The regions of which you speak belong to another era. Villages out there take days to walk to along mountain trails in some of the highest mountain ranges in the world. Is similiar to a lot of terrain in Afghanistan. Natural forts.

They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare. Every kid is handed a gun as soon as he's old enough to shoot and raised to abide by the honour code (pashtunwali, yes they even have a name for it). When the tribe is under attack, you don't question right or wrong, you defend the tribe. They're no electricity, television, newspapers, literacy, or any other medium that counters this message. I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Couple that with the decades of training provided in the arts of guerilla warfare; including drug running, weapons manufacture, crude bomb manufacture, etc. by the CIA and ISI during the cold war and the Soviet invasion, means they are a force to be reckoned with as the US is finding out in Afghanistan.

Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family. Most of the country is similarly undeveloped (as in people still live like 3000 years ago undeveloped) and backwards. Bringing them into the modern era is a long term project but there's a 150 million more people on that waiting list.

Since the war on terror Pakistan has taken a serious beating. This was supposed to be our decade of growth instead the economy is in shambles. We've been through yet another round of Western supported, foreign policy obsessed, military dictator leaving our civil institutions in shambles. We've lost around 4 thousand soldiers another 8.5 wounded. 40 thousand civilians killed and 3.5 million internal refugees (dirt poor and starving variety).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Those are big numbers, people are angry. The Americans are unlikely to win in Afghanistan. They're putting tribe against tribe. All this talk of democracy vs. extremism/terrorism is not something the average Afghan understands. The average Afghan is illiterate and does not understand complex ideas. He understands this: foreigners, christian army, my tribe has chosen this side because we always hated those other fuckers anyways. Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

From the Pakistani perspective the War on Terror has been a disaster. It's solved nothing and created tenfold the problem it aimed to solve. The Afghans are a primitive bunch (made more so by warfare) and need to establish a government, after which they will slowly over time, maybe a century, join the civilized world. Pakistan wholeheartedly supported the Taliban (as did the US) when they took control of the country and brought peace to it. Warfare is the real bitch not how "extreme" they are. Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

Now the government/military of Pakistan is in a tricky situation, we have to play both sides, thus the lack of trust. Either side has the ability to seriously take Pakistan on and bring it to it's knees. The government the American's have propped up in Kabul wouldn't last a month without them, is corrupt, and allied to the Indians, with whom we see ourselves as being in a state of justified war. What to do!? What to do!? (in a indian accent).

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

Sorry that was a long post





>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^FermitTheKrog:
Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.


Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.
Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.
I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.
I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.
Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

I think they missed the more interesting part of the interview, where she deflected on a question of "would you appoint an openly gay judge?". To me, that's a fair, substantive question - and her ridiculous evasive answer makes her position pretty clear. Either she's straight up homophobic, or relying on the votes of homophobes who would not want a gay judge.

Either possibility is really embarrassing at this point. I'm also disappointed when interviewers aren't better prepared for ridiculous stonewalling - he could have done better at forcing this point.

American politics is such a shambles right now; either they're morons or so desperate to get a piece of the moron vote, that they'll persist in utter nonsense while their country falls apart. This is a prime example, as was the "birther" tragi-comedy. And it's not just Republicans.

Remember the obvious fake Rather-gate Bush memos? It was ridiculous the lengths people went to to avoid writing them off, either (again) because they were credulous morons or they weren't sure whether there would be enough other credulous that it would be worth holding out hope.

USA, please get your crap together - it's messing up the whole world.

Believe me I'm not arguing that Saddam nor Gaddafi were nice guys. I making the distinction between a country being run by a corrupt leader, and destroying a country because of their corrupt leader. In my opinion Gaddafi didn't suddenly become more of a threat after his speech. In fact, he did what almost EVERY country on the face of the planet would do when faced with an armed uprising (this includes the US and the UK). There are other issues at play here also, such as why Burmese, Rwandan, Ivory Coast, Kenyan, North Korean, Saudi, Bahraini leaders deserve more respect than Iraqi and Libyan (oil rich) leaders.

By UN estimates the US killed 100,000 Iraqis (civilians and soldiers)in the first Gulf War. Other estimates show countless thousands died due to the sanctions in the 90s, and god knows how many in the last Iraq War disaster. The entire infrastructure of the Iraqi state has been in shambles for 20 years. In fact, they went from the most modern, secular, arab state to a destroyed wreck of a country. I strongly feel that a 70 year old Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to the Iraqi people than the US war was. In my opinion time would have been a much kinder ally to the Iraqis than the US was. Though I understand your point about the Kurds, realistically anything said about Iraq could easily be said about Turkey, one of our biggest allies.

"As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?" I guess my answer to you is yes. Foreign policy consistency across the board would go a long way towards stopping dictators from betting that they will get away with human-rights crimes. Inconsistency is not going to help anyone.

Thanks for you civil and informed answer. Just so you know, I probably won't have the time to respond again any time soon.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.


like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context
Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.
In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.
The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.
You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.
Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.
As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

Great man indeed. The French team is still in shambles without his leadership....

@RedSky

There is an old legend about a Sensei who provides instruction to his students for free. As the months go by, the students start to feel guilty for not compensating their instructor, so they offer to pay him. When approached, the Sensei replies, "If I were to charge you, you couldn't afford me".

Teaching is a calling. No one goes into teaching to become rich, they do it because they believe it provides a valuable social service. When you throw 'merit pay' into the equation, it changes this dynamic. It cheapens the interaction. Whatever pittance that would be offered would be insulting compared to the amount of time and effort teachers spend on and off campus.

If you are doing it right, there should be a sense among schools, teachers and students that they are all in it together as a team, all striving to be the best they can be and cheering their peers to do the same. There would be nothing worse for this kind of camaraderie than to throw a roll of quarters on the ground and ask them to fight over it. In the private sector, where value is measured in dollars, fighting over loose change is part of the game, but to introduce this kind of game theory into what should be a supportive and nurturing environment couldn't be more wrong headed. When Coke and Pepsi fight, the consumer wins; when students, teachers, schools and districts start duking it out, we all lose (and corporations win says issy astutely). You can't solve social problems with market solutions.

Competition is not part of the soul of education. Sure, you find competitive elements in sports, arts competitions, science team, etc., but the point of education is not to 'win'. The point of education is to learn, and more specifically, to 'learn how to learn'. Tests are about winning and losing and do nothing to promote critical thinking or a greater understanding of the world we live in. Sure, you need tests to gauge progress, but when you make testing the center piece of the educational experience, you fail in the bigger picture.

Education should be about critical thinking, about asking questions and about preparing students to be intelligent and thoughtful adults, who will hopefully one day make this world a better place. To fill their heads (or their teacher's heads) with the motivating factors of greed, selfishness and fear is no way to make this world a better place.

berticus turned me on to a great book that is helping me to understand this debate better (among other things). It's not a book about education or politics per se. It's about the psychology that governs our decisions and interactions. The book is called 'Predictably Irrational' by Dan Ariely. You'd like it.

I've done a lot of teaching in many different contexts; one-on-one instruction, coaching small groups and directing big ones. When you do a good job, it is its own rewards, when you do a bad job, it is its own punishment. No amount of money in the world can give you the feeling of changing someones life for the better, and no amount of salary in the world can spare you the shame of failing a student.

It frustrates me that people want to force education into the shallow mold of markets. We've been at it for a decade now and our educational system is still in shambles. Heck, market solutions have fucked up nearly every aspect of our country, from jobs to banks to mortgage fraud to war to poverty. Enough is enough.

@residue

Backstory is that karl pilkington has a huge cult following amongst people in the know. He met gervais and merchant working at XFM radio station (small local london station) which gervais did as a favour to someone who gave him a job early in his life.

Since then, gervais has mercilessly taken the piss out of karl. Karl is unique in that he's the only person in the world who's both the stupidest person ever and a complete and utter genius.

They made loads of radio shows and loads of podcasts, then they made an idiot abroad. The format basically goes like this: Karl says something rediculous, gervais and merchant take the piss out of him. They often ask him questions which he has no chance of understanding just to see what stupid things he'll say. He is fascinated by anything different (such as warrick, the elephant man, gay people, siamese twins, ANYTHING different to your average human), he's entranced by monkies and thinks that monkies are basically humans who can't speak properly.

He used to come up with pathetic game shows in which he'd come up with clues that he'd label cryptic (to gervais' chagrin) where he'd give a clue and a pair of initials, and you would have to guess what band or artist name he was referring to, it amounted to this;
"The jamaican fellow is swinging a fish around his head, DS"
-- Detroit Spinners (The trout spinners, in a jamaican accent - de trout spinners)
"I told the gay man that the grape tree was mine, MG"
-- Marvin Gaye (My vine, gay)

The radio show was an absolute shambles, it was barely even a radio show and more a case of 3 blokes having a chat in a pub with a microphone left running. And i will say with certainty that i have never laughed so hard or so much at any kind of comedy. I'd say gervais' BEST work is the podcasts and radio shows he did with pilkington.

During the course of the podcasts, pilkington has dropped MANY clangers and had many more catchphrases - gervais uses a lot of references to karl in his work. For example whenever gervais wants to play his 'arrogant jerk' routine he refers to a gay person he says "little gay fellow", because it's inherently condescending. That's actually something he got off karl who refers to EVERY diversity as "little <x> fellow" - little gay fellows, little chinese fellows, little gay chinese fellows, little disabled fellows and very particularly "little midget fellow".

So.....gervais introduced him to warrick. And they've talked about warrick on the radio show/podcasts before.

Edit:
Might actually post this as a sift talk so people know who the new guy on the sift is.

Thank god they used Ausies and not Americans!
>> ^Unsung_Hero:

For once, one of these "lets interview tons of people but edit out all the right answers and keep the few people who don't know in it", actually puts some of the people getting the answer right in!! Thank god... and to think nearly 70% of Australians still believe it takes 365 days to go around the sun. Their education system must be in shambles.

For once, one of these "lets interview tons of people but edit out all the right answers and keep the few people who don't know in it", actually puts some of the people getting the answer right in!! Thank god... and to think nearly 70% of Australians still believe it takes 365 days to go around the sun. Their education system must be in shambles.

>> ^moodonia:
Heh, I'm almost finished "System Shock 2", released in 1999, and easily one of the best games I ever played, then its on to BioShock 1.
So I'll be enjoying Bioshock 3 sometime in 2026


Have you gotten to the point where a shambling mess creeps up behind and scares the living shit out of you?

Oh wait, that happens the WHOLE damn game. What gets me, is they did it all without using the Monster Closets™ Doom3 devolved into.

It is a commentary on his lack of experience...

Sure Winstonfield, sure.

In the last 18 months these RADICALS...

Have you ever considered that you are the radical (or reactionary)? Is it possible that paranoid gubmint hating god fearing folks are the nutjobs? Any objective view Obama suggests he is still very much right of center, even if it doesn't fit into your worldview. It takes a certain kind of true-believer to suggest Obama is nearing communist territory - and a healthy disregard for political scaling or measurement. Ask anyone who isn't a partisan or teabagger. Better yet, ask anyone from a different country. They'll tell you. Hyperbole is so much more fun though, right?

doubling down on leftist economics, europe in shambles, right-wing economics to the rescue

Even Britain's Conservatives are wild-eyed radicals in your mind. Federal money for kid's hospices? Communist!!!

Please...
Lousy polling?

45.7% after a months-long oil spill....this man is clearly hated by the country and 'Real Americans'TM are clearly lined up against him.

I guess in your mind the following numbers are proof positive of a complete outrage on behalf of 'Real Americans'TM? Or does this suggest that maybe Americans enjoy government intervention?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/Verdict-Healthcare-Reform-Bill-Divided.aspx

And what's this? Majority of Americans support the creation of a public option? Heresy!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/185853.asp

I can't tell if you really believe all this, or just like to fuck with people. I don't know which scenario I dislike more.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

gotta love the understated racism (man-child)
Incorrect. It is a commentary on his lack of experience, his spoiled & selfish behavior, and his general lack of any ability to actually deal with opposing ideas with any degree of maturity. But false accusations of racism when faced with opposition is a tradition on the left - as we've seen all too often lately.
the hyperbole (radicals)
In the last 18 months these radicals have implemented a plan to ration health care, quadrupled the national debt, established huge unconstitutional increases in federal power over finance and other industries - all against the will of the people. Bailouts, industry takeovers, tax increases, cap & tax, amnesty, health care reform, and on and on and on - all things solidly opposed by a 2/3 majority of the people (or higher). This administration and congress is the most left-wing, radical, out of step clot of extremists that this nation has ever seen in positions of power. The only people that 'like' what they're doing is the 25-30% or so of the country that occupies the far left. Conservatives, Repubicans, and Independents are roundly rejecting everything these radicals are doing - and they make up 65-70% of America.
the blanket portrayals of Europeans as poverty-stricken communists
While Obama & the other radicals are doubling down with leftist economics - Europe is doing the opposite. Greece, Italy, Spain, Britain, Germany - day after day the stories pile up about how they are turning to 'privitization' in order to save themselves from fiscal disasters. It isn't that they're poverty-stricken communists. It is that they have followed the misguided principles of leftist economics, and now they turning to capitalism to pull themselves out of the hole... All while the Man-Child is doing the opposite and putting American further in debt in a time of economic turmoil & trouble. Says something, don't it?
And the rhetorical attacks on Obama (how's his polling these days?
Pretty lousy - actually...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_ob
ama_job_approval-1044.html
Isn't there majority support for Health Care reform? Isn't there still majority support for a Public Option?
In NeoLib-Lala-Land maybe, but not on planet Earth. The only thing there is 'majority support' for is for repealing the bill.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten
t/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010453-503544.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/2
8/poll-finds-low-enthusiasm-high-skepticism-for-health-care-overh/
Folks on the left need to learn a lesson quickly. YOU ARE THE FRINGE. The left likes to walk around thinking they are mainstream and popular. You aren't. Leftist policy and philosophy is radical and unpopular. And when you try to ram it down people's throats it makes you even more radical and unpopular. Leftism isn't compassion. It is cruel. Leftism doesn't lead to prosperity or tolerance. It leads to poverty and balkanization.

To lower the deficit really falls in to one of three choices. None of them are good or easy; or otherwise, that choice would have been enacted long ago and the issue of a deficit wouldn't have come up.

A) Cut spending of the federal budget.

To really cut the deficit down, one has to state how fast it has to be cut down. That will largely dictate how much spending has to decrease. Tea Baggers/Republicans want it immediately, and Democrats would like it down quickly. Neither side will come to a resolution on this issue, unless they make cuts higher in the stuff they want to keep 'as is'. For the moment, Republicans have to come forward first, and they have real guts to cut their spending. Everyone knows this will not happen, whether they control goverment or not. And hence, this concept will NEVER see the light of day, let alone, a fighting chance to work.

B) Print more money by the Federal Reserve.

Yes, we print boat loads of money. This would pay of the debt REALLY fast, but the strength of the dollar to ALL world currencies would be laughable. Our economy would be literally in shambles. We would not suffer from just inflation for decades (yes, DECADES), but would suffer moments of hyper-inflation. This has also been suggested by Republicans, and I think even you can figure out this process doesnt work.

C) Raise Taxes

That's right, political suicide for any law-maker. Raising taxes, to be directly applied to the deficit, for the purpose of paying it down over a decade or so, will NEVER work. Republicans are not known for their long term financial planning (i.e. see Health Care Reform). Republican's concept of 'long term' is 3-4 years. Democrats, its about 15-30 years.

Tea baggers, want revenue to go down, which would cause spending to go down, and because of this, would cause the deficit to go down. This is 1st grader mathematics. Instead of $4 to pay a bill over, 12 years, on something that costs, $48; Tea Baggers want to pay $1 over 5 years, to pay $48. Why do you think liberals are just amazed at the lack of education displayed in Tea Baggers, and Republicans at large these days?

Excellent point. The potential punishment should be displayed alongside the vote.

However, if you do that and the punishment was very mild... well... would you be more inclined to vote 'punish'?

Anyway, given how 50/50 people seem to be on the issue and the fact that the voting is so close it sounds like it's always going to be a shambles. You're always going to get an equal share of for and against responses in every siftquisition... and like @Sarzy said, this place has been very drama-free for a few months now. Do we really want to bring back controversy and arguments?>> ^rottenseed:
Without knowing the punishments, I have a hard time deciding if I will vote on their guilt. It sounds stupid, but I'd hate to vote "yes" thinking they broke a minor infraction according to the rules, then have the admins ban that person. There should be guidelines. What punishments fit what crime...and you should display the potential outcome of the sifter should he or she be voted guilty.

Maybe one day people will figure out there is no right and left, there is only business, the arguments just create a diversion.

Hm - only PARTLY correct. There is no right and left, there is only BIG GOVERNMENT. The arguments are just a diversion.

In his desire to have a Bi-Partisan government, he didn't push the Supermajority, to ramrod through all of the things he promised

Sigh. No. Just no. Obama is making the exact same mistake Bush did. He thought his popularity was so high that he could cram an UNPOPULAR agenda down everyone's throat with the co-operation of a lick-spittle Congress.

After 9/11 Bush was crazy popular. The radical left still hated him, but public support was high. So Bush decided to spend his political capital on an agenda that was NOT popular - the Iraq War. No one every was convinced that Iraq was worth going to war over. It wasn't popular. The political left saw this and jumped on the bandwagon. The left didn't 'create' anti-war hate. They just took shameless advantage of it. Bush kept pushing, went over the heads of the people, and did whatever he wanted because he had the Congress. Having Congress doing what he wanted (against public opinion) eroded his popularity badly until he left office a lame-duck with a legacy in shambles.

Barak Obama is doing the EXACT same thing. After election he was crazy popular. The radical right hated him, but public support was high. So Obama decided to spend his political capital on an agenda that is NOT POPULAR (Health Care, Cap & Tax, etc...). Polls are sour on his crappy health care plan, his cap & tax and a bazillion other things he's done. His stimulus plans have not accomplished jack, and people are steamed because all his 'shovel ready' jobs have resulted in nothing but higher unemployement. But Obama keeps pushing, against the will of the American people, and does whatever he wants because he has Congress. And doing whatever you want in the face of public opinion is a road to losing Congress, becoming a lame-duck one-termer and leaving office with a legacy in shambles.

Obama's only hope is to ditch his radical agenda and start focusing on what the people WANT instead of what HE wants.

Yes the world would be idyllic to be sure if everyone was a devout christian... NOT!

First of all the world would be in shambles after all the major religions fought with each other and eventually Christianity wiped out every single society that doesn't hold Christianity as a state religion and put to death anyone who wasn't completely devout. Then perhaps there would be peace.

That is until the different factions and denominations of Christianity realized they disagree with each other, and the world war would start again.

And if that wouldn't be the biggest example of Fascism ever, I don't know what would be.


Really, what a ludicrous statement. I once asked a devout christian if the world would be better if every human within it was exactly the same, a copy of Adam and Eve. Without even thinking he told me 'Absolutely YES!' lol.

And is it just me or did Dawkin's points just fly right over O'reilly's head?

I was under the impression that your reasoning was this:

any search return that doesn't have the original right at the top is an absolute shambles and an insult

I wanted to point out the fact that the reason that Pink Floyd and all of their songs do not exist on this program is due to the fact that Spotify is a legitimate free streaming music program, and have not obtained the rights to those songs. Blame companies like RIAA, whom are the ones responsible(not the programmers of Spotify)!

I just wanted to tell you that Spotify as a program is great! If it doesn't have your tastes in music I'm sorry, but that's not Spotify's fault.