The government borrowed massive amounts of money to pay for pretty much every war it's been in. By your logic, we shouldn't have fought the Axis Powers in WWII because that would have put the bill on the backs of others to pay.

Just stop, your arguments fail basic historical examples that prove it's overly simplistic and moronic. By your logic, the government should never borrow money. The US debt is a problem, but to never borrow money is utterly ridiculous.

>> ^bobknight33:

Yes I currently paying a loan on a house.
The difference is that I am not putting that bill on the backs of others to pay.
Our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

>> ^Edgeman2112:
>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.

So you don't have a house?

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.

You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.

Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)

In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?

In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.

>> ^hpqp:

@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.

@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.

So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?

And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fifty, nee ner, alan davies, rich hall, clive anderson, wwII, japan' to 'fifty, nee ner, alan davies, rich hall, clive anderson, wwII, japan, fugo, balloon bombs' - edited by calvados

Doesn't any one remember how the Nazis and brown shirts did this sort of thing to the Jews leading up to WWII?

Assuming Cabaret used valid source material for its book.

Maybe it was a skinhead. They have them in the South, don't they?

@renatojj It's nonsense that lower taxes on the wealthy means they become more productive, that's simply a rumor spread by the rich. The problem with low/no corporate taxes (which is what RP wants) is that over time more and more wealth accumulates in the top bracket and less and less is available to the middle and lower classes, the wealthy then use this money to influence policy making and the problem becomes worse - which is exactly what is happening now. Yes, this is going to happen anyway, but poor tax policy exacerbates it.

If you don't believe me then just look at history: Coolidge became president in 1923 and signed into law the Revenue Act of 1924, the tax rate for the those earning above $10,000 (about $120,000 by today's standards) was only 6%, there was a surtax added to higher incomes but it only crept up very slowly. Guess what happened? 10 years of economic hell for America - otherwise known as the great depression. Guess what kick started the economy? In part higher taxes. For example the highest period of growth for America was when it had the highest tax rate for the upper bracket (91%) - which was during WWII. Once the tax rate's started coming down again, guess what happened to economic growth - right, it slowed.

If you look at one specific person that makes a lot of money, and you double there taxes, it's easy to make the assumption that you are harming them - but a countries economy is far more complex than that and works in ways most economists don't even understand. To assume that you know what is best for American tax policy is ridiculous unless you happen to know more than every other economist on the planet (and same goes for me). What is clear from history though is that lower tax rates on the wealthy do not help the economy grow, that is pure myth that has been perversely thrown out there to misdirect the general population while the wealthy accumulate more and more money.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

As far as the RP - Chile connection - RP's 'free market' approach to education is exactly what has already happened in Chile - this privatization of higher education has resulted in Chile's technical schools, colleges and universities having the "highest costs of higher education of any OECD country and the lowest public expenditure" (from the doco I link below). And the quality of the education? Very poor according to an October Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/node/21531468

Is that what you want to happen to American education?

More info about the issues and protests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Chilean_protests

And I've sifted a documentary on the issue if you want to watch:
http://videosift.com/video/Chile-Rising

And lastly, maldistribution is simply uneven distribution - e.g. according to the NY Times "The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent"

Please justify that to us.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^criticalthud:
@A10anis
WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in.
"Just" is a matter of perspective.
Vast sums were made by war profiteering during the war, but that paled in comparison to the influx of wealth following WWII and american global domination.

For you to say; "WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in." leaves you in the unenviable position of being an utterly ignorant commentator on issues you don't understand. Shush.


really? you think WWI started simply because franz ferdinand was shot, ...or WWII had nothing to do with Hitler's push into the middle east and western russian oilfields? or that vietnam and korea had nothing to do with the collision of economic systems (communist totalitarianism and capitalism). or Iraq has nothing to do with oil and Afghanistan has nothing to do with rare earth deposits? good vs. evil is just fine for star wars and the lord of the rings, but on planet earth, it's about competing economic interests.
"Just" war is another term for wrapping brutality in red white and blue and selling it to the masses.

>> ^criticalthud:

@A10anis
WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in.
"Just" is a matter of perspective.
Vast sums were made by war profiteering during the war, but that paled in comparison to the influx of wealth following WWII and american global domination.


For you to say; "WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in." leaves you in the unenviable position of being an utterly ignorant commentator on issues you don't understand. Shush.

@A10anis
WWII was an economic and resource war. As was every war the US has been in.
"Just" is a matter of perspective.
Vast sums were made by war profiteering during the war, but that paled in comparison to the influx of wealth following WWII and american global domination.

My grandfather who was a bombardier in WWII, is rolling in his grave that I upvoted Hitler.

Yes, excellent stuff.

Robert T Frederick, the first CO of the Devil's Brigade, is my personal hero. Winston Churchill called him "the greatest fighting general of all time" and said "if we had had a dozen more like him we would have smashed Hitler in 1942". His biography, The Last Fighting General is definitely worth a read.

Also quite coincidentally, I found out New Year's Eve that the father of a family friend was in the Devil's Brigade. He hadn't told anyone until shortly before he died... They truly were amazing men.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Complete coincidence, but I just watched "The Devil's Brigade" 3 nights ago. Really great vintage WWII movie, realistic or not.

If you haven't seen it yet I recommend checking it out at your local Bittorrent multiplex.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062886/

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Interesting discussion from someone who knows what he's talking about.

I once got to hold one of the V-42 Fighting Knives issued to the 1st Special Service Force. Amazing being able to hold that kind of historical artifact.

Interestingly, some of the soldiers in the 1st SSF ground down the tips so they didn't get stuck in the ribs when they stabbed someone - the needle tip was making it difficult to kill someone and even more difficult to withdraw the knife.

Complete coincidence, but I just watched "The Devil's Brigade" 3 nights ago. Really great vintage WWII movie, realistic or not.

If you haven't seen it yet I recommend checking it out at your local Bittorrent multiplex.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062886/

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Interesting discussion from someone who knows what he's talking about.

I once got to hold one of the V-42 Fighting Knives issued to the 1st Special Service Force. Amazing being able to hold that kind of historical artifact.

Interestingly, some of the soldiers in the 1st SSF ground down the tips so they didn't get stuck in the ribs when they stabbed someone - the needle tip was making it difficult to kill someone and even more difficult to withdraw the knife.

(top reddit comment) SixBiscuit 368 points 5 hours ago*

Predicting an Iraq war in April 2002 was not exactly difficult or limited to Ron Paul. The rest of the video has a certain amount of horoscope logic to it.

>> A major war... the largest since WWII.

Nope. Iraq is in no way larger than Vietnam even. -- http://www.lies.com/wp/2006/11/05/us-deaths-in-iraq-vs-vietnam-the-handoff/

>> The Karzai government will fail and US involvement will end in Afghanistan

Nope. -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/03/us-afghanistan-election-idUSTRE6320X220100403

>> An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States

Nope. -- http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/fed/key-interest-rates.asp

He is completely off on the scope of what he predicted. The video is manipulative. I'd really like to see a Paul supporter write these out and back them up.

For instance crude oil did shoot up to record highs but not because of an oil embargo. Does he get credit for predicting that? He's half right. Oil shot up because of instability in the region and speculation, not an embargo.

What about what he's left out. If he had such clever predictive powers why isn't Iran mentioned? Iran filling the power vaccum Iraq's destabilization left is something that could have been easily predicted but he doesn't.

Saying that the Arab Spring was the Islamic fundamentalist overthrowing their government is mischaracterizing what happened. Yes Islamic fundamentalist may end up in power in Egypt and Libya but they were not the instigators of the uprisings.

No doubt Ron Paul along with Hunter S. Thompson and a lot of people knew going into Iraq was a terrible fucking idea and would lead to ruin. That doesn't make him some sort of Cassandrian prophet. It means he was one of the few elected officials brave enough to speak out against it. Which is admirable but it hardly makes him alone. Powell believed it was a terrible idea at the time as well but was too chickenshit to stand up and stop it.

I hope this isn't to recreate WWII ocean battle... using M80 firecrackers as depth charge