Government folly


Off-Topic Discussions

651 to 700 of 2,076 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

ProfessorCirno wrote:
ciretose wrote:

The problem with your question is that is assumes there is an alternative.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. If government isn't the one providing services, who will.

We tried limited government. It was called the dark ages and it sucked.

Hey, that's not true - we also tried the Articles of Confederation!

Which uh.

Uh.

Uh.

The world has tried dictatorship, autocracy, and plenty of other kinds of less limited government.

It seems to me they aren't so great.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Less than a year served for murdering an unarmed, handcuffed man. How long are those mandatory minimum sentences again?

Completely predictable.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
ciretose wrote:

The problem with your question is that is assumes there is an alternative.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. If government isn't the one providing services, who will.

We tried limited government. It was called the dark ages and it sucked.

Hey, that's not true - we also tried the Articles of Confederation!

Which uh.

Uh.

Uh.

The world has tried dictatorship, autocracy, and plenty of other kinds of less limited government.

It seems to me they aren't so great.

The US has also tried using a strong federal government with a mix of Keynesian and planned economics. How did that work out for us?

Wait, it got us out of the Great Depression and lead to previously unimaginable levels of prosperity and an unfathomable increase in living standards?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Stuff that I

linkified

Big corporations like their big government. It reduces competition.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
ciretose wrote:

The problem with your question is that is assumes there is an alternative.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. If government isn't the one providing services, who will.

We tried limited government. It was called the dark ages and it sucked.

Hey, that's not true - we also tried the Articles of Confederation!

Which uh.

Uh.

Uh.

The world has tried dictatorship, autocracy, and plenty of other kinds of less limited government.

It seems to me they aren't so great.

The US has also tried using a strong federal government with a mix of Keynesian and planned economics. How did that work out for us?

Wait, it got us out of the Great Depression and lead to previously unimaginable levels of prosperity and an unfathomable increase in living standards?

It gave us massive social programs that are headed for collapse, and it encouraged tens of millions to become very dependent on those badly managed programs.

It created massive bubbles and rampant corruption. I'm not a fan. I still think it's just silly to reward corruption and incompetence with more money and power.


not to mention a 65 million, err billion, err trillion dollar bill. Thats a lot of money to print.

Edit(off-topic)-Anyone else find it funny that no less than 3 participants in tonights republican debate stated that they want to keep the government out of peoples lives, yet would support a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. As if government should be involved in marriage in any form to begin with.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
It gave us massive social programs that are headed for collapse, and it encouraged tens of millions to become very dependent on those badly managed programs.

...No, it was digging INTO those programs and changing them with both Nixon and Reagan that are causing them to collapse. Namely, the implimentation of the tax cap for medicare, the creation of laws that prevent the government from shopping around for medicinal prices, the further tying of healthcare to the private option, etc, etc.

The US is one of the if not the only country to not have a strong centralized public health care. Somehow the other countries don't seem to have our problem.

Privatization and tax caps are what's killing social programs

Quote:
It created massive bubbles and rampant corruption. I'm not a fan. I still think it's just silly to reward corruption and incompetence with more money and power.

Again, no. It was not Keynesian theory or centralized federal power or social science usage or planned economics that caused this. It is "small government" republicans who encourage massive privatization.

A government so small it can't defend itself or its citizens against the CEO.

TheWhiteknife wrote:
Edit(off-topic)-Anyone else find it funny that no less than 3 participants in tonights republican debate stated that they want to keep the government out of peoples lives, yet would support a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. As if government should be involved in marriage in any form to begin with.

Well, that's what they want. A government so small it fits in your bedroom.


Academic findings on the anti-war movement. Eighth paragraph down and then through the link.

There was a thread that this post would be more appropriate in, but it got closed. :(


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Academic findings on the anti-war movement. Eighth paragraph down and then through the link.

There was a thread that this post would be more appropriate in, but it got closed. :(

The basic problem is that, in the eyes of many progressives, we elected a progressive leader who should thus be solving the problems with this country and begin healing the damage done previously. Mission accomplished, right?

What actually happened is that we elected someone who's rather right of the center - not too far from W Bush, hilariously enough - who painted himself as a progressive leader. Nothing changed but progressives were told that it was surely a whole new world.

The wolf wore sheep's clothing and we got fooled.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
What actually happened is that we elected someone who's rather right of the center - not too far from W Bush, hilariously enough

Have you ever seen them in the same place at the same time? Me neither. 'Nuff said.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Edit(off-topic)-Anyone else find it funny that no less than 3 participants in tonights republican debate stated that they want to keep the government out of peoples lives, yet would support a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. As if government should be involved in marriage in any form to begin with.

All politicians want a big government that lets them meddle in people's lives -- they just disagree which areas they want to start with. As near as I can tell, "small government" is just this year's doublespeak for "tyranny of the majority" -- anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-Christian Dominion, pro-corporate overlords. (The progressives are just as bad, if not worse, with the nanny state stuff.)


I would like to point out here that there is absolutely no such thing as "government waste" or "government corruption". Given the seemingly outrageous nature of that statement, it is obviously necessary to clarify the terminology.

Simply stated, "waste" and especially "corruption" imply that the system is working at cross purposes to its intent, that is to say, the things being pointed out are somehow unintended or unwanted consequences of the way we do business. This is obviously and patently false.

The simple truth is that THE GOVERNMENT IS FUNCTIONING EXACTLY AS IT IS INTENDED TO, WITH ALMOST NO DEVIATION WHATSOEVER. The money isn't being "wasted", it's going exactly where it is supposed to.

Take the War on Drugs, for example. Much attention is payed to the vast sum of money being wasted, but how much attention is payed to WHERE THAT MONEY ENDS UP? We pay quite a bit of attention to the money disappearing, but almost none whatsoever to where that money actually lands once it stops moving.

Contrary to popular belief, our government does very little by accident, and it ALWAYS gets what it pays for. Most of you have fallen for the most destructive and dangerous lie ever told: That the people running our government are "stupid", or "incompetent". These are very smart people, who know exactly what they are doing. I've always thought it was a tragedy that President George W Bush never received the Oscar he should have. Think about it: The Ivy League-educated son of a super-wealthy banking family from New England managed to convince the entire world that he was a dumb, uneducated everyman hick from Texas...Christian-effing-Bale couldn't have pulled off an acting job like that. A triumph of calculated image construction...and business as usual in our society.


ProfessorCirno wrote:


The basic problem is that, in the eyes of many progressives, we elected a progressive leader who should thus be solving the problems with this country and begin healing the damage done previously. Mission accomplished, right?

What actually happened is that we elected someone who's rather right of the center - not too far from W Bush, hilariously enough - who painted himself as a progressive leader. Nothing changed but progressives were told that it was surely a whole new world.

The wolf wore sheep's clothing and we got fooled.

Commie Propaganda Alert

Spoiler:
And, I fear, that's been the problem with all anti-war movements for the last, let's say, 50 years.

And thus, critics of American imperialism are corralled back into the Democratic Party which, at its core, agrees with the Republicans that the United States has the right to rule the world.

And it's just going to get worse. With the implosion of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the USA has the relative freedom to run roughshod around the world. And every day, the world looks more and more like it did on the eve of World War I, except this time with nukes.


Let the dogpile/flaming begin...but it must be said that there is only one political party in the United States. One party that has utilized a brilliant propaganda campaign designed specifically to fool people into believing it is actually two parties that are diametrically opposed to each other...they aren't. The "Republicans" and "Democrats" agree completely on all major policies. I say "brilliant" because it has managed to sell this lie despite the overwhelming amount of completely incontrovertible evidence showing that no matter which "party" gets elected, the end result is always the same. Literally, ALWAYS. No major policies have changed...in the last 90+ years.

("Major Policies" in this case refer to the underlying mechanics that make any society possible...food, energy, money...especially money and banking. Things like foreign policy are secondary, especially for the United States, which could -if it had the will- exist entirely on its own resources.)


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:


The basic problem is that, in the eyes of many progressives, we elected a progressive leader who should thus be solving the problems with this country and begin healing the damage done previously. Mission accomplished, right?

What actually happened is that we elected someone who's rather right of the center - not too far from W Bush, hilariously enough - who painted himself as a progressive leader. Nothing changed but progressives were told that it was surely a whole new world.

The wolf wore sheep's clothing and we got fooled.

Commie Propaganda Alert

** spoiler omitted **

I think the imperial criticism is an entirely valid one.


666th post


667th! The Neighbor of the Beast!

I havent read all 667 posts, so feel free to chastise me if this has been covered already.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

667th! The Neighbor of the Beast!

I havent read all 667 posts, so feel free to chastise me if this has been covered already.

The federal government's overseas and domestic assassination programs are troubling. Obama predictably embraced and expanded indefinite detention and assassination.

Freedom Watch - Obama's Assassination Program

The administrations use of state secrets doctrine to bypass judicial review is not comforting either.

Obama Calls Assassination Program A ‘State Secret’

Obama's troubling embrace of the state secrets doctrine


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll be in my bunk.

For some reason, my link-fu will only bring me to the menu page, and there's plenty of hotness there, but I was specifically trying to link the Fireside Chat about Libya being illegal, plain and simple.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'll be in my bunk.

For some reason, my link-fu will only bring me to the menu page, and there's plenty of hotness there, but I was specifically trying to link the Fireside Chat about Libya being illegal, plain and simple.

Good editorial!


Take Back Obama's Transparency Award

I liked this one too.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

667th! The Neighbor of the Beast!

I havent read all 667 posts, so feel free to chastise me if this has been covered already.

The federal government's overseas and domestic assassination programs are troubling. Obama predictably embraced and expanded indefinite detention and assassination.

Freedom Watch - Obama's Assassination Program

The administrations use of state secrets doctrine to bypass judicial review is not comforting either.

Obama Calls Assassination Program A ‘State Secret’

Obama's troubling embrace of the state secrets doctrine

the main comment on the second link sums up my feelings on that particular issue. the third link seems to be another mark in the damned if you do, damned if you don't column.


Freehold DM wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

667th! The Neighbor of the Beast!

I havent read all 667 posts, so feel free to chastise me if this has been covered already.

The federal government's overseas and domestic assassination programs are troubling. Obama predictably embraced and expanded indefinite detention and assassination.

Freedom Watch - Obama's Assassination Program

The administrations use of state secrets doctrine to bypass judicial review is not comforting either.

Obama Calls Assassination Program A ‘State Secret’

Obama's troubling embrace of the state secrets doctrine

the main comment on the second link sums up my feelings on that particular issue. the third link seems to be another mark in the damned if you do, damned if you don't column.

I can respect some of the historical arguments for killing US citizens who have chosen to fight for the other side in a war, but we haven't fought a constitutionally declared war since WW2. The absence of a declared war greatly muddies the waters.

It's easy to hate the really despicable examples, but I think the slippery slope here is plain to see. If this guy had personally killed or threatened Americans there might even be a better argument, but as far as I know he is only accused of radicalizing and maybe conspiracy. Have we reached a place where we are willing to kill Americans without due process for objectionable speech? Maybe there is really compelling evidence that he is a major conspirator giving specific orders like an OBL, but are we OK with just taking the government's word that it's a secret and we should just trust them? Even if I were to accept that we are currently using this power in the most reasonable and responsible way imaginable (which I don't) what about the next administration or the next? This is a precedent we will look back on with profound regret some day.


Bitter Thorn wrote:

Take Back Obama's Transparency Award

I liked this one too.

I'm going back to my bunk.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

Take Back Obama's Transparency Award

I liked this one too.

I'm going back to my bunk.

LOL! I like her thought process, but I prefer my ladies older and curvier.


Sieglord wrote:

I would like to point out here that there is absolutely no such thing as "government waste" or "government corruption". Given the seemingly outrageous nature of that statement, it is obviously necessary to clarify the terminology.

Simply stated, "waste" and especially "corruption" imply that the system is working at cross purposes to its intent, that is to say, the things being pointed out are somehow unintended or unwanted consequences of the way we do business. This is obviously and patently false.

The simple truth is that THE GOVERNMENT IS FUNCTIONING EXACTLY AS IT IS INTENDED TO, WITH ALMOST NO DEVIATION WHATSOEVER. The money isn't being "wasted", it's going exactly where it is supposed to.

Take the War on Drugs, for example. Much attention is payed to the vast sum of money being wasted, but how much attention is payed to WHERE THAT MONEY ENDS UP? We pay quite a bit of attention to the money disappearing, but almost none whatsoever to where that money actually lands once it stops moving.

Contrary to popular belief, our government does very little by accident, and it ALWAYS gets what it pays for. Most of you have fallen for the most destructive and dangerous lie ever told: That the people running our government are "stupid", or "incompetent". These are very smart people, who know exactly what they are doing. I've always thought it was a tragedy that President George W Bush never received the Oscar he should have. Think about it: The Ivy League-educated son of a super-wealthy banking family from New England managed to convince the entire world that he was a dumb, uneducated everyman hick from Texas...Christian-effing-Bale couldn't have pulled off an acting job like that. A triumph of calculated image construction...and business as usual in our society.

The stupid or evil argument is a tough one. I can't read minds.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

667th! The Neighbor of the Beast!

I havent read all 667 posts, so feel free to chastise me if this has been covered already.

BTW, Olberman gets props for bringing this up now!


Bitter Thorn wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

667th! The Neighbor of the Beast!

I havent read all 667 posts, so feel free to chastise me if this has been covered already.

BTW, Olberman gets props for bringing this up now!

Yes, I specifically chose his clip for bipartisanship.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

667th! The Neighbor of the Beast!

I havent read all 667 posts, so feel free to chastise me if this has been covered already.

BTW, Olberman gets props for bringing this up now!
Yes, I specifically chose his clip for bipartisanship.

:)


You're either soft on terror or megalomanical. At least that's what I'm seeing in a lot of criticism of Obama and not a few others on this topic. Even the articles you mentioned straddled the fence in their position, stating that if he was a terrorist then he should be killed, but taking the safe position of stating that is not yet known while quietly ignoring the accumulated evidence. It's setting up the administration for failure no matter what it does.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

Take Back Obama's Transparency Award

I liked this one too.

I'm going back to my bunk.
LOL! I like her thought process, but I prefer my ladies older and curvier.

Well, to each their own, but she seems to have ample "curves" to me.


Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F&~%ing disgusting.


You might find this interesting, too.


Freehold DM wrote:
You're either soft on terror or megalomanical. At least that's what I'm seeing in a lot of criticism of Obama and not a few others on this topic. Even the articles you mentioned straddled the fence in their position, stating that if he was a terrorist then he should be killed, but taking the safe position of stating that is not yet known while quietly ignoring the accumulated evidence. It's setting up the administration for failure no matter what it does.

I disagree. This adminstration, while campaigning for office, promised to start holding trials for suspected terrorists. Which the Constitution states is a right guaranteed to all people, not from a government but inherently from their Creator (whomever or whatever that may be.) I dont see how it could be setting up for failure by delivering on a promise that helped get him elected. One can be not soft on terror without resorting to unconstitutional torture and secret assassination lists.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.

The Exchange

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.

This one, although the spin on this "experiment" should be noted before reading


Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.
This one, although the spin on this "experiment" should be noted before reading

Yup, our tax dollars at work.

The Exchange

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.
This one, although the spin on this "experiment" should be noted before reading
Yup, our tax dollars at work.

Turns out that there were a number of these experiments, or rather experiments of this nature, many of which showed really promising or well interesting results.That did not involve beatings and what amounts to, to me anyway, torture of children.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.
This one, although the spin on this "experiment" should be noted before reading
Yup, our tax dollars at work.
Turns out that there were a number of these experiments, or rather experiments of this nature, many of which showed really promising or well interesting results.That did not involve beatings and what amounts to, to me anyway, torture of children.

It never ceases to amaze me what the government will fund and call science or art.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.
This one, although the spin on this "experiment" should be noted before reading
Yup, our tax dollars at work.

"In 1983 Rekers was on the founding board of the Family Research Council, a non-profit Christian lobbying organization, and he is a former officer and scientific advisor of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization offering conversion therapy intended to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. Rekers has testified in court that homosexuality is sinful and destructive and against parenthood by gay and lesbian people in a number of court cases involving organizations and state agencies working with children"

Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it...

"In May 2010 Rekers employed a male prostitute as a travel companion for a two-week vacation in Europe. Rekers denied any inappropriate conduct and suggestions that he was gay. The male escort told CNN he had given Rekers "sexual massages" while traveling together in Europe"

BOOM! There it is!

Like I said, conservatives want a government small enough to fit in your bed room, wide enough to mandate morality. Your morality, that is. Not theirs.

Incidentally, what solves this is not "NO TAX DOLLARS FOR RESEARCH EVER," what solves it is better and more widespread research ethics examinations. Keep in mind, neither of these stories are from modern day experiments. They took place in the 80's and the 40's.

The lesson isn't "Taxes and research is bad." It's "Wow, it seems if we demonize certain minority groups we end up doing awful things to them." The lesson isn't one of fiscal conservative, but of social progressivism.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.
This one, although the spin on this "experiment" should be noted before reading
Yup, our tax dollars at work.

"In 1983 Rekers was on the founding board of the Family Research Council, a non-profit Christian lobbying organization, and he is a former officer and scientific advisor of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization offering conversion therapy intended to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. Rekers has testified in court that homosexuality is sinful and destructive and against parenthood by gay and lesbian people in a number of court cases involving organizations and state agencies working with children"

Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it...

"In May 2010 Rekers employed a male prostitute as a travel companion for a two-week vacation in Europe. Rekers denied any inappropriate conduct and suggestions that he was gay. The male escort told CNN he had given Rekers "sexual massages" while traveling together in Europe"

BOOM! There it is!

Like I said, conservatives want a government small enough to fit in your bed room, wide enough to mandate morality. Your morality, that is. Not theirs.

Incidentally, what solves this is not "NO TAX DOLLARS FOR RESEARCH EVER," what solves it is better and more widespread research ethics examinations. Keep in mind, neither of these stories are from modern day experiments. They took place in the 80's and the 40's.

The lesson...

Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?

BTW "we" didn't all do terrible things to minorities. Who does your pronoun accuse?


Bitter Thorn wrote:
BTW "we" didn't all do terrible things to minorities. Who does your pronoun accuse?

If you paid taxes in the '80s, you're one of the "we." Me, too. Wasn't someone just saying that "let the buyer beware" should be the only standard of ethics in business? Well, then, by not fleeing to Canada, but instead staying here and paying taxes, you and I are morally complicit, to some extent, in everything they do with that money.

Unless we can put some rational limits on "let the buyer beware." I'd be in favor of that, but it would offend the ultracapitalists in the group.

The Exchange

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.
This one, although the spin on this "experiment" should be noted before reading
Yup, our tax dollars at work.
Turns out that there were a number of these experiments, or rather experiments of this nature, many of which showed really promising or well interesting results.That did not involve beatings and what amounts to, to me anyway, torture of children.
It never ceases to amaze me what the government will fund and call science or art.

I am an Art Cynic.... go figure.


Tuskegee went from '32 to '72. Which is still in the past, I know, but it's not quite as far back as we'd like to think.

I don't support a "no-money-for-research" policy, just to be clear. Bitter Thorn and I are extremists whose extremism has some interesting common ground, but this isn't one of them. I'm all in favor of, for example, billions for AIDS research.

I also disagree with Kirth's assertion that American taxpayers are somehow complicit in the crimes of the American government, and not just because I wasn't paying taxes in the eighties (I'd like to say I took the moral high ground and was a tax resister--I delivered those newspapers under the table!--but in reality I was prepubescent). It's not exactly like the gov gives you a choice!

And finally, I want to take a (female) prostitute with me on a two-week European vacation. Sounds like fun!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I also disagree with Kirth's assertion that American taxpayers are somehow complicit in the crimes of the American government

That assertion is true if and only if the previous assertion that "everything is perfect if the only rules are caveat emptor and laissez faire" is also true. If you disagree with my assertion, you are thereby disagreeing with the previous one. Which is fine -- I personally disagree with it as well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I already knew about the Tuskegee experiment , but I didn't know about this.

F##@ing disgusting.

I wonder how many more government projects like this we just don't know about.
This one, although the spin on this "experiment" should be noted before reading
Yup, our tax dollars at work.

"In 1983 Rekers was on the founding board of the Family Research Council, a non-profit Christian lobbying organization, and he is a former officer and scientific advisor of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization offering conversion therapy intended to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. Rekers has testified in court that homosexuality is sinful and destructive and against parenthood by gay and lesbian people in a number of court cases involving organizations and state agencies working with children"

Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it...

"In May 2010 Rekers employed a male prostitute as a travel companion for a two-week vacation in Europe. Rekers denied any inappropriate conduct and suggestions that he was gay. The male escort told CNN he had given Rekers "sexual massages" while traveling together in Europe"

BOOM! There it is!

Like I said, conservatives want a government small enough to fit in your bed room, wide enough to mandate morality. Your morality, that is. Not theirs.

Incidentally, what solves this is not "NO TAX DOLLARS FOR RESEARCH EVER," what solves it is better and more widespread research ethics examinations. Keep in mind, neither of these stories are from modern day experiments. They took place in the 80's and the 40's.

The lesson...

This is the equivalent to saying since Charlie Rangle can't be trusted to obey the tax laws he himself writes, niether can any other Democrat.

That's a prety broad brush.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
BTW "we" didn't all do terrible things to minorities. Who does your pronoun accuse?

If you paid taxes in the '80s, you're one of the "we." Me, too. Wasn't someone just saying that "let the buyer beware" should be the only standard of ethics in business? Well, then, by not fleeing to Canada, but instead staying here and paying taxes, you and I are morally complicit, to some extent, in everything they do with that money.

Unless we can put some rational limits on "let the buyer beware." I'd be in favor of that, but it would offend the ultracapitalists in the group.

So by that measure everyone in the US and everyone who did business with the US is morally complicit in the Iraq war even though they diligently opposed the Iraq war? Would that extend to everyone who didn't make war on the US in response to our acts of aggression? I have trouble accepting this in any meaningful way.

BTW I don't think anyone in the RP thread said that "Let the buyer beware." should be the only ethical standard in business. I think they said that markets work better with better informed consumers. That's hardly a call to anarchy.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I also disagree with Kirth's assertion that American taxpayers are somehow complicit in the crimes of the American government
That assertion is true if and only if the previous assertion that "everything is perfect if the only rules are caveat emptor and laissez faire" is also true. If you disagree with my assertion, you are thereby disagreeing with the previous one. Which is fine -- I personally disagree with it as well.

Yeah, I had second thoughts about the word "assertion" but went with it anyway, 'cos sometimes I'm lazy. (Sometimes? I'm a Teamster--I'm always lazy!)


Kryzbyn wrote:

This is the equivalent to saying since Charlie Rangle can't be trusted to obey the tax laws he himself writes, niether can any other Democrat.

That's a prety broad brush.

True, but the sheer number of outspokenly anti-gay preachers and politicians they catch with gay prostitutes or soliciting gay sex sort of makes me feel like there's definitely a recurring theme there. Maybe not 100%, but it's getting to be a pretty safe rule of thumb.

The Exchange

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

This is the equivalent to saying since Charlie Rangle can't be trusted to obey the tax laws he himself writes, niether can any other Democrat.

That's a prety broad brush.
True, but the sheer number of outspokenly anti-gay preachers and politicians they catch with gay prostitutes or soliciting gay sex sort of makes me feel like there's definitely a recurring theme there. Maybe not 100%, but it's getting to be a pretty safe rule of thumb.

Hypocrisy.

651 to 700 of 2,076 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Government folly All Messageboards