|
VOTE FRED THOMPSON! Sure he's not even running (yet), but he smokes Cuban cigars and was on Law and Order. What more can a depressed voter need?Call hime what you want, but 'true conservatives' voted for this guy, and enacted his irresponsible and wasteful legislation. It wasn't us liberals.As a dedicated Right Winger I am going to say what all true conservitives say: George Bush is NOT A CONSERVITIVE, and is certainly NOT RIGHT WING...
The problem is that the last election was rigged. Our options were to vote for one s@##head or another. Kerry wouldn't have been any better, his crap would just be a different color. I've lost a tremendous amount of faith in American government over the last 10 years.
Please God, if you're listening, send us a candidate for the next election who isn't a moron and actually intends to do their job according to the best interests of the American people... and make sure that this candidate actually WINS. Please?
Sorry I must disagree with you - the last election was not rigged, it just didnt turn out the way you wanted it, just like the '06 wasnt to my liking - though, I will agree with you that a)'Our options were to vote for one s@##head or another. Kerry wouldn't have been any better, his crap would just be a different color.' and b)'actually intends to do their job according to the best interests of the American people...'
As someone who has never voted 'for' a presidential canidate in a general election, only against one. I am truly hoping for someone that I can vote for without holding my nose. I am also desperately hoping for term limits for congress and a viable third party - but as my late pappy used to say: 'hope in one hand, and $#^* in the other and tell me which fills up first'.
"Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" - Joseph Stalin
There were shenanigans aplenty and they're easy to find if you're actually looking for them or care to know. Votes aren't getting counted (research Ohio, 2004 election). In a historical context, bid rigging is something the Democrats did far more often than the Republicans. It can be done, and so it often has been done. Regardless of whether it's a Donkey or an Elephant, it's a democracy killer.
I don't think that, en masse, the complaints of bid rigging have as much to do with people being so upset that their man lost that they invent wild conspiracy theories (though a certain segment certainly do). I think people are more often simply demanding that their vote counts, fair and square. I don't think the two parties are all that different from one another and I'm loyal to neither. Nevertheless, I think we all agree that if "our man" wins because he cheated, we all lose.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Sorry I must disagree with you - the last election was not rigged, it just didnt turn out the way you wanted it, just like the '06 wasnt to my liking...
Okay, sorry, let me clarify my definition of 'rigged' here: I did not think that the votes were necessarily tallied incorrectly or that there were some shenanigans involved in the voting process (there may have been, but it's irrelevant in this case). I'm saying that there were only two candidates to choose from (realistically) and neither of them were any good.
I voted for G.W. Bush in the two previous elections. He was, in my opinion, better than the alternative. That doesn't mean he was good. Savvy?
|
|
Sorry I must disagree with you - the last election was not rigged, it just didnt turn out the way you wanted it, just like the '06 wasnt to my liking...Okay, sorry, let me clarify my definition of 'rigged' here: I did not think that the votes were necessarily tallied incorrectly or that there were some shenanigans involved in the voting process (there may have been, but it's irrelevant in this case). I'm saying that there were only two candidates to choose from (realistically) and neither of them were any good.
I voted for G.W. Bush in the two previous elections. He was, in my opinion, better than the alternative. That doesn't mean he was good. Savvy?
Yes I Savvy. If I understand you - then you and I are in agreement. I also voted for GW (I nearly voted for Buchanan in 2000 as a protest vote - I am sorry to admit I did something similar in '92 with Ross Perot, but I changed my mind at the last moment in 2000) - and I again refer to my earlier post about viable 3rd parties, as well as term limits for all politicans...
[Fred Thompson's] not just an actor though. He's also one of those backwoods fellas with lots of home spun wisdom. For instance, ina n interview he did for the Weekly Standard, he's quoted once as saying, "A cat won't sit on a hot stove twice, but he won't sit on a cold stove either." Priceless!!
That's a qualification for being President?
QUOTE="Aberzombie"][Fred Thompson's] not just an actor though. He's also one of those backwoods fellas with lots of home spun wisdom...
That's a qualification for being President?
No, but he is qualified. Google him -- his record is surprisingly impressive.
|
|
QUOTE="Aberzombie"][Fred Thompson's] not just an actor though. He's also one of those backwoods fellas with lots of home spun wisdom...
That's a qualification for being President?No, but he is qualified. Google him -- his record is surprisingly impressive.
Exactly! When it comes down to it, he is smart, seemingly honest, and filled with common sense (something sorely lacking in many politicians). He is also well spoken and very good at grabbing people's attention. He was very popular in his home state of Tennessee, and would likely have had a second term as Senator if not for personal tragedy.
All my joking about him earlier aside, I do think he would make a very good President. The home spun wisdom and movie quotes are just a bonus for those with a sense of humor.
As I stated earlier, from what I've read, there hasn't been a single viable treatment or cure developed through research utilizing embryonic stem cells - which is what the President opposes. There have been successes with research conducted utilizing adult stem cells - which some Republicans, including the President I believe, have supported.
Not interested in the liberal or conservative viewpoints; they both make me want to cry. But on this issue I might be tempted to post, just to follow up on GregH.
Until the Wright brothers, there wasn't a single viable means of sustained artificial flight. Until Trinity, there wasn't a single viable atomic explosion. Should we ban the airlines and surrender to Japan? Many oppose nuclear arms on ethical grounds; they have the right to do so, whether I agree with them or not. But no one argues against them on the basis of "they hasn't worked yet, and therefore cannot." I respect an ethical standpoint, but not an anti-science one.
All my joking about him earlier aside, I do think he would make a very good President. The home spun wisdom and movie quotes are just a bonus for those with a sense of humor.
"God looked down on '08, and He saw that it was bad for His party. Giuliani was a pinko gun-control baby-murderer (never mind his pro-defense stance and fiscal conservatism); McCain was an anarchist amnesty-granter who would deny the people their right to torture (never mind his anti-gay rights and pro-prayer in schools stances); and that guy Romney was the worst of the lot: a dreaded 'flip-flopper.' And God said, My people, the American public, does not want someone with opinions that cross party lines. They want a Hillary Clinton, who spouts the stereotypical left line until she has no idea what she's saying. And they deserve the same for the right. Politics shouls be a package deal; issues have no individual significance beyond their indication of one's party.
"And God said let there be Fred Thompson. Let every single one of his stances line up with every single one of the mixed bag of stuff that people label 'right.' And He saw that it was good."
|
|
As I stated earlier, from what I've read, there hasn't been a single viable treatment or cure developed through research utilizing embryonic stem cells - which is what the President opposes. There have been successes with research conducted utilizing adult stem cells - which some Republicans, including the President I believe, have supported.Not interested in the liberal or conservative viewpoints; they both make me want to cry. But on this issue I might be tempted to post, just to follow up on GregH.
Until the Wright brothers, there wasn't a single viable means of sustained artificial flight. Until Trinity, there wasn't a single viable atomic explosion. Should we ban the airlines and surrender to Japan? Many oppose nuclear arms on ethical grounds; they have the right to do so, whether I agree with them or not. But no one argues against them on the basis of "they hasn't worked yet, and therefore cannot." I respect an ethical standpoint, but not an anti-science one.
Then its a good thing my standpoint isn't an anti-science one (although I regret if it came out reading that way). I'm coming form the point of view that I would rather have taxpayer money invested in proven research. Let the private industry fund the stuff that hasn't been proven, on the off chance that it might one day pay off. That is what private investment is all about.
In this day and age, the government wastes too much of our money. If President bush wants to prevent some of that (even if he's doing it for moral reasons and not fiscal ones) then I'm fine with his decision.
Then its a good thing my standpoint isn't an anti-science one (although I regret if it came out reading that way). I'm coming form the point of view that I would rather have taxpayer money invested inproven research. Let the private industry fund the stuff that hasn't been proven, on the off chance that it might one day pay off. That is what private investment is all about.
Nor would I disagree with you, except that the private funding is luring our most gifted researchers to places like Singapore. I love America; I'd like to see them stay here. If the majority feels that ponying up some cash will do the trick, I'm willing to let them try, is all. I'm actually not trying to flame you here, just to make a (hopefully) less-political point.
In this day and age, the government wastes too much of our money.
Amen!
|
|
Then its a good thing my standpoint isn't an anti-science one (although I regret if it came out reading that way). I'm coming form the point of view that I would rather have taxpayer money invested inproven research. Let the private industry fund the stuff that hasn't been proven, on the off chance that it might one day pay off. That is what private investment is all about.Nor would I disagree with you, except that the private funding is luring our most gifted researchers to places like Singapore. I love America; I'd like to see them stay here. If the majority feels that ponying up some cash will do the trick, I'm willing to let them try, is all. I'm actually not trying to flame you here, just to make a (hopefully) less-political point.
Its all cool. Hell, this place is usually one of the better places to have a civil discussion about politics and such, which I always appreciate.
But are our reserachers being drawn away. We also get a lot of folks from other countries that come here. Also, many of the big companies who fund this kind of research are world-wide anyway. I don't care where a cure of any kind comes from (unless its from aliens, they can't be trusted), so long as one comes.
But are our reserachers being drawn away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/business/worldbusiness/17stem.html?pagewa nted=2&ei=5088&en=a3268595bc581cd7& amp;ex=1313467200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2006/aug/27/566659463.html
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/622323/singapore_fills_stemcell_void_cr eated_by_a_us_ban_authoritarian/index.html?source=r_health
I'm coming form the point of view that I would rather have taxpayer money invested in proven research. Let the private industry fund the stuff that hasn't been proven, on the off chance that it
This is the exact opposite of how things presently work. Currently, the government pays for speculative work, and industry takes over once something works out.
Well, if you ask me, the real problem is
KILL! KILL! KILL! DEATH TO THE SOFT PINK ONES!!!
*whew*! I'm safe!
*whew*! I'm safe!Well, if you ask me, the real problem is
KILL! KILL! KILL! DEATH TO THE SOFT PINK ONES!!!
Everybody's pink on the inside!
Everybody's pink on the inside!*whew*! I'm safe!Well, if you ask me, the real problem is
KILL! KILL! KILL! DEATH TO THE SOFT PINK ONES!!!
Not Vulcans.
El Skootro
|
Then its a good thing my standpoint isn't an anti-science one (although I regret if it came out reading that way). I'm coming form the point of view that I would rather have taxpayer money invested in proven research. Let the private industry fund the stuff that hasn't been proven, on the off chance that it might one day pay off. That is what private investment is all about.
Well, I think I disagree with that statement on a philosophical level close to 100%. I can feel the progressive urges building in my stomach, threatening to rip me apart and step out of my smoking corpse, a vile demon from the far reaches of the left...
Behold, the Pinko Slaad!
[Chanting, croaky voice. Razor sharp claws coated with the remains of its host, it begins to vent...]
Private industry is going to be looking for an immediate return on their investment. Private industry will more often than not steer for the surest buck. Private industry will also hide results that don't match what they're looking for. That's always a peril in scientific research, but it's doubly so when the company is paying the bill. Leaving frontier research to private industry is like letting oil companies write our energy legislation or set our fuel efficiency standards...oh wait, we do that too don't we?
Frontier research belongs at our research universities, or with well-funded federal departments in cases where the nation's security is a factor (read NASA). Spread the cost across the entire tax base to fund the research that is most cutting edge, and least sure to realize an immediate profit. If people have an issue with the moral dimension of some branch of scientific research then fine, we'll debate the issue, like we've been doing for stem-cell research. But let's not turn the scientific agenda of the entire country over to the private sector. That's a cop out because it turns research that is controversial over to the sociopathic free market with nothing but the bottom line to answer to.
Specifically in the case of stem cells, it's my opinion that the decision should be made to fund new cell lines based on the demands of the scientific community. From all the literature I've read, there are not enough active stem cell lines to keep pace with the number of new research projects that want to get off the ground in this field. Bioengineering is the new white meat. We better hope that it stays that way, and that we are able to stay on the bleeding edge, because that "giant sucking sound" you hear is the sound of alot of the best new work in IT going to India and China. This is important, and worth the argument, because I think it might bear directly on our kids' ability to make a middle-class living.
I personally think that this is not about moral objections to this specific use of stem-cells, but a reactionary fight against the slippery slope. As documented by other posters above, we're not talking about viable fetuses snatched from the living womb. This argument goes back to the holy grail of moral arguments, the big A.
[Pinko slaad dons his Che Guevara, cocked jauntily to the left, and bounds into the jungle looking for a new victim.]
Then its a good thing my standpoint isn't an anti-science one (although I regret if it came out reading that way). I'm coming form the point of view that I would rather have taxpayer money invested in proven research. Let the private industry fund the stuff that hasn't been proven, on the off chance that it might one day pay off. That is what private investment is all about.
But that's my point, you have it backwards. It's public money that is needed to fund the of-the-wall stuff. Because private funds won't. Private funds will only go where there is a perceived possibility pay-off. That's how investment works.
In this day and age, the government wastes too much of our money. If President bush wants to prevent some of that (even if he's doing it for moral reasons and not fiscal ones) then I'm fine with his decision.
I agree that gov't wastes too much, but I believe the funding of pure research (science without the need for financial pay-off) is not only a good thing, but that is the government's job.
Here in Canada (yes, that socialist country to your north :-) a lot of the great work is being done by publicly funded universities and government labs.
Greg
Edit: whups, didn't read Luke's post :-) I agree with him.
|
|
Then its a good thing my standpoint isn't an anti-science one (although I regret if it came out reading that way). I'm coming form the point of view that I would rather have taxpayer money invested in proven research. Let the private industry fund the stuff that hasn't been proven, on the off chance that it might one day pay off. That is what private investment is all about.
Well, I think I disagree with that statement on a philosophical level close to 100%. I can feel the progressive urges building in my stomach, threatening to rip me apart and step out of my smoking corpse, a vile demon from the far reaches of the left...
Behold, the Pinko Slaad!
[Chanting, croaky voice. Razor sharp claws coated with the remains of its host, it begins to vent...]
Private industry is going to be looking for an immediate return on their investment. Private industry will more often than not steer for the surest buck. Private industry will also hide results that don't match what they're looking for. That's always a peril in scientific research, but it's doubly so when the company is paying the bill. Leaving frontier research to private industry is like letting oil companies write our energy legislation or set our fuel efficiency standards...oh wait, we do that too don't we?
Frontier research belongs at our research universities, or with well-funded federal departments in cases where the nation's security is a factor (read NASA). Spread the cost across the entire tax base to fund the research that is most cutting edge, and least sure to realize an immediate profit. If people have an issue with the moral dimension of some branch of scientific research then fine, we'll debate the issue, like we've been doing for stem-cell research. But let's not turn the scientific agenda of the entire country over to the private sector. That's a cop out because it turns research that is controversial over to the sociopathic free market with nothing but the bottom line to answer to.
Specifically in the case of stem cells, it's my opinion that the decision should be made to fund new cell lines based on the demands of the scientific community. From all the literature I've read, there are not enough active stem cell lines to keep pace with the number of new research projects that want to get off the ground in this field. Bioengineering is the new white meat. We better hope that it stays that way, and that we are able to stay on the bleeding edge, because that "giant sucking sound" you hear is the sound of alot of the best new work in IT going to India and China. This is important, and worth the argument, because I think it might bear directly on our kids' ability to make a middle-class living.
I personally think that this is not about moral objections to this specific use of stem-cells, but a reactionary fight against the slippery slope. As documented by other posters above, we're not talking about viable fetuses snatched from the living womb. This argument goes back to the holy grail of moral arguments, the big A.
[Pinko slaad dons his Che Guevara, cocked jauntily to the left, and bounds into the jungle looking for a new victim.]
Private industry does not always "look for the quickest buck". Sometimes they soend years and invest millions (or even billions) just to bring a single drug to the market. And saying they "hide results that don't mathc what they are looking for" is blowing things way out of proportion. Has that happened in the past? Yes. But the number of times it has happened is very small compared with the sheer volume of research that goes on. Private industry can do the research better, and bring it to the market faster and with less cost than the government.
And let's not forget that the government is filled with the same kind of people who are in private industry, usually hidden behind a maze of bureaucracy.
I agree that research should be conducted at universities, and private industry can fund that research just as easily as government can.
I'm not advocating that private industry fund everything. I'd just like to see the government use the tax payer money in a more responsible way. Since research with embryonic stem cells has not produced any viable results, then government should stay away from it. If it ever does produce, then, by all means, let the government throw some money that way.
I also don't really see this as an abortion issue. I remember reading somewhere that they can get stem cells off of umbilical cords, so this could be taken from every child born. That would be a lot of cells.
Lastly, let's leave good old Che out of this. I don't think a mass murdering thug has any place at all in a discussion about life saving research.
|
|
I agree that gov't wastes too much, but I believe the funding of pure research (science without the need for financial pay-off) is not only a good thing, but that is the government's job.
Here in Canada (yes, that socialist country to your north :-) a lot of the great work is being done by publicly funded universities and government labs.
Greg
See, that's where you and I differ. I would rather have government do as little as possible because things get less f&$*ed up that way. Let them watch, and set some rules of conduct, but that's it.
By the way, I don't actually think Canada is completely socialist. You've got some good qualities. I look forward to visiting some time, but it'll have to be in the hotest part of summer. If I came up there in July and it was like 40 degrees my mind would probably shut down. That happened once when I was in Wisconsin.
See, that's where you and I differ. I would rather have government do as little as possible because things get less f~&*ed up that way. Let them watch, and set some rules of conduct, but that's it.
But the problem is, if you make it completely up to the free market, then only those things that provide immediate payoff will be funded.
So every single astronomer would be out of a job, instantly. Astronomy is one of those pure sciences which has absolutely zero immediate potential for any financial payoff.
Every time I look at a Hubble telescope image, I thank god that there is public funding for pure research.
And that's just one example.
By the way, I don't actually think Canada is completely socialist. You've got some good qualities. I look forward to visiting some time, but it'll have to be in the hotest part of summer. If I came up there in July and it was like 40 degrees my mind would probably shut down. That happened once when I was in Wisconsin.
S'ok. I wasn't directing that specifically at you personally. I just know we have a bit of reputation south of the 49th. And summers aren't too bad (40F at night is a possibility), most days we here (in Montreal) are hot and humid in the 80F+ temp range from July - Aug.
Greg
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
See, that's where you and I differ. I would rather have government do as little as possible because things get less f&@~ed up that way. Let them watch, and set some rules of conduct, but that's it.
Now see, I think the less you supervise business, the worse things gets. Capitalists have proven themselves to be just about the most amoral folk around, in terms of how much harm they are willing to cause for a buck.
|
|
Now see, I think the less you supervise business, the worse things gets. Capitalists have proven themselves to be just about the most amoral folk around, in terms of how much harm they are willing to cause for a buck.
See, that's where you and I differ. I would rather have government do as little as possible because things get less f&@~ed up that way. Let them watch, and set some rules of conduct, but that's it.
That's where the whole rule of conduct thing comes in. Reasonable laws that strike a balcne between protecting the public and allowing businesses to operate and make a profit. We don't always have that.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
With all due respect, I must disagree with you. The 100% opposite is true.
So you think capitalists are the LEAST amoral people around? Wow. I guess that makes sense, since you're just advocated anarchy. I can think of a very long list of people who I'll trust to do the right thing before I'd trust any businessman. Slave labor and sale of body parts for market price would both be options attractive to capitalists, were they permitted.
Note I said "amoral", in that pro-business folk seem to act like morality can always be sidelined in the name of profit. This is distinct from "immoral".
The usual libertarian/pro-business stance is that anything harmful will be filtered out by the free market. An examination of history, even recent history, shows this turns out not to be the case, as you will for example have people putting plastic in food to elevate the apparent protein detected by chemical assay, or putting antifreeze toothpaste. The "free market" doesn't restore life to pets or people.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I am sorry I must not have made my point clearly. I do not advocate anarchy, I do however advocate the philosophy of: 'the govt that governs least, governs best'. As for a list of people who will do the right thing? Who are these people corrupt politicans or bueracrats? I know many businessmen - and women for that matter - and I have a real hard time imagining them engaging in the amorality you suggest.
While I grant you the point that even recent events have happened - the poison pet food from China comes to mind (the country I was referring to in my earlier post) - overall the american businessman is no more amoral than anyone else - and IMHO certainly less so than the average entrenched political appointee or corrupt politican.
As for 'usual libertarian/pro-business stance' - I was not taking that stance only quoting a book that I remembered, because I believe that the same govt that can run social security, FEMA and the USPS service so well is not going...
The government that governs not at all governs least, so you either don't mean your slogan, or you advocate no government at all. This is a problem with slogans - people usually don't mean them, and don't think about what they are saying.
China's current export behavior is a brilliant example of capitalism gone awry, which is why I brought it up. Gone away on both sides, in fact - on the export side in terms of what they are willing to do for a buck, the import side in terms of lack of oversight, and mindless adherence to mantras like "free trade" and "world markets" rather than forcing a level playing field.
While I don't believe all companies are morally bankrupt, I do believe that absent strong enforcement, the less moral you are, the better your competetive edge, and the worse off the people. There's something to be said for government being stronger than any business.
|
|
Note I said "amoral", in that pro-business folk seem to act like morality can always be sidelined in the name of profit. This is distinct from "immoral".
Forgive me. I'm not sure what you are saying here. From dictionary.com -- Amoral = not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
While I agree that many business don't really bring morality into their decisions, are you saying that the government should be forcing morality on us (and businesses) or dictating what is "moral", "immoral", or "amoral"?
I'm just not sure why this was brought up or what the ultimate point is.
|
|
There's something to be said for government being stronger than any business.
I'm not sure what this means either. What does "stronger" mean? As a company, the US Government most likely has the biggest deficit out there. Is that "stronger"? Maybe they should tax the people more to make them "stronger".
I'm not sure where this is headed.
For what it's worth, I feel that there needs to be a good balance and that that balance is difficult to clearly define. I am in mortgage lending and there are something like five different branches in government regulations that have made laws about mortgages. The problem is that, while the laws are meant to "protect the consumer", some of the laws contradict each other and ultimately it reaches a point that the consumer suffers because of how much things are regulated.
I guess that it would just be nice if the government regulations that we currently had actually made sense.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Oh, I do believe this slogan - it means that the best form of govt is a weak central govt that does not abuse...
You missed the point. A government that governs not at all governs least, which is clearly NOT the best government. Tyranny isn't a good government either. The truth of most political questions is that the sensible path avoids extremes. The problem with glib slogans is they lead to knee-jerk reactions.
|
|
China's current export behavior is a brilliant example of capitalism gone awry, which is why I brought it up.
Wait a minute. Are you actually saying that China is an example of capitalism? Since when? Did they all of a sudden wake up and start having free elections over their when I wasn't looking?
Here is a nice definition of capitalism:
An economic system, marked by open competion in a free market, in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to increasing accumulation and investment of profits.
That's not China by a long shot. At best they have some bastardized form of semi-free market. At worst, their seemingly free market is still held in the iron grip of the tyrants who run the country. Saying they are a capitalist society is like comparing Communism and Socialism - not the same thing!
Are you actually saying that China is an example of capitalism? Since when? Did they all of a sudden wake up and start having free elections over their when I wasn't looking?
Capitalism does not entail democracy.
Also you would be surprised by the free market activity here if you actually came and looked.
I'm not excusing anything done by China's so-called "tyrants", but I think some of the stuff you are venting originates from the anti-Chinese propaganda that suffuses American media.
|
|
Are you actually saying that China is an example of capitalism? Since when? Did they all of a sudden wake up and start having free elections over their when I wasn't looking?Capitalism does not entail democracy.
Also you would be surprised by the free market activity here if you actually came and looked.
I'm not excusing anything done by China's so-called "tyrants", but I think some of the stuff you are venting originates from the anti-Chinese propaganda that suffuses American media.
Yeah, that's why I put that caveat of "at best" in there, which is what the system is mostly like. But for him to say that China is a perfect exapmple of how bad capitalism can be is, in my mind, wrong. He might have done better to pick an example of the U.S. back in the days before unions became really strong.
From what I have read, China has made some big strides towards a more open and free society. But they are not free and the leaders are still tyrants - just ask the people of Tibet.
... just ask the people of Tibet.
So I should ask a national minority in an occupied province to get a well rounded opinion of China's government?
Hehe.
I don't ask the minorities that have been slaughtered by Americans throughout American history to get a gauge of America's government.... So, I do not do that with China either.
You guys have Hawaii and California. They have Tibet. Canada has Quebec. We all deal with it. I've been to Tibet and talked to Tibetans. They have a lot of different opinions and I haven't heard all of them, but they do not all speak as their self-appointed propaganda mouthpieces in the US claim they do. Besides, looking at this objectively and in terms of global strategy, having Tibet is a neccesity for China, however much I want their people to be free.
Government in China is a matter that can't be understood through the visors that you use to look at your own country. If China pooped out a democracy tomorrow I would run screaming because some people are not ready to vote, they are ready to mob. My wife is a Filipina, I wish you could hear her running around the house screaming about the voting habits of her country-people, who can't seem to help electing morons. Granted, when they elect someone good, they get blown away, but.... you get the point.
All in all, I am glad I am Canadian. We are overgoverned but have enjoyed a gradual trend toward decentralization, largely as a result of the b!+#!ing done by Quebec.
Yay for b!@&#ing. The freedom to b+!+% is important, and is the biggest problem with China and the Philippines, mentioned above. People getting smeared for b$@#%ing after 9/11 in the US really scared me, but things seem to be coming around again. Good luck to the lot of ya. Keep b%$$!ing.
The other thing about Tibet, btw: it was a feudal theocracy before the Chinese walked in.
Their lords sent a bunch of dispassionate, unarmed, untrained, and hungry serfs to fight against the seasoned PLA, who wanted to share a system of government that they cherished(a refrain sung by many, n'est pas?), which was a lot like Saddam sending his bums against the invading US forces (different kind of advantages, same result).
If I believed all the stuff I heard in North America without looking any further, the invasion of Tibet sounds like some kind of serene religious utopia was destroyed and replaced by death camps and forced Mao worship.
Again, I'm not defending it. It sucked. But things are rarely what they seem to be after be mediated by god-knows-who.
EDIT: I have one last thing to say then I'll shut up, cuz this thread is about US affairs and it's none of my business. I only read it because I am interested in Politics.
I love Americans, I lived in your country for almost three years, and Canada just wouldn't be Canada if it weren't for you guys. But you all scare the s#+$ out of me. America is the only country that has ever invaded Canada, and the only country that potentially ever will. So please, please, cut it out with this militarism.
|
|
My wife is a Filipina, I wish you could hear her running around the house screaming about the voting habits of her country-people, who can't seem to help electing morons. Granted, when they elect someone good, they get blown away, but.... you get the point.
Kind of like the Palestinians. The Western nations urged them towards free elections, and they go ahead and elect the one group (Hamas) that is going to piss off the Western Nations. Of course, for them it was a choice between what they saw as the corrupt existing power structure (Fatah) or the "Here is some medicine and food. Now, let's destroy Israel." new guys.
Still, I look forward to a day when all the people on this planet can enjoy the "freedom to b@&~#", as you so eloquently put it. Of course, I won't hold my breath.
As for me, I'm proud to be an American. We aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. In my own opinion, however, we're a hell of a lot better than most other nations.
Edit: And I don't think you have to worry about the U.S. invading Canada. There'd be no point to it, and then you'd just retaliate by killing all the Baldwin brothers. Besides, if a Democrat gets elected President, they'll gut the military as much as possible.
Edit: And I don't think you have to worry about the U.S. invading Canada. There'd be no point to it, and then you'd just retaliate by killing all the Baldwin brothers. Besides, if a Democrat gets elected President, they'll gut the military as much as possible.
Check out "Exxoneration" by Richard H. Rhomer. A quite enjoyable (from a Canadian's point of view), if not completely fanciful account of an attempted take over of Canada by the US. (Yes, I said "attempted". :-)
Greg
Contributor
|
By the way, I don't actually think Canada is completely socialist. You've got some good qualities. I look forward to visiting some time, but it'll have to be in the hotest part of summer. If I came up there in July and it was like 40 degrees my mind would probably shut down. That happened once when I was in Wisconsin.
This gave me a laugh, because I thought, It's often 40 degrees here in July. Then I realized you meant Farenheit, not Celsius.
Both China and Russia are evolving toward reluctant capitalism. Poor things, living in the capitalist closet like that. The role of the state seems to be pervasive, and a major determinant of the progress toward capitalism in both China and Russia. The central state role, concurrent with the development of a market sector, makes for a dualistic approach to capitalism. It's its own brand of capitalism, to be sure, but it's happening. We need to let go of the age old archetypes, because they no longer reflect what's happening on the ground, right now at this very moment.
As things usually do... this got me thinking about something off-topic but sort of related...
Apologies for my upcoming tangential aside. Why to not blindly follow the antiquated politics of our elders simply because we respect them:
Back in 1983, at age 15, I told my grandfather that the wall would come down in Germany and that Gorbie would probably institute wide-scale changes in Russia. He smiled patronizingly and explained that his experience had taught him the patterns of these people and while it was easy to pop into the world bright-eyed and optimistic, once you've been alive for 70 years you begin to see the way things really are. Blah blah blah. Then I mentioned solar energy and he told me how it doesn't work, and I said, "One day someone's going to develop a panel that works in lower light... and then, the 90 percent of us who don't live in the desert will have use for them."
He asked if I had gleaned my information from Mad magazine, screamed something about DO GOODERS! and stormed out of the room. As for those solar panels I mentioned. Google (Stan/Stanford R.) Ovshinsky. Buy what this man is basically giving away. He's a true saint.
At the beginning of Walden, Thoreau says that he does not necessarily go along with heeding the alleged wisdom of elders. He finds that after a lifetime most people tend to spout advice based on their bitterness and personal failures as much as their successes. I've found this to be quite true of my grandfather. He will tell you why things won't work before you've tried them based on little things that happened to him personally. Sad. He told me my first business (a pet sitting service still going strong since 1992) wasn't respectable. I told him it made a certain respectable amount that year, up a certain respectable percentage from the previous year. He said, "Call me when it makes that amount NET!"
A year later I made that call. He had no reaction whatsoever. There's no winning with some people, so save the effort for something productive... like not taking advice from them and continuing to refine your own take on things. Thank you for the free therapy. I'm good now.
|
Giuliani was a pinko gun-control baby-murderer (never mind his pro-defense stance and fiscal conservatism)
*TWITCHES*
He is a power mad sleaze with no respect for any law but his own. He broke his oaths to his wife and his faith (and don't forget his incest to go with his adultery), and people expect he'd keep an oath to defend the Constitution? His "genius" put the emergency command center for the city in a primary target that had already been damaged, and his lust for political power drove him to murder hundreds of rescue workers by letting them work at the site without protective gear. By 1 PM on 9/11 I predicted he would try and cancel the election within a month. To his "credit" he came through for me on that.
Anything he says is purely to advance his position. He believes in nothing but his own aggrandizement, and anyone who trusts him will regret it as much as those who have suffered under his "reign" and know him for what he is.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rants already in progress.
:)
|
|
Giuliani was a pinko gun-control baby-murderer (never mind his pro-defense stance and fiscal conservatism)*TWITCHES*
He is a power mad sleaze with no respect for any law but his own.
Anything he says is purely to advance his position. He believes in nothing but his own aggrandizement, and anyone who trusts him will regret it as much as those who have suffered under his "reign" and know him for what he is.
Yeah, I don't really like him either. I consider him to be the Hillary of the Republican Party.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yeah, that's why I put that caveat of "at best" in there, which is what the system is mostly like. But for him to say that China is a perfect exapmple of how bad capitalism can be is, in my mind, wrong. He might have done better to pick an example of the U.S. back in the days before unions became really strong.
From what I have read, China has made some big strides towards a more open and free society. But they are not free and the leaders are still tyrants - just ask the people of Tibet.
Ah, the misquote, classic example of bogus debating tactics. I actually said a "brilliant" example. You see, capitalism can exist in China just as socialism can exist here. Most countries aren't purely one thing or the other.
Currently, China is an active example of why business shouldn't exist without oversight, and why it can't be trusted to be moral. It's also an example of what we'd see here if we dropped down our oversight. Note that US companies deliberately tried to dispose of food that was known to be tainted by using it as animal feed - that's not much of a step away from adulterating the food in the first place.
|
|
Then I mentioned solar energy and he told me how it doesn't work, and I said, "One day someone's going to develop a panel that works in lower light... and then, the 90 percent of us who don't live in the desert will have use for them."
I actually consider solar energy to be one of the better "alternative eneryg sources. There was even a congressman a while back who was trying to put together support for what would essentially be an orbital solar energy collector that would be tethered to the ground by a really loooonnnngggg cable. From an engineering standpoint, I thought it was very interesting. The place I've seen the most solar power use is Hawaii, though I think California is big on it to.
I still say, however, that with regards to engergy the French got it right (for once). They get approximately 70% of their electricity needs from nuclear power.
The one type I disagree most with is wind power, moslty due to the fact that I'm an engineer and have examined the cost/benefit ratio. It usually is never worth it.
Yeah, I don't really like him either. I consider him to be the Hillary of the Republican Party.
See, I like any candidate with the guts to not just tow the party line. Giuliani has my respect for daring to support gun control--whether I agree with him on it or not is irrelevant. The U.S. is so strongly divided now that it desperately needs less party line and more focus on actual issues-- the whole Red vs. Blue state thing is eerily like the North vs. South just before the Civil War. It's crazy, in my mind, to support an intensifying of that divisiveness.
I like Obama--a democrat who's not afraid to support capital punishment (again, my personal stance is irrelevant to the point I'm making). I like McCain--a Republican who's in support of closing Guantanamo Bay. I like Giuliani. The people I'm most afraid of (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson) are the ones in favor of perpetuating and exacerbating the "package deal" mentality, forcing us to choose Republican vs. Democrat instead of, say, balanced budget vs. increasing debt. In order to keep troops in Iraq, why does one also have to have lower taxes for CEOs, for example? Some of the party standpoints are self-contradictory, and yet we continue to cling to them in the face of reason.
|
|
Ah, the misquote, classic example of bogus debating tactics. I actually said a "brilliant" example. You see, capitalism can exist in China just as socialism can exist here. Most countries aren't purely one thing or the other.
Currently, China is an active example of why business shouldn't exist without oversight, and why it can't be trusted to be moral. It's also an example of what we'd see here if we dropped down our oversight. Note that US companies deliberately tried to dispose of food that was known to be tainted by using it as animal feed - that's not much of a step away from adulterating the food in the first place.
Actually, that is an error of memory on my part. I remembered the basics of what you said but didn't go back and read the actual text. Thanks for the accusation though. I didn't think I had any debating tactics at all, let alone bogus ones. My parents will be so proud.
Also, I wouldn't say that businesses in China exist without oversight. Everything in that country is overseen by the government. If they can single out and fire one journalist for mistakenly referencing the Tiannemen (spelling?) Square Massacre in a newspaper article, what makes you think they aren't watching everything else?