2008 US Presidential Election - Page 110

On November 05 2008 16:29 Jibba wrote:
1% left and he's up 20,000.

Man, I lived in Indiana and I never thought that could happen.

Say what you want about all the flaws in our government, that fact that someone like Obama was able to rise through higher education and to rise from the bottom of the campaign list to become president speaks wonders about the opportunities granted in this country. It is absolutely not consistently enough given in its current state and our efforts to foster it are not acceptable, but it is there for the bright and dedicated to grab. There are those Bush's and the Kennedy's, but across the political spectrum you will find leaders and legislators who have risen up from humble beginnings to become outstanding individuals.

On November 05 2008 16:29 Jibba wrote:
1% left and he's up 20,000.

Man, I lived in Indiana and I never thought that could happen.

Say what you want about all the flaws in our government, that fact that someone like Obama was able to rise through higher education and to rise from the bottom of the campaign list to become president speaks wonders about the opportunities granted in this country. It is absolutely not consistently enough given in its current state and our efforts to foster it are not acceptable, but it is there for the bright and dedicated to grab. There are those Bush's and the Kennedy's, but across the political spectrum you will find leaders and legislators who have risen up from humble beginnings to become outstanding individuals.

It has everything to do with your faulty argument. The EU is a coalition of European countries that act in congruence on economic and social issues. As soon as the markets got bad, nearly every EU country quickly tried to cover their own ass rather than think about the EU as a whole. That is mother fucking realism, you stupid motherfucker.

Secondly indeed national leaders are accountable to their own citizens this is why I believe many nations in fact most non major power nations would actually become liberal because their citizens want it to be so. They do not have significant nationalistic ambition rather they desire a world in a state of peace and prosperity. In Russia what people want is different, aggressive nationalism is very important in the political sphere, again in the United States this is exactly the same anyone who argues the United States should be more isolationist are immediately branded 'un american' and 'unpatriotic', despite the fact the founding fathers were resolutely isolationist.

We're not talking hypernationalism. Watch during any major crisis in any of those countries. The citizens only want to push towards the next cell of security ideaology when there is no immediate security threat. It's like a turtle and any time there's a threat, you know where they're going to end up. Leaders of states and NGOs are the ones who have to move things forward.

If the United States acted in the way they claim they do i.e defending freedom and the like, then they would have intervened in Dar fur and would have had wide spread international support in the process.

No one is disputing that American leaders are neo-realists. Everyone on the planet (except president Saakashvili) knew they weren't going to intervene on Georgia's behalf. The question is, why haven't your "liberal" social-democracies done so?

Germany is probably even more capable of ending the violence in Darfur at the moment, and they even have a vested interest in pushing back the Russians. Why do Germany and France continue to dump millions of pounds of horrible, radio-active waste in sub-Saharan Africa if those two countries are truly operating under a human security paradigm? Oh, because France has 8% unemployment and doesn't give a damn about fixing the world until their own problems are solved. Do you think France would suddenly be motivated to enter the conflict if Sudan was sitting on 40 billion barrels of oil?

. There's only one answer to that question. DING DING DING neo-realism everybody!

If the United States did not act in an aggressive imperialistic manner China and Russia may not be arming themselves to the teeth as a defensive response. Whether you believe nations can be Liberal or not is irrelevant I agree that quite possibly they cannot be Liberal the point is that being Realist means being entirely focused on your own interest, this is by definition being a psychopath.

You're using an absolute definition of a word which is completely inane. Infants are absolute realists. The US isn't. We rareeeeeely intervene for humanitarian reasons and we're slow to act when we do and we often abandon the cause too early, but we have done it at least three times in the past twenty years (Haiti, Somalia, Balkans.)

I'm heavily critical of the execution, but to say that we're totally self interested is absurd.

Bush's greatest contribution to date (there's so many to choose from!) has been his advancement in USAID and support against malaria, HIV, cholera, etc. in Africa. Other than the subsidized farmer food giveaway bullshit, USAID does a lot of good in the world, and is probably more effective than the UN/World Bank, etc.

BTW, Russia's misguided rearming may be in response to the US, but they're doing it at their people's expense.

China's is not in response to the US. China is concerned with Pakistan, India, Korea and Russia.

Corporations are entirely focused on self interest without any empathy thus they are by definition psychopath's also. I do not care about where corporations come from and I am making no value judgments about this rather I am discussing the true nature of a psychopath, something which is so often miss understood, something which was relevant back when this argument began.

Corporations are run by humans and responsible business is not a contradiction. Your only examples come from the "bad" corporations that end up in the news

but there's thousands that work otherwise and just because a company does a dishonorable thing on one front doesn't mean they're entirely self interested. Take a guess which company provided the most relief after Hurricane Katrina in size of cash donations, quantity of goods donated and man power to relieve the situation.

I started a search to find sources to justify my claims and within seconds I had found exactly that.

"We have all heard these phrases before. “Violent psychopath” (21,700). “Psychopathic serial killer” (14,700). “Psychopathic murderer” (12,500). “Deranged psychopath” (1,050). The number of Google hits following them in parentheses attests to their currency in popular culture.

This is idiotic. "stupid Choros" got 8,500 results.

The point is that in my opinion and as is indeed supported by science having no empathy is a psychopath there are diverse types of psychopaths but this is the overwhelmingly important trait. This is a trait people are born with, you either have it or you don't (although evidence exists it can be developed later in life through traumatic events etc). This brings me back to my original point people were debating whether there is 'altruism' my point is that some people are born altruistic and others simply are not but so long as the world is dominated by corporations who are by definition psychopaths, and nations who are realist, there will be very little altruism where it matters most.

p.s many psychopaths have more going on than simply acting is self interest i.e sadists serial killers etc, but these people are more than just simply being psychopaths I think it is important for people to understand the distinction.

Corporations are by definition self interested, because that's how capitalism is structured but that they completely lack empathy is absurd. Corporations are self interested thus by definition they lack empathy other than when empathy is in their interest. Luckily this is often the case, but not always, and we should actively work to remove the incentive to do bad.

And I know you don't think any trickle down effect from capitalism exists, but you're wrong.

When people do things out of the "goodness" of their heart, ESPECIALLY when it comes to giving aid, they do a much shittier job than when they actually have something at stake. That's why Sachs, Bono and the Millenium goals are a load of shit and why USAID/BFA do a better job than the UN.

On November 05 2008 17:47 a-game wrote:
wtf convicted felon stevens is leading in the alaska senate race with 72% of precincts reporting.

wow alaska, just wow