Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.Wow, I just don't get this. I really can't make more of it than the rest of the world is bad, the United States is good.
Hehe. Ivory towers. I'm gonna add that to my word list.
The purpose of conservatism is to return to an atmosphere where the opportunity exists to get paid what you're worth and do what you love.
Nice idea, but when has such a time ever existed?
Just like healthcare: I believe by lowering the costs of the health services industry, we'll lower the cost of services and premiums at the retail level, which will result in more coverage. People not being able to acheive coverage wont' be solved by the government doing it for them. It will be solved by creating a climate where the business itself is less expensive, and the costs passed on to consumers (defensive medicine, taxes, pharma red tape) are reduced. Then some neat things will happen: more money will be avilable for research, hastening discovery and lowering costs of those new treatments; insurance companies will lower premiums and restrictions for high-risk policies; people will make different decisions in happier lives (like drug addiction, pregnancies no one will write a government check for, etc); and corporation will be able to look at their benefits packeages with a smile instead of a sense of pending doom.
That's very wishful thinking. If the actual cost of health care was lowered it would just give a chance for the insurance companies to up their profits. If you actually think they'd lower their prices you miss the entire point of capitalism.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.As far as how valuable the U.S. is, who do you think keeps the world peace? The U.N.? We're the only thing that keeps the predators at bay. If America disappeared, how long do you think Europe could stand on it's own?I never said that other countries are not free, valuable or anything else, I simply asked how the US was freer, more valuable etc. than the rest of the world.
I can't tell if you're serious or not... You think the whole world would implode if the US withdrew its troops from around the world? Pray tell why that would happen.
And which barbaric horde is it that the US is holding at bay from invading Europe?
And who are these other predators you are keeping at bay?
Also, please clarify which "world peace" it is that the US is upholding.
YOOOOOOOOOO JOOOOOOOOOE!!!!!
Seriously though, I would lean less on WWII itself and more on the lessons to be gained from WWI and it's aftermath, which lead to WWII.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.
Pssst.
I stole the plans to the new Chinese secret weapon: the continent-smasher. Gimme your email and I'll send it. Help me save the world Gary!
The purpose of conservatism is to return to an atmosphere where the opportunity exists to get paid what you're worth and do what you love.Nice idea, but when has such a time ever existed?
Of course, everyone knows about the Golden Age!
The purpose of conservatism is to return to an atmosphere where the opportunity exists to get paid what you're worth and do what you love.Nice idea, but when has such a time ever existed?
I alluded to that earlier, because I don't think it has. :(
The purpose of conservatism is to return to an atmosphere where the opportunity exists to get paid what you're worth and do what you love.
Nice idea, but when has such a time ever existed?
I'm not sure. Thisi s the main problem I have with a lot of conservative thinking- the firm belief that times were always better before, and that any negative issues at that time, social or otherwise, either do not merit mentioning or are considered exaggerated. Also, these time periods are rarely described beyond a few idealistic musings- can we get a specific time period this time 'round?
Just like healthcare: I believe by lowering the costs of the health services industry, we'll lower the cost of services and premiums at the retail level, which will result in more coverage. People not being able to acheive coverage wont' be solved by the government doing it for them. It will be solved by creating a climate where the business itself is less expensive, and the costs passed on to consumers (defensive medicine, taxes, pharma red tape) are reduced. Then some neat things will happen: more money will be avilable for research, hastening discovery and lowering costs of those new treatments; insurance companies will lower premiums and restrictions for high-risk policies; people will make different decisions in happier lives (like drug addiction, pregnancies no one will write a government check for, etc); and corporation will be able to look at their benefits packeages with a smile instead of a sense of pending doom.
That's very wishful thinking. If the actual cost of health care was lowered it would just give a chance for the insurance companies to up their profits. If you actually think they'd lower their prices you miss the entire point of capitalism.
Interesting point here. Profit is often its own justification. Where does the line get drawn between profit and social responsiblity- if it is even drawn at all?
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.
Pssst.
I stole the plans to the new Chinese secret weapon: the continent-smasher. Gimme your email and I'll send it. Help me save the world Gary!
I thought they were working on that weather dominator?
"Nostalgia victimizes the unknowing by instilling in them a desire for a simplicity and innocence they can never achieve."
—James Ellroy, Clandestine.
See I find the thought of ANY human dying of starvation or exposure repugnant. Do you? Is there really any decent argument against doing the right thing? Because that is what it is. It's called doing the right thing. It's supposed to make you feel good to know that your tax dollars may have saved a life. Let karma take care of the rest. If they don't deserve the help; karma will reward them in kind.
I put it on the table inthe Reagan thread and asked you to do so also.
Taxes don't do enough or the charities wouldn't be so busy feeding people.
What do you donate in terms of money and time to aid the homeless?
I am not talking about taxes. we all pay them but you apparently believe that you adhere to a higher standard than others.
So, put it on the table: dollars and hours of donations in addition to taxes.
Still waiting on an answer.
I thought they were working on that weather dominator?Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.
Pssst.
I stole the plans to the new Chinese secret weapon: the continent-smasher. Gimme your email and I'll send it. Help me save the world Gary!
Like duh! Everyone knows about that one.
I alluded to that earlier, because I don't think it has. :(The purpose of conservatism is to return to an atmosphere where the opportunity exists to get paid what you're worth and do what you love.Nice idea, but when has such a time ever existed?
As far as I can see there always has been such a time and always will be. But it exists only in our imagination.
But it exists only in our imagination.
Then we must declare war on Imaginationland!
I put it on the table inthe Reagan thread and asked you to do so also.Taxes don't do enough or the charities wouldn't be so busy feeding people.
What do you donate in terms of money and time to aid the homeless?
I am not talking about taxes. we all pay them but you apparently believe that you adhere to a higher standard than others.
So, put it on the table: dollars and hours of donations in addition to taxes.
Still waiting on an answer.
I'll answer. I give $5 a month to Unicef. Aside from a few canned food items here and there, that's it. I spend more on WoW than I do on charity. Should I do better? Absolutely.
I just don't get people that begrudge the use of their tax dollars for the poor.
|
Regarding Universal Health Care, quite aside from the social implications, it saves money. The CBO has, since 1991, consistently shown that it'd save money. Details on the reviews since 1991 can be found here. The CBO's take on the House and Senate Health Care Bill currently being considered should also be read, as they show a a net reduction in federal deficits of $109 billion and $130 billion respectively. NB. The links to the current bill estimates are in PDF form.
The experience in Europe shows that it costs less then the US. Take a look at some interesting charts here. The US spent 15.3% of it's GDP on Healthcare in 2006, compared to 8.4% for the UK. Source. And we Brits have Universal Health Care, so no one goes without.
So, clearly fiscal conservatism would suggest that Universal Health Care is the way to go.
I put it on the table inthe Reagan thread and asked you to do so also.Taxes don't do enough or the charities wouldn't be so busy feeding people.
What do you donate in terms of money and time to aid the homeless?
I am not talking about taxes. we all pay them but you apparently believe that you adhere to a higher standard than others.
So, put it on the table: dollars and hours of donations in addition to taxes.
Still waiting on an answer.
I'll answer. I give $5 a month to Unicef. Aside from a few canned food items here and there, that's it. I spend more on WoW than I do on charity. Should I do better? Absolutely.
I just don't get people that begrudge the use of their tax dollars for the poor.
Edit: Just logged in to check the bank: It's $10 a month. Still admittedly very poor.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yup,
Just as I thought. He's only for taking someone else's money.
Fact: Some people who are wealthy didn't earn their wealth, and instead simply got lucky, cheated, and/or exploited others.Bugleyman solution: Better to punish those who didn't break the rules, to make sure we get those who did. That I left some money for my children is equivalent to having 'cheating or exploiting others'.
of course he's not replied to this
No Matthew, I'm not for taking anyone's money. I do support taxation. Since I pay taxes every year (and make no mistake; I do *pay*) I'm already putting my money where my mouth is. Equating taxation with robbery is a deliberate oversimplification of my position.
But I've already explained this multiple times, which means you're baiting me. I'm asking you to stop.
Except where you say that we should take money from the rich because you feel We should be mad at the rich because they shouldn't benefit from the actions of their family they don't deserve it unless others judge they should be. I understand all too well.
Which again leads me to my statement about taking money from you to fund the scouts. After all, others have judged that you don't deserve what you have.
Edit: Just logged in to check the bank: It's $10 a month. Still admittedly very poor.
I put it on the table inthe Reagan thread and asked you to do so also.Taxes don't do enough or the charities wouldn't be so busy feeding people.
What do you donate in terms of money and time to aid the homeless?
I am not talking about taxes. we all pay them but you apparently believe that you adhere to a higher standard than others.
So, put it on the table: dollars and hours of donations in addition to taxes.
Still waiting on an answer.
I'll answer. I give $5 a month to Unicef. Aside from a few canned food items here and there, that's it. I spend more on WoW than I do on charity. Should I do better? Absolutely.
I just don't get people that begrudge the use of their tax dollars for the poor.
I had written a long reasoned post and hit submit post but suddenly realized that I hit cancel instead. :)
My begrudging is limited to how inefficiently the government does anything. However, my problem is that SOME portray how important this hunger is and seem to think it is the government's responsibility and don't sem to think it is their responsibility even more. IMO, that is wrong.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.I really can't make more of this than: China and Russia bad, United States good. To me, it is a prime example of binary, us/them thinking. How does one become so afraid of everyone else?
I just don't get it.
...and your post is a prime example of moral relativism. So what's your point? You know Bugleyman, I would love for you to stop this nonsense you pull with every argument you get into. It's always strawman, binary, or some other mumbo jumbo when you don't agree with another person. Earlier with Derek it was anti-intellectual. What's next?
Except where you say that we should take money from the rich because you feel We should be mad at the rich because they shouldn't benefit from the actions of their family they don't deserve it unless others judge they should be. I understand all too well.
Which again leads me to my statement about taking money from you to fund the scouts. After all, others have judged that you don't deserve what you have.
Whatever dude. You win. Is that what you want? I'm tired of going in this circle, and unfortunately I don't have an ignore button.
Leave me alone.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.
Pssst.
I stole the plans to the new Chinese secret weapon: the continent-smasher. Gimme your email and I'll send it. Help me save the world Gary!
Oh really? I'll give you a nickel for it. How about that? ;)
...and your post is a prime example of moral relativism. So what's your point? You know Bugleyman, I would love for you to stop this nonsense you pull with every argument you get into. It's always strawman, binary, or some other mumbo jumbo when you don't agree with another person. Earlier with Derek it was anti-intellectual. What's next?
Just as I'd love for you to attack my position, instead of me. Quit labeling stuff you can't be bothered to understand "mumbo jumbo." It's not nonsense; it's logic. Some of us just think that way.
The fact is China isn't evil. Russian isn't evil. The good guys don't wear white, and the bad guys don't wear black (or red). People are people, wherever you go.
Don't you get tired of being so afraid of everything and everyone all the time?
|
|
Binary Thinking is 'mumbo jumbo'? It's quite simple really. Binary Thinking is us/them. Right and wrong, Good and bad. No in between. Black and white morality. It's something you should strive to avoid.
It's also quite amusing that you think we 'Europeans' live in ivory towers, and that you'll have to 'save' us 'again'. Further, the assumption that the Russians or Chinese would carve up the world if they had the chance relies upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the world and it's structures today. To start with, you've got MAD.
When do you get to "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" from Shakespeare? At the risk of sounding like an Ivory Tower Intellectual, I think the Bard has a quote for almost any occasion.
Don't you get tired of being so afraid of everything and everyone all the time?
No, I'm not afraid of anything. I just happen to live in reality. We have two dangerous, powerful nations that are aggressive. If you think that these governments are the same as the western nations, you're awfully naive.
No, I'm not afraid of anything. I just happen to live in reality. We have two dangerous, powerful nations that are aggressive. If you think that these governments are the same as the western nations, you're awfully naive.
Tell me Gary: How different do you think they seem to a mutilated Iraqi civilian?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
...and your post is a prime example of moral relativism. So what's your point? You know Bugleyman, I would love for you to stop this nonsense you pull with every argument you get into. It's always strawman, binary, or some other mumbo jumbo when you don't agree with another person. Earlier with Derek it was anti-intellectual. What's next?Just as I'd love for you to attack my position, instead of me. Quit labeling stuff you can't be bothered to understand "mumbo jumbo." It's not nonsense; it's logic. Some of us just think that way. But wait...different is evil, right?
The fact is China isn't evil. Russian isn't evil. The good guys don't wear white, and the bad guys don't wear black (or red). People are people, wherever you go.
Don't you get tired of being so afraid of everything and everyone all the time?
don't do it Garydee, if you attack his position, then he sulks and whines! :P
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No, I'm not afraid of anything. I just happen to live in reality. We have two dangerous, powerful nations that are aggressive. If you think that these governments are the same as the western nations, you're awfully naive.Tell me Gary: How different do you think they seem to a mutilated Iraqi civilian?
Sadam mutilated or terrorist mutilated?
No, I'm not afraid of anything. I just happen to live in reality. We have two dangerous, powerful nations that are aggressive.
Don't you get tired of being so afraid of everything and everyone all the time?
Should we then fear the US too? It's a powerful and, according to your own assertations, actually quite aggressive (in "saving" the rest of the world from the evildoers... you still haven't pointed out who these evildoers are who the US supposedly are keeping at bay).
And what part of your reality can you point to where Russia and/or China is poised to invade Europe?If you think that these governments are the same as the western nations, you're awfully naive.
No one has claimed that they are the same governments, where are you going with this?
don't do it Garydee, if you attack his position, then he sulks and whines! :P
Grow up, already. I wasn't talking to you, so is there any particular reason you're harassing me? I've yet to ever use the FLAG button, but if you're going to follow me around and mock me every time I post, you'll be leaving me little choice.
Once more: Please leave me alone.
|
What it means to be a liberal
October 10, 2006
For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word “liberal” has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define “liberal” today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.
Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the “liberal” position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that “time has upset many fighting faiths.” Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.
2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)
3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; “one person, one vote;” limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.”
4. Liberals believe “we the people” are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as “conservatives,” share this value with liberals.)
5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.
6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to “promote the general welfare.”
7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.
8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)
9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.
10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: “Those who won our independence … did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.”
Consider this an invitation. Are these propositions meaningful? Are they helpful? Are they simply wrong? As a liberal, how would you change them or modify the list? As a conservative, how would you draft a similar list for conservatives?
|
|
No, I'm not afraid of anything. I just happen to live in reality. We have two dangerous, powerful nations that are aggressive. If you think that these governments are the same as the western nations, you're awfully naive.
I don't think China has plans to be anything but monetarily "aggressive" to the U.S. They have invested too much in our dollars; why would they actively destroy their own assets? The Chinese govt. can dominate us financially, but I seriously doubt they would ever feel the need to attack us militarily. Unless other nations also achieve 70% GDP through consumption of Chinese manufacture, and unless the U.S. becomes sufficiently politically and financially unstable to make the value of investing in dollars a much poorer choice than...something more exotic like a financial product tied to general movements in currency markets. The Chinese may WANT to disinvest to a more stable currency, and have even as much as said so, but they currently can't afford to neglect us; the Euro has not emerged as a good replacement, and Europe can't keep pace with us on consumption; and no one else really wants an IMF-typed currency because they feel it would be less stable, not more stable. Any imposition China could make on our government would be further demands to stabilize the dollar. If we can do that on our own, they'd probably leave us alone since, though they have a huge standing army, they don't have our MIC and don't want a costly, pointless war. China just wants us to keep consuming like good little capitalists and elect the same names every four years. That is all.
Last round of huzzah's then I'm probably going to bed.
@Garydee
Dude. You're freaking me out. I have the chin-beard, I'M supposed to be the evil one.
But seriously, your point of view is quite binary. You imply that China and Russia are only capable of slaughter on a massive scale, while America is only capable of preventing such things. That's textbook black and white, us vs. them thinking. Even if you do have a point or bring up several issues from history to back up your argument, the vitriol with which you make your statement makes it very hard to get words in edgewise or even debate. Are you interested in debating or do you just want to get your viewpoint across? I don't say this with any heat or sarcasm, as both are fine. Just know that they are usually detrimental to each other, as one calls for complete and total victory and the crushing defeat of the other, while the other calls for giving ground on both sides.
@ Matthew Morris
Ease up a bit. Making this personal may satisfy the snark sense, but it does damage what the people so far on this thread are trying to do. Less personal stuff and pot stirring. I'm not saying that links to other threads are not fair game, but the way you are using them doesn't lead down the path of discourse. Again, you may or may not be interested in that, but in this case that's not okay- this thread isn't for that kind of combat. I dont' agree with the vast majority of what you say politically, but I respect your opinion. Just turn down the snark, please. I want us all to reach some kind of understanding.
@ Bugley
I'm on your side in the vast majority of political things, friend. But flagging, even its suggestion, may get this thread shut down. Take a step back and come back to the thread later or e-mail me at yahoo if you really want to let loose. But don't let your anger get the better of you. It will deprive this thread of an important poster.
@CJ
Thanks for the quotes. Hopefully they cooled things off a bit. And you should've put that list up in the liberal thread so I could critique it there!
I'm really liking what I see here, angry posts aside. We can all raise this thread to heights never before seen in political discussion on this or any gaming site, or we can sit back and watch it burn. It's fairly obvious where I stand.
No, I'm not afraid of anything. I just happen to live in reality. We have two dangerous, powerful nations that are aggressive. If you think that these governments are the same as the western nations, you're awfully naive.I don't think China has plans to be anything but monetarily "aggressive" to the U.S. They have invested too much in our dollars; why would they actively destroy their own assets? The Chinese govt. can dominate us financially, but I seriously doubt they would ever feel the need to attack us militarily. Unless other nations also achieve 70% GDP through consumption of Chinese manufacture, and unless the U.S. becomes sufficiently politically and financially unstable to make the value of investing in dollars a much poorer choice than...something more exotic like a financial product tied to general movements in currency markets. The Chinese may WANT to disinvest to a more stable currency, and have even as much as said so, but they currently can't afford to neglect us; the Euro has not emerged as a good replacement, and Europe can't keep pace with us on consumption; and no one else really wants an IMF-typed currency because they feel it would be less stable, not more stable. Any imposition China could make on our government would be further demands to stabilize the dollar. If we can do that on our own, they'd probably leave us alone since, though they have a huge standing army, they don't have our MIC and don't want a costly, pointless war. China just wants us to keep consuming like good little capitalists and elect the same names every four years. That is all.
Actually, I'm interested in the conversative viewpoint on this. Despite what's going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps one day in Iran, red war is slowly going the way of the ostrich. Combat has shifted to Wall Street and the stock market, and I think this is where America as a country needs to focus with China especially. I agree wholeheartedly with Z, a stable American dollar IS what the Chinese want, and what a lot of other countries want too, perhaps for radically different reasons.
... you're awfully naive.
Whoever smelt it dealt it.
... you're awfully naive.Whoever smelt it dealt it.
Feel better?
Actually, I'm interested in the conversative viewpoint on this. Despite what's going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps one day in Iran, red war is slowly going the way of the ostrich. Combat has shifted to Wall Street and the stock market, and I think this is where America as a country needs to focus with China especially. I agree wholeheartedly with Z, a stable American dollar...
They are moving on you.
Want to sleep in your stew of moral rectitude and kill Iraqis? No problem. China loves that.
America is playing chess. China is playing Go. In chess the moves are aggressive, easy to see, and the progressions are predictable. In Go everything is subtlety and patience.
Feel better?... you're awfully naive.Whoever smelt it dealt it.
Yes, you're self righteousness pleases me.