Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Don't be sure of that, our army is really often sent oversea. Right now we have troops in Afganistan and lebanon, but we have been active in korea, rwanda, congo, ...
Most of those operation are done pretty silently, since we are not fond of the army, but done non the less.

[Sheb]

Yeah, but it's mostly support role. In Lebanon, we run an hospital and remove mines, in Afghanistan we train the ANSF, in Rwanda we ran away when shit started hitting the fan...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's unfortunate. Higher foreign military presence in Rwanda might well have delayed or prevented the genocide.

[Ancre]

Yeah the army is being sent all over the world, but it doesn't necessarily do any fighting there. Part of the US army's might is that it can start a fight anywhere on the globe, since it have troops ready for it everywhere.

And I don't think a higher military presence might have done better in Rwanda. There was a big ONU force (or another organization like that) that didn't do anything during the genocide. The soldiers were in their barracks while people were slaughtered nearby.

[Ghills]

Rwanda was a population-level event, so it was lots of little groups everywhere, who aren't wearing uniforms and aren't abiding by the Geneva conventions or anything else really organized.  Armies don't deal very effectively with that kind of thing.  Police forces are generally a lot better at that kind of thing, but in Rwanda police were part of the problem.  I don't think an army could have done anything effective there.

On-topic, I think that most of the current conservative political platform is pretty sound, and exactly what we need after 6 decades of big government.  Unfortunately, politicians tend to ignore platforms after they get elected.     

The latest crop of Republicans being actual conservatives was a nice surprise. We could do with more of that, I think.  They at least got Congress moving, and put the fiscal discussions back on some kind of a fact-based ground. Just a start, but better than Obama-the-Ostrich.

Some of the conservative platform is bull, but so is a bunch of the liberal platform.  I think the big-government-healthcare-for-all has definitely been proved to be unsustainable in the long-run, though. Britain and Europe can't even keep it up, and they've got high US healthcare prices and US tax breaks subsidizing quite a lot of medical research. Also, medical tourism for basic healthcare happens in Europe from what I hear, as opposed to the medical tourism for plastic surgery that's popular in America.  That says a lot about how cost-effective and convenient medical care is in Europe to me, if people have to travel to get basic dentistry, etc.  Same thing with Canadians - they'll freely admit to coming to the US for specialist procedures, etc, that are available here but can't be gotten or can't be gotten without a lot of agonizing expense and waiting in Canada.

If the US switches to a more price-controlled model, I think a lot of medical care will simply become unavailable even for those who can afford it.  That's already happening to a great extent with Medicare, Medicaid, etc.  A lot of doctors simply won't take anyone on those plans anymore because they don't pay enough and the paperwork is so frustrating, even if the person can afford the premiums and co-pays. Supplemental private insurance plans are a big business for people on government plans.

[Nadaka]

Rwanda was a population-level event, so it was lots of little groups everywhere, who aren't wearing uniforms and aren't abiding by the Geneva conventions or anything else really organized.  Armies don't deal very effectively with that kind of thing.  Police forces are generally a lot better at that kind of thing, but in Rwanda police were part of the problem.  I don't think an army could have done anything effective there.

On-topic, I think that most of the current conservative political platform is pretty sound, and exactly what we need after 6 decades of big government.  Unfortunately, politicians tend to ignore platforms after they get elected.     

The latest crop of Republicans being actual conservatives was a nice surprise. We could do with more of that, I think.  They at least got Congress moving, and put the fiscal discussions back on some kind of a fact-based ground. Just a start, but better than Obama-the-Ostrich.

Some of the conservative platform is bull, but so is a bunch of the liberal platform.  I think the big-government-healthcare-for-all has definitely been proved to be unsustainable in the long-run, though. Britain and Europe can't even keep it up, and they've got high US healthcare prices and US tax breaks subsidizing quite a lot of medical research. Also, medical tourism for basic healthcare happens in Europe from what I hear, as opposed to the medical tourism for plastic surgery that's popular in America.  That says a lot about how cost-effective and convenient medical care is in Europe to me, if people have to travel to get basic dentistry, etc.  Same thing with Canadians - they'll freely admit to coming to the US for specialist procedures, etc, that are available here but can't be gotten or can't be gotten without a lot of agonizing expense and waiting in Canada.

If the US switches to a more price-controlled model, I think a lot of medical care will simply become unavailable even for those who can afford it.  That's already happening to a great extent with Medicare, Medicaid, etc.  A lot of doctors simply won't take anyone on those plans anymore because they don't pay enough and the paperwork is so frustrating, even if the person can afford the premiums and co-pays. Supplemental private insurance plans are a big business for people on government plans.

What the hell are you smoking?

Conservatives have always been for big government.

The latest crop, the tea baggers that came in 2010 have moved nothing forwards.

They have ground everything to a halt.

Their economics basically boil down to tax cuts for everyone, reducing revenue cures deficit, and fuck it all, jesus is coming! It is the very antithesis of fact based ground.

Healthcare for all was perfectly sustainable under the single payer public option. It was conservative cronyism that forced the public funding of private for profit insurance to turn on the profit tap and drain money from the people into the hands of those running the health denial services (insurance companies).

[Bauglir]

I agree with your first paragraph.

Everything else has been diametrically opposed to my own experience so I'm not really sure how to approach it. Let me preface my next few sentences though, by saying that I'm certain your claims are in good faith, it's just that they don't make sense to me. I will wholeheartedly agree that half-assed socialized medicine has been shown infeasible, I can say that much. The tea party has very much not been about small government, though, as far as I can tell - they've been about big government (in social issues only) and stalling any proposal with Democratic support. Those are goals that range from diametrically opposed to "small government" to entirely unrelated (though perhaps with coincidental correlation on some particular topics).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't know if socialized/nationalized healthcare is better than private healthcare, but I think we've seen through experience that private healthcare does not work. We are throwing away so much money on it. If I could get even a drop of the money the United States is wasting on healthcare right now I would be in a very fortunate position.

It's not like Americans aren't paying for each other's healthcare right now, we're just doing it in the most inefficient way possible.

[Josephus]

While we're here, can someone explain for me the ludicrous American reaction to any hint of the word 'socialism', as well as the conviction that small government = best government without any backing for the idea - as if it's simply a fundamental truth as opposed to one of several methods of governance?

I'm given to understand that the first case has more to do with the continuing effects of McCarthyism and the Red Scare, but the second - is that simply media-reinforced prejudice?

[Bauglir]

I'm not really sure. I think it goes back to capitalism vs communism, as well. One of the reasons capitalism is "good" is because, in theory, it allows you to be free of arbitrary restrictions on your behavior imposed by a specific body. The Invisible Hand is, in theory, unprejudiced and a clever person can always come out ahead. Meanwhile "big government" imposing clunky regulations wastes money on administrative overhead and prevents legitimate avenues toward success under the guise of curbing abuses. Essentially, communism represents "big government" in the economy, and since communism is clearly evil, it's clear that "big government" in other areas must be evil, for the same reason.

Plus, people hate paying taxes because the benefits aren't directly associated with the payment so there's less psychological incentive to view it as anything other than theft. You spend your whole life in a society with highways, it just doesn't occur to you how much of your life is able to function because they exist. The cost of food, technology, and so on seems like a given, because you don't see the shipping markups, just the final price - and you never drive on the highways anyway, so why should you have to pay for them?

[Criptfeind]

Because both sides see 'big government' as the government coming in and oppressing them, not allowing to let them make choices for themselves. Ether though not allowing them control over their lives or not allowing them to exert control over others lives. And nether side sees what they want the government to do to help them as being big, just reasonably sized. IE: Big implies too big.

[Mrhappyface]

Remember the nolan chart, everybody. It isn't strictly  a horizontal scale.

[Criptfeind]

No. It's a square. But as American politics becomes more and more polarized everything not on the line becomes less and less important. Everything is pushed up into the corners.

[Powder Miner]

What the hell are you smoking?

This shining example of civility here made me take offense.

Conservatives have always been for big government.

That's the exact opposite of what conservatives are for. What certain ones have done, and most definitely not the majority of them (that is, being big government) is a different thing.

The latest crop, the tea baggers

You sure know how not to insult people you disagree with! [/quote]that came in 2010 have moved nothing forwards.

They have ground everything to a halt.[/quote]
Hardly. The only grinding to a halt here is the fact that congress is opposing itself, and really in my opinion a fully liberal congress would be bad.

Their economics basically boil down to tax cuts for everyone,

Yep.

reducing revenue cures deficit

Like many others, you have the whole thing wrong. We don't believe that increasing taxes and then throwing it all out the window by spending a whole ton of money we don't have on stuff we most definitely do not need is good. We believe that cutting spending is good. In case you do not understand economics, revenue is the gain of money, and spending is the giving of money. They're about opposites. Understand?

, and fuck it all, jesus is coming!

Wow! Another person who believes that conservatives think that the state should be church based! News flash: Some of them do have religious morals in their decisions (but not outright religion, mind you), but no. They don't. In fact, when church and state are concerned, you often see liberals deciding to force the church to comply with the state, violaitng a constitutional law. does this mean that it is the liberal mission to HATE RELIGION FOREVER!!!???!!!! No. It doesn't. It's just a consequence of some of their (in my opinion) overreaching bills. (Many, many others would disagree with me.)

It is the very antithesis of fact based ground.

And as I have demonstrated, Nope.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In fact, when church and state are concerned, you often see liberals deciding to force the church to comply with the state, violating a constitutional law.

Give me even one example.