Forums » Off-Topic
"* anti-wealth redistribution - against the idea of penalizing successful people or companies just because they are successful"
There, I personally don't believe that something like a progressive income tax on the rich is something like penalizing. I can honestly say that if I was making $1 million or more, I would be fine with paying a 50% tax. I truly would. What do I need to do with $500,000? I can still survive, very well, I'd say
Great. You feel free to voluntarily send 50% of your income to the IRS or to the charity of your choice, and leave those of us who work long, stressful 100 hour weeks for our money the fuck alone. Goddamn communalist theives.
There, I personally don't believe that something like a progressive income tax on the rich is something like penalizing. I can honestly say that if I was making $1 million or more, I would be fine with paying a 50% tax. I truly would. What do I need to do with $500,000? I can still survive, very well, I'd say
Great. You feel free to voluntarily send 50% of your income to the IRS or to the charity of your choice, and leave those of us who work long, stressful 100 hour weeks for our money the fuck alone. Goddamn communalist theives.
Haha. Roguelazer you chicken! <laughing>
Butters said: I believe it's morally wrong, but I believe everyone has the right to choose, and if it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, it shouldn't be a crime.
That's the problem with having some kind of "morality" as part of your ideological platform. You can't legislate morality. Ever.
Shadowkhas said: When I have debates with people, they consistently attack me and claim I have no morals, because I'm not religious.
Religion and Morality are not always a package deal. Some moral people are atheists. Some religious people are monsters. The world is never black-and white, it's always an interesting shade of gray.
Butters also said: Why does the woman get to choose, but no one asks the opinion of the unborn child? We don't know when to draw the line, what trimester or if it's "viable" or whatever, so I say play it safe and say life begins at conception.
True, the line has to be drawn somewhere, I say that the first trimester is a pretty good borderline. If you've missed three periods and don't know you're pregnant, you're too stupid to raise a child. After seeing several situations where kids grow up parentless, I'd honestly say that it's better if unwanted children are not born than spend their young lives in orphanages/children's homes/foster homes.
Chaos said regarding wealth redistribution: Get the government out, and let the market adjust itself naturally. It works for everyone.
Hear, hear. That's exactly right.
And regarding everyone's issues regarding Isolationism vs. Aggressive Foreign Policy:
The United States essentially "exports" security. It's our #1 export. We're the world's policeman, like it or not. If the United States does not embrace this role, another country will. The world should count itself lucky that the United States is the world hegemon, instead of China or Russia. True, the United States meddles in world affairs to benefit itself. True, the United States enables tyrants like Saddam Hussein, trains terrorists like OBL, and supports crazies like Pinochet. You have to remember, the United States is not engaging in foreign policy to benefit the people of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Chile. The United States has one goal in foreign policy: to benefit the United States, usually at the expense of the rest of the world. As a citizen of The United States, I wholeheartedly endorse this policy and enthusiastically support my government for doing such. Be honest: If your country could influence the world like the United States, they would certainly do so.
Considering the actual amount of power the United States holds in the world, we've dealt with threats with an incredibly light touch. Imagine what Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, or Alexander the Great would have done with the power the United States wields today.
Japan attacked the U.S. because it cut off its oil, essentially. The U.S. is in the middle east mainly because of the oil reserves. The U.S. fought the Cold War since outright "Hot" war would prove deadly to much of the citizenry of the United States - since the USSR had nukes by 1949. The U.S. has not just invaded North Korea because the DPRK's response would be to roll over South Korea. There's reasons for everything the United States does, and I would be angry if the sole reason that we did something was to benefit some OTHER country. We need all the benefits we can get in THIS country. In order to do that, we can't be isolationist - we need to be insinuating ourselves into every nook and cranny of the world so that when the opportunity to influence events presents itself, we can have as much of an influence as possible. Sometimes this involves diplomacy, spying, torture, covert action, or outright warfare. I want to have every possible option available to our government. Yes, all this is done in order to bring maximum benefit to the end customer: the U.S. citizen. (At the expense of the other citizens of the world, agreed.)
Oh, and whoever said they'd be fine with sending in HALF their salary, email me and I'll tell you where to mail the biweekly check to Greg Leber, consisting of half your income. I promise to spend it better than the U.S. Government would. Ha.
And lastly, Smittens said: To Leber: This is kind of funny... I think the same things as you with every point... Except I'm totally for Obama.
Then you, sir, are a moron. Obama is against every single one of the things I mentioned in my post. Obama has no record, and what thin resume he DOES have is littered with overtaxation, excuses, and political fantasy. If no one looks behind the curtain, Obama might be a fine "leader" or "political personality." But he'll be a horrible president.
Butters said: I believe it's morally wrong, but I believe everyone has the right to choose, and if it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, it shouldn't be a crime.
That's the problem with having some kind of "morality" as part of your ideological platform. You can't legislate morality. Ever.
Shadowkhas said: When I have debates with people, they consistently attack me and claim I have no morals, because I'm not religious.
Religion and Morality are not always a package deal. Some moral people are atheists. Some religious people are monsters. The world is never black-and white, it's always an interesting shade of gray.
Butters also said: Why does the woman get to choose, but no one asks the opinion of the unborn child? We don't know when to draw the line, what trimester or if it's "viable" or whatever, so I say play it safe and say life begins at conception.
True, the line has to be drawn somewhere, I say that the first trimester is a pretty good borderline. If you've missed three periods and don't know you're pregnant, you're too stupid to raise a child. After seeing several situations where kids grow up parentless, I'd honestly say that it's better if unwanted children are not born than spend their young lives in orphanages/children's homes/foster homes.
Chaos said regarding wealth redistribution: Get the government out, and let the market adjust itself naturally. It works for everyone.
Hear, hear. That's exactly right.
And regarding everyone's issues regarding Isolationism vs. Aggressive Foreign Policy:
The United States essentially "exports" security. It's our #1 export. We're the world's policeman, like it or not. If the United States does not embrace this role, another country will. The world should count itself lucky that the United States is the world hegemon, instead of China or Russia. True, the United States meddles in world affairs to benefit itself. True, the United States enables tyrants like Saddam Hussein, trains terrorists like OBL, and supports crazies like Pinochet. You have to remember, the United States is not engaging in foreign policy to benefit the people of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Chile. The United States has one goal in foreign policy: to benefit the United States, usually at the expense of the rest of the world. As a citizen of The United States, I wholeheartedly endorse this policy and enthusiastically support my government for doing such. Be honest: If your country could influence the world like the United States, they would certainly do so.
Considering the actual amount of power the United States holds in the world, we've dealt with threats with an incredibly light touch. Imagine what Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, or Alexander the Great would have done with the power the United States wields today.
Japan attacked the U.S. because it cut off its oil, essentially. The U.S. is in the middle east mainly because of the oil reserves. The U.S. fought the Cold War since outright "Hot" war would prove deadly to much of the citizenry of the United States - since the USSR had nukes by 1949. The U.S. has not just invaded North Korea because the DPRK's response would be to roll over South Korea. There's reasons for everything the United States does, and I would be angry if the sole reason that we did something was to benefit some OTHER country. We need all the benefits we can get in THIS country. In order to do that, we can't be isolationist - we need to be insinuating ourselves into every nook and cranny of the world so that when the opportunity to influence events presents itself, we can have as much of an influence as possible. Sometimes this involves diplomacy, spying, torture, covert action, or outright warfare. I want to have every possible option available to our government. Yes, all this is done in order to bring maximum benefit to the end customer: the U.S. citizen. (At the expense of the other citizens of the world, agreed.)
Oh, and whoever said they'd be fine with sending in HALF their salary, email me and I'll tell you where to mail the biweekly check to Greg Leber, consisting of half your income. I promise to spend it better than the U.S. Government would. Ha.
And lastly, Smittens said: To Leber: This is kind of funny... I think the same things as you with every point... Except I'm totally for Obama.
Then you, sir, are a moron. Obama is against every single one of the things I mentioned in my post. Obama has no record, and what thin resume he DOES have is littered with overtaxation, excuses, and political fantasy. If no one looks behind the curtain, Obama might be a fine "leader" or "political personality." But he'll be a horrible president.
I say, as a citizen of one of the countries the United States has screwed up in the past, I read your post and raged.
Rage all you like, we're busy over here in the U.S.
Shadoen: I realize that I'm rather Machiavellian on the whole foreign-policy issue. I didn't say that it was morally right. I mean it when I say that, as opposed to the alternative, I'd rather be a citizen of the United States than a citizen of any other country in the world. Luckily, my fat lazy white republican ass was born here, and I'm only too happy to support my government, which has given me immense availability to opportunities, resources and benefits that people in other countries can only dream of.
It's not the job of the United States to make the world a happy place full of rainbows and fuzzy bunnies. It's the job of the United States to make the UNITED STATES a happy place full of rainbows and fuzzy bunnies.
If that can be achieved with minimal harm to the rest of the world, all the better. I'm firmly of the opinion that the United States should and DOES try to limit any "collateral damage" to other countries that are affected by its foreign policy machinations. Of course, the victories are silent (Post-War Germany & Japan, South Korea, Cold War) but the screwups are epic (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Post-Iraq War I, etc.) I'm sure the United States has "screwed up" many countries in the past, but what course of action can you take? I see two avenues:
1. Hold onto being "wronged" by the U.S.A. for your entire life, blame the United States for all your problems, and nurture your hatred until it consumes and defines you; or
2. Move on, realize that the world isn't fair, and make lemonade from your lemons.
I believe it's time for the rest of the world to stop blaming the United States for everything that's wrong in the world and start taking matters into their own hands.
Do you expect North Korea or Mali or Bolivia to spill its blood and spend its treasure to improve the ENTIRE WORLD? No? Then why do you expect the United States to? Why does the rest of the world seem to have this sense of entitlement, this urgent need to demand MORE of the United States yet at the same time wanting the U.S.A. to disengage from the very behavior which gives the United States its long-reaching power?
Back on topic: I don't think Obama GETS that, and that is extremely dangerous. He mentioned that he'd sit down to talk with "threat" foreign leaders such as Kim Jong Il or M. Ahmadinejad - I'm sure they had a good chuckle at that. The rest of the world is not a safe and happy place, and does not grant the United States its grudging respect because we're nice to have at tea parties. The respect is earned through force of arms, and the moment that the rest of the world thinks that The United States of America has gone soft is when the shit will hit the fan.
At least Hillary understands the use of power, too bad she only uses it for political wrangling. It would be interesting to see her as President. (And not just for the entertainment of seeing Bill Clinton as the "First Gentleman" har har har - talk about Irony.)
But, like I predicted before, I'm pretty sure that the cynical side of America will come out to vote in November, and put the crusty 'ol white guy in office. I don't know if that's for the best of the world or not. Regardless, almost anything will be better than Dubya at this point. (Yes, even Kucinich.)
It's not the job of the United States to make the world a happy place full of rainbows and fuzzy bunnies. It's the job of the United States to make the UNITED STATES a happy place full of rainbows and fuzzy bunnies.
If that can be achieved with minimal harm to the rest of the world, all the better. I'm firmly of the opinion that the United States should and DOES try to limit any "collateral damage" to other countries that are affected by its foreign policy machinations. Of course, the victories are silent (Post-War Germany & Japan, South Korea, Cold War) but the screwups are epic (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Post-Iraq War I, etc.) I'm sure the United States has "screwed up" many countries in the past, but what course of action can you take? I see two avenues:
1. Hold onto being "wronged" by the U.S.A. for your entire life, blame the United States for all your problems, and nurture your hatred until it consumes and defines you; or
2. Move on, realize that the world isn't fair, and make lemonade from your lemons.
I believe it's time for the rest of the world to stop blaming the United States for everything that's wrong in the world and start taking matters into their own hands.
Do you expect North Korea or Mali or Bolivia to spill its blood and spend its treasure to improve the ENTIRE WORLD? No? Then why do you expect the United States to? Why does the rest of the world seem to have this sense of entitlement, this urgent need to demand MORE of the United States yet at the same time wanting the U.S.A. to disengage from the very behavior which gives the United States its long-reaching power?
Back on topic: I don't think Obama GETS that, and that is extremely dangerous. He mentioned that he'd sit down to talk with "threat" foreign leaders such as Kim Jong Il or M. Ahmadinejad - I'm sure they had a good chuckle at that. The rest of the world is not a safe and happy place, and does not grant the United States its grudging respect because we're nice to have at tea parties. The respect is earned through force of arms, and the moment that the rest of the world thinks that The United States of America has gone soft is when the shit will hit the fan.
At least Hillary understands the use of power, too bad she only uses it for political wrangling. It would be interesting to see her as President. (And not just for the entertainment of seeing Bill Clinton as the "First Gentleman" har har har - talk about Irony.)
But, like I predicted before, I'm pretty sure that the cynical side of America will come out to vote in November, and put the crusty 'ol white guy in office. I don't know if that's for the best of the world or not. Regardless, almost anything will be better than Dubya at this point. (Yes, even Kucinich.)
This is tricky Leber. I guess I put a difference between what I'd like to see and what the best option on the table is. Obama's policies may be in many cases against my own beliefs, but I'm okay with that. For one I would rather see him with the power of the #1 country than McCain, because I think Obama is pretty human as far as politicians go, and (at least for now) seems to be doing this for the US and not himself. I'll trust him to make decisions that benefit the country more than my choices would benefit me.
Really I guess the problem stems from my wishy washy liberal/conservative swayings. Yes I'm against wealth distribution, but I can understand and accept that the unfortunately born or (to a lesser extent) just lazy people "deserve" some moolah. If there were a candidate with my views and Obama's character, he would win my vote definitely. But with the situation we're in, I'll let someone I trust do what may actually be better for the country that what is probably better for me.
---
And if all of that is rambling and doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry, and go gentle. This is what I get for being a young person and getting involved with politics!
Really I guess the problem stems from my wishy washy liberal/conservative swayings. Yes I'm against wealth distribution, but I can understand and accept that the unfortunately born or (to a lesser extent) just lazy people "deserve" some moolah. If there were a candidate with my views and Obama's character, he would win my vote definitely. But with the situation we're in, I'll let someone I trust do what may actually be better for the country that what is probably better for me.
---
And if all of that is rambling and doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry, and go gentle. This is what I get for being a young person and getting involved with politics!
Amen LeberMac. You've said it all (at least as far as foreign policy). Just one point: The shit did hit the fan, for exactly the reason you said. Our enemies (who are our enemies for no reason other than that we're powerful, not anything we've done to them) got used to a president who bombed an empty pharmaceutical factory so there'd be a headline other than Monica Lewinsky, that just like the Japanese in 1941, they expected us to yell a bit and take no meaningful action. Good thing both Japan and Al Qaeda were wrong.
Rogue (if you're reading): You have fallen for the biggest lie about global warming: "Every scientist believes..." Never believe a sentence that starts with that. The "consensus" is completely artificial. Even the supposed 2000+ scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports didn't all agree, and some even had to threaten lawsuits to have their names removed, since it misrepresented their research and opinions.
And reading the chart isn't so easy, either. First off, the data is disputed. Also, the interpretation is disputed. For example, the hockey stick graph ignores the Medieval Warm Period, which many scientists say was warmer than today, completely. Another example, the famous CO2 graph featured in "An Inconvenient Former Next President" is, as Algore mentions but fails to elaborate, very complicated. For reasons not completely known, CO2 tends to lag behind temperature, rather than follow it. The two prevailing theories on this are variations in biological activity in the oceans, and the fact that CO2 is one of the few substances that is more soluble in cold water than warm. A warm ocean releases CO2, a cool one absorbs it. It also takes much longer to warm a body of water than one of land, meaning that ocean warming can't be due to a few decades of warming. The amount the graphs should be adjusted for the urban heat island effect is also disputed. That effect is more dramatic in my little town of Rexburg, ID than the entire observed warming claimed by the IPCC.
Here's where a lot more uncertainty is: We can't take a direct temperature of the Earth, not a reliable one, so all the graphs are based on temperature "anomalies." There's a website with great pictures I'll have to find, but many of the official thermometers used in the IPCC study were placed far from civilization, but are now in the middle of city suburbs. They used to be measured directly, requiring opening the box (which will slightly affect the temperature), but now they're measured by remote. If they're not meticulously maintained, just a couple cobwebs can turn them into heat boxes. We maintain ours mostly pretty well, but it's not so good in other countries. In the former USSR, for example, often temperature reports would be faked to seem colder, so more resources would be sent to an area. We can't reliably verify those reports, but now if the reports are being sent accurately, they'll be warmer than they used to be. Also, satellite and weather balloon data don't always agree with ground data, and there's supposed to be more warming up there.
Also, there's dispute over whether global warming is even a bad thing.
I could go on and on, and probably will later, but you get the idea. Even if anthropogenic global warming proves to be every bit the disaster Algore says it is, There Is No Consensus.
Rogue (if you're reading): You have fallen for the biggest lie about global warming: "Every scientist believes..." Never believe a sentence that starts with that. The "consensus" is completely artificial. Even the supposed 2000+ scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports didn't all agree, and some even had to threaten lawsuits to have their names removed, since it misrepresented their research and opinions.
And reading the chart isn't so easy, either. First off, the data is disputed. Also, the interpretation is disputed. For example, the hockey stick graph ignores the Medieval Warm Period, which many scientists say was warmer than today, completely. Another example, the famous CO2 graph featured in "An Inconvenient Former Next President" is, as Algore mentions but fails to elaborate, very complicated. For reasons not completely known, CO2 tends to lag behind temperature, rather than follow it. The two prevailing theories on this are variations in biological activity in the oceans, and the fact that CO2 is one of the few substances that is more soluble in cold water than warm. A warm ocean releases CO2, a cool one absorbs it. It also takes much longer to warm a body of water than one of land, meaning that ocean warming can't be due to a few decades of warming. The amount the graphs should be adjusted for the urban heat island effect is also disputed. That effect is more dramatic in my little town of Rexburg, ID than the entire observed warming claimed by the IPCC.
Here's where a lot more uncertainty is: We can't take a direct temperature of the Earth, not a reliable one, so all the graphs are based on temperature "anomalies." There's a website with great pictures I'll have to find, but many of the official thermometers used in the IPCC study were placed far from civilization, but are now in the middle of city suburbs. They used to be measured directly, requiring opening the box (which will slightly affect the temperature), but now they're measured by remote. If they're not meticulously maintained, just a couple cobwebs can turn them into heat boxes. We maintain ours mostly pretty well, but it's not so good in other countries. In the former USSR, for example, often temperature reports would be faked to seem colder, so more resources would be sent to an area. We can't reliably verify those reports, but now if the reports are being sent accurately, they'll be warmer than they used to be. Also, satellite and weather balloon data don't always agree with ground data, and there's supposed to be more warming up there.
Also, there's dispute over whether global warming is even a bad thing.
I could go on and on, and probably will later, but you get the idea. Even if anthropogenic global warming proves to be every bit the disaster Algore says it is, There Is No Consensus.
Rogue didn't say "Every scientist" but I can understand you not bothering with the full quote.
Rogue said: "Every respectable scientist, every climatologist, every geophysicist, and pretty much everybody in the scientific community who knows how to read a chart," which is actually more offensive than my paraphrasing.
Chaos, comparing Al-Quaeda to Imperial Japan is a pretty silly mistake to make. One is a terrorist network, while the other was a sovereign nation. One aimed to hurt civilians and instill terror in the hearts of US citizens (and they achieved that), the other aimed expressly to cripple US influence in the Pacific Ocean, and targeted Pearl Harbor for that. The fact that in both cases a lot of people died, remains. And I'm not trying to glorify or mystify Imperial Japan, just mentioning the differences.
So don't confuse these two things.
So don't confuse these two things.
I'm sorry toshiro, but you may have misunderstood me. Of course there's not much comparison between Imperial Japan and Al-Qaeda. I was comparing U.S. attitudes, and appearing soft, and two different groups misunderestimating America. That's all.
Also, who is this "Butters" everyone keeps referring to?
Also, who is this "Butters" everyone keeps referring to?
Hey, here's a must read article by Orson Scott Card: Intelligent Conversation.
It's purpose is a review of Ben Stein's movie (which I haven't seen), but it goes on to talk about the politicization of science in general, specifically global warming and darwinism. The global warming bit is relevant to this discussion, and the darwinism bit is interesting, too. In case you're already groaning "another religious nut who wants Intelligent Design taught in school," he describes "intelligent design" as "an unprovable hypothesis," with "no place in science education" in the article. So don't worry about that. This is an excellent article (from a Democrat, no less).
It's purpose is a review of Ben Stein's movie (which I haven't seen), but it goes on to talk about the politicization of science in general, specifically global warming and darwinism. The global warming bit is relevant to this discussion, and the darwinism bit is interesting, too. In case you're already groaning "another religious nut who wants Intelligent Design taught in school," he describes "intelligent design" as "an unprovable hypothesis," with "no place in science education" in the article. So don't worry about that. This is an excellent article (from a Democrat, no less).
But you are comparing them if you relate them in the way you did, Chaos. That is what I took exception to.
And not a terribly intelligent exception at that: while correct, the distinction you draw between AQ and Japan is irrelevant to PC's point, that being that when an enemy of the U.S. believes us to be a paper tiger, they will risk attacking us.
What their nature is, what their goals are, and what they do to achieve them are irrelevant differences here--his only point was that when they believe us to be weak, they will believe that attacking the U.S. (however they do so) will result in a net benefit for them (whoever and whatever they are) and their goals (whatever those may be). He went on to conclude that, be the enemy a bunch of terrorists or a nation, making them believe that the harm our response would cause to their interests would outweigh the gains realized by any attack is key to our security.
How does the general value of deterrence admit of distinctions such as those you draw between AQ and Japan?
[edit]Actually, I just thought of a huge difference based on the nature of the enemy and its goals--we'll see if you tease it out. It isn't articulated or even really implied in what you've said thus far, so I'll wait and see rather than simply retracting :) [/edit]
What their nature is, what their goals are, and what they do to achieve them are irrelevant differences here--his only point was that when they believe us to be weak, they will believe that attacking the U.S. (however they do so) will result in a net benefit for them (whoever and whatever they are) and their goals (whatever those may be). He went on to conclude that, be the enemy a bunch of terrorists or a nation, making them believe that the harm our response would cause to their interests would outweigh the gains realized by any attack is key to our security.
How does the general value of deterrence admit of distinctions such as those you draw between AQ and Japan?
[edit]Actually, I just thought of a huge difference based on the nature of the enemy and its goals--we'll see if you tease it out. It isn't articulated or even really implied in what you've said thus far, so I'll wait and see rather than simply retracting :) [/edit]
For imperial Japan, it was important to cripple and/or dissuade the most dangerous force they would have to reckon with, having beaten Russia soundly before with no immediate threat of them coming back. Thus, they struck at Pearl Harbor, where to my knowledge, the larger part of the US pacific fleet was believed to be stationed.
Of course, the reasons for this was that they wanted to cover their invasion of China and other east-asian countries without having to fear a threat behind them, an invasion which in turn would have provided them with natural resources such as oil and rubber, must-have requirements for an industrial nation, especially a budding one like Japan back then (1870-1940).
As far as I know, Al-Qaeda is not looking to protect their own invasion of a country in order to gain control of natural resources. They relocate their focal points not based on territory, but based on where they can strike best.
Also, Al-Qaeda does not intend to gain respect from other nations as a nation, unlike Japan did.
This might not be what you thought to be the main difference, but to me it is, and an important difference at that. Important enough to write a post in an internet forum thread, at least, which does not say much.
Of course, the reasons for this was that they wanted to cover their invasion of China and other east-asian countries without having to fear a threat behind them, an invasion which in turn would have provided them with natural resources such as oil and rubber, must-have requirements for an industrial nation, especially a budding one like Japan back then (1870-1940).
As far as I know, Al-Qaeda is not looking to protect their own invasion of a country in order to gain control of natural resources. They relocate their focal points not based on territory, but based on where they can strike best.
Also, Al-Qaeda does not intend to gain respect from other nations as a nation, unlike Japan did.
This might not be what you thought to be the main difference, but to me it is, and an important difference at that. Important enough to write a post in an internet forum thread, at least, which does not say much.
How do any of those differences you just listed undermine PC's deterrence point, that "if [insert enemy here] thinks we're unlikely to strike back hard, they're more likely to attack us"?
On Global Warming:
I do not believe we cause it. To think so is quite arrogant. The Earth goes through natural cycles of hot and cold. Look at the period of the dinosaurs and the Ice Ages. However, that is not to say that humanity has no impact whatsoever. While we cannot create or destroy nature, we sure as hell can push it along in it's process. Is it a fad or not like "Global Cooling"? I don't know, but I do know that being a bit more conscientious about the environment would not hurt me any.
On Foreign Policy:
There are two extremes in this country, the Doves and the Hawks. Fortunately, for every time it truly really mattered in our history, we had the perfect mixture of both as President when we needed them. Of course, there is a time to talk and a time to reason, but if a person starts swinging his fists at you or is going to his car for his gun, you hit back. You hit back so hard that onlookers say "I am not messing with that guy". Which is really how it plays out in global politics. Self interested? Sure, the US is. You're deluding yourself if you believe you don't do everything to benefit yourself (small hint: people who volunteer and do it for the good feeling of helping others are still doing it for the good feeling. See?). But overall, we've been pretty even handed on things.
On Iraq:
Stupid idea. Not for the typical WMD argument etc etc. Mostly because we had and have one war, and that is with Al Qaeda. And right now, we have had to split up forces to cope with this. While yes, the war has *now* morphed to a training ground in Iraq, that is more time for them focusing on bombing the hell out of that country and not bombing ours. There have been what, two attacks since 911 in the Western world? Madrid and London, both small, both more impromptu (in comparison, again, to jetliners). If you truly believe in the war in Iraq at this point, believe in that the soldiers who volunteered to serve are taking the hits so folks at home don't need to worry about it. it sucks, but face it, it's reality. And it's not conscription.
On the economy:
Don't know enough economics to get deeply into this. I do know, however, that the US economy is still in mid shift to a new form of industry, and we need to make sure we complete that shift and dominate it. Telecomm is one thing I'm thinking about.
On education:
Look, yes, schools vary and many dont get the funding they need. And many get the funding and squander it. The thing is, to me, the first few years are what matter most. Elementary school. Kindergarten to sixth grade. After that, it's about motivation. I'm not in college at the moment, but I'm still teaching myself college level C++. If you're not motivated to learn, then you simply won't care and won't do it. And most kids aren't.
On Obama (ha ha):
McCain promises to continue things as Bush did. It's not the foreign policy that bugs me so much as it is the domestic. I mean, don't give public money to parents who want to send their kids to private school. Just take a percentage off their taxes and bar their kids from going to public school. What they do with the money is up to them and their conscience. Hillary is the sneakiest, dirtiest most two faced politician I have seen... I think ever. And it's so blatant too. I do not have friends I cannot trust, I do not work for bosses I do not trust, and I would not vote for a person to lead this country if I did not trust them to *not* fuck us all over.
PS - I'm not sure where that puts me in the political spectrum. Any opinions?
I do not believe we cause it. To think so is quite arrogant. The Earth goes through natural cycles of hot and cold. Look at the period of the dinosaurs and the Ice Ages. However, that is not to say that humanity has no impact whatsoever. While we cannot create or destroy nature, we sure as hell can push it along in it's process. Is it a fad or not like "Global Cooling"? I don't know, but I do know that being a bit more conscientious about the environment would not hurt me any.
On Foreign Policy:
There are two extremes in this country, the Doves and the Hawks. Fortunately, for every time it truly really mattered in our history, we had the perfect mixture of both as President when we needed them. Of course, there is a time to talk and a time to reason, but if a person starts swinging his fists at you or is going to his car for his gun, you hit back. You hit back so hard that onlookers say "I am not messing with that guy". Which is really how it plays out in global politics. Self interested? Sure, the US is. You're deluding yourself if you believe you don't do everything to benefit yourself (small hint: people who volunteer and do it for the good feeling of helping others are still doing it for the good feeling. See?). But overall, we've been pretty even handed on things.
On Iraq:
Stupid idea. Not for the typical WMD argument etc etc. Mostly because we had and have one war, and that is with Al Qaeda. And right now, we have had to split up forces to cope with this. While yes, the war has *now* morphed to a training ground in Iraq, that is more time for them focusing on bombing the hell out of that country and not bombing ours. There have been what, two attacks since 911 in the Western world? Madrid and London, both small, both more impromptu (in comparison, again, to jetliners). If you truly believe in the war in Iraq at this point, believe in that the soldiers who volunteered to serve are taking the hits so folks at home don't need to worry about it. it sucks, but face it, it's reality. And it's not conscription.
On the economy:
Don't know enough economics to get deeply into this. I do know, however, that the US economy is still in mid shift to a new form of industry, and we need to make sure we complete that shift and dominate it. Telecomm is one thing I'm thinking about.
On education:
Look, yes, schools vary and many dont get the funding they need. And many get the funding and squander it. The thing is, to me, the first few years are what matter most. Elementary school. Kindergarten to sixth grade. After that, it's about motivation. I'm not in college at the moment, but I'm still teaching myself college level C++. If you're not motivated to learn, then you simply won't care and won't do it. And most kids aren't.
On Obama (ha ha):
McCain promises to continue things as Bush did. It's not the foreign policy that bugs me so much as it is the domestic. I mean, don't give public money to parents who want to send their kids to private school. Just take a percentage off their taxes and bar their kids from going to public school. What they do with the money is up to them and their conscience. Hillary is the sneakiest, dirtiest most two faced politician I have seen... I think ever. And it's so blatant too. I do not have friends I cannot trust, I do not work for bosses I do not trust, and I would not vote for a person to lead this country if I did not trust them to *not* fuck us all over.
PS - I'm not sure where that puts me in the political spectrum. Any opinions?
Moldy, that put you squarely in the "Doesn't matter because this newb is too young to vote and will change his mind fourteen or fifteen times over before he is." party.
Trolling skills are getting a little rusty there. But it's okay. I suppose I would be bitter too if I chose physics as a career!