Beside calling McCain a "borderline senile", what do you make of Christopher Hitchen's point of Obama being more to the right on the issue of Pakistan and putting the USA on a path to more war than his supporters typically realize.
Edit: I should have mentioned Christopher Hitchen is a Republican and a supporter of the war in Iraq.
I wish the interviewer had interrupted him less... he was making sense and not dodging questions.
I think Obama is a pragmatist who will never rule out any tool at his disposal. He won't definitely carry out operations in Pakistan, but he reserves the right to, as commander in chief. Eventually, Pakistan may refuse to act on intelligence that terrorists are operating within their borders despite economic and diplomatic pressure, but Obama might still refuse to go in if the costs outweigh the benefits.
Pakistan has lost more men in action against the Taliban than every single western nation combined. To ask them to commit themselves further to a fight they have no interest in, all they want with the Taliban is peaceful coexistence, will not work. Aggressive action toward Pakistan could lead to serious negative consequences, hopefully Obama isnt stupid enough to antagonise them. McCain would be.
It may appear their is no altruism some times but this is because all corporations are by definition psychopaths, and they largely run the show. At the same time nations themselves are 'realist' particularly the United States, China and Russia. This forces other nations to be realist themselves. Realists are psychopaths as well by definition.
that doesnt even make any sense
The realist ideology in international politics simply means acting in ones self interest, their is no room for empathy. A realist acts in the exact same way that a psychopath does, realism dominates international politics this is basically my argument, it makes it easy to see their is no altruism.
Ok, in that case 100% of the population is psychopathic. Well done, Choros.
Again you are wrong. The point is that some people are born with a fundamental part of themselves which feels compassionate to others and some do not. It is estimated perhaps 25% of all people are psycopaths.
In terms of international politics i think in fact most nations are not 'realist' however a few important ones are i.e the United Sates China and Russia. Because they are realist all nations must respond in a realist way to them however there are many examples or 'liberal' nations in the world today but they can only operate when there is not a major power interest.
Every single country is realist. Look at what happened to the EU when the market crashed.
Holy shit, you know nothing about economics or politics. What the fuck are they teaching in Australian universities? Every country has been realist since FOREVER. Only recently has there been any shift towards a human security model and still most states aren't willing to do it. Why aren't Germany/France/"liberal countries" helping in Darfur/Uganda/Angola/etc.? Because each of them ran a cost/benefit analysis for themselves and said "fuck it." Even on a personal level, every single person on earth starts as a realist.
And the ISI has aided the Taliban like no others. What exactly do you suppose we do about it the next time they sell a nuclear blue print?
Where are you coming up with this crap? Show me a single expert that conflates self interest to psychopathy in the manner you just have. Oh, let me guess. Noam Chomsky, Zinn and a bunch of jackasses they talked to in The Corporation. I'm glad we're getting our viewpoints from shock treatment Moore-esque "documentaries" these days. Next up: Zeitgeist 6!
And I'm sure you're going to counter with something idiotic like "but look at Enron!~!~!11one" Yes, Enron was a terrible company but it became that way due to an extremely corrupt social culture, not because businesses are inherently that way. During WWII, was Germany filled with a bunch of psychopaths or just regular people who had been moved by societal settings?
On October 25 2008 23:25 Jibba wrote: During WWII, was Germany filled with a bunch of psychopaths or just regular people who had been moved by societal settings?
On October 25 2008 09:00 D10 wrote: Lol here in Brazil theres no progressive income tax if you make over X amount of money you pay 46% of income like everybody else.
Sucks a lot
46%! How much do you have to earn to pay that much?! I thought the whole idea of a flat tax was to minimise bureaucracy so overall, everyone paid less tax!
The fact is that a flat tax rate is a bad thing because it is an unequal tax (also the benefit of minimising bureaucracy is overcome by the fact that a progressive taxation system increases the efficiency of spending). If I can afford 50 dollars I will spend every last cent as opposed to a millionaire who as a proportion does not spend jack. A progressive taxation system is a way to redistribute wealth. Fuck the selfish cunts who are all like oh this is my cash no one deserves it bar me, the fact is that the lower your income the most economic benefit is achieved per dollar you spend. Not only is taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor ethically the right thing to do but also it benefits your economic system at the same time. If you United States did not so ruthlessly take from the average Joe and give to a select few then they would not be in the situation they find themselves in today,on the brink of total economic collapse on a systemic level which would in turn lead to the collapse of the American empire. If they want to fix their problems they must strengthen their progressive taxation system, take that money from the rich and give it to those who would spend it best, this money will increase demand in the economy and it will 'trickle up' the rich will benefit along side everyone else and this is the only way to lead to a long term economic up swing.
The United States has a system which says that it is the land of opportunity, anybody no matter their social standing can rise up to greatness. Therefore if you are rich it is because you have worked hard to be there and if you are poor it is because you are a lazy slack fucking barstand who deserves no help from anybody and you deserve any bad cumupence. In shorter terms if you are rich it is because you deserve it, if you are poor it is because you did not try hard enough. This is a total false hood, perhaps if schools were equal in educational standards regardless of wealth then it would be true but this is not the case. This misconception has been taken up by the poor who believe it is their own fault they are so poor. This has allowed the United States to treat their populace worse than any western nation since the French revolution.
I believe Obama has the capacity to rise above such intrenched inequalities and return the United States to the path of prosperity but those who argue effectively for Laissez Faire-ism should be rigorously opposed.
On October 25 2008 09:00 D10 wrote: Lol here in Brazil theres no progressive income tax if you make over X amount of money you pay 46% of income like everybody else.
Sucks a lot
46%! How much do you have to earn to pay that much?! I thought the whole idea of a flat tax was to minimise bureaucracy so overall, everyone paid less tax!
The fact is that a flat tax rate is a bad thing because it is an unequal tax (also the benefit of minimising bureaucracy is overcome by the fact that a progressive taxation system increases the efficiency of spending). If I can afford 50 dollars I will spend every last cent as opposed to a millionaire who as a proportion does not spend jack. A progressive taxation system is a way to redistribute wealth. Fuck the selfish cunts who are all like oh this is my cash no one deserves it bar me, the fact is that the lower your income the most economic benefit is achieved per dollar you spend. Not only is taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor ethically the right thing to do but also it benefits your economic system at the same time. If you United States did not so ruthlessly take from the average Joe and give to a select few then they would not be in the situation they find themselves in today,on the brink of total economic collapse on a systemic level which would in turn lead to the collapse of the American empire. If they want to fix their problems they must strengthen their progressive taxation system, take that money from the rich and give it to those who would spend it best, this money will increase demand in the economy and it will 'trickle up' the rich will benefit along side everyone else and this is the only way to lead to a long term economic up swing.
The United States has a system which says that it is the land of opportunity, anybody no matter their social standing can rise up to greatness. Therefore if you are rich it is because you have worked hard to be there and if you are poor it is because you are a lazy slack fucking barstand who deserves no help from anybody and you deserve any bad cumupence. In shorter terms if you are rich it is because you deserve it, if you are poor it is because you did not try hard enough. This is a total false hood, perhaps if schools were equal in educational standards regardless of wealth then it would be true but this is not the case. This misconception has been taken up by the poor who believe it is their own fault they are so poor. This has allowed the United States to treat their populace worse than any western nation since the French revolution.
I believe Obama has the capacity to rise above such intrenched inequalities and return the United States to the path of prosperity but those who argue effectively for Laissez Faire-ism should be rigorously opposed.
Savio, do you think an adequate minimum (level of treatment, services, etc.) should exist? Not simply wage, but things like vaccinations, education, etc.
A flat tax only works if you make a HIGH flat tax. These numbers like everyone pays 15% is total bogus bullshit. You're CUTTING REVENUE from the pocket of the government doing that... at a time where spending is higher than ever, AND more necessary than ever.
I don't care who wins. I'm just so fucking happy that it ends sooo soon. Think about it, soon it will all be over. No more Bush. In any shape or form. That calls for a celebration regardless of the winner of this election. The worst president of USA finally gone, into thin air. Never to return again.
I doubt history will see Bush as a worse president than Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan. Those are the two guys that were president before Abraham Lincoln, the years leading up to the American Civil War. They did little to stop the war and even agreed with and promoted slavery. Obama is lucky because often times the presidents to come after the "worst" presidents end up being regarded as the best presidents, as is the case with Lincoln. The state of this country is nothing like it was before the civil war so saying Bush was the worst president is a bit dumb. Although you could regard this sharp division in politics as a political civil war, but politics has always been like this, it's just worse now with mass media. The Iraq War may even be looked back at in history as a success even if it's generally agreed it shouldn't have happened in the first place. You can't say that about Vietnam, that was certainly no success, Iraq at least can be more successful than Vietnam was.
Point is, Obama is very lucky, if he's a good president he will be regarded as great just because of the historical circumstances his presidency is put in. Birth of the US - George Washington, Civil War - Abraham Lincoln, Great Depression - Franklin Roosevelt, Subprime mortgage crisis/credit crisis/overall really bad economic situation, plus two ongoing wars, 9/11 happened only 7 years ago, global reputation very bad, etc. - ???; this is a pivotal time, and even if Bush didn't make so many bad decisions, this economic crisis probably would have happened anyway so everyone hating Bush so much just adds the icing on the cake for Obama. Does anyone really see John McCain, a 72-year-old that definitely looks and talks like it, having the energy and strength to do this?
Obama is 47 FDR was 51 when he took office, he died at 63 Lincoln was 52 when he took office, died at 56 Washington was 57 when he took office, died at 67
Obviously you have to remember our life expectancy is much longer now but McCain looks visibly drained of energy after this long campaign and if he wins he has 4 long years to run this country still. Anyway the polls indicate this one is over so it doesn't matter.
On October 26 2008 04:17 boghat wrote: Point is, Obama is very lucky, if he's a good president he will be regarded as great just because of the historical circumstances his presidency is put in. Birth of the US - George Washington, Civil War - Abraham Lincoln, Great Depression - Franklin Roosevelt, Subprime mortgage crisis/credit crisis/overall really bad economic situation, plus two ongoing wars, 9/11 happened only 7 years ago, global reputation very bad, etc. - ???; this is a pivotal time, and even if Bush didn't make so many bad decisions, this economic crisis probably would have happened anyway so everyone hating Bush so much just adds the icing on the cake for Obama. Does anyone really see John McCain, a 72-year-old that definitely looks and talks like it, having the energy and strength to do this?
I think its more accurate to say that in situations like this it is possible for the country to elect a leader that pushes the country back in a better direction. Obama with his policys of today probably couldn't have been elected four or eight years ago. Suggesting anything like the new deal or policy's similar to it in the 20s wouldn't have worked. I agree that Obama is lucky and the timing is right for him but I don't think that the current circumstances will automaticly make him regarded as a great president in the future if he is a good president today but rather that the current circumstances will enable him to be a great president if he want to.
On October 26 2008 04:17 boghat wrote: I doubt history will see Bush as a worse president than Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan. Those are the two guys that were president before Abraham Lincoln, the years leading up to the American Civil War. They did little to stop the war and even agreed with and promoted slavery. Obama is lucky because often times the presidents to come after the "worst" presidents end up being regarded as the best presidents, as is the case with Lincoln. The state of this country is nothing like it was before the civil war so saying Bush was the worst president is a bit dumb. Although you could regard this sharp division in politics as a political civil war, but politics has always been like this, it's just worse now with mass media. The Iraq War may even be looked back at in history as a success even if it's generally agreed it shouldn't have happened in the first place. You can't say that about Vietnam, that was certainly no success, Iraq at least can be more successful than Vietnam was.
Irak war a success? Wtf is wrong with you? A success for whom? Weapons and construction multinationals, maybe... That's it. Irak is probably a bigger disaster than Vietnam if you look at the long terms consequences.
By the way, it doesn't make sense to compare Bush and presidents who rules the country 200 years ago.
Bush is definitly one of the worst president US had in its modern history though.
On October 25 2008 09:33 HeadBangaa wrote: Gain without merit. Wealth redistribution is not concerned with desert, but with fairness. To ensure all people have a bite to eat is fair. To take from my plate what I have earned, however, is unjust.
People accept taxes as a cost of living these days, so I understand why you think it absurd to question it.
On October 26 2008 04:17 boghat wrote: I doubt history will see Bush as a worse president than Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan. Those are the two guys that were president before Abraham Lincoln, the years leading up to the American Civil War. They did little to stop the war and even agreed with and promoted slavery. Obama is lucky because often times the presidents to come after the "worst" presidents end up being regarded as the best presidents, as is the case with Lincoln. The state of this country is nothing like it was before the civil war so saying Bush was the worst president is a bit dumb. Although you could regard this sharp division in politics as a political civil war, but politics has always been like this, it's just worse now with mass media. The Iraq War may even be looked back at in history as a success even if it's generally agreed it shouldn't have happened in the first place. You can't say that about Vietnam, that was certainly no success, Iraq at least can be more successful than Vietnam was.
Irak war a success? Wtf is wrong with you? A success for whom? Weapons and construction multinationals, maybe... That's it. Irak is probably a bigger disaster than Vietnam if you look at the long terms consequences.
By the way, it doesn't make sense to compare Bush and presidents who rules the country 200 years ago.
Bush is definitly one of the worst president US had in its modern history though.
Fact is, the invasion of Iraq took out a dictator. The civil war that is going on now was most likely inevitable. Iraq has long history of being occupied, never really independent, being part of the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire. After WWII when Iraq got independence there were a couple coups and changes of power until Hussein got to power. There was most likely going to be more civil wars in the future for Iraq, unfortunately the US ignited this one, which is why I was opposed to the invasion.
It's a success for the Iraqis who are in the new parliamentary democracy and are getting a chance to run their country. Iraq's economy is growing nicely. No one knows what the long term consequences are going to be, but if you don't see how it could be somewhat of a success you need to look harder.
EPT
