At the very least taxing to raise revenue first instead of putting off revenue generation off until that debt has had time to accrue interest would be too fiscally responsible to describe the current government.
Fiscal responsibility would be cuts in spending to eliminate the deficit, not tax increases.
However, I'd like to point out that most liberals are socially libertarian. The people who danced around naked in the Summer of Love and the folks who brought us the sexual revolution
...and then "sexual harassment" and "hostile work environment".
in the uk we do acknowledge the war crimes we commited, dresden for a good example. the japanese refuse to apologize for what they did to POW's etc. the americans simply cant bring themselves to admit the blatantly obvious war crime of nuking cities. yes, we know the arguments for doing it.. you can agree or disagree with those, but it doesnt change the fact it was a war crime by any definition.. weapon of mass destruction on civilian targets. unless people can say 'it was a war crime and it was wrong' they cant lecture anyone else about not having nukes, about WMD, about war crimes etc. its the 'its no torture because we're doing it' mentality of the current U.S. there's never a justification for war crimes and illegal acts.
You acknowledge such bombings as "crimes" only because the British people are now a populace of pacified sheep.
Bombing militarily defended cities that serve as centers of operation and production for said military cannot be considered a "war crime" by any rational mind.
Those KZ guys also thought thisd "excuse" would wash them from their evildoings...
My grandfathers bombed centers of military and industrial production for the purpose of stopping an enemy who threatened the lives of people all across the Pacific.
Your grandfathers rounded up and systematically exterminated millions of passive, unarmed people for the "crime" of being Jewish.
This quote from early american history suggests efforts were made to reduce the native american tribes: "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them" - Lord Amherst, (1763)
Suggested by a British general at a time when there was a state of war between the Indian tribes and the British. You realize that the US did not exist in 1763, don't you?
There aren't many groups that wiped out a whole continent.
Declaring a moral equivalence between the die out of the American Indian through disease and war, and the systematic, industrialized extermination of 6 million passive, unarmed people is beyond mentally deranged.
That's my position. Following the thread, it appears that your position is simple: We had a solution, which we gave up for no good reason, and rather than looking for a better way to save the millions who die each year from malaria, we should go back to perfecting the technology to turn Grandpa Bud into a sexual dynamo.
Americans aren't going to expend money and resources to find a "better way" to solve a problem that we solved over 50 years ago, nor should we.
If Africa were to abandon war and socialism, they could eradicate malaria in much the same way the US eradicated malaria. Then they could be wealthy enough to turn their attention toward male dysfunctions.
Not even the Soviet Union supported terror and murder for the sake of
terror and murder.
There are around 60
million people who would disagree with your assessment.
In fact, I bet a lot of the Islamicists don't support terror and
murder for its own sake, but as a means to an end. Your distinction says
nothing.
When the Islamicist Taliban was firmly in power in Afghanistan with all
resistance from the opposition crushed, the terror and murder increased
rather than stopped, as was the case in the various socialist terror
states. When the Taliban invaded a village, they bulldozed every building, cut down every tree, and filled every well with either dirt and dynamite, or the dead.
I get my history largely through having lived through it. There was
no way in which the Sandinistas were worse than the Contras who the US
backed.
The Sandinistas murdered at least ten times as many people as the
Contras. The Contras also stopped the war once they managed to
force democratic elections on the Sandinistas at gunpoint.
We see who Nicaraguans prefer, as the current president made it a point to associate himself with the Contras as part of his campaign, while Ortega gets votes only by desperately trying to disassociate himself from his communist past.
Pinochet was far worse than anything Allende could have done.
Pinochet murdered around 3,100 people.
Given that Allende was rapidly consolidating power, imposing socialism
in violation of Chilean law and had begun escalating the use of violence
necessary to impose socialism, it is very highly probable that he eventually would
have murdered at least one order of magnitude more people had he been
allowed to remain in power.
Throughout the 60's and 70's, the US supported brutal military
regimes against generally democratic socialist ones in Latin America.
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina - you can get this history without talking to
Chomsky.
You get this history by reading garbage put out by socialists who operate in the same corrupt, dishonest manner as Chomsky.
The alleged support of the 1963 military coup in Brazil consists mainly of the US government sending money to opposition candidates prior to the election, and nodding in approval when Goulart was overthrown. The only connection with Uruguay is one USAID/OPS employee, Dan Mitrione, allegedly training interrogators in torture.
Wherever there actually was active support and aid from the US government, it was to those who were fighting against Soviet/Cuban-backed "democratic socialists" who had long ceased to be democratic, and who, being puppets of the Soviet Union, posed a real, imminent threat to the liberty and safety of Americans.
It was the US who put him in power in the first place.
Saddam Hussein was a nobody when the Ba'ath party rose to power in the 1960s. It is alleged that the CIA provided some form of aid to the Ba'ath party during the 1963 Iraq coup, but the leaders of the Ba'ath party at the time certainly weren't aware of it.
The US had nothing to do with the 1968 coup that installed General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who provided for the rise of Saddam Hussein.
They did that about the same time they were putting groups like the Taliban in charge of the Afgani's to resist Soviet occupation,
The Taliban didn't even exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Those who fought with the Afghan mujahideen were those who later fought against the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban murdered one of the most prominent mujahideen leaders two days before 9/11.
and training people like Bin Laden to do the guerilla fighting.
Bin Laden never received any direct support from the US. His role in fighting the Soviets was utterly negligible. He had a small part in providing support for the mujahideen, but it's very questionable as to whether he saw actual combat.
And that doesn't even list Canada, which is so close to the U.S., yet we pay about $3.14 (USD) per gallon. Wanna try moving to Europe where the gallon costs on average more than 4 bucks, and in many cases more than 5 bucks?
Gasoline prices are artificially inflated in Europe due to punitive taxation levied on it by the social engineers for the purpose of, among other things, herding people onto mass transit systems where they can be blown up by the Muslim extremists they've given refugee status to.
The chilling thing is, I'm not sure just which "side" your comment is on.
It should be obvious which side my comment is on.
Rape, pillage, slavery and murder seem to be part of the history of just about every society, and among the tactics of the US and its allies when it suits them.
The US has only allied itself with unsavory people when the alternative was victory by a greater evil. US foreign policy has never been to support terror and murder for the sake of terror and murder.
(My family is South American, and many of us would have Henry Kissinger tried as a war criminal based on the history of the US in the 70's and 80's. Yet even as recently as 3 years ago, GWB tapped him for help.)
You must be getting your history from lunatics like Noam Chomsky. If you think Henry Kissinger is a "war criminal", you're an equivocator like Chomsky is.
What in American society is spurring the violence? American society encourages competition.
Then why do we see high violent crime rates concentrated only in very small geographic areas where capitalist competition is discouraged?
It, in itself, is a form of aggression.
Trying to offer a product or service at a lower price than a competitor is not the same as robbery, or bashing somebody's head in with a baseball bat.
In American society, if you lose your job, you just might suffer malnutrition because welfare-based food stamps have a finite duration.
Adequate nutrition is extremely cheap in America. The only people in danger of being malnourished in America are children living with abusive parents who are unable to go out and feed themselves.
Can you explain why the American rate of violent crime is an order of magnitude greater than the European rate or the Japanese rate? Try to formulate a cogent response without trying to create a strawman argment that you then proceed to crush in order to whore some karma points.
Europe and Japan are mostly homogenious in race and culture.
The vast majority of violent crime in the US takes place within very small geographic areas, amongst minority groups with high incidences of out-of-wedlock births to single women, and a gutter-culture that encourages violence.
Re:$16 billion spent on Erectile Dysfunction resea
on
Innovation Getting Slower?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Compared to some of the real problems out there (AIDS, malaria, etc.), erectile dysfunction is a recreational problem. As with everything else in life, you play when the work is done.
We had the capability to bring malaria under control, if not all but eliminate it.
But then, some people decided to effectively ban DDT.
Slashdot Mirror
Fiscal responsibility would be cuts in spending to eliminate the deficit, not tax increases.
You and the poster you are replying to are not displaying rational, or even sane thought.
But the owner is the one who expended resources to set the site up in the first place. Without him, there would be no free advice or community.
You acknowledge such bombings as "crimes" only because the British people are now a populace of pacified sheep.
Bombing militarily defended cities that serve as centers of operation and production for said military cannot be considered a "war crime" by any rational mind.
But their parents were.
It's not our fault they used their children as human shields.
My grandfathers bombed centers of military and industrial production for the purpose of stopping an enemy who threatened the lives of people all across the Pacific.
Your grandfathers rounded up and systematically exterminated millions of passive, unarmed people for the "crime" of being Jewish.
Now, tell me whom are the evil ones?
Suggested by a British general at a time when there was a state of war between the Indian tribes and the British. You realize that the US did not exist in 1763, don't you?
There aren't many groups that wiped out a whole continent.
Declaring a moral equivalence between the die out of the American Indian through disease and war, and the systematic, industrialized extermination of 6 million passive, unarmed people is beyond mentally deranged.
Americans aren't going to expend money and resources to find a "better way" to solve a problem that we solved over 50 years ago, nor should we.
If Africa were to abandon war and socialism, they could eradicate malaria in much the same way the US eradicated malaria. Then they could be wealthy enough to turn their attention toward male dysfunctions.
There are around 60 million people who would disagree with your assessment.
In fact, I bet a lot of the Islamicists don't support terror and murder for its own sake, but as a means to an end. Your distinction says nothing.
When the Islamicist Taliban was firmly in power in Afghanistan with all resistance from the opposition crushed, the terror and murder increased rather than stopped, as was the case in the various socialist terror states. When the Taliban invaded a village, they bulldozed every building, cut down every tree, and filled every well with either dirt and dynamite, or the dead.
I get my history largely through having lived through it. There was no way in which the Sandinistas were worse than the Contras who the US backed.
The Sandinistas murdered at least ten times as many people as the Contras. The Contras also stopped the war once they managed to force democratic elections on the Sandinistas at gunpoint.
We see who Nicaraguans prefer, as the current president made it a point to associate himself with the Contras as part of his campaign, while Ortega gets votes only by desperately trying to disassociate himself from his communist past.
Pinochet was far worse than anything Allende could have done.
Pinochet murdered around 3,100 people.
Given that Allende was rapidly consolidating power, imposing socialism in violation of Chilean law and had begun escalating the use of violence necessary to impose socialism, it is very highly probable that he eventually would have murdered at least one order of magnitude more people had he been allowed to remain in power.
Throughout the 60's and 70's, the US supported brutal military regimes against generally democratic socialist ones in Latin America. Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina - you can get this history without talking to Chomsky.
You get this history by reading garbage put out by socialists who operate in the same corrupt, dishonest manner as Chomsky.
The alleged support of the 1963 military coup in Brazil consists mainly of the US government sending money to opposition candidates prior to the election, and nodding in approval when Goulart was overthrown. The only connection with Uruguay is one USAID/OPS employee, Dan Mitrione, allegedly training interrogators in torture.
Wherever there actually was active support and aid from the US government, it was to those who were fighting against Soviet/Cuban-backed "democratic socialists" who had long ceased to be democratic, and who, being puppets of the Soviet Union, posed a real, imminent threat to the liberty and safety of Americans.
Saddam Hussein was a nobody when the Ba'ath party rose to power in the 1960s. It is alleged that the CIA provided some form of aid to the Ba'ath party during the 1963 Iraq coup, but the leaders of the Ba'ath party at the time certainly weren't aware of it.
The US had nothing to do with the 1968 coup that installed General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who provided for the rise of Saddam Hussein.
They did that about the same time they were putting groups like the Taliban in charge of the Afgani's to resist Soviet occupation,
The Taliban didn't even exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Those who fought with the Afghan mujahideen were those who later fought against the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban murdered one of the most prominent mujahideen leaders two days before 9/11.
and training people like Bin Laden to do the guerilla fighting.
Bin Laden never received any direct support from the US. His role in fighting the Soviets was utterly negligible. He had a small part in providing support for the mujahideen, but it's very questionable as to whether he saw actual combat.
Gasoline prices are artificially inflated in Europe due to punitive taxation levied on it by the social engineers for the purpose of, among other things, herding people onto mass transit systems where they can be blown up by the Muslim extremists they've given refugee status to.
Come to think of it, nobody deals with constant Category 5 hurricanes from June through October.
Though maybe those who make such absurd exaggerations should.
It should be obvious which side my comment is on.
Rape, pillage, slavery and murder seem to be part of the history of just about every society, and among the tactics of the US and its allies when it suits them.
The US has only allied itself with unsavory people when the alternative was victory by a greater evil. US foreign policy has never been to support terror and murder for the sake of terror and murder.
(My family is South American, and many of us would have Henry Kissinger tried as a war criminal based on the history of the US in the 70's and 80's. Yet even as recently as 3 years ago, GWB tapped him for help.)
You must be getting your history from lunatics like Noam Chomsky. If you think Henry Kissinger is a "war criminal", you're an equivocator like Chomsky is.
Those who fight for the "freedom" to rape, pillage, enslave and murder cannot be called "freedom fighters".
Then why do we see high violent crime rates concentrated only in very small geographic areas where capitalist competition is discouraged?
It, in itself, is a form of aggression.
Trying to offer a product or service at a lower price than a competitor is not the same as robbery, or bashing somebody's head in with a baseball bat.
In American society, if you lose your job, you just might suffer malnutrition because welfare-based food stamps have a finite duration.
Adequate nutrition is extremely cheap in America. The only people in danger of being malnourished in America are children living with abusive parents who are unable to go out and feed themselves.
Europe and Japan are mostly homogenious in race and culture.
The vast majority of violent crime in the US takes place within very small geographic areas, amongst minority groups with high incidences of out-of-wedlock births to single women, and a gutter-culture that encourages violence.
We had the capability to bring malaria under control, if not all but eliminate it.
But then, some people decided to effectively ban DDT.