APolitical said: Vertigo-X said: Ron Paul seems well intentioned enough. I'm a bit confused, though, because some people are giving some pretty compelling arguments that he'd be bad for the nation. Then again, who isn't bad for the nation these days? I imagine him being the lesser of a great many evils.  A video games forum is hardly the place to expect well reasoned discussion of political issues, but suffice to say that if you do a little bit of actual reading on the things he's done you'll see that he's not the "least of" the great many evils.  It's ok though; he is polling in the single digits for a reason.

Just curious...who are you pulling for? (fyi, Jesus isnt running) If Ron Paul is not your pick as you have made extremely clear through your signature, who is? You seem pretty scared he will do well.

loadedstatement said: APolitical said: Vertigo-X said: Ron Paul seems well intentioned enough. I'm a bit confused, though, because some people are giving some pretty compelling arguments that he'd be bad for the nation. Then again, who isn't bad for the nation these days? I imagine him being the lesser of a great many evils. A video games forum is hardly the place to expect well reasoned discussion of political issues, but suffice to say that if you do a little bit of actual reading on the things he's done you'll see that he's not the "least of" the great many evils. It's ok though; he is polling in the single digits for a reason.   Just curious...who are you pulling for? (fyi, Jesus isnt running) If Ron Paul is not your pick as you have made extremely clear through your signature, who is? You seem pretty scared he will do well.

 I am an Obama fan (as demonstrated by the avatar).  I am not worried that Ron Paul will do well in any of the actual primaries, because it's simply not in the numbers.  Although I do think that his internet popularity amongst neckbeards frequenting digg etc. warrants the signature, if only because supporters of his ike to sugar coat his positions on things, and people here deserve to see the actual legislation and opinions held by Ron himself. :) 

Syria has been, according to officials in its government, had a nuclear program since the 1980s. This has nothing to do with Iran's recent rambings and everything to do with the fanatical hatred of Israel and the US for its unquestioned support. There is ansolutely no evidence to suggest that either Egypt or Saudi Arabia have pursued nuclear programs. You're just grasping at strings there. Mainstream U.S. politicans won't dare to even discuss this issue, lest they be branded anti-Semites -- but blind support for Israel -- to the detriment of the other mid eastern nations is hoplessly naive and irrational. I think you're well aware of who Israel got its nuclear weapons from and it is absolutely destabilizing to the region, much moreso than Iran's hollow threats and the nonsensical ravings of Ahmenijad. I don't see what Israel has ever done for us and how we are benefitting -- in any way -- from continued support of Israel.

Ok, We'll agree to disagree about Bush. My wanting to see him stand trial for warcrimes is neither childish or irrational. If any other leader of any other nation had done the things he's done, you would want the same thing. Frankly, its childish to support the Bush administration the same way you would for a favorite football team. There are questions of right and wrong here and although I am an American and love my country, it is absolutely wrong to invade another nation unprovoked. Always.

Yes, I don't think we should attack Pakistan. Perhaps we should just invade Egypt and Saudi Arabia too for talking about implementing a nuclear program? Of course. It doesn't matter that Iraq has devolved into all out civil war and that every poll shows the Iraqis just want us the hell out or that lage portions of Afghanistan are still controlled by Taliban warlords and heroin smugglers more than six years after we failed to arrest the al-qaida and taliban leadership at tora bora. None of that matters -- lets invade Pakistan. By your logic, we should be invading Russia and numerous other countries, too. Your arguments simply are not plausible.

I never claimed, in any post, that the US should dance to bin Laden's tune or anything like that. You are simply twisting my words into your perceived views of progressives. It won't work.

Here's some news from Iraq today:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/26/2127531.htm?section=world

as far as whether the "surge" is working, levels of violence have fluctuated throughout the conflict -- which has, by the way, lasted longer than the US civil war and nearly as long as the US revolutionary war and I don't see a bunch of armed militias setting off random bombs and imposing Sharia law to be a sustainable democracy.. apparently our definitions differ. There are no silver linings here and nothing to be optimistic about. Its needless and random death.. and no, I won't say that I hope the US wins this war because I don't think there are any winners in a senseless, ongoing tragedy based upon a ghastly mistake.

By the way, I don't care what Harry Reid says. He is a spineless, ineffective leader who will be booted out very soon, when we Democrats have an even larger majority in the Senate.

Final-Fan said: I guess we will have to agree to disagree, Entroper. Let me just say this in parting: The reason that article is available is apparently because some white supremacist liked it enough to post it on the Internet. (And yes I am fully aware that proves nothing.)

Yeah, I was ready to let this one drop too if it went on any longer.  :)  I enjoyed the discussion, though.

I think Paul's major political problem is that he's misunderstood.  I have no problem with people who disagree with him on his positions, but I think most people who call him crazy just haven't thought it through (not referring to you here).

@ N-Syte: does this mean I win?

@Final-Fan

Did you win? What are you talking about? You didn’t even respond to my post! If it were so important for you to “win” I would have thought you’d pay closer attention. Maybe I could throw in the towel and do my part for the nation’s supposed self-esteem problem? Seriously though, if this is what you do as a form of intellectual exercise, it’s akin to an obese woman power-walking with a Twinkie in one hand and a diet coke in the other (spandex and all!) But I’ll give you credit; you have a natural ability to give yourself “atta boys” all along the way.

As far as my being sarcastic? Sure I was. I thought it an appropriate level to respond to your infantile outbursts. Your WhiteHouse/NationalDebt correlation was a cheap shot (never mind intellectually dishonest). As if the White House has the sole responsibility for determining government spending. Sure the White House must finally approve any budget, but it is the Congress that must first craft and present it. If you want to argue that the responsibility is shared, then do so. But if one branch were more responsible than the other it would be the Congress not the White House.

I really didn’t see the need to put together the chart. My only desire was to point out an example of your tendency to cherry pick. Which perhaps just reiterates your desire to “win” rather than be correct? Throw as much against the wall as you can and hope something sticks?

But if I was to go through the bother of putting the table together by my “own damn self”, it would look something like this:

Year – Party – Debt Chg (Adj for Inflation)
1930 R…….9 1950 D….-27 1970 D….-15 1990 D…-353
1931 R…...-7 1951 D…...49 1971 D...-118 1991 D…-412
1932 R….-41 1952 D….-12 1972 D…-117 1992 D…-432
1933 R….-42 1953 D…..-51 1973 D….-70 1993 D…-368
1934 D….-56 1954 R…..-10 1974 D….-26 1994 D…-285
1935 D….-43 1955 R…..-23 1975 D...-206 1995 D…-224
1936 D….-65 1956 D……30 1976 D...-270 1996 R…-143
1937 D….-32 1957 D…...25 1977 D…-185 1997 R…..-28
1938 D…...-1 1958 D…..-20 1978 D…-189 1998 R……88
1939 D….-42 1959 D…..-92 1979 D…-117 1999 R….157
1940 D….-43 1960 D…….2 1980 D…-187 2000 R…..286
1941 D….-70 1961 D…..-23 1981 D…-281 2001 R…..151
1942 D...-262 1962 D…..-49 1982 N…-276 2002 N…-182
1943 D…-658 1963 D….-33 1983 N…-435 2003 N…-428
1944 D…-564 1964 D….-40 1984 N…-372 2004 R…-456
1945 D…-551 1965 D……-9 1985 N…-411 2005 R…-340
1946 D…-170 1966 D….-24 1985 N…-420 2006 R…-257
1947 D……37 1967 D….-54 1987 N…-275 2007 R…-163
1948 R…..102 1968 D…-151 1988 D…-274
1949 R……..5 1969 D……18 1989 D…-256

So no, I don’t see your correlation. The R’s ran surpluses 40% of the time, the D’s 8%. D’s ran up the deficit by about 4x as much. However, if you would like to focus on the last 7 years, I’ll bite, for there is a lesson that can be drawn. When Republicans do become spend thrifts, there is no one to put up any challenge to them. To the contrary, Dems are like drug pushers gladly welcoming a junkie to another fix. Unfortunately the Republicans were weak and deservedly lost their power.

Now, if you must, go back and respond to my post from 12/24 8:45 for another shot at your “win.”

N-Syte said: @Final-Fan Did you win? What are you talking about? You didn’t even respond to my post! If it were so important for you to “win” I would have thought you’d pay closer attention. Maybe I could throw in the towel and do my part for the nation’s supposed self-esteem problem? Seriously though, if this is what you do as a form of intellectual exercise, it’s akin to an obese woman power-walking with a Twinkie in one hand and a diet coke in the other (spandex and all!) But I’ll give you credit; you have a natural ability to give yourself “atta boys” all along the way. As far as my being sarcastic? Sure I was. I thought it an appropriate level to respond to your infantile outbursts. Your WhiteHouse/NationalDebt correlation was a cheap shot (never mind intellectually dishonest). As if the White House has the sole responsibility for determining government spending. Sure the White House must finally approve any budget, but it is the Congress that must first craft and present it. If you want to argue that the responsibility is shared, then do so. But if one branch were more responsible than the other it would be the Congress not the White House. I really didn’t see the need to put together the chart. My only desire was to point out an example of your tendency to cherry pick. Which perhaps just reiterates your desire to “win” rather than be correct? Throw as much against the wall as you can and hope something sticks? But if I was to go through the bother of putting the table together by my “own damn self”, it would look something like this: Year – Party – Debt Chg (Adj for Inflation) 1930 R…….9 1950 D….-27 1970 D….-15 1990 D…-353 1931 R…...-7 1951 D…...49 1971 D...-118 1991 D…-412 1932 R….-41 1952 D….-12 1972 D…-117 1992 D…-432 1933 R….-42 1953 D…..-51 1973 D….-70 1993 D…-368 1934 D….-56 1954 R…..-10 1974 D….-26 1994 D…-285 1935 D….-43 1955 R…..-23 1975 D...-206 1995 D…-224 1936 D….-65 1956 D……30 1976 D...-270 1996 R…-143 1937 D….-32 1957 D…...25 1977 D…-185 1997 R…..-28 1938 D…...-1 1958 D…..-20 1978 D…-189 1998 R……88 1939 D….-42 1959 D…..-92 1979 D…-117 1999 R….157 1940 D….-43 1960 D…….2 1980 D…-187 2000 R…..286 1941 D….-70 1961 D…..-23 1981 D…-281 2001 R…..151 1942 D...-262 1962 D…..-49 1982 N…-276 2002 N…-182 1943 D…-658 1963 D….-33 1983 N…-435 2003 N…-428 1944 D…-564 1964 D….-40 1984 N…-372 2004 R…-456 1945 D…-551 1965 D……-9 1985 N…-411 2005 R…-340 1946 D…-170 1966 D….-24 1985 N…-420 2006 R…-257 1947 D……37 1967 D….-54 1987 N…-275 2007 R…-163 1948 R…..102 1968 D…-151 1988 D…-274 1949 R……..5 1969 D……18 1989 D…-256 So no, I don’t see your correlation. The R’s ran surpluses 40% of the time, the D’s 8%. D’s ran up the deficit by about 4x as much. However, if you would like to focus on the last 7 years, I’ll bite, for there is a lesson that can be drawn. When Republicans do become spend thrifts, there is no one to put up any challenge to them. To the contrary, Dems are like drug pushers gladly welcoming a junkie to another fix. Unfortunately the Republicans were weak and deservedly lost their power. Now, if you must, go back and respond to my post from 12/24 8:45 for another shot at your “win.”

N-Syte said: @ Final-Fan A bit touchy, eh? If cutting spending is so important to you, then why is it so much of your passion is devoted to defending increasing the taxing power of government? Let’s start with the last tax cut. Bush signed it into law May 28, 2003. And now let’s look at receipts of each fiscal year since then against GDP. 03 Total Receipts: $1,969B GDP: 10,828B = 18.2% 16.5% (OMB) 04 Total Receipts: $2,034B GDP: 11,712B = 17.3% 16.3% (OMB) 05 Total Receipts: $2,287B GDP: 12,042B = 18.4% 17.5% (OMB Est) 06 Total Receipts: $2,537B GDP: 12,641B = 19.4% 17.5% (OMB Est) 07 Total Receipts: $2,709B GDP: 13,543B = 20.0% (Est) 17.6% (OMB Est) Since you won’t allow me to use my nutso economists as sources, I resorted to using data from the IRS. (I guess I wouldn’t have to if I was able to use the smart, sophisticated economists you turn to. Let me guess, Krugman?) I also added the percentages from the Office and Management Budget. The post war average is about 17.9%. Sure the rate drops in ’04, but would you give them at least one year to take effect? It’s not as if signing a bill works like a light switch. What’s even more stunning is that this was achieved during a period of war and dramatic increases in fuel costs. We could go through the same exercise in the 80’s, the 60’s, and the 20’s. Shall we make it a game where you pick the decade? Maybe we could look at the inverse when taxes were increased? Look at corporate taxes. In 1985 the Brits were the first to kick off what turned into a tidal wave of corporate tax cuts across the West (those other nations needed to stay competitive, no?) When you look at the 20 or so countries that cut their rates, the results are stunning. Some cut there rates by a third, while others slashed them by nearly a half. The result is the same. Receipts as a percentage of GDP went up remarkably. OK, OK many of those countries also reduced the depreciation corps could claim (a tax shield, but you already knew that). But the results have been the same even after the impact of depreciation is phased out. Well, of course the tax base would need to increase! What do you think economic growth does? Yet you are skeptical that tax cuts could some how contribute to that growth? I give up! I’ve already said that my first preference would be to cut spending. I’ve simply challenged your proposition that raising taxes to reduce the debt is the better alternative if we must spend like drunken sailors. And yes, the debt went up dramatically over the last seven years. Embarrassingly so. But it was the spending side that drove it, not mythical declines in tax receipts. As far as how severe US debt is on a relative basis, here is a sampling: 2005 Debt vs GDP US 75% Denmark 204% Canada 48% (go Canucks!) France 155% Germany 156% Spain 88% Sweden 194% Belgium 302% (and top income tax rate is 50%! Ouch) Norway 159% Swiss 350% Britain 394% You can wax on into infinitum about the joys of tax increases, but if you really want to keep this nightmare from reaching the US, run away from any candidate advocating government solutions to societal problems. Any candidates pushing a program beginning with the word “universal” is a good start.

I love this. After using all the condescending wit at your command to deride me for demanding a response when you had already responded (I'll admit, completely my fault), you berate me for oversimplistically claiming that the President (and his Administration) is solely responsible for the budget, then turn around and pretend that Congress is solely responsible for the budget! Must I remind you that Bush just got through successfully making a Democratically-controlled Congress back down on crucial budgetary provisions (i.e. Iraq funding provisos)? Whatever your position on whose position is right in that case, the President clearly can force at least some of his budgetary agenda onto any Congress that isn't highly determined and overwhelmingly opposed to him. Hot tip: try not to accuse others of being intellectually dishonest while in the act of being intellectually dishonest. (Oh wait, you vote Republican so I guess that's pretty much your role model.)

Also, thanks for not considering the massive deficits of World War II in your analysis.

Let's try this again, using a combination of our numbers:
[NUMBERS IN THE WORKS]

@damkira

Are we having the same conversation or you speaking to an imaginary friend? This is truly maddening.

Why are you bringing up Syria? Of course they’re not worried about Iranian nuclear armament, they are allies. If anything, they would be encouraged by it. Now Sunni states, on the other, may be less excited by the notion.

Nobody has ever claimed that Saudi Arabia or Egypt has pursued nuclear weapons (I’m certainly not privy one way or the other). But have they entertained the notion? Of course they have. It’s naïve to think otherwise. Israel need not be there only motivation to pursue them. They are concerned about losing the US umbrella and intimidation from Iran. The UN has reported on such fears as did the UK Guardian just a few years ago. Is it just easier for you to think about these matters in such stark black and white terms?

Why do you insist on incessantly bringing up Israel anyway? They are not relevant to the topic at hand – the consequence of a US vacuum. Is it that Israel is the single topic you are comfortable with so you insist upon interjecting them into any conversation about the Middle East? While the Israeli-Arab conflict is well publicized, the intra-Muslim conflicts within the Middle East are not exactly a secret. Again, US departure from various regions throughout the globe will have consequences (and some of those might be negative!) But I repeat myself. Why that is so difficult for you to wrap your mind around is beyond me.

No one claimed we should go to war with Pakistan. I only stated why the US was justified in using their aid to hunt terrorists. You’re the one who has a problem with the policy, but cannot seem to articulate a viable alternative.

As far as invasions are concerned, the trick is to keep belligerent nations from obtaining nuclear arms. That’s it. Those who already have them are not going to give them up. Once a country has them, it’s really too late to do anything about it. Hopefully you understand why we should keep unstable despots from going nuclear (although the longer this thread goes, I am beginning to wonder).

Weapons or not, how did Saddam not provoke war? He was the aggressor in the Persian Gulf War and lost. As a result he had certain obligations and did not meet them. Was the US to maintain sanctions and the no-fly zone indefinitely (But wait! That would mean leaving a air presence in the Middle East which was one of the justifications for 911. oh what to do!)

What does the length of the war matter (other then for those with short attention spans)? You have a point I suppose. If the US fought wars like all nations have fought wars over the millennia, we would not be so concerned about picking up the mess we left behind. We’d turn it into a parking lot until the will of any adversary was absolutely broken. But we don’t operate that way. We take out the bad guy and then get on with the messy business of trying to create something better. It’s that noble quality the enemy exploits. It is that which protracts these conflicts.

The more I read your posts, the more I question your ability to reach logical conclusions built upon cogent arguments derived through rational deduction. If all is lost, then what does it matter what the US does at this point? If the US stays or goes, the damage is done and irreversible, no? I mean, this unlawful war built on the purposeful lies of the bushitler machine that has murdered and tortured zillions of innocent human beings without reading them their Miranda rights and left the US stuck in a quagmire of a civil war for oil money to fund the US’s rapacious rape of the Earth as well as fund the pensions of Halliburton execs who kill baby seals on vacation and then….. but I digress (not sure I have the hang of it though – it’s ridiculous enough but I just can’t deliver it with that same fanatical zeal. Practice! Practice!)

It’s ironic you raised the analogy of rooting for a football team in the same post you declare your hope for greater margins among Democrats in Congress when you’ll have an even stronger majority leader (we’ve got some great first round picks in the lottery and wait till you get a load of our quarterback next year!) It’s a shame both parties can’t be more closely aligned in this war and all of its many fronts. Not sure what is sadder, your football analogy or the fact that you can’t even declare your hope for US victory, however hypothetical is might be.

@Final-Fan

What does my deriding you with my wit have to do with challenging your flawed correlation of White House occupancy and national debt? And whoever said that Congress was solely responsible? I clearly said I would be willing to hear you out if you wanted to claim the responsibility was shared by both branches. My bias is that it is shared, but Congress holds the greater responsibility for the act of passing spending bills – it’s a simple matter of degree. Intellectually dishonest? I think not. I just don’t know of anyone who would say differently (except you). It’s OK if you believe the executive branch is more responsible for spending legislation. Make the case. It may be an argument I have never heard before… Ever.

You’re going to compare Iraq war spending provisions with other non-defense related spending? Kind of a politically loaded example, eh?

You’re funny. Deduct all defense spending then!

@N-syte

 

Once again, you have missed the point entirely.

Excessive foreign aid to Israel was our biggest foreign policy liability until the iraq war and it has gained us nothing. You talk about inter-Muslim conflicts, but there really hasn't been one since the war between iraq and iran back in the 1980s (which the reagan administration sent billions in weapons to saddam hussein) The Israel-rest of the middle east conflict has been the issue in the region for generations and will be for generations to come. Lopsided US support for Israel is what is making the Islamic extremists hate us. Does it justify their attacks against the US? Of course not, and I never said it did. However, it has been extremely unwise to antagonize a large portion of the world for no discernable gain. US military buildup is the PROBLEM, not the solution.

Actually, you'll find Syria has large number of Sunni, Shi'tes and Christians. In fact, Wikipedia says 74% of Syria's  Muslims are Sunni. I can find other references if you like. Until recently, Syria's government was under the control of the Baath party. The same one which controlled Iraq. Your characterization of Syria as an Iranian sattelite nation is completely incorrect.

I don't see how Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 justifies the 2003 US invasion and current occupation. Perhaps you could elaborate on your point, because you're not making any sense.

Nobody said we shouldn't be hunting terrorists in Pakistan. We are doing that, are we not? It would seemingly be the best place to hunt for terrorists. You wanted to go to war with Iran and my point was that Pakistan represents a greater threat. 

Twisting my arguments into ridiculous exaggerations does not make any of your points more valid. I'm trying to have a serious discussion about serious matters.  Yes, I would like to see an end to the slaughter of our troops in Iraq... but the goals to this war seem to keep changing. First, it was because of WMDs then it was to fight al-Qaida (which didn't exist in Iraq until AFTER the invasion) and now the goal is some nebulous psuedo-democracy in Iraq when that is not what the people of that country even want. Quite frankly, our military deserves better than to fight for goals that aren't clearly defined.