Is there an introduction?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2013, 08:32 AM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 08:04 AM)TheAmazingAustralopithecus Wrote:  Yep. I'd been listening to some of Penn Gillette's stuff where he said he was very left on social issues and was on the right on size of government which was quite interesting, and something I'll have to look into more. I think right now there's a dichotomy forming in my head between being socialist leaning and being libertarian leaning...but I think whatever of those I choose I'll still be liberal. I have an interesting little introduction to socialism which argues that socialism isn't dead as many people say, so, again, that should be interesting.

Oh yeah, socialism is alive and well. The right wing in America blather on about Obama bringing socialism to the US but they apparently don't understand what the term means.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, indigent welfare, farm subsidies (more welfare), Section 8 housing subsidies, green energy subsidies, public schools....

all socialist programs.

Obama's just doing more of what's already been done. They just don't like him because he's a colored who they think prays to the wrong sky daddy.

I don't like him because he's a war mongering sociopath, on top of being a socialist. Or in softer words, George W. the II. Big Grin

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 08:32 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 08:04 AM)TheAmazingAustralopithecus Wrote:  Yep. I'd been listening to some of Penn Gillette's stuff where he said he was very left on social issues and was on the right on size of government which was quite interesting, and something I'll have to look into more. I think right now there's a dichotomy forming in my head between being socialist leaning and being libertarian leaning...but I think whatever of those I choose I'll still be liberal. I have an interesting little introduction to socialism which argues that socialism isn't dead as many people say, so, again, that should be interesting.

Oh yeah, socialism is alive and well. The right wing in America blather on about Obama bringing socialism to the US but they apparently don't understand what the term means.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, indigent welfare, farm subsidies (more welfare), Section 8 housing subsidies, green energy subsidies, public schools....

all socialist programs.

Obama's just doing more of what's already been done. They just don't like him because he's a colored who they think prays to the wrong sky daddy.

I don't like him because he's a war mongering sociopath, on top of being a socialist. Or in softer words, George W. the II. Big Grin

Well, here in Britain we've had the welfare state for a long time. Which is something I support, though it looks like our wonderful leader David Cameron is about to cut up the NHS and destroy the benefits system, most of which works well despite that myth that it's used by only benefit frauds (I think only a tiny percent, maybe even 1%, are actually abusing the system).

Isn't Obama a Christian? I know there was an unfounded rumour going about that he was a Muslim but he has stated he's a Christian. So what's their problem? The wrong type of Christian, perhaps?

And I thought Obama was pulling out of the Middle East? At any rate I think it's safe to say he's better than Bush, and better than his competitor, Romney. As for the whole Middle East debacle, that's something I'm interested in at the moment as well. I'm not too clued up on that either (hah, what am I clued up on?) but I have Christopher Hitchens' collection of essays arguing for the war, and I also read the chapter in Hitch 22 on it. I think anti-war rhetoric is something I'm familiar since it's pretty common, so I want to hear more of the other side. And I think Hitchens is the only war apologist who could possibly make a coherent case. I'll keep away from George Bush's speeches, in other words...

"Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

-Christoper Hitchens, "Letters to a Young Contrarian."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 09:28 AM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 08:58 AM)TheAmazingAustralopithecus Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 08:32 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Oh yeah, socialism is alive and well. The right wing in America blather on about Obama bringing socialism to the US but they apparently don't understand what the term means.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, indigent welfare, farm subsidies (more welfare), Section 8 housing subsidies, green energy subsidies, public schools....

all socialist programs.

Obama's just doing more of what's already been done. They just don't like him because he's a colored who they think prays to the wrong sky daddy.

I don't like him because he's a war mongering sociopath, on top of being a socialist. Or in softer words, George W. the II. Big Grin

Well, here in Britain we've had the welfare state for a long time. Which is something I support, though it looks like our wonderful leader David Cameron is about to cut up the NHS and destroy the benefits system, most of which works well despite that myth that it's used by only benefit frauds (I think only a tiny percent, maybe even 1%, are actually abusing the system).

Isn't Obama a Christian? I know there was an unfounded rumour going about that he was a Muslim but he has stated he's a Christian. So what's their problem? The wrong type of Christian, perhaps?

And I thought Obama was pulling out of the Middle East? At any rate I think it's safe to say he's better than Bush, and better than his competitor, Romney. As for the whole Middle East debacle, that's something I'm interested in at the moment as well. I'm not too clued up on that either (hah, what am I clued up on?) but I have Christopher Hitchens' collection of essays arguing for the war, and I also read the chapter in Hitch 22 on it. I think anti-war rhetoric is something I'm familiar since it's pretty common, so I want to hear more of the other side. And I think Hitchens is the only war apologist who could possibly make a coherent case. I'll keep away from George Bush's speeches, in other words...

In my opinion, there is no apologist who can justify war. The US government has been meddling in middle eastern affairs for 60+ years and that's why the US was attacked in '01. I don't condone the attack any more than I condone war but the bottom line is that the US government is an evil amalgamation of hypocritical, bloodthirsty murderers and has been for the last century. Obama is no different than Bush in any way other than his rhetoric. He may be pulling troops out of one area but he's adding them in another and he's flying robots around and murdering children with them. If he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, I deserve one in astronomy... which I know little of nothing about.

I'm not just anti war, I'm anti violence in all its forms, which is why I don't support the state in any capacity. Welfare, whether abused or not, is money taken from people at the point of a gun. If I do it, they call it theft and throw me in a cage.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 09:28 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 08:58 AM)TheAmazingAustralopithecus Wrote:  Well, here in Britain we've had the welfare state for a long time. Which is something I support, though it looks like our wonderful leader David Cameron is about to cut up the NHS and destroy the benefits system, most of which works well despite that myth that it's used by only benefit frauds (I think only a tiny percent, maybe even 1%, are actually abusing the system).

Isn't Obama a Christian? I know there was an unfounded rumour going about that he was a Muslim but he has stated he's a Christian. So what's their problem? The wrong type of Christian, perhaps?

And I thought Obama was pulling out of the Middle East? At any rate I think it's safe to say he's better than Bush, and better than his competitor, Romney. As for the whole Middle East debacle, that's something I'm interested in at the moment as well. I'm not too clued up on that either (hah, what am I clued up on?) but I have Christopher Hitchens' collection of essays arguing for the war, and I also read the chapter in Hitch 22 on it. I think anti-war rhetoric is something I'm familiar since it's pretty common, so I want to hear more of the other side. And I think Hitchens is the only war apologist who could possibly make a coherent case. I'll keep away from George Bush's speeches, in other words...

In my opinion, there is no apologist who can justify war. The US government has been meddling in middle eastern affairs for 60+ years and that's why the US was attacked in '01. I don't condone the attack any more than I condone war but the bottom line is that the US government is an evil amalgamation of hypocritical, bloodthirsty murderers and has been for the last century. Obama is no different than Bush in any way other than his rhetoric. He may be pulling troops out of one area but he's adding them in another and he's flying robots around and murdering children with them. If he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, I deserve one in astronomy... which I know little of nothing about.

I'm not just anti war, I'm anti violence in all its forms, which is why I don't support the state in any capacity. Welfare, whether abused or not, is money taken from people at the point of a gun. If I do it, they call it theft and throw me in a cage.

I didn't say whether I agreed with Hitchens' arguments (I haven't read them yet) I merely said that he's the only person I can think of who could conceivably provide a reasonable argument for such a war. And I don't buy the line that 9/11 was America's fault. Osama bin Laden was no revolutionary and not an anti-imperialist. As for American policy, I agree that it has been shameful for the most part in modern history; Vietnam being the key point here. But as ever I don't think that that means we can demonise America totally. Actually, I do know that Hitchens points out that surely America's past is good reason why we should support it to do good in the future. It's not an evil institution; it's simplistic to say that it is only ever capable of bad things.

As for Obama, regardless of his policy in the Middle East, I think it can be said that if we take the whole picture, he is better than Bush. Assuming that both are murderers, Bush also was a fundamentalist Christian who seemed to lean towards supporting the teaching of intelligent design and leaned towards a Christian state. In fact, I think he said he spoke to god about the Iraq war, which isn't exactly a great sign. At the very least, surely, you can concede that in this respect Obama is better? Even if you say it's a tiny drop in the ocean of US affairs, it's still a drop.

The difference between you taking money from someone on the street is that you, if you were a petty criminal, wouldn't use it to build hospitals and schools and such things. Free, universal healthcare is an incredibly good thing and wouldn't have been achieved without the welfare system. And I agree governments can spend money on ridiculous things but I think when spent correctly, taxes work. And the welfare system works.

Haha, I love how this turned from a basic discussion into a somewhat more intense debate. But it's all good fun Tongue.

"Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

-Christoper Hitchens, "Letters to a Young Contrarian."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheAmazingAustralopithecus's post
06-04-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 09:55 AM)TheAmazingAustralopithecus Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 09:28 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  In my opinion, there is no apologist who can justify war. The US government has been meddling in middle eastern affairs for 60+ years and that's why the US was attacked in '01. I don't condone the attack any more than I condone war but the bottom line is that the US government is an evil amalgamation of hypocritical, bloodthirsty murderers and has been for the last century. Obama is no different than Bush in any way other than his rhetoric. He may be pulling troops out of one area but he's adding them in another and he's flying robots around and murdering children with them. If he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, I deserve one in astronomy... which I know little of nothing about.

I'm not just anti war, I'm anti violence in all its forms, which is why I don't support the state in any capacity. Welfare, whether abused or not, is money taken from people at the point of a gun. If I do it, they call it theft and throw me in a cage.

I didn't say whether I agreed with Hitchens' arguments (I haven't read them yet) I merely said that he's the only person I can think of who could conceivably provide a reasonable argument for such a war. And I don't buy the line that 9/11 was America's fault. Osama bin Laden was no revolutionary and not an anti-imperialist. As for American policy, I agree that it has been shameful for the most part in modern history; Vietnam being the key point here. But as ever I don't think that that means we can demonise America totally. Actually, I do know that Hitchens points out that surely America's past is good reason why we should support it to do good in the future. It's not an evil institution; it's simplistic to say that it is only ever capable of bad things.

As for Obama, regardless of his policy in the Middle East, I think it can be said that if we take the whole picture, he is better than Bush. Assuming that both are murderers, Bush also was a fundamentalist Christian who seemed to lean towards supporting the teaching of intelligent design and leaned towards a Christian state. In fact, I think he said he spoke to god about the Iraq war, which isn't exactly a great sign. At the very least, surely, you can concede that in this respect Obama is better? Even if you say it's a tiny drop in the ocean of US affairs, it's still a drop.

The difference between you taking money from someone on the street is that you, if you were a petty criminal, wouldn't use it to build hospitals and schools and such things. Free, universal healthcare is an incredibly good thing and wouldn't have been achieved without the welfare system. And I agree governments can spend money on ridiculous things but I think when spent correctly, taxes work. And the welfare system works.

Haha, I love how this turned from a basic discussion into a somewhat more intense debate. But it's all good fun Tongue.

Read some of Noam Chomsky's critique of US foreign policy and you'll likely change your mind. Hitchens was a smart man but he wasn't a philosopher and his reaction to the middle eastern wars was, in my opinion, far too biased against religion to be a fair assessment of who is/was at fault and why. As for fault in 9/11, the civilians who were murdered were certainly not at fault but the people who call themselves the US federal government were. It's no coincidence or stroke of dumb luck that middle eastern terrorists aren't attacking the Swiss. Vietnam is only at the front of your mind because of the publicity it received. Every war the US was in during the twentieth century was sought after by the ruling class, because there was money to be made for them.

And you're right, Bush was worse than Obama. To me, the difference in them is the difference between being run over and killed by a car or a tractor trailer rig. In the end, you're still dead.

As for your argument for taxation and welfare, those are arguments from effect. I can justify murder using an argument from effect. It doesn't matter if I were to steal your wallet and give the proceeds to the United Way... I'm still a thief and if the state caught be doing it, I'd still be stuffed in a cage. Taxation is a euphemism for theft and the state is the largest, most powerful and most immoral thief one can conceive. Barack Obama doesn't give two shits about my father's social security check and you can rest assured that if the US government starts to actually go broke, he'll stop sending that check to my dad long before he'll start eating bologna sandwiches.

And yeah, so much for a basic discussion on politics. You and I are clearly two opposite extremes but that's okay. I may not respect your position and I'll attack it vehemently but I won't resort to personal attacks and I will always respect you. You seem to be the same so in the end, we can both learn something and gain a new friend at the same time. Thumbsup

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 10:09 PM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 09:58 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 09:55 AM)TheAmazingAustralopithecus Wrote:  I didn't say whether I agreed with Hitchens' arguments (I haven't read them yet) I merely said that he's the only person I can think of who could conceivably provide a reasonable argument for such a war. And I don't buy the line that 9/11 was America's fault. Osama bin Laden was no revolutionary and not an anti-imperialist. As for American policy, I agree that it has been shameful for the most part in modern history; Vietnam being the key point here. But as ever I don't think that that means we can demonise America totally. Actually, I do know that Hitchens points out that surely America's past is good reason why we should support it to do good in the future. It's not an evil institution; it's simplistic to say that it is only ever capable of bad things.

As for Obama, regardless of his policy in the Middle East, I think it can be said that if we take the whole picture, he is better than Bush. Assuming that both are murderers, Bush also was a fundamentalist Christian who seemed to lean towards supporting the teaching of intelligent design and leaned towards a Christian state. In fact, I think he said he spoke to god about the Iraq war, which isn't exactly a great sign. At the very least, surely, you can concede that in this respect Obama is better? Even if you say it's a tiny drop in the ocean of US affairs, it's still a drop.

The difference between you taking money from someone on the street is that you, if you were a petty criminal, wouldn't use it to build hospitals and schools and such things. Free, universal healthcare is an incredibly good thing and wouldn't have been achieved without the welfare system. And I agree governments can spend money on ridiculous things but I think when spent correctly, taxes work. And the welfare system works.

Haha, I love how this turned from a basic discussion into a somewhat more intense debate. But it's all good fun Tongue.

Read some of Noam Chomsky's critique of US foreign policy and you'll likely change your mind. Hitchens was a smart man but he wasn't a philosopher and his reaction to the middle eastern wars was, in my opinion, far too biased against religion to be a fair assessment of who is/was at fault and why. As for fault in 9/11, the civilians who were murdered were certainly not at fault but the people who call themselves the US federal government were. It's no coincidence or stroke of dumb luck that middle eastern terrorists aren't attacking the Swiss. Vietnam is only at the front of your mind because of the publicity it received. Every war the US was in during the twentieth century was sought after by the ruling class, because there was money to be made for them.

And you're right, Bush was worse than Obama. To me, the difference in them is the difference between being run over and killed by a car or a tractor trailer rig. In the end, you're still dead.

As for your argument for taxation and welfare, those are arguments from effect. I can justify murder using an argument from effect. It doesn't matter if I were to steal your wallet and give the proceeds to the United Way... I'm still a thief and if the state caught be doing it, I'd still be stuffed in a cage. Taxation is a euphemism for theft and the state is the largest, most powerful and most immoral thief one can conceive. Barack Obama doesn't give two shits about my father's social security check and you can rest assured that if the US government starts to actually go broke, he'll stop sending that check to my dad long before he'll start eating bologna sandwiches.

And yeah, so much for a basic discussion on politics. You and I are clearly two opposite extremes but that's okay. I may not respect your position and I'll attack it vehemently but I won't resort to personal attacks and I will always respect you. You seem to be the same so in the end, we can both learn something and gain a new friend at the same time. Thumbsup

The worst part of arguing with an anarchist is they have no embassy to burn Big Grin

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
07-04-2013, 06:55 AM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 10:09 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 09:58 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Read some of Noam Chomsky's critique of US foreign policy and you'll likely change your mind. Hitchens was a smart man but he wasn't a philosopher and his reaction to the middle eastern wars was, in my opinion, far too biased against religion to be a fair assessment of who is/was at fault and why. As for fault in 9/11, the civilians who were murdered were certainly not at fault but the people who call themselves the US federal government were. It's no coincidence or stroke of dumb luck that middle eastern terrorists aren't attacking the Swiss. Vietnam is only at the front of your mind because of the publicity it received. Every war the US was in during the twentieth century was sought after by the ruling class, because there was money to be made for them.

And you're right, Bush was worse than Obama. To me, the difference in them is the difference between being run over and killed by a car or a tractor trailer rig. In the end, you're still dead.

As for your argument for taxation and welfare, those are arguments from effect. I can justify murder using an argument from effect. It doesn't matter if I were to steal your wallet and give the proceeds to the United Way... I'm still a thief and if the state caught be doing it, I'd still be stuffed in a cage. Taxation is a euphemism for theft and the state is the largest, most powerful and most immoral thief one can conceive. Barack Obama doesn't give two shits about my father's social security check and you can rest assured that if the US government starts to actually go broke, he'll stop sending that check to my dad long before he'll start eating bologna sandwiches.

And yeah, so much for a basic discussion on politics. You and I are clearly two opposite extremes but that's okay. I may not respect your position and I'll attack it vehemently but I won't resort to personal attacks and I will always respect you. You seem to be the same so in the end, we can both learn something and gain a new friend at the same time. Thumbsup

The worst part of arguing with an anarchist is they have no embassy to burn Big Grin


Then threaten to burn no embassy. That'll piss him off.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 07:05 AM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 09:58 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Every war the US was in during the twentieth century was sought after by the ruling class, because there was money

So who in 'the ruling class' negotiated that attack on Pearl Harbor?

How much was the Japanese Imperial Fleet paid for it?

Do they get residuals from all the replays on TV and the movies made about it?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 08:57 AM
RE: Is there an introduction?
(07-04-2013 07:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 09:58 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Every war the US was in during the twentieth century was sought after by the ruling class, because there was money

So who in 'the ruling class' negotiated that attack on Pearl Harbor?

How much was the Japanese Imperial Fleet paid for it?

Do they get residuals from all the replays on TV and the movies made about it?

Who told you the attack was negotiated? Certainly not me.

Are you under the impression that war enriches those who fight it?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2013 11:08 AM by TheAmazingAustralopithecus.)
RE: Is there an introduction?
(06-04-2013 09:58 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 09:55 AM)TheAmazingAustralopithecus Wrote:  I didn't say whether I agreed with Hitchens' arguments (I haven't read them yet) I merely said that he's the only person I can think of who could conceivably provide a reasonable argument for such a war. And I don't buy the line that 9/11 was America's fault. Osama bin Laden was no revolutionary and not an anti-imperialist. As for American policy, I agree that it has been shameful for the most part in modern history; Vietnam being the key point here. But as ever I don't think that that means we can demonise America totally. Actually, I do know that Hitchens points out that surely America's past is good reason why we should support it to do good in the future. It's not an evil institution; it's simplistic to say that it is only ever capable of bad things.

As for Obama, regardless of his policy in the Middle East, I think it can be said that if we take the whole picture, he is better than Bush. Assuming that both are murderers, Bush also was a fundamentalist Christian who seemed to lean towards supporting the teaching of intelligent design and leaned towards a Christian state. In fact, I think he said he spoke to god about the Iraq war, which isn't exactly a great sign. At the very least, surely, you can concede that in this respect Obama is better? Even if you say it's a tiny drop in the ocean of US affairs, it's still a drop.

The difference between you taking money from someone on the street is that you, if you were a petty criminal, wouldn't use it to build hospitals and schools and such things. Free, universal healthcare is an incredibly good thing and wouldn't have been achieved without the welfare system. And I agree governments can spend money on ridiculous things but I think when spent correctly, taxes work. And the welfare system works.

Haha, I love how this turned from a basic discussion into a somewhat more intense debate. But it's all good fun Tongue.

Read some of Noam Chomsky's critique of US foreign policy and you'll likely change your mind. Hitchens was a smart man but he wasn't a philosopher and his reaction to the middle eastern wars was, in my opinion, far too biased against religion to be a fair assessment of who is/was at fault and why. As for fault in 9/11, the civilians who were murdered were certainly not at fault but the people who call themselves the US federal government were. It's no coincidence or stroke of dumb luck that middle eastern terrorists aren't attacking the Swiss. Vietnam is only at the front of your mind because of the publicity it received. Every war the US was in during the twentieth century was sought after by the ruling class, because there was money to be made for them.

And you're right, Bush was worse than Obama. To me, the difference in them is the difference between being run over and killed by a car or a tractor trailer rig. In the end, you're still dead.

As for your argument for taxation and welfare, those are arguments from effect. I can justify murder using an argument from effect. It doesn't matter if I were to steal your wallet and give the proceeds to the United Way... I'm still a thief and if the state caught be doing it, I'd still be stuffed in a cage. Taxation is a euphemism for theft and the state is the largest, most powerful and most immoral thief one can conceive. Barack Obama doesn't give two shits about my father's social security check and you can rest assured that if the US government starts to actually go broke, he'll stop sending that check to my dad long before he'll start eating bologna sandwiches.

And yeah, so much for a basic discussion on politics. You and I are clearly two opposite extremes but that's okay. I may not respect your position and I'll attack it vehemently but I won't resort to personal attacks and I will always respect you. You seem to be the same so in the end, we can both learn something and gain a new friend at the same time. Thumbsup

Sorry I've taken so long to reply. I was being a nerd and making good use of the double xp weekend on SWTOR.

Regardless of Hitchens' bias (and there's an exchange between Hitchens and Chomsky which I'll have to read one time) is it not possible to argue Chomsky was just biased against America? Hitchens says their difference was that he believed America was a good idea to begin with, whereas Chomsky didn't. It seems people just want to attack the US these days, whether or not it's justifiable. Bush is a "cowboy" and all that. And Islamic terrorists have attacked other countries; they've attacked Britain, and have demanded the return of Spain since it was part of the caliphate (hardly an anti-imperialist stance) and I have forgotten the details which really annoys me but a politician who helped keep Indonesia independent from Islamists was killed for doing so. Again, hardly anti-imperialist and hardly freedom fighting. (I'll try and find the exact details of that last event, but I think I've got it correct.)

And perhaps every war has enriched countries engaging in them, but America wasn't involved by choice in WWII. They gave us supplies, but were vehemently isolationist; in fact, this was the result of WWI. They had suffered too many losses and wanted to keep out of European politics. I'm not debating that America's actions in the past have been shameful; but this cannot be said of all of these actions.

And whether or not I choose an interventionist stance on Iraq, I don't see me ever agreeing that it was the fault of the west, by which I mean 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, which is of course a separate matter.

At least I got a little shift in perspective on Obama...even if it's only on the subatomic level!

Again, you can't use moral equivalence like that; if you murder someone, you're taking a life and probably ruining a family. The state taking some amount from your profits to put into (usually) useful things is different; they cannot be the same. If a thief threatens you with a knife, you are emotionally scarred and lose money. When the state takes a little for a hospital, you are certainly not the first and on a much smaller level do you lose money; do you really miss the taxes that the government takes from you? Have you seriously thought to yourself, "gee, I sure could use use taxes right now." However, I agree that those in power probably don't care, but that doesn't mean that taxes and welfare aren't useful. And on that point, one of the reasons for the welfare system in Britain was to get people fit in case of war (tensions were rising with Germany), but with all that that were genuine charitable people, and it can't be said that the NHS and benefits are things which saved lives and are things which, today, many people could not live without.

And, yes, I agree with your last paragraph. We can debate but we don't need ad hominem attacks, though you are a bastard and I hate you AND THAT COMPLETELY DISPROVES ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS...

Anyway, yes, I agree. And I was joking with the caps stuff above, just in case you took it literally (I've learned that sometimes its dangerous to make jokes like that lol). And we can learn something, since I nearly started to change my mind with your welfare argument there. Smile

"Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

-Christoper Hitchens, "Letters to a Young Contrarian."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: