Super Bowl

[Tireur]

greed and stupidity...what a shame.

Yes. Thank God for those selfless french.........

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by epeemike81
well, first of all, let me point out that I'm NOT showing places where BUSH agrees with Clinton, I'm showing places where YOU agree with Clinton.

however, I do find it an interesting statement that if Bush had the same views as Clinton you STILL wouldn't vote against him, yet you would never vote FOR clinton. Basically, you're voting for a republican... if Ralph Nader somehow got the Republican Nomination, you'd vote for him...

here's a novel thought: consider the issues, not the party affiliation.

-m

I think you missed the point....I was saying I won't vote at all, cuz I can't.

[Soldier]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Really? example please. One of the most basic points of liberalism is tolerance. this is not simply tolerance of people, but also of ideas (ironically enough, even of intolerant ideas...). Although, maybe Bush is getting a bad rap on censorship of art. after all, he just RAISED the NEA budget. and the fiscal conservatives groan again.

well, conveniently enough, we have recently had a democratic administration. please point to an example of them pushing censorship. While I'll grant they didn't massively roll back existing censorship, they didn't push MORE (which this administration and it's allies in the Christian right have), and tended to be more lenient in their enforcement of said policies.

Have you SEEN this administration? they have significantly RAISED the budget since Bush came into office. many of those raises are for intrusive acts in the name of "security", which end up being used to investigate strippers in Las Vegas (Patriot Act was used for that purpose). They have also proposed programs such as marriage incentives and government funded marriage counseling, as well as supporting versions of what the Democrats want to do. what exactly is it that you think a Democratic government would do that would be more intrusive than what this administration has already done?

So kick me in the rear and call me lazy, but I don't really feel like going to the effort of composing a good response to all of this. I don't mean to insinuate that you are irrational or offensive (like most comments I don't respond to); I simply don't really feel like it right now. Weekends have a way of doing that to me (sleep deprivation, too).

you're for smaller government? fine. it's a soundbite which doesn't mean much, but I'll assume that you'd back it up with some fairly sound stuff. while I disagree, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion. The government you're supporting, however, has shown through its actions that it is NOT for smaller government. it is for unfunded larger government. Bush has taken us from a surplus to the largest deficit in history (by far). small, large, it's all crap. I'm for FUNDED government. you want to lower taxes? fine. cut the budget. you want a new program? fine. raise taxes. whatever programs you feel are necessary, you need to fund them correctly.

I would love to be given the chance to rampage through the federal budget with an axe. Beauracracy pisses me off, primarily in its inefficiency and waste. Unfortunately, the federal government has become quite large (regardless of whom you'd like to blame), and inefficient. The less the government tries to take care of ourselves, the more we'll learn to take care of ourselves. The more we take care of ourselves, the less money we have to give to the government. Spent on smaller scales, it'll be rather more efficient, instead of the government throwing it around by the millions.

wow....

That theory ignores globalization. the relative size of the world has gotten DRASTICALLY smaller through modern technology. it is impractical to believe that SMALLER nations are feasible. look at history. Families ----> Tribes ----> city states ----> fiefdoms ----> States ----> Federations.

Throughout history, the scope of rule has increased, and with it the general prosperity of much of the world. it is impractical to think that we COULD go back to city states, and the evidence doesn't suggest that anybody would be better off if we did. the problem with such seperations is that the redistribution of funds wouldn't take place at a federal level, and the education system in, say, the city state of detroit would suck, while that in boston would be great. boston would consequently thrive, while Detroit would continue to sink further and further. when that gap gets large enough, Detroit attacks Chicago.

Redistribution of wealth is necessary on all levels to some extent. It WILL happen. It is our choice whether we do it through social programs, or heads on pikes. I choose social programs.

-m

Yes, it does ignore globalization, history since the invention of agriculture, human nature, and a host of other factors. Never said it would actually happen. Please note the use of 'ideally'. As for redistribution of wealth, technology, etc. A change such as the one I mentioned would effect far more than borders. True, Detroit's education might be lower, but where does Boston get its cars from? Wealth isn't just money, nor is it just education. Whether we'd be worse off or not, I believe depends on your definition of what's good or bad. Throw me back to the stone age; I won't live nearly as long, and I won't have heat or plumbing. But I'll work about twenty hours a week, and spend the rest of the time with my woman, sitting on my butt. I don't mind a shorter life if it's a good one. Are we really that much happier with all the technology, organization, "security", etc.? We don't worry about invading armies, or bad crops, or droughts, no. But we do worry about crime, and still worry about disease, and a host of other things.

As for heads on pikes...yeah, you'd get some of that. But we do now, only on a larger scale. Detroit vs. Chicago wouldn't be half as bad as Germany vs. France. And finally, the flame invitation: I think some heads on pikes would do the world good. Remember the problem mentioned earlier about overpopulation? We can do anything we want to, and we'll be lucky to slow the growth a bit. The doubling time of the world population is around seventy years. We think 6 billion is crowded now? How about 12 in another lifetime? 24 billion before two more centuries are out? Think of it - that's less than the lifespan of the US so far, and this is a pretty young nation. If it ain't war, it'll be a plague. Or a combination.

Which would lead me into a theory of mine regarding the end times, but that's just a little too far off topic.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Soldier
So kick me in the rear and call me lazy, but I don't really feel like going to the effort of composing a good response to all of this. I don't mean to insinuate that you are irrational or offensive (like most comments I don't respond to); I simply don't really feel like it right now. Weekends have a way of doing that to me (sleep deprivation, too).

Alright, I'm going to take this as an admission that liberals do NOT in fact try to censor opposing viewpoints.

I would love to be given the chance to rampage through the federal budget with an axe. Beauracracy pisses me off, primarily in its inefficiency and waste. Unfortunately, the federal government has become quite large (regardless of whom you'd like to blame), and inefficient. The less the government tries to take care of ourselves, the more we'll learn to take care of ourselves. The more we take care of ourselves, the less money we have to give to the government. Spent on smaller scales, it'll be rather more efficient, instead of the government throwing it around by the millions.

actually, while inefficiency is a common rallying cry, there's actually little to it. please point out the inefficiency in public education. how about in healthcare? specifics please, not "medicare is bloated". this is one of the many myths that the right has sold the American people. There are certain issues (common goods) that ARE in societies benefit to provide to all it's citizens, but which are NOT in any individuals (or group of individuals) interest to provide. Education is a good example. in these cases, it makes sense for the government to administer the services. While there is FAR less inefficiency than you seem to believe, I agree that there ARE, clearly, SOME cases of it. I do NOT agree, however, that inefficiency is indemic to the system. perhaps REFORM of the inefficient programs might be better in some cases?

Yes, it does ignore globalization, history since the invention of agriculture, human nature, and a host of other factors. Never said it would actually happen. Please note the use of 'ideally'. As for redistribution of wealth, technology, etc. A change such as the one I mentioned would effect far more than borders. True, Detroit's education might be lower, but where does Boston get its cars from? Wealth isn't just money, nor is it just education. Whether we'd be worse off or not, I believe depends on your definition of what's good or bad. Throw me back to the stone age; I won't live nearly as long, and I won't have heat or plumbing. But I'll work about twenty hours a week, and spend the rest of the time with my woman, sitting on my butt. I don't mind a shorter life if it's a good one. Are we really that much happier with all the technology, organization, "security", etc.? We don't worry about invading armies, or bad crops, or droughts, no. But we do worry about crime, and still worry about disease, and a host of other things.

As for heads on pikes...yeah, you'd get some of that. But we do now, only on a larger scale. Detroit vs. Chicago wouldn't be half as bad as Germany vs. France. And finally, the flame invitation: I think some heads on pikes would do the world good. Remember the problem mentioned earlier about overpopulation? We can do anything we want to, and we'll be lucky to slow the growth a bit. The doubling time of the world population is around seventy years. We think 6 billion is crowded now? How about 12 in another lifetime? 24 billion before two more centuries are out? Think of it - that's less than the lifespan of the US so far, and this is a pretty young nation. If it ain't war, it'll be a plague. Or a combination.

Which would lead me into a theory of mine regarding the end times, but that's just a little too far off topic.

As for the city states thing, yes, some things would have to be purchased from Detroit. and it's your contention that the detroit economy would thrive on our money?? much as the Bangleshi or Pakistani economies now thive on our money??

As for the population boom, you are ignoring boundary conditions. when a population can no longer be supported, they die.

-m

[Soldier]

Take it however you like; I'm not admitting anything but lethargy.

Inefficiency in public education? How about teachers who are teaching nothing new (no real ground-breakers recently in classical literature, you know?) being forced to re-certify every two years, at great expense? Or, just look at it from a little further back, and draw your own conclusions: Government keeps throwing more money into the system; nothing improves. Every year this repeats.

How about welfare? Bums on the street getting free money to go keep getting themselves drunk, with no intention of ever working. While the family who works like crazy day in and day out (a lot of times, this includes enlisted military) doesn't get any more. There's no way to determine who deserves the money or not, so millions of dollars get wasted on people who will never bother to haul themselves up. You can't pass laws or bills to fix that; you have to stop trying to do it from a federal level. Kill welfare, leave people a little more money that you don't take in taxes; let them give to charities around them.

Don't even get me started on the military...


I completely missed what you were trying to say with the Detroit/Pakistan/Bangladesh thing, I'm sorry.

Yes, a population dies when the environment no longer supports it. In the natural world, starvation is usually the cause. But with larger, advanced societies, there will be war before starvation - countries trying to grab more food for themselves as it runs short. These wars will quickly become global as the food problem becomes global; global wars means a lot of dead bodies, which also means disease.

Now, what were the four horsemen of the apocalypse? Famine, War, Death, and Plague, perhaps...?

[big daddy]

June 29th 2004 . five months later Im still looking for that four hour erection stuff they were selling before Janet's breast made it debut.