As a partial answer to myself, I found this showing that indeed, Iraq did, at least to this point, cost more than the Stan. I guess that does make since as there was an actual army that needed killing there and an entire urban warfare scene that got out of control. In my reading, though, it does talk about logistics being a MAJOR problem in the Stan. For every dollar you want to spend there, you have to spend even more dollars to get that money on the ground...more so than Iraq which is just a drive up the road from Kuwait. Which means that out of that 400 billion spent on the Stan, much less of that money was spent on actually fighting than in Iraq, the Stan is a very ineffective war in comparison. Like Napoleon invading Russia, or the Soviet Union in.... Afghanistan (sigh), this is a great war to spend lots of money doing very little. On a positive note, I guess, this is the last spinning war plate. Well, that is until we decide to hurl missiles at some other person we don't like, in the name of freedom of course.

>> ^NetRunner:

Touche. I guess I tend to think that the whole use of Godwin's law as an internet meme isn't quite so narrowly or rigidly defined.
Seems a shame to let people making inappropriate Stalin/Soviet Union comparisons off the hook though. "Guilt by association fallacy channel" just doesn't have the same ring.


Godwin's Law is of very specific, narrow scope and is often referenced in situations where it doesn't technically apply. Almost any video will be exempt from Godwin's Law because the law only applies to internet discussions. The only exception I can think of would be a situation where, say, two youtubers were arguing back and forth via video and one of them invoked Nazis.

So on one hand, I think there's something to your idea of having a channel dedicated to Reductio ad Hitlerum-style arguments and statements. But on the other hand, even though "Godwin" is a compact and catchy name for it, it probably can't ever be accurate.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I agree but then you're the one who just suggested godwin should "include any hyperbolic comparison to a totalitarian dictator (and/or his regime) though, and not narrowly limited to Hitler/Nazi comparisons."

Touche. I guess I tend to think that the whole use of Godwin's law as an internet meme isn't quite so narrowly or rigidly defined.

Seems a shame to let people making inappropriate Stalin/Soviet Union comparisons off the hook though. "Guilt by association fallacy channel" just doesn't have the same ring.

A. Obama isn't a socialist.

He sure as hell isn't a free market capitalist and is no supporter of individual rights. His answer to every problem is higher taxes (if he had the balls to confess it's his goal) more spending and MOAR government.

B. Socialism doesn't always fail.

Historically it's been around in one form or another and sooner or later always falls prey to human nature. Private property rights are the bane of socialists.

C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.

Not on paper, but that's what it ends up being. The State > Individual at all times. Rights that can be revoked by the State at any time due to not being natural born rights are a fraud.

D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.

Semantics. When the State owns all property, they own you. When the State dictates who may or may not receive health care, they own you.

E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.

Also answering Jigga----I made no claim of a full analysis with pie graphs---the point is this: Russia has far more natural resources than the United States, yet communism failed. Shitty state-made products (tech stolen from USA), long lines for basic staples like bread and gulags for critics.

F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead.

Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Social Security started as protection for a very small part of the populace and expanded to cover more and more year after year. The original architects of Medicare and Medicaid probably didn't imagine leviathan programs losing 60 billion dollars a year to fraud, waste and abuse. But here we are!

Why wouldn't I share the wonderful leftist vision of the future? Because the left measures social programs based on what they're supposed to do, not how well they do. The left also views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This fugue is played every day 'round here. "The rich are evil because their gains are ill-gotten, the poor are innocent victims of exploitation."

You're fooling yourselves if you think taxing the evil rich at 90% tomorrow will change anything. This isn't 1950. The evil rich will simply transfer the bulk of their wealth, investing in other countries. Why would anyone have an incentive to start businesses or create jobs if the federal mafia is going to confiscate most of their profits?

And hero, your little dig at the end of your post indicates you don't have much faith in your answers.


Hey gang, you're skeptical about these candidates? I'm here to tell you I'm not buying what you're selling either. I don't trust the results of the left's good intentions or even that their intentions are good.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.
Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).
The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.
Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.
The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

Many countries the world over import grain because of fiscal reasons but it's a little more complicated than you might think. The real problem is getting water. See this story:


http://www.npr.org/2011/08/12/139579616/feeding-a-hotter-more-crowded-planet

Snippet: "The reason for that is the - is that it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce one ton of grain. So if you need to import water, the most efficient way to do it is with grain."

A. Obama isn't a socialist.
B. Socialism doesn't always fail.
C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.
D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.
E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.
F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead. Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Seriously....

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.
Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).
The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.
Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.
The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.

Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).

The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.

Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.

The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

>> ^Skeeve:

1. No, you're missing the point. Being "the source of some good" is not reason enough to support them. If we all followed that logic we should have supported the Soviet Union because they were less sexist than the USA, or the Nazis because they started the first anti-smoking campaigns. Because an organization does something good does not excuse them from the harm they do. There are a plethora of animal welfare associations that do not have blood on their hands. Support them, not PETA.
2. Thanks for the outburst in your last sentence. You prove the long-standing belief that PETA supporters would rather murder a human than see animals disrespected.
3. As I have just invoked Godwin's Law I will refrain from further discussion, good day.
>> ^Yogi:

Again Fuck Off. You don't know shit and you haven't done any fucking research about how many animals have been tortured and killed. Animal testing has done good things as well...THATS A SHADE OF FUCKING GRAY LIKE I WAS TALKING ABOUT!
You're just a moron painting them with one fucking brush...like all their supporters and even members agree with everything they do. I know plenty of people who have worked at PETA and they never agreed with everything they do but they have been a source of some good and have brought the plight of animal torture and maiming to the forefront of public debate.
If you can't understand these BASIC FUCKING CONCEPTS Than I will just fucking Kill you! I WILL FUCKING EAT YOUR HEART!



Finally someone who knows how to Fuck Off.

1. No, you're missing the point. Being "the source of some good" is not reason enough to support them. If we all followed that logic we should have supported the Soviet Union because they were less sexist than the USA, or the Nazis because they started the first anti-smoking campaigns. Because an organization does something good does not excuse them from the harm they do. There are a plethora of animal welfare associations that do not have blood on their hands. Support them, not PETA.

2. Thanks for the outburst in your last sentence. You prove the long-standing belief that PETA supporters would rather murder a human than see animals disrespected.

3. As I have just invoked Godwin's Law I will refrain from further discussion, good day.
>> ^Yogi:


Again Fuck Off. You don't know shit and you haven't done any fucking research about how many animals have been tortured and killed. Animal testing has done good things as well...THATS A SHADE OF FUCKING GRAY LIKE I WAS TALKING ABOUT!
You're just a moron painting them with one fucking brush...like all their supporters and even members agree with everything they do. I know plenty of people who have worked at PETA and they never agreed with everything they do but they have been a source of some good and have brought the plight of animal torture and maiming to the forefront of public debate.
If you can't understand these BASIC FUCKING CONCEPTS Than I will just fucking Kill you! I WILL FUCKING EAT YOUR HEART!

>> ^NetRunner:

I get that this was a segment taken from a longer conversation, but I come away from this having no idea what his position on the manned space program was.
Yes, the manned program isn't, and never was really about science. Wasn't that always obvious? Especially in the 60's and 70's, we were calling it the "Space Race", and only just barely shying away from openly calling it a front in the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
But I'd like to know, does he think we're better off without it than with it? I get the impression he thinks the manned program was a waste of time and money from this clip.
He's no Carl Sagan if he thinks that!


If it doesn't help us it is a waste of money. We need answers to serious questions not expensive ways to get pilots who call themselves astronauts laid.

I get that this was a segment taken from a longer conversation, but I come away from this having no idea what his position on the manned space program was.

Yes, the manned program isn't, and never was really about science. Wasn't that always obvious? Especially in the 60's and 70's, we were calling it the "Space Race", and only just barely shying away from openly calling it a front in the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

But I'd like to know, does he think we're better off without it than with it? I get the impression he thinks the manned program was a waste of time and money from this clip.

He's no Carl Sagan if he thinks that!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

I'm suggesting you join the No State Project and support the thousands of other people who have realized that governments are nothing more that controlling, self-important groups of monkeys playing some game with arbitrary rules.

Like I said, I'm not really all that interested in implementing some radical right-wing ideology.

Even if I were to grant the central flawed premise (government is the root of all evil), no one's ever given me a plausible reason to believe that any stateless society wouldn't turn into one with a state rather quickly.

I have the a similar view about the people far to my left who want to abolish money and markets. Even the Soviet Union wasn't able to prevent a black market from forming -- the incentives to trade are too great, and the means to execute a trade too simple to ever stop it.

Same goes with government. The incentives to form one are too great, and the means to operate one are so ridiculously simple, even children do it.

That's why my interest in politics isn't to try to knock over the table, but to refine both markets and governments so they maximize human welfare.

there were some great pieces of engineering created in the Soviet Union.


It's just too bad they then had no money for the maintenance.

Big government is bad. I also agree with you.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Military dictatorships are bad. I agree with you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Nazi Germany? Maoist China? Soviet Union? Reality agrees. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.