I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

States Rights for South Carolina!

>> ^artician:

I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.


I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.

This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.

I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.

This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.

@Yogi - interesting (and disturbing) observation. In the 5 years I've been living in Thailand, most of the people I've talked US politics with (be they Westerners like Brits, Aussies, etc. or Asians / SE Asians) have exactly the kind of read on US foreign policy that Ron Paul is suggesting we have earned here. Ie., they see beyond the faces of the different presidents calling the shots and notice the long-term track record of going out and meddling, whether that meddling is beneficial or not.

For a long time, I bought into what we hear in the US and was hopeful that, say, the Iraqi people would be appreciative and thankful that we came and "took care of the Saddam Hussein problem". Remember when the troops got to Baghdad and we saw the Iraqis jubilantly tearing down his statue, later discovered to be largely or entirely prompted by US psyops? Then I moderated my position and thought, OK, we got into this, now we've got to see it through to the end for the sake of those people whose lives we have disrupted. That pans out real well when they overwhelmingly just want us to get the hell out...

Anyway, it sort of boggles my mind that Ron Paul would get booed over suggesting a "Golden Rule" approach. Maybe more of our fellow Americans need to get a little more world-wise and see for themselves that we've already got a big backlog of ill-will to overcome from our legacy of unrequested "intervention"...

How dare Jesus' central tenet be applied to the U.S.A.. Doesn't he realise that American exceptionalist applies to God as well?

If you listen carefully, you can almost hear Noam Chomsky in the crowd

>> ^artician:

I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I think it's mainly that, if we accept his proposal, we have to accept that we set in motion the events that led to 9/11 and that can't be true because we are America and we can do no wrong.

Should someone point out Jesus to the GOP? How he said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matt. 7:12)

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world..
Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault...
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well.


Exactly. Without war America goes back to the 30's - California's border closed, 400,000,000 acres of farmland turned to dust by greed and lack of regulation, stillbirths due to malnutrition, bank of America paying people (WHITE People!) 5c a day for picking lettuce and beating them in some cases to DEATH for demanding a liveable wage (it was 25c before the excess labour turned up from the dust bowl).
Then corresponding communist organisation by the workers, FBI involvent in repression via total constitutional breaches, etc etc.

Without WW2 it looked like civil war - or reduction to a slave force for big east coast finance. Then the massive battle fleet parked off the coast of Japan mysteriously provoked an attack - and whammo - a job for everyone, a new massive industry (still what America spends half of all it's money on to this day), and a border extended effectively all the way around the globe, allowing the cycle to start again except on a much bigger stage.

What happens now when the organisms reach the edge of the petri dish? Well, better stick some of that annual $1 trillion into FTL research cos we're going to need a new planet.

The choice - face up to it, or shout boo at anyone who tries to tell you the truth.

>> ^Morganth:

Should someone point out Jesus to the GOP? How he said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matt. 7:12)


Ya, that has always confused me that the new religious right is all about war. This hasn't always been the case, but it is now. Makes absolutely no sense. I know many Christians counter to this culture, ones that I would consider more than just your average church go'er...actual Christians with convictions. Perhaps this just relates to the Chruchy type Christian? Whatever it is, some people need to read their bible again to be sure!

American's have felt this way for a while, going back to at least the Spanish American War, and Teddy Roosevelt and his expansive foriegn policy. In other times we called this attitude the "white man's burden".

Go find me a powerful country, any time in human history, that doesn't push its neighbors around when it perceives an opportunity to advance its interests.

I'll wait.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Go find me a powerful country, any time in human history, that doesn't push its neighbors around when it perceives an opportunity to advance its interests.
I'll wait.


Show me one that didn't fall into catastrophe as a result when it used up the available resources and could no longer aggressively grow.

This is basic, evolutionary behaviour that the progressives seem to be unable to control. And all the right wing can add, after a billion years, is rationalization.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.
This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.
I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.


Wow Yogi, we agree on something .

I think your view is pretty much bang on. The only difference between Dem. and Rep. presidents is the reasons they give for acting purely in their own self interests(which very often coincides with making decisions that are in America's self interests).

Where I disagree with Ron Paul's conclusion is about what the answer to all this should be. I don't for a second believe Ron Paul would be any different than all those before him. Instead of selfish wars he'd maybe follow the course of selfish isolationism. Take the recent example in Libya. America had two selfish options, go in or don't. Not going in would mean keeping the President's hands clean and money in America's pocket, and Ron Paul insists that what he'd have done. It also would have meant leaving thousands of Libyan civilians to Gaddafi's death squads. It would mean a Libya still ruled today by Gaddafi, with a newly subdued and less numerous population.

I don't see a clearly white/black obvious ethical choice in most geopolitical decisions, it's always messy. The Iraqi's that hate America the most(the Sadrists) don't hate them for all the things that America did to them, but for America's failures to act. The hate America for it's failure to push into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. In lieu of that they want revenge on the Sunnis. They want to commit their own eviction of all Sunni's from Iraq, or in it's stead to kill them for what Saddam had done with their aid. Was America wrong to stick around in Iraq after evicting Saddam and trying to stand in the middle, stopping a civil war driven by revenge against the Sunnis?

Ron Paul and Chomsky are generally agreed on minding our own business is the only ethical choice. It's hard to make that argument for Libya. It's impossible to make that argument for Rwanda. There are situations in our world were the ethical choice IS to go to war and stop something even more evil than war inherently is. What Ron Paul and Chomsky understand though is that no matter how grave the evil you oppose, your actions will create people who hate you for interfering. War makes it inevitable that your own forces will commit crimes against innocents, and their families will hate you. Ron and Chomsky conclude that means never get involved, I call that cowardice and insist there are situations that demand paying that price and coming to the aid of our fellow man when faced with terrible evils like genocide. In theory, every signatory nation to the convention on genocide agrees with me on this point too.

we were raised to think tanks, guns, fighter planes, and battleships were cool.
we're still socialized to believe so.
it invokes the "hero" and "patriot" we were raised to be.
it allows us to focus our personal angst, anger and racism on supposed enemies, dehumanized by propaganda.
and there is the continuing american fable that war is good for the economy.
war = fantasized glory and adventure for armchair warriors.

RP wants to end all the needless wars. If any war is worth fighting then he would only require that Congress "declares war" as it is outlined in the Constitution.

>> ^Grimm:

RP wants to end all the needless wars. If any war is worth fighting then he would only require that Congress "declares war" as it is outlined in the Constitution.


Exactly, I think that would answer some of @bcglorf 's hold up on isolationism. Like isn't so black and white, especially on matter of war. Which is why he is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense. My like the recent stop to the SOPA legislation due to pressure from the outside, the same kind of pressure could of been used to help in Libya..but only if the supporters of that action could sway enough people to support that decision...just like a democracy should. And I don't think hiding behind things like NATO or the US should undermine our Presidents responsibility to us, he works for us first after all. Like in most questions of this nature, there isn't really a right or wrong when the action is taken or not taken in the most strict sense...only what was the most supported.

I think it is a little, in that light, to say that we couldn't declare war on the Libyan government. We are just so used to the President going to war for us, that we have basically abdicated our responsibility in this area. That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work. Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs. I think that Statism might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).

I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

But more to @bcglorf 's point on genocide, and cowardice. I don't think it is fair to say cowardice when your only course of action is making more widows and orphans. And more importantly, it is an entirely different thing for some president to commit you to that course of action without any "due process", in this case, a declaration of war. I don't think it is cowardice, persay, to not want to kill someone that doesn't want to kill you, and might have a legitimate claim to kill the person they want to kill. But that is neither here nor there, a moral question that most likely will never see commonly, the point is, that each of us should have a voice in the action we collectively have to take, action or inaction. The benefit of defaulting to inaction is that it doesn't stop someone morally convicted like yourself to fund operations of support for whatever side. That is why I usually side with Libertarian answers for complicated issues, sometimes, you don't need one answer for everyone. Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

Crowd seems really confused here.

RP: "We can't go around pissing other people off"
crowd: "boo! fuck you, we can do what we want to whoever we want, we're America! (fuck yeah)"
RP: "And we need to stop these wars"
crowd: "yay!"

They just don't get that there could be a correlation between the two points....

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.

But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.

Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.

As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.

Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.

Right, like investment banking.

Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.

From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

Agreed, once I correct the label.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.


I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.

It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.

I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world..
Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault...
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well.

Exactly. Without war America goes back to the 30's - California's border closed, 400,000,000 acres of farmland turned to dust by greed and lack of regulation, stillbirths due to malnutrition, bank of America paying people (WHITE People!) 5c a day for picking lettuce and beating them in some cases to DEATH for demanding a liveable wage (it was 25c before the excess labour turned up from the dust bowl).
Then corresponding communist organisation by the workers, FBI involvent in repression via total constitutional breaches, etc etc.
Without WW2 it looked like civil war - or reduction to a slave force for big east coast finance. Then the massive battle fleet parked off the coast of Japan mysteriously provoked an attack - and whammo - a job for everyone, a new massive industry (still what America spends half of all it's money on to this day), and a border extended effectively all the way around the globe, allowing the cycle to start again except on a much bigger stage.
What happens now when the organisms reach the edge of the petri dish? Well, better stick some of that annual $1 trillion into FTL research cos we're going to need a new planet.
The choice - face up to it, or shout boo at anyone who tries to tell you the truth.


Welcome to the world of bullshit for people who only speak and know bullshit -- that's everyone, FYI. And it's going to be that way for all of time, whether it's at the workplace of 2012, politics in 3012, or Sunday school at the Grand Cabal's Science Center for Observable Theological Theory in the year 100,012. I already have FTL drives and I keep em powered up wherever I go.

But no...they didn't. Congress did not declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan as required by the Constitution. Instead they gave that power and decision to the President...not the same thing.

>> ^NetRunner:
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end

It's not the same people cheering for both...the first group are the Perry/Santorum supporters (the ones that boo a gay man that is serving in the military and cheers when the topic of state executions are brought up). The second group is the Ron Paul supporters.>> ^ChaosEngine:

Crowd seems really confused here.
RP: "We can't go around pissing other people off"
crowd: "boo! fuck you, we can do what we want to whoever we want, we're America! (fuck yeah)"
RP: "And we need to stop these wars"
crowd: "yay!"
They just don't get that there could be a correlation between the two points....

@GeeSussFreeK As Netrunner says, virtually nobody advocates specifically for statism. In theory, pretty much everyone can agree on the Libertarian principle of your rights end where mine begin. The trouble is a very widely ranging difference of opinion on where my rights and your rights begin to overlap.

I would propose though that the most extreme 'statists' of late would have to be the ranks of Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Bashir Al-Assad, and Omar al-Bashir to name a very short list of those imposing the most rigid of adherence to the absolute power of the head of a state. If you oppose statism, at least to some degree the removal or end of such men holds common cause with your ideals, no?

>> ^Grimm:

But no...they didn't. Congress did not declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan as required by the Constitution. Instead they gave that power and decision to the President...not the same thing.
>> ^NetRunner:
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end


"As required by the Constitution..." Cite the part of the Constitution you're referring to, please.

Specifically, I want to see the part that specifically lays out what the text of the bill passed by Congress has to say in order to constitute a declared war. Presumably it'll be obvious why a bill "Authorizing the Use of Military Force" would not meet the Constitutional requirement.

For a hint at where I'm coming from, read this.

Given the standard you're following, I too can make definitive pronouncements about the abject illegal and unconstitutional nature of anything I disagree with. It's unconstitutional to cut taxes.

The Constitution says Congress can "lay and collect" them, it doesn't say they can abolish or reduce them. It would be Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill that would create new entitlement program that just pays the excess taxes collected back to citizens, but given the size of the deficit, I wouldn't recommend such wasteful expenditures of the taxpayer's heard-earned money. After all, people should be demanding paychecks, not tax rebates.

>> ^artician:

I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.


Ha, ignorant one, it is because of self-importance, vanity, and pride. What is it that other countries are? Oh yes, savage tribes all! Mwhahaah...

(I cannot make this post sarcastic because that is the way a typical American thinks...)

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?

Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.

If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

>> ^NetRunner:

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.
Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.
As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.
Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.
Right, like investment banking.
Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.
From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?
Agreed, once I correct the label.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.
I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.
It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.
I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

Shut Up Idiots! Only my comments matter!!!

There's only two kinds of Republicans: Corporate tools and complete psychopaths.

The thing that will always kill the Ron Paul campaign, even aside from that he's kinda crazy, is that he always sounds exasperated and whiny when he talks about these things. It's entirely understandable that he'd be exasperated when talking to Republican voters and other politicians, but he really needs a more presidential... tone.

>> ^direpickle:

The thing that will always kill the Ron Paul campaign, even aside from that he's kinda crazy, is that he always sounds exasperated and whiny when he talks about these things. It's entirely understandable that he'd be exasperated when talking to Republican voters and other politicians, but he really needs a more presidential... tone.


Hmmm.. Maybe the fact that he's not full of shit, and the fact that he doesn't sound like a rehearsing shill trying to deceive the public go hand in hand...

Of those three I think it's pretty clearly liberalism -- like I said before, the essential tenet of libertarianism is that you should never have to worry about anything that isn't directly related to your own self-interest. Conservatism largely claims it's about the same thing, but then gets pretty highly preachy about sex-related issues (marriage, homosexuality, abortion, birth control, etc.).

There's sometimes a mention of religiously-tinged civic duty (you are your brother's keeper), but modern conservatism pretty much twists that around into the idea that your real duty is limited to yelling "get a job" at poor people.

For the most part, I feel like certain branches of Christianity actually get it right in terms of outlining your obligations to others, especially those who are less fortunate. It just doesn't seem to be consistent or reliable in teaching people to love thy neighbor instead of judging them.

I don't think the best answers have been found on the topic though. "Liberalism" is a pretty loosely-defined philosophy, and it's adherents are considerably less ideologically doctrinaire than the right. "Liberal values" often sound like libertarian ones -- people should be free to do what they like. I think libertarian laws would be fine, as long as socially people were raised on something quasi-communist like "my neighbor's problem is my problem too".

That's why I believe the whole premise of conservatism and libertarianism is wrong -- they start with the message that there is no such thing as "society", and then demand the laws be changed to fit that wrong-headed philosophy of selfish isolation.

We need to try to build stronger bonds of solidarity between people, not sever them entirely.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?
Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?
And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.
If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

It's so ironic that most of those republicans booing him claim to be Christian. The most central teachings of Jesus were nonviolence, pacifism, charity, anti-hypocrisy, humility, and the golden rule (which sort of implies the first four). In short, the exact opposite of what these republicans want from a politician. Read the sermon on the plain and the sermon on the mount. Those are the actual teachings of Jesus. The rest of the new testament is trivialities and supernatural horseshit.

That's the problem with the Blame America First mindset, believing the rest of the world is made up of innocent countries populated by angels who NEVER fight, but then mean old USA comes along and look: WARS!

What will you do when red china and iran ignore the Golden Rule?

That's the problem with the America Can Do No Wrong mindset, believing that "pre-emptive" attacks will prevent attacks in the future instead of most likely guaranteeing them.>> ^quantumushroom:

That's the problem with the Blame America First mindset, believing the rest of the world is made up of innocent countries populated by angels who NEVER fight, but then mean old USA comes along and look: WARS!
What will you do when red china and iran ignore the Golden Rule?

>> ^quantumushroom:

That's the problem with the Blame America First mindset, believing the rest of the world is made up of innocent countries populated by angels who NEVER fight, but then mean old USA comes along and look: WARS!
What will you do when red china and iran ignore the Golden Rule?


No-one believes that. Even you don't believe that there are people that believe that so you're just being a disingenuous troll as usual.

Reality, as usual, tends to be a bit more complex.

>> ^StukaFox:

There's only two kinds of Republicans: Corporate tools and complete psychopaths.


You forgot the VAST majority: turkeys voting for christmas.

>> ^quantumushroom:

That's the problem with the Blame America First mindset, believing the rest of the world is made up of innocent countries populated by angels who NEVER fight, but then mean old USA comes along and look: WARS!
What will you do when red china and iran ignore the Golden Rule?


Well that's the point. The USA won't be able to do or say SHIT without being laughed at. Economic bullying, kidnapping, torture, murder, aggressive regime change, invasion of Taiwan, S Korea, anywhere with oil, use of nuclear weapons, mass obfuscation and propaganda, strongarming UN votes in its favor (no statehood for enemies of China's friends! WE WILL NOT ALLOW IT!!)


Trust me, even the most dull witted US reactionary will finally get the picture after a century or two of forlornly begging China not to be such an asshole.
And the answer they'll get from the uneducated, untravelled and increasingly obese 2 BILLION murdoch-viewing consumers? CHINESE EXCEPTIONALISM FTW!!!

Love the applause at the end.

He rephrased his point (albeit a simple one) to be even simpler. Then, and only then, the simpletons got it.

>> ^quantumushroom:

That's the problem with the Blame America First mindset, believing the rest of the world is made up of innocent countries populated by angels who NEVER fight, but then mean old USA comes along and look: WARS!
What will you do when red china and iran ignore the Golden Rule?


FYI the Iran Hostage crisis was Iran's revenge for the CIA-supported 1954 coup which overthrew their decent elected government and replaced it with a brutal dictator who violently cracked down on all political opposition to himself. The hostage-takers' only demands were that the US apologize for the 1954 coup, return the dictator to Iran for trial, and promise not to meddle in the internal affairs of Iran again. Those are perfectly reasonable demands that the USA should have done in the first place before the hostage crisis. But the hostage crisis put them in the akward position that the "right thing to do" was also "giving in to terrorists" and Ronald Reagan's massive testicles could not abide doing something that would please a terrorist even if it was the right thing to do regardless.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^quantumushroom:
That's the problem with the Blame America First mindset, believing the rest of the world is made up of innocent countries populated by angels who NEVER fight, but then mean old USA comes along and look: WARS!
What will you do when red china and iran ignore the Golden Rule?

FYI the Iran Hostage crisis was Iran's revenge for the CIA-supported 1954 coup which overthrew their decent elected government and replaced it with a brutal dictator who violently cracked down on all political opposition to himself. The hostage-takers' only demands were that the US apologize for the 1954 coup, return the dictator to Iran for trial, and promise not to meddle in the internal affairs of Iran again. Those are perfectly reasonable demands that the USA should have done in the first place before the hostage crisis. But the hostage crisis put them in the akward position that the "right thing to do" was also "giving in to terrorists" and Ronald Reagan's massive testicles could not abide doing something that would please a terrorist even if it was the right thing to do regardless.


Well put. Except Reagan was an actor hired by the remnants of the Nixon gang who only ever did what he was told.

@ChaosEngine Thank you for your more civil tone of late. Am I surprised that someone reached for the mouse to downvote MY comment while ignoring THIS?

Stukafox: There's only two kinds of Republicans: Corporate tools and complete psychopaths.

The Blame America First mindset is very real. It's taught in our public schools government indoctrination centers from K thru kollij. "Anarchist" Gnome Chompsky has made millions off this bizarre worldview, which glibly ignores the 100 million murdered by communist regimes and the defeat of fascism (and rebuilding of Europe) by the United States.

As for the charge of US meddling in Iran, the reality is we have interests around the world, things we want to buy and nations that want to sell. Glancing at wikipedia: when the elected government nationalized the Iranian oil industry, that was a threat to both Britain and the US.

Yeah, the Shah was an a-hole, but he was replaced with an even bigger a-hole, an islamic fundie. So instead of utopian perfection, we had an evil replaced with a greater evil. (And who's to say had Prime Minister Mosaddegh kept power through the 1970s, he wouldn't have been overthrown by Khomeini anyway)?

There is not any one era when international relations was superior and reasonable, just brief burps where there was an odd peace.

If you want to celebrate red china for "putting America in its place" like our idiot excuse of a president does, you better damned well understand what you're favoring: a ruthless communist regime that kills people as easily as you throw away coat hangers.

QM, Mossadegh's effort to nationalize his nation's oil was not a threat to the United States. For one, they were not doing it to make a political point against any government; so, the Iranians had no interest in withholding oil from any customers. What they wanted were the revenues and profits from the oil coming out of their own land; which would have hurt British interests, or more specifically, the precursor to BP. The US got involved because of cold war ideology. Also, our governments were not in conflict at the time; Mossadegh even visited the states at least once.

Your proposition that they would have eventually overthrown Mossadegh is faulty on a number of points. First of all, Mossadegh was an elderly man who could not have lasted a couple of decades. Secondly, he was a prime minister in a democracy with many thriving factions. Like in all democracies, his administration would have eventually been voted out. Also, the Islamic fundies in Iran developed as a direct result of the Shah's brutality. The Persians had one of the richest, intellectual and tolerant cultures in the region, beforehand, IMO. If their democracy had had a chance to mature and thrive, they could have been a major positive force in the region. Why would people in possession of wealth and democracy overthrow their own government?

It's a very interesting story, documented in the book All the Shah's Men, if you are interested in learning more.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@ChaosEngine Thank you for your more civil tone of late. Am I surprised that someone reached for the mouse to downvote MY comment while ignoring THIS?

Stukafox: There's only two kinds of Republicans: Corporate tools and complete psychopaths.

The Blame America First mindset is very real. It's taught in our public schools government indoctrination centers from K thru kollij. "Anarchist" Gnome Chompsky has made millions off this bizarre worldview, which glibly ignores the 100 million murdered by communist regimes and the defeat of fascism (and rebuilding of Europe) by the United States.
As for the charge of US meddling in Iran, the reality is we have interests around the world, things we want to buy and nations that want to sell. Glancing at wikipedia: when the elected government nationalized the Iranian oil industry, that was a threat to both Britain and the US.
Yeah, the Shah was an a-hole, but he was replaced with an even bigger a-hole, an islamic fundie. So instead of utopian perfection, we had an evil replaced with a greater evil. (And who's to say had Prime Minister Mosaddegh kept power through the 1970s, he wouldn't have been overthrown by Khomeini anyway)?
There is not any one era when international relations was superior and reasonable, just brief burps where there was an odd peace.
If you want to celebrate red china for "putting America in its place" like our idiot excuse of a president does, you better damned well understand what you're favoring: a ruthless communist regime that kills people as easily as you throw away coat hangers.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Am I surprised that someone reached for the mouse to downvote MY comment while ignoring THIS?

Stukafox: There's only two kinds of Republicans: Corporate tools and complete psychopaths.


Actually, I agree with you. That's not particularly helpful.

That said, in most democracies, there a few large parties that while they broadly represent the left or the right are mostly centrist. They are typically the older parties and the ones most likely to form a government. There will be a few more minor parties who are further from the centre, but in general the government is decided by a swing to the left or the right in the electorate.

The USA of late has seen such a swing to the right that Obama is viewed as a socialist, when in world terms, he's actually centre-right. Meanwhile, the republicans have moved to the lunatic fringe of the far right.

I don't believe that most of the ordinary republican citizens are raving idiots (there are, of course, exceptions), but they are being lead along by an extreme ideology that is seen as genuinely insane by most of the developed world, to the point where the people they have most in common with are the very people they claim to oppose the most.

So while I don't think calling them "Corporate tools and complete psychopaths" is useful to the debate, I can understand the desire to.

It's a complicated issue from a Christian perspective. Jesus said, if possible, live at peace with everyone. Overall, we should strive to avoid conflict and make peace, even at our own expense. However, this doesn't mean there is no such thing as a just war. WW2 for instance was a just war. Not everything done in WW2 was just or good, but our involvement as a nation was morally right. We had an obligation and a duty to defend the world (and ourselves) from the tryanny of the Nazi regime.

Jesus never says, go ahead and let someone kill you; don't defend yourself. Turn the other cheek means dont repay evil for evil and be ready to suffer patiently, not go ahead and let someone murder you. We are also told to follow the laws of the nation and seek after its well being. So, a case can be made for a just war, but this could only be very limited in scope. Our adventure in Iraq was very unjust and based on faulty intelligence and reasoning. I supported going after Osama bin laden in Afgahnistan, but on a limited basis and certainly not a nearly decade long conflict.

A war with Iran may be inevitable, but would it be just? Well, this is what we know..Iran is an islamic regime, and their goal is to acquire nuclear weapons. We also know that radical Islam is seeking to wipe Israel off the map, but many people don't understand why. The reason is, according to their end-times scenerio, that judgement day wont come until all the jews are killed:

"Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah , there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"

So they have a religious duty, according to their hadiths, to destroy Israel. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon could make that a reality. For the sake of Israels existence, we may be committed to stopping Iran. If it happened, would the United States screw it up ever worse than Iraq? Almost certainly..but we also can't stand by and watch someone nuke Israel from the map.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?
Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

None of the above? All of the above?

When are we going to get it our thick skulls that narrowminded idealology like this just creates problems instead of solves them.

No one philosophy has the answers to all situations. IT NEVER WILL. A wise person recognizes the positive aspects of any and all philosophies and applies them AS THE SITUATION WARRANTS. There is nothing wrong with Conservativism/Liberalism/Libertarianism/<insert 'ism here> as long as they are used within reason. Who decides what is within reason? We all do. We practice that every day and sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't and maybe we learn something in the process. All ideaology does is attempt to remove the burden of thinking. Sorry, not interested in that.

Nothing describes idiocy better to me than some mindless moron who always votes the party line, regardless of what party that may be.

Got to agree with @VoodooV on this one, from what I've seen, labels are just something to hide behind because you feel that if you do something wrong, other like-minded people are doing something wrong as well, so you don't have to be accountable for your actions.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?
Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?
None of the above? All of the above?
When are we going to get it our thick skulls that narrowminded idealology like this just creates problems instead of solves them.
No one philosophy has the answers to all situations. IT NEVER WILL. A wise person recognizes the positive aspects of any and all philosophies and applies them AS THE SITUATION WARRANTS. There is nothing wrong with Conservativism/Liberalism/Libertarianism/<insert 'ism here> as long as they are used within reason. Who decides what is within reason? We all do. We practice that every day and sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't and maybe we learn something in the process. All ideaology does is attempt to remove the burden of thinking. Sorry, not interested in that.
Nothing describes idiocy better to me than some mindless moron who always votes the party line, regardless of what party that may be.


You nailed it.

It's everything history teaches us about organized religion dressed up in a new suit. When you stop thinking and just blindly play follow the leader or follow the ideology you create a large mass of people capable of doing truly horrifying and unconscionable things. Liberalism, Libertarianism, Communism, Capitalism, Atheism, Conservatism are all capable of being treated and used exactly as the religions used throughout history's wars. The problem is no the ideologies or religions but the people that misuse them to manipulate others AND the people who use them as a crutch so they can stop thinking.

@bcglorf @VoodooV
Agreed, I think the late Mr Hitchens has a piece on the 'isms - state religions he calls them.

@shinyblurry 'We had an obligation and a duty to defend the world (and ourselves) from the tryanny of the Nazi regime'

Come on! It took 3 years to decide what side to join and the British were made to pay for EVERY BULLET at triple price. Thats how the US inherited the global empire.

Don't delude yourself that ANY WAR of aggression was EVER fought for ANYTHING other than ECONOMICS.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

@bcglorf @VoodooV
Agreed, I think the late Mr Hitchens has a piece on the 'isms - state religions he calls them.
@shinyblurry 'We had an obligation and a duty to defend the world (and ourselves) from the tryanny of the Nazi regime'
Come on! It took 3 years to decide what side to join and the British were made to pay for EVERY BULLET at triple price. Thats how the US inherited the global empire.
Don't delude yourself that ANY WAR of aggression was EVER fought for ANYTHING other than ECONOMICS.


Absolutely, the Americans were completely selfish in their involvement in WW2, just like every single other nation. I think you are mistaken in suggesting that somehow negates the morality of removing the Nazi regime. Just because the allies were motivated by self-interest doesn't change the fact that their self interest included the ending of one of history's most grotesque and systematic genocides.

Being selfish is just being selfish, for some people that means feeding their neighbour's cat because they like having it come around, for others it means shooting their neighbour's cat because they don't. Both selfish acts, but one is generally good and decent and one is grotesque. Far too many of America's critics want to ignore the alternative in the conflict, and/or think pointing out selfish motive sufficient evidence of malice. Both are critically flawed arguments, but they are repeated endlessly to stir up the masses.

@bcglorf
A rational egoist? Interesting stuff.