When the individual, & by extension minority, opinion can be totally ignored by the majority then social stagnation is an inevitable result.
My point is that any particular set of morals is not relevent to what society determines as absolutely right and wrong, which is made up of the consensus morals of all the citizens.
What I have been saying is the notion of slavery (and any other moral choice) are personal. They are not absolutes.
You're playing semantic games that mean nothing. Obviously anyone can believe anything, including that the earth is flag. When we speak of "absolute right and wrongs", we are speaking of societal determinations, not personal determinations. What any particular person believes is irrelevent.
I never said you shouldn't act according to your personal moral center. I just claimed that its not universal.
So then you do think that slavery should be a personal choice?
[RM101] All "rights" and "morals" are artificial constructions of human society. [...][FRB] Sorta contradictory, isn't it?
No. For whatever reason, you are hung up on this word "absolute". Absolute does not mean "The only morals that are absolute are ones that are written in the laws of physics". An absolute moral is one that society has determined is right or wrong, regardless of "local cultural norms". Slavery is one of those.
Morals are not black and white; what you see as a given others will not.
Also not true. For example, if you have a commitment and agreement not to cheat on your wife, then it is absolutely wrong to break that agreement. Note that this has nothing to do with "open marriages" or "it's accepted in some European countries to cheat on your wife". In the former case, there is an alternative agreement, and for the latter there never was an agreement in the first place if the wife is aware that the husband will take advantage of that custom. If the wife thinks that the husband won't take advantage of the custom, then it is still morally wrong regardless of the custom.
If something is an absolute it doesn't need to be "determined."
Absolutely false.
Furthermore, by stating that modern society has determined it to be wrong you imply (correctly) that society at one point thought differently.
Well, frankly, duh. All "rights" and "morals" are artificial constructions of human society. We decide as a society what is right and wrong in order to enhance and maximize civilization. For example, when murder was determined to be wrong, civilization was enhanced. When slavery was outlawed, stable civilization was enhanced.
Or do you think slavery should be allowed as a "cultural difference"? If some African country decided to start selling its citizens to another country, is it none of our business and it's just a "private transaction"?
On a similar subject, I would recommend everyone cut up those combo ATM cards that can be used as debit cards where credit cards can be used. They are bad, bad, bad. The reason? If a credit card is stolen, you can easily dispute the charges when they come in, and no cash comes out of your pocket. If a debit card is stolen, it comes directly out of your account. The banks typically promise that they'll credit back the money "really fast", but it still sucks when your checks bounce, and I wouldn't want to depend on how fast the bank acts.
Cut it up, and ask your bank for a regular ATM card that requires a PIN number.
The important point is that CEOs and sharewhoreders are being judged by their actions, not how they were born.
And that is my point as well. Judge individuals by their actions, not whole groups. Your judgements are like saying "all priests are child molesters". Poeple are not born as priests either, but that would be just as wrong.
It is apparent that you've are lacking experience in this arena, have never worked for a major corporation, and don't pay much attention to what goes on in the world.
Substitute "black people" or "priests" into the statement and it suddenly becomes bigotry and hate speech. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter who the target. If you are making unjust generalizations about a group of people, then that is bigotry. Oh, but the difference is that your generalizations are true, right? All bigots think that their generalizations are true.
When you've tasted more of life, understand human nature, and have an appreciation for the matter at hand, we can continue this discourse.
I am 37 years old, born in the US, have 1 child with another on the way, travelled in many countries in Europe (where my family is from), have worked in some large companies, some small companies, and have started several companies. I've raised significant venture capital ($4.5M first round, $15M second round). I've never worked for a non-profit, but one of my companies worked with colleges and universities, so I know how they work internally.
And no, I wasn't "born into money". Strictly lower-middle class. I've been on all sides of the fence. I daresay I've more experience than you with all the players in the corporate game. That's why I find it particularly offensive that you paint everyone with a broad brush, because I know it's not true from personal experience. I didn't particularly want to start listing credentials because I think the debate stands on its own (I shouldn't have to say "I have a lot of friends who are black people"), but since you are going to dismiss the argument because of a perceived lack of credentials, then it seems I need to.
Now, are some people how you describe? Obviously, yes. Larry Ellison is my favorite punching bag of the prototypical rich jerk that gives all CEOs a bad name. Infamous womenizer, Oracle glass ceilings, the works. But then you get companies like HP, who by all accounts is a great place to work. I know that their corporate education department is one of the best. Hell, Boeing instituted a tuition reimbursement program where they would pay the tuition for any education you want -- work related or not. They would pay for you to get a degree, and reward you with 100 shares of Boeing stock (about $5K a few years ago).
So maybe you should just consider that maybe the whole business world doesn't look like your limited experience.
Say what you will about evil corporate bosses, but at least Billy G had the good sense to keep his mouth shut.
Here's a survey. We're about to elect ruler of the world. The three candidates are 1) Bill Gates, 2) Larry Ellison, or 3) Scott McNealy. Who do you pick?
Personally, I would pick Gates. Microsoft notwithstanding, he seems like the most "down-to-earth" guy who seems like a genuine real guy and family man. Ellison is a known asshole who only cares about himself, although clearly a smart guy. Ellison looks like what I would expect Satan to look like. McNealy is too snide and I've never been impressed that he actually has a clue about anything.:)
I own my information, nobody can collect information about me (unless as an unidentifiable part of an aggregate) unless I explicitly permit it,
I agree with your overall point, but I disagree with this one. Credit agencies, who collect credit information about individuals, are a very necessary evil. First let me say that I don't defend any of the big 3 credit agencies, who for the most part are arrogant, inaccurate, assholes who are badly in need of some reform. That said...
I don't want people to be able to opt-out of credit reporting. If banks couldn't find out what kind of credit risk you are, then rates would go up for all the people with good credit to equalize it out. Personally, I have clean credit and I don't want to have to pay to support a bunch of deadbeats.
And who knows, maybe a national ID would help the accuracy somewhat.
Never-the-less, this argument bit is tiring.. how are you today?
Heh, fine thanks.
OK, tell you what... let's dial back the rhetoric a bit, because I'm really interested in what you think the US should actually do. You've said in other posts that "war isn't the answer", well, what is the answer?
To tell you the truth, it's easy for you to sit there in Canada and say the US shouldn't defend ourselves militarily. Personally, I live on a hill facing Los Angeles about 20 miles away, which is probably #2 on the terrorist hit list. If LA gets nuked or bio-weaponed, my family is dead.
And it isn't as if the US is just marching in unilaterally blowing shit up left and right. First of all, I think you have to give Bush some credit for the restraint he has shown. All indications are that Special Ops troops are going to do most of the work, keeping it very surgical. Bush has been very diligent about keeping everyone in the loop, particularly the other countries of the middle east.
Unless you believe that we should just "suck it up" and ignore it completely, I don't see how you could ask for any more.
Im mostly insulted because you suggest Im transparent and stupid.. Give me a goddamn break.
You're the one that's frothing at the mouth, here. I don't pretend to understand the psychology of people like you who are filled with hatred.
So instead America(TM) should convert the rest of the world into Mindless Consumo-Bots(TM)? Should we play party to your economics of exploitation and destruction? Shall we all welcome the American-Way of living even though it is a laughably shallow and environmentally un-supportable?? One man's Mental McNugget is another mans religion, or hubris laced nationalism...
Talk about Dogma! Do you actually think for yourself, or can you only spew the words of nutcases like Chomsky?
Yes, the American way is about freedom, and our belief that there are certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Funny how almost every country in the world is standing with the US on this. But someone like you is so full of hatred, you can't see that. Everyone else must be blind you scream in frustration, it can't be that you are the one who is blind. It can't be that you are misled by the Chomskys of the world who lie to you in order to enhance their own power.
The "root issues", as you put them, are that Bin Laden wants to make the world Islamic. He hates us because we allow religious freedom. Good god, man, Bin Laden is Hitler reincarnated! Does he need to stage a coup in Saudi Arabia before you think he needs to be stopped? Does he need to nuke a city?
But your seething, spitting, unreasonable hatred of anything American blinds you to the problem that the WORLD faces. If the leaders of almost every other country can see it, why can't you? Maybe you should consider -- just this once -- that maybe you're on the wrong side of this.
P.S. Just out of curiosity, are you capable of saying anything positive politically about the US?
I don't think killing innocent people is a good idea.
This is what is so absurd. Show me who is arguing for killing innocent people. Point me to a government statement. We are talking about taking out the government of Afghanistan, who are protecting the terrorists, no different than trying to take out, say, Hitler's government.
I expect that I would still object to being badgered into attacking a nation of several million poor people on the basis of the alleged actions of one wealthy nut case and his misguided followers.
That's because you are blind to the big picture. You don't seem to be able to accept that this was not an accident, and that certain people have declared war on the United States. People ask how it could be possible for a madman like Hitler to rise to power. Well, look in the mirror and see the answer. If you were in charge, we would just say "Oh well!" when Afghanistan refuses to turn over the terrorist (and meanwhile goes back to business supporting and protecting him), since the "MarkusQ Doctrine" is apparently that we just let it go when someone attacks the country. Then what happens when he manages to stage a coup and takes Saudi Arabia? "Oh well", says MarkusQ, that's the breaks. Oh oh, he's invading other middle east countries.
Um, there's a difference between 6,000 people dying in accidents and 6,000 people being intentionally murdered (not to mention the economic cost).
the media is pumping out to manipulate us into going out and killing a bunch more people is quite another; and I, for one, want no part of it.
Just out of curiosity, how many have to die for you to think it's important? Another 10 jumbo jets? We know the terrorists are actively trying to get nuclear weapons. It should be pretty clear that they don't care how much damage they do or how many people they kill. How many need to die? Would a nuke killing 5 million people be enough for you?
Guess what -- sometimes there are more important things in life than how soon you get your shiny new video game.
I'm just quoting the man himself. The man said "overwhelming force", but specifically said that this is going to be a different kind of war that is going to take force of a lot of different kinds.
Suppose that the Mexican government sponsered suicide bombers to blow up a University in Saudi Arabia. Do you think America would allow 50,000 Saudi troops to land here and invade Mexico?
If Mexico went crazy and started sponsoring terrorism, what would probably happen is that the US would ask Saudi Arabia to allow the US take care of business itself, possibly with some Saudi support. Remember what happened when Iraq started lobbing scuds into Israel -- the US asked Israel to hold off retaliation and allow the US to take the lead (and the PR cost) to keep stability.
And just to address your other point, Ireland is a bit different. The government clearly doesn't sponsor terrorism, although a lot of private citizens do. The difference is that Afghanistan is actively defending and giving safe harbor the terrorist. You can't say that about Ireland, although they could probably do more. I have a feeling more this is done, we will see some cracking down on Irish terrorism. They're just not the highest priority at the moment.
No one claims this is going to be a simple situation, but ironically this might have the effect of pulling together the middle east. Even countries that have sponsored terrorism in the past (e.g., Iran) have to be saying to themselves that they don't want to see them get this powerful. They know that they will be next if they aren't "Islamic enough" for the radicals.
Do you understand that the ignoarance and arrogance in that quote is exactly why the world (me included) can't stand America?
Why don't you explain it to me. It seems like a pretty straightforward statement to me that he wants any action that he takes to be effective, rather than just lobbing in missiles for show.
But given your frothing hatred that you have demonstrated now and in the past, I somewhat doubt that the US could do anything that would satisfy you. Maybe the problem isn't with the US, but with you.
I certainly have heard NO opposition - in any shape or form in any realm.
When jumbo jets are flying into skyscrapers, and we have know that they are actively trying to attain nuclear weapons, then it is time to act. Apparently you think we should just allow them to nuke cities.
I'm sorry, but appeasing them by converting our country to their brand of radical Islam is not an option.
Are the any movements afoot to emulate non-CPU games? I've was looking to download Death Race (1975 game that had you and a partner try to run down as many pedestrians as possible -- whoever mowed down the most, won), and apparently it was made of all discrete components without a CPU. There are apparently a number of machines like that.
I also wonder if it even makes sense to emulate something like that (do you import the schematic?) in a general sort of way, or would you have to write a simulator for each unit.
That new growth would then increase tax revenue. So the argument was that we could cut taxes, and keep spending the same way.
Well, if we had only increased the budget at the rate of inflation, we would have had massive surpluses, but we didn't. To be fair, we put a lot of money into the military (which gets blamed for the deficits), but that's not the whole story.
One of the great "budget secrets" that was instituted in the early 80s (I think) was something called "baseline budgeting". The way it worked was that each budgetary item had an automatic built-in increase every year, like say 15%. Then congress could pass only, say, 12% and go back to their constituents and brag about "cutting spending". Of course, the actual budget is still increasing way beyond inflation. I'm not sure if they're still doing it. It was highly criticized in the early 90s, but the economic growth over the past years kind of muted the criticism.
I think that the way budgets were allocated was one of the reasons why spending went out of control, because each department didn't have to justify their increase. And actually, here is where I will criticism my buddy Reagan. He did what he said he would do -- cut taxes and increase revenues. But that was only one side of the equation. He let spending get out of control. Now, congress was of course controlled by the Democrats (who create the budgets), so Reagan only had so much control, but I think he could have done a lot more than he did. Congress is to fundamentally blame, since they have that responsibility, but I don't have any expectation of Democrats (particularly the brand of the 80s) to be able to control themselves fiscally when all sorts of new money is pouring in.:)
If it did, then why not take it to it's logical conclusions - Cut taxes to 1%.
Remember the Laffer Curve that got so much attention at the time? It's really very simple. It's a graph of taxes versus tax revenues. At 0% taxes, you obviously have zero revenues. But at 100% taxes, you also have zero revenues, because you have no capital left in the economy to generate more revenue. But in the middle, you have an optimum point that maximumizes revenues to the government. Laffer's point was that taxes were too high in the early 1980s, and growth would be stimulated by keeping more capital in the economy.
So you can't always cut taxes to generate more revenues, although you will likely generate more economic growth due to the added capital. And increasing taxes can generate more revenues, altough slow the economy.
While it didn't stay that high for long, it did hover at an average of about 5% for that entire period. if A1=100, A2=105...Then in 1990, what was worth 100$ in 1980 was now only worth only 45$.
Maybe you should break out a calculator. 5% inflation over 10 years is (1.05)^10 = 1.63, not 2.0 (or more, since you claim $45).
Beyond that, the Reagan tax cuts didn't take effect until 1982. Please review this chart of the Consumer Price Index. From 1980 to 1990, the inflation rate is (130.7/82.4)^(1/10) = 4.72% annualized rate. From 1982 to 1990, the inflation rate is (130.7/96.5)^(1/8) = 3.86% annualized rate.
The simpler way to look at it is that from 1982-1990, the CPI increased (130.7/96.5) = 35%, while government revenues increased 67% (which admittedly is also not 2.0).
Incidently, here's a Cato institute study that I googled. Lots of interesting numbers.
You seem to have very strong opinions, and expect people to believe them simply by insulting others, and being generally mean spirited:P
No, I expect people to believe them because they're right.:)
I believe the US Government would be completely right to invade Afghanistan with massive and overwhelming force.
Strong as my opinions are, I have to say that I simply don't know what the best strategy for Afghanistan is. My anger says that we should just go balls to the wall, invade the country and take care of business, but my brain says that it's probably prudent to surgical strike them to death. It should be extremely interesting to see how Bush handles this. The one thing you have to give him credit for is patience. He obviously knows that a lot of people think he's a dufus, and the easiest thing to do would be to order air strikes just to show people that he's "doing something" and try to enhance his image. I think it's remarkable that he obviously doesn't care about his image and is really taking the time and trying to do something that will actually be effective.
Perhaps my writings are a bit extreme, but after working in a Fortune 10 company, these views were born and nurtured through what I have seen and experienced on the job.
Yeah, if it's like that for one company, it must be the same way for all companies.
Just like if one black person is a criminal, all black people are criminals.
As for you little list of salaries, maybe I'm weird, but I don't begrudge other people their money. I just don't feel this envy that other people seem to feel. That they make a lot of money has absolutely no bearing on how much money I make.
And because I'm not an expert on economics, I should probably not mention that I think a massive tax cut to stimulate the economy, so we can collect even more taxes in the future, is probably not the best of ideas. I mean, we didn't rack up massive government debt in the 1982-1992 period because of that or anything.
Um, revenues to the government nearly doubled during the 1980s after the Reagan tax cuts. Look it up. (OMG! The Democrats lied about the results of the Reagan tax cuts???). Given that your knowledge of this is absolutely wrong, maybe you should reexamine some of your other beliefs, which are mostly likely erroneous as well.
The other posters point is that maybe you should not just assume that the government is automatically wrong when you don't have any facts to actually make intelligent arguments why their wrong, particularly when we don't even fully know what the strategy is going to be yet.
A report in TIME 2 weeks ago on featuring Powell spoke to the fact that Powell has been sidelined in the Bush administration. While everyone thought Powell would be Bush's point man on Defense and Foreign affairs, it has turned out that Powell does not have Bush's ear.
I think we need to pretty much forget everything before the terrorist attack. I think everyone has Bush's ear at this point, particularly Powell with his military experience.
The best evidence that Bush is not going to do anything rash is the fact that he has shown good, perhaps even remarkable, restraint. He clearly wants to have all his ducks in a row before acting.
Also remember the "Powell Doctrine": Go in with overwhelming force. On CNN the other day, he addressed this and said that he believes that, but also this war is going to take overwhelming force of all kinds, not just military.
Slashdot Mirror
When the individual, & by extension minority, opinion can be totally ignored by the majority then social stagnation is an inevitable result.
My point is that any particular set of morals is not relevent to what society determines as absolutely right and wrong, which is made up of the consensus morals of all the citizens.
Murder is wrong, except when a cop shoots a lawbreaker, or you execute a criminal, etc.
Murder is always wrong, killing is not necessarily wrong. They are not the same.
Slavery is wrong, except when you put prisoners to work. And it's not different just because they're criminals.
Imprisonment is not slavery. These words have specific definitions. The state does not "own" prisoners. The state does not buy and sell prisoners.
What I have been saying is the notion of slavery (and any other moral choice) are personal. They are not absolutes.
You're playing semantic games that mean nothing. Obviously anyone can believe anything, including that the earth is flag. When we speak of "absolute right and wrongs", we are speaking of societal determinations, not personal determinations. What any particular person believes is irrelevent.
I never said you shouldn't act according to your personal moral center. I just claimed that its not universal.
So then you do think that slavery should be a personal choice?
[RM101] All "rights" and "morals" are artificial constructions of human society. [...][FRB] Sorta contradictory, isn't it?
No. For whatever reason, you are hung up on this word "absolute". Absolute does not mean "The only morals that are absolute are ones that are written in the laws of physics". An absolute moral is one that society has determined is right or wrong, regardless of "local cultural norms". Slavery is one of those.
Morals are not black and white; what you see as a given others will not.
Also not true. For example, if you have a commitment and agreement not to cheat on your wife, then it is absolutely wrong to break that agreement. Note that this has nothing to do with "open marriages" or "it's accepted in some European countries to cheat on your wife". In the former case, there is an alternative agreement, and for the latter there never was an agreement in the first place if the wife is aware that the husband will take advantage of that custom. If the wife thinks that the husband won't take advantage of the custom, then it is still morally wrong regardless of the custom.
If something is an absolute it doesn't need to be "determined."
Absolutely false.
Furthermore, by stating that modern society has determined it to be wrong you imply (correctly) that society at one point thought differently.
Well, frankly, duh. All "rights" and "morals" are artificial constructions of human society. We decide as a society what is right and wrong in order to enhance and maximize civilization. For example, when murder was determined to be wrong, civilization was enhanced. When slavery was outlawed, stable civilization was enhanced.
Or do you think slavery should be allowed as a "cultural difference"? If some African country decided to start selling its citizens to another country, is it none of our business and it's just a "private transaction"?
Religion is irrelevent to the question of absolute right and wrong. People who mix them -- on either side of the argument -- are off base.
For example, slavery has been determined to be an absolute wrong by modern society.
On a similar subject, I would recommend everyone cut up those combo ATM cards that can be used as debit cards where credit cards can be used. They are bad, bad, bad. The reason? If a credit card is stolen, you can easily dispute the charges when they come in, and no cash comes out of your pocket. If a debit card is stolen, it comes directly out of your account. The banks typically promise that they'll credit back the money "really fast", but it still sucks when your checks bounce, and I wouldn't want to depend on how fast the bank acts.
Cut it up, and ask your bank for a regular ATM card that requires a PIN number.
The important point is that CEOs and sharewhoreders are being judged by their actions, not how they were born.
And that is my point as well. Judge individuals by their actions, not whole groups. Your judgements are like saying "all priests are child molesters". Poeple are not born as priests either, but that would be just as wrong.
It is apparent that you've are lacking experience in this arena, have never worked for a major corporation, and don't pay much attention to what goes on in the world.
Substitute "black people" or "priests" into the statement and it suddenly becomes bigotry and hate speech. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter who the target. If you are making unjust generalizations about a group of people, then that is bigotry. Oh, but the difference is that your generalizations are true, right? All bigots think that their generalizations are true.
When you've tasted more of life, understand human nature, and have an appreciation for the matter at hand, we can continue this discourse.
I am 37 years old, born in the US, have 1 child with another on the way, travelled in many countries in Europe (where my family is from), have worked in some large companies, some small companies, and have started several companies. I've raised significant venture capital ($4.5M first round, $15M second round). I've never worked for a non-profit, but one of my companies worked with colleges and universities, so I know how they work internally.
And no, I wasn't "born into money". Strictly lower-middle class. I've been on all sides of the fence. I daresay I've more experience than you with all the players in the corporate game. That's why I find it particularly offensive that you paint everyone with a broad brush, because I know it's not true from personal experience. I didn't particularly want to start listing credentials because I think the debate stands on its own (I shouldn't have to say "I have a lot of friends who are black people"), but since you are going to dismiss the argument because of a perceived lack of credentials, then it seems I need to.
Now, are some people how you describe? Obviously, yes. Larry Ellison is my favorite punching bag of the prototypical rich jerk that gives all CEOs a bad name. Infamous womenizer, Oracle glass ceilings, the works. But then you get companies like HP, who by all accounts is a great place to work. I know that their corporate education department is one of the best. Hell, Boeing instituted a tuition reimbursement program where they would pay the tuition for any education you want -- work related or not. They would pay for you to get a degree, and reward you with 100 shares of Boeing stock (about $5K a few years ago).
So maybe you should just consider that maybe the whole business world doesn't look like your limited experience.
Say what you will about evil corporate bosses, but at least Billy G had the good sense to keep his mouth shut.
Here's a survey. We're about to elect ruler of the world. The three candidates are 1) Bill Gates, 2) Larry Ellison, or 3) Scott McNealy. Who do you pick?
Personally, I would pick Gates. Microsoft notwithstanding, he seems like the most "down-to-earth" guy who seems like a genuine real guy and family man. Ellison is a known asshole who only cares about himself, although clearly a smart guy. Ellison looks like what I would expect Satan to look like. McNealy is too snide and I've never been impressed that he actually has a clue about anything. :)
I own my information, nobody can collect information about me (unless as an unidentifiable part of an aggregate) unless I explicitly permit it,
I agree with your overall point, but I disagree with this one. Credit agencies, who collect credit information about individuals, are a very necessary evil. First let me say that I don't defend any of the big 3 credit agencies, who for the most part are arrogant, inaccurate, assholes who are badly in need of some reform. That said...
I don't want people to be able to opt-out of credit reporting. If banks couldn't find out what kind of credit risk you are, then rates would go up for all the people with good credit to equalize it out. Personally, I have clean credit and I don't want to have to pay to support a bunch of deadbeats.
And who knows, maybe a national ID would help the accuracy somewhat.
Never-the-less, this argument bit is tiring.. how are you today?
Heh, fine thanks.
OK, tell you what... let's dial back the rhetoric a bit, because I'm really interested in what you think the US should actually do. You've said in other posts that "war isn't the answer", well, what is the answer?
To tell you the truth, it's easy for you to sit there in Canada and say the US shouldn't defend ourselves militarily. Personally, I live on a hill facing Los Angeles about 20 miles away, which is probably #2 on the terrorist hit list. If LA gets nuked or bio-weaponed, my family is dead.
And it isn't as if the US is just marching in unilaterally blowing shit up left and right. First of all, I think you have to give Bush some credit for the restraint he has shown. All indications are that Special Ops troops are going to do most of the work, keeping it very surgical. Bush has been very diligent about keeping everyone in the loop, particularly the other countries of the middle east.
Unless you believe that we should just "suck it up" and ignore it completely, I don't see how you could ask for any more.
Im mostly insulted because you suggest Im transparent and stupid.. Give me a goddamn break.
You're the one that's frothing at the mouth, here. I don't pretend to understand the psychology of people like you who are filled with hatred.
So instead America(TM) should convert the rest of the world into Mindless Consumo-Bots(TM)? Should we play party to your economics of exploitation and destruction? Shall we all welcome the American-Way of living even though it is a laughably shallow and environmentally un-supportable?? One man's Mental McNugget is another mans religion, or hubris laced nationalism...
Talk about Dogma! Do you actually think for yourself, or can you only spew the words of nutcases like Chomsky?
Yes, the American way is about freedom, and our belief that there are certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Funny how almost every country in the world is standing with the US on this. But someone like you is so full of hatred, you can't see that. Everyone else must be blind you scream in frustration, it can't be that you are the one who is blind. It can't be that you are misled by the Chomskys of the world who lie to you in order to enhance their own power.
The "root issues", as you put them, are that Bin Laden wants to make the world Islamic. He hates us because we allow religious freedom. Good god, man, Bin Laden is Hitler reincarnated! Does he need to stage a coup in Saudi Arabia before you think he needs to be stopped? Does he need to nuke a city?
But your seething, spitting, unreasonable hatred of anything American blinds you to the problem that the WORLD faces. If the leaders of almost every other country can see it, why can't you? Maybe you should consider -- just this once -- that maybe you're on the wrong side of this.
P.S. Just out of curiosity, are you capable of saying anything positive politically about the US?
I don't think killing innocent people is a good idea.
This is what is so absurd. Show me who is arguing for killing innocent people. Point me to a government statement. We are talking about taking out the government of Afghanistan, who are protecting the terrorists, no different than trying to take out, say, Hitler's government.
I expect that I would still object to being badgered into attacking a nation of several million poor people on the basis of the alleged actions of one wealthy nut case and his misguided followers.
That's because you are blind to the big picture. You don't seem to be able to accept that this was not an accident, and that certain people have declared war on the United States. People ask how it could be possible for a madman like Hitler to rise to power. Well, look in the mirror and see the answer. If you were in charge, we would just say "Oh well!" when Afghanistan refuses to turn over the terrorist (and meanwhile goes back to business supporting and protecting him), since the "MarkusQ Doctrine" is apparently that we just let it go when someone attacks the country. Then what happens when he manages to stage a coup and takes Saudi Arabia? "Oh well", says MarkusQ, that's the breaks. Oh oh, he's invading other middle east countries.
But hey, Hitler was just a fluke, right?
Exactly when did the American government finance the IRA?
Um, there's a difference between 6,000 people dying in accidents and 6,000 people being intentionally murdered (not to mention the economic cost).
the media is pumping out to manipulate us into going out and killing a bunch more people is quite another; and I, for one, want no part of it.
Just out of curiosity, how many have to die for you to think it's important? Another 10 jumbo jets? We know the terrorists are actively trying to get nuclear weapons. It should be pretty clear that they don't care how much damage they do or how many people they kill. How many need to die? Would a nuke killing 5 million people be enough for you?
Guess what -- sometimes there are more important things in life than how soon you get your shiny new video game.
I'm just quoting the man himself. The man said "overwhelming force", but specifically said that this is going to be a different kind of war that is going to take force of a lot of different kinds.
Suppose that the Mexican government sponsered suicide bombers to blow up a University in Saudi Arabia. Do you think America would allow 50,000 Saudi troops to land here and invade Mexico?
If Mexico went crazy and started sponsoring terrorism, what would probably happen is that the US would ask Saudi Arabia to allow the US take care of business itself, possibly with some Saudi support. Remember what happened when Iraq started lobbing scuds into Israel -- the US asked Israel to hold off retaliation and allow the US to take the lead (and the PR cost) to keep stability.
And just to address your other point, Ireland is a bit different. The government clearly doesn't sponsor terrorism, although a lot of private citizens do. The difference is that Afghanistan is actively defending and giving safe harbor the terrorist. You can't say that about Ireland, although they could probably do more. I have a feeling more this is done, we will see some cracking down on Irish terrorism. They're just not the highest priority at the moment.
No one claims this is going to be a simple situation, but ironically this might have the effect of pulling together the middle east. Even countries that have sponsored terrorism in the past (e.g., Iran) have to be saying to themselves that they don't want to see them get this powerful. They know that they will be next if they aren't "Islamic enough" for the radicals.
Do you understand that the ignoarance and arrogance in that quote is exactly why the world (me included) can't stand America?
Why don't you explain it to me. It seems like a pretty straightforward statement to me that he wants any action that he takes to be effective, rather than just lobbing in missiles for show.
But given your frothing hatred that you have demonstrated now and in the past, I somewhat doubt that the US could do anything that would satisfy you. Maybe the problem isn't with the US, but with you.
I certainly have heard NO opposition - in any shape or form in any realm.
When jumbo jets are flying into skyscrapers, and we have know that they are actively trying to attain nuclear weapons, then it is time to act. Apparently you think we should just allow them to nuke cities.
I'm sorry, but appeasing them by converting our country to their brand of radical Islam is not an option.
Are the any movements afoot to emulate non-CPU games? I've was looking to download Death Race (1975 game that had you and a partner try to run down as many pedestrians as possible -- whoever mowed down the most, won), and apparently it was made of all discrete components without a CPU. There are apparently a number of machines like that.
I also wonder if it even makes sense to emulate something like that (do you import the schematic?) in a general sort of way, or would you have to write a simulator for each unit.
That new growth would then increase tax revenue. So the argument was that we could cut taxes, and keep spending the same way.
Well, if we had only increased the budget at the rate of inflation, we would have had massive surpluses, but we didn't. To be fair, we put a lot of money into the military (which gets blamed for the deficits), but that's not the whole story.
One of the great "budget secrets" that was instituted in the early 80s (I think) was something called "baseline budgeting". The way it worked was that each budgetary item had an automatic built-in increase every year, like say 15%. Then congress could pass only, say, 12% and go back to their constituents and brag about "cutting spending". Of course, the actual budget is still increasing way beyond inflation. I'm not sure if they're still doing it. It was highly criticized in the early 90s, but the economic growth over the past years kind of muted the criticism.
I think that the way budgets were allocated was one of the reasons why spending went out of control, because each department didn't have to justify their increase. And actually, here is where I will criticism my buddy Reagan. He did what he said he would do -- cut taxes and increase revenues. But that was only one side of the equation. He let spending get out of control. Now, congress was of course controlled by the Democrats (who create the budgets), so Reagan only had so much control, but I think he could have done a lot more than he did. Congress is to fundamentally blame, since they have that responsibility, but I don't have any expectation of Democrats (particularly the brand of the 80s) to be able to control themselves fiscally when all sorts of new money is pouring in. :)
If it did, then why not take it to it's logical conclusions - Cut taxes to 1%.
Remember the Laffer Curve that got so much attention at the time? It's really very simple. It's a graph of taxes versus tax revenues. At 0% taxes, you obviously have zero revenues. But at 100% taxes, you also have zero revenues, because you have no capital left in the economy to generate more revenue. But in the middle, you have an optimum point that maximumizes revenues to the government. Laffer's point was that taxes were too high in the early 1980s, and growth would be stimulated by keeping more capital in the economy.
So you can't always cut taxes to generate more revenues, although you will likely generate more economic growth due to the added capital. And increasing taxes can generate more revenues, altough slow the economy.
While it didn't stay that high for long, it did hover at an average of about 5% for that entire period. if A1=100, A2=105...Then in 1990, what was worth 100$ in 1980 was now only worth only 45$.
Maybe you should break out a calculator. 5% inflation over 10 years is (1.05)^10 = 1.63, not 2.0 (or more, since you claim $45).
Beyond that, the Reagan tax cuts didn't take effect until 1982. Please review this chart of the Consumer Price Index. From 1980 to 1990, the inflation rate is (130.7/82.4)^(1/10) = 4.72% annualized rate. From 1982 to 1990, the inflation rate is (130.7/96.5)^(1/8) = 3.86% annualized rate.
The simpler way to look at it is that from 1982-1990, the CPI increased (130.7/96.5) = 35%, while government revenues increased 67% (which admittedly is also not 2.0).
Incidently, here's a Cato institute study that I googled. Lots of interesting numbers.
You seem to have very strong opinions, and expect people to believe them simply by insulting others, and being generally mean spirited:P
No, I expect people to believe them because they're right. :)
I believe the US Government would be completely right to invade Afghanistan with massive and overwhelming force.
Strong as my opinions are, I have to say that I simply don't know what the best strategy for Afghanistan is. My anger says that we should just go balls to the wall, invade the country and take care of business, but my brain says that it's probably prudent to surgical strike them to death. It should be extremely interesting to see how Bush handles this. The one thing you have to give him credit for is patience. He obviously knows that a lot of people think he's a dufus, and the easiest thing to do would be to order air strikes just to show people that he's "doing something" and try to enhance his image. I think it's remarkable that he obviously doesn't care about his image and is really taking the time and trying to do something that will actually be effective.
Perhaps my writings are a bit extreme, but after working in a Fortune 10 company, these views were born and nurtured through what I have seen and experienced on the job.
Yeah, if it's like that for one company, it must be the same way for all companies.
Just like if one black person is a criminal, all black people are criminals.
As for you little list of salaries, maybe I'm weird, but I don't begrudge other people their money. I just don't feel this envy that other people seem to feel. That they make a lot of money has absolutely no bearing on how much money I make.
But I guess I'm just weird that way.
And because I'm not an expert on economics, I should probably not mention that I think a massive tax cut to stimulate the economy, so we can collect even more taxes in the future, is probably not the best of ideas. I mean, we didn't rack up massive government debt in the 1982-1992 period because of that or anything.
Um, revenues to the government nearly doubled during the 1980s after the Reagan tax cuts. Look it up. (OMG! The Democrats lied about the results of the Reagan tax cuts???). Given that your knowledge of this is absolutely wrong, maybe you should reexamine some of your other beliefs, which are mostly likely erroneous as well.
The other posters point is that maybe you should not just assume that the government is automatically wrong when you don't have any facts to actually make intelligent arguments why their wrong, particularly when we don't even fully know what the strategy is going to be yet.
A report in TIME 2 weeks ago on featuring Powell spoke to the fact that Powell has been sidelined in the Bush administration. While everyone thought Powell would be Bush's point man on Defense and Foreign affairs, it has turned out that Powell does not have Bush's ear.
I think we need to pretty much forget everything before the terrorist attack. I think everyone has Bush's ear at this point, particularly Powell with his military experience.
The best evidence that Bush is not going to do anything rash is the fact that he has shown good, perhaps even remarkable, restraint. He clearly wants to have all his ducks in a row before acting.
Also remember the "Powell Doctrine": Go in with overwhelming force. On CNN the other day, he addressed this and said that he believes that, but also this war is going to take overwhelming force of all kinds, not just military.