|
| Thread: El Presidenté & The Governator |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 27, 2004 05:16 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 26 Nov 2004
|
Hmm.....
Quote:
I cant think of any conflict that was solved by force, perhaps save WW2
Defreni,
I agree with you and would like to add:
I'd say that not even it was solved. We have 10's of thousands of Neo Nazis here in america. But because of our laws we can't simply kick them out of our country. Freedom of speech and all that. I'd say no war has ever solved the problem, rather, they has merely changed the manner in which we fight those people.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
posted November 27, 2004 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd say no war has ever solved the problem, rather, they has merely changed the manner in which we fight those people.
Brilliantly put, Consis.
But wars may have solved some problems through the years; it's just that they've created more problems, so it kinda evens out, imo.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted November 27, 2004 06:01 PM |
|
|
A war cannot in any way even out.
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
realitycheck
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 27, 2004 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
LOL-- You need a Hisory lesson, not me!! If you want to clinton over the word INTERVENTION- a word you used not I we must agree to disagree. But the use of force has solved numerous conflicts throughout history lets just ask the forefathers of Hiroshima what they think. (A little shout out to the movie Stormship Troopers)
And as you write something I have trouble understanding, you very conveniently skip the part where I show you to be wrong.
And forefathers of Hiroshima??
Defreni
You do live in a dream world if you actually thought you proved me wrong I am sure if you were all punched in the face you would turn and sing KumByYa my lord and say stop that or I will convince you that violence never solved anything. I wish the world worked like you all say but, Defreni, you are in need of a REALITY CHECK.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 27, 2004 10:16 PM |
|
|
Please, don't spread such statements out in the air when you don't have any basis for your claims. Make some constructive arguments, instead of your destructive "insults".
So to your question (I know this is off topic, and I know this I should probably ignore this guy, but anyway).
If someone came up to me and punched me in the face, I would (after I'd gotten back on my feet and removed the blood from my face) ask the person who hit me why the **** he did that. If he'd answered me, and his reasons for hitting me were somewhat sensible, I'd accepted that, but tried to make this person stop hitting people.
If he'd just tried to hit me again, I'd try to get away from him, and if this didn't work, I would fight him (although I don't expect that to do any good for me; I'm a pretty weak guy  ).
One last question: What's your impression of 'our' views on the world?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 29, 2004 01:52 AM |
|
|
If someone punched you in the face, you should punch right back. We're not talking wether a country should surrender once someone declares them war. Thats obvious.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted November 29, 2004 01:57 AM |
|
|
Response to "Peace Activists"
I recieved this several years ago, I think it may apply here.
Response to "Peace Activists"
With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace
Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating
against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001. These
activists may be alone or in a gathering...most of us don't know how to react
to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies,
here are the proper rules of etiquette:
1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a
conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will
tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did
this to us, we only bring on more violence. They will probably use many
arguments, ranging from political to religious, to humanitarian.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the
nose.
3. When the person gets up off the ground, they will be very angry and may
try to hit you, so be careful.
4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about
more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if
they are really committed to a non-violent approach to undeserved attacks,
they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must
lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.
5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.
6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much
harder. Square in the nose.
7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot
realizes how silly of an argument he/she is making.
8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim
or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable
and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge
debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support
them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either
strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 29, 2004 04:13 AM |
|
|
I Disagree
Gandhi would not punch back.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 29, 2004 06:07 AM |
|
|
I love those kind of simplistic black and white attempts to reduce a highly complicated situation into a manageable analogy. Reminds me of the email which suggested the best way to engage terrorists was to coat bullets in pig fat.
Here's one for you to chew on, a review of US policy over Iraq using a schoolground situation.
1) The enemy of your enemy is your friend
2) If your "friend" starts a fight with your enemy, you smile and await the results, it prevents you getting the blame from the teachers, and hurts your enemy right?
3) The enemy begins to win the fight, your "friend" struggles to hold his own. Desperate not to have to deal with the problem you pass your friend a knuckle duster, he evens the fight out. No-one wins, but hey no-one lost! The teachers arrive and break up the fight
4) Eager to use his new found power, your friend acquires a second knuckle duster and a knife, then uses these to beat up his brother and sister. Despite reports of this in the local press you show no great concern.
5) Realising his power, your "friend" decides to flex his muscles, and picks a fight again, this time without your permission! Woe! He picked one of your best friends, and threatens another!
6) This time, your former friend is nothing but a bully and coward and needs to be dealt with. You persuade the teacher and other children to help you to stop the fight with your friend and make your new found enemy go home where he continues to attack his siblings.
7) Now finally realising what a bully he is you demand the teachers take action to remove the violent weapons your enemy posesses. Those that dare to mention you gave them to him are cowards, not working for the good of the school. You spend time trying to disarm him but fail, not least because your friends refuse to stop their own support for him.
8) Another, unrelated enemy attacks you in the dark, hitting you a low blow in your unmentionables. You immediately try to blame your first enemy (and former "friend" on an enemy of enemy basis) rather than blame your new enemy (who you also provided with knuckle dusters some time ago when he was a nice bully). Finally you go after the new enemy at his friend's house, but fail dismally to find him and give up for a while.
9) You then demand the teachers support you in an attempt to disarm your first enemy again, claiming again he is a danger to your health and the schools. You try and say he likes your second enemy (even though they hate eachother's guts) and then complain about his violent weapons. The techers claim they took those weapons away, and that they can't find any now. You refuse to believe this and insist that YOU search him. You attack his house with your friends, damaging it in the process and discover no violent weapons whatsoever. Other people in the school found to have supported this enemy in the past are declared partial enemies and cowards.
10) But that's ok because you expelled a bully, even if it was you and your friends and others who helped put him into that much power. Anyone who suggests that this expulsion was wrong and/or hypocritical is a scumbag who does not live up to the school's reputation. And what the hell! You're bigger than the school anyway, who cares what they think?
It's easy to reduce a complex situation into a simple analogy, only difference is I made my one up on the spot
(and no I don't agree with the above analogy entirely, just offering a flip side to the kind of stuff in Wolfman's post)
Btw, what was the topic again? 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Rindle
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted December 31, 2004 08:22 PM |
|
Edited By: Rindle on 31 Dec 2004
|
I haven't been on here for quite a while, and I'm glad to see that my topic sparked up such a lively debate. First, I just want to comment on the pacifist argument. I don't consider myself a pacifist, I believe that an armed conflict is sometimes necessary. If someone punched me in the face I'd punch them right back, but we live in a complicated world and things aren't always that simple. Conservatives are always trying to put things into a black and white, eye for an eye Bible-justice, view of the world. "They attacked us! Now we gotta hit them back hard! You're either with us or against us".
But wait a second, who attacked you? Your former ally and his band of rogue soldiers whom you trained, and who's family funded your first business venture and continues to be your business partners today? Okay... so what are you gonna do now? Invade Afghanistan and destroy the Taliban regime who's harbouring him and who coincidentally is the same regime standing between you and the completion of a highly lucrative oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to world markets, then replace the regime with a president who was a former advisor for big oil companies. And what of the MasterVillain himself, was he captured? Umm... no he got away. Well that's understandable, it must be hard to catch a terminally ill man in need of a dialysis machine every week travelling with a large entourage!?
You see, fighting isn't the problem for me but the who and what for tend to be important to me. Personally I wouldn't want to sacrifice my life to further the personal wealth of Bush & Co.
Wolfman wrote:
Quote:
I know you didn’t say anything about an objective poll, but I think it’s ridiculous and fairly irrelevant how some New Yorkers feel. I think it was a waste of airtime for CNN to put something like that on the air. .
I bet the Fox News Channel would agree with you. After all, "Fair and Balanced Reporting" is their slogan
Quote:
Did CNN send a reporter on the streets of Omaha Nebraska to see what they thought of the election results? Nebraska is, as Khaelo put it earlier, a Republican stronghold. Again, I would say it’s a waste of air time, but at least it would stop the impression that most Americans are upset about the results of the election, as I’m sure was the motive even if CNN would never come out and say it.
Or maybe they could do a piece on the thousands of voters in Ohio whose votes somehow were counted for Bush by "Machine Error". How many other Western countries do you hear about experiencing so frequent election problems as the The United States Of The Greatest Nation On The Face Of The Earth? If you can't rely on the election process then it really is no better than a dictatorship.
The impression of Americans being upset with the election results is not just from CNN but from most Americans I talk to. Also, in light of the fact that Bush has been probably the most hated presidents in the history of America, you don't have to look further than the nearly 50 percent of voters who voted for Kerry (according to official results) to figure out that there's going to be a lot of people who didn't like the outcome of the election. Not to mention the voters who didn't get to vote because their voter registration forms were trashed by Republican-friendly Voter's Outreach of America.
Quote:
I notice you’re new here, so you don’t know much about me. I’m only 17 so I can’t vote, 7 lousy months older and I could have. But I have been following the election over a year before Election Day. I watched everything, all sorts of news; I watched polls conducted by many different sources (Gallop, Zogby). I would be willing to bet I know more about the process than a vast majority of the American public, and I can’t vote…most annoying.
I would have voted for Bush, which is no secret to anyone on HC. After everything I’ve seen, heard and researched, I reached my decision. I came to a different conclusion than other people, but that’s what a democracy is all about, everyone has an opinion and gets to voice it…except me it seems. (other than on these boards)
My bad, I thought you were older.
I don't doubt that you know much about the election process but I have a hard time believing that you have done enough research on Bush. This is a guy who's managed to run aground every business that he's been put in charge of, has been funded by Saudi oil money, deserted the Texas Air National Guard and has managed create the biggest budget deficit in history during his four years in the White House. Is this really the guy you want for President?
Quote:
Like I said above, it’s in the interpreting. I also think it has something to do with what you feel about law enforcement in general. I personally think bureaucracy should be cut between jurisdictions to make things run smoother; the Patriot Act did this. I think it should be easier for law enforcement to contact suspects and get a hold of them; the Patriot Act did this. If you have something to hide, of course you would object to the Patriot Act. I have nothing to hide, and I want the terrorists and other criminals caught. That makes it good in my eyes.
This is an extremely naive and dangerous way of seeing things. Even if you have nothing to hide you are still at the mercy of individuals who have been given unreasonable powers that could very easily be abused. Binabik makes an excellent point when he quotes the Constition to you, it is essential to a free democracy to have in place such safeguards against corruption -- after all, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This also brings me back to my previous point about how the fear of terrorism is being played up and exploited: your rationale for supporting the Patriot Act was basically that you wanted the "terrorists and other criminals caught". This means you believe that these are people who pose such an extreme threat that they can only be caught by introducing such draconian legislation as the Patriot Act. In other words, you're buying into the hype. The 9/11 attacks could easily have been stopped if US intelligence and law enforcement had not been busy sleeping or looking the other way at the time. Bush ignored several warnings of possible terrorist attacks.
Quote:
Next time censor yourself please; I don’t like to do it. First time it’s a warning; second it’s a penalty. I don’t want to do that to you.
Sorry about that, if I had known there were children on the board I would have used more delicate language
Quote:
This is the first time in a long time I’ve enjoyed writing a post, thanks Rindle.
Hey, you're welcome
Binabik wrote:
Quote:
Slept his way to the top??? That's ludicrous, you're just bashing.
It is rumoured that he did, I think it was with a producer or something.
Quote:
Show me a country where the son of a powerful person doesn't have a major advantage. I'm not saying it's OK, just that it's reality and certainly not unique to the US.
Granted, but winning the elections even though the other guy got more votes is pretty unique to the US -- unless, of course, you are counting third world countries where election fraud and disputed elections happen all the time. Come to think of it, the election dispute in Ukraine right now kinda reminds me of the US elections. So if that's what you're comparing it to then I guess the US isn't that unique after all
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted January 01, 2005 12:27 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 1 Jan 2005
|
Quote:
The impression of Americans being upset with the election results is not just from CNN but from most Americans I talk to.
Sounds pretty darn scientific to me. Hold on while I write this down. It sounds important.
Quote:
Also, in light of the fact that Bush has been probably the most hated presidents in the history of America
Would you mind referencing the study from which you gather these so-called facts?
Quote:
Is this really the guy you want for President?
Yup, and that's how I voted. I'd link the thread where I posted in excess about my reasons but you probably wouldn't be interested. You seem to do quite well at arriving at your own conclusions without having read what other people have been saying. (i.e. get down with your bad self)
Quote:
This means you believe that these are people who pose such an extreme threat that they can only be caught by introducing such draconian legislation as the Patriot Act.
I simply love that description of the patriot act. I get a good laugh every time I hear it. I am openly against the legislation in its current form but you won't catch me in disagreement with such eloquent terminology.
Quote:
if I had known there were children on the board I would have used more delicate language
They are Valeriy's rules that you violate when cited by a moderator. Children or not, you must agree to Valeriy's terms to be a member here.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Rindle
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted January 01, 2005 06:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sounds pretty darn scientific to me. Hold on while I write this down. It sounds important.
Wow, you are such an ace student! You get an A+.
Quote:
Would you mind referencing the study from which you gather these so-called facts?
I said "probably the most hated". I didn't make any claims as to the accuracy of my statement by saying that he 'IS' the most hated. Now as for the fact that he is at least widely hated all you have to do is look around you, and at all the toes he's stepped on (or rather stomped on), not only in the US but around the world. Now please don't ask me to reference all the toes, because then I'd just have to turn that around and ask you what rock you've been living under.
Quote:
I simply love that description of the patriot act. I get a good laugh every time I hear it. I am openly against the legislation in its current form but you won't catch me in disagreement with such eloquent terminology.
Thank you
Quote:
Yup, and that's how I voted. I'd link the thread where I posted in excess about my reasons but you probably wouldn't be interested. You seem to do quite well at arriving at your own conclusions without having read what other people have been saying. (i.e. get down with your bad self)
lol @ your choice of words at the end there, is this where you start lecturing me about the importance of "self gratification" again?
But seriously, you're the one that seems like you're arriving at your own conclusions without reading what others have been saying. I would be very interested in reading your reasons for how you voted.
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2005 10:41 AM |
|
|
Well to stay off-topic.
Just been reading Martin Luther King`s "Stride toward freedom: The Montgomery story"
A brilliant example of how non-violence can stop the escalation of a conflict, and at the same time lead to more justice and fairness in a society as a whole.
Another great example is the reconciliation taking place in South-Africa. If I where Catholic I would vote to have Desmond Tutu made a saint.
Well this friday Im done with my exams, guess we`ll have to discuss underdevelopment then
Especially how equality actually can be one of the main engines for economic growth. ¨Would be interesting to see how Wolfman and Khayman would explain that from a neo-conservative viewpoint
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted January 11, 2005 10:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Especially how equality actually can be one of the main engines for economic growth.
I thought this was obvious? When the population has money to buy the products the capitalists produce, the market grows. Or am I wrong? I got confused when my professor strted dragging inflation and interest rates into the equation
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2005 12:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Especially how equality actually can be one of the main engines for economic growth.
I thought this was obvious? When the population has money to buy the products the capitalists produce, the market grows. Or am I wrong? I got confused when my professor strted dragging inflation and interest rates into the equation
Well it depends on how you define growth, equality and development.
Most used way of measuring growth is in GDP, or more correctly GDP per capita. As you can have growth in GDP, but a larger growth in the population, and therefore a de facto decline in GDP per capita. This happened in alot of African countries in the 80ies and 90ies.
If you look at Venezuela for instance, this country experienced a huge growth in GDP per capita in the 70ies, mostly due to their oil producing status. But most of the newfound wealth went into the pockets of the richest 5 % of the population, this is what you term growth without development. The problem is, that this kind off growth is historically very short sighted, as my example with Venezuela also clearly illustrates. Once the oil prices went down in the 80ies, Venezuelas growth stopped.
My point is simply that it is possible to have economic growth without development and without equality (These concepts are interlinked in underdevelopment economics).
But the growth will be of a nature that is very susceptible to be overturned by international economic crisis etc.
This is clearly illustrated by the NICs (Newly industrialised countries) in east asia have been so succesfull, while especially Africa and Latin America still languish far behind.
The gini coefficient in for instance South Korea is alot lower than say Argentinas are (The gini coefficient is a measure of how equal the distribution of ressources are in a country, the lower the coefficient, the more equal).
Offcourse there is also the problem of mono-crop economies (Economies that primarily depends on one commodity, ussually agricultural or mineral) like Venezuela that depends on oil.
Ussualy this leads to a skewing of a given countrys economy, where wages goes up in the sector that earns the foreign currency, and thereby debilitating the rest of the economy. Only country in the world that has succesfully avoided this trap is Norway, which incedently also have one of the lowest gini coefficients in the world.
Hope that gives you an impression of what I mean Terje
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
posted January 11, 2005 12:56 PM |
|
|
Brilliant!
Enlightening as always, Defreni!
So, it's kinda like avoiding the factors that are believed to have lead to the Great Depression? All the capital is gathered on a few hands, while the purchasing power of most people is sinking, leading to a collaps in the economy once masses are unable to buy other the "the autonom consuming factor" (what they need to survive), to attempt to use some pretentious economic ligua?
I think I got what you meant; but I'm kinda slow, so I have to double check...
Oh, and Power to Norway!!! We rox so hard!!! Wanna have a new Kalmar Union? Well, get down and beg!!!
(Sorry, I couldn't help it... Just had to gloat some )
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted January 12, 2005 02:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If you look at Venezuela for instance, this country experienced a huge growth in GDP per capita in the 70ies, mostly due to their oil producing status. But most of the newfound wealth went into the pockets of the richest 5 % of the population, this is what you term growth without development.
Not only Venezuela, but also Brazil and Peru during the 70s experienced growth, while the money for the poor came less and less.
Also, foreign companies outputs and profits are calculated in GDP, which makes it theoretically possible that a country whose entire industry is owned by foreign companies to have a very high GDP, at the same time the people there getting only basic incomes.
Quote:
Ussualy this leads to a skewing of a given countrys economy, where wages goes up in the sector that earns the foreign currency, and thereby debilitating the rest of the economy.
Hmm, I've always thought that the ill about mono-crop economies was the fluctuation of the price for that good. Are you saying that the reasons for nagative economic prospects lie somewhere else? Is it possible the national economy to regress while the basic good sells good?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2005 10:37 PM |
|
|
[quote
Hmm, I've always thought that the ill about mono-crop economies was the fluctuation of the price for that good. Are you saying that the reasons for nagative economic prospects lie somewhere else? Is it possible the national economy to regress while the basic good sells good?
Well, again this is a bit more complicated. There is a difference between my example of oil-producing 3. world countries (Venezuela) and normal mono-crop industries like Ghana (97% of export earnings in Ghana derives from cacao beans).
So in Ghanas case, yes the main problem is fluctuation in world prices, aswell as a deteriorating terms of trade (the differemce between the price of your imports and exports over time. Ghana for instance import manufactured goods like tractors etc. If the price drops on cacao but stays the same for tractors, Ghana needs to sell more cacao to buy the same number of tractors)
The problem I was refering to, was the oil industry workers in for instance Venezuela gets higher wages than the rest of the laborers. This leads to a completely onetracked focus on the oil industry, where the comparatively few workers in that sector can affoprd high priced luxury imports. This leads to a deficit on Venezuelas foreign currency balance, which in turn means that Venezuela have to borrow money to cover this deficit.
Most 3. world countries enjoyed high growth rates in the 70ies measured in GNP, but this was primarily facilitated by cheap loans of the so called petro dollars flowing from the middle east. When recession hit in 1981 following the second oil crisis, these loans where suddenly not so cheap anymore. This is one of the main reasons for the debt crisis occuring in the 80ies and start 90ies.
Funny enough this debt crisis has been said to be no crisis anymore, because the private banks have written off their losses today, but especially sub-saharan Africa and Latin America still have debts where just the rent burden amounts to 60% of their export earnings, effectively stopping any kind of development.
The reason this is a very important subject, is the fact that eventhough we in the rich 1. world have written off most of the money as loss, we still subjugated some of the worlds poorest countries to severe austerity measures, commonly known as structural adjustment programmes. These have caused litteracy rates and public health to dive. Some african countries have litteracy rates of just 50 % among the adult population (Even worse for womem). This compared to 65-70% in the start 80ies.
Well guess I got a bit carried away there. Seems I always have trouble staying on topic.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
| |
|
|
