Print

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

[NinjaBoot]

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.

Guys.  You can't reason with a conspiracy theorist.  Because conspiracy theorists just know the truth even if the evidence doesn't point that way.

What?  No.  You got it all wrong.  Yes, its a huge conspiracy involving the Rockafellers and the Bilderbergs.  But the illuminati are for the good of America!  I swear, its what Fox News told me!

[palsch]

If you argue Libya was for humanitarian purposes, then you give an automatic pass to Iraq because, well, Saddam Hussein did gas his own people (the kurds, ya know? roughly 100,000 of them). 

Libya was an ongoing conflict in which one side was using the full military power of an active government to kill initially peaceful protesters. This lead to an internal rebellion, including some elements of that military, that was rapidly escalating to a full civil war. Both those inside and outside Libya called for rapid and strong international action to stop the immediate threat from Ghaddafi's forces.

One basic difference between Iraq and Libya? The UN Security Council passed a motion called for by Libya's own delegation to enforce a no-fly zone (requiring the bombing of anti-air weapons and airports, as well as a continuous air force presence over the nation essentially requiring outside forces take over their airspace) and, in a step unprecedented in UN history, called for international forces to intervene to protect civilians on the ground. That gave the world, and especially NATO, a mandate to get involved. To sit back after that point would be inhumane.

With Iraq there were no immediate lives saved by intervening when Bush did. The rational for going in was never about humanitarian issues before the invasion, simply because if you wanted to solve humanitarian problems in 2003 Iraq was not where you started. That would have been Darfur, where cries for intervention were ignored. You don't invade a country as punishment for humanitarian crimes committed in the past. That only hurts the nation worse. You hit them only when it stops a greater crime from being committed and saves lives in the near term future. Otherwise the cost of such action is simply too great.

The question of when to intervene or not is always going to be a nuanced and complicated one. Comparisons require detail and good sense, as well as a greater deal of honesty than is usually allowed during election years.

No, the banks will not be able to offer student loans.  This means companies that offer loans as a means of business.  Loan Sharks if you want to use the disparaging term.

Since they will not be able to offer loans, government has now become the sole lendor of post-secondary financial aid.  They have taken over the post-secondary loans industry. 

Yes, I know of the history surrounding this, but at the very least it still gave people choice.  There is no choice now. 

Erm, so these companies are advertising services they no longer offer?

[Nadaka]

Is there any way to get this train back on the election track instead of the general political arguement track?

[NinjaBoot]

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.

Guys.  You can't reason with a conspiracy theorist.  Because conspiracy theorists just know the truth even if the evidence doesn't point that way.

To be fair, mass media outlets do want to convince you to believe things. It's just that they're different things, and not some shadowy monolithic entity.

Indeed, unfortunately when the message happens to be the same.. *cough* 

Bush is bad.  Therefore, Bush is bad.

Obama is good.  Therefore, Obama is good. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Is there any way to get this train back on the election track instead of the general political arguement track?

Yes.

[NinjaBoot]

Is there any way to get this train back on the election track instead of the general political arguement track?

Unfortunately with every post I have to reply to multiple posts, and I would rather try and be detailed in my responses if need be!

[mainiac]

Government spending has only gone up, but public debt has gone down under the Clinton administration. I'd like to see a serious effort to bring spending in line right now, with the Republican Congress, but they haven't done much there.

We have a growing population and an economy that normally experiences moderate inflation.  Trying to bring spending down in nominal terms would require vast cutbacks in terms of government services required.  Even more vast when you consider that most government spending is simply giving people the social security/medicare/medicaid/unemployment insurance (insurance, not welfare which is like 2%) that they paid for and those aren't going to get cut because people paid for them and expect to receive them.

Suppose that you completely eliminated every last dollar spent on defense over 7 years.  That wouldn't bring spending down in absolute terms, it would just level it off.
Suppose that you completely eliminated every last non-defense discretionary dollar over 5 years.  That wouldn't bring spending down in absolute terms, again, just leveling it off.
Eliminate them both and you've got us level for 11 years... assuming that society hasn't collapsed into anarchy long before this point.

Because either of these would be simply vast.  One would be eliminating the entire damn military, everything, soldiers healthcare and pensions, everything.  One would be shutting down basically everything that you think of as "government", post office, NIH, NASA, FBI, FEMA, the federal highway administration, the smithsonian, border control, everything.

While there is a little fat to cut in military procurements and the size of our armed forces (but not enough for what you are talking about without a severe shakeup), we've already spent 15 years cutting the non-defense discretionary spending until there's nothing easy left to cut.  Going even a single year with a reduction in net government spending would involve huge sacrifices.  Because even just holding spending constant means cutting everything in defense and non-defense discretionary by 10% a year per-capita in real terms.

So if someone tells you that he is going to bring government spending down in real terms, ask him to explain what very substantial government programs is he going to end?  Will he completely end welfare, NASA, the national health administration, every cent of foreign aid and all government highway funding?  Well all those together would make us break even for about a single year.

Meanwhile the US has something like the 7th lowest tax rate in the world and a system that is basically an overall flat tax when you account for regressive state and local taxation as well as progressive federal federal (which means the poor people in the more regressive states pay more of their total income in taxes then the rich in those states).  So increasing revenues with a more progressive system is entirely feasible from an economic standpoint.

[NinjaBoot]

palsch

Dude, Libya has had a history of constant human rights violations.  This was not something that just happened.  It has been going on for decades.  The same deal with Iraq.

How can you justify that Libya was more "noble" then Iraq? 

They are both wars.  Libya's war was illegal because Obama did not get approval from congress and went past his Presidential authority.  Are you seriously advocating for a war that was conducted in an illegal manner?

[Sirus]

I was going to respond to Montague's earlier post involving birth control, but now the dog has returned. 

[GlyphGryph]

Abstinence, by definition, is 100% effective. The problem with the statistics is people can still get pregnant if they wanted to or not and I don't mean immaculate conception either, but that's another topic altogether.

Then, it's like saying condoms are ineffective because people end up not using them correctly, or birth control regimens don't work because people can forget to take them.

Actually, the "effective rate" (the first number I quoted) DOES count people who use them incorrectly or forget to take their pills. The pill manages an over 99% success rate COUNTING those situations.

The second number was the "perfect" rate - and abstinence still is not 100% effective, because abstinence is only about "choosing" not to have sex - choosing not to have sex is NOT a guarantee you won't be forced into having sex, a situation where the pill works and abstinence does not, and children do occur as the result of rape.

Someone who is practising abstinence can still be raped, and it happens. In fact, it happens a LOT. Rapes may be more likely to happen against men, but almost 20% of women are still raped at some point in their life. The Pill protects against pregnancy due to rape, abstinence does not.

If you REALLY want effective prevention, you would combine abstinence and some sort of hormonal therapy like the pill (which has the wonderful side effect of making periods far more tolerable as well).

[Sirus]

Abstinence, by definition, is 100% effective. The problem with the statistics is people can still get pregnant if they wanted to or not and I don't mean immaculate conception either, but that's another topic altogether.

Then, it's like saying condoms are ineffective because people end up not using them correctly, or birth control regimens don't work because people can forget to take them.

Actually, the "effective rate" (the first number I quoted) DOES count people who use them incorrectly or forget to take their pills. The pill manages an over 99% success rate COUNTING those situations.

The second number was the "perfect" rate - and abstinence still is not 100% effective, because abstinence is only about "choosing" not to have sex - choosing not to have sex is NOT a guarantee you won't be forced into having sex, a situation where the pill works and abstinence does not, and children do occur as the result of rape.

Someone who is practising abstinence can still be raped, and it happens. In fact, it happens a LOT. Rapes may be more likely to happen against men, but almost 20% of women are still raped at some point in their life. The Pill protects against pregnancy due to rape, abstinence does not.

If you REALLY want effective prevention, you would combine abstinence and some sort of hormonal therapy like the pill (which has the wonderful side effect of making periods far more tolerable as well).

Gah. I know it's insensitive of me, but I always forget the rapes. I feel terrible now. 

[mainiac]

Rapes may be more likely to happen against men

This factoid surprises me greatly!  Typo?  Something I'm missing?

[palsch]

Rapes may be more likely to happen against men, but almost 20% of women are still raped at some point in their life.

Actually this is false.

And NinjaBoot, if you want to continue that conversation I'd say start a new thread or PM me. It's probably going to be a length derail if I start getting into liberal interventionism.

EDIT: Link fixed. That keeps happening when I edit posts...

[GlyphGryph]

How can you justify that Libya was more "noble" then Iraq?

They are both wars.  Libya's war was illegal because Obama did not get approval from congress and went past his Presidential authority.  Are you seriously advocating for a war that was conducted in an illegal manner?

I don't think it was any more noble. I just think it was executed better. It was not illegal - he did not get approval from THIS congress, but he did not need it because the approval was already granted by a previous congress that said "If such and such happens and so and so requests action, we are both allowed and in fact obligated to respond in this and this a way." Circumstances which didn't cover the Iraq invasion, which is why Bush had to get explicit approval.

It wasn't an illegal war. Congress passed several laws saying the actions Obama took were ok. I don't like the guy, I have a lot of problems with a lot of questionably legal shit he's done, but the Libya war, at least, was on the up and up.

[mainiac]

Actually this is false.

Still that is a disturbingly large number of prison rape.  Christ.  And non-prison rapes too.  But in prisons we should be able to protect these people pretty easily, no?