Last week, I was in a car with my brother and his fiancee, driving through their upscale neighborhood on a hot summer day. At the corner, we all noticed three little girls sitting at a homemade lemonade stand.
[...]
"Oh, no," they replied in unison, "they're all free!"
[...]
"No!" I exclaimed from the back seat. "That's not the spirit of giving. You can only really give when you give something you own. They're giving away their parents' things -- the lemonade, cups, candy. It's not theirs to give."
I pushed the button to roll down the window and stuck my head out to set them straight.
"You must charge something for the lemonade," I explained. "That's the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs -- how much the lemonade costs, and the cups -- and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money."
I was confident I had explained it clearly. Until my brother, breaking the tension, ordered a raspberry lemonade. As they handed it to him, he again asked: "So how much is it?"
And the girls once again replied: "It's free!" And the nanny looked on contentedly.
No wonder America is getting it all wrong when it comes to government, and taxes, and policy. We all act as if the "lemonade" or benefits we're "giving away" is free.
Is this some sort of poorly constructed argument against Obama's health care?
Is this some sort of poorly constructed argument against Obama's health care?
First off, we aren't convinced by corporations that we don't want the government to get too big. There are lots of things that work better privately. Our government's already in lots of debt and we don't want it to take over things it simply can't afford. And we aren't "numb-skulled" idiots. You're the idiot here thinking you know so much about the politics of a country all the way across the ocean where you don't even live.
Socialized health care doesn't save money. It's not like it makes any of the services more efficient or cheaper. It'll just be people who earn more money paying for others' health care.
How are all those socialist governments doing? Many of them are in big financial trouble (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Britain, etc...).
And maybe if any of your relatives got off their ass and actually served in the Middle East, you'd agree with me that there are real mad men out there.
Jesus Christ that lady has some big balls.
My mom has heart problems and my dad has mild cancer. They don't pay a dime for treatment. As far as I know, the fees involved to get it treated in the US would have been astronomical, correct?
I'd say socialized healthcare is the bomb.
Then again, what do I know.
My mom has heart problems and my dad has mild cancer. They don't pay a dime for treatment. As far as I know, the fees involved to get it treated in the US would have been astronomical, correct? I'd say socialized healthcare is the bomb. Then again, what do I know.
People who don't like Big Government support Tax Breaks for Big Oil/Big Money(Wall Street)/Big Spenders(me).
This I don't get.
People who don't like Big Government support Tax Breaks for Big Oil/Big Money(Wall Street)/Big Spenders(me).
This I don't get.
If you're so smart, how about you tell us how socialized health care saves money in the long run.
It's all cost-shifting. You move the money you were paying for a privatized service to taxes for the socialized service. With the socialized service, you tend to pay less with fewer/lower cost increases and the service becomes universal in many cases. The bottom line, though, is that it's cost-shifting.
^^^ That's what is killing the country...not the children.
More like stupid parents produce stupid children.
The facts are that there are huge scores of Americans who have no health insurance and not enough money to pay for healthcare. Obviously the private system isn't working out quite well.
Obviously you don't have all of your facts straight either. Alot of the people in America that have no healthcare CHOOSE not to have it, people like contracters in their mid twenties that are in good enough health that they can get away with not having healthcare. My brother is a perfect example. He couldn't handle going to college and working as a sub-contracter, so he dropped out of school (which left him without healthcare). So as of right now, he is CHOOSING not to have healthcare by CHOOSING to work instaed of go to school. Ok, enough said.
With the pressure that already exists in Canada to cut what doctors can bill to Medicare, once the U.S. adopts socialized medicine, it may not be long before doctors in the whole developed world get paid about as much as schoolteachers.
You sound like you lifted that from one of the satirical chatshow radio channels in Grand Theft Auto...
Yep, no poverty... people choose to be poor!
The fact that people have to chose not to have healthcare because they can't afford it is kinda the point, innit?
Given the amount of **** doctors who are only in it for the money, is that such a bad thing? =P
So as of right now, he is CHOOSING not to have healthcare by CHOOSING to work
our deficitShow Image(http://i48.tinypic.com/zmz7mb.gif)
Socialized health care doesn't save money.
How are all those socialist governments doing? Many of them are in big financial trouble (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Britain, etc...).
If you're so smart, how about you tell us how socialized health care saves money in the long run. You won't give us real evidence, because you can't. It doesn't save money. Government health care is actually more expensive.
And maybe if any of your relatives got off their ass and actually served in the Middle East, you'd agree with me that there are real mad men out there.
How are all those socialist governments doing? Many of them are in big financial trouble (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Britain, etc...).
trollsoft windows
This is a common argument here in Texas. These countries are in trouble much more so for other reasons (investments, corruption, other economic maladies) than they are for their social programs. Remember, it's cost shifting. Social programs are offset by taxes. Healthcare reform didn't cause the recession, banks and poor investment did.
I don't have any close relatives out in Iraq or Afghanistan at the moment, but I do have childhood friends who've been out there. And as you've decided to be offensive about it, I remember a couple of wars where my relatives were fighting and dying before yours were in uniform.
US ranks near bottom of life expectancy, and US has highest health care costs. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34330376)Take those stats with a grain of salt. How you end up first or last can change drastically depending on how you cut the stats.
Take those stats with a grain of salt. How you end up first or last can change drastically depending on how you cut the stats.
While I roll my eyes everytime I hear some idiot parroting that we have the best healthcare system in the world. The opposite untruth is just as frustrating to me. As someone who's toured a lot of hospitals, there is no conceivable way that we're at the bottom of the rankings either.
I think we're severely underperforming and our system is majorly screwed up, but we're not THAT bad.
Also health care stats are relatively easy to measure
I don't think government-run health care for the US is a good idea.
Or look at Amtrak.
Or the postal service.
The quality of health care in the US is among the best in the world.
Even if the government had the money to subsidize health care
yes, because developed nations keep complex healthcare stats as part of national security policy.
Funny how you're against the us pro-lifer's, but not against the folks who have kids in their teens.
Makes sense
"Hurr durr Jesus blah blah blah America herp-de-derp"
Outlaw abortion and discourage teen sex.
Outlaw abortion and discourage teen sex.
Outlaw abortion and discourage teen sex.
discourage teen sex.
I don't have to work hard to troll this thread...
whats the source on that? Health care is designed to pay for itself (unlike our wars) via savings and efficiencies compared to our current health care distribution system; so that graph is false.
the wars were supposed to pay for themselves too using oil among other things
There is nothing inherently wrong with socialized medicine. Socialized medicine in America, however, is a guaranteed fail.
It's a bunchie, not a llama. It's my custom edition. Orange + coolface. There are lots of variations.
America's health problems are caused by overeating and other vices, not by poor medical care. The greater cost is due in large part to greater use of medical services (we visit hospitals more, meaning we pay more) and due to general corruption and inefficiency and price gouging on the part of HMO's; you know, our last attempt at taking a step toward socialized medicine, that basically ****ed our whole medical industry.
I don't have to work hard to troll this thread...
Hopefully if Obama gets reelected he can push for a public option in a couple of years and America can spend more of it's money on apple products and less on health care.
Yes, it's bunchie.
But bunchie is a llama.
No.
Underlining and italics won't make me agree with you. Where does it state on the internet that bunchies are llamas?
Outlaw abortion and discourage teen sex.
Outlawing abortion reduces freedom.
Now, most people who think abortion should be legal obviously don't think it's a WISE decision or good. But it still should be an option nonetheless.
It's kind of like how seat belts were made mandatory, people should have a choice even if it's a wrong choice.
Outlawing abortion is wrong, but I get enraged every time some dumb ****s who don't take correct birth control measures abort instead of being punished for being dumbasses, and being forced to look after the child.That would indeed be a very bad reason for outlawing abortion. It wouldn't be good for the child.
I'm POSITIVE this will set off a ****storm of goofy justification replies and ad hom attacks, so I won't bother checking back as it might cause me to become less than civil in other threads with those of you I otherwise like and enjoy talking with.
Abortion for any reason other than medical necessity or rape is just a sad sick way to escape responsibility for an action that was your own doing. Abortion is the ultimate parental cop-out. You made a child, but you can't be bothered with giving birth and raising it, or putting it up for adoption , so you snuff the kid. Its the same attitude that Casey Anthony had, only she made the mistake of deciding this after the child was a few years old, and she did the job herself instead of hiring a "doctor" to do it.
I'm POSITIVE this will set off a ****storm of goofy justification replies and ad hom attacks, so I won't bother checking back as it might cause me to become less than civil in other threads with those of you I otherwise like and enjoy talking with.
Abortion for any reason other than medical necessity or rape is just a sad sick way to escape responsibility for an action that was your own doing. Abortion is the ultimate parental cop-out. You made a child, but you can't be bothered with giving birth and raising it, or putting it up for adoption , so you snuff the kid. Its the same attitude that Casey Anthony had, only she made the mistake of deciding this after the child was a few years old, and she did the job herself instead of hiring a "doctor" to do it.
I'm POSITIVE this will set off a ****storm of goofy justification replies and ad hom attacks, so I won't bother checking back as it might cause me to become less than civil in other threads with those of you I otherwise like and enjoy talking with.
Abortions should be 100% legal for anyone to do. If you're going to outlaw abortions, you should outlaw body mods like piercings involving dermal punches because living human tissue dies in the process. And outlaw tanning, and outlaw smoking entirely, and drinking, and anything else that kills cells of any kind.
A baby is not, in my opinion, a being with his/her own rights until the cord is cut. Until that time, he or she is a fixed part of the mother's body and it's the mother's decision entirely what happens.
Sex is about reproduction. If you don't want to have a kid, don't have sex. Simple. Unless somebody raped you, there should be no excuse to have an abortion.
Harming yourself != harming others.
That's a bit of an arbitrary distinction, isn't it?
They want to insist that from the moment of conception the fetus has all the existence (and should be granted all the rights) of an autonomous person. Luckily the supreme court has already laid down the precedent that that argument is, well, stupid. And totalitarian.
Finally. Someone stepped up to the plate and said what's right.
Sex is about reproduction. If you don't want to have a kid, don't have sex. Simple. Unless somebody raped you, there should be no excuse to have an abortion.
For those of you all who support abortion, I'd recommend doing some in-depth research on how in a late-term abortion, the doctor drills out the baby's brains, cuts up the baby, and then throws it all in a bag and throws it away. It's disgraceful and disgusting and should be outlawed.
Ah, but you see, I believe that the child isn't a child yet, and is still part of yourself until physically...um...disconnected.But is that belief reasonable?
But is that belief reasonable?
Or is it implausible, like believing that another sort of entity, mostly looking just like other human beings - but with some subtle differences in facial features and hair, and a significantly darker skin tone - isn't really human, but is instead a kind of livestock animal that can be bought and sold?
Laws that restrict freedom are bad, but freedom doesn't include the ability to do bad things to other people.
Okay mate... why don't you just pull the blinkers off for a minute.
As someone who has been through it (Medical reasons, don't get your knickers in a twist, mmmmkay), I can truly say you have no idea what it is like to be in that situation. It is so far from black and white it's not funny. I know far better than you the process involved. Trust me on that one. The world does not, and will not, conform to your nice little black and white standards. Until you acquire some maturity, and the willingness to be a bit more open minded, might I suggest you shut the **** up and stop spouting ****?
So killing a child five minutes before it would otherwise be born is acceptable?
Let's say that you have a conjoined twin at this point in time, joined to you by the arm or leg. If you shot your twin in the head, have you committed murder, or self-harm?Obviously, murder. Two brains, two different individuals each experiencing the world in his own way.
Obviously, murder. Two brains, two different individuals each experiencing the world in his own way.
Yeah exactly, abortions, miscarriages, it happens.
OH NO SOMEONE HAD A MISCARRIAGE, TIME TO KILL THEM WITH MR. MORALS BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.
So you're saying that dying from a heart attack or cancer is the same as being murdered?No, I think he is being sarcastic.
I said before that a medical complication is a valid reason to have an abortion in my view. I am against abortion when people ignorant of birth control methods want to avoid the consequences of their stupidity.
i dont think you can regulate that. Its either going to be legal or its not.
insancen is a woman? cool! we need more women around here to break up this sausage fest.
Unless you all want me to really unleash my political opinions on you.
I think it's about time this thread came to an end. Many people have strong and founded views on abortion from both sides, and what are we all getting out of arguing about it on the forum? Nobody will change anybody else's view on subjects like religion, abortion, and politics. That all oughta be kept out of here.
Unless you all want me to really unleash my political opinions on you.
The Earth can naturally support about 1-2 billion people (assuming phosphates are the limiting reagent). We've managed to boost that up to close to 7 billion through mineral-derived nitrogen/phosphate fertilizers and better healthcare.
I second the vote for lulz... you have strong opinions, but your basis for them seems to be deeply flawed.
My personal theory is that happiness for our species basically peaked sometime between 1950 and 1990. Its all downhill from here.That's certainly possible. But I don't see why it has to be.
Ignoring the microethics of the situation, look at the broader view. We're running out of synthesized phosphates for fertilizer. No fertilizer means less crops, means less food, means less people. The Earth can naturally support about 1-2 billion people (assuming phosphates are the limiting reagent). We've managed to boost that up to close to 7 billion through mineral-derived nitrogen/phosphate fertilizers and better healthcare.
The world's supply of mineral phosphate reserves will dry up in 70-300 years, depending on which experts you listen to. At that time +/-20 years, there will be massive famine, war, and a sharp decline in population.
Let's assume that there is a theoretical way to prevent the phosphate crash, or to at least reduce its impact, or to preserve civilization. The longer we have before the crash, the longer we have to come up with a solution.
The more people born, the more food is consumed, the more fertilizer is used, the quicker the crash will come. The fewer people born, the longer we have to solve the problem. Or maybe we could even reduce population below the critical point.
But from the long-term perspective, abortion or anything else that slows the birth rate is a good thing.
incomplete list of how many ways the world is screwed going forward:
-nuclear weapons in hands of Americans
Fixed.
incomplete list of how many ways the world is screwed going forward:
-americans decide who uses nuclear weapons
really? do you seriously think the us is a rogue nuclear power capable of launching unprovoked nuclear attacks?
if you do, seriously your view of the US is as cartoonish as webwit's was.
I don't think my life in Canada will be jeopardized enough in the near future for me to hope and pray to be let into the US. In fact, Americans regularly move to Canada.
Even your neighbours to the North consider your country dangerous.
Unprovoked nuclear attacks maybe not.
But America has a history of instigating meaningless on random countries that the likes of Osama could never dream of...
yes, because canada is like the US minus about 20 years :) Oh and you offload your national defense to us :) Must be nice to have big brother protecting you all the time ;)
No, I don't offload national defense to the US. I go to school and play video games.
well that should be a relief - if you have the courage and the intellectual honesty to admit that its a relief.
really? like what?
lets see, osama "dreamed of" and carried out or inspired terrorist attacks in: madrid, london, germany, sweden, indonesia, india, pakistan, afghanistan, africa, the netherlands, switzerland... with failed plots in canada and a half dozen other countries.
You're right, the US would never dream of doing that.
Now let me guess, you're talking about cold war proxy battles between the US and the USSR in south america and southeast asia? Thats original. And totally out of context. Are you seriously equating those (in whcih the USSR was a full and brutal participant) with osama's desire to convert the world by force to his version of islam?
really ch? is that what you're comparing? This is what I mean by the Left going off the rails to the point of being totally incoherent.
I dunno. Random bombings of Cambodia and the like were a bit hazy.
What about Iraq? Think that was cool?
Perhaps I was being hyperbolic,
but at the end of the day, it's all pointless killing that never possibly served any rational good.
And Vietnam? That was a barrel of lulz... US aircraft dropping bombs on villages that were suspected of being pro-communist? Great proxy war that was.
yes, because canada is like the US minus about 20 years :) Oh and you offload your national defense to us :) Must be nice to have big brother protecting you all the time ;)
Protect from what?
But what was it all about? I'm sure there was some sort of "It seemed like a good idea at the time" rationale to Vietnam... but Iraq?
Protect from what?
I dont think you understand vietnam at all. We got involved in vietnam because the chinese were funding and arming an incredibly violent revolutionary force in vietnam. Thats a fact; look it up. (First the russians did, then the chinese did -- dont forget by then the russians and chinese wer locked in their own competition for domination of asia. Somehow that fact doesnt ever come into the euro-leftist imagination of the world). The qeustion for vietnam was not whether the world should respond to that; the question was how should it respond to that. In korea, just a decade earlier, you'll remember the UN got invovled under very similar circumstances. In the case of vietnam, the UN dragged its feet and the US did not want its democratic ally in vietnam to be left to be slaughtered in the face of Maoist arms and funding.
The only question was how we were going to help, not whether. To have done nothing would have been even more foolish; as foolish as not getting involved in rwanda or bosnia.
The ongoing problem with our involvement in vietnam began and ended with the *wavering* of commitment on the part of the american govt. They should have defined their goals and committments clearly up front. All our problems came directly or indirectly from not having done that up front. There are complex reasons why that was not done, which are clearer in retrospect.
as far as iraq, i agree that iraq was a mistake because the real war was (and is) in afghanistan-pakistan on the one hand and in the continuing effort to modernize middle eastern countries like saudi arabia, iran, and yemen, and asian countries like pakistan, burma, and north korea. As far as the 9/11 attacks tho the focus should have been afghanistan from day one. Iraq distracted attention and resources from that, and that was a huge mistake. It also cost america a lot of world support which we had in the days following 9/11, and again that was bush's idiocy.
Afghanistan is the focus and should have been. Iraq was bush's idiocy. Americans rejected it when they elected Obama. So I'm not sure I follow your argument. What is it you'd like to "conclude about america" based on bush and iraq then? Now that we're in iraq, however, I support the conversion of that former dictatorship into a democracy, a process that will be as painfully slow as it will be in any other of the dictatorships around the world, all of which will either eventually convert to democracy or remain incredibly volatile loose canons that will try to obtain nukes and try to hold the whole world hostage. Iraq is already on an alternate history path because of that (mistaken) invasion. The outcome remains uncertain, but there are as many signs of hope (including islamic sects who couldnt stand each other, today being officialy part of the same government; including the start of an electoral process for the country) as there are signs of hopelessness (continuing animosity between the islamist and warlord-style factions, continued infiltration by iranian and alqueda terrorists, continued tensions with turkey, etc). But yes, I was against iraq and still am.
But my point is: what is it you're concluding by pointing to iraq? You think its emblematic? and of what?! Thats where you go off the rails, forget your history, and become an absurd relativist.
"Iraq was a complete screw up that made no sense. What is your point?"
You answered your own question.
I for one like the idea of being the big friendly country on top of the US that nobody hates, but I seem to be in some kind of minority.
1. "iraq means that america cant criticize anyone else cuz it made a mistake." Bull****.
2. "iraq means america always bombs innocent countries". Bull**** on multiple levels, including the claim of iraq as innocent in any way. I can disagree with the decision to invade without mindlessly romanticizing the situation in iraq before the invasion. It *was* a dictatorship and a horribly brutal one and *was* a loose canon as it showed in the first gulf war when iraq pretty randomly invaded kuwait. (which for some curious reason Ch will refuse to get into a huff about).
Its not part of the real political world, is it? nah.
"Iraq was a complete screw up that made no sense. What is your point?"
You answered your own question.
About Vietnam - my understanding was that the main reason for invasion was the fear of the spread of communism, which never happened.
People arming dangerous rebel armies? So you're saying the Russians should have invaded South America so? =P
Welly - private messages!
what do you call north vietnam (before the recent reconciliation) and north korea and cambodia? Good god man, consult a political map of south asia please. Been following the news in Nepal recently? Like in the last few years?And not to mention scores of continuing extremely violent 'revolutionary' groups ranging all over south and south east asia (for just two examples, look up 'naxalites' and the PKI).
not to mention the russian and chinese behemoths.
Oh yea, that whole communist fear thing, it was all in our minds.
actually the russians and mao funded armed movements all over south america and africa; again, at least consult wikipedia. The american involvement did not happen in a vacuum.
I'm sure you would have preferred stalinist or maoist dictatorships in these areas.
:) everyone loves canada -- but my point is, you get to be big fat cuddly bear of a nation precisely because canada offloads a lot of the difficult world-political questions to its guard dog neighbor to its south.
Also, Canadian troops fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That renders the point you're trying to make completely moot.
dude, does anyone take canadian troops seriously?
;)
I dont think it makes my point 'completely moot'. There's a reason Canada doesnt have a military industrial complex today. Eisenhower was the one that made the deal with the canadian govt to *literally* outsource your defense to us, at the height of the cold war.
There was a movie made on this topic at one point, i'll see if i can remember the title.
The one with John Candy where he invades Canada?
QuoteIts not part of the real political world, is it? nah.
The US milks the **** out of Canada in NAFTA, so what the **** are you on about? Canada is very much a part of world politics. Just because Canada and most Canadians don't share the American view that every nation that isn't American is an oppressed terrorist nation that deserves to have the **** freed out of it, they aren't a part of the real political world? Get your head out of your ass for a second. The US isn't some God-given liberating power.
dude, does anyone take canadian troops seriously?Fortunately, you had a smiley when you said that.
;)
Fortunately, you had a smiley when you said that.
I'm sure you would have preferred stalinist or maoist dictatorships in these areas.
Preferred... not really. But I don't see how they could have been any worse than those US-installed fascist dictatorships all over Latin America.
Preferred... not really. But I don't see how they could have been any worse than those US-installed fascist dictatorships all over Latin America.It's true that a lot of cruelty has been carried out by dictators, in Latin America and elsewhere, to which the United States was perceived as allied during the Cold War.
I've never heard anything but praise for the American (and British) liberators from them or anybody else.
serious question - what changed?
There are no more Hitlers.Wouldn't Brezhnev have done? Won't Osama bin Laden do?
There are no more Hitlers.
It's quite shameful when you think about it. Shipping huge chunks of steel across the oceans is cheaper than making your own? Crazy.
Why are you debating whether the U.S. has the responsibility/right to be a guard dog for other countries? The argument is academic, because the U.S. doesn't look like it will have the ability to do so for much longer. Face facts. The mightiest empires rise and fall. Roman Empire - gone. British Empire - gone. U.S. Empire - on it's way out. All the signs are that China is the new manufacturing and economic powerhouse of the world. How the hell is the U.S. going to stay top dog when it has no strength at its foundation?
Bin Laden isn't connected to Iraq or Iran. Iraq and Iran are (were in the case of Iraq) powerful countries and the US doesn't like non-American power. Then again, I guess any country other than the US that has power is considered an evil threat right? Of course the war was for the benefit of business interests. Am I saying Bin Laden doesn't exist? No. Some of the wars the US starts are just plain stupid.
I don't think America is intrinsically bad, and maybe they are a net-positive force in the world. But they have a long history of doing a lot of really stupid stuff without much concern for the bigger picture.
I'm calling the US stupid, not calling it Al Qaeda. Why are you arguing against something that I didn't even say?
Look at what happened to the US after Al Qaeda attacks, and look at what happened to Iraq after US attacks. Now tell me which one is more dangerous.
i have yet to hear you call al queda both stupid and more dangerous than any western democratic stupidity.
Again, take the idea that the US is always right out of your head.
I was not born in North America so don't accuse me of being stupid because my world views vary from yours.
Of course I am ignoring what you asked me to say because that's neither here nor there. This is a thread about America and not Al Qaeda.
You're asking me to ignore the Iraq issue because we've already covered it before but in a thread discussing American political stupidity, assuming you're right and Afghanistan should be the real target, how can we ignore the fact that the US burned the wrong country to the ground?
I was born and raised in Dubai
so again, what makes you think you know more about the Middle East than I do?
I have family that lives in Lebanon and if you can name an Arab country, I've most likely been there.
Again, we're from different parts of the world so do not tell me I am wrong and stupid because where I come from
There is no clear-cut right and wrong.
Let me throw you a bone.
Compared to a major western democracy going nuts, Al Queda is very, very harmless. And their only seriously dangerous achievement is making western democracies go nuts.
As long as it is possible for two people to have different views on what is moral, we're ALL "moral relativists" because there isn't some predefined standard set.
I think they're all douchebags.
If that's what relativism is, then I am the exact opposite
it was never in my head; if you read my posts (including earlier ones in this thread itself) you'll see what a critic i am of the US. My question to you is, why do you say the us is always wrong? Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to acknowledge that evil can come from the east, too?
so long as you refuse - and at this point you're simply refusing point blank - to say that, you're some kind of nationalist obviously, or have some kind of overriding loyalty to a religious or ideological position. and that would explain a lot.
so you really think evil has a single point of origin, located somewhere in north america?
lol, no, i'm calling you stupid because you display an astonishing lack of awareness of basic history, either eastern or western history.
no, its a thread about america AND al queda, because world politics today is dominated by that conflict between them (and not just them; its al queda against the whole world which is the conflict in the world today).
first they didnt 'burn it to the ground'; actually iraq held its first elections recently; funny how you dont see that side of things. I suppose you would have preferred iraq to remain a loose canon dictatorship, or be run over with terrorists and islamist warlords from iran and yemen (who in turn would slaughter each other in iraq?)
is that what you want?
I can reject the decision to invade iraq as flawed but I also wont romanticize what iraq was, nor will I only see a bad outcome for iraq today. To do so seems awfully politically motivated on your part.
you'll pardon me if i say things are beginning to make sense
your refusal to admit that evil can arise out of the east as well as the west, makes me say that:
a) either you dont know history, regardless of having lived there
b) or you're intensely politically or religiously motivated to lay the blame for the world's problems on a single point of origin. which is a very religoius thing to do, by the way.
and if you're still unable to recognize all the problems that these arab countries have, from their political regimes to their citizens regularly slaughtering each other, then all i can say is the governmental propaganda machines of some of these regimes really did a number on you.
again, you're not wrong and stupid because of where you come from -- lets be clear. You're wrong and stupid because of what you say (and refuse to say).
Ah-HA -- you ARE a moral relativist -- which is what i wanted you to admit, and you've admitted it.
I dont think Ch is a moral relativist, but I know now that you likely truly are one. Thats the real point of difference between us.
And yes, you're on the wrong side of history if you dont believe democracy is the future for these arab nations. I strongly get the feeling you do not want democracy to break out in any of these nations. And that too, explains a lot.
If you think we're stupid, then you're a retard.
how can we ignore the fact that the US burned the wrong country to the ground?Iraq invaded Kuwait. It was driven out of Kuwait at the time, and Saddam Hussein was permitted to stay in power under strict conditions of dismantling all weapons of mass destruction.
2) the term "moral relativism" is used as an insult: why?
As far as I know, the US government admitted themselves that there was never any credible evidence of a WMD threat.
Moral relativism says that crazy people should be allowed to perform female circumcision on little girls because 'that's their culture'.
Such logic completely undermines the credibility of our own laws and value systems.
when we liberals righteously denounce evil in the world, we tend to do it in non-subtle terms, terms which generally obliterates context and degree, and i guess i've grown to be wary of such language because of my fear of where it can lead (ie, to relativism, which in turn is exploited by the hard right, turning all of us well-intentioned liberals into suckers and stooges for the hard right, and keeping us from being able to respond to the hard right, and contributing to the crisis of liberalism that i see in the world today).
Seems to me much of our crisis comes from this confusion of terms.
Liberalism is not relativism; its actually about taking a hard stand on morality (a morality of tolerance), being consistent about it (ie, criticizing it as much in the east as well as the west, wherever we see it. we lose credibility if we arent consistent in that way), and its about taking the risks in the defense of it, and getting off our asses and lobbying for it as activists.
So its hard work being a real liberal. What i see around me is lazy liberals who embrace relativism instead of liberalism, because if they're relativists, they dont have to do any actual activism, dont have to stick their necks out and take a stand. Those are the liberals who criticize the west because they know they're relatively safe in doing so, and give the east a free pass; or criticize christianity cuz its quite safe to do so in our culture, and give extremist islam a free pass. Thats just lazy, its lazy liberalism. And its misguided and leads to nihilistic relativism, not liberalism.
Ah. It seems I did not understand the true meaning of a moral relativist. I actually am not one. I am against things like female circumcision, passion killings, burning women alive for dowry money, etc.
I would only support such things if they were being done to terrorists.
Directed at nobody in particular...Show Image(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=11755&stc=1&d=1279218029)
old Wellington
actual information.
Now did you all ever notice how much better folks get along when they don't discuss politics and religion?
It took 5 pages of posts to get grim to tangentially acknowledge that al queda might be bad.
that i can respect ;)
tho i'd still point out that douchebaggery itself is a spectrum, there are degrees and some degrees are far worse than others, and some degrees deserve more concern than others. So long as that is acknowledged, i'm fine with it.
i know you're not a real relativist; but you sometimes dont acknowledge the importance of degree and that tends to get my goat. I'm all about being able to take degree into account, cuz otherwise it seems to me its a slippery slope towards relativism (if its not outright relativism). One of the guards against outright relativism, seems to me, is to always keep an eye on the question of degree and context (what i call 'perspective' above).
when we liberals righteously denounce evil in the world, we tend to do it in non-subtle terms, terms which generally obliterates context and degree, and i guess i've grown to be wary of such language because of my fear of where it can lead (ie, to relativism, which in turn is exploited by the hard right, turning all of us well-intentioned liberals into suckers and stooges for the hard right, and keeping us from being able to respond to the hard right, and contributing to the crisis of liberalism that i see in the world today).
Regarding history: terrorists are of all ages, never did one win a major victory.
To kishy with love:Show Image(http://memegenerator.net/Advice-Dog/ImageMacro/1655382/Advice-Dog-Correct-everyone-it-doesnt-matter-if-youre-right.jpg)
;)
I also don't get why I'm being insulted and ch is being treated with respect when we both share similar views.
the real fun i have is with your mothers. At the same time.
This thread has cemented my inclination not to participate in "off topic" threads that have anything to do with politics, religion or the US or Europe in general. I can get MUCH better arguments elsewhere.
There are a few things I don't understand:
1) the world "liberal" is used as an insult; why?
2) the term "moral relativism" is used as an insult: why?
3) not being pro-US makes you stupid. why?
I haven't insulted you once
If there's one thing I can definitely say here it's that welly isn't half as nuts as the last day or two of messages would suggest. I think the problem is that the intensity with which he is wording things and pushing points kind of obscures what it is he's actually trying to communicate, which isn't half as extreme as it would appear.
let me ask you this: What do you think of pro-democracy activists -- arabs and muslims who are pro-democracy -- in the middle east? Or pro-democracy activists in china? Are they "traitors to their nations"? Are they simply "pro-US" and therefore evil? Are they "stooges of the CIA"? Should they be lined up and shot because there is the possibility that their interests line up with the interests of the world's democracies rather than their home regimes?
What I find interesting is that a lot of my brethren on the left actually wind up hesitating to support them. Why? I"m genuinely curious, cuz i think its a mistake not to support them vociferously. As leftists we support pro-democracy activists at home, so why not abroad? Thats what I mean by consistency.
Same as what I think of people who are pro-democracy in general; good for them. Democracy is the future. When did I deny that?
You just don't like that I don't think the US is the ****.
Listen. I told you once and you don't seem to want to listen. The way you worded your phrasing made me look and feel like a complete idiot. "Hey, look, it's poor idiot leftist relativist gr1m, watch, right now, any moment, I bet he's NOT going to condemn Al Qaeda! Haha!" The conditions you attached to your statement would have made me feel completely ridiculous if I had immediately jumped up to type what you asked me to type. Understand that taking another's dignity away is not a good way to get them to agree with you.
I am not pro-terrorism. Understand this before this misunderstanding gets any larger.
TO CRITICIZE AL QAEDA BECAUSE AFTER YOUR POST, DOING SO WOULD HAVE MADE ME FEEL LIKE AN IDIOT.
Maybe it's a young-male-bruised-ego thing.
Best misunderstanding ever. Yeah, no more politics from gr1m.
I skipped the last 4 pages and missed nothing.
> the vast majority of pro-life people are 'Christian Al-Qaeda' types
whoo ho ha heh ha heh hah he ho ho ha he he ha ha ho.
Also, why should criticism of the US be accompanied by criticism of the US's enemies? I think that's your ultimate intent (after 5 pages of insulting me): you cannot accept criticism of the US if one does not criticize terrorism in the same post. Why? The two are not the same issue.I will try to explain why you may encounter criticisms of your posts that sound like that.
Generally, I make a rule not to discuss Politics, Religion and the Weather, but at present I have a Tuppence to spare.
Future generations of Western society are becoming increasingly inadequate for self-support, result of short-sighted foresights of Governmental policies in all aspects. They do not realise that the next generation is practically illiterate with no aspirations, compared to those in the Middle Kingdom. They think that war is still conducted by sending soldiers to invade others territories with their Big guns and their Big knives. They do not realise that at present they are been targeted with formulae of Sun Tzu's The Art Of War, economic warfare.
How will Western countries compete with a Nation whose children have better command of your native languages than your offsprings ? A Government who plan ahead, believing they will be as decadent as the present Western World, in the 22nd. Century, so they planned to purchase and permeate Africa. How will they compete with a Nation ie: who have organ harvesting wagons in every major/minor cities/towns, generating Big money to purchase your Big property in you Big country ? How big is your Big country now ? How great is your Great kingdom now ? etcetera etcetera etcetera.
Western World's downfall is due to too much leadership, too much impediment and too little ........everything else. In Time, all of Western World will reach their destined economic chaos, because their Bankers are still avaricious, the plebeian are still wasteful, their Governments have yet to learn.
You may think "I'll be dead by then", well that's the problem in the whole........
It actually peaked before the fifties. The late fifties were when things started to go bad.
The economic gap between the west and the rest of world is closing. Child survival rates are going up and as a result overpopulation is becoming less of an issue. Literacy is going up.
nostalgic, old, white man or a uninformed young white man.
The world WILL NOT END IN 2012!!!
You do realize that the thermosphere collapses regularly, and just because we've never seen it or can't explain it doesn't mean it will kill us all, right? The average human today is about as schizoid as extras in generic disaster / horror / space invasion movies of the mid-20th century. Get a grip people. NASA says themselves that it's probably nothing, they just don't understand.
IGNORANCE = FEAR
Why?
Kneejerk reactions and herd mentality. Go ahead and follow the other lemmings off the cliff. I'll still be here when the thermosphere collapses NEXT time.
You bunch of pussies.
I know a lot of crapples and dells will end in that year though.
I will let you know if it ever dies. When it does, I would gladly let you have the keyboard with the pointing stick.
I bet the Gateway2000 will run just fine in 2012. It'll just be 16 years old.
Artificial Intelligence will never become advanced enough to do really anything. Unless you specifically program it to do something harmful, it can never truly have a mind of its own.
It's only a teenager.
You do realize that the thermosphere collapses regularly,
IGNORANCE = FEAR
Why?
Kneejerk reactions and herd mentality. Go ahead and follow the other lemmings off the cliff. I'll still be here when the thermosphere collapses NEXT time.
There is no limit to human potential.
Pretty bold claim to make. Also, a stupid claim if you consider the current rate of scientific advancement. There is no limit to human potential.
A stupid claim? People don't know heads or tails about what "Advancement" is. In the 1960s, there was huge uproar about having robots that would cut your lawn, do dishes etc. Obviously that never came to pass. The most we have are robot vacuums, and those things only operate on the basis of pylons for direction. They can't think...
And as I stated before, the ancients knew a lot. Greece had more intellectual thinkers and scientists than the idiots in this generation.
I'm sorry, a computer will never have the equivalent of human thinking (nor will animals in general on that note). A computer cannot "think," it can only "execute". They will always be limited to being pre-programmed, and that's the problem.
There is a limit to human potential. It's called arrogance and death.
when you hear that the end is near.
i really think you're just not paying attention to how the world has changed since 1989.
The economic gap between the west and the rest of world is closing.
I would say that it has been over-taken by the Middle Kingdom, but the Western World deny/hide the fact due to pride.
...
If those girls offering free lemonade were of Oriental mentality, free would be unthinkable. Knowing their sweet innocence is irresistible, they would be instructed to charge double the value of the market price.
Chinese dominance of the manufacturing world is largely based on certain unsustainable variables - such as the low pay and poor working condition of their workers, and the deliberate undervaluation of the yuan. Once these go, it will be hard to say whether they will really have any inherent edge over other countries.
I was born then. That was a pretty big change for the world.
Almost all the democrats in office are idiots.
I keep forgetting the younger demographic of this forum.
Funny you should mention that, I was thinking that. Yes I myself am a youngin', but I can tell when people say thing too ambitiously through their age.
Oh FFS...
ITT: nutjobs describe wacko conservatives as liberals to try to compensate for the fact that the idea of being conservative doesn't work in modern society because we all aren't a bunch of moronic quacks.
But, y'know, no offense to any resident conservatives...just be a good person with decent values and your political orientation doesn't matter. That said, some people try to suggest that a political orientation associates you with specific wacko values.
I wonder how old you all think I am...
Myself, I'm a Cold Warrior on the one hand... and, at least for the most part, a liberal on the other. So, in American politics, I particularly liked JFK, and Scoop Jackson, and Joe Lieberman.
Also, I'm a Populist. That's a political stance you don't see much of these days.
A Populist might, like some Republicans, respect basic equal rights for all - but not be interested in pushing the country too hard on things a lot of people are likely to be uncomfortable with - say, in the area of gay rights for example.
On the other hand, like certain Democrats, he knows what America's economy needs. You want to buy a car? Fine, as long as it's made by union labor - not robots - in Detroit, from American steel made in Pittsburgh. However, believing in fairness and reciprocity, he would concede that foreign countries have the right to limit their citizens' use of scarce foreign exchange, even if that means directing it away from made-in-America Britney Spears records. Even if they switch to Linux, we will not attempt to punish their economies further than our protectionism would already be doing.
People want a government that cares about jobs like the Democrats, and that cares about a strong America that can defend itself like the Republicans. If neither of those two parties wants to offer them the choice of both of the above, Populists are happy to oblige.
I just don't think hardcore liberal principles are good -- look at chretien and paul martin, they had to step down because of stealing money and other idiotic practices.
If there's one thing I can definitely say here it's that welly isn't half as nuts as the last day or two of messages would suggest. I think the problem is that the intensity with which he is wording things and pushing points kind of obscures what it is he's actually trying to communicate, which isn't half as extreme as it would appear.
glad you're so optimistic
if you're so optimistic you might be a:
;)
Well, someone has to take Webwit's place.
The sky isn't falling. There's always been crazy doomsday prophets.
pagans, the whole bloody lot of 'em, and they don't even know it... sad, really.
Canadian Liberals got the country out of debt and kept it out of debt. I don't care if they stuffed their own pockets, they did a good job, kept social programs operating at an acceptable level, kept the country out of debt, and didn't piss off other countries.
Corruption is only a bad thing when it has a negative impact.
What about Russian leftists?
I was a leftist liberal for a long time, so I feel your pain.
I even voted green party in 2000. A very close friend (30 years old, and a die hard liberal for as long as I've known him) just sent Howard Dean
I'll see if I can get him to email it to me again so I can post some excerpts. I think you'll find most of the gripes familiar.
Similarly, since starting to see the value of conservative/libertarian/constitutional viewpoint I still find that I'm distancing myself from a lot of "republicans" due to pandering to the fringe and/or groups that have no real place trying to make policy(pastors?). The bottom line is that they're all out of touch,
and term limits on all elected positions in the federal government would help remedy the situation.
I would LOVE to see more independents in office,
We need an independent president worse than we ever have.
Not someone who wants to "work with democrats" or "work with republicans" from across the aisle.
The world IS changing fast, and it's time we woke up from our slumber.
Myself, I'm a Cold Warrior on the one hand... and, at least for the most part, a liberal on the other. So, in American politics, I particularly liked JFK, and Scoop Jackson, and Joe Lieberman.
People want a government that cares about jobs like the Democrats, and that cares about a strong America that can defend itself like the Republicans. If neither of those two parties wants to offer them the choice of both of the above, Populists are happy to oblige.
Wellington, you should create a blog or write a book regarding politics, cause, you've just written a tome with all of those posts.
lol, just passing the time. besides, i'm not the only tome-writer on gh. just trying to keep up with voix and ch and oqsy and... you :)
EIBM, you deserve a special prize tooShow Image(http://www.specialolympicsact.org.au/wp-content/uploads/podium.jpg)
And it's rather low to be picking on down-syndrome individuals.
Totally, I should stop slagging you.
Whoops.
23 pages...
Oh I ain't new. But I was surprised this thread has dragged on this long.