Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on March 20, 2007, 07:12:54 pm
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17696092/
-
So about not racking up the deficit even higher and spending more on the war... :blah:
There are two ways to look at this: either this is the most brilliant idea someone can have, or it is possibly one of the worst. On one hand, you have legislation to fund the war going through, but bought with smaller packages of benefits for all sorts of groups. On the other hand, you have a bill put through Congress not because of the war, but because of smaller packages of benefits for all sorts of groups.
The legislation should be about the Iraq War, or not at all. The one thing I hate about political parties here in the States is clearly penetrating into legislation as well; you vote for one principle or idea, but strongly oppose another, you're screwed, because it's a package deal. Frankly, it's stupid for a politician to do this to get legislation passed.
On the plus side, at least Congress isn't getting anything done. And smaller, ineffecient government is awesome.
-
And this is the very reason why the line-item veto would make a very handy constitutional amendment. (Provided the chief executive utilized it wisely, of course.)
-
1. It's a bill to end the war. It is good.
2. Anything that funds the rebuilding of New Orleans is good.
-
I'm telling you people, Ron Paul is your only hope for sane government. Go assassinate every other potential candidate, which just to be safe should include every prominent Democrat and Republican above the level of city counselor, cause that's the only way he's going to get elected.
-
Can't find anything about him other than that he's a republican and that he doesn't depend on corporate money. Enlighten us please?
-
He's anti big government. Which in today's political climate, when both parties have a marriage of convenience when it comes to increasing the size, scope and power of the government, both at home and abroad, probably makes him the most hated man on the Hill.
Think libertarian, and then think about a dude who walks the walk as well as talks the talk. For one, he's anti Iraq war. In fact, anti-interventionism in general. Anti PATRIOT ACT. I vaguely remember him being anti War on Drugs. Basically, any and all grandiose projects which rob the citizens of either their money or their freedoms.
-
Yeah, but would I be correct in thinking that he's also anti-regulation, anti-welfare, and basically anti-social programs in general?
-
Yeah, but would I be correct in thinking that he's also anti-regulation, anti-welfare, and basically anti-social programs in general?
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
Property should be owned by people, not government.
All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
So it seems... still considering where they are going, they're not going to have enough funds to run any of those for a fair ammount of time.
-
1. It's a bill to end the war. It is good.
2. Anything that funds the rebuilding of New Orleans is good.
It is unethical at its core. A bill to end the war should be just that. This is just paying off states and districts for their support.
-
1. It's a bill to end the war. It is good.
2. Anything that funds the rebuilding of New Orleans is good.
It is unethical at its core. A bill to end the war should be just that. This is just paying off states and districts for their support.
I find that whole notion - inserting unrelated 'sweeteners' to controversial legislation or adding controversial stuff as sidebits to bills hard to vote against (like tagging The Horrible Repression Act into the Sweet Fuzzy Kittens For Cute Orphans Bill - to be one of the worst aspects of the US political system. That, and the whole thing about picking names that make anacronyms like 'PATRIOT' just because it makes it easier to pass the bill to the great unwashed masses.
-
It is unethical at its core. A bill to end the war should be just that. This is just paying off states and districts for their support.
You may not like it, but that's just the way politics works, that's the way politics has always worked, and it's the way politics will always work.
-
So it seems... still considering where they are going, they're not going to have enough funds to run any of those for a fair ammount of time.
Regardless, I will not vote for someone who basically thinks the government's two jobs are delivering mail and raising an army. In this new age of big-government conservatism, I'm afraid that a lot of liberals are going to forget that small-government conservatism still sucks balls.
-
1. It's a bill to end the war. It is good.
2. Anything that funds the rebuilding of New Orleans is good.
I knew the GTVA did something wrong when they didnt pass a bill to end the war with the Shivans.
(GTVA being the US Coalition. Shivans being the islamofacist xenophobes)
-
1. It's a bill to end the war. It is good.
2. Anything that funds the rebuilding of New Orleans is good.
I knew the GTVA did something wrong when they didnt pass a bill to end the war with the Shivans.
(GTVA being the US Coalition. Shivans being the islamofacist xenophobes)
Remind me which side has the ludicrous stereotyping and simplistic black and white rhetoric?
I mean, I can see the analogy - the Shivans, like 'islamofacists' invade the GTVA (US) with massively overwhelming forces, killing millions of civillian and military to occupy space, and are only defeated through a combination of guerilla warfare and a near-suicidal attack on their biggest 'target'.
-
2. Anything that funds the rebuilding of New Orleans is good.
I dunno. It could be more efficient and sensible to simply build a new city to somewhere, you know, above the sea level?
Thinking about the future, it's likely that since it was flooded once it will be again. And also thinking that as they have to practically rebuild the city anyway, why not do the same job somewhere where they won't be drowned again in another five or ten years?
-
It is unethical at its core. A bill to end the war should be just that. This is just paying off states and districts for their support.
You may not like it, but that's just the way politics works, that's the way politics has always worked, and it's the way politics will always work.
As I recall it is this type of stuff that the democrats decried. This is the same sort of stuff that also cost the republicans the election(Among other things, like Iraq).
-
It is unethical at its core. A bill to end the war should be just that. This is just paying off states and districts for their support.
You may not like it, but that's just the way politics works, that's the way politics has always worked, and it's the way politics will always work.
As I recall it is this type of stuff that the democrats decried. This is the same sort of stuff that also cost the republicans the election(Among other things, like Iraq).
Exactly. They also decried partisan bickering and one-sided action in Congress, but look where they've gotten so far.
-
1. It's a bill to end the war. It is good.
2. Anything that funds the rebuilding of New Orleans is good.
I knew the GTVA did something wrong when they didnt pass a bill to end the war with the Shivans.
(GTVA being the US Coalition. Shivans being the islamofacist xenophobes)
Remind me which side has the ludicrous stereotyping and simplistic black and white rhetoric?
I mean, I can see the analogy - the Shivans, like 'islamofacists' invade the GTVA (US) with massively overwhelming forces, killing millions of civillian and military to occupy space, and are only defeated through a combination of guerilla warfare and a near-suicidal attack on their biggest 'target'.
aldo wins. flawless victory.
-
Regardless, I will not vote for someone who basically thinks the government's two jobs are delivering mail and raising an army. In this new age of big-government conservatism, I'm afraid that a lot of liberals are going to forget that small-government conservatism still sucks balls.
Fair enough. But small-government conservativism, if it's the real kind, sounds a hell of a lot better than big-government warfare and small-government welfare. The Democrats have long since dropped anything but the most token of welfare policies, and have simultaneously embraced (or more accurately, continued to embrace) war abroad, so are they a better alternative? Their only redeeming quality is picking nations small enough to put up a fight as the target of their imperial campaigns.
Face it: no matter how much you hope and pray, the Democratic party won't suddenly turn from a frog into a prince. You're not going to get European-style social democracy, so you might as well curtail the more destructive powers the government possess. Better to have neither warfare nor welfare instead of plenty of the former and none of the latter, which is exactly what both big parties offer.
-
Maybe New Orleans should pay to rebuild New Orleans. I frakking hate that place. Some of the stories I've heard just make me want to bomb the floodwalls all over again, without any warning.
-
I lost what little respect I had for New Orleans when they started shooting at rescue helicopters.
-
Quote from: aldo_14 on March 21, 2007, 04:51:43 PM
Quote from: DeepSpace9er on March 21, 2007, 04:33:27 PM
Quote
1. It's a bill to end the war. It is good.
2. Anything that funds the rebuilding of New Orleans is good.
I knew the GTVA did something wrong when they didnt pass a bill to end the war with the Shivans.
(GTVA being the US Coalition. Shivans being the islamofacist xenophobes)
Remind me which side has the ludicrous stereotyping and simplistic black and white rhetoric?
I mean, I can see the analogy - the Shivans, like 'islamofacists' invade the GTVA (US) with massively overwhelming forces, killing millions of civillian and military to occupy space, and are only defeated through a combination of guerilla warfare and a near-suicidal attack on their biggest 'target'.
aldo wins. flawless victory.
There are many millions of them worldwide who would do just that given half the chance. The point i was making is that wars arnt won by the winning side deciding to end it, they are won by forcing the loser to surrender. Passing a bill to end the war without forcing the enemy to surrender is losing.
Of course the GTVA was the winning side.. they had Alpha 1.
-
There are many millions of them worldwide who would do just that given half the chance. The point i was making is that wars arnt won by the winning side deciding to end it, they are won by forcing the loser to surrender. Passing a bill to end the war without forcing the enemy to surrender is losing.
Right now there's no real way to "win" in Iraq; the best we can do is establish a stable government and allow the Iraqis to take it from there. On that same note, there's never going to be a genuine "end" to the War on Terror as we've seen in Vietnam, World War II, or even the Cold War. The first few were wars of people versus people, nations versus nations, with a distinct goal in sight that would allow one side or the other to win (i.e. forcing the Communists to withdraw from Vietnam, causing the collapse of either the US or the Soviet Union during the Cold War).
The War on Terror is purely a war of ideas, and ideas, as V for Vendetta stated, are bulletproof. You can only expect to win a war of ideas by convincing the other side that they're wrong, not by beating them senseless or killing them all. If this were a war purely against Saddam's regime, or purely against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, then we really would have won a long time ago. It isn't though. We're dealing with a much larger force; an idea, not an enemy.
-
Yep, this thread sucks. A lot.
So, what do we all drink these days? Water?
-
Yep, this thread sucks. A lot.
So, what do we all drink these days? Water?
Sweet tea, actually. Lots of coffee in the morning, then sweet tea throughout the day.
Unless I'm at the movies. In that case, it's coke after it's had a while to get the fizz out. Don't you hate it when you down a lot of coke at once, then burp later and it burns your nose?
-
Eh, I'm paranoid about caffeine ruining my memory.
-
Don't you hate it when you down a lot of coke at once, then burp later and it burns your nose?
I kinda like that, actually. I find it somehow satisfying.
I've been drinking a lot more orange juice lately, in my small effort to reduce the amount of high fructose corn syrup I consume.
That and Starbucks lattes, 'cause they're like an orgasm for your mouth.
-
And that, my friends, is a textbook derailment.
-
Eh, I'm paranoid about caffeine ruining my memory.
I didn't really like my pre-third grade years anyway. :) Don't you hate it when you down a lot of coke at once, then burp later and it burns your nose?
I kinda like that, actually. I find it somehow satisfying.
I've been drinking a lot more orange juice lately, in my small effort to reduce the amount of high fructose corn syrup I consume.
That and Starbucks lattes, 'cause they're like an orgasm for your mouth.
I go for the Starbucks mochas, actually. Specifically white chocolate.
Orange juice is good, though. It and milk counters the horrendous taste of coffee at 6 am.
-
And in the name of all that is good and civil, should the next politics thread also suck, then it shall also be derailed.
-
Yeah, I think they went along with it cause nobody cared. Cheers to derailment of crap.