And yes, his economic policy is BS. Ask an economist. Ask the Japanese.
This is not the time or the place to debate this, and I really don't want to get into it, but let me just say this: Consider that tax cuts CAN and HAVE stimulated economies. Reasonable people can disagree on policies, but don't dismiss tax cuts out of hand as a very powerful stimulus.
P.S. Never trust an economist on macroeconomic policy.:)
The terrorists don't give a shit about our civil liberties. The do care about creating disunity, because they hope that it will cause us to lose political will, and give in to their "demands".
Exactly where did I say he should be silenced? RMS is perfectly within his rights to be a jerk. But just because someone has the right say something doesn't mean what he has to say has any value.
However, his economic policies are BS, and his 'election' was a sham.
Fine, believe that all you want. But what does that have to do with the terrorist attacks, and what our response should be?
The question is not whether you believe Bush was legitimately elected or not. The question is whether it's appropriate the question it at this time, and in this context.
The election is done. There are more important matters to attend to.
Just as I suspected, you believe in capitalism based on flimsy and unscientific arguments.
The problem with people like you is that no argument is strong enough. You have decided that Capitalism is a root of evil, and no evidence is going to overturn your faith. I could present incentive arguments, that people work harder when they get direct benefits, and it wouldn't be enough for you. I could present history, that the railroads built by capitalism are possibly the greatest single advancement in ending starvation in history, and it wouldn't be enough for you. I could show you ambition destroyed by multi-generation welfare recipients, and it wouldn't be enough. Hell, I could give you France, and it wouldn't be enough.
In short, when you can show some success stories of non-capitalist systems working, then you might have an argument. At this point, all you have to show is abject failure and arguments that it "just hasn't been done right yet".
Your extraordinary claims demand the extraordinary evidence.
And what about the other lesson from World War II? Civil liberties were suspended on a scale that is unimaginable today. Yet, they came back, didn't they? I think history teaches us that the US has a very strong democracy. I think the US government has earned the right to a little slack and trust.
Now that it is too late to prevent the tragedy, is bombing the only possible response to being bombed?
If you review what the government is saying, no one is saying that "bombing is the only possible response". However, the world has fundamentally changed. We have made a commitment to end terrorism as we know it, and the roots of this are in the countries that harbor terrorist and support terrorism.
To be honest, not one bomb has to fall if all the countries of the world made a pact to root out terrorism. But so far, the Taliban have refused to hand of bin Laden. If they are going to make their bed, they are going to have to sleep in it. Sanctions are not the right answer when jumbo jets are flying into skyscrapers.
Is it only coincidence that there is dramatically less starvation in capitalist countries (the starvation rate in the US, for example, is zero) than in other countries?
Poor, displaced farmers are more vulnerable to droughts etc. than rich farmers, for one thing.
It's not just "rich" farmers that are less vulnerable. The problem with anti-capitalists such as yourself is that you only see two categories "rich" and "poor". A middle class farmer is dramatically better off than a poor farmer. Capitalism is what provides an escape for the poor farmer to become a middle class farmer, and yes, a rich farmer.
Where you don't have capitalism, all you have is the "poor masses" and a very few extremely wealthy people that have been chosen among themselves.
Yet dogmatic "free market" views always seem to be based on ignorance, or worse, self-contradictory.
I don't have to be "dogmatic", I only have to look at the success record of capitalism, and the abject failure of, say, the Soviet Union.
Talk about brainwashed! You have been brainwashed by the silly militia-mentality that thinks the US government is a bigger enemy than the terrorists. Hitler liked dogs, does that many all dog ownership is bad? What's your point? Can patriotism be used against people? Obviously. But unless you can actually make a case for it being used by the US government for the purposes that are cited, maybe you should cut them a little slack.
Show me this mythical survey that shows "70% of americans are calling for tactical nukes". 70% are certainly calling for bombing raids.
Instead of being so relentlessly pessimistic, why don't you look at the fact that this has the potential to unite the world? In fact, I could argue that it has united it remarkably already. Before this incident, could you imagine Iran using the supportive language they have used with regard to the US? It's unprecedented.
No one thinks these "rethought relationships" are not going to be complicated. But things change -- you only have to look at our relationship with Russia to believe that.
I personally see this as a great opportunity. I think even states like Iran saw what happened and had to say to themselves that things are out of control. Even states that have sponsored terrorism in the past don't want to see them get this powerful.
Why don't you read back what you wrote, and realize how racist it is. Even if we were going to bomb indiscriminately like you seem to wrongly believe, not all Arabs all psychopathic mass murderers. The vast, silent, fearful majority would thank us for ending terrorism.
Most people would rather live and let starve, it seems. Sad...
Most people would rather live and help others become self-sufficient. Sure, the world could feed everyone today. The world might even be able to feed everyone tomorrow, but we can't feed everyone forever.
The reason people starve is not because of unequal distribution of wealth, it's because of unequal distribution of capitalism (not my phrase, not sure who said it).
World hunger will end when political entities allow it to end. It's not because the rest of the world is mean.
Why, however, with all its touting of modernism, does it not initiate an action to save the 10 million women who have no schools or social presence and are trapped under the burqa?
Because, as powerful as the US is, we can't save the world. We can't just dump money on every country. What about all the poor african countries? What about all the poor South American countries?
He is right about one thing: We help countries that are part of our National Interest. We do that for obvious reasons.
But there are other countries that we help, and no one should forget it: countries that are struggling toward freedom. If Afghanistan wanted our help, all they have to do institute freedom and democracy. Money would come flowing down as if from heaven. We would help build their economy and launch them on the road to prosperity.
Don't believe it? That's exactly what we did for Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Talk about forgiveness. [p.s. not that Russia still doesn't have huge problems...]
Just out of curiosity, what will it take for you to think we should do something? Exactly how many more jumbo jets hitting skyscrapers? How about a nuke hitting New York? Would 10 million deaths be enough for you?
Pardon me if I don't think we should wait for that happen.
and I sure as hell am not going to let my government turn into even just a tiny bit of what I fought against even if it does it with the best of intentions.
EXACTLY what I am talking about. What you are really saying is that "I am sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices even just a time bit, even if it's done with tbe best of intentions.
That's what I found so offensive about this story. Our parents and grandparents made huge sacrifices for this country, and I don't see the same willingness in this generation.
I understand that the Slashdot editors believe they are "protecting what America's all about, and America is about civil liberties", but what I see is selfishness and an unwillingness to sacrifice in a time of war.
to say someone is disrespecting the dead for wishing to maximize or maintain liberty is really uncalled for.
My offense is with the tone of the story. That the Slashdot editors pay lip service to the people who died, but are really concerned about themselves. As has been proven in history, difficult times often require difficult measures. It seems to me that the Slashdot editors are not willing to give even the smallest sacrifice to win a war.
Our parents and grandparents made huge sacrifices for OUR freedom. I hope that our generation is able to do the same for the next generations, rather than the selfishness I see here.
That is an incredibly offensive statement. You may not agree with various US policies, but to compare the US government to Hitler's government is just abject bullshit.
A lot of countries have used their military to enslave their population. Does that mean we should disband the military just in case the US government decides to go crazy?
We declared it on "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks". Just because we are going to name names later doesn't make it less of a declaration.
Do a little research into the sacrifices that our grandparents and parents had to make during World War II to preserve your peace, freedom and liberty. Speech restrictions? How about food restrictions and travel restrictions. Note that after the war, civil liberties came back.
How many more jet liners have to smash into skyscrapers before people think that there other priorities right now? Will it take a nuke hitting a city? I thought Colin Powell made an interesting statement this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists don't care how many people they kill. The only thing holding them back is the technology they have available." After this week, does anyone doubt this reasoning?
To many people don't seem to be able to contemplate the fact that this is not an accident, it is not just an isolated incident, it is not just a single strike to "send a message". Unless we act, this WILL happen again, and next time it might be an even bigger scale.
WE ARE AT WAR. I think this story is to spit on the graves of everyone who died this week.
I wonder how long it would have taken Hitler to conquer the world if Slashdot editors were in charge.
If you'd study history, it has never succeeded. Firstly, the enemy is hidden, so you have no idea whatsoever, who's a terrorist and who's not.
To be frank, we have never tried. Yes, we've blown up a few camps, but we have never had a sustained attack on them. What we have especially never done is hold the countries that support, foster and harbor terrorism accountable.
Bin Laden doesn't have a country per se, but he does have a lot of countries that indirectly -- or even directly -- support him. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he is a military arm of several countries.
Secondly, that force creates anger and that anger fuels terrorism.
To be honest with you, I think that is a somewhat racist statement. The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims are not "time bombs" waiting for the right catalyst to turn themselves into psychopathic mass murderers. I think the most Arabs and Muslims are a "fearful majority" that hate the fact that their countries foster terrorism. I think far more Arabs will applaud any US action (silently, of course) than will condemn it.
Yes, we might never be able to eliminate the lone suicide bomber with a stick of dynamite. But we CAN stop state-sponsored terrorism. We can stop their financing. We can stop the world-wide organizations.
And we need to stop it now before more jet liners hit more skyscrapers. I think too many people are thinking this is just an isolated incident, and it's not going to happen again. It WILL happen again, unless we act to stop. And next time, it might not be a jet, it might be a nuke. These people have proven that they have absolutely no regard for scale of damage.
Well, the whole question of "what constitutes declaring war" has been a debate in the US for a long time. The constitution says that congress has the power to declare war, so my personal feeling is that if congress passes a war powers act authorizing war (particularly when they specifically use the word "war"), then they have pretty much declared it.
I don't think we've had any new recent legal definitions, but if you have something, post a link.
Now is exactly the time to worry about civil liberties and the natural tendency to curtail them.
You no nothing of sacrifice. Why don't you take a look at your grandparent's generation and what they sacrificed so that you we have freedom and liberty today. It's not just mamby-pamby speech restrictions (although they had those), we're talking travel restrictions, food restrictions. Freakin' automobile factories became airplane factories!
Let me make a suggestion, and I mean this seriously to anyone who hasn't really looked into it: pick a few books about World War II. You might think you understand the prices that have been paid by our past generations, but I guarantee you don't or you wouldn't have posted this message.
Civil liberties don't mean a damn if we have people bent on destroying us. I quoted this in another post, but I think it bears repeating. Colin Powell said something interesting this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists do not care how many people they kill. The scale of their attacks is limited only by their technology." Is it going to take a nuke in New York before you think there are something things that just might be more important at this time?
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, his economic policy is BS. Ask an economist. Ask the Japanese.
This is not the time or the place to debate this, and I really don't want to get into it, but let me just say this: Consider that tax cuts CAN and HAVE stimulated economies. Reasonable people can disagree on policies, but don't dismiss tax cuts out of hand as a very powerful stimulus.
P.S. Never trust an economist on macroeconomic policy. :)
The terrorists don't give a shit about our civil liberties. The do care about creating disunity, because they hope that it will cause us to lose political will, and give in to their "demands".
Exactly where did I say he should be silenced? RMS is perfectly within his rights to be a jerk. But just because someone has the right say something doesn't mean what he has to say has any value.
However, his economic policies are BS, and his 'election' was a sham.
Fine, believe that all you want. But what does that have to do with the terrorist attacks, and what our response should be?
I'm going to resist reopening this debate.
The question is not whether you believe Bush was legitimately elected or not. The question is whether it's appropriate the question it at this time, and in this context.
The election is done. There are more important matters to attend to.
I agree, that was totally uncalled for, and quite frankly, exactly what the terrorists want: to divide us.
RMS should be ashamed of himself.
Why do you think Switzerland gets invaded so seldom?
Because everyone else fights for them. How long would it taken for Hitler to invade Switzerland if he hadn't been stopped?
Just as I suspected, you believe in capitalism based on flimsy and unscientific arguments.
The problem with people like you is that no argument is strong enough. You have decided that Capitalism is a root of evil, and no evidence is going to overturn your faith. I could present incentive arguments, that people work harder when they get direct benefits, and it wouldn't be enough for you. I could present history, that the railroads built by capitalism are possibly the greatest single advancement in ending starvation in history, and it wouldn't be enough for you. I could show you ambition destroyed by multi-generation welfare recipients, and it wouldn't be enough. Hell, I could give you France, and it wouldn't be enough.
In short, when you can show some success stories of non-capitalist systems working, then you might have an argument. At this point, all you have to show is abject failure and arguments that it "just hasn't been done right yet".
Your extraordinary claims demand the extraordinary evidence.
And what about the other lesson from World War II? Civil liberties were suspended on a scale that is unimaginable today. Yet, they came back, didn't they? I think history teaches us that the US has a very strong democracy. I think the US government has earned the right to a little slack and trust.
Now that it is too late to prevent the tragedy, is bombing the only possible response to being bombed?
If you review what the government is saying, no one is saying that "bombing is the only possible response". However, the world has fundamentally changed. We have made a commitment to end terrorism as we know it, and the roots of this are in the countries that harbor terrorist and support terrorism.
To be honest, not one bomb has to fall if all the countries of the world made a pact to root out terrorism. But so far, the Taliban have refused to hand of bin Laden. If they are going to make their bed, they are going to have to sleep in it. Sanctions are not the right answer when jumbo jets are flying into skyscrapers.
Where's the proof?
Is it only coincidence that there is dramatically less starvation in capitalist countries (the starvation rate in the US, for example, is zero) than in other countries?
Poor, displaced farmers are more vulnerable to droughts etc. than rich farmers, for one thing.
It's not just "rich" farmers that are less vulnerable. The problem with anti-capitalists such as yourself is that you only see two categories "rich" and "poor". A middle class farmer is dramatically better off than a poor farmer. Capitalism is what provides an escape for the poor farmer to become a middle class farmer, and yes, a rich farmer.
Where you don't have capitalism, all you have is the "poor masses" and a very few extremely wealthy people that have been chosen among themselves.
Yet dogmatic "free market" views always seem to be based on ignorance, or worse, self-contradictory.
I don't have to be "dogmatic", I only have to look at the success record of capitalism, and the abject failure of, say, the Soviet Union.
Talk about brainwashed! You have been brainwashed by the silly militia-mentality that thinks the US government is a bigger enemy than the terrorists. Hitler liked dogs, does that many all dog ownership is bad? What's your point? Can patriotism be used against people? Obviously. But unless you can actually make a case for it being used by the US government for the purposes that are cited, maybe you should cut them a little slack.
Show me this mythical survey that shows "70% of americans are calling for tactical nukes". 70% are certainly calling for bombing raids.
Instead of being so relentlessly pessimistic, why don't you look at the fact that this has the potential to unite the world? In fact, I could argue that it has united it remarkably already. Before this incident, could you imagine Iran using the supportive language they have used with regard to the US? It's unprecedented.
No one thinks these "rethought relationships" are not going to be complicated. But things change -- you only have to look at our relationship with Russia to believe that.
I personally see this as a great opportunity. I think even states like Iran saw what happened and had to say to themselves that things are out of control. Even states that have sponsored terrorism in the past don't want to see them get this powerful.
Why don't you read back what you wrote, and realize how racist it is. Even if we were going to bomb indiscriminately like you seem to wrongly believe, not all Arabs all psychopathic mass murderers. The vast, silent, fearful majority would thank us for ending terrorism.
Most people would rather live and let starve, it seems. Sad...
Most people would rather live and help others become self-sufficient. Sure, the world could feed everyone today. The world might even be able to feed everyone tomorrow, but we can't feed everyone forever.
The reason people starve is not because of unequal distribution of wealth, it's because of unequal distribution of capitalism (not my phrase, not sure who said it).
World hunger will end when political entities allow it to end. It's not because the rest of the world is mean.
Why, however, with all its touting of modernism, does it not initiate an action to save the 10 million women who have no schools or social presence and are trapped under the burqa?
Because, as powerful as the US is, we can't save the world. We can't just dump money on every country. What about all the poor african countries? What about all the poor South American countries?
He is right about one thing: We help countries that are part of our National Interest. We do that for obvious reasons.
But there are other countries that we help, and no one should forget it: countries that are struggling toward freedom. If Afghanistan wanted our help, all they have to do institute freedom and democracy. Money would come flowing down as if from heaven. We would help build their economy and launch them on the road to prosperity.
Don't believe it? That's exactly what we did for Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Talk about forgiveness. [p.s. not that Russia still doesn't have huge problems...]
What do you think the rest of the world will consider him when the full furry is unleashed?
The vast majority of the world, including the silent, fearful majority in the Arab world, will consider him a savior.
To paraphrase John Lennon, "Imagine all the people, living without the fear of terrorism".
Just out of curiosity, what will it take for you to think we should do something? Exactly how many more jumbo jets hitting skyscrapers? How about a nuke hitting New York? Would 10 million deaths be enough for you?
Pardon me if I don't think we should wait for that happen.
and I sure as hell am not going to let my government turn into even just a tiny bit of what I fought against even if it does it with the best of intentions.
EXACTLY what I am talking about. What you are really saying is that "I am sure as hell not going to make any sacrifices even just a time bit, even if it's done with tbe best of intentions.
That's what I found so offensive about this story. Our parents and grandparents made huge sacrifices for this country, and I don't see the same willingness in this generation.
I understand that the Slashdot editors believe they are "protecting what America's all about, and America is about civil liberties", but what I see is selfishness and an unwillingness to sacrifice in a time of war.
to say someone is disrespecting the dead for wishing to maximize or maintain liberty is really uncalled for.
My offense is with the tone of the story. That the Slashdot editors pay lip service to the people who died, but are really concerned about themselves. As has been proven in history, difficult times often require difficult measures. It seems to me that the Slashdot editors are not willing to give even the smallest sacrifice to win a war.
Our parents and grandparents made huge sacrifices for OUR freedom. I hope that our generation is able to do the same for the next generations, rather than the selfishness I see here.
That is an incredibly offensive statement. You may not agree with various US policies, but to compare the US government to Hitler's government is just abject bullshit.
A lot of countries have used their military to enslave their population. Does that mean we should disband the military just in case the US government decides to go crazy?
Paranoia is not logic.
who did we declare war on?
We declared it on "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks". Just because we are going to name names later doesn't make it less of a declaration.
It was signed on Friday, although what constitutes a "declaration of war" has never been well defined.
Do a little research into the sacrifices that our grandparents and parents had to make during World War II to preserve your peace, freedom and liberty. Speech restrictions? How about food restrictions and travel restrictions. Note that after the war, civil liberties came back.
How many more jet liners have to smash into skyscrapers before people think that there other priorities right now? Will it take a nuke hitting a city? I thought Colin Powell made an interesting statement this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists don't care how many people they kill. The only thing holding them back is the technology they have available." After this week, does anyone doubt this reasoning?
To many people don't seem to be able to contemplate the fact that this is not an accident, it is not just an isolated incident, it is not just a single strike to "send a message". Unless we act, this WILL happen again, and next time it might be an even bigger scale.
WE ARE AT WAR. I think this story is to spit on the graves of everyone who died this week.
I wonder how long it would have taken Hitler to conquer the world if Slashdot editors were in charge.
If you'd study history, it has never succeeded. Firstly, the enemy is hidden, so you have no idea whatsoever, who's a terrorist and who's not.
To be frank, we have never tried. Yes, we've blown up a few camps, but we have never had a sustained attack on them. What we have especially never done is hold the countries that support, foster and harbor terrorism accountable.
Bin Laden doesn't have a country per se, but he does have a lot of countries that indirectly -- or even directly -- support him. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he is a military arm of several countries.
Secondly, that force creates anger and that anger fuels terrorism.
To be honest with you, I think that is a somewhat racist statement. The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims are not "time bombs" waiting for the right catalyst to turn themselves into psychopathic mass murderers. I think the most Arabs and Muslims are a "fearful majority" that hate the fact that their countries foster terrorism. I think far more Arabs will applaud any US action (silently, of course) than will condemn it.
Yes, we might never be able to eliminate the lone suicide bomber with a stick of dynamite. But we CAN stop state-sponsored terrorism. We can stop their financing. We can stop the world-wide organizations.
And we need to stop it now before more jet liners hit more skyscrapers. I think too many people are thinking this is just an isolated incident, and it's not going to happen again. It WILL happen again, unless we act to stop. And next time, it might not be a jet, it might be a nuke. These people have proven that they have absolutely no regard for scale of damage.
Well, the whole question of "what constitutes declaring war" has been a debate in the US for a long time. The constitution says that congress has the power to declare war, so my personal feeling is that if congress passes a war powers act authorizing war (particularly when they specifically use the word "war"), then they have pretty much declared it.
I don't think we've had any new recent legal definitions, but if you have something, post a link.
Now is exactly the time to worry about civil liberties and the natural tendency to curtail them.
You no nothing of sacrifice. Why don't you take a look at your grandparent's generation and what they sacrificed so that you we have freedom and liberty today. It's not just mamby-pamby speech restrictions (although they had those), we're talking travel restrictions, food restrictions. Freakin' automobile factories became airplane factories!
Let me make a suggestion, and I mean this seriously to anyone who hasn't really looked into it: pick a few books about World War II. You might think you understand the prices that have been paid by our past generations, but I guarantee you don't or you wouldn't have posted this message.
Civil liberties don't mean a damn if we have people bent on destroying us. I quoted this in another post, but I think it bears repeating. Colin Powell said something interesting this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists do not care how many people they kill. The scale of their attacks is limited only by their technology." Is it going to take a nuke in New York before you think there are something things that just might be more important at this time?