bandit wrote:

Not to derail, but isn't "Auros and the Debaters" a fantastic name for a band?

It sounds oddly republican. :)

Malachy_Sunblade wrote:

Okay, I'm going to get in a bit of trouble on this one, probably, but a few things need to be said...

One, point me to where, precisely, this is the current president's fault.

Good grief. We've spent billions on a useless war in Iraq instead of using those billions to help the people who need it, including our own countrymen. The sole responsibility for going to Iraq lies with the Bastard. No one forced him to go, and there were many begging him to do otherwise. But he's The Decider.

it ain't his fault.

Right. It's not his fault he went to war on a retarded pretext, a war which cost us billions that we could have been spending elsewhere...anywhere else.

As for why he wound up in office as opposed to the guys he ran against, the fact that he won speaks more against them than for the stupidity of the people that voted for him, wouldn't you say?

No, as I said, he won because of stupidity.

I voted for Bush, I freely admit that, just as I freely admit that I voted for him because Gore in 2000 and Kerry in '04 scared the pants off of me.  Two more two-faced, stereotypical, vacillating self-absorbed folks

less self-absorbed than The Decider, however. There's no one more self-absorbed than someone who actually goes around calling himself "The Decider". He's like a goofy, self-absorbed 5-year-old. I'm the Decider, mommy!"

I haven't seen on TV being that popular since Billy boy Clinton and his wife got into all those wonderful scandals during their eight years (scandals that nobody wants to talk about, surprise surprise).

These scandals were talked to death during and after the Clinton administration. I cannot imagine there are people still actually saying that nobody wants to talk about them.

the current economic pooch-screw that we're falling into has little to do with the President, as it's NOT within the realm of presidential powers to do anything about it other than point fingers and talk about leadership.

That's simply untrue. This president has cost us more than any other leader in history, from an economic surplus at the end of the Clinton administration, to a huge national debt, a number so scary I don't even want to repeat it here.

Head to the "liberal" pockets, have you lost your mind?  Look, my life sucks, financially speaking, I'll grant anybody that.  I make just enough money to never qualify for anything, but not enough money to ever be comfortable.

*Shrug* I suppose it's up to you where you want to live and work. If you want to continue living your life financially burdened, unable to qualify for anything, and by your own words financially unstable, that's your decision. But I don't think it's a wise decision, and I'll secretly hope that people start coming to their senses about where to live and work (not in Texas, not at Wal-Mart)... But not so many that it would jeopardize my own position.

John Dickenson, one of the members of the 2nd Continental Congress said a number of things during his life that sound a great deal like what you're saying Firs.  He called for a maintenance of the status quo

I'm not calling for maintenance of the status quo. Good lord, I hope things change. But I also know that right now, our country is in a very precarious position. Our money is like toilet paper. People are dying needlessly in an endless war. We have a Decider with the IQ of a 5-year-old running our country.

I've struggled to get where I am at now, which is finally in a good position. While I'd love to see a quiet revolution for our country, and The Decider behind bars for war crimes where he rightly belongs, I don't want the change to be so drastic that it will affect me on a personal level. Although I suppose I can't have it both ways, though...

The problem with the things that you're saying is that you're doing EXACTLY what you're saying is being done by the power elite.

I don't remember spending trillions on a war I lied about.

You're engaging in flinging the insults of the "liberal" politicians, who are JUST as corrupt as the people they're insulting.

No, Malachi, the "liberals" never created a false war on "terror" in Iraq, sending the U.S. into a tail-spin from which it will take years to recover.

[Your] job, the one that you don't want to lose, guess what, doesn't solve the problem.  Nor does any adherence to the rather fallacious statement "You voted for him, [your] fault."

I don't see anything fallacious about it.

Might I point out that in '04 the presidential election and the congressional and senatorial elections wound the country up primarily in the conservatives.  And during those two years, nothing happened, true, that made things better in the long run, economically.  However, the minute that the liberal side of the political spectrum had the majority of power in their hands, how much worse did things get between 06 and 08?

This is silly. We certainly continued to accrue debt, but that was a process that had begun years earlier, during the early aegis of The Decider. We had a national surplus until The Decider came into office.

Jendaiya wrote:

He really calls himself the Decider? OMG. You can't be serious. That is sooooo funny.

Yes.  It's true.  He calls himself "The Decider".

*shudders*

Firsfron of Ronchester wrote:

Malachy_Sunblade wrote:

Okay, I'm going to get in a bit of trouble on this one, probably, but a few things need to be said...

One, point me to where, precisely, this is the current president's fault.

Good grief. We've spent billions on a useless war in Iraq instead of using those billions to help the people who need it, including our own countrymen. The sole responsibility for going to Iraq lies with the Bastard. No one forced him to go, and there were many begging him to do otherwise. But he's The Decider.

Not billions, trillions!

it ain't his fault.

Firsfron of Ronchester wrote:

Right. It's not his fault he went to war on a retarded pretext, a war which cost us billions that we could have been spending elsewhere...anywhere else.

Not billions, trillions!

As for why he wound up in office as opposed to the guys he ran against, the fact that he won speaks more against them than for the stupidity of the people that voted for him, wouldn't you say?

Firsfron of Ronchester wrote:

No, as I said, he won because of stupidity.?

Malachy had it right in the beginning part of his sentence: he wound up in office.  He didn't "win" the election.

I voted for Bush, I freely admit that, just as I freely admit that I voted for him because Gore in 2000 and Kerry in '04 scared the pants off of me.  Two more two-faced, stereotypical, vacillating self-absorbed folks

Firsfron of Ronchester wrote:

less self-absorbed than The Decider, however. There's no one more self-absorbed than someone who actually goes around calling himself "The Decider". He's like a goofy, self-absorbed 5-year-old. I'm the Decider, mommy!"

You may be closer to the truth than you think, Firs!  I've heard stories about the Old Barb!

the current economic pooch-screw that we're falling into has little to do with the President, as it's NOT within the realm of presidential powers to do anything about it other than point fingers and talk about leadership.

Firsfron of Ronchester wrote:

That's simply untrue. This president has cost us more than any other leader in history, from an economic surplus at the end of the Clinton administration, to a huge national debt, a number so scary I don't even want to repeat it here.

You both happen to be correct one this one.  The current economic downturn cannot be entirely attributed to George Dub, and therefore he cannot be faulted for it in its entirety.  Malachy is correct in that the President has no direct impact upon the econonmy, but imho Firsrfron is also correct in his assertion that the cost of this current war is damaging this country's in the global economy.

Head to the "liberal" pockets, have you lost your mind?  Look, my life sucks, financially speaking, I'll grant anybody that.  I make just enough money to never qualify for anything, but not enough money to ever be comfortable.

Firsfron of Ronchester wrote:

*Shrug* I suppose it's up to you where you want to live and work. If you want to continue living your life financially burdened, unable to qualify for anything, and by your own words financially unstable, that's your decision. But I don't think it's a wise decision, and I'll secretly hope that people start coming to their senses about where to live and work (not in Texas, not at Wal-Mart)... But not so many that it would jeopardize my own position.

No, the people here don't lose their minds.  They might lose their souls, but they certainly don't lose their minds.  And even if it happens, it won't be Firsfron.  In my experience, this country has always been rather fair and free, except to minorities in the past.  Currently, y'alls about middle ground on a good day.

Malachy_Sunblade wrote:

Global Warming will bring on the next Ice Age, and isn't that completely stupid?  It's an oxymoron, just at the basic level.

This is not an oxymoron at all. it's just a little more complicated than you describe the connection here.  I'd be happy to explain it if you would like.  If you prefer the "ignorance is bliss" tactic on this issue, I can understand.  Lots of people choose that path.

As for the economy, I'm rooting for the dollar to drop, at least for the next year or so.  It's been nice to pay down my US college debt while making Euros, and i hope the advantage stays till I move back.  Of course, I am mainly hoping for a strong, stable US economy in the long run.  I really don't want to end up working as a physicist in China (as an example) for economic reasons.

So where do get our Flags Jen?...8)

An yes you are preaching to THIS choir (me) and I totally agreed. I know we'd all love one central source to blame for everything thats wrong with the world these days and there are certainly key factors, but politicians have been lying since the dawn of man and people have been believing them for about as long and old habits are hard to break. Not saying we shouldn't try but getting the masses to move off their collective fat and lazies...well that would take a monumental shock, but we've become immune to the shock and awe tactics of our politicians and world governments for too long. 9/11 WAS a wake up call...and did what the plotters designed it to do, scare the world...but sadly it didn't scare it in the right direction, but drove us deeper into the protective and loving arms of big brother...8P

There have been rumblings and rumors and wild speculation form the military and intelligence sectors of some other 9/11-scale attack forthcoming, but I don't see it happening, not any time soon certainly, and even if it did, would we be as shocked by it as the original 9/11 attacks? The incidents of school shootings has increased a drastic amount this year alone, and I don't know about you all, but I've stopped feeling pity for the victims and their families. Does this make me an ass? Am I too calloused? IF so I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I certainly feel a mild disgust at how much more often it's occurring, and often wonder WHY, but like many people who are no where near theses scenes it's just another news story...

And the idea of Integrating Canada/Us/Mexico? I'd LOVE to see this become an active topic of discussion in the current ongoing debates, and I'd love to see it happen, though I know it would be horribly painful in the short term and not sure what the long-term benefits would be. I also don't think it should stop there...why leave out the rest of the world? 1 World, 1 People, 1 Economy, 1 set of Laws...etc...
Yes I know, pipe dreams, but dammit its a good one...at least In MY opinion...

But I'm there withya Jen, something needs to be done....maybe we need to con tad into running for President...at least he's witty and eloquent...8)

Oh and I'm reminded of another good reason for Legalizing Marijuana; Medical needs. granted it's already technically legal for medical needs, but heck it would create a whole 'nother slew of jobs too...8)

Last edited by Ren (2008-03-16 07:29:23)

Malachy_Sunblade wrote:

What the war is costing us as a country... You know, I've seen estimates all over the place, but mostly on the net.  I've seen what the government is calling for on its yearly budget, and the grand total of the budget doesn't add up to trillions, so how can we be spending, as Cyan and Firs both assert TRILLIONS, plural.

The war has lasted five years and has cost the U.S. over a trillion dollars. ( Source) It's certainly cost more than our yearly budget, but that's because it has lasted five years, not one.

Firs, we had a budgetary surplus for several years prior to Bush taking office, this is true, but not a NATIONAL surplus.

I'm aware of the difference between national budget surplus and national debt. However, the two are related, and the national budget surplus can be used to pay our national debt, as occurred in 2000 when the Clinton administration reduced the national debt by 230 billion dollars by pouring the surplus money into the gaping hole left by the previous administration. ((Source)

We haven't had a national economic surplus since FDR took office back in the thirties, when he spent money faster than they could take it in, when programs like... wait for it... Social Security were first put into place

Are you really saying social security is a bad idea? What would the elderly have to fall back on if they didn't have money coming in?

We've been in debt since we bought our way out of the Great Depression, since we financed the rebuilding of France, Germany, Poland and Japan after WWII, since we sent billions of dollars over seas to far worse and more horrible conflicts, money exceedingly well spent *sarcasm* doing "police actions" in places like Rwanda, Somalia, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, (all of which happened in the 90's) where we've poured tons of money down the drain and it got nothing done

None of which cost trillions of dollars, and the actions in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Balkans didn't cost the 230 billion dollars the Clinton administration was able to pour back into our nation's coffers. Finally, the rebuilding of Europe and Japan after WWII was entirely necessary. The "war on terror" in Iraq was entirely unnecessary, founded on the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

(Not "The Decider's" fault).

Entirely "The Decider's" fault.

And during that time, were we looking after our own people?

Yes, as discussed above, the Clinton administration pulled 230 billion dollars from the budgetary surplus and spent it on the national debt, in the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States.

At that time our unemployment rate was low, but we had huge numbers of homeless people,

We have huge numbers of homeless people now. In fact, there are 2 million American homeless right now! (Source)

As far as a "false" war on Terrorism, hey, I'm going to have to disagree, because while it didn't necessarily start that way, but Brit, US, and French (not so high on the trustworthy scale, but still) Intel services have all asserted that the vast majority of the terrorists resources have been directed into Iraq and Iran since we invaded Iraq

More's the pity. What an awful can of worms The Decider opened.

And I'd rather have a guy in office who's going to take the fight elsewhere

Elsewhere as in the wrong country? Elsewhere as in "the guy who did this is in Afghanistan, so let's invade Iraq"?

What is with you folks and punishing people for succeeding?

Which people are being "punished" for succeeding? How exactly are they being "punished"? And what "folks" (you folks? Smarchers?) are doing the punishing?

In a world where PC has jumped up and down and made life so difficult for everybody, renaming peoples,

Many cultures were given names by Western society which did not correspond to what they themselves want(ed) to be called. I'm thinking specifically of the American "Indian" and other native cultures, which were re-named out of sheer ignorance (of things like even basic geography). Giving these cultures the right to the names they themselves want to be called only seems like common sense, considering they've often been robbed of their lands, their culture, sometimes even their lives. That's not "making life so difficult for everybody", that's restoring dignity where dignity has been taken away.

WARNING, WARNING: "Captain, many words inbound, I don't know if our shields can take the strain"  "I understand Mr. Scott, prepare for impact..."

Firsfron, you have got to stop citing my sentences out of context completely.  One, the last two pieces of my text weren't aimed at you, nor did you cite them in anything like context, so stop doing that.  It's that kind of "soundbiting" that's been used politically against any number of people to color perceptions of them.  So by cutting off the last half of what I was saying about Social Security, I don't know why you did that, the entire thing becomes a whole different argument.  Cut that out, it's ridiculous.  Yes, I'm against Social Security, as it stands now.  Of course I am, why wouldn't I be?  I pay in money to a program that's supposedly designed to help take care of me when I am no longer able to work, be it because I'm disabled or old or whatever, and it goes into the General Fund of the U.S. Budget, instead of actually being set aside to take care of me?  HELL YES I'M AGAINST THAT, and you should be against it to.  Because that's the way it's been operating (since its inception, I might add) and subsequently, in order for me to collect what I've paid into it, I have to be 80+ years old.  I'm a guy, the average lifespan for a guy is 73 years old, so I'll be dead for at least seven freaking years before I could actually collect on money that I put into the thing.  Who shouldn't be against that?  That's not social responsibility, that's total B.S.  You want to rail against people for lying to you, I'd start yelling about THAT.

And the money spent on pointless police actions in countries that have never gotten better for all of the money and time we put into them in the 90s prior to Bush being in office, I still fail to see how that's his fault.  Did trillions get spent on it?  Uh, no, why?  Because the US dollar was worth a whole hell of a lot more during that time frame, but we still spent hundreds of billions on those things, and we got nowhere.  Don't tell me that what we're doing now is worse, it ain't worse, it's just different, because we were over there for "humanitarian" reasons in the 90s... yeah.

Next, your very own source cites off both the Afghanistan conflict AND Iraq when citing it off, not just Iraq.  It also comes from the Washington Post, where they have a hard time doing math, because inside the article itself it cites these two separate conflicts at 1.5 trillion, but the headline cites it at 1.7 trillion.  Which is it?  That difference of 200 BILLION dollars is rather important.  What, are they just jacking it up for shock value, are they, for some reason, using another country's currency to make a bigger splash?  And the study they're working off of?  We'll chop it into bits real quick:

"The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War", which cites simply the Iraq War "hidden" costs in its title, then goes on to figure the cost of business in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, also goes on to describe, without a great deal of "where we got this information" (although they have two pages worth of reference work, I still don't know where they got what information except for the rare occasion when they cite the CBO) about the overall costs up until now, and how we need to cut back this and minimize that (inserting several alternative scenarios for "ways to deal with this") and start talking about troop draw downs, to be completed by 2010, if we're going to prevent the cost from going up too much more.  I've read it, it's not particularly inspiring, if only because they are SO full of it. 

Now, the most reasonable of these studies that I've found was ACTUALLY done by the Joint Economic Commission, (Iraq Economic Costs Report)and even them, I don't entirely buy.  They cite off that with us pulling all but 10,000 troops out of Iraq, and completely abandoning any efforts in Afghanistan, the overall cost of things up until 2017 will be 1.7 trillion dollars.... Now, I know I've seen that number before... wait a second... oh, right.  Well, either they're lying about how much we're spending now (I've heard estimates as high as 1.9 trillion), and those estimates are based off of this Nov. 2007 study, OR, the guys doing the study had no clue what was really going on.  I have, to date, been unable to find enough empirical evidence to be able to come down for certain one way or another, but since the tail end of the study starts talking about the Federal Government being able to hire more state and local police and teachers, I'm a little leery about believing this study to be more than a "we're better than they are" ploy.  Two, I very much disagree that a quick, sharp draw down on the number of troops will be good for us as a country in the long run.  We took our time getting out of Germany and Japan, and those are two countries that really don't have any problems with us now.  We didn't take our time getting out of 'Nam, and things still aren't as nice as they could be there.

Me: As far as a "false" war on Terrorism, hey, I'm going to have to disagree, because while it didn't necessarily start that way, but Brit, US, and French (not so high on the trustworthy scale, but still) Intel services have all asserted that the vast majority of the terrorists resources have been directed into Iraq and Iran since we invaded Iraq

Firsfron: More's the pity. What an awful can of worms The Decider opened.

What do you mean "more's the pity, another can of worms?"  Upon being informed that three countries Intelligence services have stated that most of the terrorists resources are being tied up in a single country, you speak of this like it's a bad thing?  Some 85% of their funds, people, vehicles, weapons, and other resources are being kept away from so many other countries, how is that a bad thing?  I can't see that it is, but you seem to think so, so you tell me how it is one.

As far as the basic premise of the fact that the "War was founded on a lie" Oh for the love of God get over yourself.  Just get over it.  First, whether he HAD the things is a moot point, and I'll never deny that all intel that has been gathered since the beginning of the invasion has pointed out that, no, Saddam didn't have any.  So what?  We're there now, deal with THAT situation, instead of railing against somebody because maybe they didn't tell you the truth.  I don't like being lied to either, but I've got my own fires to put out and my own pits to dig me and my folk out of before I start chasing after somebody for lying to me.  And one of those fires is to finish things in Iraq in a fashion that's NOT going to come around and bite us in the ass at some point in the near future or even one that my kids will have to deal with.

Me: And I'd rather have a guy in office who's going to take the fight elsewhere

Firsfron: Elsewhere as in the wrong country? Elsewhere as in "the guy who did this is in Afghanistan, so let's invade Iraq"?

Iraq was, at the time that we invaded, in the top of the list of countries that sponsor, financially and in other fashions, terrorists.  By invading Iraq we have cut a huge amount of funding out from under them, and we've tied up the majority of their resources for five freaking years.  Is this a problem??  And "the guy" we're after?  The ONE?  Oh come on, Al-Qaeda is way more than one guy, and only tracking down and taking out Bin-Laden or one of his primary lieutenants makes them martyrs, it's not going to stop anything, it's just going to spur them on.  Not to mention, WE'RE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN, still looking for the guy.  How's that working out for us?  Not well, but we trained him, so it's to be expected that he'd be able to get around many of our tracking methods.  Hell, we don't actually know that he's in Afghanistan, either, the dude could be sipping Mai-Tais at the French Riviera for all that we, the regular folks, know for certain.  The Government isn't telling us, and whether I'm happy about that or not, I cannot speculate as to what's actually going on with that one.  So I don't.

Firsfron: None of which cost trillions of dollars, and the actions in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Balkans didn't cost the 230 billion dollars the Clinton administration was able to pour back into our nation's coffers. Finally, the rebuilding of Europe and Japan after WWII was entirely necessary. The "war on terror" in Iraq was entirely unnecessary, founded on the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And how is it that the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, by us, was any more necessary than rebuilding Iraq is today?  How?  And how is it that we shouldn't go after people who help the guys trying to beat us up?  Since the 90's there has been a great deal of evidence that tied Iraq to Al-Qaeda, as well as other organizations of the same mind-set.  Remove the financial base and you help deal with the problem.  We can say, ever so assuredly with 60 odd years between us and it, that WWII and  the rebuilding was completely necessary.  We're still in the midst of it right now.  We were in WWII alone for, what, 4 years?  Rebuilding Germany alone took how many years? I think it was six years or so.  US occupation of Japan? 7 years after the full cessation of hostilities, which took an atomic explosion to achieve, otherwise it might have taken longer, and it took until the mid-50s before Japan's economic production was back to where it had been prior to WWII.  Necessary?  Absolutely, but again, there's 60 years between then and now, and a lot has been learned in that time.  We still haven't achieved a full cessation of hostilities in Iraq, I might add, which means more time is required to do it right, so that maybe in 60 years, my grandkids will be able to deal with Iraq as easily and well as I am able to with Japan because of my grandparents.

Also, the US sank 10 billion dollars (just the money aspect, not the overall resource value) into rebuilding Germany, not the total amount by any stretch, but a good chunk.  Now, adjusting for the difference in value in the dollar from that time... Well, since the charts that I've found are all pretty much the same, we'll use the one in Wikipedia for ease of comparisons.  Here's the link and it's all in comparison, for some silly reason, to the US dollar in 1980.  The dollar value in 06 was 0.41 to the 1980 dollar.  So, do the math on that... it's worth 2.44 times the current dollar. and the 1940s dollar is worth 5.87 times that value... so the total difference in dollars is roughly 14.32.  So, for this exercise, every dollar in the 1940s is worth 14.32 of our current dollars.  So, the total in today's market of just the monetary infusions... roughly 143 billion dollars... plus, we then have to figure in things like the Marshall Plan, the resources that were sent in, the man power, the total amount of money spent on the troops involved in the occupation... it does rack up.  And that's just the rebuilding, not the cost of WWII to the US in the first place.  Does anybody see where I'm going with this?  Look beyond "We've been lied to," and for God's sake, look beyond "Bush is so evil", remember some of the following.  1. Congress still voted for us to go to war, remember that.  Many of the Reps and Senators have changed their story since the vote was cast in '03, but they STILL voted for us to go to war.  And they STILL gave the go ahead for all the spending, and they still are spinning stories while passing the okay on it all.  Blame not one person for us being there, blame 'em all.  2. Why we're there, moot point anymore, we're there. 3. Money spent, not as out there as you'd think.  Our dollar doesn't go very far anymore, that's as much a part of the problem as government overspending (although they do spend WAY too much in WAY too many bad ways).  3.  Everybody keeps talking about "That money should be spent here", but during those times that we could, the cheap bastards in office still don't.  Which, as I recall, was a big part of the reason I originally started this topic, not to get into a dirt-flinging match.

Wolfshade: Hey, Mal, I will totally agree that "Global Warming" is a poor name-choice.  It doesn't capture the issue AT ALL.  But are you using that as a reason to say the real issue is unimportant?  You seem to be dismissing it, which is a little surprising for someone who obviously has so much interest in a good future for his children.

No way, Wolf, I'm not dismissing it at all.  I'm very much in favor of making sure that my kids have a healthy environment to grow up in.  But I'm easily as much in favor of knowing what's really going on, not just saying "Global Warming did it".  Bring me something that actually means something, not just phrases like "Global Warming is responsible for the recent surge in Hurricanes" (patently untrue by the way, research the hurricane cycles since we started recording these things, you'll find that it hasn't changed much in one hundred years), something that maybe I can do something about, we'll talk.  But until there are concrete determinations, not just political spokesmen who really don't know any more about it than I do talking doom and destruction, I'm going to have a hard time taking the whole thing seriously.  In the last five years the "cause" of "Global Warming" has changed so many times, ranging from cars (after 9/11) to cows (methane emissions, middle 90s) to smokers (Al Gore's speech just a few years ago) to people in general (Kyoto findings) to power plants (early 90s) to one small child picking his nose in kindergarten (because I'm certain somebody has said it at some point).  I mean, come on, I can't work with that.  And with regards to the "misguided masses" you've just come across why so many of them may well be misguided, because there hasn't been any consistency in causes or effects, so bring on the feelings of powerlessness and a lack of caring...  Kind of like the overall feelings on terrorism in the general population anymore.  I don't know if that makes any sense, Wolf, but that's what I've got, really.

Ah well, time to make lunch and get my stuff together for the evening shift *sighs*.

bandit wrote:

Holy crap. Dude, the president flat out falsifying intelligence to lead us into a war with no end is not something anyone should just "get over". Seriously, this attitude of "getting over" things is part of what is making America suck - rather than holding anyone accountable for their crap we'd rather play ostrich. It's ludicrous.

Exactly. Well put, Bandit.

The problem with these sort of political debates is that, by the end, one side usually just ends up hurling insults at the other side, without regard for the actual discussion. I'm just not into that. I won't respond to that sort of post.

Malachy_Sunblade wrote:
Oh for the love of God get over yourself.

Well, I'm done with this conversation.

What cyan said.

The original intention of starting this post, Cyan, was actually a grumble forum on the current electorial process and the problems that nobody's actually fixing.  I did not start it as a blame-fest as to what president is THE most horrible and who has done THE most damage to America and its people.

With regards to "Get over yourself" that's about the fact that, if you read through Firsfron's texts, you'll find less than little that talks about the fixing, and the fact that the majority of said text turned what was originally intended to be a political/economic debate into a whine and b*tch fest about GWB.  I don't care if people think he's evil, they're not alone; millions of people the world over think that the dude's the devil.  I don't care if you feel he lied to us, or if you feel like others I know that other people lied to us about what's going on to gain a political edge.  I don't care who anybody agrees with in regards to who happens to be in office NOW.  I don't care what your political leanings actually happen to be.

What I do care about is that the problems we currently face are way bigger than one man, and if you read everything I said, THAT'S part of how I've been trying to draw this conversation back away from a complaint forum about the current friggin president.  I'm tired of hearing people compare the president to a five-year-old, but they can't stop b*tching about him, and every political ANYTHING turns into griping about the guy.  I started this topic to be a discussion of "The politicians suck, how would WE do it" not a forum of ineffectual bashing (if that's all I wanted to read, I'd read the NY Times WAY more often).  Use the problems of the past to see the potential problems with current ideas and their implementation and move the hell on.  That's what I care about.

The only reason that we got into the Iraq War issue is because I was asked where I stand on it.  I was for it then, I'm for it now, you, Cyan, were against it then, you're against it now, nothing's changed, moving on.  And then my thread was kidnapped and used as a force for anti-G-Dub tirades, which held little bearing on anything, but most often sounded like:

You had no reason to elect them, other than your own stupidity.

Also, I didn't compare WWII to Iraq.  I compared the rebuilding phases.  Well, let's just cut the crap and compare.

Me:And how is it that the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, by us, was any more necessary than rebuilding Iraq is today?  How?  And how is it that we shouldn't go after people who help the guys trying to beat us up?  Since the 90's there has been a great deal of evidence that tied Iraq to Al-Qaeda, as well as other organizations of the same mind-set.  Remove the financial base and you help deal with the problem.  We can say, ever so assuredly with 60 odd years between us and it, that WWII and  the rebuilding was completely necessary.  We're still in the midst of it right now.  We were in WWII alone for, what, 4 years?  Rebuilding Germany alone took how many years? I think it was six years or so.  US occupation of Japan? 7 years after the full cessation of hostilities, which took an atomic explosion to achieve, otherwise it might have taken longer, and it took until the mid-50s before Japan's economic production was back to where it had been prior to WWII.  Necessary?  Absolutely, but again, there's 60 years between then and now, and a lot has been learned in that time. We still haven't achieved a full cessation of hostilities in Iraq, I might add, which means more time is required to do it right, so that maybe in 60 years, my grandkids will be able to deal with Iraq as easily and well as I am able to with Japan because of my grandparents.

cyan: you can not compare WWII to the current Iraq war.  In WWII, the United States held back from the conflict for as long as it could, until it was attacked.  When the war ended, we declared victory, the opposing parties surrendered, peace treaties were signed, and rebuilding began.  In this current Iraq war, the United Stated made a pre-emptive strike, declared victory, and have fought continuously for nearly four years after said victory-declaration.  Where’s the surrender?  Where’s the peace treaty?  How can the two possibly be compared on the same level????   It is entirely unprecedented in the history of this country to spend the obscene amounts of money that is has thus far on a pre-emptive strike and its consequences.

*looks up at the text* How is what you said different from what I said there?  Other than your insistence that I'm comparing the wars, not the rebuilding, it's not.  Read what I'm saying before tearing into me.  At no point in my text right there did I talk about how "The Iraq War is just like WWII".  I flat didn't do it.  I asked, quite simply, how the rebuilding of the countries after WWII was any more necessary.  I don't think that it WAS more necessary, and nobody that's talking has yet supplied me with a reason to believe or perceive otherwise. 


This blame game crap tires me, and we've long since covered in the vaunted Halls of Fire that I'm not a diplomatically inclined person, not at the best of times, and certainly not when I'm sick and tired of people taking an intellectual topic and turning it into a blame-fest.  I say that America and Canada have problems.  I ask, what thoughts do you have.  On this message board I have come across some pretty smart people, so I'm tapping for ideas.  How did England break free of a pure monarchy?  A group of smart folks got together and put together the British Constitution and bullied the kind into accepting it.  How did America break free of England?  A number of smart folks got together and put into place a declaration of independence, and then bullied King George into agreeing with it.  Down through history political changes have started in places like this, be they textual or verbal, it's one of the reasons that the Roman word "Forum" actually applies to message boards like this.  We've chewed the over heated issues, now, let's get back to the serious people and start talking about what I intended to talk about on this forum.

Wolfshade, I think you're not too far off.  I also think that a good portion of my frustration stems from the basic question : "Okay, so what can I do about it?"  The problem with the "complex system" approach is that most people aren't "big picture" thinkers (the other problem being that most complex systems are, in actuality, a large number of simple systems piled on top of each other *grins*).  Not that they don't have the capacity, simply because they're too busy surviving.  I've done the research on several issues with Global Warming as well, and I've found several scientists who say that industrialization causing "Global Warming" has prevented us from entering an Ice Age for over a hundred years now, that our climatological trends have actually been cooling down (and our winters HAVE been harsher, for all that our summers have been hot).  The Minnesota Researcher that I mentioned some time ago, doing the Plankton Core Samples research (You know, the one that got fired), researched back several hundred years worth of samples, and his findings were that the number of hurricanes in a given year is cyclical, based on a 24 year pattern of high and low, and that for all that some people have said that the number of hurricanes was being affected by global warming, he was able to prove the total number of hurricanes for '07 (less than the year before, which the doom-sayers said "due to Global Warming, we'll have more hurricanes this year").  Who do we believe?

Malachy_Sunblade wrote:

(the other problem being that most complex systems are, in actuality, a large number of simple systems piled on top of each other *grins*).

The idea that complex systems are a sum of simple systems and are unpredictable only due to a lack of computing power is an outdated concept, if that is what you were getting at.  There's an absolute ton of irreducible cross-dependencies in our environment, not to mention nonlinear behavior being a part of it in the first place.

Malachy_Sunblade wrote:

I've found several scientists who say that industrialization causing "Global Warming" has prevented us from entering an Ice Age for over a hundred years now, that our climatological trends have actually been cooling down (and our winters HAVE been harsher, for all that our summers have been hot).  The Minnesota Researcher that I mentioned some time ago, doing the Plankton Core Samples research (You know, the one that got fired), researched back several hundred years worth of samples, and his findings were that the number of hurricanes in a given year is cyclical, based on a 24 year pattern of high and low, and that for all that some people have said that the number of hurricanes was being affected by global warming, he was able to prove the total number of hurricanes for '07 (less than the year before, which the doom-sayers said "due to Global Warming, we'll have more hurricanes this year").  Who do we believe?

Whoever these scientists are, they're full of crap.  Again the misuse of the word "warming" and the false idea that warming now is working against a major climate change in a colder direction later.  I consider  any incidents of more extreme temperatures (hot summer or cold winter) to be the same thing...a result of strong perturbation of the system.  Still they are not proof, since they're within the noise.  The hurricane statistics are similarly useless.  Your "N" is way to low both in terms of number of years and number of events to generate any meaningful conclusions.  I don't know why they seem so important to you.  The trends in more fundamental things, like concentrations of gases or compounds that are players in the Earth's temperature regulation system are where the proof is.  Some of them have gone from little fluctuation at all over the lifetime of the Earth, to an exponential rise that cannot continue forever without "breaking" the balance.