09 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 161st comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
Runter said:
I'll wait til he's actually president before I use that title.


You are right, I should have said President-Elect. It was a poor attempt at a joke either way.


As long as it doesn't end up President-Re-Elect in 4 years.
09 Nov, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 162nd comment:
Votes: 0
Ok, I'll ask the question that everyone talking about invading/bombing/spanking Iran refuses to seriously think about….

What makes us so much more qualified to possess nuclear technology than the Iranians? We didn't rush over to bomb China to stop them from getting it. We didn't bomb Pakistan or India when they tested their bombs. We didn't invade France when they (repeatedly) tested theirs.

Oh yeah, I forgot that we only believe in freedom for ourselves. If other people want to govern their own lands in some way that isn't just like the US of A, they're evil and need to be stopped.

Are we also going to hunt down and stop countries from developing lasers? How about satellites, those evil non-reresentative-democracy gateways to hell could spy on us from orbit! Better make sure their medical programs dont' evolve beyond penacillion either, since they could start hacking on biological weapons – just like we are.

Yeah, it's scary that a bunch of people who don't really like us, and who think differently than we do, are going to get weapons that might actually be able to hurt us. That's why we have this thing called diplomacy, to try to get along with the neighbors, rather than trying to force them down so we can bully them into doing what we want.

*shrug*
09 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 163rd comment:
Votes: 0
The difference is it is in our interest to have those weapons and its not in our interest for them to have them. We're in a position not only to demand they not have them, but to prevent them from having them. Although, It doesn't really matter. Luckily for us Israel really knows the score even if we won't act. They'll bomb any facility they see fit to protect their people.

If you want to compare Iran to France and India, that's fine. I just think it's what you call defending the indefensible.

I don't just think we're better than them. I know we are.


And yes, terrorist sponsoring nations like Iran developing nuclear weapons is exactly the same as prevent penicillin and laser technology from going forward.

Edit: I think it all comes down to your view on Iran. I don't see anything wrong with taking steps like bombing their facilities to prevent them from being able to develop weapons that pose an immediate threat to us. They're not some equal nation. They're an enemy.
09 Nov, 2008, Tyche wrote in the 164th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
What makes us so much more qualified to possess nuclear technology than the Iranians?


Because they are a bitter people clinging to their false prophets and nuclear weapons.
09 Nov, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 165th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
The difference is it is in our interest to have those weapons and its not in our interest for them to have them. We're in a position not only to demand they not have them, but to prevent them from having them.


Ok, the schoolyard bully argument. Not in any way morally valid, but certainly enforceable.

Runter said:
If you want to compare Iran to France and India, that's fine. I just think it's what you call defending the indefensible.


Because, we're so obviously superior to "them furiners"? Again, I so real evidence of this, but ok…. that's the Flag Waving argument. If you *know* we're better, good for you! Belief is important in any religion, even science. :)

Runter said:
And yes, terrorist sponsoring nations like Iran developing nuclear weapons is exactly the same as prevent penicillin and laser technology from going forward.


Hmmm, but the USA supported terrorism… oh wait, we didn't call it that back then. We called it supporting insurgent freedom fighters who were trying to overthrow an "evil" communist regieme. If we're "at war" with terrorists, why don't we invade Ireland? The IRA has used car-bombing and killed plenty of innocent bystanders in their efforts…. oh yeah, we like Ireland, so it's ok.

Tyche said:
Because they are a bitter people clinging to their false prophets and nuclear weapons.


That reminds me of a Babylon 5 quote, for some reason. :)

Sheridan and Kosh are talking about the Narn/Centauri war and Kosh says,
Quote
Kosh: "They are a dying race, we should let them die."
Sheridan: "Which, the Narn, or the Centauri?"
Kosh: "Yes."


Hmmm, like it or not, every nation on the planet is comprised of the same species, and however much we like to THINK we're hot shit, we've only been gathereing together in villages for about 1.4% of our history, and only about .001% of the history of life on this planet. Thus, I suspect that the vast majority of people around the world probably tend to think the same way as one another. The average person on the street is mostly concerned about keeping their family fed, not getting shot, hopefully muddling through so their kids have a better life than they did.

So that leaves the leaders of the nations as the only criteria for deciding whom is better than whom. So, the guy who promises more and convinces their population his way will work becomes the leader. In some cases, he points to holy books. In others, it's tax refunds. In still others, it's the people with guns who support him.

Again, I don't see any inherent qualification for who gets to hold the big guns.

This is all hypothetical, of course, since the fact is the schoolyard bully principle works. We have guns, so we'll stop anyone else from getting them unless the OTHER people who have guns too push the issue. That used to be the USSR, now it's China. Thus, as long as our agenda and China's agenda don't conflict, we're good.
09 Nov, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 166th comment:
Votes: 0
Funny thing is, the Iranians have some pretty
good reasons to be mad at the US. Poke around
a little at the history of the US intervening
in Iranian domestic affairs. Then try to imagine
how "real Americans" would feel if another
country had done that to them, and now
insisted on forbidding them from developing
some technology.

And now look at the hotshot bigstick cowboy
approach favored by some folks toward Iran,
and consider whether that's the best plan, or
whether a little chillout and diplomacy is
in order before we make things even worse than
we have already made them.

Having said that, Iran must be dissuaded in
every legal way from developing nuclear weapons.
This is not because they are somehow too
infantile for them, nor because we are superior
enough to judge their worthiness. It's because
it's a moral green light to competing regional
powers to go ahead with WMD development, and
millennia of local competition and antagonisms
would suddenly have opportunity for a thousand
"Cuban missile crises", and eventually one of
them would go the wrong way.

The reality is that in 500 years, everyone has
nuclear weapons. Slowing down their proliferation
now is about giving us all a chance to establish
a global community that minimizes the likelihood
of nukes flying.

And of course, there's the Hamas angle. We really
don't need terrorists with access to fissile materials.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
09 Nov, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 167th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Slowing down their proliferation
now is about giving us all a chance to establish
a global community that minimizes the likelihood
of nukes flying.


THAT is probably the only sensible reason I can see for us trying to keep our toys out of everyone else's toy chests. Acknowledging that we *ALSO* need to grow up and learn to work with the rest of the world too. :)

Terrorism doesn't happen because people like terror. It happens because people are desperate, and see no other way to force change. Invoking the "T" word and rattling sabers doesn't solve the problem any more than using the "C" word did in the McCarthy era.

I don't think it's our job to be Team America: World Police. I don't think we have the patience to come to understand all the issues that drive people to do what they feel they must do. I think the best (and the most!) we should do is try and help contain things so the involved parties can sort themselves out without killing their neighbors in the process.
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 168th comment:
Votes: 0
I think it's kind of ironic to see somebody complain about neo-conservatism being used as a nasty word, when this same somebody runs around lumping democrats into the "nasty word" of socialism.
09 Nov, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 169th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I think it's kind of ironic to see somebody complain about neo-conservatism being used as a nasty word, when this same somebody runs around lumping democrats into the "nasty word" of socialism.

I can agree with the irony.

I warned people about the designs of "Project for a New American Century" back in 90's (1998, I believe, but it's been a while), and the neo-cons have since accomplished a lot of what their objectives were then. Neo-cons are not true Conservatives, nor are their views the only Conservative views.

I also find it ironic you are placing quotes around "nasty word" when discussing Socialism.

I take you it you find Socialism to be a viable and useful governmental system, and not a scourge on individual rights and freedoms, as well as a detriment to the progress of a society. That is ironic.

Socialism, hell a lot of "isms", work well in ideal environments, in minor communities (with low populations), or in small doses.

The human animal is not ideal, our societies are not some homogeneous "hives" with a like-mind mentality, and many humans will do the absolute least they can to survive. Given those conditions, "pure" Socialism fails as an economic model for large societies.

If you can provide a historic example of a large society (over 200 million or so population) that gives the model you see as a Socialism that could not be looked upon by a large number of citizens in this country (the USA) as a "nasty word" I would be very interested in examining the model.
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 170th comment:
Votes: 0
I never said anything about what I think about "socialism". The main reason is that the word is basically devoid of meaning these days. Give me specific measures and I can comment on them, but nothing meaningful can be said about "socialism". In the meantime, please try to not jump to so many conclusions about my beliefs when I didn't do anything other than point out a form of hypocrisy. :smile:
09 Nov, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 171st comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I never said anything about what I think about "socialism". The main reason is that the word is basically devoid of meaning these days. Give me specific measures and I can comment on them, but nothing meaningful can be said about "socialism". In the meantime, please try to not jump to so many conclusions about my beliefs when I didn't do anything other than point out a form of hypocrisy. :smile:

It came from your use of quotation marks around the second usage of "nasty word". You did not place quotes around the first one, but did around the second.

But to skip having to infer meaning, a simple question:

Do you find Socialism to be a viable economic system for the USA?
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 172nd comment:
Votes: 0
I could be mistaken but I believe that I just told you that I think the word is devoid of meaning and I cannot meaningfully say anything about it for that reason. So I'm not sure what answer you are expecting to get with your question.
09 Nov, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 173rd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I could be mistaken but I believe that I just told you that I think the word is devoid of meaning and I cannot meaningfully say anything about it for that reason. So I'm not sure what answer you are expecting to get with your question.

Then let's find a definition of Socialism:
Quote
Merriam-Webster Socialism
so·cial·ism
Function:
noun
Date:
1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


In simple terms, do you believe an economic system based on egalitarian ideals and the collective ownership of production by the government is a "good thing", or even an acceptable form for the USA?
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 174th comment:
Votes: 0
You realize, of course, that the USA has already done point (1) to some extent (and by Republicans, no less) with the bailout. Point (3) isn't really a form of government so I assume it's not what you're asking about. Point (2) is presumably not what people actually mean when they say that Obama or democrats are "socialist"; if it is they are somewhat delusional.

To say it a third and hopefully final time, I'm not interested in discussing these gross generalities. I should have made it clear that if I think the word is devoid of meaning, a simple (and somewhat simplistic) dictionary definition would not solve the problem. If you want to ask me about a specific policy or measure, that is fine, but there's no point continuing to press on this silly labeling of "socialism". I'm not sure why you find it so necessary to box people into intellectually limiting labels, for that matter.

Let me give you an example of why this is such a meaningless question: people use "socialism" to mean everything from the French socialist party to the Chinese pseudo-communist-capitalist government to the Cuban government. These three are extremely different, so how can one possibly make any meaningful comment about the word "socialism"?
09 Nov, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 175th comment:
Votes: 0
Not to drag this out, but I feel it's worth noting that socialist ideas don't have to be associated exclusively with a government. Any sufficiently powerful entity will do. In this case, I'm thinking of the rise of the corporation, during the industrial revolution.

Depending on where you live, you might have seen tract or row housing… long streets of nearly identical houses that share common walls? In many cases, these were company-built housing blocks, which were provided for their workers (and their families). Back around the turn of the 20th century, it wasn't uncommon for families to move into a big city, where the head of the household would get a job for one of the growing corporations (often textile mills, mines, or refining plants). They'd hire in for a relatively low wage, but free housing and health care. Later, they'd get to work by hopping on board the company truck, which drove between the housing units and the factory, and the higher ups would often get a company car to use.

As the years go by, we're seeing a gradual merger of the mega-corporation and the government. Right now, they have an API known as the lobbyist. Another API would be the acceptance of donations by political parties, from corporate sponsors. Eventually, I expect the veil to be lifted and we'll simply vote for candidates from the "Coca-cola" party, or the "Microsoft" party. Probably not in this century, but quite possibly in the next.
09 Nov, 2008, lspiderl wrote in the 176th comment:
Votes: 0
Wow sooo much to catch up on in such a short tiem lol

first let me sya im honored to be able to participate in anyway with a great group of edcucated and well spoken individuals like all of you here
we may not all agree on all things but i think we all agree that an honest open debate is both good for the mind and soul as well as good very cathartic

that said id like to respond to one comment at this time

quixadhal said:
Terrorism doesn't happen because people like terror. It happens because people are desperate, and see no other way to force change. Invoking the "T" word and rattling sabers doesn't solve the problem any more than using the "C" word did in the McCarthy era.



this is true only in so far as teh low level terrorists
those who follow there leaders beleiving there doing whats required for god and country

but the big fish higher up the food chain dont care about religion or about there country they care about POWER pure and absolute
saddams sons would walk into a wedding and have there soldiers hold the groom at gunpoint while they raped the bride and more often than not would then kill the groom and the bride as well if she complained
thats jsut one example of sooooo many terrorists they do it FOR the power they feel when inflicting terror on others
09 Nov, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 177th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
To say it a third and hopefully final time, I'm not interested in discussing these gross generalities.

That must be why there are three paragraphs that deal with your views on the bailout, not accepting a definition and then providing an example; because you are not interested in dicussing the issue.

It was a simple question.

You posted about your view of the irony of a person not seeing neo-conservatism as bad, but the person seeing socialism in that manner. This would infer that you either see both in a negative manner, or that you see one as superior to the other.

I'll ask again, so that you can provide attacks against a party, disregard provided definitions (without providing your own or stating specifically why the definition was unacceptable), then you can provide examples, while all the while stating that you now do not want to discuss your views on the topic to which you had replied.

Using the given definition, would you believe an economic system based on egalitarian ideals and the collective ownership of production by the government is a "good thing", or even an acceptable form for the USA?
09 Nov, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 178th comment:
Votes: 0
lspiderl said:
but the big fish higher up the food chain dont care about religion or about there country they care about POWER pure and absolute


True enough. However, Saddam (and his sons) were never terrorists – no matter how much the propoganda machine, or the media, would like to pin that label on them. They were despots, and they abused their position of absolute authority in many horrible ways. That does NOT make them terrorists though.

Like the use of the word Communist during the cold war, the word Terrorist has been applied to anyone who does anything we currently consider wrong.

The RIAA would like to apply the label "Thief" to anyone who downloads music illegally too, and that label would also be incorrect, since they aren't stealing property, they are violating copyrights. But "Thief" sounds better, and it's easier to get people up in arms against "Thieves", than against "Copyright Violators".

It's much easier to get the public behind fighting "Terrorism", than "Invading a soverign nation to remove a despotic leader from power".

Just to be clear, I'm not defending or condemning the actions that were (and continue to be) taken. I'm simply condemning the act of trying to label everything under the sun with a term that is often inaccurate, and is only being used to play off the emotions of the public. Spreading FUD is not a good way to garner long-term support for anything.
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 179th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
That must be why there are three paragraphs that deal with your views on the bailout

Are you referring to a different thread? I believe I only had one sentence referring to the bailout here…

Mabus said:
You posted about your view of the irony of a person not seeing neo-conservatism as bad, but the person seeing socialism in that manner. This would infer that you either see both in a negative manner, or that you see one as superior to the other.

I thought I already clarified this. I was remarking on the hypocrisy about complaining about a label and then using one gleefully and repetitively.

As for your other question: I apologize that I failed to make this clear earlier, so let me try to be as direct as possible: because I think that your question is all but devoid of meaning due to talking about such gross generalities, I am not going to answer your question unless you give me specific measures or policies.

I cannot provide my own definition of socialism because (a) you are the one asking me to agree or disagree with some position, so I have no business redefining your question, and (b) I do not think it is meaningful to define socialism given how diluted the word has become. I gave you three examples of groups that are considered socialist, and yet are all extremely different; are you asking me to agree or disagree with all three (and more) as a single block?

I am unsure why this labeling game is so utterly important to you. I'm getting a little tired of playing it, though, so I'm going to try to follow my own advice and just start ignoring this if you keep asking a question I've told you is devoid of meaning to me.
09 Nov, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 180th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Mabus said:
That must be why there are three paragraphs that deal with your views on the bailout

Are you referring to a different thread? I believe I only had one sentence referring to the bailout here…

Good selective editing and taking out of context.

The sentence contained three statements, each referencing a specific part of the previous post. The bailout was contained in the first paragraph of your post, the lack of agreeing to or providing a defintion in the second paragraph and then the famed "I cannot discuss this intelligently so after discussing it I want to say I never wanted to discuss it" in the last paragraph.

DavidHaley said:
Mabus said:
You posted about your view of the irony of a person not seeing neo-conservatism as bad, but the person seeing socialism in that manner. This would infer that you either see both in a negative manner, or that you see one as superior to the other.

I thought I already clarified this. I was remarking on the hypocrisy about complaining about a label and then using one gleefully and repetitively.

No, it was never clarified.

You did dodge the issue by stating:
"In the meantime, please try to not jump to so many conclusions about my beliefs when I didn't do anything other than point out a form of hypocrisy."

So since you did not explain why one usage of a derogatory was in quotes, and the other not; nor why one was acceptable as a negative in your view (neo-conservatism) and your views on the second (socilaism, and whether positive, indifferent, or also negative in your view) I asked a simple question about your beliefs on Socialism.

You then stated there was no clear meaning or definition. I provided a definition from an accepted source (Merriam-Webster) and asked, using that definition what your views on Socialism (as defeined) were.

You are still evading, avoiding and dodging. I cannot fathom why, really.

If you approve of, or believe in, Socialism (as defined) be proud and say so. There is no harm in belief or disagreement for/over various economic systems.

Of you find both Socialism and Neo-Conservatism as both somehow negative then that would make the "irony" you pointed out to the other poster make sense as well.

Just seeking a clarification.
160.0/229