Enigma
Full Member
Entropy will always Triumph!
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 5, 2007 10:40:55 GMT -5
I suppose.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Jun 5, 2007 18:02:40 GMT -5
all you hear is canadian jokes and talk of universal healthcare
|
|
|
Post by scarmiglione on Jun 5, 2007 22:05:45 GMT -5
For the most part it seems the Iraqis just want to blow up American soldiers and other Iraqis. For someone who preaches the "don't believe the media" philosophy, you sure are eating right out of their hands... IRAQIS AREN'T KILLING IRAQIS. Every Iraqi who wasn't spoon-fed by Saddam wants the Democracy the US brought; they just don't agree with the way things are being handled. The Iraqis aren't the ones blowing themselves up everyday, it's the Syrians, Iranians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Yemenese, and Saudi Arabians...those countries that would hate, above all else, to see a Democratic Arab state smack in the middle of a region ruled by Kings, princes, dictators and Caliphs...and don't frget those oil barons. Think about it, such a thing would be a direct threat to their very institutions. Maybe not in the immediate future, no, but that oil money can only last a few more years, and then what... Seriously, I'm sick and tired of these horribly skewed, western views of Iraq, the Middle East, and Islam... -_- First off, I said I hate the media, not that I don't believe what they report. Why do I hate the media? Well, if you read the article I linked to, you should have been able to figure out that I hate them because of what they don't report. Most of what they actually report is more reliable, than say, some random person's blog on the Internet. I generally don't trust anything blogs have to say unless they link to the source of their information. So does the media lie? No. They emphasize, the exaggerate, they even choose not to report certain things, but they never outright lie. (except Fox ) Secondly, how quickly we do forget about people like al Sadr's followers, Saddam's old party members, and renegade members of the Iraqi police force who are, Iraqis killing other Iraqis. I never said they were blowing themselves up. You're right. Generally they don't. That would be the foreign terrorists. However, I said they were blowing each other up. Killing each other. Which is what a lot of them are doing, whether you want to believe it or not. Sunnis and Shi'a hate each other. That is a fact. And they don't just "disagree with the way things are being handled." They want us gone, plain and simple. If we could hand over the process to another country, that'd be great. But we can't, so we either have to waste our time in country whose people don't want our help, or we can pull our troops out, and put them somewhere where they can accomplish something, like, let's say stopping the resurrgence of the Taliban in Afganistan. National healthcare...hah. The one thing that makes me choose Paul over Obama. I sure as hell am not paying a hefty increase in tax dollars, just to fund a some poor sap's reliance on some prescription that could "potentially" cure him from the effects of his 10-pack-a-day habit. If I wanted that, I would have moved to Switzerland instead, or maybe just stayed in Germany. National Healthcare...sure, it sounds great, but if people nowadays are complaining of gas that is only $3.25 a gallon (We were paying more than that price in Europe at least a decade or so ago...), what the hell are they going to do when they find out their taxes have just increased to accomodate this new policy? Maybe riot in the streets... Perhaps if our defense budget was cut in half, it would be very easy to find the money to fund National Healthcare without raising taxes a bunch. Sounds like more reasons to get out of Iraq to me. You're probably right, though, since I find it highly unlikely that my vision for how this healthcare thing should work will be the view that is adopted. Let me share it with everyone, anyway. Firstly, there are a few assumptions that need to be made. 1. The government already loses money when people are sick (loss of income tax) 2. Under universal healthcare, the government will lose money from two sources when people are sick (above reason, and now the government has to provide care for the person) 3. The government does not want to lose money. Now, if these assumptions are true, which I certainly hope the 3rd assumption is, then the government should prevent itself from losing money it should stop people from getting sick. Cigarettes and alcohol soon lose their legal status. The FDA puts up stricter standards of what can be called food in this country to help deal with the obesity problem. Funding for stem cell research arrives in mass quantities to attempt to eliminate diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other similar diseases that cost the government money. That's how it should work. Somewhat higher taxes would be necessary at first, but things would balance out quickly as the government adopts that list of policies. And then we could work on settling our debt to China.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Jun 5, 2007 23:11:51 GMT -5
An important note on gas, we here may not be paying as much as some other nations, but while we're all paying three, four, and six dollars in gas (depending on which nation you live in), you know how much those Middle Eastern nations are paying? 0.50 and 0.92 a gallon. Something's wrong with this picture. Meh, maybe. Though, you have to remember the breakdown of the prices. Those Middle Eastern countries provide gas so cheap to their countries because they subsidize the cost through exports. They essentially pay for a good chunk of their citizens already discounted price. (The same oil money also goes to par for free public healthcare at no tax cost to the citizen in countries like Saudi Arabia, fyi) But what really makes the price difference is the fact that they neither have to transport it across large expanses of sea and land (either by ship or by pipe), and that many of them charge little or absolutely no tax on their gas because they make so much money selling it to other countries. Oh, and the fact that it only costs less than $30 dollars to make 42 gallons of crude oil. A huge part of our prices comes from shipping all that oil. The great mortal dilemma: you're burning oil, so you can ship oil, and those truckers and shipping companies don't get big gas breaks. So, as the price of oil goes up, the price to ship it goes up, so then the price of oil goes up. It's a circle, really. Honestly. Almost as costly is all the taxes we place on that oil. By the time it reaches our shores, that oil is already up to about $60 a barrel. It has to then pass our lovely and wonderful tax on imports, which pushes it up to, what, $70-$80 a barrel? Then add the utterly pointless advertising costs of the oil companies, various license/permit, environment, and insurance fees, State and federal excise taxes (which average about 18-20 cents per gallon), and State and local sales taxes, and you come pretty darn close to $3 per gallon of gasoline. In all truth, I don't want to go back to the 1990 price of $0.90 per gallon of gas. No incentive to conserve it... ANYWAY, now that we have flown completely off topic... youtube.com/watch?v=hpVqI-7aiHU
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 6, 2007 18:52:16 GMT -5
Asmodeus, first, let me advise you to calm down.
Now, as for your post, I'm personally getting kind of tired of hearing every person who doesn't like Republicans bashing Fox just because the owner is Republican ... Until you start at least bashing other channels for having Democratic owners, it's really just ridiculous. But that's off topic.
Whether we should or shouldn't have gone to the war is irrelevant now. We went. If we leave now just because the enemy doesn't want us there, we leave a major mess that's gonna come back and bite us in the butt. Besides, if we pulled out every time we were in a war just because the enemy didn't want us there (which would be, in case you don't get it, every time) we wouldn't be in a very good place right now ...
Another thing, putting us up as a target for every organization in the world that wants us dead by reducing our already lousy military (thanks to cuts by your beloved Clinton administration, by the way, which is precisely why our men and women are going over there without proper arms and armor) just to allow government to force us to go to the lousiest doctors in the country so they can save money ... eh, that doesn't sound like a win on either side to me.
And the government won't cut out things like cigarettes and alcohol. There are too many lobbyist interests, and they get too much money off of them. The government makes more money off of tobacco and alcohol products than they would ever save by getting rid of them.
And I would NEVER support killing babies for research, especially since they don't tell you there are plenty of other sources for those stem cells.
|
|
|
Post by scarmiglione on Jun 6, 2007 21:56:37 GMT -5
I was calm. I wasn't yelling at Donut. I'm sorry if I seemed angry. I personally think Donut's quite intelligent, even if I don't agree with him on the points above, and was trying to explain something using bolded type as emphasis. See, I just did it again. Not angry, just using emphasis. I'll be addressing the rest of your points in reverse order. First off, you automatically assume I'm talking about stem cells taken from fetuses when you yourself mention that there are other sources. In fact I just heard a short blurb on CBS that got me really excited. Apparently, scientists have had some success in transforming skin cells in mice into stem cells. All the more reason to fund such research. Also, most stem cells taken from fetuses are being taken from aborted children anyway, so it's not like scientists are going out and taking children from the wombs of their mothers and taking out their stem cells. Yeesh. You're probably right about the cigarettes and alcohol, but you have to remember, I said that's how it should work, not how its going to. Actually, sending us to lousy doctors would cost the government more money. Remember, when people are sick under a National Healthcare system, they cost the government money two ways, lack of income tax and the actual providing of care. Therefore it'd be in their best interests to hire good doctors in order to keep from losing more money from a frequently sick nation. Again, though, that's my idea of how it should work, not the one that would necessarily be adopted. Our military is hardly lousy, and when I say cut spending in half, I figure reducing wasteful spending and kickbacks as well as pulling out of Iraq should pretty much do the job. Besides, the kind of exorbitant defense budget we have now is exactly what killed the Soviet Union. Only Al Qaeda would even think about doing anything. All the other terrorist organizations are too busy trying to protect or expand their influences in the Middle East, usually against Israel. If we leave Iraq, a lot of terrorist groups will lose interest in us, so they can deal with their more immediate enemies. No country would dare attack us, though. No matter how strong our military is, other countries know that if they invade, they'll get wiped off the face of the Earth by our nukes. I agree that it's pointless to talk about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. I'd also like to point out that I never brought that up. The reason I say we should leave Iraq, is not because our enemy doesn't want us there, it's because the people we supposedly went in to help don't want us there. I'm not saying Iraqis don't want democracy, but they're not cooperating with U.S. forces, and I don't blame them for that. If I was an Iraqi, I'm sure I wouldn't be happy with the U.S. for replacing a tyrant with anarchy. I will concede that it's not a good solution. The problem is, there aren't any good solutions to the Iraq situation that I can see. I just happen to think it's better than just staying there and increasing our current budget deficit. We can argue about the solutions to it until the soldiers come home, but we won't get anywhere. There is no liberal media bias, by the way. The media is run by corporations. Corporations aren't liberal, they just want ratings. If Republican scandals are what get ratings, then those are the stories they'll run. I could give specific examples of numerous times Fox News has explicitly lied, but I get the feeling you won't believe me, so I'm not going to even bother. No sense in getting both of us riled up in a useless argument. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. As for not liking Republicans, I used to like McCain, back in 2000, before he started selling out to the Republican base. And right now, after doing some research on him and his positions, I really like Ron Paul. Almost as much as I like Obama. He's sincere about how he thinks government should be run, which is something this country hasn't seen since Kennedy was assassinated. I'd probably vote for him over anyone but Obama. Even then, it'd be close. For the most part, though, I don't like the Republican party. Sorry for the massive length and slight off-topicness, but I have a lot of thoughts on these issues. And just for clarification, no, I'm not angry, Ninmast. I'm actually in quite a pleasant mood right now, from my conquests of ancient China. Which reminds me that I wanted to ask Donut about something that isn't relevant here... EDIT: Yeah, I agree with your proposal Silva. I actually thought about suggesting something like that for the old EAB, but I thought would be rejected because I was a new member and the potential for flaming.
|
|
Silva
Full Member
I don't need no stinkin avatar!
Posts: 285
|
Post by Silva on Jun 6, 2007 23:27:14 GMT -5
Wait, did my post just get deleted for trying to get back on topic?
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 6, 2007 23:54:11 GMT -5
I didn't say you were talking about embryonic stem cell research. I was simply stating where I stood on it.
Yeah, lousy doctors would cost them money in the long run, but government doesn't have that kind of foresight. And besides, they'd expect you to fill out fifty pages of forms and provide definitive proof that you actually are in need of emergency care before they'd allow you to be admitted to the emergency room. Perhaps that's not the way it should be, but let's face it, if this was a perfect world, a lot of things would be different.
Our military is very lousy in terms of equipment. I do admit, we have some of the best-trained forces in the world, but we're sending them over into battle with very little body armor and poor armor plating for their vehicles, because budget cuts done during the previous administration removed much of it. Now, we're paying the consequences, and the response is to cut it further?
I think you underestimate the resolve of groups, not just privatized like the Al Queda, but other nations, even, particularly in the Middle East, and just because we've got some nukes doesn't mean we're gonna fire them if anybody shoots at us. That'd be the ultimate in stupidity, and a complete clash with your disarmament ideals.
If you believe there's no good answer for Iraq, then it's because you don't want there to be one. I offered one just earlier in this thread that's completely viable. And if you stop listening to the politicians and the news media and talk to the soldiers that are actually over there, you'd find that the people we're helping - and we ARE helping - are grateful for our help. And we're not replacing tyranny with anarchy. I don't even know where you got that idea from. Now, if we just cut and run, there WILL be anarchy there, because the ISF isn't prepared to stand their own ground yet, and they'll be overthrown in no time.
Believe it or not, I agree with you on the media. Despite what you seem to have thought, my objection was over the focus against one media outlet over another. If you're not going to view them all under the same scrutinizing lens, then you might as well drop the subject. If one lies to sell its story, it's likely that they all lie to sell their story. Go ahead and quote your sources, just be warned I WILL view them, and if they are like this one line of garbage Subtle tried to show me once, which was completely nonsensical and unbased, I WILL say so. But there's no point, as, as I've said, I agree with you, anyway. News outlets are designed to make money. Just like any other broadcast. I didn't say there was or was not liberal or conservative media bias. I just said I'm sick of hearing people throw around one-sided allegations without grounds just because one doesn't always say exactly what they want to hear.
I didn't say you did or didn't like the Republican party.
Now that we've all gotten that out of our systems, let's get back to the topic at hand - discussing the upcoming election and the candidates in it.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Jun 7, 2007 2:02:55 GMT -5
I had a post deleted here simply reafirming the bias of fox news.
I really wish we didnt have gmods that randomly deleted posts they disagree with.
Don't we have rules about respecting opnions? I know I've never been one to play by them, but shouldn't moderators embody the rules?
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 7, 2007 8:10:29 GMT -5
We also have rules about staying on topic. Your post "reaffirmed" nothing, provided no new information, had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and its only purpose was to bash Fox. I've gone over this rule with you before, Subtle. Discuss pros and cons of something, by all means, but do it in its appropriate place and for crying out loud, learn the difference between discussing and just bashing. It'll help keep you out of some of the hot water you're always finding yourself in.
If you really want to discuss Fox News, then create a thread for it, but remember, DISCUSSION, not DEBATE.
|
|
Son of Marth
Full Member
also known as Dark Samus
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by Son of Marth on Jun 7, 2007 22:07:01 GMT -5
Personally i think strengthen the hell out of the US defenses, which means, yes, a higher budget, much higher. We need a President like Ronald Reagen (aka Ronny Ray-gun) and as for the middle east, we got our own country filled with crime to worry about without policing their asses. pull out and tend to our own country. And just do what Reagen did, if some one even so much as does a minor attack on us, bomb the fuck out of them, hit them hard, flatten the whole country, reduce it to ruins and vaporize everyone there, and then use whats left as a warning of what will happen to any one who wants to fight us. as for the shortage of troops, we might be able to fix that, if we have a president worth supporting. But we could always use force, a semi draft that will fix our troop problem and increase education value: you drop out, you join the military. you don't get a diploma, you join the military. you get a GPA less then 1.2, you join the military. You have to many truancies, you join the military. You constantly get into trouble at school, you join the military. You get sent to Juvenal hall and get expelled, you join the military. And as far as that goes, instead of making these convicts go to waste, send em overseas to fight god damnit!!! of course, not all of them can be allowed, like Charles Manson, or anyone else who is a danger to society (some people in maximum security prisons can go but not all), but an 18 year old who is in jail for 12 months for holding a liquor store can be sent to boot camp and pushed overseas to fight, not only will that help our troop problem, but the convict can have a sense of honor given to them, and be proud about how much better a person they have become between the incident and fighting for the country. If their is a candidate who agrees with me here, they have my vote.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Jun 7, 2007 23:47:12 GMT -5
er, completely ignoring the draft part of your comment, marth, you do realize that kind of forgien policy will piss off the entire planet, right?
|
|
|
Post by scarmiglione on Jun 8, 2007 3:17:50 GMT -5
Sorry to drag us off topic again, but apparently I didn't make a few things very clear.
When I said we replaced tyranny with anarchy, I meant that must be what it seems like to a lot of Iraqis. Clearly that wasn't our intention going in, but it seems to me like that's what has happened. As for our troops, I'm sure the ones who are on their 2nd or even 3rd tours of duty in Iraq don't feel like much progress has been made.
However, our viewpoints on Iraq on are completely conflicting, which I attribute to the different sources we have and on where and how we were both raised. I don't think that continuing to argue with you is productive, so I propose that we agree to disagree and respect each other's differing opinions before either of us gets riled up. It might just be me, but your reply to my points seemed a little frustrated.
If the United States were to face a serious threat from another country, we would use nuclear weapons. All of our enemies know this, and that's what keeps them from launching large scale conflicts with us. The mere threat alone is defense enough, though. We'd never have to fire a single nuclear missile, because none of our enemies are willing to take such a gamble, except terrorist organizations, since they see themselves as holy crusaders destined for Heaven and they're spread out across the globe.
And my point about cutting the defense budget in the first place, was that simply taking our troops out of Iraq and eliminating bribes and kickbacks in the DoD itself could cover most of the costs for a national healthcare plan, so we wouldn't have to scale our army back much at all.
Something that's been bugging me about your attacks on Clinton's cutting of the defense budget. First off, he wasn't planning on any large scale invasions. Secondly, Bush could have done something about our soldiers equipment before going to Iraq, but didn't. He's had four years since the war began to do something about it, but he hasn't. So, I'd have to say the blame lies with him, not Clinton. Feel free to disagree all you want, but that's just the way I see it.
You may very well be right about that, but I think a democratic congress would be inclined to make at least a half-way decent healthcare program. Republicans would do exactly what your suggesting, though.
Funny, you wouldn't think a thing like investment would be such a foreign concept to our government, which invests in all kinds of things, all the time. That's what a national healthcare system should be at very basic level. An investment in our nation's health and future.
Finally, I'm sorry I took some of your comments the wrong way, but it seemed like you were implying those things.
@ SonofMarth: Well, I agree with the part about pulling out of Iraq and tending to our own country first, to an extent, but if a candidate ran with a platform like what you're suggesting, it would scare the crap out of me and at least 60% of the country, quite frankly. I mean no offense to you, I'm just being honest. Violence and war are not good objectives in this day and age. We should be able to defend ourselves, yes, but there's no reason for such excessive force.
Anyway, back on topic, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Ron Paul being President now, and Obama being President later. Even though I like the idea of national healthcare, it can't really work until the budget's fixed. Ron Paul's just the guy to do that. Save up now, so we can afford a good, well-thought national healthcare plan that incorporates at least a few of my ideas, hopefully.
EDIT: Wait, why was Silva's post deleted? His seemed like it was right on topic...
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 8, 2007 10:43:44 GMT -5
I didn't see Silva's post. Either it was already gone or hadn't been made, or I missed Subtle's and hit his (which I GREATLY apologize for in that case).
Now, I see one major problem with your view of Iraq.
And then you blame our difference of opinions on this.
You're half right. I don't think it has anything to do with how we were both raised. It has to do with our different sources. You haven't bothered to CHECK with either the Iraqis or the troops. By your very own words, you assumed they didn't like it, because it was the viewpoint that best supported your own opinions. I, on the other hand, actually DO take my sources from the Iraqis we've been helping and the troops that have been over there. Forgive me, but I think my researched conclusion carries a bit more weight than your assumed conclusion, a conclusion you likely came to because those who have no idea what's going on are spouting off at their mouths without checking anything either, and that's all you're hearing. That's all most of the United States is hearing, because that's all they let be heard.
Bush has tried to raise the defense budget many times, and is constantly denied by Congress. Remember, the United States government has three parts to it, not just one. Clinton chose to sign bills that cut the budget, even though there were already terrorist activities and bigger ones were on the horizon. Bush hasn't gotten the chance.
I think your political bias has you looking through rose-tinted glasses, Asmodeus. Both sides would do that.
The rest of your post, I agree with, particularly the one of getting Paul in first to clean up the budget, then Obama to get the healthcare in.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Jun 8, 2007 11:04:12 GMT -5
Don't worry too much about getting back on topic, beacuse of how intresting all the conversation has been I changed the title so that this topic can cover a more broad set of issues.
Wow. While I agree with your points more than Ninmast's, statements like this aren't baised off of any logical evidence and show a complete bias
Half the troops barely know what's going on over there. I've seen research and statistics saying that many ( 40-60%) of them beleive that we're in Iraq beacuse Iraq attacked us.
Anyway. To Everyone saying that they think Ron Paul should be the next presidient, you need to do your best to go out and spread the word about him. He's definitly an underdog, even though he's the best man for the job. The least we can do is talk to people abouit him, try and show people one of the better choices.
|
|