| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote: "They want to go to war with Iran, I disagree, [step in logical progression missing here], they're not informed/attentive/smart!" ...are you serious? Cheering for war is bloodthirsty. You don't cheer for war if you know the full consequences of sending young american men and women to die. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote: What we did in Germany and Japan was real nation-building, not nation-building on the fly and the cheap the way it's been practiced by Bush and Obama. "They want to go to war with Iran, I disagree, [step in logical progression missing here], they're not informed/attentive/smart!" Then stop smelling your own farts and talk to people? I used to think people were just dumb and uninformed too, but if you actually have a real conservation with them, not gotcha interviews on the street or stuff like that, they amazingly almost always speak intelligently! I think it's about time you woke up to the reality that is America. We live in a pretty big country, you know. There's tons of Darknats roaming the prairie lands of our country. And yes, I would say anyone who actually wants to go to war with Iran at the moment is not informed, not attentive, and not smart. You would think the number of people who watched Honey Boo Boo as opposed to the National Conventions would remind you of what kind of society we live in. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:14 DoubleReed wrote: ...are you serious? Cheering for war is bloodthirsty. You don't cheer for war if you know the full consequences of sending young american men and women to die. No, you cheer for war and then scold the pacifists for not being sorry enough that your children are dead | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote: What we did in Germany and Japan was real nation-building, not nation-building on the fly and the cheap the way it's been practiced by Bush and Obama. This is a really important point that didn't really occur to me until recently while I was watching the Ken Burns documentaries on the Civil War and World War II (both are excellent and available on Netflix). For nation building to really work in a hostile nation, inflicting complete defeat upon the hostile nation is a necessary condition for the nation building to work. If the population isn't completely defeated such that basically all resistance is crushed, then the nation building is going to go awry. This isn't to say that I am advocating that the US go crush a bunch of other countries so that it can go nation build. Instead, I think that the US should think very carefully before it decides to nation build. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:24 sam!zdat wrote: Also, any "nation building" project should consider whether western ideas of "rights" in the sense of the US version of liberal capitalist democracy are in fact as universal as we would like to claim they are. If nation building is just going in and demanding that other cultures acknowledge the superiority of western culture and conform to our ideas of how they should order themselves (to the benefit of multinational capital, I might add), it's neither a just nor strategically viable project. I really don't have any problem backing the idea that the US version of "liberal capitalist democracy" as you put it is universally superior. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:29 xDaunt wrote: I really don't have any problem backing the idea that the US version of "liberal capitalist democracy" as you put it is universally superior. Yes, I know. That makes us ideological enemies  edit: and it's also a big part of the reason that the rest of the world wants to blow up your office buildings edit: and at that point you should give up any pretense that you are yourself anything other than a jihadist | ||
|
Jisall
United States2054 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:33 Jisall wrote: Romney 2012 Baby! Smart people for office. Funny since intellectuals lean left. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:31 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, I know. That makes us ideological enemies edit: and it's also a big part of the reason that the rest of the world wants to blow up your office buildings edit: and at that point you should give up any pretense that you are yourself anything other than a jihadist ??? What are you talking about? Yes, the right to free speech is a serious one. The fact is that these cultures that don't believe in free speech need to confront their issues with it if they want to participate in a globalized world with the internet. It's not negotiable. It doesn't have to be the "US version" of liberal capitalist democracy. They can do it their own way for their culture. But yes, they must conform to human rights. When we go into these places, we don't give them our Constitution. We get them to develop their own Constitution. And oftentimes they're based on non-US ones. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 06:28 Defacer wrote: Seriously dude, fuck you. So I'm back from my 30 day temp-ban for having the temerity to point out how biased the admins here are with their treatment of my posts compared to the common insults from the lefties around here. Nice to see nothing has changed. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On October 08 2012 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote: Then what sort of cuts are good? Are you going with the Romney plan of government cuts? That's the plan where he cuts funding for PBS... and that's it! At least as far as we know. You say that cuts to spending are good for growth (just look at the UK), and also say that large cuts are bad, because there are things that shouldn't be cut because... what? Society expects government to provide some entitlements? If lower deficits lead to economic growth, then throwing people off welfare by cutting spending on welfare will lead to a stronger recovery that would make them better off. So why are you (or Romney) not going for drastic cuts to government services and welfare that would balance the budget? Since you've articulated no economic rationale on why this is a bad idea, is sympathy for the poor in the short run all that's holding you back? As for teachers and healthcare, I've got you covered: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=670#13397 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=692#13823 i would agree with cuts to education, the EPA, homeland security, etc. does Romney support these cuts? idk. once again, i never said anything so simple as "spending cuts are good for growth" or "large cuts are bad". this is a caricature of my position. why shouldn't we cut all entitlements? because some people do legitimately need help... pretty simple to understand. i didn't hear Romney say that he wants less teachers. i heard a guy twist his words so as to make it look like he said that. no flip-flop. on pre-existing conditions: “With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,” so there was no flip-flop, because Obama said that Romney's plan would drop people with pre-existing conditions. thus far, i have yet to see a valid "flip-flop". | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:42 dvorakftw wrote: So I'm back from my 30 day temp-ban for having the temerity to point out how biased the admins here are with their treatment of my posts compared to the common insults from the lefties around here. Nice to see nothing has changed. Comparing yourself to Defacer is like comparing a three-strikes felon to a social worker with no priors. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
-Why did you ignore the other graphs in my post? I didn't find them as interesting as the one that showed increased spending was twice the problem tax relief was. -Do you expect the CBO to have predicted the bursting of the dot com bubble, the bursting of the housing bubble and the GFC Yes, actually. Clinton talked about "the longest peace time expansion" so think about that. The CBO took what was already historically unusual growth and assumed it would continue that way forever. Look at some stock charts from the 80s and 90s and imagine in 2000 if you'd think it could just continue skyrocketing. I wouldn't fault them for not-very-accurate predictions, but if they would just acknowledge things were likely to change a bit, it'd be a good thing. Though to be fair to the CBO, they probably did have analysis predicting the growth wouldn't continue but that would make it harder for politicians to continue spending more and more so those charts are probably collecting dust somewhere. I already mentioned before the flaws of static analysis - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/28/010r-102899-idx.html - but it's still easy today to find examples of governments spending money they just assume will show up - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Facebook-prices-may-alter-Calif-budget-3758837.php As for the disappearing surplus, let's try some Arithmitic. Bush tax cuts -$1.5 trillion over ten years = $150 billion per year Middle East wars -$1.5 trillion over ten years = $150 billion per year Medicare part D -$750 billion over ten years = $75 billion per year TARP -$700 billion 2009 deficit $1.4 trillion 2010 deficit $1.3 trillion 2011 deficit $1.3 trillion 2012 deficit $1.2 trillion So if we pretend the tax cuts, the wars, the Medicare spending, and TARP were all Bush's fault and that Obama and the Democrats had zero interest in tax relief for the middle-class, fighting in Afghanistan, a Medicare drug benefit, and a giant slush fund of money to throw around to their pals, you get: 1400 + 1300 + 1300 + 1200 - ((150x4) + (150x4) + (75x4) + 700) = 5200 - 2200 = $3 trillion dollars missing during Obama's years As for the CBO saying the stimulus saved or created over 3 million jobs? That's just a guess. http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/11/is-the-cbo-cheerleading-for-the-stimulus "what they rarely add is that 3.3 million is the high end of a very large range. On the other side of the estimate, the CBO estimates that the stimulus may have created as few as 600,000 jobs—a low-end estimate that has actually gotten lower over time; the previous low end was about 1.2 million jobs." The entire counting system of jobs saved/created was pretty much a joke from the start http://www.propublica.org/article/white-house-changes-stimulus-jobs-count-111 You could save and create 100 million jobs for $100 million by giving 100 million workers $1 each. You could get near zero unemployment for just $2.3 billion by hiring the 23 million unemployed for $100 each. Sure it only lasts a single day but think of it: Zero unemployment! For $10 billion we could have no unemployment for an entire week. -You claim that Reagan was who caused the US to have the highest GDP on Earth. No, I said the founding principles of rule of law and true respect for property rights allowed the US economy to grow into the world's economic superpower. That is all before Reagan was even born. FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society and BHO's Hope and Change are all moves away from the free market to a government-centric treadmill. -As Clinton pointed out: Since 1961 "What's the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 [million]." And that's despite the fact that Republicans have been in power long than Democrats. Since 2009 what's the job score? -552,000? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/politics/fact-checking-obama-and-romney.html?pagewanted=all That's a few months old though so we can compromise at 0. Then you say that's Bush's fault and I say I'm just using Clinton's rules which you approved. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:45 sc2superfan101 wrote: i would agree with cuts to education, the EPA, homeland security, etc. does Romney support these cuts? idk. once again, i never said anything so simple as "spending cuts are good for growth" or "large cuts are bad". this is a caricature of my position. why shouldn't we cut all entitlements? because some people do legitimately need help... pretty simple to understand. i didn't hear Romney say that he wants less teachers. i heard a guy twist his words so as to make it look like he said that. no flip-flop. on pre-existing conditions: so there was no flip-flop, because Obama said that Romney's plan would drop people with pre-existing conditions. thus far, i have yet to see a valid "flip-flop". You can just watch this to see it for yourself. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
I thought it was interesting that you claimed this was a reason for conservatives not to talk about education. Care to elaborate a bit more, or give thoughts on an "ideal" system, maybe? Forgive me for not having paid much attention to Rice's & Jeb Bush's speeches at the RNC, but reading over excerpts from them makes it it seem that they both kind of avoided talking about one of my biggest issues with the system as-is, so I'm curious to see how people with differing views & politics think about it. As I have no plans to run for political office I don't have anything substantial to share but I can say the starting point of a good education is a student who WANTS to learn. Without that you're mostly wasting your time. It doesn't help when you spend more time watching TV or using a computer than anything else you do. I'm generally in favor of paying students to learn, except I believe it would quickly turn into welfare with everyone getting A's no matter what their grades are just so everyone gets max pay. I think a greater focus on reading comprehension and logic would help because then you can learn and adapt easier to whatever you come across in the future. Advanced math and science are nice but the amount of time put into learning theorems and chemical equations is wasted on the vast majority. You need some for everyone because it's good general knowledge and training for problem solving, but if you take out the kids who know they won't ever need it you can get a lot more out of the remaining students who do have a love for it. The "repeat a grade" structure seems shockingly inefficient. If you were to start from a blank slate I don't think you'd choose a design where you teach a concept, then build on that concept but leave some students without a solid grasp on the first concept. At the same time you don't want a system to move at the speed of the slowest students. Colleges have already become largely over-priced thanks to federal money and the mistaken goal of "everyone should go". Trade schools, community colleges, and apprenticeships/internships should be more appreciated. In short, it's not class size and nice classrooms and most of the things teacher unions go around demanding. It's certainly not how much you spend or how much you talk about it. And it's not something particularly suited for federal government top-down control It's what you teach, how you integrate and progress through subjects, and above all the student. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
This is a very interesting topic and I'm reading a great book on it (in the context of East Asia) at the moment: http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Liberal-Democracy-Political-Thinking/dp/069112308X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349736192&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond liberal democracy Much of our Western human rights discourse is ham fisted and does not respect the philosophical traditions of other cultures. Is universal suffrage a human right? I for one don't think it's a very good idea. What about the primacy of "freedom from" over "freedom to" in the western tradition, or the privileging of social liberties over economic rights? In the US we have free speech, but we don't have the right to live life on your own terms free from capitalist exploitation (economic freedom). I believe the state has an obligation to secure a basic standard of living for all of its citizens, but this is not a part of western "human rights" (in fact, western human rights are much more concerned with the right to starve). It's not that I think there's nothing of value in the western tradition, but we should not assume that what we consider to be rights (or, even if we agree on what things should be rights, what things are the most important rights) are universal and equally applicable to different social and cultural contexts. The western tradition needs to engage with non-western traditions for the mutual enrichment of all parties involved. edit: I should clarify that I am NOT a relativist; quite the opposite, in fact. edit: the fact that the idea that western conceptions of human rights may not be a) good or b) universally applicable makes you respond with three questions marks should be an enormous red flag | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:45 Souma wrote: Comparing yourself to Defacer is like comparing a three-strikes felon to a social worker with no priors. How about I can be a member of the Duke lacrosse team and he can be part of the New Black Panthers? | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:42 dvorakftw wrote: So I'm back from my 30 day temp-ban for having the temerity to point out how biased the admins here are with their treatment of my posts compared to the common insults from the lefties around here. Nice to see nothing has changed. DeepEmBlues pissed me off. His responded to my assertion that there is a fundamental disconnect from US military interventionism from day-to-day America life was to assume I was some kind of hippy-dippy commie. Yeah, I resent that. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
