Print

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

[mainiac]

Fiscally conservative is not to like.

+1

[Lord Shonus]

He's a corporatist masquerading as a libertarian. He wants to replace the majority of governmet duties with for-profit replacements, eliminate all wage and environmental restrictions on business (despite believing in global warming, for example, his answer to coal plants is BUILD BUILD BUILD), return to the gold standard (which is a major source of boom-and-bust economics), and going to the Fairtax system which is universally regarded as benefiting only the rich. He masks these poisons with the honeyed taste of drug legalization, banning gun control, and gutting PATRIOT and SOPA type legislation. In short, he wants to raise the corporate tyrant to his golden throne, and hides this by railing against the government tyrant.

[EveryZig]

He's a corporatist masquerading as a libertarian.

...Is there a type of economic libertarian who's views don't massively benefit corporations?

[Kilroy the Grand]

Sure he might have a few ideas you don't agree with, but could he honestly do any worse than either romney or obama?

[Sheb]

Actually, he'd probably stop killing people in drone strike, and since the president don't control spending anyway, his worse ideas wouldn't make it through Congress.

[RedKing]

Sure he might have a few ideas you don't agree with, but could he honestly do any worse than either romney or obama?

That's not exactly a persuasive argument.

"Hey guys, I know you're not a fan of rotten meat, but could be it any worse than a shit sandwich or a 5-month old bran muffin?"
Well, yes. Yes, it could. And even if it's "no worse", that doesn't make it palatable.

I used to lean toward libertarianism, until I realized that its' ideal end-result is not one country of 300 million people, but 300 million countries of one person each.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Well Redking, find me a Green party candidate that has more of a chance to win, and I'll vote for them instead.

[Nadaka]

Making 3rd party candidates viable would require rewriting election law, and likely amending the constitutions of states and even the country.

Allow range voting or some kind of instant runoff system for executive positions.

Convincing individual states to move to a proportional system for their state representative bodies.

Convince those states to proportionally appoint their representatives to the US house of representatives.

These are things that i believe can be done without changing federal law (kinda iffy on the first one, may be something obscure that prevents it).

[Leafsnail]

Well Redking, find me a Green party candidate that has more of a chance to win, and I'll vote for them instead.

Give me a Libertarian party candidate who can win and I'll make sure to vote against them.

Incidentally, is it just me or is state bankruptcy a hideously appaling idea?

[Urist_McDrowner]

Don't you fools get it? A chance of failure is inherent in the word "risk"! Clearly, the solution is that the government never ever takes a risk ever!

I don't detest government taking risks. I object to them taking stupid risks. This was a stupid risk.

And, as always, it's not the affair that gets you, but the "cover-up". The infinite stream of "I don't recall" selective amnesia and Eric Holder engaging in more CYA than a pair of pants is what the controversy is now about.

Way to move that goalpost, bro.

Sorry, you don't get to come in and here and shit all over the place with some cockamamie conspiracy story that you heard on FreeRepublic or Glenn Beck and then redefine "what the controversy is now about" when you get bitchslapped with real information.


Y'know, I was like you once...[/lorre]
young, nationalistic, gung-ho, pro-war. After all, why shouldn't I be? My family is intricately entwined with the military. Both grandfathers served in WWII, my father was a 32-year career Navy man who was in Vietnam and Desert Storm, my half-brother is still in uniform and currently awaiting orders for his 5th deployment since 2001. I'd have been in myself, but for a bum ticker.

Back in '91, I was wearing desert camo to school and loudly proclaiming that all those stupid hippie peaceniks protesting "No Blood For Oil" should be rounded up and shot as traitors. And then several funny things happened.

I spent some time overseas.
I went to college. Got a history degree.
I had some high school friends who enlisted come home from deployments like Haiti and Bosnia, and they weren't the same people anymore.
I came to realize that this shit has consequences. That we don't always get it right. And that when we don't get it right, and people die as a result, that's a blood guilt that's difficult to erase.
I've seen my bro come home from successive deployments, each time leaving a little bit more of himself behind somewhere. He's survived enough IEDs and sniper near-misses to qualify as a goddamn miracle. Only time will tell if his brain is going to suffer from being repeatedly knocked around like a dried bean in a tin can. I've seen his marriage become a casualty to the war, and my niece become the collateral damage.
I came to fully understand that soldiers are the LAST people to rejoice in going to war and the first to welcome peace. Because they're the ones who pay the price of war, on the battlefield and at home.

And so, now I am not the stupid little fuck I was 20 years ago. Come talk to me in 20 years.

Sorry bro, you don't just get to assume the easiest interpretation of what I said, and then make me argue it. I just won't. Sorry. Go play chess against yourself if you want to feel like an indomitable champ. For the record, it was a stupid risk, but it was made worse by the infinite stream of CYA.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Defectors and black market. Solid strategy that. Rely on things that are by definition fickle and unreliable. Not to mention those things go both ways; remember, just because there is a large population that resents the regime, doesn't mean there aren't also those that support it.

Giving weapons to them... let's run through the options there:

You dump the weapons and leave without overseeing distribution. Some people will be lucky and get armed, sure. With their national service, they probably even know enough to look after their weapons and avoid shooting themselves, though they will still lack against a standing military. Of course, a few of the weapon caches will probably be captured by the remnants of the Iranian guard. Others, well, humans are bastards. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those weapons ended up on the black market, or hoarded by certain factions. You still don't have the command structure or leadership, but hey, you avoid U.S. casualties, right? Iranians still have a civil war though.

You distribute the weapons, THEN bug out. Now everyone's armed. They may even fight alongside each other for a while... but again, no command  structure, differing factions. That *will* break down, and then? Iranians have a civil war with multiple sides.

You distribute weapons, and then leave advisors to act as liason and training. How popular do you think they'll be? These people are in a war because of you, do you think they'll listen to what you say? Even if they do, Iranians still have a civil war.

You distribute weapons, and stay to provide enough security to establish a transitory government? You know, that sounds a lot like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan!

Sigh...

Look, what I am trying to say here is that there is no good ending to this if you actually invade. Lots of people will die, no matter what subsequent choices you make. The reason you gave for why the Iranian government was to stop the "patient going through more pain"; well, every outcome post invasion is going to be far more painful then leaving them be.


Finally, you say we both know peaceful can't happen?

Now, THAT is fallacious.

Only you think it can't happen peacefully. I believe it can, as do the people who are waiting. Shouldn't you at least give them a chance to try it their way before you roll in guns blazing?



With that, I'm done. I wipe my hands of this mess. Aqizzar, I apologise for shitting up your thread.

Because arming the rebels worked so terribly in Libya, right? Owait. We also gave select Libyans CIA training. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was that we tried to force too good of a government. The ideas that made very liberal constitutional republics possible in our cultures took thousands of years. We also did the law enforcing, and the fighting, which made the people feel like this was foreigners. Contrast that with Libya.

[darkrider2]

I haven't gone back and investigated exactly why there has been what looks like a deterioration in tone, but I'd appreciate it if people were more respectful of the other people in here, if not their opinions.

^

[Sheb]

I must say, I feel like standing with RedKing, and it's not because I dislike your political views.

I have been assuming you're a troll since you're saying that since muslims invaded countries centuries ago, it's alright if the palestinian get occupied now. By the same logic, Mexico would have the right to invade the US and China could use military force to sell heroin in Great-Britain.

P.S. Concerning Libya: they had a relatively organized uprising already. We didn't start lobbing bomb at the problem hoping everything would go right.

[scriver]

Because arming the rebels worked so terribly in Libya, right? Owait. We also gave select Libyans CIA training. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was that we tried to force too good of a government. The ideas that made very liberal constitutional republics possible in our cultures took thousands of years. We also did the law enforcing, and the fighting, which made the people feel like this was foreigners. Contrast that with Libya.

...Those ideas took around or less than a hundred years from their conception/formulation to result in the USA. Then a couple of hundred years more to result in the European democracies. Enlightenment philosophy is by no means "thousands of years" old.

[Urist_McDrowner]

I must say, I feel like standing with RedKing, and it's not because I dislike your political views.

I have been assuming you're a troll since you're saying that since muslims invaded countries centuries ago, it's alright if the palestinian get occupied now. By the same logic, Mexico would have the right to invade the US and China could use military force to sell heroin in Great-Britain.

P.S. Concerning Libya: they had a relatively organized uprising already. We didn't start lobbing bomb at the problem hoping everything would go right.

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.