71 replies to this topic

[Shirou]

Many people think he is going to make international relations better but there is also the fear that the opposite will happen. Obama naturally has to center himself on internal affairs way more than Bush has ever done. This gives the risk that he will let the international affairs be less important to america. If your country is to get better of it, the Obama administration should make some early 'game changing' changes, but when he has a whole crisis in his country to deal with, that may just be on the end of the agenda.

[Rich19]

Dr. Strangelove, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:23, said:

Aftershock, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:54, said:

CONFRONTING IMAGE

Now who's gotta always be there to fix the problems. Yeah, exactly. As you can see, Bush Senior and his son really liked to spend money. They like war, too.

Or we could cut spending.

Hell, if we got rid of all these stupid programs and agencies we don't need like the Department of Education, FDA, EPA, Welfare, Social Security, Subsidies, and the like, we could build a 99.999% effective missile shield, Build a habitable colony on Mars, utterly obliterate terrorism, and have a net surplus in one year!

No, it would more likely be spent on the military and that's it. No Mars colony, no surplus, and certainly no obliterated terrorism. If you can't already make this missile shield with the world's largest military budget (comprising over half your nation's spending), it can't be done. Of course, that's a whole other debate. Suffice to say, cutting spending is not going to solve any financial worries the military might have. Far better to spend it on things that actually help the people, like education and social security.

Edited by Rich19, 10 November 2008 - 20:25.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rich19, on 10 Nov 2008, 20:05, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:23, said:

Aftershock, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:54, said:

CONFRONTING IMAGE

Now who's gotta always be there to fix the problems. Yeah, exactly. As you can see, Bush Senior and his son really liked to spend money. They like war, too.

Or we could cut spending.

Hell, if we got rid of all these stupid programs and agencies we don't need like the Department of Education, FDA, EPA, Welfare, Social Security, Subsidies, and the like, we could build a 99.999% effective missile shield, Build a habitable colony on Mars, utterly obliterate terrorism, and have a net surplus in one year!

No, it would more likely be spent on the military and that's it. No Mars colony, no surplus, and certainly no obliterated terrorism. If you can't already make this missile shield with the world's largest military budget (comprising over half your nation's spending), it can't be done. Of course, that's a whole other debate. Suffice to say, cutting spending is not going to solve any financial worries the military might have. Far better to spend it on things that actually help the people, like education and social security.

Education and Social Security do not help people, and even if they did it wouldn't be morally justified.

Post Scriptum: And yes, missile shields are possible.

[Alias]

Just because something is possible by no means makes it a good idea.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Alias, on 11 Nov 2008, 21:54, said:

Just because something is possible by no means makes it a good idea.

True, but he didn't say it wasn't a good idea, he said it wasn't possible.

[Rich19]

Dr. Strangelove, on 11 Nov 2008, 18:47, said:

Rich19, on 10 Nov 2008, 20:05, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:23, said:

Aftershock, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:54, said:

CONFRONTING IMAGE

Now who's gotta always be there to fix the problems. Yeah, exactly. As you can see, Bush Senior and his son really liked to spend money. They like war, too.

Or we could cut spending.

Hell, if we got rid of all these stupid programs and agencies we don't need like the Department of Education, FDA, EPA, Welfare, Social Security, Subsidies, and the like, we could build a 99.999% effective missile shield, Build a habitable colony on Mars, utterly obliterate terrorism, and have a net surplus in one year!

No, it would more likely be spent on the military and that's it. No Mars colony, no surplus, and certainly no obliterated terrorism. If you can't already make this missile shield with the world's largest military budget (comprising over half your nation's spending), it can't be done. Of course, that's a whole other debate. Suffice to say, cutting spending is not going to solve any financial worries the military might have. Far better to spend it on things that actually help the people, like education and social security.

Education and Social Security do not help people, and even if they did it wouldn't be morally justified.

Post Scriptum: And yes, missile shields are possible.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with the statement "Education doesn't help people". While it can be argued that social security only helps the poorer elements of society, I'm not sure there is a single group of people that would not benefit from education. And please would you elaborate on why it is not morally justified to help people?

My point about the missile shields was that if the Dept of defense cannot come close to making a missile shield up to your standards with it's $481.406bn budget (or with the $145.2bn global war on terror budget combined with that, totalling $626.606bn), then adding all the money spent on education (a mere $55.995bn, a tiny amount in comparison) is not going to magically solve all your problems. (All figures used came from the image you posted earlier. I seem to remember US military spending being more like $700bn, so perhaps one of our sets of numbers is out of date).

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rich19, on 11 Nov 2008, 21:14, said:

I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with the statement "Education doesn't help people". While it can be argued that social security only helps the poorer elements of society, I'm not sure there is a single group of people that would not benefit from education. And please would you elaborate on why it is not morally justified to help people?

My point about the missile shields was that if the Dept of defense cannot come close to making a missile shield up to your standards with it's $481.406bn budget (or with the $145.2bn global war on terror budget combined with that, totalling $626.606bn), then adding all the money spent on education (a mere $55.995bn, a tiny amount in comparison) is not going to magically solve all your problems. (All figures used came from the image you posted earlier. I seem to remember US military spending being more like $700bn, so perhaps one of our sets of numbers is out of date).

Sure, public education(note the 'public') is great(arguably, I don't think I learned very much from school I didn't already know), but that's only when taken out of context, the context being it requires stealing money from people.

[Rich19]

Dr. Strangelove, on 11 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

Rich19, on 11 Nov 2008, 21:14, said:

I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with the statement "Education doesn't help people". While it can be argued that social security only helps the poorer elements of society, I'm not sure there is a single group of people that would not benefit from education. And please would you elaborate on why it is not morally justified to help people?

My point about the missile shields was that if the Dept of defense cannot come close to making a missile shield up to your standards with it's $481.406bn budget (or with the $145.2bn global war on terror budget combined with that, totalling $626.606bn), then adding all the money spent on education (a mere $55.995bn, a tiny amount in comparison) is not going to magically solve all your problems. (All figures used came from the image you posted earlier. I seem to remember US military spending being more like $700bn, so perhaps one of our sets of numbers is out of date).

Sure, public education(note the 'public') is great(arguably, I don't think I learned very much from school I didn't already know), but that's only when taken out of context, the context being it requires stealing money from people.

I'll bet you learned more at school than you think you did. Did you know basically everything you do now before you started school?

I'm not quite sure you're justified to call it stealing if you use the services your taxes provide. Do you use the road system? Would you want the emergency services to come to your aid if necessary? Don't you want the safety the armed forces provide? Didn't you recieve an education?

Say you just stayed in a hotel. Is it "stealing" if the hotel wants to be paid for the services they provide? The money for the bed/heating/building/room service needs to come from somewhere, and as you used these services it seems only fair that you contribute to them. Likewise, you recieved an education, you qualify for welfare support if you need it, you have the option to call 911 if you have a problem. In my book, it's "stealing" if you use or qualify for these services but then refuse to contribute to their maintanance and upkeep.

[Ion Cannon!]

Dr. Strangelove, on 11 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

Sure, public education(note the 'public') is great(arguably, I don't think I learned very much from school I didn't already know), but that's only when taken out of context, the context being it requires stealing money from people.

Sure you just popped out of your mums womb knowing everything you know now.

Without education how would you have learnt to read and write? Before public education was introduced very few could read and write and thats only because they had private education.

[Alias]

Just a little something I thought that I'd add. It's a tad old, but still relevant.

Edited by Alias, 20 November 2008 - 12:01.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rich19, on 11 Nov 2008, 23:17, said:

Say you just stayed in a hotel. Is it "stealing" if the hotel wants to be paid for the services they provide? The money for the bed/heating/building/room service needs to come from somewhere, and as you used these services it seems only fair that you contribute to them. Likewise, you recieved an education, you qualify for welfare support if you need it, you have the option to call 911 if you have a problem. In my book, it's "stealing" if you use or qualify for these services but then refuse to contribute to their maintanance and upkeep.

Yes, but the hotel doesn't take my money first and then offer my a room for free, I CHOOSE to pay the hotel to receive their services. The government takes your money first and asks questions later.

Insomniac!, on 11 Nov 2008, 23:41, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 11 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

Sure, public education(note the 'public') is great(arguably, I don't think I learned very much from school I didn't already know), but that's only when taken out of context, the context being it requires stealing money from people.

Sure you just popped out of your mums womb knowing everything you know now.

Without education how would you have learnt to read and write? Before public education was introduced very few could read and write and thats only because they had private education.

There is more to a modern education than reading and writing. For example, I studied basic calculus outside of school when the standard curriculum wouldn't have even had us doing matrix algebra.

[Zero]

Thank god!!

Swimmer, on 4 Nov 2008, 17:00, said:

Her exclusive support for teaching creationism. Oh, that and her little thing about foreign policy experience.
Swimmer

Are you serious!?! Creationism!?! Not to insult anyone's religion, but CREATIONISM!?! Sorry to say, but that isn't science, and the fact is that for every fact you can come up with to support creationism, I could come up with 1000 for evolution.... and I would really only need one:*pulls out T-Rex bone* "Fossil"..... nuff said.

Also, I think it was interesting they left Iran out of that poll since they $@%#$@% love us pretty much.... the president, however..... I'm also insulted that GB is so neutral and so's Germany and Canada... I mean, we help all of those countries out, and although we HAVE fucked up, it isn't our fault! It's the fault of our IDIOTIC (won't say retarded as that is an insult to ALL retarded people everywhere-no offense), elitists, dumb-ass president. Of course, however, the administration is to blame. Personally, I would have preferred Colin Powell to be the first black president, he was a good man who understood the military, security, the economy (maybe, after all, as JCS he probably dealt with logistics and such), and best of all, he understood the common man and was good and just. A man can only dream....

Then again, I would prefer a Kennedy over ALL other candidates (yes, I'm bias like that, blame it on the PERFECT JFK), although a good Roosevelt would do it for me too... Personally, I wish JFK Jr. hadn't died, because if he had we probably wouldn't be in this shit and we'd be enjoying a second year of KENNEDY!!!!!!! HURRAY!!!!!!!!

A man can dream.... a man can dream.... a man can only dream....

[Rich19]

Dr. Strangelove, on 20 Nov 2008, 23:43, said:

Yes, but the hotel doesn't take my money first and then offer my a room for free, I CHOOSE to pay the hotel to receive their services. The government takes your money first and asks questions later.

So move to a tax haven like Monaco. By living in a country you accept its laws by default. The government that "takes" your money was elected in by the people - if the vast majority of them objected to having to pay for (say) emergency services, a government that offered anarchy as a policy would be elected in. The government tries to cater for everyone, but inevitably you have to make do with what's on offer.

Besides, the burocracy that would be involved in actually letting people choose what services they wanted to pay tax for and recieve would be astronomical, and lots of money would be required to maintain such a system. Since you'd be using that government run system you'd have to pay for it - you'd be no better off than before as far as taxes go even if you opted out of everything (and probably worse off if you wanted to recieve a service). Furthermore the services that do need tax money wouldn't be as well funded with people opting out. Couple that with more burocracy, and you end up with a system that is far worse.

Edited by Rich19, 20 November 2008 - 23:59.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rich19, on 21 Nov 2008, 0:56, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 20 Nov 2008, 23:43, said:

Yes, but the hotel doesn't take my money first and then offer my a room for free, I CHOOSE to pay the hotel to receive their services. The government takes your money first and asks questions later.

So move to a tax haven like Monaco. By living in a country you accept its laws by default. The government that "takes" your money was elected in by the people - if the vast majority of them objected to having to pay for (say) emergency services, a government that offered anarchy as a policy would be elected in. The government tries to cater for everyone, but inevitably you have to make do with what's on offer.

What is 'The People'

Post Scriptum: DAAAMN! If I found my own company, definitely going to head quarter it there.

Rich19, on 21 Nov 2008, 0:56, said:

Besides, the burocracy that would be involved in actually letting people choose what services they wanted to pay tax for and recieve would be astronomical, and lots of money would be required to maintain such a system. Since you'd be using that government run system you'd have to pay for it - you'd be no better off than before as far as taxes go even if you opted out of everything (and probably worse off if you wanted to recieve a service). Furthermore the services that do need tax money wouldn't be as well funded with people opting out. Couple that with more burocracy, and you end up with a system that is far worse.

Oh, all so businesses are hulking bureaucracies that can't function, what kind of fantasy world was I living in?

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 21 November 2008 - 00:13.

[Zero]

Thank god!!

Swimmer, on 4 Nov 2008, 17:00, said:

Her exclusive support for teaching creationism. Oh, that and her little thing about foreign policy experience.
Swimmer

Are you serious!?! Creationism!?! Not to insult anyone's religion, but CREATIONISM!?! Sorry to say, but that isn't science, and the fact is that for every fact you can come up with to support creationism, I could come up with 1000 for evolution.... and I would really only need one:*pulls out T-Rex bone* "Fossil"..... nuff said.

Also, I think it was interesting they left Iran out of that poll since they $@%#$@% love us pretty much.... the president, however..... I'm also insulted that GB is so neutral and so's Germany and Canada... I mean, we help all of those countries out, and although we HAVE fucked up, it isn't our fault! It's the fault of our IDIOTIC (won't say retarded as that is an insult to ALL retarded people everywhere-no offense), elitists, dumb-ass president. Of course, however, the administration is to blame. Personally, I would have preferred Colin Powell to be the first black president, he was a good man who understood the military, security, the economy (maybe, after all, as JCS he probably dealt with logistics and such), and best of all, he understood the common man and was good and just. A man can only dream....

Then again, I would prefer a Kennedy over ALL other candidates (yes, I'm bias like that, blame it on the PERFECT JFK), although a good Roosevelt would do it for me too... Personally, I wish JFK Jr. hadn't died, because if he had we probably wouldn't be in this shit and we'd be enjoying a second year of KENNEDY!!!!!!! HURRAY!!!!!!!!

A man can dream.... a man can dream.... a man can only dream....

[Sgt. Nuker]

Yep, Kennedy was "perfect" alright. That's why his dad had ties to the mob (and a theory exists that the mob had JFK killed), and he was Clinton before Clinton was Lewinsky (see JFK and Norma Jean, aka Marilyn Monroe). So how does this have to do with his politics? If a man in office tells a country to live one way, yet lives another, doesn't that make him a hypocrite? Ah yes, no one's perfect, and even though JFK was like everyone else, he was pretty far from "perfect". Obama is no Kennedy, though his wife has been compared to Jackie O on countless occasions. $100k to redecorate the White House? So that's where our tax-payer dollars are being spent.....

[Zero]

Warboss Nooka, on 21 Nov 2008, 1:59, said:

Yep, Kennedy was "perfect" alright. That's why his dad had ties to the mob (and a theory exists that the mob had JFK killed), and he was Clinton before Clinton was Lewinsky (see JFK and Norma Jean, aka Marilyn Monroe). So how does this have to do with his politics? If a man in office tells a country to live one way, yet lives another, doesn't that make him a hypocrite? Ah yes, no one's perfect, and even though JFK was like everyone else, he was pretty far from "perfect". Obama is no Kennedy, though his wife has been compared to Jackie O on countless occasions. $100k to redecorate the White House? So that's where our tax-payer dollars are being spent.....

Not saying that Kennedy was perfect, as much as his administration. Kennedy's term was one of the few golden ages of America (which are George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and JFK; add any I'm missing). During Kennedy's term, he was able to unite the people and bring them together to do better for the entire country, not just one place, and he did it without corruption. And why bring up the all too famous adultery with Monroe? Big deal, has nothing to do with how good a president he was. Like it or not, Kennedy's terms was one of the golden ages of the US... and it was dead set in the middle of the period of fear known as the Cold War (in which he scared the Russians into removing their nukes from Cuba and avoided countless conflicts with the Commies).... although I WILL admit, that he screwed up with the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Vietnam War.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Why bring Monroe up? Because it happened during his presidential term AND he was a married man. That, and there are those people that still look to the president as a leader and a role model (I don't). So, what ever the president does on terms based with morals, those that see the president as a role model will deem whatever he does as okay for them to do.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Zero, on 21 Nov 2008, 3:13, said:

Warboss Nooka, on 21 Nov 2008, 1:59, said:

Yep, Kennedy was "perfect" alright. That's why his dad had ties to the mob (and a theory exists that the mob had JFK killed), and he was Clinton before Clinton was Lewinsky (see JFK and Norma Jean, aka Marilyn Monroe). So how does this have to do with his politics? If a man in office tells a country to live one way, yet lives another, doesn't that make him a hypocrite? Ah yes, no one's perfect, and even though JFK was like everyone else, he was pretty far from "perfect". Obama is no Kennedy, though his wife has been compared to Jackie O on countless occasions. $100k to redecorate the White House? So that's where our tax-payer dollars are being spent.....

Not saying that Kennedy was perfect, as much as his administration. Kennedy's term was one of the few golden ages of America (which are George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and JFK; add any I'm missing). During Kennedy's term, he was able to unite the people and bring them together to do better for the entire country, not just one place, and he did it without corruption. And why bring up the all too famous adultery with Monroe? Big deal, has nothing to do with how good a president he was. Like it or not, Kennedy's terms was one of the golden ages of the US... and it was dead set in the middle of the period of fear known as the Cold War (in which he scared the Russians into removing their nukes from Cuba and avoided countless conflicts with the Commies).... although I WILL admit, that he screwed up with the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Vietnam War.

You mean Goldwater's term was one of the golden ages of the US.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 21 November 2008 - 05:37.

[Rayburn]

Zero, on 21 Nov 2008, 1:58, said:

I'm also insulted that GB is so neutral and so's Germany and Canada... I mean, we help all of those countries out, and although we HAVE fucked up, it isn't our fault! It's the fault of our IDIOTIC (won't say retarded as that is an insult to ALL retarded people everywhere-no offense), elitists, dumb-ass president. Of course, however, the administration is to blame.

I see what you mean but here's the problem: Governments are supposed to represent their people.
Claims of manipulation aside, the majority of the people must have supported this 'dumb-ass president' at some point because otherwise, he wouldn't have become president in the first place. That's why many European countries have this bad image of America: It may be the administration who is to blame for the whole mess but SOMEONE must have put these people into power; ergo, many Europeans are led to believe that the majority of the American people AGREED with the administration. That, plus - as I like to call it - the infamous 'God bless America, screw the rest/America, fuck yeah'-mentality. It'd be foolish to think that all Americans think that way but those who do simply yell louder than the others (i.e. the reasonable ones) which is why the bad image eventually prevails.

(I DO NOT INTEND TO OFFEND ANYONE WITH THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE; I MERELY WANT TO HYPERBOLICALLY DESCRIBE WHAT IS A WIDESPREAD OPINION)
When foreigners think of America, they no longer think of the American Dream, of freedom, justice and equality, rags to riches etc; they think of war-mongering, badly educated hyper-nationalists with the same arrogant God with us-mentality which led Europe into countless wars. I DO NOT WANT to believe that this is the 'real' America but the majority of those who represented the US in the last few years simply convey this message. The USA have an image problem because many people no longer see them as liberators but as invaders.

Edited by Rayburn, 21 November 2008 - 07:28.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!Glory, glory, hallelujah!Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!Glory, glory, hallelujah!Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.

Rayburn, on 21 Nov 2008, 8:16, said:

The USA have an image problem because many people no longer see them as liberators but as invaders.

We are:

Dr. Strangelove, on 19 Nov 2008, 7:14, said:

Chyros, on 19 Nov 2008, 7:04, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 19 Nov 2008, 8:38, said:

Wizard, on 22 Oct 2008, 15:54, said:

*snip*

I don't think a full scale military invasion was necessary. We should have intimidated Saddam into being a puppet dictator so we could allow our private companies to drill there.

Then they couldn't try to grab the oil there. Which was a side mission at the very least.

Do honestly think us conservatives really care about some other person's freedom? No, this was never about democracy in Iraq, nor was it about terrorism which we knew had no major ties to Saddam's regime, or WMDs. This war was fought for oil, and I'll be damned if we don't get it.

[Dauth]

Topic relocked, rules breach.