http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
Originally published 05:45 a.m., January 12, 2009, updated 05:45 a.m., January 12, 2009

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama's transition team said Mrs. Browner's membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

"The Commission for a Sustainable World Society includes world leaders from a variety of political parties, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who succeeded Tony Blair, in serving as vice president of the convening organization," Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

"Carol Browner was chosen to help the president-elect coordinate energy and climate policy because she understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies; cooperation between federal, state and local governments; and partnership with the private sector," Mr. Shapiro said in an e-mail.

Mrs. Browner ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton. Until she was tapped for the Obama administration, she was on the board of directors for the National Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress and former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

Her name has been removed from the Gore organization's Web site list of directors, and the Audubon Society issued a press release about her departure from that organization.

What kind of socialism? The European derivative of capitalism, or the property seizing derivative of royalism?

Also, I find it funny that the article tries to use the term 'global governance' as an epithet.

Also, out of this entire article, which includes the mention of Browner's directorship of the Audubon Society, the League of Conservative Voters, and the Center for American Progress, you thought that the most important point was an ancillary tie to Socialist International?

It's going to take a while for America to get over the fifties, isn't it?

Obviously if this person is a 'czar' then she's russian and so must be a filthy commie...



OT but should it not be a czarina?

SOCIALISTS!

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Obviously if this person is a 'czar' then she's russian and so must be a filthy commie...



OT but should it not be a czarina?

Browner, Czar of all the Environments!

It's funny people are still claiming what Obama is not. Obama is pretty much exactly the same as Bush.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

It's going to take a while for America to get over the fifties, isn't it?

Sigh... change 'while' to 'never' and you've got it. Social responsibilty has been there in some form since we climbed down the trees and left the forests, so Marx has no real claim to it. It's just a shame that a large percentage of the US population treat it as some kind embaressing social (no pun intended) disease or weakness. Who needs Vampires, Werewolves or blood thirsty manics, just release the 'Tax' monster on them and see the panic! Hmm, perhaps Orson Wells should of done a radio broadcast on an intended tax increase rather than War of the Worlds, that would of caused real panic!

Hey America is a lot better than it was in the 50's. Mod edit: Comments about real world religious groups may be inflammatory and need to made with caution. And racial slurs are kept to Online gaming voice chat. Things were really really bad in those days......

Back on target. "Mrs. Browner ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton". She served her country faithfully already, So I don't care if she belives in The Great Golden Whale of Shang-Karaba. The days of Witch trials are behind us, right where they belong.

Socialism is pretty cool tho

Ghetto_Fight wrote:It's funny people are still claiming what Obama is not. Obama is pretty much exactly the same as Bush.

This is a pretty silly statement.

Obviously if this person is a 'czar' then she's russian and so must be a filthy commie...

White army?

Thats great golden whale of Karaba-Shang to you buddy!

In a "free" country. There should be the right to any political belief and party. The 2 party system proves, to me, this is not so in this country.

It is ok in a free country to have differing polical beliefs, to discuss those beliefs, and even vehemently disagree. The politically correct movement in this country shows again, to me, we are not free(You don't discuss politics)

The rise of socialism proves Karl Marx right. His idea that the bourgeois middle class would grow so decadent that they would no longer wish to be troubled with running their own country. That they will turn to the country saying lead us, thus creating the most effective tyrrany.

We increasingly ask our national government to do what we should be doing ourselves, either indivdually or on a local governmental level.

This argument is like everything else in life, a matter of perspective. The downside to this is that many, in this day of the thouroughly self involved individual, lack perspective. They haven't or won't walk a mile in anothers shoes.

So this leaves me to my own Humble Opinion, that a responsible & self reliant person will view socialism as wrong or bad. While a decadent individual, that has become dependent on the system and luxuries it provides, will see socialism as the next logical step in social engineering.

Do my statments have a bias against socialism? Yes.
Is that wrong? No.
Do I believe a move towards a one world government is moving towards an unbreakable totalitarian regime?Yes.
Will I be alive when it happens? Probably not.
Is my point of view the only relevant one? No.
How do we determine which course is the correct one?
Which is the right course is going to be determined by how you were raised and how you choose to live your life.


This old man is gonna shut-up now

except that Marcist doctrine states that ultimately all systems will end with communism which is extremely unlikely given its performance in the 20th century.

So this leaves me to my own Humble Opinion, that a responsible & self reliant person will view socialism as wrong or bad. While a decadent individual, that has become dependent on the system and luxuries it provides, will see socialism as the next logical step in social engineering.

your own 'Humble Opinion' that you just happened to subconsciously capitalize. Amazingly enough, most occupants of socialist countries aren't a bunch of lazy lay abouts!

I stand corrected on the Great Whale .

I agree on most points but. "that a responsible & self reliant person will view socialism as wrong or bad."

I disagree with people, (being center-left myself) But I don't think people opposed to my point of view are sloths while I'm somhow better because of my way of government. I know a lot of people in socialist counties who are just as hard working as anybody else.

I'll argue with right leaning people all day but in the end we both want what's best ad have the common goal of peace and prosperity.

Bias against a form of government is fine and dandy. Calling people who use that form of government decandant, is just an veild insult aimed at people for what they belive in, and thats not fine and dandy at all.

Dude, we're not in the 20th century any more.

Wasn't subconscious, completely deliberate.

Also, show me exactly where I called them lazy lay abouts. All I did was to casually refer to the keep them working, fed, and comfortable system of securing the support of the masses.

But as I said, my point is not the only relevant one. Please feel free to add your own relevant point of view.

@Sexiest_Hero, So Americans aren't decadent? We don't spend a disproportionate amount of our incomes on discretionary purchases?


responsible: accountable or marked by accountability or responsibility.
In this instance was refering to one who would rather shoulder the burden, making small day to day decisions or be involved in the day to day handling of their local government as opposed to having the national government legislate on a local level.



Edited for clarification updates

I thought this was going to be about some guys Socialist themed neck tie collection and now I am very disappointed. Not a neck tie in sight or even or bow tie with Mao on it or nothin'.

Taco_bat wrote:except that Marcist doctrine states that ultimately all systems will end with communism which is extremely unlikely given its performance in the 20th century.

Well that is because you are attributing to Marx what Stalin and Mao did. Marx's writing and their application of their interpretation of it are not the same things.

focusedfire wrote:
Also, show me exactly where I called them lazy lay abouts. All I did was to casually refer to the keep them working, fed, and comfortable system of securing the support of the masses.

You essentially just refered to all europeans as 'decadent'.

Yea universal healthcare, state sponsored universities, government regulated essential infrastructure, no blackwater.

What a bitch.

Also the 20th century has massive bearing on what is going on today, including many lessons learned, we don't exist in a vacuum.

Edit: in glancing through the posts I think I misunderstood the context of the specific exchange I responded to so I am removing this post.

@ Ahtman-Yes, I'm a horrible person and obviously a hippocrit simply for having a hobby(One that requires interaction with others, thus giving me a chance to learn about them)and for being on the internet. So, I obviously don't do much else.
Not like I contribute to food banks, but wait ,I do.

Not like I help less fortunate neighbors by giving them rides into town, but wait, I do.

So if I'm on the internet there is no way I can be self-reliant, but wait, I'm an independent businessman that has no debts. I, also, Hire people in the slow season just to keep them making money when I could be doing the work myself. I'm not rich but I make enough to feed my wife and myself. We're not in debt because we deon't live beyond our means. And we're self-reliant because whether we succeed or not is purely dependent on how we run our business.

Why would I give extra money to the most inefficient means of helping people? Go directly to the community shelters. Thats how you make a difference. But thats just my opinion.


Seriously, this time I'm out. Tear me apart looking for percieved slights and try to correct me or put in your perspective so that I may learn your point of view.



Just saw your edit, nevermind.



@_Bat, If we really learn the lessons then why do we so quickly repeat the same mistakes? And the things you just listed are the things I have a problem with. The universities are not the best, niether is the health care, And I don't want the government regulating down to the most minute level. The bueracracy it creates will consume us all.

Taco_bat wrote:You essentially just refered to all europeans as 'decadent'.

We are though.
EDIT
Incidentally is there any chance you could perhaps sort the mahoosive problem that is your sig gif thingy please, it's far too large. Thanks.

EDIT 2: Thanks overlords !

focusedfire wrote:Yes, I'm a horrible person and obviously a hippocrit simply for having a hobby(One that requires interaction with others, thus giving me a chance to learn about them)and for being on the internet. So, I obviously don't do much else.
Not like I contribute to food banks, but wait ,I do.

Not like I help less fortunate neighbors by giving them rides into town, but wait, I do.

So if I'm on the internet there is no way I can be self-reliant, but wait, I'm an independent businessman that has no debts. I, also, Hire people in the slow season just to keep them making money when I could be doing the work myself. I'm not rich but I make enough to feed my wife and myself. We're not in debt because we deon't live beyond our means. And we're self-reliant because whether we succeed or not is purely dependent on how we run our business.

Why would I give extra money to the most inefficient means of helping people? Go directly to the community shelters. Thats how you make a difference. But thats just my opinion.


Seriously, this time I'm out. Tear me apart looking for percieved slights and try to correct me or put in your perspective so that I may learn your point of view.

This has nothing to do with you personally, and everything to do with statements you have made in regards to a subject that do not reflect the actual reality of it. Socialist and Democracy are not mutually exclusive and having a state control and legislate alot of day to day infrastructure and services is not a bad thing if the state can maintain the a decent amount of checks and balances. Free market capitalism has been highlighted to having some major flaws inherent in its structure. Plus, if you don't think PMCs like Blackwater aren't inherently evil there is something very wrong with you.

Like how you put words in my mouth. It helps your credibility, lots.

Blackwater exists because we are not handling the reigns of our government. Proving again we the people are not doing our job.

focusedfire wrote:Like how you put words in my mouth. It helps your credibility, lots.

Blackwater exists because we are not handling the reigns of our government. Proving again we the people are not doing our job.

I didn't put words in your mouth? You stated that people that support socialism are decadent, ergo, since the democratic majority of Europeans are pro socialist they are 'decadent'. Thats not strawmaning, thats just simple logic.

Blackwater is a perfect example of unregulated free market capitalism and what it produces, as is Haliburton, as is Dynecorp etc etc

If we really learn the lessons then why do we so quickly repeat the same mistakes? And the things you just listed are the things I have a problem with. The universities are not the best, niether is the health care, And I don't want the government regulating down to the most minute level. The bueracracy it creates will consume us all.

I live in a country that, while far from socialist, has universal healthcare and government supported universities and both are pretty excellent (with highly streamlined red tape) despite what GOP-esque propaganda would have you believe.

America has a terrible primary and secondary education system (no child left behind, wut?) whereas the majority of European countries have excellent ones, with Finnland being one of the best in the world if not the best (with excellent government funded and regulated childcare that allows parents to remain at work) if memory serves?

Taco_bat wrote:Blackwater is a perfect example of unregulated free market capitalism and what it produces

Mercenaries are only the result of free market capitalism? I was under the impression that mercenaries had been around for a long time, before we even had the term free market capitalism.

If memory serves didn't the ancient Persians use Grekk mercenaries against Alexander and his Greek/Macedonian mercenaries?

I believe there is something about Washington attacking the Hessian mercenaries in our early history...

1. The market has existed longer than agriculture.
2. Socialism isn't the black ladder to communism.
3. You guys need to learn what decadent means.
4. Modern wealth redistribution social policies are a realistic approach to the weaknesses of capitalist markets and have been adopted by virtually every nation for the last five hundred years.
5. Private military companies are not inherently evil, however directionless military force is a tool of the market and the market is inherently dehumanizing. Ergo PMCs are dehumanizing by comodotizing the concept of violence.




From now on no posts under 4 full sentences in length are allowed. They add nothing.

ShumaGorath wrote:1. The market has existed longer than agriculture.
2. Socialism isn't the black ladder to communism.
3. You guys need to learn what decadent means.
4. Modern wealth redistribution social policies are a realistic approach to the weaknesses of capitalist markets and have been adopted by virtually every nation for the last five hundred years.
5. Private military companies are not inherently evil, however directionless military force is a tool of the market and the market is inherently dehumanizing. Ergo PMCs are dehumanizing by comodotizing the concept of violence.

I agree with this. I'm not 100% on 5 but I'm mulling it over.

ShumaGorath wrote:From now on no posts under 4 full sentences in length are allowed. They add nothing.

I agree.

focusedfire wrote:
responsible: accountable or marked by accountability or responsibility.
In this instance was refering to one who would rather shoulder the burden, making small day to day decisions or be involved in the day to day handling of their local government as opposed to having the national government legislate on a local level.

The highly specialized nature of our communities pretty much precludes a weak national government. Insofar as interstate commerce is a necessity in daily life people will be required to move across larger and larger distances in order to fulfill their economic obligations. In such an environment the standardization of certain legal practices is paramount to continued national unity.

Frazzled wrote:If memory serves didn't the ancient Persians use Grekk mercenaries against Alexander and his Greek/Macedonian mercenaries?

I believe there is something about Washington attacking the Hessian mercenaries in our early history...

The idea of the mercenary as a soldier of personal fortune is a creation of the national system, and the enlightenment. In earlier times, when identity was defined by language ahead of geographic location, inter-communal cooperation would have been next to impossible due to the inability to speak a common tongue. Its was only those few individuals who lived long enough, and traveled broadly enough, to gain command of multiple languages who could effectively go between populations. These leaders, whose transcendence of the language barrier makes it fairly easy to understand just how the divine right of kings held on as long as it did, would then mobilize their people in pursuance to any agreements made in the course of negotiations. As such, when you hear discussions of mercenaries in the Napoleonic Period, and really any Imperial conflict, what is really being commented on is more akin to what we would currently consider to be an alliance of nations, or action for collective gain.

As such, the idea of the Blackwater style PMC mercenary is something of a new animal. Identity by the dollar instead of by the word. That isn't to say that such groups are somehow immoral, or even dehumanizing, but that they represent a new understanding of what passes for a common cause.

At the end of the day, the word socialism carries a ridiculous amount of baggage.

Frazzled started this thread because its apparently so shocking that an Obama appointment might have a connection to a socialist organisation. I mean, it’s socialism! Never mind that socialism doesn’t carry the same baggage elsewhere in the world, so European and International bodies feel free to use the term to mean what it really means.

Then you’ve got focusedfire, for whom the term sparks off a long rant about decadent Europeans, a failure of individuals to manage their own lives, modern self-centred life, one world government, self reliance and not living beyond your means. None of which has anything to do with socialism, basically the concept that capitalism will lead to the concentration of wealth and power among a few owners of capital, so measures should be put in place to ensure a more egalitarian spread of power and wealth.

And that’s it. It’s something done by every single developed country, to some extent. That’s right, it isn’t just them weirdo Europeans that are socialist, the US with its progressive taxation, welfare, public education… it’s socialist too.

ShumaGorath wrote:
5. Private military companies are not inherently evil, however directionless military force is a tool of the market and the market is inherently dehumanizing. Ergo PMCs are dehumanizing by comodotizing the concept of violence.

Given the nature of the modern MIC I feel that they most certainly represent a dark side of capitalism.

Black water, Dynecorp and its ilk aren't simply mercenary companies, they are an avenue of outsourcing and unregulating modern conflict. Ideally all branches of military (including development) should be state controled and regulated, eliminating the profiteering that is particularilly prevalent in the modern US war machine. Outsourcing to PMCs removes culpability from the state both internationally and domestically (no flag draped coffins to hammer the point home that they are fighting a real war). They represent a step back from the ideals that the supposedly modern and liberal nations in the west represent.

Also Erik Prince is essentially a fundamentalist psychotic.

Yup, social democracy. Wouldn't have it any other way.

You don't strike down the wealthy, or the fortunate, or the 'decadent'... but the greedy and the selfish are a social disease. If the only people who vote are the only ones sensible enough to look out for their own interests, then your country can spiral downhill as far as it likes...
Voting is NOT something you do for yourself, it's something a society should do as a whole. I'm not saying the US is the only state with this problem, but for such a powerful world player it's awfully scared of the dark, so to speak.

So, does the idea of compulsory voting upset anyone?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Yup, social democracy. Wouldn't have it any other way.

You don't strike down the wealthy, or the fortunate, or the 'decadent'... but the greedy and the selfish are a social disease. If the only people who vote are the only ones sensible enough to look out for their own interests, then your country can spiral downhill as far as it likes...
Voting is NOT something you do for yourself, it's something a society should do as a whole. I'm not saying the US is the only state with this problem, but for such a powerful world player it's awfully scared of the dark, so to speak.

So, does the idea of compulsory voting upset anyone?

I'm really torn on the issue.

On the one hand you expect that participation in the benefits afforded in a liberal democracy should be voluntary, considering the nature of the beast.

On the other hand Bush 2004

Most Obama appointments appear to be right wingers many from the previous administration. Add allowing that the Democrat party is usually to the left of the Republicans.

Isnt it time some left wingers (or what passes for them in the US political system) made an appearance in a Democrat president's cabinet.

Orlanth wrote:Most Obama appointments appear to be right wingers many from the previous administration. Add allowing that the Democrat party is usually to the left of the Republicans.

Isnt it time some left wingers (or what passes for them in the US political system) made an appearance in a Democrat president's cabinet.

Read about Lincoln's cabinet, there are alot of paralells.

The idea, I believe, is to create an environment of discourse rather than simple subservience.

Still, we shouldnt count of chickens, Obama has alot of hopes (lol) pinned on him but we will have to wait and see how he performs in his elected role.

Just out of curiosity, who has Obama appointed that you would consider a right winger? Off the top of my head the only Bush legacy I can think of is Gates, and he really isn't even all that right wing with respect to his area of authority.

So, does the idea of compulsory voting upset anyone?

The american populace and for that matter the australian populace isn't smart enough for compulsory voting. Candidate popularity is already defined more by mudslinger "framing" and personal attractiveness and likability then it is by political and social issues or realistic views of a candidates career. Those that do vote can barely be asked to understand what the foundation of their views are, just ask any bush voter why they didn't like kerry. It won't be an informed viewpoint consisting of candidate views or worthiness it will be an issue that was framed by the 2004 mudslinging campaign. Likewise most can't be bothered to comment intelligently on bushes career or legacy, instead focusing on a few inaccurate but repeated keyframes such as WMDs or "general stupidity".


Compulsory voting would just decrease the accuracy and intelligence of the overall vote. If anything there needs to be a standardized bipartisan (or tri) test to estimate voter eligibility. Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Just out of curiosity, who has Obama appointed that you would consider a right winger? Off the top of my head the only Bush legacy I can think of is Gates, and he really isn't even all that right wing with respect to his area of authority.

Maintaining the bush war machine was a pretty big batch. But that was more of an interim measure to allow for a maintaining of efforts on the ground so as to avoid any sort of leadership crises in the iraq conflict. Otherwise it's been a bunch of predominant left wing figures or people with previous experience and skill. Its a group that is designed to be good at its job, not espouse an ideology like we've had for the last 8 years.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Compulsory voting would just decrease the accuracy and intelligence of the overall vote. If anything there needs to be a standardized bipartisan (or tri) test to estimate voter eligibility. Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

While I'm certainly not one to shy away from criticizing the public debate I also have to believe that considerations of voter eligibility are bound to end in totalitarianism, or at the very least a quasi-junta akin to Nasserist Turkey.

I think the ignorance of the larger electorate with respect to larger, contemporary issues is just one of those things that must be accepted as part of political reality in a Republic.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Maintaining the bush war machine was a pretty big batch. But that was more of an interim measure to allow for a maintaining of efforts on the ground so as to avoid any sort of leadership crises in the iraq conflict. Otherwise it's been a bunch of predominant left wing figures or people with previous experience and skill. Its a group that is designed to be good at its job, not espouse an ideology like we've had for the last 8 years.

I don't know. I think that, for the most part, Bush's military policy has been fairly sound. Certainly mistakes were made with respect to the presentation of Iraq in terms of justification, and its overall timing, but the actual decision making on the ground probably couldn't have been much better. At least not within the confines of the realities of troop levels, and recruitment expectations.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So, does the idea of compulsory voting upset anyone?

The american populace and for that matter the australian populace isn't smart enough for compulsory voting. Candidate popularity is already defined more by mudslinger "framing" and personal attractiveness and likability then it is by political and social issues or realistic views of a candidates career. Those that do vote can barely be asked to understand what the foundation of their views are, just ask any bush voter why they didn't like kerry. It won't be an informed viewpoint consisting of candidate views or worthiness it will be an issue that was framed by the 2004 mudslinging campaign. Likewise most can't be bothered to comment intelligently on bushes career or legacy, instead focusing on a few inaccurate but repeated keyframes such as WMDs or "general stupidity".


Compulsory voting would just decrease the accuracy and intelligence of the overall vote. If anything there needs to be a standardized bipartisan (or tri) test to estimate voter eligibility. Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Excellent statement - it needs to be said more often than it is. I don't actually vote myself. I don't have any strong personal reason, nor do I have anything better to do. It is technically compulsory to vote in Australia... But I think that the manner in which I serve the community is more valuable than the time I could spend banging my head against the walls of Parliament House. You know, I would like to see Sydney spend five million dollars on public transport every year rather than spending five million on a New Year's fireworks gala, and then complaining that the trains were overcrowded when everyone left the harbour. I wish corporate taxes were higher, I frankly wish commodities were more expensive. Unfortunately, there's no one you can vote for who actually supports any of that. I hope the 'economic climate change' fixes some of this - after all, if less people are required to be employed, then social support should logically be prioritised. The problem of population vs. resources is a trickier one, but hopefully the bulk of religion is only a few generations off it's expiry date.

The ideas behind Liberalism (note the capitalistion) have always concerned me. To me it sounds more like an attitude problem than a political stance.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Agreein' with dis.

The majority of the populace lacks the ability to critically think, and therefor sift through the BS of campaigns and projected policy.

A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

I don't know. I think that, for the most part, Bush's military policy has been fairly sound. Certainly mistakes were made with respect to the presentation of Iraq in terms of justification, and its overall timing, but the actual decision making on the ground probably couldn't have been much better. At least not within the confines of the realities of troop levels, and recruitment expectations.

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that the actions on the ground were well planned and implemented. There's good reason for that too, as the ground actions of the last five years since major combat actions were declared over have been fraught with mismanagement unrealistic expectations and a general lack of clear leadership and an understanding of mission.

For an administration to fire senior military officials for little more than voicing a dissenting opinion outside of party line (when the military is supposed to be non political) smacks of incredible mismanagement and disrespect for the office of the president and the role of the military. People knew how hard Iraq was going to be once Sadaam fell, and those people were silenced so that the public could feel that our troops would be greeted with flowers (which they were until it was revealed that they had no idea what to do once the easy part of governmental disassembly was finished). The first few years of bush military doctrine failed completely in understanding how nation building is done.

he ideas behind Liberalism (note the capitalistion) have always concerned me. To me it sounds more like an attitude problem than a political stance.

What definition of liberalism?

A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

Then you limit voting rights by economic and religious standing. Not all universities will be accredited due to religious teachings, and not all families can afford college.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Then you limit voting rights by economic and religious standing. Not all universities will be accredited due to religious teachings, and not all families can afford college.

they can in Australia

As for religion, a state should be secular.

A states government or its citizenry?

Taco_bat wrote:A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

Pass that law and watch how fast the requirements/cost for college admission go up, making the number of graduates even smaller.

Ahtman wrote:
Pass that law and watch how fast the requirements/cost for college admission go up, making the number of graduates even smaller.

what are you basing this arguement on beyond personal opinion?

ShumaGorath wrote:A states government or its citizenry?

The state, therefore its educational facilities should be removed from religious affiliation beyond an analytical nature.

The state, therefore its educational facilities should be removed from religious affiliation beyond an analytical nature.

Thats not the point of representative governance. Religion should be sidelined perhaps, and of secondary importance to logical and considered policy making, but if you remove peoples beliefs from a republic then you no longer have one.

First read the definitions for both socialism and decadent:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decadent


Decadent ain't lazy, more like comfortably spoiled. When raised in a decadent society it is increasingly difficult to sacrifice the comforts to which we've become. This is a valuable tool for governments who might wish to continuously pacify the masses. This isn't paranoia, its what Marx was alluding to. At least according to the classes from when I was in the military.

Socialism, is about as anti-self reliant as you can get. It is Collectivism. In such a system the individual truly owns nothing therefore has no responsibility to anything other than the state. Hence my remarks about responsible and self-reliant.


My first post merely commented on the difference in mindsets and when asked I replied that yes europeans are decadent. My first remark was aimed at more at my countrymen as we are the definition of decadent. As an American raised in the most decadent country in the world, I could tell you how difficult it is to shed those luxuries and comforts. I made a concious choice to become a self-reliant responsible individual who is an independant, debt-free, business person. If one is living beyond his means to where he is perpetually in debt, that is not self-reliant. That is participating in the collective. Restricting your lifestyle voluntarily to where you are no longer dependent upon the collective for anything other than the bare minimum is no mean trick.

As for spread the wealth. I do not believe that there has ever been a truly altruistic government. I believe in Machiavellian ones. Wealth spreading is just another means of governmental control and stealing money to line pockets.


Yes, I feel and think differently than the most of you so I obviously am ranting(Implying that there is no logical thought behind my stance). The point I started out with was that we Americans are somewhat socialist(I may have mistated in the first post on this). Take Mrs. Clintons HMO disaster(socialism), Bush's no child left behind fiasco(socialism). There is a string of other socialized failures that has left me completely unimpressed with the concept as a whole. Are we completely there yet? I don't think so. Will it get to complete governmental control in my life? I certainly hope not. As An independent businessman who controls his means of production, an overly intrusive government is my worst nightmare.

I stated my point logically in the beginning and invited others to do the same. I meant no insult and the definitions show that there was none. I stated my perceptions on the matter. If you disagree then take them as the words of an out of touch old man. I just invite you to study the tools that are used to rule over us as opposed to working for us.

Taco_bat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Pass that law and watch how fast the requirements/cost for college admission go up, making the number of graduates even smaller.

what are you basing this arguement on beyond personal opinion?

History, Human Nature. As far as personal opinion, no more than you do.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Thats not the point of representative governance. Religion should be sidelined perhaps, and of secondary importance to logical and considered policy making, but if you remove peoples beliefs from a republic and you no longer have one.

I said remove religious overtones from institutions that should inherently be state run, I have made no statement as the the abolishment of one's ability to pursue their own creed through personal study.

You can't seriously compare somone who has spent their life studying religious texts that dissuade critical thinking to somone with a degree in physics.

History, Human Nature. As far as personal opinion, no more than you do.

I am merely putting forward an idea, it is on you, the dissenter to produce evidence to the otherwise :eng101:

Bush's no child left behind fiasco

NCLB has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with idiotic mismanagement. Finland is a socialist country and essentially has the best education system in the world with extremely logical systems in place to help parents get back to work asap and be productive members to society.

Spreading the wealth takes the form of universal healthcare, state sponsored positions in universities, etc.

You also do realise that the majority of businesses in Europe are privately run? Socialism doesn't equate to Maoism or Stalinism.

This decadence you keep alluding to has nothing to do with political systems and everything to do with underlying social makeup in a country, it is an affliction of the modern world and can be seen everywhere in every nation, not just Socialist/capitalist ones.

I would suggest reading the works of Andrew Bacevich for more of an insite into what you are talking about, hes an ex Army officer who has some pretty interesting insights into the modern American psyche.

My first remark was aimed at more at my countrymen as we are the definition of decadent.

Considering americans don't have the highest per capita income I don't think we're the most decadent. Even moreso when you consider work hours to capita income disparities worldwide.

The point I started out with was that we Americans are somewhat socialist(I may have mistated in the first post on this). Take Mrs. Clintons HMO disaster(socialism), Bush's no child left behind fiasco(socialism).

Compared to the FDA (socialism), the new deal (socialism), and the national insurance structure (capitalism) I think there are some legs to consider all sides of the issue. A poor plan is going to fail no matter the ideology behind it, and something like universal healthcare and national public education should never be half assed (as with both clinton and bushes plans).

As for spread the wealth. I do not believe that there has ever been a truly altruistic government. I believe in Machiavellian ones. Wealth spreading is just another means of governmental control and stealing money to line pockets.

Cynicism. A Machiavellian government is no more likely to truly exist than an altruistic one. Governments are made of many, many people, and many, many viewpoints. Absolutes don't exist in good intelligent governance.

Shuma, I respect your wisdom but the last line comes across to me like an oxymoron. Not trying to be a jerk. Just the thought of applying that label to what we've had in this country as of late. I end up giggling

focusedfire wrote:Shuma, I respect your wisdom but the last line comes across to me like an oxymoron. Not trying to be a jerk. Just the thought of applying that label to what we've had in this country as of late. I end up giggling

I'm not sure I understand what it is you're getting at.

Edit: Never mind. I'm just being really irritable today for some reason and overly snarky.

Attempt to apply Good & intelligent governance to what we've seen, in gerneral, in the last few presidencies.

The reason why I believe in the Machiavellian style of government is because, I percieve, the political creature to be the definition of self-centered. I believe some start off as visionaries or of having a genuine concern for the public. But with time and typical human complacency they join the rest up on the hill, playing the same game as the rest. Yes, as far as politicians go, I am cynical.

focusedfire wrote:Attempt to apply Good & intelligent governance to what we've seen, in gerneral, in the last few presidencies.

The reason why I believe in the Machiavellian style of government is because, I percieve, the political creature to be the definition of self-centered. I believe some start off as visionaries or of having a genuine concern for the public. But with time and typical human complacency they join the rest up on the hill, playing the same game as the rest. Yes, as far as politicians go, I am cynical.

Yep.

edit: removed cause Ahtman removed his and I dont wanna be a dick about it

If anything, at least in Australia, requirements for admittance to university have become increasingly relaxed.

This is not a good thing.

In the US from the late 80's to the late 90's the U.S. government ran a guaranteed student loan system. In the following decade while attendance increased by only 10% the cost of Tuition went up by 100%.

what does that have to do with increased social responsibilities?

ShumaGorath wrote:

This is not a good thing.

Where did I say it was?

Thats a completely different can of worms.

Taco_bat wrote:If its not worthy of your time then why start in the first place unless you actually don't have any references and are merely stating an opinion which may or may not have any basis in reality?

None of this has a basis in reality, it's all speculation. I didn't present any more references for my little idea than you did. In Comp101 you still have to back up your thesis when presenting something, which you didn't either. Don't hold people to standards you aren't following either.

Taco_bat wrote:The whole 'human nature/history' arguement is extremely ambiguous unless you actually can point out to specific examples of where requirements/costs for Universities has been increased in paralell to increased social responsibilities.

We never said anything about general social responsibilities, the discussion was about voting specifically. Since you were there I thought you would know what it was about and what you said. Don't accuse people of using a strawman argument if you yourself are going to do it to. Increased education does show a significant correlation to political efficacy, but that isn't what was being discussed. Hypocrisy is the ugly side of Taco_bat.

Taco_bat wrote:Strawmanning won't help your arguement.

Saying an internet argument isn't worth the time or trouble to pretend I'm getting a grade or writing to be published isn't a strawman, it's just being honest.

If anything, at least in Australia, requirements for admittance to university have become increasingly relaxed.

In the US the BA has become severely devalued, but that is for a different thread.

Ahtman wrote:

None of this has a basis in reality, it's all speculation. I didn't present any more references for my little idea than you did. In Comp101 you still have to back up your thesis when presenting something, which you didn't either. Don't hold people to standards you aren't following either.

A hypothesis is a hypothesis, you can't reject it without first testing it (ie references)

Ahtman wrote:
We never said anything about general social responsibilities, the discussion was about voting specifically. Since you were there I thought you would know what it was about and what you said. Don't accuse people of using a strawman argument if you yourself are going to do it to. Increased education does show a significant correlation to political efficacy, but that isn't what was being discussed. Hypocrisy is the ugly side of Taco_bat.

Social responsibilities...as in ...you know.... the responsibility of voting falls upon the well educated. Reading comprehension is the dark side of Ahtman.

Ahtman wrote:

Saying an internet argument isn't worth the time or trouble to pretend I'm getting a grade or writing to be published isn't a strawman, it's just being honest.

no but focusing on the use of :eng101: as if it was anything more the a quirk in jest is!

Taco_bat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:None of this has a basis in reality, it's all speculation. I didn't present any more references for my little idea than you did. In Comp101 you still have to back up your thesis when presenting something, which you didn't either. Don't hold people to standards you aren't following either.

A hypothesis is a hypothesis, you can't reject it without first testing it (ie references)

Do you have trouble telling the difference between a thesis and a hypothesis? Well, if you don't even know that, the fact you keep bringing up English 101 is even more amusing.

Taco_bat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:We never said anything about general social responsibilities, the discussion was about voting specifically. Since you were there I thought you would know what it was about and what you said. Don't accuse people of using a strawman argument if you yourself are going to do it to. Increased education does show a significant correlation to political efficacy, but that isn't what was being discussed. Hypocrisy is the ugly side of Taco_bat.

Social responsibilities...as in ...you know.... the responsibility of voting falls upon the well educated. Reading comprehension is the dark side of Ahtman.

Still sticking to your strawman. We aren't, and have never been, talking about social responsibilities in general, we are talking about voting specifically. You are trying to artificially broaden the scope of the inquiry now. This is about suffrage.

Ahtman wrote:
Do you have trouble telling the difference between a thesis and a hypothesis? Well, if you don't even know that, the fact you keep bringing up English 101 is even more amusing.

Based on observation and common sense I hypothesized that restricting voting to those with university degrees would equate to a voter base with a larger capacity to critically think. Beyond that I cannot move to the next step due to there being no way to currently test this hypothesis given the current state of politics.

This is a scientific hypothesis, not a thesis.

You jump straight to attempting to reject said hypothesis by citing that requirements for universities admittance would increase exponentially, therefore drastically reducing the avaliable voter population, providing no references and when pressed dismiss it as 'not worth your time' or something similar.

At this stage it can be neither proven nor disproven, which is why I have put it out as something to think about rather than a dogmatic statement of fact. If you do wish to disprove it the burden is on YOU to provide evidence to support this rejection rather than trying to sophistize your way around by somehow 'discrediting' me.

Taco_bat wrote:

Still sticking to your strawman. We aren't, and have never been, talking about social responsibilities in general, we are talking about voting specifically. You are trying to artificially broaden the scope of the inquiry now. This is about suffrage.

Since I clarified that my use of the term 'social responsibility' was in reference specifically to voting I really have no clue why you are continuing to try and argue this semantic beyond strawmaning yourself and distracting away from the main hypothetical that is "would a higher educated voter base provide a more logical basis for voting".

Stop cluttering up this thread with your own feelings and personal attacks and either do some research on the matter or stop posting.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that the actions on the ground were well planned and implemented. There's good reason for that too, as the ground actions of the last five years since major combat actions were declared over have been fraught with mismanagement unrealistic expectations and a general lack of clear leadership and an understanding of mission.

I think you're missing the larger purpose of my comment, which was the proper contextualization of Bush's choices.

The armed services draw down under Clinton left our military a much smaller animal than it had been previously. It was a force built on the assumption of consensus amongst the primary Western powers with regard to how, and where, force should be used in the larger world. It was not a force built to sustain a long term occupation of a state the size of Iraq. Least of all one which involved the heavy integration of, and therefore direct risk to, civilian contractors who serve as incredible targets of opportunity for those attempting to attack national morale.

Certainly the Bush Administration's inability to accurately assess the capabilities of our armed services is a mark against it, and I'm not trying to claim otherwise. However, to say that the military itself was culpable for the failure of certain on the ground practices is to misunderstand its role. The services follow the orders of the President, unquestioningly. That is is their duty, and purpose. Only in extreme circumstances, far more extreme than any imposed during the course of the Iraq campaign, can this central truth be called into question. When Bush made the decision to invade Iraq it was their duty to fulfill his orders to the best of their ability, and they did precisely that. When the call for more soldiers, and therefore more money, came through to Congress the initiatives were largely blocked by a coalition of Democrats and Northern Republicans reticent to spend more money on the war. As such, the viable options on the ground were directly limited by the availability of funds such that success was largely illusory.

Now the obvious critique here is that Bush failed to properly justify the war, and that may well be because the war was largely unnecessary in the contemporary context. Another clear point can be made with respect to the obvious, and nonsensical, trend towards manipulation of information in the age of the internet. But neither of those critiques are matters of on the ground military policy, but the larger issue of grand strategy.

ShumaGorath wrote:
For an administration to fire senior military officials for little more than voicing a dissenting opinion outside of party line (when the military is supposed to be non political) smacks of incredible mismanagement and disrespect for the office of the president and the role of the military.

The public dissent of ranking military officials speaks to a similar misunderstanding of the role of the armed services with respect to politics.

ShumaGorath wrote:
People knew how hard Iraq was going to be once Sadaam fell, and those people were silenced so that the public could feel that our troops would be greeted with flowers (which they were until it was revealed that they had no idea what to do once the easy part of governmental disassembly was finished). The first few years of bush military doctrine failed completely in understanding how nation building is done.

If you read anything written by men like Wolfowitz, or Rumsfeld you'll realize how untrue that is. The matter was never properly appreciating the difficulty of nation building, though certainly there was a tendency to err on the side of optimism, but understanding how difficult selling the American public on such a conflict was going to be.

Taco_bat wrote:
You can't seriously compare somone who has spent their life studying religious texts that dissuade critical thinking to somone with a degree in physics.

Oh, but I can. Especially if you want to run this into the territory of string theory, quantum tunneling, or some other esoteric nonsense. Any overly constricted paradigm of inquiry dissuades critical thinking. Richard Dawkins is every bit as subject to tunnel vision as Rick Warren, probably more so.

wait did you just say that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were credibly sources on why the reconstruction effort was so poorly executed.

cause if so....wow....just wow

The public dissent of ranking military officials speaks to a similar misunderstanding of the role of the armed services with respect to politics.

heh, yea man, the public outrage of those officers whos job it is to serve the nation's best interests is outrageous! ACHTUNG!

Oh, but I can. Especially if you want to run this into the territory of string theory, quantum tunneling, or some other esoteric nonsense. Any overly constricted paradigm of inquiry dissuades critical thinking. Richard Dawkins is every bit as subject to tunnel vision as Rick Warren, probably more so.

Yea bro, those cutting edge scientific theories are total garbage cause I don't really understand them therefor texts written hundreds of thousands of years ago when we had very little scientific understanding of the worldare just as relevant!


Richard Dawkins bases his arguements on scientific observation, not belief. He might find religion foolish but his own outlook doesn't detract from the fact hes in all likelyhood, correct.

Taco_bat wrote:wait did you just say that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were credibly sources on why the reconstruction effort was so poorly executed.

cause if so....wow....just wow

No, I said that based on their body of published work they clearly understood the challenges of state building. Despite what you may want to believe Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are not stupid men. They attained their position because they have a large body of knowledge available to them, and the minds to put that knowledge to work. The fact that they underestimated the inquisitiveness of the public is a count against their Cold War mindset, not necessarily their poor understanding of military policy.

Taco_bat wrote:
Yea bro, those cutting edge scientific theories are total garbage cause I don't really understand them therefor texts written hundreds of thousands of years ago when we had very little scientific understanding of the worldare just as relevant!

If you don't understand the theory, but believe it anyway, what are you basin your position on except faith?

Taco_bat wrote:
Richard Dawkins bases his arguements on scientific observation, not belief. He might find religion foolish but his own outlook doesn't detract from the fact hes in all likelyhood, correct.

Dawkins derives his arguments from a ridiculous strawman construction of religion that hinges on the idea that the only people who are truly religious are the nut job fundamentalists who reject empirical observation. That's exactly like saying all Marxists are evil because Stalin was a Marxist.

dogma wrote:

No, I said that based on their body of published work they clearly understood the challenges of state building. Despite what you may want to believe Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are not stupid men. They attained their position because they have a large body of knowledge available to them, and the minds to put that knowledge to work. The fact that they underestimated the inquisitiveness of the public is a count against their Cold War mindset, not necessarily their poor understanding of military policy.

Being intelligent doesn't mean you can't be corrupt and overly idealistic (see the concept of the battlefield network and the idea of extremely small attack forces to occupy a country)

Taco_bat wrote:
Being intelligent doesn't mean you can't be corrupt and overly idealistic (see the concept of the battlefield network and the idea of extremely small attack forces to occupy a country)

No, but it does mean you probably have some insight into what it is you're talking about such that total dismissal is not possible.

Also, you mean the battlefield network that has been in place within the US military to a deepening extent for roughly 20 years now? And the one that every credible military analyst recognizes as a necessity?

Also, the theory that a small attack force can occupy a country is valid. Occupation does not necessarily equate to peace, or stability.

Taco_bat wrote:
heh, yea man, the public outrage of those officers whos job it is to serve the nation's best interests is outrageous! ACHTUNG!

Outrageous? No. Sufficient for either termination, or reassignment? Probably.

dogma wrote:
No, but it does mean you probably have some insight into what it is you're talking about such that total dismissal is not possible.

Also, you mean the battlefield network that has been in place within the US military to a deepening extent for roughly 20 years now? And the one that every credible military analyst recognizes as a necessity?

Also, the theory that a small attack force can occupy a country is valid. Occupation does not necessarily equate to peace, or stability.

Yea those Iraqis will just embrace American freedom amirite?

The battlefield network was a majority reason why Rumsfeld believed that Iraqi could be defeated and occupied with such a small amount of troops.

Oh ok so basically its ok to occupy a country even if the natives are killing each other as a result of the power vacuum your country created?

If you don't understand the theory, but believe it anyway, what are you basin your position on except faith?

who says you have to have an opinion one way or another about a scientific theory you don't understand....? I haven't done enough research into string to think its legitimate or not, but thats the great thing about science, its not infallible if you can produce enough evidence to the contrary.

Dawkins derives his arguments from a ridiculous strawman construction of religion that hinges on the idea that the only people who are truly religious are the nut job fundamentalists who reject empirical observation. That's exactly like saying all Marxists are evil because Stalin was a Marxist.

Uh no he doesn't try reading one of his books.

Outrageous? No. Sufficient for either termination, or reassignment? Probably.

Yea officers who wordlessly help errode the principles of a nation on the whim of a bunch of neo-cons rule.

Taco_bat wrote:
Yea those Iraqis will just embrace American freedom amirite?

Way to throw out a sock-puppet response. It would be difficult to make the case that people will not take the opportunity to govern themselves when that opportunity is given, which is why there was no implicit lean on explicitly 'American' governance in the state building operation in Iraq.

Taco_bat wrote:
The battlefield network was a majority reason why Rumsfeld believed that Iraqi could be defeated and occupied with such a small amount of troops.

And he wasn't entirely wrong. The state was defeated, and occupied, with a very small number of troops. The failure was in the assumption that Saddam's regime was a terribly oppressive thing for the majority of the population, and that the American public could be held in check long enough to secure significant progress.

Taco_bat wrote:
Oh ok so basically its ok to occupy a country even if the natives are killing each other as a result of the power vacuum your country created?

That depends on what your objectives are.

Taco_bat wrote:
who says you have to have an opinion one way or another about a scientific theory you don't understand....? I haven't done enough research into string to think its legitimate or not, but thats the great thing about science, its not infallible if you can produce enough evidence to the contrary.

You don't, and most religion works that way as well. Two different people can have two very different understanding of the Jesus' divinity, and still be equally correct with respect to their available sources of information. Not unlike much of science.

Taco_bat wrote:
Uh no he doesn't try reading one of his books.

I've read all of this books, and met him twice; including a 45 minute closed lunch session with 8-10 other people. He's a smart guy, but philosophical argument is not his thing.

Taco_bat wrote:
Yea officers who wordlessly help errode the principles of a nation on the whim of a bunch of neo-cons rule.

And you're the one criticizing the politicization of the military?

dogma wrote:
It would be difficult to make the case that people will not take the opportunity to govern themselves when that opportunity is given, .

Uh.....Afghanistan?

(the secret is the Taliban isn't the only faction the ISF is fighting)

And he wasn't entirely wrong. The state was defeated, and occupied, with a very small number of troops. The failure was in the assumption that Saddam's regime was a terribly oppressive thing for the majority of the population, and that the American public could be held in check long enough to secure significant progress.

There was basically no contingency plan after the occupation, Germany and Japan were occupied with a clear set of objectives lined out and handled to a very large degree by the military and not outsourced companies. There is no excuse for the US's half cocked invasion plan. Again, moronic idealism.

That depends on what your objectives are.

Wow, what is wrong with you?

You don't, and most religion works that way as well. Two different people can have two very different understanding of the Jesus' divinity, and still be equally correct with respect to their available sources of information. Not unlike much of science
I've read all of this books, and met him twice; including a 45 minute closed lunch session with 8-10 other people. He's a smart guy, but philosophical argument is not his thing.

Sorry but this just seems like either a blatant lie, or you're so biased against him its really pointless to argue it further, I'm going to assume A. If you actually read Dawkins you'll realise he doesn't oppose religion when it is a personal thing, what he opposes are the institutions that come with it and Fundamentalism.

Considering his philosophical arguement are extremely coherent in nature I can't really respond to your final statement there.

And you're the one criticizing the politicization of the military?

No I'm not?

Taco_bat wrote:
Uh.....Afghanistan?

(the secret is the Taliban isn't the only faction the ISF is fighting)

Clearly there was an implicit assumption of a common 'people' in my comment. You also made the assumption that government is always peaceful, which isn't true at all.

Taco_bat wrote:
There was basically no contingency plan after the occupation, Germany and Japan were occupied with a clear set of objectives lined out and handled to a very large degree by the military and not outsourced companies. There is no excuse for the US's half cocked invasion plan. Again, moronic idealism.

Sure there was, send in more troops in order to engage in classical counterinsurgency tactics. In fact, that had been the plan all along. Its all outlined quite thoroughly in some of the stuff put out by the Project for the New American Century.

Oh, and, incidentally, Germany and Japan were not occupied with a clear set of objectives beyond 'oppose the Soviet Union'. Which is about as specific as 'control the oil' or 'oppose Iran'.

Taco_bat wrote:
Wow, what is wrong with you?

I'm not under the illusion that morality has any impact on the world beyond its relevance to the creation of consensus.

Taco_bat wrote:
Sorry but this just seems like either a blatant lie, or you're so biased against him its really pointless to argue it further, I'm going to assume A. If you actually read Dawkins you'll realise he doesn't oppose religion when it is a personal thing, what he opposes are the institutions that come with it and Fundamentalism.

Assume what you want. I really don't care. But I will say that its a very difficult thing to pare away the institution from the religion. Especially insofar as one of the major draws of organized faith is the community which it provides. I think that Dawkins really believes that he is arguing against general close-mindedness, but I don't think his arguments are particularly indicative of that belief. Especially when he takes potshots at an entire discipline, theology, for being 'irrelevant'.

Taco_bat wrote:
Considering his philosophical arguement are extremely coherent in nature I can't really respond to your final statement there.

In the God Delusion he spends at least 2 chapters explaining how his being 99.9% sure that God does not exist is not a leap of faith even though he operates under the pretense that he is correct. That's a logical inconsistency in that it requires one presume faith be somehow certain, which is not at all consistent with the nature of the concept.

That isn't sound argument.

Taco_bat wrote:
No I'm not?

Ah, I see then, more of the 'I'm right, he's not' syndrome our nation is so fond of.

Yea we're not going to agree on anything and just keep sniping at each other pointless so I'm done you win bro.

Who spent their life studying religious texts and who has a degree in physics? I can't imagine an ad hominem attack being brought into this, and I don't recall anyone saying they spent their life reading religious texts or anyone else bragging about a science degree.

focusedfire wrote:Attempt to apply Good & intelligent governance to what we've seen, in gerneral, in the last few presidencies.

The reason why I believe in the Machiavellian style of government is because, I percieve, the political creature to be the definition of self-centered. I believe some start off as visionaries or of having a genuine concern for the public. But with time and typical human complacency they join the rest up on the hill, playing the same game as the rest. Yes, as far as politicians go, I am cynical.

As you saying you believe that the Machiavellian style is what we should aspire to? Or that Machiavellian politics are currently in place?

ShumaGorath wrote:The american populace and for that matter the australian populace isn't smart enough for compulsory voting. Candidate popularity is already defined more by mudslinger "framing" and personal attractiveness and likability then it is by political and social issues or realistic views of a candidates career. Those that do vote can barely be asked to understand what the foundation of their views are, just ask any bush voter why they didn't like kerry. It won't be an informed viewpoint consisting of candidate views or worthiness it will be an issue that was framed by the 2004 mudslinging campaign. Likewise most can't be bothered to comment intelligently on bushes career or legacy, instead focusing on a few inaccurate but repeated keyframes such as WMDs or "general stupidity".

Compulsory voting would just decrease the accuracy and intelligence of the overall vote. If anything there needs to be a standardized bipartisan (or tri) test to estimate voter eligibility. Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Big problem here is the assumption that the people who aren’t voting at present are less informed or less capable of deciding who should run the country than the people who do vote. Having spoken to a long list of mad keen Democrats and Republicans, I’m confident in saying they’re no different to mad keen Liberal and Labor supporters here in Australia. That is, they’re generally about as poorly informed as the non-voters. So on that level there would be no change.

However, there’s a massive difference between US and Australian politics. We’re no better informed or educated, and if anything are less interested in politics here in Oz. But because we have compulsory voting the election is focussed on capturing the middle ground of voters, policy and debate is focussed on areas of broad appeal to the middle of Australian politics, economic management, sustainability, that kind of thing.

In the US electioneering has less focus on persuading undecideds to vote for you guy, and more on firing up the base to get out and vote. As a result there’s little focus on persuasion, and lots more time spent on vilifying the other guy and raising irrelevant wedge issues like guns and abortion.

While voters here are no more informed, the level of political debate is a lot more substantial.

Taco_bat wrote:Socialism is pretty cool tho

It is indeed, unfortunetly, the only "socialism" Obama carries is his empty rehtorics.

I don't know what the topic is on this thread anymore...

Just a few general observations, then.

I believe the role of government is twofold - first, to ensure the freedom of the individual (that's not an anarchist argument, by the way, I think strong law enforcement is essential to ensure nobody else impinges on my freedom).
Second, to manage those structures collectively deemed necessary for the functioning of the state.

The main argument against socialism seems to be that not everyone agrees on what structures are necessary. As a UK citizen I think that the National Health Service is necessary, while I know that the concept is anathema to many US Republicans who would view me as a 'Socialist' because of this issue.

Essentially, all political theory can divide people into 4 camps based on their views on these two duties of government.

The 'socialist' scale goes (-X to X) from Anarchy (no state intervention in anything) to Communism (state intervention in everything).
The 'liberalist' scale goes (-Y to Y) from Anarchy (everyone is free to do and believe as they wish) to Facism (everyone is expected to confirm to certain state-sponsored views, beliefs and behaviours)

In General this gives rise to:
-X/-Y: Lawless nations such as Somalia or for a benevolent version think hippie communes or (in fiction) Iain M Banks 'Culture'
-X/Y: would correspond to groups like Republicans, who object to state governance but expect moral leadership, nations such as Israel
X/-Y: would correspond to liberal-socialists, most European governments, US Democrats, etc.
X/Y: corresponds to most religous or military dictatorships, nations such as North Korea, Iran, China


Where you fit personally in these groups will depend on your own beliefs, society and upbringing. There are pros and cons, of course, to all points of view but I'd sit myself in the X/-Y camp and am happy enough

I agree with those kids in Greece!!!! Real Anarchism!!!!

Ghetto_Fight wrote:I agree with those kids in Greece!!!! Real Anarchism!!!!

Indeed. Tell me more, tell me more, tell me more.Uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.


Is this right ?

reds8n wrote:

Ghetto_Fight wrote:I agree with those kids in Greece!!!! Real Anarchism!!!!

Indeed. Tell me more, tell me more, tell me more.Uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.


Is this right ?

I definetly want to throw molotov cocktails at the Grease set!!!!

Anyway, here is a thread about those punk kids in Greece!!!
http://revolutionaryhiphop.org/forum/index.php?topic=2149.0

Taco_bat wrote:except that Marcist doctrine states that ultimately all systems will end with communism which is extremely unlikely given its performance in the 20th century.

So this leaves me to my own Humble Opinion, that a responsible & self reliant person will view socialism as wrong or bad. While a decadent individual, that has become dependent on the system and luxuries it provides, will see socialism as the next logical step in social engineering.

your own 'Humble Opinion' that you just happened to subconsciously capitalize. Amazingly enough, most occupants of socialist countries aren't a bunch of lazy lay abouts!

Well, do tell that the China, the country which is bank rolling the West at the moment. IF they wanted to, they could call in the debts and send the entire Western World into total financial meltdown, neatly taking capitalism with it as a failed experiment in greed. Ergo we end up with Communism.

Always try to remember just which side your bread is buttered....

I think the problem with Socialism in the US is that it is quite bizarrely seen as 100% undemocratic. Which is nonsense. It's an alternative to Capitalism, not to Democracy. Facism, Dictatorships, Junta's and other thing are an alternative to Capitalism.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, do tell that the China, the country which is bank rolling the West at the moment. IF they wanted to, they could call in the debts and send the entire Western World into total financial meltdown, neatly taking capitalism with it as a failed experiment in greed. Ergo we end up with Communism.

Always try to remember just which side your bread is buttered....

Not really. They can't just 'call in' the debt, these are fixed term bills with specific end dates. China could stop buying more (and the UAE, the other major buying nation) but it wouldn't be in their interest. Chinese economic development is very dependent on US demand.

I think the problem with Socialism in the US is that it is quite bizarrely seen as 100% undemocratic. Which is nonsense. It's an alternative to Capitalism, not to Democracy. Facism, Dictatorships, Junta's and other thing are an alternative to Capitalism.

Yeah, that's about it. I think it has a lot to do with Americans learning about the non-democratic USSR, and never finding out about the non-democratic capitalist states around the world, half of which were heavily backed by the US during the cold war. Or the democratically elected socialist parties, some of which were later overthrown by US sponsored coups.

Well, do tell that the China, the country which is bank rolling the West at the moment. IF they wanted to, they could call in the debts and send the entire Western World into total financial meltdown, neatly taking capitalism with it as a failed experiment in greed. Ergo we end up with Communism.

Except china is a largely capitalistic economy (thoroughly state regulated but capitalistic none the less) with a mulitparty system of governance which is in many cases representative. It's a country that has been in transition from failed maoism to state regulated capitalism for the past few decades. If they ceased purchasing american assets their currency would cease to be buoyed and as our economy and the world economy slumped into depression the lack of demand for manufactured goods (which is what banks the chinese economy) would launch them into one just as fierce.

I think the problem with Socialism in the US is that it is quite bizarrely seen as 100% undemocratic. Which is nonsense. It's an alternative to Capitalism, not to Democracy. Facism, Dictatorships, Junta's and other thing are an alternative to Capitalism.

The problem with socialism is that its a blanket term that still means a state run economy in full with seizure of personal assets. Socialist leaning policies advocate the redistribution of wealth through taxation and social programs, not the destruction of capitalist markets. Economic demagogues and conservative pundits.

The armed services draw down under Clinton left our military a much smaller animal than it had been previously. It was a force built on the assumption of consensus amongst the primary Western powers with regard to how, and where, force should be used in the larger world. It was not a force built to sustain a long term occupation of a state the size of Iraq. Least of all one which involved the heavy integration of, and therefore direct risk to, civilian contractors who serve as incredible targets of opportunity for those attempting to attack national morale.

The small elite US force was also strongly advocated by Rumsfield as the new face of warfare. It functioned under clinton as clintons view of national military was one of decisive actions and not campaigns, leaving occupations to UN and NATO forces. The bush administration embraced the high tech low headcount approach but utilized it improperly.

Certainly the Bush Administration's inability to accurately assess the capabilities of our armed services is a mark against it, and I'm not trying to claim otherwise.

The civilian placement of ideologues instead of capable or experienced individuals is the strongest mark against the administration. Toeing the party line was far more important than experience or knowledge, and ground level civilian mismanagement and upper level replacements (shinseki) were failings of the strongest degree.

Taco_bat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Agreein' with dis.

The majority of the populace lacks the ability to critically think, and therefor sift through the BS of campaigns and projected policy.

A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

Thats both nonsense and elitist. Some of the most idiotic close minded people I ever met were college graduates, including those with advanced degrees. Some of the smartest people I met didn't have degrees.

Limit voting to college graduates and watch the revolution occur overnight.

I have the intelligence to garner a Univeristy Degree, but not the direction or the compulsion.

My IQ is 147, and I know better than to trust *anything* even slightly political (i.e. the entirety of) said by the media.

But because I didn't go to Uni, and didn't get the degree, I somehow lose my voice....

See Frazz about the revolution.

Frazzled wrote:

Taco_bat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Agreein' with dis.

The majority of the populace lacks the ability to critically think, and therefor sift through the BS of campaigns and projected policy.

A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

Thats both nonsense and elitist. Some of the most idiotic close minded people I ever met were college graduates, including those with advanced degrees. Some of the smartest people I met didn't have degrees.

Limit voting to college graduates and watch the revolution occur overnight.

I believe voting rights should be based upon knowledge, university degrees don't show this. A biology major isn't likely to be well versed in history and I've met homeless men who know more than some of my classmates (I'm currently attending a university). A well designed test released for review before voting occurs would be my preferred method of ascertaining an informed voter populace. Unfortunately the tests would likely be prone to attempted manipulation, or at least the perceived fear of such.

I have the intelligence to garner a Univeristy Degree, but not the direction or the compulsion.

You also don't seem to understand foreign politics or economic systems judging by your post about capitalism and chinese involvement in currency markets.

Thats unconstitutional in the US. Limitations on voting are strictly minimal and cannot impact the right to vote.

Again if SCOTUS is ignored look to the evil mouthbreathers correcting the situation quickly. The universities that survived "Night of the Bubba" would quickly tow the line.

The biggest problem in Western politics is the generally passive nature of the Left compared to the more active nature of the Right...Ergo the Right find it easier to garner attention, thus promoting their own thoughts, the Left rarely gathers enough momentum within itself to bother arguing back.

Sad huh?

Thats unconstitutional in the US. Limitations on voting are strictly minimal and cannot impact the right to vote.

That is certainly true and is more of a cure for a symptom (poorly informed potential voters) and not the cause (poor education standards and a broken system of news media)

The biggest problem in Western politics is the generally passive nature of the Left compared to the more active nature of the Right...Ergo the Right find it easier to garner attention, thus promoting their own thoughts, the Left rarely gathers enough momentum within itself to bother arguing back.

Umm... Thats incorrect? The civil rights movements, the anti war movements in vietnam as well as Iraq, the climate initiatives. The left pushes considerably harder for its initiatives than the right does largely because the left is progressive whereas the right tends to resist change. The biggest failing of the left is that its too easy to paint using cold war rhetoric which still has a deep seated place in the psyches of many Americans.

For a dude with an IQ of 147 you're missing a lot here.

I blame a State Education system far more concerned with class reproduction, social elitism etc than actually teaching you anything vaguely useful in life.

Doesn't help that many times the Left is represented by Wackjobs (technical definition).

CodePink, Michael Moore, Sean Penn et all make the Left look like hypocritical, moronic, whiny weenies. better representatives (Obama, Biden) win elections.

The right is the same. Coulter, hannity et al-bad. Reagan, Buckley, good.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I blame a State Education system far more concerned with class reproduction, social elitism etc than actually teaching you anything vaguely useful in life.

...


You should either stop posting or start supporting your wacky viewpoints with.... Well anything.

More evidence that socialist ties exist.

Ahtman wrote:More evidence that socialist ties exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxifu8or4AM

Not as damning as this!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I blame a State Education system far more concerned with class reproduction, social elitism etc than actually teaching you anything vaguely useful in life.

...


You should either stop posting or start supporting your wacky viewpoints with.... Well anything.

Well, I had the pleasure of dating a former Public Schoolgirl for a good few months once upon a time.

What was I taught? Precious little. Information was scant, funding was criminally short. The History I was taught was definitely non Political. Even the Sports chosen were meant to engender success in the middle class, as traditionally the working class do not indulge in Tennis, Cricket, Hockey, or even Rugby. Me, I didn't like Sports in the least. I was refuse entry to any Grammar School as I did not sit the 11+ Exam, seeing as it doesn't exist in Scotland, and even in England only a few counties and local authorities continued to do so. Despite being 11, aid exam was then refused to me, leaving me no option but to be enrolled in one of the local Comprehensives.

As I said, education was patchy at best. Bit of French here, bit of Geography there. Yet rarely anything of any practical use (Technology to us...build a wooden box. Grammar School? Creatin circuit boards, electronics etc)

So despite being an intelligent fella, I simply never received the education to help my achieve my full potential. I left school at 17, as I had no direction in mind, so Uni seemed largely pointless. The Careers advice I got, bearing in mind I fancied Directing or Stand Up Comedy....'Have you though of joining the Army'?

So please, don't mistake my lack of academic achievement as a lack of ability, so much as a lack of will. There are only so many hours you can have wasted whilst the other members of the class read the same fricking page time and again before your brain switches off.

I learned the vast majority of what I know by arguing with people on the internet and looking things up on my own. I failed geography and was a pretty poor history student. I never took an economic class in high school, and I took remedial english on my senior year because I couldn't be bothered to do work. I'm now running A's and B's at a relatively prestigious state university and I'll hopefully have three degrees by the end of next year.



Don't expect me to be particularly forgiving when you complain about poor schooling. You clearly have the internet. Learn something. A "smart person" shouldn't make excuses for a general lack of knowledge, especially when that person chooses to comment on events and situations he/she knows seemingly nothing about. There is nothing I like less than a "lazy" smart person that doesn't seem to know a whole lot of but loves to talk up their intelligence.

What? no socialist suspenders? that would be so cool to wear to the office...

Frazzled wrote:What? no socialist suspenders? that would be so cool to wear to the office...

They help redistribute the weight.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What? no socialist suspenders? that would be so cool to wear to the office...

They help redistribute the weight.

So, because I switched off from Education and went into the workplace instead, I am now disallowed from any opinion, simply because I haven't studied certain areas?

If you are commenting on those areas that you haven't studied (like the chinese socialism/democracy/capitalism thing).

ShumaGorath wrote:If you are commenting on those areas that you haven't studied (like the chinese socialism/democracy/capitalism thing).

Attempt to deny the ability to comment...denied!

I support the great unwashed masses...er MDG's statements, even when I disagree with them (or can't understand what he's saying...)

Is China, or is China not, largely Bankrolling the West at the present moment in time? Yes, yes it is.

Democracy is not equal to Socialism. Correct?

Capitalism is equal to Socialism. Correct?

Whether or not you agree with my conclusions is you own business, but to say I know nothing about them because I haven't studied them is untrue.

China, for example, is arguably well placed to ride any global financial meltdown, as it is more than capable of feeding it's own population, and has enough natural resources to cut any imports to an absolutel minimum.

The post I was referring to in my original statement stated that Socialism had lost etc. China is still a Socialist State. And it is bank rolling the Capitalist States. Seems fairly clear which one failed to me. Yes, China does have a Capitalist market, which once again is a major flaw in many Americans understanding of Socialism...

I believe voting rights should be based upon knowledge, university degrees don't show this. A biology major isn't likely to be well versed in history and I've met homeless men who know more than some of my classmates (I'm currently attending a university). A well designed test released for review before voting occurs would be my preferred method of ascertaining an informed voter populace. Unfortunately the tests would likely be prone to attempted manipulation, or at least the perceived fear of such.

Informed by who though ?

You're not seriously advocating this are you ? You don't for one moment think that the "honourable" representatives we elect understand every single thing they decide upon do you ?

The fact is that sometimes the Emperor wears no clothes, and ultimately the safeguard we have against this is that anyone can point this out.

Is China, or is China not, largely Bankrolling the West at the present moment in time? Yes, yes it is.

No. No it is not. It is but one nation buying from the pot. We owe a considerable amount to japan as well. Also if I recall correctly saudi arabia.

Democracy is not equal to Socialism. Correct?

Capitalism is equal to Socialism. Correct?

Both are incorrect.

Whether or not you agree with my conclusions is you own business, but to say I know nothing about them because I haven't studied them is untrue.

I say you don't know anything about the subjects because you don't seem to know anything about the subjects. Not because you "never studied them".

China, for example, is arguably well placed to ride any global financial meltdown, as it is more than capable of feeding it's own population, and has enough natural resources to cut any imports to an absolutel minimum.

China is not capable of feedings its own people successfully. Especially without the surplus of goods and capitol it has experienced over the last few years. It can barely even feed its rural population now, let alone after an economic collapse that would almost certainly follow a global economic downturn.

China is still a Socialist State.

Except its not. Travel around rural china and ask a villager about what the social state is giving him. Its a tightly controlled semi totalitarianism with a popular government comprised mainly of civil engineers. It is quite different from the maoist or marxist socialist state.

Seems fairly clear which one failed to me.

And when asked a child will say that a heavy object falls faster. Intuition doesn't replace knowledgeability.

Informed by who though

I want people to know the political platforms of those they vote for. Statistically most can't be bothered to learn them. If you don't know the issues then your vote is a shot in the dark.

You're not seriously advocating this are you ?

Its a pipe dream and I've already stated that its a cure for a symptom and not the problem.

sebster wrote:As you saying you believe that the Machiavellian style is what we should aspire to? Or that Machiavellian politics are currently in place?

That the Machiavellian model is what is in place. Now do not take that as a criticism. Just as much harm has been done in this world by those attempting to do the "right thing" as by those amoral Machiavellian leaders. I think what's truly important is that we recognize and call it for what it is. No sugar coating, no politically correct terminology, just bare bones truth.

@ Everyone
I, like many of you, understand the enviroment in which nations exist internationally. My view point does differ in that I view these governments as amoral and can aknowledge the need for some of the less tasteful things our governments do. Now my next statement will inevitably spark a knee-jerk reaction because I am viewing these actions from the amoral view point. When examining the Iraq issue, from a Machiavellian point of view. My main problem with the whole mess wasn't so much that we did it. It's that we did it under false pretenses and somewhat poorly. I see the Iraq invasion and occupation as empire building. My problem is that we didn't call it that. To use a lie as pretense and then to let the lie be discovered, thus damaging our standing internationally and losing the support of the people, is very poor leadership in a Machiavellian model. Either come out and call it what it is or if your gonna lie you sure as heck better not get caught.

Now, from a moral point of view. Hussien should have been removed in the first conflict where we had the moral justification on our side. He had invaded a peaceful neighbor. The fact that we left him in office was our bad. To come back later and manufacture a means to invade was wrong. We had lost the moral imperative.



As to the x,-x y,-y concept. I think its to simplistic and limiting. There is no place for the 70% that usually don't vote because they feel unrepresented. The model deals in extremes and the majority of the people are middle of the road. The model also leaves no room for advancement. The current political models are not the only ones that are ever going to exist.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The small elite US force was also strongly advocated by Rumsfield as the new face of warfare. It functioned under clinton as clintons view of national military was one of decisive actions and not campaigns, leaving occupations to UN and NATO forces. The bush administration embraced the high tech low headcount approach but utilized it improperly.

I agree to a point. You are certainly correct that Rummy was one of, if not the biggest, proponent of a quasi-professional armed service in that administration. However he, though more often Wolfowitz, was also a major advocates of need based recruitment initiatives. The kind of policy that opens a conflict with minimal expenditure of force, and therefore loss of life, in order to generate public support so that it might be brought to a close through the deployment of additional troops transferred from the reserves. Troops that would then be replaced through reserve based recruitment initiatives. Trouble is, the services aren't exactly at the height of their popularity as a career path, and participating in an active war has not recently been a boon to recruiting. Hence my point that the misunderstanding was a matter of propagandic failings, and not necessarily specific strategic/tactical matters.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The civilian placement of ideologues instead of capable or experienced individuals is the strongest mark against the administration.

The difference between an ideologue, and a capable individual can often only be written after the fact. Especially when the actual differences in policy leanings are very small, and primarily built around an understanding of sustainable force levels with respect to the overall bottom line.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Toeing the party line was far more important than experience or knowledge, and ground level civilian mismanagement and upper level replacements (shinseki) were failings of the strongest degree.

Upper level replacements are par for the course in changes of military direction. Remember the controversy regarding Clinton's circumvention of the Pentagon through Clark?

I do agree on civilian mismanagement though. I noted as much earlier.

focusedfire wrote:
@ Everyone
I, like many of you, understand the enviroment in which nations exist internationally. My view point does differ in that I view these governments as amoral and can aknowledge the need for some of the less tasteful things our governments do. Now my next statement will inevitably spark a knee-jerk reaction because I am viewing these actions from the amoral view point. When examining the Iraq issue, from a Machiavellian point of view. My main problem with the whole mess wasn't so much that we did it. It's that we did it under false pretenses and somewhat poorly. I see the Iraq invasion and occupation as empire building. My problem is that we didn't call it that. To use a lie as pretense and then to let the lie be discovered, thus damaging our standing internationally and losing the support of the people, is very poor leadership in a Machiavellian model. Either come out and call it what it is or if your gonna lie you sure as heck better not get caught.

Finally someone who shares my view on the matter.

focusedfire wrote:
Now, from a moral point of view. Hussien should have been removed in the first conflict where we had the moral justification on our side. He had invaded a peaceful neighbor. The fact that we left him in office was our bad. To come back later and manufacture a means to invade was wrong. We had lost the moral imperative.

It also bears mentioning that most of the 'dissident groups' were those organizations that we encouraged to rebel against Hussein during, and after, Desert Shield/Storm. One can't really expect a warm welcome when the people that are forced to provide it were left to suffer under chemical attacks, and attack helicopter fire.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Is China, or is China not, largely Bankrolling the West at the present moment in time? Yes, yes it is.

Democracy is not equal to Socialism. Correct?

Capitalism is equal to Socialism. Correct?

Whether or not you agree with my conclusions is you own business, but to say I know nothing about them because I haven't studied them is untrue.

These are largely true, though 'bankrolling' is probably a little misleading.

China, for example, is arguably well placed to ride any global financial meltdown, as it is more than capable of feeding it's own population, and has enough natural resources to cut any imports to an absolutel minimum.

No, it isn't well placed. There's been a recent increase in unemployment of somewhere around 40 million people. There's been rioting. The Chinese economy is far more dependent on US markets for its good than the US is dependant on Chinese money.

ShumaGorath wrote:No. No it is not. It is but one nation buying from the pot. We owe a considerable amount to japan as well. Also if I recall correctly saudi arabia.

I said earlier in the thread the other nation is the UAE. But the most important thing to remember when it comes to govt debt is that it isn't just purchased by other nations. Most US debt is purchased by US companies or, weirdly enough, other parts of the US govt.

focusedfire wrote:That the Machiavellian model is what is in place. Now do not take that as a criticism. Just as much harm has been done in this world by those attempting to do the "right thing" as by those amoral Machiavellian leaders. I think what's truly important is that we recognize and call it for what it is. No sugar coating, no politically correct terminology, just bare bones truth.

Oh, alright. I thought you meant we should aspire to Machiavellian govt, and was already to write a lengthy rant when I read it again and thought 'is that what he meant?'

I don't completely agree with you, we don't have the two faced govt that will kill to ensure power that Machiavelli argued for, but there is certainly a lot more realpolitik going on than a lot of people assume.

sebster wrote:Oh, alright. I thought you meant we should aspire to Machiavellian govt, and was already to write a lengthy rant when I read it again and thought 'is that what he meant?'

I don't completely agree with you, we don't have the two faced govt that will kill to ensure power that Machiavelli argued for, but there is certainly a lot more realpolitik going on than a lot of people assume.

We will have to mildly disagree on this note. I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.



Hey, Sebster, care to debate whether socialism is harmless or destructive to democracy? Don't have a lot of time for it tonight but am willing to start.

focusedfire wrote:We will have to mildly disagree on this note. I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.

Didn't mean to suggest there weren't govts out there like this, I mean... Stalin.

But I don't think it applies to all people in all governments.

Hey, Sebster, care to debate whether socialism is harmless or destructive to democracy? Don't have a lot of time for it tonight but am willing to start.

If you want, but it depends on what you mean by socialism and hamful. 'Destructive' could probably be interpreted in different ways as well

Socialism in terms of progressive taxation, socialised medicine, welfare, public education... at that level it isn't harmful. I'd argue it's beneficial.

But if you're talking about socialism in terms of the state owning the means of production, well it gets a lot more tricky. I guess the short answer is that theoretically there's inherent in socialist theory that prevents it being democratic, but it never seems to work out that way.

I said earlier in the thread the other nation is the UAE. But the most important thing to remember when it comes to govt debt is that it isn't just purchased by other nations. Most US debt is purchased by US companies or, weirdly enough, other parts of the US govt.

Are you sure? For some reason I had the strongest memory of Japanese foreign investment, as well as Saudi. I may be mixing up facts though. Japan previously filled the role china does now when it comes to buying US assets did it not? My memory about things that happened worldwide when I was 15 or younger are kind of shifty.

I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.

Wait.. What?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Are you sure? For some reason I had the strongest memory of Japanese foreign investment, as well as Saudi. I may be mixing up facts though. Japan previously filled the role china does now when it comes to buying US assets did it not? My memory about things that happened worldwide when I was 15 or younger are kind of shifty.

They run about even, with China having just passed Japan in total ownership. The Saudis and the UAE tend to get rolled together in terms of overall debt ownership. Not surprising given their degree of interconnection. Though the UK actually holds more of the debt than they do, and recently the Caribbeans passed them as well.

Of course this is all before our upcoming debt expansion

ShumaGorath wrote:

I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.

Wait.. What?

I think he means Bikini Atoll, and the Trinity test.

dogma wrote:They run about even, with China having just passed Japan in total ownership. The Saudis and the UAE tend to get rolled together in terms of overall debt ownership. Not surprising given their degree of interconnection. Though the UK actually holds more of the debt than they do, and recently the Caribbeans passed them as well.

Of course this is all before our upcoming debt expansion

Thanks for the correction. I must have been thinking of current buyers instead of holders.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.

Wait.. What?

I think he means Bikini Atoll, and the Trinity test.

I was thinking more of the tests where they would drop/set off a nuclear device and then had soldiers walk through/near the area to practice military movements after such attacks to see what would happen. Oddly enough, many of the soldiers became very sick. I can't recall the specifics, I'll have to research it a bit.

This is also an interesting link on along the same lines.

I thought that was Bikini Atoll/Operation Crossroads. I could be wrong though.

However, I do know that the Trinity test involved the use of under-protected observers, and poor site contamination control.

Actually it was more like the Tumbler-Snapper and PlumbBob Operations. Check out the Desert Rock exercises, especially VII ans VIII.

http://www.dtra.mil/newsservices/fact_sheets/print/index.cfm?factsheet=ntpr_plumbbomb.cfm

These are where those old classic civil defense films where the Marines and Army troops are in trenches during detonation come from. It's funny how innocent they make manuevers sound.

Btw, it used to be a lot easier to get info on this and from more credible websites. Used to be able to get the images, also. Maybe my research skills are slippin'.



@Sebster, I see that we somewhat agree on a few things already. Btw, nice catch on my propagandized statement.

I will counter with that Taxation, without strong civilian oversite, becomes a tool for maintaining class distinction. That if the wealthy are in power they will benefit to a greater extent from the tax codes enacted and enforced. If the poor get in power they will quickly be made a part of the upper class so as to protect the status quo.

Socialized Medicine in its pure form will cripple even the most robust economy. I think a dual system would be more appropriate, we should be offering increased choices not restricting them. I would argue that Dr.s and Nurses that recieved govt loans should have the option to work those loans off in free clinics if they so choose.

The other two I will leave till later. Must leave for now. Sorry, I forgot to ask before jumping off, Which side of the debate do you wish to take? Seriously, take the side you think will produce the more enjoyable discussion. later