracies that are being pinned on him by the conspiracy theorists. His good ol' boy image is either the best ruse I've ever seen or he's truly not fit for the office he holds. Time will tell on that, but in the meantime, we have a leader that not only lacks the respect of his constituents, but the rest of the world as well.
No, the South isn't still suffering from the Civil War. The South is suffering from institutionalized ignorance, denial of responsiblity, and passing the blame.
The South LOVES to blame everyone else for its problems. The blacks. The mexicans. The North. The problem is them. They don't want to come to grips with it.
The South sucks because it refuses to take responsibility for itself.
This is the wackiest thing I have read in a long time. The country has been one nation for a long time. There are many people who live in the south who don’t have a shred of racism or institutionalized ignorance or denial of responsibility. That’s the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. You sound paranoid of the south.
Are you saying you would kill a hundred times those twenty thousand people by creating many more terrorists?
Try actually answering the question instead of changing the premise. Although I’m not surprised on how you replied. Also, what in bloody Hades are you talking about?
Bush is a horrible person. That doesn't make him as bad as Hilter, but he has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and wasted trillions of dollars.
Bush is a bad President but horrible, I think time will tell after all everyone loved Bill Clinton and the repercussions of his Presidency is still being felt today (thanks for NAFTA and free trade with China Bill)
The United Nations needs teeth.
Republicans simply don't understand why.
The reality is that there's no purpose to the UN if it can't enforce what it does.
The Democrats want to give more power to the UN for exactly this reason.
However, the UN is a poor model for world government. The EU does a better job of it. Which of course leads us to the inexorable conclusion:
We should either form the equivalent of the EU or just join it.
So the United States should give up it sovereignty? Is that what you are saying?
The Hitler and fascism references were exaggerations, sure, but from the political discussions I've been in at their hight they were about equal to the liberal=comminist chants.
There is a major difference. Many of the economic plans laid out by Pelosi, in particular, are communist in nature. (And some of her 'speech control' plans have darker shades of the Soviets). There has been absolutely nothing under Bush's presidency that even remotely resembles fascism.
I am not familiar with all the economic underpinnings of the Obama economic policy - do you have a comprehensive reference?
Obama has no stated economic policy beyond 'raising taxes on 'the rich'' and 'expanding benefits'. None of what he's talked about is really defined. That's why it's extremely important to pay attention to what Reid and Pelosi want to do, since Obama will likely just rubber-stamp them.
If I were to make a guess I'd say it would be around Clinton's level, and Clinton was not exactly a left-winger on economy - arguably he "reformed" as much as Reagan did, and some of his budgets - iirc especially the 1996 one - were hailed by right-wing economists.
The thing to keep in mind is that we're at Clinton's level, by and large. The rebate and 'stimulus cuts' made by Bush were statistically minor overall, when you look at overall percentages.
As for "submission to the will of the world" that is BS, the way I see it. When was the "old age" of submission that you imply, anyway? The USA has acted for its own interests, and its own interests alone as long as I can remember - even when imo it wasn't a good idea for the world*.
As I said, the world sucks. Do we really want to care about the best interests of the Government of Zimbabwe, for instance? The problem is that Kerry, Gore, and Obama, see the UN the holders of world order, and would gladly adopt any resolution that the UN puts forward, even if it's pushed forward by , say, the OPEC voting block or the Islamic Council.
You see, they have the opposite view of 'respect' in the world community, they want to be popular with everyone. They confuse the two and think that popularity is respect and power. Carter, in his day, was very popular in the 'world stage', while Reagan was not.
I am not quite sure what you mean here, to be honest. Do you mean that the US economy is sluggish now, or is as good as it was a decade ago? The Great Depression that I know of was in the late 20s and 30s.
There are many so-called 'liberals' who like to claim that our economy NOW is as bad as, or worse, than the Great Depression. They say this with a straight face.
Bush perhaps isn´t cleverest, but isn´t stupy either. USA goverment isn´t only the president.
------
Would you like Condoleezza Rice like the first (colored) woman president of USA?.
There has been absolutely nothing under Bush's presidency that even remotely resembles fascism.
The Patriot act, the Military Commissions act, the Telecommunications act...
Sorry, what were you saying?
USA has to be the world police.
No, sorry, you can mind your own patch there, mate. Spain is perfectly capable of policing it's own country. And if you want to police the rest of the world, that's on you.
Would you like Condoleezza Rice like the first (colored) woman president of USA?.
Any black who goes for national office has to a liberal & democrat or they get labeled an "Uncle Tom".
The Patriot act, the Military Commissions act, the Telecommunications act...
Sorry, what were you saying?
I'm saying you don't know what Facism is. That's what I'm saying.
If you thought the Patriot Act was big bad and scary, what would you say about the Kennedy and Johnson administrations? To say nothing of Truman or Roosevelt, naturally.
And then, when you recoil from that, look up Wilson some time.
When you actually know what the hell facism is, then, and only then, can you pretend to know what you're talking about. Right now, you just are posting from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'.
I'm saying you don't know what Facism is. That's what I'm saying.
If you thought the Patriot Act was big bad and scary, what would you say about the Kennedy and Johnson administrations? To say nothing of Truman or Roosevelt, naturally.
And then, when you recoil from that, look up Wilson some time.
When you actually know what the hell facism is, then, and only then, can you pretend to know what you're talking about. Right now, you just are posting from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'.
To my understanding Fascism is a paternalistic system of government that involves the sacrifice of individual freedoms for what one is told is the greater good by a goverment that adopts a "we know what is best for you and you don't" policy. Under that, what he said made sense. The things he mentioned are not quite clear cut fascism, but they are steps in that direction.
Mayhap you could clarify your definition of Facism then? I daresay it would be more productive to the discussion than a rant about how he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Facism, indeed, requires a rejection of classical liberal ideals such as freedom of speech.
This simply has not happened in the United States. It hasn't. Nothing passed by the Bush Administration even remotely resembles facism unless you believe that 'facism is just a powerful government led by people I don't like'.
http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/ara/pde/facism.html
If you're going to , with a straight face, say that the United States today compares remotely with 1930s Italy, Spain, Japan, or Germany, then you're going to have to forgive me if I laugh at your profound stupidity and sheer ignorance.
A few acts does not make a facist regieme. Indeed, is there anyone on these forums that really have been impacted by any of them? The fact that we can actually discuss this issue without fear of government reprisal indicates that we are not 'headed towards facism' as both you and he state.
Facism, indeed, requires a rejection of classical liberal ideals such as freedom of speech.
This simply has not happened in the United States. It hasn't. Nothing passed by the Bush Administration even remotely resembles facism unless you believe that 'facism is just a powerful government led by people I don't like'.
http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/ara/pde/facism.html
If you're going to , with a straight face, say that the United States today compares remotely with 1930s Italy, Spain, Japan, or Germany, then you're going to have to forgive me if I laugh at your profound stupidity and sheer ignorance.
Right on it!! I recommend reading Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
In the begining I wanted Albert Gore won the elections but after 9/11 I´m pro-Bush. I´m Spanish and my land ("al-Andalus" = Midle Age Muslim Spain + Portugal) is a the goals of jihadism (Muslim terrorist). USA has to be the world police. Jihadism is a serious menace.
Bush perhaps isn´t cleverest, but isn´t stupy either. USA goverment isn´t only the president.
------
Would you like Condoleezza Rice like the first (colored) woman president of USA?.
I understand what you are saying but the US should not be policing the world. It puts too much of a strain on American tax payers. The war in Iraq is costing tax payers Billions and we are making a bigger mistake by borrowing that money from China. The fact is everyone has to look after there own back yard. I'm not saying the US should not support it's allies but at the end of the day the only place we should be policing is ourselves.
I'm not saying the US should not support it's allies but at the end of the day the only place we should be policing is ourselves.
Correct. We shouldn't wage war unless we ourselves are attacked. There hasn't been ANY valid US wars since WWII.
I understand what you are saying but the US should not be policing the world. It puts too much of a strain on American tax payers. The war in Iraq is costing tax payers Billions and we are making a bigger mistake by borrowing that money from China. The fact is everyone has to look after there own back yard. I'm not saying the US should not support it's allies but at the end of the day the only place we should be policing is ourselves.
You've got some things wrong about where the war-funding is coming from. We're NOT actually increasing our debt to foriegn powers, but to the taxpayers themselves, in the form of bonds, etc...
But, the problem with the US not being the world police now that Europe, in particular, has relied on us being their police force for several generations is already manifesting... in Georgia. Europe is both unable and unwilling to look after its own interests... and, sadly, if things deteriorate enough, it very quickly becomes our own direct interest as well.
You've got some things wrong about where the war-funding is coming from. We're NOT actually increasing our debt to foriegn powers, but to the taxpayers themselves, in the form of bonds, etc...
I stand corrected.
It puts too much of a strain on American tax payers. The war in Iraq is costing tax payers Billions and we are making a bigger mistake by borrowing that money from China.
Spain too lost of money when we fighted againts Ottoman empire, but we had to do it.
I know Iraq war cost a lot of money....and lifes...but Sadam Husseim was a "loose end". If Sadam Husseim were been "free" again to go back to one's (bad) old ways then we would have got a worse war (because Sadam Husseim army would be stronger and even perhaps with some weapon of mass destruction. You hadn´t choice; or you had war or you had war... the lesser bad was toppleing him when Sadam Husseim´s forces were weakest to avoid more deaths and destruction. Too it was very dangerous the war for a USA election year. (Could you imagine if Sadam Husseim had invaded Kuwait a month before USA election to blackmail the current president?)
The fact is everyone has to look after there own back yard.
A lot of Northamerican people thought it but...then Pearl Harbour happened. You can´t close your eyes and hope the happening in the rest of world will not affect. That attitude let the 9/11. USA, (and West), has a lot a enemies. Osama Bin Laden isn´t on holydays. Don´t forget the crisis in Middle East affects the oil price and the consequently the world economy.
You are going to tell to South Korea or Poland..."when comunist invaded you USA had to have fold one's arms" (=not to have done anything). Had Kennedy to be still when comunist wanted put nuclear missiles in Cuba?
USA didn´t want be police world when I W.W. (the great war) and II .WW. started....
I know Iraq war cost a lot of money....and lifes...but Sadam Husseim was a "loose end". If Sadam Husseim were been "free" again to go back to one's (bad) old ways then we would have got a worse war (because Sadam Husseim army would be stronger and even perhaps with some weapon of mass destruction. You hadn´t choice; or you had war or you had war... the lesser bad was toppleing him when Sadam Husseim´s forces were weakest to avoid more deaths and destruction. Too it was very dangerous the war for a USA election year. (Could you imagine if Sadam Husseim had invaded Kuwait a month before USA election to blackmail the current president?)
We didn't have any real reason to think Saddam would actually launch an attack on the most powerful nation on Earth with his little pile of soviet-made tanks. And if he did, his army would have been squashed like a bug.
Our "national interests" should never be considered to span the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, especially when the "threat" in question is just another second-rate dictator.
A lot of Northamerican people thought it but...then Pearl Harbour happened. You can´t close your eyes and hope the happening in the rest of world will not affect. That attitude let the 9/11. USA, (and West), has a lot a enemies. Osama Bin Laden isn´t on holydays. Don´t forget the crisis in Middle East affects the oil price and the consequently the world economy.
You are going to tell to South Korea or Poland..."when comunist invaded you USA had to have fold one's arms" (=not to have done anything). Had Kennedy to be still when comunist wanted put nuclear missiles in Cuba?
USA didn´t want be police world when I W.W. (the great war) and II .WW. started....
We shouldn't have to be the world police force; no other country does this. It's astoundingly retarded to expend such resources on vague goals like "spreading democracy" or "fighting terrorism". The Cold War is somewhat defendable imo: the Soviets were, in fact, aggressive towards us and attempting to subvert our government, so we had a reason to fight Communism. But now we have this enormous military complex built up and . . . nothing to fight. So the neo-conservatives step in with Jacobin rhetoric about "democracy across the globe" and what-not.
9/11 happened because we have been interfering in the middle-east since the end of WWII. They hate us over there, and with a certain amount of reason. We're fighting an invisible enemy . . . many accidents happen when you're main enemy is dressed in civilian clothes. This isn't just my crackpot paranoid conservative theory, it's what our own intelligence agencies tell us: 9/11 was blowback.
How would you feel if Iran was giving weapons, arms, and diplomatic support to an aggressive "Native American State" smack-dab in the middle of the North American continent? That's basically what we're doing with Israel. Which is not to say that I'm anti-Israeli: many Israeli politicians are fine, it's the Likkuds who stink, and it's easily one of the freest countries in the world. I'm just saying it's stupid to throw our weight behind Israel or Palestine . . . because there is absolutely nothing in it for us (besides, of course, money for big corporations who supply the military, the military itself, and prestige for the commander-in-chief).
They don't "hate us for our freedom" . . . real-life bad-guys are usually a little more complicated than that.
Also, Pearl Harbor would not have occurred if FDR wasn't embargoing Japan and preventing them from importing petroleum - an act of war, I might add ;)
Countries don't just attack or antagonize other, sometimes more powerful countries for no good reason. Except the USA of course.
As Samuel Francis once said, we need an "America First" foreign policy. Afterall, our elected officials are hired to defend America, not the status of Democracy around the world, or a tiny Jewish state in the middle east (or Georgia or East Europe or Latin America or to fight the "international war on drugs" or . . . etc etc ad nauseum).
It should also be noted that the neoconservatives make the characteristically Liberal assumption that "all men are equal", and that if Democracy works here it'll work in Afghanistan. I really don't think the system we have here will necessarily work in radically different cultures, and it's futile to force such a change on them. Hell we're not only trying to convert them to our form of *government*, we even try to change their *culture*. How many times have you heard the "liberating women" spiel about Afghanistan? It truly is cultural imperialism, and not, as leftist commentators would have you believe, with McDonald's or Coca-Cola . . . with bullets.
The United States is an anethema to the Islamist's end goal. The World Trade Center wasn't destroyed becuase it was American and we were a big nasty threat to us, but because it symbolized western success.
The United States, and most of Europe, doesn't need to fear an INVASION by these terrorists... they need to fear the destruction that they cause. Believe me, if Al Queda (or others) got a nuke, they would feel no hesistation nor remorse about using it anywhere that they could - be it Tel Aviv, Madrid, London, New York, Baghdad, or even Mecca itself.
Believe me, if Al Queda (or others) got a nuke, they would feel no hesistation nor remorse about using it anywhere that they could - be it Tel Aviv, Madrid, London, New York, Baghdad, or even Mecca itself.
Not going to argue with the statement as a whole, but they would never nuke Mecca.
Not going to argue with the statement as a whole, but they would never nuke Mecca.
I wouldn't be so sure.. if one of these sects felt that another had too much influence over Mecca, they wouldn't hesistate to nuke the site and celebrate its martyrdom. Indeed, the only things that these Islamists like to kill more than 'infidels' are 'heretics'...
Remember, we're not dealing with rationalism here. This is a brand of fanaticism normally only seen in small and isolated sects in history. It's just today they have more access to greater weapons to cause more havoc.
We didn't have any real reason to think Saddam would actually launch an attack on the most powerful nation on Earth with his little pile of soviet-made tanks.
The real reason that man wanted to be a new Napoleon o Alexander the great. He would do again if he had the power. USA couldn´t let it. Sadam Husseim wasn´t going to atack USA land, but Kuwait, Saud Arabian or even start a new war againts Iran. He was a dangerous. Have you seen in movies when a husband batters his wife and then a judge order hims a minimum distance (and his firearms are requisioned..)?. Get the idea.
his army would have been squashed like a bug.
Because USA goverment spent a lot of money in your army.
Our "national interests" should never be considered to span the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, especially when the "threat" in question is just another second-rate dictator.
Your interests would be the whole world. Remberber the inmigrant people who go to your land from regimes like Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba. Do you know the butterfly effect? If you forgert the rest of world you will suffer the consecuences in the future (for example terrorist attack againts USA business or militar base in those lands).
no other country does this.
Somebody has to be it. Europe couldn´t stop the Yugoslavian war.
Consider "spreading democracy" and "fighting terrorism" like a investment. You will save a lot of money (and lifes) in the future. Or do you want a new Pearl Harbour or 9/11?
Sorry, ...
I wouldn't be so sure.. if one of these sects felt that another had too much influence over Mecca, they wouldn't hesistate to nuke the site and celebrate its martyrdom. Indeed, the only things that these Islamists like to kill more than 'infidels' are 'heretics'...
Hmm, I'm not so sure but I will accept the possibility. It would take the craziest s.o.b. among them to blow up their own holy capital, but I suppose it could happen. These people are crazies who bring shame to regular Muslims. If Mecca denounced their version of Islam, perhaps things would happen as you say.
Remember, we're not dealing with rationalism here. This is a brand of fanaticism normally only seen in small and isolated sects in history. It's just today they have more access to greater weapons to cause more havoc.
No argument on that one mate.
Of course, the reprocussions would be devastating, if not fatal, for the entire Muslim faith... but when you're dealing with sects that celebrate murder and suicide, it's not made less likely.
we had a reason to fight Communism.
And (all) we have good reason to fight jihadism. Rebembert too you can´t trust Russia nor Comunist Chinese goverment. Perhaps now they would rather to be in business but their goals aren´t goods.
But now we have this enormous military complex built up and . . . nothing to fight.
That military complex dissuades our enemys and we avoid the war. What better victory? If NATO were too weak... be sure we had war.
9/11 happened because we have been interfering in the middle-east since the end of WWII.
[SIZE="7"]¡Y UN JAM
not to mention Obama is a coward
and Mccain is a dick
and Mccain is a dick
Insert "Team America: World Police" quote here.
Wal-Mart, YEAH!
The Gap, YEAH!
Baseball, YEAH!
NFL, , YEAH!
Rock and roll, YEAH!
The Internet, YEAH!
Slavery, YEAH!
Starbucks, YEAH!
Disney world, YEAH!
Porno, YEAH!
Valium, YEAH!
Reeboks, YEAH!
Fake breasts, YEAH!
Sushi, YEAH!
Taco Bell, YEAH!
Rodeos, YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (yeah, yeah)
Liberty, YEAH!
White Slips, YEAH!
The Alamo, YEAH!
Band-aids, YEAH!
Las Vegas, YEAH!
Christmas, YEAH!
Immigrants, YEAH!
Popeye, YEAH!
Democrats, YEAH!
Republicans (republicans)
(yeah, yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books
This is the wackiest thing I have read in a long time. The country has been one nation for a long time. There are many people who live in the south who don’t have a shred of racism or institutionalized ignorance or denial of responsibility. That’s the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. You sound paranoid of the south.
Yes, and as it turns out, the people who aren't from the South tend not to be as poor as those who are from the South. Wonders never cease!
And perhaps the most identifiable population from the south, the descendents of slaves, remain poor even after going elsewhere.
Try actually answering the question instead of changing the premise. Although I’m not surprised on how you replied. Also, what in bloody Hades are you talking about?
Torturing people makes more terrorists.
Bush is a bad President but horrible, I think time will tell after all everyone loved Bill Clinton and the repercussions of his Presidency is still being felt today (thanks for NAFTA and free trade with China Bill)
I think you mean Nixon. And honestly, making China into a first world country isn't exactly a bad thing, and is likely to cause them to become a better country on the whole.
Besides, where do you think WalMart gets its stuff from? And who purchases stuff from WalMart?
So the United States should give up it sovereignty? Is that what you are saying?
Absolutely. It worked for the states, didn't it?
The key is to form a greater sovereign body.
There is a major difference. Many of the economic plans laid out by Pelosi, in particular, are communist in nature. (And some of her 'speech control' plans have darker shades of the Soviets). There has been absolutely nothing under Bush's presidency that even remotely resembles fascism.
Your lack of ability to look at things objectively is rather sad.
And hey, remember Nazi Germany's corporatism? Of course, you could argue that the Nazis weren't exactly fascists, but then, I'm not sure "upgrading" from Italian fascism to nazism is really an improvement.
He has behaved in exactly the way a certain Nazi said someone who sought war would behave. Remember, the people don't want war.
As I said, the world sucks. Do we really want to care about the best interests of the Government of Zimbabwe, for instance? The problem is that Kerry, Gore, and Obama, see the UN the holders of world order, and would gladly adopt any resolution that the UN puts forward, even if it's pushed forward by , say, the OPEC voting block or the Islamic Council.
I think you're missing the fact that the US has enormous power in the UN.
The problem is the UN has no teeth. So when Russia invaded Georgia, what did the UN do? When the US invaded Iraq, what did the UN do? They have no power. That's a problem.
You need to be able to DO something. Without enforcement, what's the point of the UN?
There is no purpose.
You see, they have the opposite view of 'respect' in the world community, they want to be popular with everyone. They confuse the two and think that popularity is respect and power. Carter, in his day, was very popular in the 'world stage', while Reagan was not.
Reagan was a flaming idiot and the only president we've ever had who committed treason, whereas Carter's policies would have saved us a lot of grief. Much as the Republicans deify him, he wasn't a very good president, and his successor, Bush Sr., was far better.
There are many so-called 'liberals' who like to claim that our economy NOW is as bad as, or worse, than the Great Depression. They say this with a straight face.
Name one who is important.
But, the problem with the US not being the world police now that Europe, in particular, has relied on us being their police force for several generations is already manifesting... in Georgia. Europe is both unable and unwilling to look after its own interests... and, sadly, if things deteriorate enough, it very quickly becomes our own direct interest as well.
Because the US has done so much to prevent what's going on in Georgia.
The United States, and most of Europe, doesn't need to fear an INVASION by these terrorists... they need to fear the destruction that they cause. Believe me, if Al Queda (or others) got a nuke, they would feel no hesistation nor remorse about using it anywhere that they could - be it Tel Aviv, Madrid, London, New York, Baghdad, or even Mecca itself.
Yes they would. Whatever middle eastern country they were from would become a giant sheet of glass.
If being crazy enough to use nuclear weapons is a bad thing, then you'd better shoot Bush and you should have shot Reagan, as Bush has advocated using nuclear weapons as bunker busters and let's not even go into how much money Reagan wasted on building nukes for use against the USSR.
Yes they would. Whatever middle eastern country they were from would become a giant sheet of glass.
Oh, there's a good idea. Let's just go ahead and toss a nuke. Then Israel will shoot off their wad at their enemies. North Korea can chuck a couple at their old enemies. The Russians can take out whoever torqued them off that week. India and Pakistan can irradiate their whole sub-continent. And when it's all done we can sit back and relax because we didn't blow up the whole world, we just made it uninhabitable by baby steps.
Consider "spreading democracy" and "fighting terrorism" like a investment. You will save a lot of money (and lifes) in the future. Or do you want a new Pearl Harbour or 9/11?
You know, they're just "Spreading Islam" aren't they? That's an investment too.
No offense meant, but you're just spewing propaganda, mate. If you want peace and an end to terrorism, you need to talk to the people that see no other option but violence. Sure, there will always be another group that thinks they need to blow stuff up so you'll listen to them, but that's going to happen.
We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with an unalienable right to life libety and the pursuit of happiness.
I know those words were very specific in their usage and historical significance, but they don't just apply to us dumb ol' Americans. When you start thinking about those words and applying the principle of the statement to the rest of the world, you'll find the rest of the world looks to you more kindly because of your wisdom.
Just because they want an islamic nation doesn't mean they're wrong and backward thinking. We should applaud their choice and get goods and services flowing into their country so that they can have their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember, democracy is the will of the people, if the people of the middle east want to live under Islamic law, so be it.
Realistically, if they got a nuke, the areas that would likely be the victim would be Gaza, or Jerusalem - since the damage would take a huge chunk out of Isreal.
Not likely. The holiest cities of Islam are Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem and Baghdad. You can bet you'll never see a nuke tossed by an islamic group at any of these.
Just like they would NEVER Bomb the Golden Mosque....
That Mosque is only holy to one of the two sects fighting each other. Jerusalem is holy to both.
That Mosque is only holy to one of the two sects fighting each other. Jerusalem is holy to both.
That's just it.. PARTS of Jerusalem is holy to both.. other parts are considered heretic, etc. Believe me, you're talking about groups that worship murder and death above all else. They would much rather nuke a holy site than see infidels or heretics on it.
These are not sane people.
That's just it.. PARTS of Jerusalem is holy to both.. other parts are considered heretic, etc. Believe me, you're talking about groups that worship murder and death above all else. They would much rather nuke a holy site than see infidels or heretics on it.
These are not sane people.
You could at least warn me before you drop a load like that. That way I can put on my hip waders.
Islamic groups do not worship murder and death. If they did, they would've never survived to the present day. Islam is 1200+ years old, not some lunatic fringe cult that thinks killing people that aren't Islamic is right and just.
Islam is going through the same growing pains that Christianity did when it reached about the same age. Remember the crusades? Remember christians going off to war to destroy the infidels that held the sacred sites of Christian scripture? Funniest thing, it was just about the time Christianity was 1200 years old too.
You haven't quoted any Islamic scripture to support your accusations, you haven't offered any insights beyond statements that "these people are not sane". Do me a great favor and instead of removing the Islamic people that you seem to hate so much, remove yourself. I have read the Quran and have never found anything that would fit the description of Islam that you and the other hate mongers are spewing.
As for worshipping murder and death, it's the Christian religion that shows it's faith with an implement of execution.
Islamic groups do not worship murder and death. If they did, they would've never survived to the present day. Islam is 1200+ years old, not some lunatic fringe cult that thinks killing people that aren't Islamic is right and just.
No. The Muslim Religion is 1200 years old. The brand of Islam we're talking about is less than a hundred and has a LOT of roots in early Soviet political maneuverings.
But, you know what, since you think Islamic Terrorists are basically good guys that just need us to prostrate ourselves that their feet, I think we're honestly done talking to one another.
Actually, Horus, the enemies we're talking about do hate us for our freedoms, rather explicitly. All you have to do is see what life under these Islamists is like to know that that's true.
The United States is an anethema to the Islamist's end goal. The World Trade Center wasn't destroyed becuase it was American and we were a big nasty threat to us, but because it symbolized western success.
The United States, and most of Europe, doesn't need to fear an INVASION by these terrorists... they need to fear the destruction that they cause. Believe me, if Al Queda (or others) got a nuke, they would feel no hesistation nor remorse about using it anywhere that they could - be it Tel Aviv, Madrid, London, New York, Baghdad, or even Mecca itself.
They may hate us for our freedom, but our policies towards them have driven them into this frenzy.
If the Muslim fanatics were to invade us, they would be destroyed quickly. Not just quickly, it would be a near-massacre. This is because we spend lots of money on our military - and rightly so. We should "speak softly, and carry a big stick," as FDR would say (if only he had followed his own advice). Also, if the Muslims were to acquire a nuke, they would have no way to deploy it.
The best way to block terrorism within our borders is to stop immigration, in this case of the Muslims in particular. I know it is not the orthodoxy, but this is our country and we have a right to exclude entry for whatever reason we choose.
Anyway, I'm done here; sick of arguing :P I'll leave you guys with a quote from the Tao Te Ching:
The government that seems the most unwise,
Oft goodness to the people best supplies;
That which is meddling, touching everything,
Will work but ill, and disappointment bring.
Misery!--happiness is to be found by its side! Happiness!--misery
lurks beneath it! Who knows what either will come to in the end?
Shall we then dispense with correction? The (method of) correction
shall by a turn become distortion, and the good in it shall by a turn
become evil. The delusion of the people (on this point) has indeed
subsisted for a long time.
They may hate us for our freedom, but our policies towards them have driven them into this frenzy.
Not really. The United States is the world's punching bag in a lot of ways, largely because we're extremely hesistant to retaliate - and even then, we're a lot more 'humane' about our retaliation than most powers.
So, a tyrant like, say, Chavez, can say "Yeah, we've got problems, but it's those evil Americans who take your oil!" and some people buy it. In the Middle East, this type of shell game has been going on, largely at the behest of the Soviets (see the movie Reds, for a dramatization) for nearly a century.
And it isn't just us, witness how the Imams used the Danish cartoons to whip up bloodlust - even going so far as to invent their own cartoons to bolster it up.
The basic difference these days is that, in the past 20 years, the Islamic terrorists have begun to act out these 'fantasies of revenge'... a fact that actually FREIGHTENS regional leaders - since if these 'whooped up' Islmists are denied their 'infidel' targets, they'll gleefully follow their teachings and find an easier target... someone they can call a 'heretic'.
There's no policy that we could adapt that would change any of this.
But, you know what, since you think Islamic Terrorists are basically good guys that just need us to prostrate ourselves that their feet, I think we're honestly done talking to one another.
There is a fairly large distance between what I'm saying and prostrating ourselves at their feet. But what it seems you want is to put them on their knees begging for their life, neh?
I have never said that they should be given milk and cookies for what they've done, most of it is horrible in the extreme. But if even once the US called Israel to heel over the Palestinian issue, some of those militants would fade into the populace and never take arms again. If the US was to treat the gov't of Iran as a legitimate gov't on the world stage, some of the outrage that drives people to the extremes would disappear. If you treat people with dignity and respect, they will most likely do the same to you. As long as the cycle of revenge continues we will never be rid of this problem.
If this difference of opinion is too great a gulf for the two of us to bridge, I am truly sorry. My views aren't the most moderate, but they shouldn't be too extreme to prevent further discourse. It seems you and I are at the impasse that nations and religions seem to always find.
They do not.
It's that simple. And they prove this not just by how they treat the United States and Isreal, but also their own people. This is not a society worthy of respect, but one worth our contempt. We should see it eradicated, out of self-preservation more than anything.
It doesn't take bombing them to oblivion, certainly... but it does mean showing strength and moral courage to stand up to them. We should NOT make excuses when they burn entire villages for 'heresy', or when they murder **** victims for being unclean, and so on... and we certainly should NOT elevate their ethics and morals to ours.
This Islamic (not Muslim) culture is an evil in the world. And it must be confronted, not appeased.
This Islamic (not Muslim) culture is an evil in the world. And it must be confronted, not appeased.
And you think diplomacy can't be confrontational? Take one look at the Cuban Missile Crisis and that thinking goes out the window.
Sure, we'll have to eat a bit of crow. But in the end, so will they. It's called compromise, eventually one or the other has to give or we'll kill each other off. You say they're evil. They say you're evil. Both of you have to die to make peace, right? Sorry, I'd rather find a third option, if it's not too late.
I'm a bit distressed that you see any attempt to negotiate as giving in to evil, but I must be able to see more shades of gray. Would you call me an appeaser if I fell into line with you and said "screw it, bomb them into oblivion"? Oh no, that's right, at that point I would be a loyal patriot, right?
they're just "Spreading Islam" aren't they? That's an investment too.
Who is spreading Islam? If it´s a investment the will loss his money, time and efforts.
but you're just spewing propaganda
I only give my opinion. (and I am enjoy this debate). What isn´t propaganda? Isn´t Hollywood movies too? But if I am wrong or I don´t the truth you can find my mistakes or incoherences. Anyway this debate can be useful to teaching or learning. Don´t you think it?
If you want peace and an end to terrorism...
Have you read my signature?
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLVM (= If you want peace, get ready for war)
you need to talk to the people that see no other option but violence.
you need to talk to the people that see people need guns to fighting delinquency.
The reality is this; you mustn´t negociat with terrorist. Have you read the story of Miguel Angel Blanco´s kidnap and assassination?.
If you give some concessions the terrorist group will do the same strategy because they have looked the can get goals. It´s like Pavlov´s dog.
We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with an unalienable right to life libety and the pursuit of happiness.
What do you say about human rights in Saud Arabian, Belarus, Noth Korea, Burma, Egypt, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan...? Are West people only with right to freedom and happiness?
Just because they want an islamic nation doesn't mean they're wrong and backward thinking.
What´s happen with people who don´t want be Muslim? Do you know female Muslim only can get married with males Muslim or a Muslim who convert to other religion is practically condemmed man? What do you know about Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
Do you want in your confortable bubble while in the rest of the world, in th real life the people is suffering? Geeks boys are accused being "disconnected" (to swicth off)....but you can´t avoid reality always. Geek fiction can not be your anesthetic. Fantasy only can be a sweet way to get closer to reality.
In this real world if Spain (my land wasn´t member of NATO Morocco would try attack us as 1975 green march or Ifni war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifni_War
That people want kill us while you are in your room with your videogames. Thanks very much!
We should applaud their choice and get goods and services flowing into their country so that they can have their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Are you joking? you can tell you never read blogs about Eurabia or jihadism.
Remember, democracy is the will of the people, if the people of the middle east want to live under Islamic law, so be it.
Reality is there people only can be or act like Muslim, even if you aren´t. Let´s look Iranian youth. They don´t want wear hyjab longer but the Iranian teocrachy..... They aren´t really true.
Do you rebember Mahdi Christian Allan? He received death threat a lot of time before his conversion to Catholicism (he was baptized by himself Pope)
You ought look for webs about Christian comunitys in Midle East (for example the Copts from Egypt) or the lack of human rights in Saud Arabian or Turkey.
If they did, they would've never survived to the present day.
No, only the have killed each other all time. From the four first caliphas, three were killed with violence. Omeya dinasty get the caliphate (with after), and after they were doomed by Abbasid. Each time a caliphe died a new civil war started between the heirs..(There with poligamy the firstborn child isn´t choosen like heir).
They have survived, but they haven´t could prosper.
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
What are the Muslim fruits? Here a example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bassorah
The Battle of Bassorah, Battle of the Camel, or Battle of Jamal was a battle that took place at Basra, Iraq in 656 between forces allied to Ali ibn Abi Talib (Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Rightly Guided Caliph and Commander of the Faithful) and forces allied to Aisha (widow of Muhammad, and called the Mother of the Faithful) who wanted justice on the perpetrators of the assassination of the previous caliph Uthmaan.
Aisha, Muhammad´s favourist wife was 9 years old when she did it with her husband...
Islam is too frozen or static. Christianism is a group of moral values and principles, but not a fixed law. Christian people believe in Natural Law, but Muslims peolpe don´t wonder the reason their law is good o evil.
Do know Sussana´s story from chapter 13 of prophet Daniel´s book?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susanna_%28Book_of_Daniel%29
What ff Susanna was been juzged by a Muslim judges?
Muslims believe Q´oran is perfect because is Allah´s word, and then it can not be changed.
Remember the crusades?
Did you know Rome was sacked by Saracens in 846? Who was the agressor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28846%29
And did you know on October 18, 1009, Church of Holy Sepulchre was totally destroyed by order from so-called "mad" Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah?
There is a lot of Chatolic apologetics webs with that matter (and other ones like Inquisition). I reccommend the book "The Crusades through Arab Eyes" by Amin Ma'alouf.
Other books are "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization"
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr, and "Aristote au Mont Saint-Michel" by Sylvain Gouguenheim
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/28/europe/politicus.php
Chatolic black legend isn´t just. Middle ages wasn´t so dark by our fault.
OFF-TOPIC.
Show
Other matter; Please, Fanaticism hasn´t to be linked with religious beliefs. Aheist aren´t better believers. Comunism killed hundred millons of people for XX century and the Jacobin faction....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
La Vendée was the first genocide in the modern age..
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/masson1.html
Atheists haven´t moral superiority to give us lesson about tolerance and coexistence. Here in Spain for 30´s the "red ones" killed and tortured a lot of Catholic people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
La Vendée was the first genocide in the modern age..
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/masson1.html
Atheists haven´t moral superiority to give us lesson about tolerance and coexistence. Here in Spain for 30´s the "red ones" killed and tortured a lot of Catholic people.
There is a fairly large distance between what I'm saying and prostrating ourselves at their feet. But what it seems you want is to put them on their knees begging for their life, neh?
No, that is what Muslims want. That is what Muslims are required to want. They must eradicate all non-monotheists, and reduce all non-Muslim monotheists to dhimmi.
That is a direct and absolute requirement of their faith stated in their holy book. You can hem and haw and hedge and make excuses all you want, but in the end that is what is in there. However much it might be preferred and offered as the "true" alternative, "moderate" Islam capable of true compromise is a heresy, and accepted on a deep internal level even by the vast majority of those who would never seriously contemplate becoming terrorists.
I have never said that they should be given milk and cookies for what they've done, most of it is horrible in the extreme. But if even once the US called Israel to heel over the Palestinian issue, some of those militants would fade into the populace and never take arms again. If the US was to treat the gov't of Iran as a legitimate gov't on the world stage, some of the outrage that drives people to the extremes would disappear. If you treat people with dignity and respect, they will most likely do the same to you. As long as the cycle of revenge continues we will never be rid of this problem.
No, they would not. The militants have already chosen to be militants and will not stop. Theoretically it might mean someone else chooses not to become a militant, but that is overwhelmingly more dependant on local factors than some potential international statement that they will likely never hear directly anyway.
Consider very simply:
Islam arose among the Arabs.
The Arabs live in Arabia.
How then did they come to be all across North Africa? How did they come to be in Syria and Iraq? How did Islam come to be in Turkey, Persia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Indonesia? How did it come to be in Spain? How did it come to be in Hungary? How was it prevented from being in France and Austria?
If for any of those you imagine the answer is "by peaceful cultural diffusion", you are sadly mistaken, and should take some minimal time to look it up yourself. The answer to all of them is war. War, war, and more war, along with all the worst things that go with it, up to and including efforts at genocide in India.
Hmm, I'm not so sure but I will accept the possibility. It would take the craziest s.o.b. among them to blow up their own holy capital, but I suppose it could happen. These people are crazies who bring shame to regular Muslims. If Mecca denounced their version of Islam, perhaps things would happen as you say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharijites
What perhaps?
They killed the cousin/son-in-law of their prophet because they thought he violated the law. Why would you imagine the next iteration of such would stop short of nuking a holy city? Look at some of the attacks on holy places in Iraq for lesser examples.
Scratch that, I really don't care if I'm offensive. This won't teach anyone anything as long as the narrow-minded, bigotted anti-semites continue to spew anti-islamic propaganda and refuse to see that it is possible to reach understanding without resorting to an "us or them" fight. When you close off every avenue of reasoned discussion without consideration, don't complain when they do bring the fight to your doorstep.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to ship off the extremists that have been spewing rhetoric here so they can make sure that they get front row seats to the carnage. It's become obvious that America doesn't have the will, the ability or the wisdom to look for another solution to wholesale slaughter.
I'd like to point out that the Christian messiah was a man of peace, when you invoke his name in acts of war, I hope you're ready to bear the consequences of that act. Some men within Islam have also turned their true faith away from peace, so they will be joining you in the just punishment if your religions are correct as to the afterlife.
I have attempted to turn your hearts and was incapable. I have tried to speak the role of peacemaker and was rebuked. I have tried to offer wisdom and was ignored in favor of the propaganda that has come from both sides. If you do not open your eyes and look, you will never see.
My frustration and anger have overtaken me. I am no peacemaker. I have had my fill of trying to sway your minds from a path that leads to destruction, do as you will. I bear no ill will against any of you, even those who would against me. May the creator smile on you.
I'm a bit distressed that you see any attempt to negotiate as giving in to evil, but I must be able to see more shades of gray. Would you call me an appeaser if I fell into line with you and said "screw it, bomb them into oblivion"? Oh no, that's right, at that point I would be a loyal patriot, right?
The Russians had something we could negotiate over... they weren't insane.
The Islamists wants us either as slaves (under shiara law), or dead. They make no secret of this, and they are quite happy to commit literal suicide to achive this, even if in petty ways. Exactly how are we going to compromise? Where do you even begin to start?
We've done the compromise thing. We've done the negoations. We've bent over backwards to try to make 'amends' (largely for things that no one alive had anything to do with)... it hasn't worked. Again, what are we supposed to over when the demand is slavery or death?
....anti-islamic propaganda
I don´t like racism nor xenophobia, but I admit my jihadphobia. You have only seen the tip of the iceberg. The reality is worse media show about them.
Not all Muslims are jihadist, but Islam is jihadist by nature.
it is possible to reach understanding without resorting to an "us or them" fight.
It´s possible talking with some Muslims, but there is a lot of jihadist, and you can´t speak with a fanatic one. Diplomacy not always is enough. Have you read blogs/webs as Islam in Europe, Gates of Vienna, apostates of islam, jihad watch or dhimmi watch?
In Sudan....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-11-30-sudan_N.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20071201/ai_n21142897
don't complain when they do bring the fight to your doorstep
They already ar in my doorstep. I live in Andalucia (south Spain). Everyday some dugout with illegal inmigrants (and some child) reach our coasts. Sometimes those dugbout are wrecked and the passager die drowned.
Do you rembeber this? Pari 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France
Christian messiah was a man of peace
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Saint Joan of Arc led French army againts English invaders or Pope saint Pius V prepared Spain-Venezie alliance for the battle of Lepanto againts Ottoman empire.
Some men within Islam have also turned their true faith away from peace
Some Muslims may be peaceful, or even be your friend and having got a gold heart (pure goodnesse) but Islam isn´t peaceful. History shows it. There is vioent conflicts between Muslims and Budhist in Thailand. Have Buddhists got the fault? Never do Muslim have it?
* Debates are as Sisyphus´ mytho. (=You have to do/repeat the same again and again). I have learn a good debate isn´t to convince but teaching and/or learning.
Don´t worry about ideas from other people. You must participate because people who read the debate are enriched. That is the really important.
My piece of advince is a good debate is as a chess game. You have to understand your opponent´s mind to give the best answer.
Not to be offensive,
Scratch that, I really don't care if I'm offensive.
That was obvious from your other posts.
goblin_pride, you are a rockstar.
Have a
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/08/must-read-second-shoe-dropping.html
Where was Obama born really?
It's a question because Obama spent most of his childhood overseas, and no one can really place his birth in the states. Due to his parentage, however, he's considered a dual-citizen of Indonesia.
It a story that shouldn't have traction but does because the Obama camp is so inept. It's unheard of that a presidential candidate wouldn't put up their birth record when ask... but Obama has not only refused to do that, there's been several fraudulent ones put up climaing that he's a citizen.
It's a question because Obama spent most of his childhood overseas, and no one can really place his birth in the states. Due to his parentage, however, he's considered a dual-citizen of Indonesia.
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" First Congress, Session II, Chapter 4, Approved March 26, 1790.
It's really a moot point. Even if Obama wasn't born on U.S. soil, his mother is undisputably a U.S. citizen, making him a natural born citizen.
Faelar
It's really a moot point. Even if Obama wasn't born on U.S. soil, his mother is undisputably a U.S. citizen, making him a natural born citizen.
And that's the weirdness of the whole case. At WORST, Obama would have to deny his dual-citizenship with Indonesia and have done with it.. but what the Obama camp has been doing has just been bizzare.
It's like burying a dirty sock with a mountain of used kitty litter. The behavior with this cover up makes it seem like there's an awful lot 'dirty' under the litter, but there really shouldn't be.
And that's the weirdness of the whole case. At WORST, Obama would have to deny his dual-citizenship with Indonesia and have done with it.. but what the Obama camp has been doing has just been bizzare.
It's like burying a dirty sock with a mountain of used kitty litter. The behavior with this cover up makes it seem like there's an awful lot 'dirty' under the litter, but there really shouldn't be.
Since the U.S. recognizes dual citizenship, there is no need for him to renounce his Indonesian citizenship. Now, he might have some problems with the Indonesians, since IIRC that country does not recognize dual citizenship, but there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. Code that prohibits a President from holding dual citizenship.
Faelar
Since the U.S. recognizes dual citizenship, there is no need for him to renounce his Indonesian citizenship. Now, he might have some problems with the Indonesians, since IIRC that country does not recognize dual citizenship, but there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. Code that prohibits a President from holding dual citizenship.
No, but it would be in his political best interest to do so. (And, the legal issue of a PRESIDENT having dual-citizenship is an interesting one. The whole point of the citizenship clause was to ensure domestic loyalty, after all). As I said, the facts of the scadal doesn't make the scandal...
You just have to wonder why the Obama camp is being so insane in handling it this way. Why the fake birth certificates? The covering up of his family past? Etc? It makes it look like there's a lot more to hide than there really is.
(I rebember a joke in film Demolition Man about it, when Sandra Bullock mentioned she looked for some datas from Schwarzenegger library. She said USA constitucion had to be changed).
I wonder...does McCain know this? Will he use this information?
USA president has to be born in United States. That is the reason Schwarzenegger can not be presidential candidate.
Not quite, he has to be a natural citizen. That does include children born to natural citizens even if born overseas.
I wonder...does McCain know this? Will he use this information?
McCain was born on a military base (which is technically US Soil, but it's another technicality).. it could be amusing to strictly interpret the Constitution in such a way that NEITHER candidate really is eligible for running, though...
Oh, there's a good idea. Let's just go ahead and toss a nuke. Then Israel will shoot off their wad at their enemies. North Korea can chuck a couple at their old enemies. The Russians can take out whoever torqued them off that week. India and Pakistan can irradiate their whole sub-continent. And when it's all done we can sit back and relax because we didn't blow up the whole world, we just made it uninhabitable by baby steps.
I'm not saying its a good idea. I'm saying that's what would likely happen. Getting hit with nukes is Not Acceptable (TM), and pretty much every nuclear power in the world would make that very clear.
I don't think it'd escalate into uncontrolled nuclear war. In fact, some random third world country being stupid and doing something like that is pretty much the best case scenario as far as nuclear war is concerned.
Even people who don't particularly like whoever was hit by the nuke would join in.
No offense meant, but you're just spewing propaganda, mate. If you want peace and an end to terrorism, you need to talk to the people that see no other option but violence. Sure, there will always be another group that thinks they need to blow stuff up so you'll listen to them, but that's going to happen.
Actually, the key is not them. Its to destroy the conditions which create them in the first place.
As long as there are poor, stupid, desperate people, there will be terrorists.
That's just it.. PARTS of Jerusalem is holy to both.. other parts are considered heretic, etc. Believe me, you're talking about groups that worship murder and death above all else. They would much rather nuke a holy site than see infidels or heretics on it.
These are not sane people.
Given Christians have images of a guy nailed to a piece of wood all over their places of worship and engage in simulated cannibalism on a weekly basis, I don't think its exactly fair to single out the Muslims. Both religions are pretty obsessed with death, which is more than a little creepy when you think about it.
Ultimately, most people who are members of those religion are decent enough not to kill each other on a regular basis. The percentage of people who fight even in the middle east is pretty small.
Islamic groups do not worship murder and death. If they did, they would've never survived to the present day. Islam is 1200+ years old, not some lunatic fringe cult that thinks killing people that aren't Islamic is right and just.
Actually, its a great way to survive, and is indeed why Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions - basically, they DO do exactly that. Its just that they convert in addition to killing. Its a multipronged assault, and is how the two have become so widespread.
Islam is going through the same growing pains that Christianity did when it reached about the same age. Remember the crusades? Remember christians going off to war to destroy the infidels that held the sacred sites of Christian scripture? Funniest thing, it was just about the time Christianity was 1200 years old too.
This is entirely coincidental and has nothing to do with the age of the religion. How old is Judaism? I hear they aren't getting along too well with the Palestinians over in Israel...
Its not a matter of that. Its a matter of where you are in history. Chrisitans are horrible people in parts of the world where they are poor and uneducated. The root cause is the poverty, lack of education, and desperation of the people. Without poverty, you don't have nearly so many problems.
The Middle East is full of terrorists because it is full of poor, desperate, uneducated people with strong religious leaders who point their aggression the other way.
Because you're making a very fatal and flawed assumption.. that these entities in which we speak have the same moral and ethical values that we do.
I disagree. I've seen people on these forums who feel torturing and killing "terrorists" (aka people we designate as such, regardless of whether or not they actually have ever fought against us or are civilians or just poor sods working for the wrong person or fighting in the wrong army).
So in short, those people DO have the same moral and ethical standards as some Americans. In fact, the fact that YOU believe that they are an implacable, evil foe bent on our destruction means you actually DO share their mentality, as that's exactly what they think of you.
This Islamic (not Muslim) culture is an evil in the world. And it must be confronted, not appeased.
So are fundamentalist Christians in the United States, as are people like Bush.
Again, it seems to me like you're focusing on external threats to avoid looking at those which are important internally.
We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with an unalienable right to life libety and the pursuit of happiness.
Its kind of ironic, really, given that this is actually a falsehood. All men aren't created equal. Its a convenient lie, but it is a lie nonetheless. People are born into poverty. People are born with no legs. People develop lukemia before they're ten years old.
The idea that they are somehow created equal is silly. Its a sweet lie, but a lie it is.
Islam is too frozen or static. Christianism is a group of moral values and principles, but not a fixed law. Christian people believe in Natural Law, but Muslims peolpe don´t wonder the reason their law is good o evil.
This is a convenient lie, again. The creationists, the KKK, the white supremacists, the people who believe that the US should be a Christian nation...
These people are not really any better than the Muslims. Its arguable that they're worse, because they have far more opportunity not to be that way.
I'd like to point out that the Christian messiah was a man of peace, when you invoke his name in acts of war, I hope you're ready to bear the consequences of that act. Some men within Islam have also turned their true faith away from peace, so they will be joining you in the just punishment if your religions are correct as to the afterlife.
Jesus was a hippy, but Christanity has spread so far and wide because most Christians don't listen to Jesus.
It's really a moot point. Even if Obama wasn't born on U.S. soil, his mother is undisputably a U.S. citizen, making him a natural born citizen.
Indeed. And honestly, does it matter if he's a dual citizen? To my knowledge, the Constitution only requires:
1) That the president be a natural born citizen of the United States (or to have been born about 230 years ago or so and been a citizen of the United States when the US became its own nation).
2) Be thirty five.
3) Been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
There's no requirement that you do not be a citizen of another country, to my knowledge.
USA president has to be born in United States. That is the reason Schwarzenegger can not be presidential candidate.
Incorrect. You only have to be a natural born citizen. This means that either:
1) You were born in the United States.
2) At least one of your parents was a citizen of the United States when you were born.
Not to be offensive,
Scratch that, I really don't care if I'm offensive. This won't teach anyone anything as long as the narrow-minded, bigotted anti-semites continue to spew anti-islamic propaganda and refuse to see that it is possible to reach understanding without resorting to an "us or them" fight.
Anti-semitic does not mean what you seem to think it means. ;)
Its to destroy the conditions which create them in the first place.
I´m afraid your problem is you believe/think they are enough "lawful"/honorable to keep their promise. The reality they will not do it if they can take their way.
As long as there are poor, stupid, desperate people, there will be terrorists.
Osam Bin Laden never was poor poor, stupid, nor desperate. Blackafrican people is poor stupid and desperate but they don´t wan be terrorist. Jihadist are terrorist because the panislamism is a failure imperialist. The don´t bear we are dominant civilitation. They think we stole their weath (Really it was the opposite).
Both religions are pretty obsessed with death
It´s a prejudice.
most people who are members of those religion are decent enough not to kill each other on a regular basis.
Other prejudice. By the way, now I´m rebembering the murder of the Italian nun morther sor Maria Manietti.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/police-hunt-leader-after-teenage-girls-murder-italian-nun-707766.html
Of course not all gothic/sinister/emo teenagers are (potential) killer.
The percentage of people who fight even in the middle east is pretty small.
The trouble is there. Don´t try minimize it. There is too many terrorist and we have to wonder where is the root of problem. (and we haven´t the fault)
Actually, its a great way to survive
If there would be true religious freedom.....their mosque started to be empty. They only can be Muslims, because the conversion to other religion is considerate apostasy and is punished even with the death.
If as if you forbide the homosexuality in California and then you say 100% people from Los Angeles is heterosexual. Or as if you say all Cuban loves Fidel Castro or all Chinese are maoist.
A lot of Iranian youngs don´t believe Islam, but they have to hide it.
Its just that they convert in addition to killing.
If marxism was a religion it would have all the record of killed people. Please, not all fanatics are believers, nor all believers are fanatics. You can not teach us about tolerance and coexistence.
I hear they aren't getting along too well with the Palestinians over in Israel...
Because Palestians want kill all Jews but the can not. Did you know? Christian Palestians from Belem and Jerusalem have left their town because the situacion was unbearable.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2937
And now I rebember...
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/palestinians_attack_christians.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Jarir
In September 2005, hundreds of armed residents from Deir Jarir attacked the nearby town of Taybeh, which was provoked by a family feud. The feud was caused by a Christian man from Taybeh allegedly having intimate relations with a Muslim woman from Deir Jarir. The attack left dozens of houses burnt to the ground and three men were arrested (two from Deir Jarir and one from Taybeh).
Chrisitans are horrible people
Why not do you read this book? "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Without poverty, you don't have nearly so many problems.
Rich people too have problems (drugs, alcoholism, sex adicction, divorces..). Some capricious, inmature and spoiled sons of new rich have problems with law). Sometimes the root of poverty is the bad and corrupt administrators.
The Middle East is full of terrorists because it is full of poor, desperate, uneducated people with strong religious leaders who point their aggression the other way.
Blackafrican nor Latinoamerican people have their own al-Qaeda. Don´t be demagogue. Philipines isn´t rich but suffers terrorism by Abu Sayaf.
So are fundamentalist Christians in the United States, as are people like Bush.
How much people has been killed by Christians terrorist in the last ten years (if we except lord´s army resistance)? (IRA, Irish Republican Army, is socialist, nor Catholic).
This is a convenient lie, again. The creationists, the KKK, the white supremacists
Catholic Church havent problem with sciencia about Creation, KKK isn´t Catholic, of course. Racism is anti-Christians. Even we have black saints, for example saint Martis of Porres or (ex-slave Sudanese) saint Josephine Bakita.
These people are not really any better than the Muslims.
It´s evident you haven´t lived in a Muslim land as pacticing Christian
Jesus was a hippy
Don´t fool yourself.
Christanity has spread so far and wide because most Christians don't listen to Jesus.
The truth is if Christianity was made by humans, too had be finished by humans, but we survived persecutions. Once I read a anecdote;
Once Napoleon said to cardinal Consalvi “Je detruirai votre eglise!” (I will destroy your Church). "Not, you will not can" was anwered.
- “Je detruirai votre eglise!” - was said again... and then cardinal Consalvi replied.
- You will not can. Nor we haven´t could.-
Christianity has survived persecutions and internal crisis...good luck only?
-------------
What if Obama is president and....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080815/twl-georgia-russia-conflict-poland-us-mi-2802f3e.html
US missile shield makes Poland a target: Russian general
Poland is making itself a target for Russia's military "100 percent" by hosting elements of a US anti-missile system, a senior Russian general was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency Friday.
"By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 percent" certain, the agency quoted General Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.
"It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority," Nogovitsy was quoted as saying.
Warsaw and Washington signed a preliminary deal Thursday on basing part of a US missile shield in Poland, in the face of Moscow's vehement opposition and mounting East-West tensions over Russia's military presence in Georgia.
A foreign ministry official was quoted by Interfax as saying the timing of the deal amid the crisis in Georgia indicated that the system was aimed at Russia.
Washington has always denied this.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20080816/twl-russia-s-nuclear-threat-to-poland-3fd0ae9.html
Russia's Nuclear Threat To Poland
Russia has warned Poland that it is risking an attack - even a nuclear one - by accepting a US missile interceptor base on its soil.
The threat represents Moscow's strongest language yet on the controversial plan.
US and Polish officials have stuck firmly by their deal, signed on Thursday, for Poland to host a system the US says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations such as Iran.
Moscow is convinced the base is aimed at Russia's missile force. The deal comes as relations already are strained over the recent fighting between Russia and US-backed Georgia over the separatist Georgian region of South Ossetia.
General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of staff of Russia's armed forces, was quoted as saying: "Poland, by deploying (the system), is exposing itself to a strike - 100%."
He added, in a reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons, if they in some way help them".
Gen Nogovitsyn said that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, according to the Interfax news agency.
President Dmitry Medvedev said the deal "absolutely, clearly demonstrates what we had said earlier - the deployment has the Russian Federation as its target".
However, speaking at news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he appeared to take a softer position than General Nogovitsyn's, saying "it is sad news for all who live on this densely populated continent, but it is not dramatic".
US officials defended the missile defence deal, and have said the timing was not meant to antagonise Russian leaders amid the fighting in Georgia.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on a trip to Georgian capital Tblisi, said: "Poland is an independent country. And it's an ally of the United States.
"And it's a democratic country, to whose security the United States is committed.
"Russia should welcome having democracies on its border, not threaten them."
Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski said Poland was willing to let Russia inspect the future missile base to give Moscow "tangible proof" that it is not directed against Russia.
Asked about Russian threats against Poland, US Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "I think the Russian behaviour over the last several days is generally concerning not only to the United States but to all of our European allies."
Moscow effectively ruled Poland from the end of the Second World War in 1945 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
--------
Rebember Poland is member of NATO and too of European Comunity.
Anti-semitic does not mean what you seem to think it means. ;)
Anti-semitic. Does it not mean being agaisnt people of semitic origins? That group includes Arabs as well as. Islam, Judaism and even some branches of Christianity are Semitic in origin. Although I can't find my dictionary. I'm sure someone will post the standard definition shortly.
Although, I can guarantee a certain someone will probably make something up that's wildly inaccurate or biased.
Don´t fool yourself.
Sadly, he's right. That Jesus fellow you keep blathering on about was a hippie. And a communist and pacifist to boot. Let's see if I can remember all of his greatest hits:
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
If a man should strike you on the cheek, offer him up the other.
A camel can pass through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man can get into heaven.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
I'm certain I missed a few, but you get the picture. Nowhere does it say, "kill them brown buggers, they're nuts". The next person that claims to be Christian and advocates fighting a war should think very carefully about the sheer hypocrisy of their words. I am not Christian, but I am more so than many of the professed Christians that I encounter on a regular basis.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
Actually, this was changed to meek in the middle ages. The closest correct interpretation was debonair with this def: lighthearted, nonchalant
How many other saying were changed is hard to tell...
How many other saying were changed is hard to tell...
Doesn't matter, the hardcore fundies in the Christian bunch say that the whole thing IS the word, man couldn't change God's words. So "meek" stays, unless they want to amend it. Although if they do that we can toss pretty much the whole thing in the crapper, neh?
Doesn't matter, the hardcore fundies in the Christian bunch say that the whole thing IS the word, man couldn't change God's words. So "meek" stays, unless they want to amend it. Although if they do that we can toss pretty much the whole thing in the crapper, neh?
Actually, I think Jefferson went through and deleted a bunch of junk. I think his revised version in on the net.
Actually, this was changed to meek in the middle ages. The closest correct interpretation was debonair with this def: lighthearted, nonchalant
How many other saying were changed is hard to tell...
Proof?Remember, we have documents of the Gospels dating back to well before the Middle Ages.
Actually, I think Jefferson went through and deleted a bunch of junk. I think his revised version in on the net.
He did. I'm sure it is. There's a lot of things on the internet.
Remember, we have documents of the Gospels dating back to well before the Middle Ages.
Yeah, even a bunch the church threw out in the 3rd century. You need more proof of creative editing of holy scripture? Although I don't recall any of them being written in english.
Yeah, even a bunch the church threw out in the 3rd century. You need more proof of creative editing of holy scripture? Although I don't recall any of them being written in english.
Where's the proof they threw them out? I'm not just going to take your word for it.
And of course they weren't in English. Early manuscripts would have been in Greek or Aramaic, unless we're speaking of Old Testament, which would be in Hebrew.
Where's the proof they threw them out? I'm not just going to take your word for it.
And of course they weren't in English. Early manuscripts would have been in Greek or Aramaic, unless we're speaking of Old Testament, which would be in Hebrew.
The fact that they were found at Nag Hammadi, written in Aramaic, and strangely enough, radio-carbon date to the last half of the first century AD. I think all told, that makes a pretty solid case.
The Nag Hammadi library's website should give you the proof you're asking for, I would link it, but I'm fairly computer illiterate.
The fact that they were found at Nag Hammadi, written in Aramaic, and strangely enough, radio-carbon date to the last half of the first century AD. I think all told, that makes a pretty solid case.
The Nag Hammadi library's website should give you the proof you're asking for, I would link it, but I'm fairly computer illiterate.
...Ah. Gnostic "gospels". The reason they were thrown out, is that they contradicted the rest of Scripture; Gnostic teachings were rejected and rebuffed by the rest of Scripture, especially the epistles of John. That's not to say there's nothing useful at all in them, but the fact that they disagree and were disposed of is par course. It's not a matter of changing wording, it's a matter of sources deemed unreliable or false.
Judge not, lest ye be judged
Then nobody can ever express a opinion about George Bush, Margaret Tacher, Ronald Regan, Nixon...
31 The same day, there came some of the Pharisees, saying to him: Depart, and get thee hence, for Herod hath a mind to kill thee.
32 And he said to them: Go and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I am consummated
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
Don´t you the whole story? Then a very little pebble was thrown...but it didn´t hurt the adultress, and Jesus answered;
- Please, dear mother, I didn´t refer to you. - :D
If a man should strike you on the cheek, offer him up the other
So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses' hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up-one on one side, one on the other-so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.
A camel can pass through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man can get into heaven.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
No, but it would be in his political best interest to do so. (And, the legal issue of a PRESIDENT having dual-citizenship is an interesting one. The whole point of the citizenship clause was to ensure domestic loyalty, after all). As I said, the facts of the scadal doesn't make the scandal...
You just have to wonder why the Obama camp is being so insane in handling it this way. Why the fake birth certificates? The covering up of his family past? Etc? It makes it look like there's a lot more to hide than there really is.
Hereis a copy of his birth certificate.
And hereis another from his own site.
I know that there have been dozens of analyses with a variety of results.
From what I can tell, there is no cover up. It seems to me that the "issue" was addressed and Senator Obama feels it's time to move on to the actual issues that face America. I wish Senator McCain would do the same.
I wish Senator McCain would do the same.
Senator McCain never made this an issue. Your assertion that he had ]anything to do with this mess is an outright lie.
Senator McCain never made this an issue. Your assertion that he had ]anything to do with this mess is an outright lie.
Correct. I haven't seen McCain do this. I don't think he would want to be involved. It would kill his campaign.
Osam Bin Laden never was poor poor, stupid, nor desperate. Blackafrican people is poor stupid and desperate but they don´t wan be terrorist. Jihadist are terrorist because the panislamism is a failure imperialist. The don´t bear we are dominant civilitation. They think we stole their weath (Really it was the opposite).
This is kind of funny, really.
First off, not all terrorists are poor, stupid, or desperate. I never said they were, either. However, the vast, vast majority of terrorists ARE poor, stupid, and desperate.
Osama Bin Ladin is not poor, stupid, or desperate. However, he also doesn't blow himself up. He is in charge, he isn't someone who dies himself. He's more like a president, sending off people to die on his behalf and to further his own interests. Without people to send off to die, he'd be like the Unabomber, sitting in a cabin somewhere building bombs and killing maybe a dozen people before he does something stupid and gets himself caught.
Second, the idea that many sub-saharan africans don't want to be terrorists is false. The vast majority of them don't, but the vast majority of people in the Middle East don't want to be terrorists, either.
If you actually knew anything about Africa, you'd know that they slaughter each other on a regular basis. Ever heard of Darfur? There are genocides down there on a regular basis.
The west simply doesn't care because we aren't particularly interested in most of Africa and the Africans mostly kill other Africans.
The idea that the poverty-stricken africans don't generate a lot of maniacs, however, is false.
It´s a prejudice.
No, it is reality. Christianity and Islam both are obsessed with the afterlife, and most Christians and Muslims don't kill each other on a regular basis.
You should try to get in better touch with reality.
The trouble is there. Don´t try minimize it. There is too many terrorist and we have to wonder where is the root of problem. (and we haven´t the fault)
I'm not minimizing it. You are being racist.
The reality is that most people in the middle east don't fight. You claimed otherwise.
There are terrorists in the middle east. The reason is that they are poor and desperate. Make them less poor and desperate, or simply don't give them a reason to attach their anger to us, and we have less of a problem.
You see, people are stupid, especially people like that. They hate us because we're a convenient target and they can hit us. Africans don't, because we aren't there and they can't hit us. Their leaders direct their anger away from them and to some external threat. Without our presence, they'd be busy killing each other like they are in Iraq on a continual basis until someone emerged victorious, ultimately.
Or we can raise them up out of poverty, give them a secular education, and wait thirty years for them to grow up and take control of their country.
Those are the options.
If there would be true religious freedom.....their mosque started to be empty. They only can be Muslims, because the conversion to other religion is considerate apostasy and is punished even with the death.
If as if you forbide the homosexuality in California and then you say 100% people from Los Angeles is heterosexual. Or as if you say all Cuban loves Fidel Castro or all Chinese are maoist.
A lot of Iranian youngs don´t believe Islam, but they have to hide it.
Just like a lot of "Christians", who cannot admit they aren't Christians for fear of their lives, property, and/or social exclusion.
If marxism was a religion it would have all the record of killed people. Please, not all fanatics are believers, nor all believers are fanatics. You can not teach us about tolerance and coexistence.
This is simply false. I'd expect it from a Spaniard, though, given how many people you've killed in the name of God.
The reality is that between the Crusades, the religious wars between the Catholics and the Protestants, the Holocaust (no, don't argue, you're wrong), the conversion of people in the new world and Africa, Christians have killed far more people than the communists have.
Because Palestians want kill all Jews but the can not. Did you know? Christian Palestians from Belem and Jerusalem have left their town because the situacion was unbearable.
And Palestinians have been forced out of Israel. Whoopie. *spins a finger in the air*
Here's a hint: They're all bad. Israel isn't the "good guys". The Palestinians aren't "the good guys".
Anyone unable to comprehend this basic fact has a real problem.
Why not do you read this book? "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
I think you mean "How the catholic church destroyed western civilization". I seem to recall this civilization... controlled much of the known world... centered in Rome... now what was that called again?
Oh, right, the Roman Empire. I also seem to recall it falling apart in 400 AD or so, and the eastern portion of it falling to the Muslims a millenium later.
The Catholic Church had a great deal of power, but ultimately the roots of Western Civilization don't stem from Christianity but from the Greeks and Romans.
Christians LOVE to pretend their religion is what made the West what it is, but they're wrong. Hilariously so.
The reality is that Christianity was popularized because it was adapted to serve the purposes of Western Civilization, not the other way around.
Rich people too have problems (drugs, alcoholism, sex adicction, divorces..). Some capricious, inmature and spoiled sons of new rich have problems with law). Sometimes the root of poverty is the bad and corrupt administrators.
I said "you don't have nearly so many problems", not "you have no problems".
Look at demography. The rich simply don't commit as many crimes as the poor.
Also, its hilarious that you mentioned the rich having problems, and then listed the problems of the poor.
The poor have a higher incidence of drug abuse, including alcoholism. The wealthier you are, the lower your divorce rate is.
Catholic Church havent problem with sciencia about Creation, KKK isn´t Catholic, of course. Racism is anti-Christians. Even we have black saints, for example saint Martis of Porres or (ex-slave Sudanese) saint Josephine Bakita.
The Catholics were embarrased about two centuries previously, but they certainly didn't like religion. They did eventually admit that it was correct though. From what I understand, the terrorists who were in Ireland were Catholics vs the protestants. Racism isn't "anti-Christian"; it may be against Jesus' teachings, but Christians have been VERY racist historically and continue to be so (look at their racism against blacks, asians, jews, and, more recently, arabs).
It´s evident you haven´t lived in a Muslim land as pacticing Christian
Its evident you didn't live in South America when the Conquistadors came. :P
Theocracy is always bad.
Don´t fool yourself.
I'm not. He had long hair, believed everyone should love everyone else, and smoked pot. In fact, he pretty much espoused many values attached to the hippies, including non-violent resistance. What else would he be?
The truth is if Christianity was made by humans, too had be finished by humans, but we survived persecutions. Once I read a anecdote;
...
Christianity has survived persecutions and internal crisis...good luck only?
Its not good luck. Christianity has survived because it is like a virus and is one of the most effective religions at self-propagation.
You see, when you take a bunch of violent people who believe they are better than everyone else, and they should kill and convert and propagate their religion to all corners of the Earth, what happens?
You end up with a popular religion (or culture). Its self propagating or you end up getting wiped out.
This is why Christianity and Islam are the #1 and 2 religions; they didn't get wiped out, so they spread widely.
Any religion which functions in this way is likely to succeed in garnering a lot of followers. Its natural selection of religions.
Were we to continue to behave in such a brutal manner for several thousand more years, I'd expect all religions to be that way.
However, the reality is that Christianity is losing ground in Europe and the other civilized nations because people simply are becoming educated.
Religion preys upon ignorance; it uses people's automatic instinct to trust authority figures to plant itself inside your brain and take hold. While the survival adaptation isn't a bad one, religion takes advantage of it to self-propagate.
However, when people are given the ability to discriminate between information, and as people become smarter they gain the ability to do so at a younger and younger age, it becomes harder for the religion and similar things to take advantage of the natural tendency to trust and believe authority figures.
The fact that Christianity crumbles before this onslaught, and that the number one way to predict whether or not a US state will have a lot of atheists is to see whether it has a lot of catholics, indicates the Christian religion isn't particularly powerful, its just effective at self-propagation.
But tolerance and the ability to be objective and contemplate multiple points of view causes it to rapidly fail. Indeed, the general greater degree of human rights in the western world has harmed Christianity immensely, because it is a core doctrine to the religion that it is the way to God, and that goes against acceptance of differences between people.
Interestingly, the fastest growing religion in the United States as a percentage (that is to say, the greatest number of new members relative to existing members) is actually Wicca/paganism, probably precisely BECAUSE its tenants include the new western dogma.
Christianity took on aspects of Roman culture in order to spread itself, cultural superiority among them. More than a little ironic, given the parable of the Good Samaritan, but Christianity is nothing if not self-contradictory. Now that cultural superiority is looked upon more poorly, Christianity is in a bit of trouble because the very doctrines which made it popular also make it vulnerable to a change in underlying societal norms.
Yeah, even a bunch the church threw out in the 3rd century. You need more proof of creative editing of holy scripture? Although I don't recall any of them being written in english.
English didn't exist in the third century.
I believe you're referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon, which occurred gradually.
Indeed, Revelation was one of the most dubious things in the eyes of the early church.
...Ah. Gnostic "gospels". The reason they were thrown out, is that they contradicted the rest of Scripture; Gnostic teachings were rejected and rebuffed by the rest of Scripture, especially the epistles of John. That's not to say there's nothing useful at all in them, but the fact that they disagree and were disposed of is par course. It's not a matter of changing wording, it's a matter of sources deemed unreliable or false.
Not really. The reality is that the gnostics had a great deal of scriptural support, which is why they were seen as such a problem. Its just the non-gnostics "won".
Correct. I haven't seen McCain do this. I don't think he would want to be involved. It would kill his campaign.
No. McCain did do this, just not directly. The idea that his campaign/party was uninvolved is a bit silly.
No. McCain did do this, just not directly. The idea that his campaign/party was uninvolved is a bit silly.
Proof?
Seriously.
No. McCain did do this, just not directly. The idea that his campaign/party was uninvolved is a bit silly.
Any evidence or are ya just spouting?
Senator McCain never made this an issue. Your assertion that he had ]anything to do with this mess is an outright lie.
I'm talking about McCain not actually discussing issues at all but just spouting off BS about what Obama supposedly said about nearly every topic and still being wrong. McCain is one of the most annoying candidates I have seen in a long time.
Proof?
Seriously.
Any evidence or are ya just spouting?
See: All political campaigns in the past.
Seriously.
not all terrorists are poor, stupid, or desperate.
Consequently the cause of terrorism isn´t the poverty.
However, the vast, vast majority of terrorists ARE poor, stupid, and desperate.
Like neonazis boneheads. They are cannon fodder, pawn or puppet.
Do you know Saud Arabia finances jihadist groups? Why does it if aren´t poor nor desperate?
but the vast majority of people in the Middle East don't want to be terrorists, either.
What do you know about human rights in Middle East countries?
Ever heard of Darfur? There are genocides down there on a regular basis.
A lot of time ago. Even Marvel Comics published a story about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squadron_Supreme:_Hyperion_vs._Nighthawk
Too George Clooney talked about it.
http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek/story?id=1907005
Who are the genocides?
The idea that the poverty-stricken africans don't generate a lot of maniacs, however, is false.
But they kill each other (do you know the expression "African hate"?), they don´t go to West to kill Caucasian.
and most Christians and Muslims don't kill each other on a regular basis.
But there is more possibilites being killed by a fanatic Muslim that by a fanatic Christians (specially Catholic).
You should try to get in better touch with reality.
- "you are very blackened!!" was said by the frying pan to saucepan -
You are being racist.
I´m not it, I condemn racism and xenophobia. I don´t care their DNA or enthic traits. I don´t hate them, only I criticizen them. I don´t want any harm to them, but they improved their actions and attitude. If a Catholic can be criticized by a Protestant or a atheist...why can I not denounce their outrage?
With the same logic Marvel Comic is fomenting the hate and xenophobia againts the skrulls, and Galactica tv show againts the cylons... ;) :P
The reality is that most people in the middle east don't fight.
Not all Muslims are jihadist, of course, but there is a lot of intolerant (and male-chauvinist too) Muslims.
The reason is that they are poor and desperate
Only the pack who has ben brainwahsed, but the leaders or bosses aren´t.
Or we can raise them up out of poverty, give them a secular education,
Then we habe to be politically incorrect and tell them they have to change a lot of things.
who cannot admit they aren't Christians for fear of their lives, property, and/or social exclusion
It is being it in your land but here in Spain being Catholic is looked very bad. I´m tired anti-clerical labels.
This is simply false
Provet it.
given how many people you've killed in the name of God.
Hundred millions of persons were killed in the name of comunist. Why has Catholic comunity a black legend but hasn´t Comunist it? Because has these ones best propaganda?
There is a lot of young with images of Ernesto "Che" Guevara. They think Guevara was a hero, but really he was a killer and a terrorist, a monster.
the religious wars between the Catholics and the Protestants
If you ask opinion to a Catholic we will tell you we were the atacked and persecuted.
Holocaust was by German Nacional-Socialist Party. Hitler hated Chatolicism.
the conversion of people in the new world and Africa
I have said you, there is a lot of apologetics (pro-Chatolic Church) webs with articles about those matters. Surf internet and look it.
Christians have killed far more people than the communists have.
More people has been kille with a sword what by nuclear bomb. Conclusion, a sword is more dangerous that a missile nuclear.
Chatolic ones never killed more 100,000,000 people for a century. Comunist did it.
And Palestinians have been forced out of Israel
I haven´t read it.
Israel isn't the "good guys". The Palestinians aren't "the good guys".
Palestine isn´t the victim. Why are Hamas and Fatah killing each other?
I think you mean "How the catholic church destroyed western civilization"....
You don´t affect. I have heard a lot of similar nonenses before. You haven´t real argumentsm, only accusations and stereotype wich aren´t proved.
* Sometimes stupies rich people become poor because they have chosen badly. It´s a bit like Darwing´s natural selection.
* Since two centurys ago, (have you seen the link about the reign of terror in France, from wikipedia?) anti-clerical faction have the record of dooms.
Its evident you didn't live in South America when the Conquistadors came
What have you said?
It´s evident you din´t live in Spain when Muslims invadered us.
Theocracy is always bad.
Atheocracy too. Have you read "1984" or "Animal Farm" by George Orwell?
and (I) smoked pot
It could explain some thing. hee, hee, hee, hee, hee!
including non-violent resistance.
Was non-violent resistance useful when China invaded Tibet? Did non-resistent resistance avoid the nazi Holocaust? Did Non-violent resistante finish slavery in USA? Did Non-violent resisantce help when Sout Korea was attacked by Comunist? You didn´t play with G.I.Joe action figures, did you? :D :D
Christianity has survived because it is like a virus and is one of the most effective religions at self-propagation.
Then why was Christian civilitation was the first one to reach the industrial
revolution? Good luck too?
when you take a bunch of violent people who believe they are better than everyone else, and they should kill and convert and propagate their religion to all corners of the Earth, what happens?
You are a racist!!!. why do you say it about Muslims?
Later I continue this.
I haven´t read this thread since a lot of game, more a week, but I want tell you somethings.
I want warning you my own socialist president is only words or words. (Its)His speech is state is a new Robin Hood wich "get" from the rich ones to give it to poor people, but the reality the goberment of my country is a great incompetent about the economy. Please, don´t make the same mistake. Don´t trust in only nice words about finishing the poverty. One thing is promissing the share-out of wealth and the reality is knowing making money and getting better the national economy.
Choose/vote the most competent, don´t the most charismatic or popular.
Other question... what if Obama is the new president and Morocco starts a new green march like in 1975 and it invades Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa?
A new war in Georgia has started a couple of days ago. There have been dead civil people. If Obama is president of USA....is he going to allow bloodshed like this example? Is Obama going to let North Korea get the nuclear bomb while its people are dying by the hunger? Would Obama pressure to stop the genocide againts the Blackafrican people in Sudan?
Barak Obama has already talked participated with groups trying to stop the bloodshed in the Sudan, and while overall I think Barak Obama would address the concerns that you mention those things are not my primary concern. This is one of the few times I'm going to side with many of my Republican counterparts and say that for the last few years I think America's problem has been that we are too busy worrying about what is going on in the rest of the world than trying to solve our own internal problems. My hope for the next U.S. President (hopefully Obama), but whomever is that he will focus on Domestic issues more so than international issues. I'm African American and yeah I think what is happening in the Sudan is bad, and the poverty in Africa and other countries bad, and dictatorships etc but I'm sorry I'm more concerned about the U.S economy remaining strong and viable, about making sure social security is okay so that people can retire, about, about getting decent and affordable healthcare for everyone in the U.S, about somehow keeping higher education in the U.S. affordable, etc instead of running around being the police force and caregiver for the rest of the world.
Regarding, your socialist president, I will openly admit to being unread concerning your particular country's political background, but for me personally as a left wing American I personally favor bigger government rather than private industry being left unregulated and me being left at the mercy of private industry. I can't speak for your country but from an American History standpoint when it comes to human rights and dignity I will take the federal government over private industry and states rights any day. That is not to say the U.S. Federal Government hasn't committed some horrible atrocities but who ended the slavery in this country? The Federal Government, despite that almost all the Southern U.S. states and the private industry of those states were happy keeping people in bondage. Who ended the Segregation and made it possible for people of different ethnicities in the U.S. to go to school together? The Federal Government...they may have not initiated the movement but they backed the people like MLK trying to support change.
When it comes to workers rights why is it that internally the United States doesn't allow things that exist in other countries particularly Latin America and Southeast Asian countries things like children 12 years old and younger being forced to work long hours in blatantly hazardous conditions, why American workers get lunch breaks, etc it isn't because corporations just one day said, "You know we need to pass some laws to protect our dear employees? No, it happened because all those conditions (child labor, employees being forced to work in blatanly hazardous conditions with no safety regulations, people being forced to work without being allowed to take lunches etc, openly existed in early American until in finally in the early 20th century The American Federal Government said you this was wrong and decided to implement some degree of labor laws. If the U.S. Federal Government was any larger and more involved in private industry we would enjoy even more benefits like the long vacation ours and time off that European countries like France, the U.K, Germany and other (more socialistic) countries enjoy instead of the 2 weeks that is U.S standard because of private industry. Maybe we could even get some good health benefits for everybody to instead of being ranked number 36th in the world, and having hospitals engage in practices like dumping elderly sick people who have been hospitilazed but can't afford to pay the astronomical medical costs that American doctors charge, off in front of homeless shelters still in their night gowns, (USC hospital recently got sued for this by a homeless shelter who had recorded this on camera, but they settled out of court). And before someone mentions "frivolous" lawsuits being the cause of high healthcare in America lawsuits account for 1% of healthcare cost.
Yeah, from where I stand if I have a choice between being more socialistic and having more goverment regulations or being left more to the whims of private industry, especially a deregulated private industry then there no choice for me at all. Give me government.
Peace,
Fallstorm
See: All political campaigns in the past.
Seriously.
Oh, you're just spouting crap. Wow, your credibility is growing by the day.
Here is someone to think about for President Ron Paul. I bet not to many people heard of him. The news doesn't want you to know about him becauce he will make some big changes. One of the things he will do is bring our troops home, & we will start making our stuff in America instead of China. He will start making America dependent on America again.
I really like Ron Paul and much of what he stands for. However he would not be a great choice for president because Congress will not work with him to meet his goals. The President cannot do much of what he claims in his campaign speeches. This is one of the reasons I dislike watching the campaigns and focusing on their policies. I much prefer looking at their records and how they carry themselves.
Their tax plans, health care, energy policies, etc. are all just made to persuade us to vote a certain way when they know that as president these policies will not see the light of day.
This is why I prefer Obama over McCain. McCain is coming off as a whinny old man who can't seem to stay focused on the issues. While Obama is far from a perfect choice for me, he stays on message and actually seems to care about what the people want.
However he would not be a great choice for president because Congress will not work with him to meet his goals.
Sadly, this will be an issue for all the candidates. If I were to have my way, I would get an ex-military man like Wes Clark or Colin Powell into the chief executive's office and keep senators McCain, Obama, Clinton, Biden et al in the senate where they can actually do quite a bit of good.
I realize it may seem silly at first, but in moving from the legislative to the executive branch of our government, those senators that can actually call for change from the trenches lose all of their ability to do so. Wouldn't it be better to find a suitable candidate from within the executive branch and keep the esteemed senators demanding answers and results from that Chief executive? Seems logical to me, but what do I know?
Sadly, this will be an issue for all the candidates. If I were to have my way, I would get an ex-military man like Wes Clark or Colin Powell into the chief executive's office and keep senators McCain, Obama, Clinton, Biden et al in the senate where they can actually do quite a bit of good.
Historically, the ex-career military have not been great choices for president. We've had Washington as a great choice but then we've also had Ike and Grant who were not so stellar.
I realize it may seem silly at first, but in moving from the legislative to the executive branch of our government, those senators that can actually call for change from the trenches lose all of their ability to do so. Wouldn't it be better to find a suitable candidate from within the executive branch and keep the esteemed senators demanding answers and results from that Chief executive? Seems logical to me, but what do I know?
I think that they could do something if they can convince Congress to act. The problem is, at least withing the last few years, too many threats to veto this or that and too much name calling rather than working with each other to accomplish our goals. We don't need to agree 100% but I have had enough of the either/or options that the current parties have been presenting us with.
I agree that those good Senators can push for change better in Congress than they probably could as President. Now if we could only get them to do some congressional stuff while campaigning...
I agree that those good Senators can push for change better in Congress than they probably could as President. Now if we could only get them to do some congressional stuff while campaigning...
Good luck with that one.
Historically, the ex-career military have not been great choices for president. We've had Washington as a great choice but then we've also had Ike and Grant who were not so stellar.
Ex senators are worse...
...We've had Washington as a great choice...
Yeah, but remember, per 1776, "Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them- Farnklin, Washington, and the horse- conducted the entire revolution by themselves."-John Adams, as played by William Daniels.
Translation: while not perfect, Washington did seem to have a "right place, right time" aspect to him.
- English isn´t my mother tongue. I almost alwyas only read English webs about D&D (WotC and Enworld). Reading long English text are too tiring for me.
- Religion is too controversy for a D&D forum. We ought talk in a Catholic (or Christian) forum.
- I´m not taken with your speech; "Religion is the opium of the people" (by Karl Marx). I have heard it a lot of times. You have the answer about those matter in apologetics webs. I only have read apologetics (pro-Catholic) webs in Spanish language. I haven´t to get links from those webs to give them here, and a lot of copy-paste texts.
Barak Obama has already talked participated with groups trying to stop the bloodshed in the Sudan,
I like hearing it, but is it enough? Diplomacy didn´t stop Civil Yugoslavian war. We can´t be so idealist.
I think America's problem has been that we are too busy worrying about what is going on in the rest of the world than trying to solve our own internal problems.
I understand you, but if some international troubles are solved the will affect us later. International stability too is necessary for local economy. we need a time for each matter. You can´t be in a isolete bubble. The happenings in the rest of world will affect you later o before.
* Is "Afroamerican" politicaly correct? Can I use it? I don´t want offend anybody.
and the poverty in Africa...
Would you give money to a alcoholic or a drug-addict? Money isn´t enough to solve poverty if there isn´t good administration. Let´s have a example with Spain. When Felipe Gonzalez (past PSOE president) governed Spain had a economic crisis. After Aznar (PP president) was elected, and Spanish economy started to go better. Now he have Jose Luis Rodrigues Zapatero (PSOE), a great useless, and Spanish economy is in the worst time. Spain doesn´t need more subsidy and economy help from European Comunity (we would waste with the corruption) but good and honest politics we haven´t now.
I´m afraid Obama could be your Northamerican Zapatero. Do you know the saying "bread for today, hunger for tomorrow". Don´t make the same mistake that us.
(I´m sorry, your text was too long to understand whole).
Consequently the cause of terrorism isn´t the poverty.
Incorrect.
Not all terrorists have the same reasons for being terrorists. The idea that they do is comical.
Do you know Saud Arabia finances jihadist groups? Why does it if aren´t poor nor desperate?
Because they're convenient and it keeps them from toppling the government of Saudi Arabia.
What do you know about human rights in Middle East countries?
More than you do, apparently.
But they kill each other (do you know the expression "African hate"?), they don´t go to West to kill Caucasian.
This was exactly my point. We AREN'T in Africa, and therefore their leaders don't have us to point to. Thus they point at each other.
But there is more possibilites being killed by a fanatic Muslim that by a fanatic Christians (specially Catholic).
Actually, false. The odds of being killed by a Christian fanatic in the United States greatly exceeds the odds of being killed by a Muslim fanatic.
Abortion clinic bombers, the KKK and other white supremacy groups, the religiously based violence against homosexuals and transsexuals which continues to this day...
By comparison, there just aren't as many Muslim fanatics in the United States and they rarely kill people. People focus on 9/11, but 9/11 wasn't actually very important in the grand scheme of things. People simply assign greater significance to it than it warrants.
I'd wager there were at least ten times as many religiously motivated murders committed in the United States which were motivated by Christianity than Islam.
Hundred millions of persons were killed in the name of comunist. Why has Catholic comunity a black legend but hasn´t Comunist it? Because has these ones best propaganda?
Communists haven't killed "hundreds of millions".
In fact, even if you count all the people who starved to death in China during the Great Leap Forward and after that dam breaking the total toll is only about 150 million. Not counting those deaths, the total is less than 100 million.
If we ARE going to count all the people who starved to death, then we're going to have to count some large portion of the Native American populace who died of smallpox and other European diseases, and that's going to put the body count for Christians very high indeed.
If you ask opinion to a Catholic we will tell you we were the atacked and persecuted.
Ah yes, the eternal lie. "It was all their fault!"
The reality is that the Catholics wanted power and the Protestants didn't want them to have power, so they killed each other.
Both sides were bad. The behavior of the Catholic church, and its power and influence, as well as its corruption, were some of the many reasons protestantism came to be.
Holocaust was by German Nacional-Socialist Party. Hitler hated Chatolicism.
The Holocaust was committed by Christians for relgious and social reasons.
More people has been kille with a sword what by nuclear bomb. Conclusion, a sword is more dangerous that a missile nuclear.
So when you believed the Communists killed more people than the Christians, clearly the body count matters.
When you found out that the Christians killed more people than the Communists, body count doesn't matter.
Therefore, we must conclude your arguments are entirely worthless as you are falling over yourself to deny what you claim mattered matters because it shows you to be wrong.
I haven´t read it.
What the heck? How can you NOT know about the million or so Palestinian refugees?
That's an incredible level of ignorance.
Its no wonder you don't really understand the Middle East; you don't know anything about what is going on there or has been going on there.
In short, after World War II the United Nations basically told a lot of Jews that they could have their own country in their holy land. They gave about half of Palestine, previously a British colony, to the Jews.
Now, the Muslims who lived there really weren't happy about this, and didn't like the fact that the Jews got a bunch of land, particularly a bunch of land the Muslims consider to be holy. So the Palestinians along with a number of neighboring countries all attacked Israel.
Now, Israel had the backing of the United States military, and with their superior equipment beat back all of the neighboring arab nations, conquered all of palestine and seized some land from nearby countries, including Egypt.
The modern state of Israel was originally supposed to be much smaller, but they took ALL of Palestine rather than the part of it they were originally given, and have proceeded to discriminate against the Palestinians, kicking a bunch of them out of their homes or simply making them unwelcome, as well as intentionally putting Jewish settlements in what were once Palestinian lands so that they don't ever have to give them back because "Hey, we're there too!"
This is not to say the Israelis are the bad guys. The other Arab countries did little to help the million or so Palestinian refugees, and as such many of them still live in refugee camps some sixty years later. There have been several wars since then provoked by the Arab countries around Israel, but thanks to the backing of the United States Israel has handily won them all and taken over quite a bit of territory. A lot of Palestinians have turned to terrorism and/or rebellion in an effort to "take back their land", including via such acts as suicide bombings.
This only further serves to make the Israelis want nothing to do with the Palestinians and makes them want to exclude them from their land and their government all the more, kicking yet more out, creating yet more terrorists, ect. ect.
Its a vicious and very stupid cycle.
Several countries in the region have basically given up on Israel - Egypt made peace with Israel and Israel gave back the lands they siezed from Egypt in return.
However, other countries still are concerned with them, either because they feel the Israelis don't belong on the holy land or simply because there are a bunch of angry Palestinian refugees in their countries that they want to get rid of.
Additionally, in many countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the government is pretty wealthy and the people live in a great deal of poverty. The people really aren't fond of their government, but the Saudis instead deflect their anger towards the Israelis and, ultimately, their American supporters. This prevents them from reflecting on the fact that really, its the Saudi government which is benefitting from all this, and thus instead of rising up against their own government they send money and men to terrorize the Israelis and their supporters to get back Palestine, even though lots of people in the Middle East don't even particularly like the Palestinians.
The United States isn't really hated so much for its actions as for convenience. Yes, our actions do nothing to help us out in the Middle East, but ultimately we are simply a convenient, easy to find scapegoat due to our widespread presence there and our support of Israel.
The West in general supports Israel, which is why their anger is directed at the West. But ultimately, it all comes down to them hating Israel, and the Israelis hate them right back for what the people in the Middle East have done to them. Its an endless cycle of violence and even without the Israelis there they'd probably still be killing each other because of internal schisms in Islam or simply killing their own leaders.
Palestine isn´t the victim. Why are Hamas and Fatah killing each other?
Oh, Palestine is the victim. But so is Israel, and pretty much everyone else in the Middle East. That's because they constantly kill each other.
It´s evident you din´t live in Spain when Muslims invadered us.
You guys got conquered and the French had to pull you out of the fire. You've got Martel to thank for the fact that there even is a Spain :P
In any event, most of the population of Spain converted to Islam, then were forcibly converted back to Catholicism or driven out of the country.
So if you're going to talk about horrible people in Spain, you're really talking about the people who own it now.
Being conquered isn't nice, but it certainly wasn't as nasty as Spanish colonization of the Americas, in which millions upon millions of people died.
Atheocracy too. Have you read "1984" or "Animal Farm" by George Orwell?
I've read both, neither have anything to do with atheism.
Indeed, the idea of "atheocracy" is comical and would only come out of someone who is completely ignorant of what atheism is.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, and is generally used to mean people who are irreligious.
Communism has nothing to do with atheism, really, other than that it (correctly) rejects religion as a tool used to manipulate the masses.
It could explain some thing. hee, hee, hee, hee, hee!
I've never smoked pot, and I don't drink.
Was non-violent resistance useful when China invaded Tibet?
Was the resistance against the invasion of the Chinese nonviolent?
Here's a hint: No.
You didn´t play with G.I.Joe action figures, did you?
No. And neither did Jesus.
If you reject non-violent solutions to problems, you're a really bad Christian, given that is what Jesus stood for, what he espoused.
When your God comes down and tells you NOT to do something, and you continue to do it...
Nonviolence doesn't solve every problem, but the reality is that the more civilized your opponents are, the more effective it becomes.
This is why it works very effectively in countries like the United States, and worse in other countries (though worth noting, I suspect China will eventually fall in this manner).
Then why was Christian civilitation was the first one to reach the industrial revolution? Good luck too?
They weren't. Secular western civilization was the first to reach the industrial revolution. The more religious nations lagged behind, while the Chinese and Japanese were largely victims of geography and circumstance; the rise of Japan in the 20th century shows that Western civilization is not inherently superior, but the fact that no theocratic nation has done well economically indicates that theocracy is a poor form of government.
You are a racist!!!. why do you say it about Muslims?
Later I continue this.
Christians aren't a race. And it isn't wrong to acknowledge reality. Both Christians and Muslims have behaved in this manner and it is only natural they did well in a primitive world. However, the modern world has no place for such behavior.
Oh, you're just spouting crap. Wow, your credibility is growing by the day.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Here is someone to think about for President Ron Paul. I bet not to many people heard of him. The news doesn't want you to know about him becauce he will make some big changes. One of the things he will do is bring our troops home, & we will start making our stuff in America instead of China. He will start making America dependent on America again.
Ron Paul is more than a little loopy.
Historically, the ex-career military have not been great choices for president. We've had Washington as a great choice but then we've also had Ike and Grant who were not so stellar.
Military background has no correlation to presidential success. Washington was one of the best, as was Teddy Roosevelt, but the rest really haven't been exceptional. Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Grant were all mediocre presidents.
Ex senators are worse...
Again, not really. Congresspeople have done fine jobs as president.
Really, it doesn't seem like prior occupation, other than "Founding Father", really has much at all to do with how good of a president you'll be.
A U.S. taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders...
I'm certainly not a big McCain fan, but I AM a taxpayer. Who do the Obama followers think is going to PAY for all the programs he wants to implement? Have you looked at all his proposals?!? Who's going to fund them? The taxpayers!!!
A U.S. taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders...
So with McCain's "tax cuts" and willingness to continue spending freely in Iraq, who is going to pay for that? Honestly since WW2, the "fiscally responsible party" has done more to put this country into debt than the "tax and spend party." McCain is no different than any other republican in this regard. This is not merely my opinion, a look at this site for more information.
McCain is unlikely to change anything if we look at his past 25+ years in office as any indication of his policies.
- English isn´t my mother tongue. I almost alwyas only read English webs about D&D (WotC and Enworld). Reading long English text are too tiring for me.
Reading them is too much but it would seem writing them isn't terribly difficult.
The idea of going to a catholic or christian forum is beyond unpalatable. Giving you the homefield advantage so that you can berate, belittle and insult others peoples' beliefs in complete safety would just make you even bolder than you already are. At least here the Wizos can pull the plug.
Yes, and as it turns out, the people who aren't from the South tend not to be as poor as those who are from the South. Wonders never cease
And perhaps the most identifiable population from the south, the descendents of slaves, remain poor even after going elsewhere.
Umm yeah, I have no clue what you are talking about again.
Torturing people makes more terrorists.
Still don't know what you are talking about. But hey feel free to make friends with a terrorist and see how that works out for you, if that's where going with your statement, which still doesn't answer my question.
I think you mean Nixon. And honestly, making China into a first world country isn't exactly a bad thing, and is likely to cause them to become a better country on the whole.
Sure is Communists are cool.
Besides, where do you think Wal-Mart gets its stuff from? And who purchases stuff from Wal-Mart?.
Yeah after all they used to get there stuff from America and thanks to that great friend of China, Bill Clinton, we now have a free trade agreement and who needs jobs in America.
Absolutely. It worked for the states, didn't it?
The key is to form a greater sovereign body.
After this statement you have just lost all if not any credibility. So feel free to bow down to your Chinese overlords once they decide to create a greater sovereign body.
Your lack of ability to look at things objectively is rather sad.
And hey, remember Nazi Germany's corporatism? Of course, you could argue that the Nazis weren't exactly fascists, but then, I'm not sure "upgrading" from Italian fascism to Nazism is really an improvement.
He has behaved in exactly the way a certain Nazi said someone who sought war would behave. Remember, the people don't want war.
Absolute crazy talk.
Reagan was a flaming idiot and the only president we've ever had who committed treason, whereas Carter's policies would have saved us a lot of grief. Much as the Republicans deify him, he wasn't a very good president, and his successor, Bush Sr., was far better..
If being crazy enough to use nuclear weapons is a bad thing, then you'd better shoot Bush and you should have shot Reagan, as Bush has advocated using nuclear weapons as bunker busters and let's not even go into how much money Reagan wasted on building nukes for use against the USSR.
Sure was, Reagan was the loser who won the cold war and help tear down the walls in Berlin, Jerk. I would continue but why talk about a traitor who built up all those unnecessary nukes.
So with McCain's "tax cuts" and willingness to continue spending freely in Iraq, who is going to pay for that? Honestly since WW2, the "fiscally responsible party" has done more to put this country into debt than the "tax and spend party." McCain is no different than any other republican in this regard. This is not merely my opinion, a look at this site for more information.
McCain is unlikely to change anything if we look at his past 25+ years in office as any indication of his policies.
True, so let's look at the past 25 years of Obama in the senate, oh wait we can't. I don't like MCcain for a completely diffrent reason you don't, but at least he's the devil we know.
What the heck? How can you NOT know about the million or so Palestinian refugees?
That's an incredible level of ignorance.
Its no wonder you don't really understand the Middle East; you don't know anything about what is going on there or has been going on there.
And you do?
Let's see . . .
In short, after World War II the United Nations basically told a lot of Jews that they could have their own country in their holy land. They gave about half of Palestine, previously a British colony, to the Jews.
Palestine was a British Mandate, not a colony.
77% of the mandate had already been given to the Hashemites as Trans-Jordan.
Of the remaining part, 56% was to be Israel, 43% was to be Palestine, and 1% was to be international (Jerusalem).
Now, the Muslims who lived there really weren't happy about this, and didn't like the fact that the Jews got a bunch of land, particularly a bunch of land the Muslims consider to be holy. So the Palestinians along with a number of neighboring countries all attacked Israel.
Although there was a significant Islamic issue, in 1948 the primary factor was Arab nationalism. It was particularly a factor for Syria that considered all of Palestine, as well as Lebanon and Jordan, parts of Syria.
As for Palestinian participation in the war, it was functionally non-existent. Aside from considering themselves Syrians anyway, they had no government structure to organize under.
Now, Israel had the backing of the United States military, and with their superior equipment beat back all of the neighboring arab nations, conquered all of palestine and seized some land from nearby countries, including Egypt.
Israel did not have the backing of the US military. Indeed pretty much the first thing Truman did after allowing a vote in favor of the partition plan was to declare an arms embargo. The first country to sell arms to Israel was Czechoslovakia.
As for superior equipment, everyone was using leftover WW II surplus, primarily British for the Arabs with some French for the Syrians, and a mix of British and German for the Israelis.
When the armistice was signed, Israel controlled 78% of the pre-partition territory, 18% of the original Palestine mandate. Of the remaining 22%, Egypt seized the Gaza Strip and Jordan seized the West Bank. Israel occupied no land beyond the Mandate borders at that time.
The modern state of Israel was originally supposed to be much smaller, but they took ALL of Palestine rather than the part of it they were originally given,
Again, they did not take all of Palestine.
There have been several wars since then provoked by the Arab countries around Israel, but thanks to the backing of the United States Israel has handily won them all and taken over quite a bit of territory.
If by "quite a bit" you mean "ended the illegal Egyptian and Jordanian occupations of Gaza and the West Bank" which Israel is desparately trying to let the Palestinians make a country out of, I suppose that might qualify.
If by "quite a bit" you mean less than 500 square miles in the Golan Heights and possibly adjacent areas of Lebanon, then you have a really divergent definition of "quite a bit".
So overall, how was it you phrased that:
That's an incredible level of ignorance.
Its no wonder you don't really understand the Middle East; you don't know anything about what is going on there or has been going on there.
Yes, that describes your summary quite accurately.
More than you do, apparently.
[SIZE="7"] ¡Y UN JAM
1st point: "Mit brennender Sorge"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge
2nd point: Saint Edith Stein. A nun from Jew origen.
Where did she die?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein
3th point: Saint Maximilian Kolbe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe
And 4th point: Blessed Austrian Mary Restita Kafka.
http://thecatholicpath.blogspot.com/2006/10/blessed-mary-restituta-kafka.html
These things you never will see in a Hollywood movie.
So when you believed the Communists killed more people than the Christians, clearly the body count matters.
Surf in internet "Black book of comunism".
we must conclude your arguments are entirely worthless
Because you have the truth, and your "dogmas for progres" can not be questioned. Now you are the "progre orthodoxia" and we are the heretics or infidels. We are the thread (for the revolution) and we have to be terminated. They tried it in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War
And Palestinians have been forced out of Israel
I haven´t read it.
What the heck? How can you NOT know about the million or so Palestinian refugees?
I mean that I have read the pro-Israel point of view. I´m sorry, but if Palestian aren´t tolerant with Christian.... then I cann´t trust them.
That's an incredible level of ignorance.
But I disguise it very well. Don´t I? I am putting a lot of links about things you don´t know.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=71097
Son of top Hamas leader converts to Christianity
"You Jews should be aware: You will never, but never have peace with Hamas. Islam, as the ideology that guides them, will not allow them to achieve a peace agreement with the Jews. They believe that tradition says that the Prophet Muhammed fought against the Jews and that therefore they must continue to fight them to the death."
Masab slammed Palestinian society as "an entire society [that] sanctifies death and the suicide terrorists. In Palestinian culture a suicide terrorist becomes a hero, a martyr. Sheiks tell their students about the 'heroism of the shaheeds.'"
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080804/top-hamas-leader-s-son-converts-to-christianity.htm
He described the Hamas leaders he met in prison as people with “no morals” and “no integrity,” although they hide their corruption better than Fatah party members.
“Nobody knows them and how they operate as well as I do,” Yousef said, recalling how the family of Hamas members killed by Israel were forced to beg for financial assistance while the leadership “abandoned” them and “wasted” tens of thousands of dollars a month only on security for themselves.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080804/top-hamas-leader-s-son-converts-to-christianity_page2.htm
"They (Hamas) are blind and ignorant. It's true, there are good and bad people everywhere, but Hamas supporters don't understand that they are led by a wicked and cruel group that brainwashes the children and gets them to believe that if they carry out a suicide attack they'll get to Paradise,” he said.
In any event, most of the population of Spain converted to Islam, then were forcibly converted back to Catholicism or driven out of the country.
Andalusian Myth, Eurabian Reality
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001665.php
Islam's Claim on Spain
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004693.php
Al-Andalus: Jews, Muslims and the Myth of the Interfaith Utopia
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-77/i.html
I've read both (1984 and Animal Farm), neither have anything to do with atheism.
Atheism not, but the comunism they do.
the idea of "atheocracy" is comical and would only come out of someone who is completely ignorant of what atheism is.
A man who won´t believe in God will believe in anything.
[INDENT] - G. K. Chesterton -[/INDENT]
Did you know in the Soviet Union there were more statues of Lenin that Buda? With the comunism the religious idols were replaced by the cult to lider (the "big brother").
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, and is generally used to mean people who are irreligious.
Now I´m talking about Progressivism and anti-clericalism.
Communism has nothing to do with atheism
Karl Marx said religion was the opium of the people. Communism has a very strong link with anticlericalism.
I've never smoked pot, and I don't drink.
Earlier you say you smoke pot and now you deny. Can I trust you if you contradict yourself?
Was the resistance against the invasion of the Chinese nonviolent?
Here's a hint: No.
If Tibetants used violence againts of Chinese invasion then ...the no violence is useless when you are being attacked. Diplomacy not always is enough...
You didn´t play with G.I.Joe action figures, did you?No. And neither did Jesus.
Jesus didn´t surf internet. Then internet is anti-Christians? Jesus didn´t drive a car? then car must to be forbbiden?
If you reject non-violent solutions to problems, you're a really bad Christian, given that is what Jesus stood for, what he espoused.
Santiago Matamoros ("[Apostle] Saint James the Moor-slayer")
Politically incorrect. Isn´t he?
When your God comes down and tells you NOT to do something, and you continue to do it...
What if when God comes down and He find you in a sex-shop? Upss!
the reality is that the more civilized your opponents are, the more effective it becomes.
The reality sometimes the opponents isn´t civilized and they consider your diplomacy and wish of dialogue as weakness and...
Rebember Chamberlain and agremeent of Munich in 1938.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
This is why it works very effectively in countries like the United States
No everybody is so polite and civilized. Rebember Georgia now, or genocide in Darfur.
Secular western civilization was the first to reach the industrial revolution.
Where did Descartes study? Who built hostpitals and first Universities? Where was Scholasticism learnt?
Both Christians and Muslims...
And Frech Jacobins were a proto-hippies who gifted flowers and sang "we are the world we are the children"...
but it would seem writing them isn't terribly difficult.
I use the language dictionarity of wordrefence.com
North Viet Nam was fighting for a political end. The enemy we are fighting believes they are fighting the great SATAN. They will continue to attack the US because we are a threat to their religion, where they are, now. They will carry their warfare on HERE, because we corrupt the world (in their warped vision).
No, it's not religious.
Satan means adversary in Arabic. It means that we are their enemy, not that we're what a Christian would use the term satan to describe.
So yes, we are the adversary of the middle east, because we keep ******** all over it and let the Israelis commit genocide on the palestinians.
The term is 100% accurate.
And I'm not going to ask a soldier's opinion on the war. Their job is to kill whoever the government decides needs killing. If you can't utterly dehumanize your foe and kill them without remorse, then don't join the military.
However, I am less concerned about waterboarding or whatever. Every country has done dirty things to keep power over their land since the dawn of time. Every country that has ever existed has at some point used their military to take things they want. It doesn't make us better or worse than anyone else. Anyways, regardless of the war in Iraq, there's nothing that we Americans have ever done that has ever been worse than, you know, the genocide of 18 million indigenous people because they were sitting on prime real estate.
However, Americans are ignorant of the war, and that's the issue. The Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorists, it's a financial war. It's not the first time that american companies have made money off the blood of people not involved, and it won't be the last.
Satan means adversary in Arabic. It means that we are their enemy, not that we're what a Christian would use the term satan to describe.
Yeah, it's the weirdest thing, Christians see the word Satan and since they don't know what it means they create some unholy beast to carry it as a proper name. Of course the other traditional enemy of the Christians has a similar dubious origin.
"In the beginning there was formlessness and void. God said, 'LET THERE BE LIGHT', and there was, and it was good". And thus was born the great evil of the Christian belief, Lucifer (light-bringer, from latin), first of the Angels.
Now early Christians had to compete with a religion called Zoroastrianism back then. Zoroastrianism believes that there's an army of light, arrayed behind Ahura Mazda that fights an eternal war against the army of darkness that rallies behind Ahrriman*. Now, since Ahura Mazda is the embodiment of light, the early Christians couldn't have the first and finest of the angels be the Light-bringer. And thus wass born into theology the rise of the renegade angels, heaven's own civil war.
Christianity even went one step farther, they nicked the whole cataclysmic war at the end of time from those poor, misguided Zoroastrianists. Haven't you ever wondered why a messiah that preaches peace and non-judgement all the way through will suddenly come back in the end at the head of an army and pass judgement on everyone?
I know some of you will discard what I have just posted completely and without thought. For you, there is no hope, only faith. Others of you will have read what I wrote and seek the truth of it yourself. For you there is the search, the struggle to understand where we are based on what's come before. My greatest hope is that all you will fall into the latter group. For in the search, we find more of ourselves than we can being spoon-fed doctrine and tradition all of our lives.
I am not saying that it is wrong to believe. Faith is wonderful, but you should always question those who would seek to tell you the will of God. Evil, selfish men will coerce you into all manner of depravity if all you have is faith. If someone tells you to do something that you know in your heart is wrong, doesn't it cause you to question? That, is the will of God. But I could be wrong, what do you think?
* Don't quote me on this name, I lost all of my theology section of my library in the recent flooding and Zoroastrianism never really was my area of expertise. Personally, I find it rather amusing that the river rose and washed away all the religion from my rather sizable collection of books, but I'm kind of a sick puppy. I lost alot of the ancient masters and good chunk of the medieval stuff as well. That's life along a river, I'll plan better next time.
I'm certainly not a big McCain fan, but I AM a taxpayer. Who do the Obama followers think is going to PAY for all the programs he wants to implement? Have you looked at all his proposals?!? Who's going to fund them? The taxpayers!!!
A U.S. taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders...
You do realize that you'll lose more money under McCain, right?
Consider Bush's policies of devaluing the dollar and the high inflation under him. Now extend those out into the future.
The national debt is too large and is having a significant negative impact on the value of the dollar. Republicans spend highly irresponsibly.
Who do you think pays for the national debt? Everyone. Our dollar becomes less valuable.
Voting for McCain is equivalent to burning your money.
Raising taxes doesn't cause this problem because first off, it pays off the national debt, thus increasing the value of the dollar as we don't have to print as much money per year to pay for everything.
Second, the government doesn't burn your tax dollar, but spends it. It comes back to you.
In any event, the idea that if you're middle class Obama will significantly raise your taxes is false. You'd have to make over 250,000 a year to get your taxes raised.
If someone tells you otherwise, they're liars.
I mean that I have read the pro-Israel point of view. I´m sorry, but if Palestian aren´t tolerant with Christian.... then I cann´t trust them.
So, to sum up:
You are ignorant of the world around you, believe all sorts of propaganda, are unable to discriminate between propaganda and reality, contradict yourself constantly, cannot understand the English language very well (you claim I claimed I smoked pot, but I never said I did; you either are a liar or you can't understand what I said about JESUS smoking pot), are sectarian, and have nothing useful to contribute to this conversation.
You are going on my ignore list as it is clear talking with you isn't helpful, as you are merely a font of propaganda.
You won't believe me anyway, because I'm not a Christian.
You should grow up, open your eyes, and learn how to look at things objectively.