[Talon Karride]The unflappable delusions of many Republicans

[MKSheppard]

<snip Kast wankery>

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I
say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

[Vympel]

*Engineer on the leaky boa that is the SS Kast*

"We need more excess verbage as substitute for response down here!"

[SirNitram]

Kast, here's a clue, since apparently it flew over your head: Sheppard asked because he, like everyone else here, knows you're a delusional twit with no concept of reality. Of course he's conservative.. The question is whether you're in touch with reality enough to realize it.

[MKSheppard]

"We need more excess verbage as substitute for response down here!"

*Deck of USS Enterprise in Pacific Fighters*

We've got a full deck strike of SBDs and TBFs loading up and on the
way!

[KrauserKrauser]

I, a resident board roaming conservative, would like to be the next to put my head on the chopping block.

Why do they think welfare should be abolished? Because they don't expect to ever need it, and the people who do need it are beneath contempt, so fuck 'em.

I believe welfare to be a necessary evil. I don't like it, but I know that it is necessary in many circumstances. I do however, hate the abuse of welfare, the irrational spending for a plasma tv when that person isn't feeding their kids pisses me the hell off. I'm a bastard, I know.

Why do they think gay marriage should be banned? Because they aren't gay, and gay people are beneath contempt, so fuck 'em.

After some consideration I have decided that I don't see any reason, other than for religious reasons, which the government should be ignoring, that the government should not give the same legal rights to gay couples. My only argument is where the changes to the current marriage policies will stop. Will the next step allow for a younger marriage age? Does young love not qualify as love if the parents say so? If I can marry a man, why can't I marry 4? 45? 3500? What is the reason behind limiting it to one? These are not the leaps in logic that are posed by marrying pets or inanimate objects. What standards can one assign to this tradition that will not eventually be destroyerd due to objectiuons by a vocal minority.

Why do they think there's no such thing as global warming? Because they don't want to bear the cost of cleaning up industry, and the people who say it's true (those wonky scientists and that annoying UN) are just a bunch of knotty-headed "intellectuals" so they're beneath contempt. Fuck 'em.

So in the 80's, when global cooling was the current imminent ecological disaster backed by hundreds of scientists theories and reams of data, we should have inacted all the wanted policies to warm the earth? Seriously, this is not the Day After Tomorrow, which I just saw and can I say *vomit* at the liberal bias, the earth does have a weather cycle that we may or may not be affecting. At what point do we make changes to find that balance between environment and industry? Where do we balance taxes and tax cuts? I'm not smart enough to answer this one. My conservatism is forcing me to lean towards industry.

Why do they want to ban abortion? Because they don't expect to ever need an abortion, and women who do get abortions are beneath contempt, so fuck 'em.

I am in favor of choice in the case of rape, abuse or the safety of the mother. In all other case I take the, keep the damn thing in your pants rule. Sorry, there are consequences for your actions. What excuse do you have for eliminating a life because it inconvieniences you? Oh you had sex with some random guy you thought was cute and now you're preggers? Sorry, you should have kept your legs closed. Not much chance of a case of preggers without sex happening. Yep, call me a prude, but goddamn, have some personal responsibility.

Why do they want to destroy Social Security? Because they all believe they're going to be quite well-off when they retire, so they won't need it. And the kind of people who worked for Enron or didn't save enough money must be stupid and useless, so they're beneath contempt, so fuck 'em.

Social Security will bankrupt the country in its current state. There will not be enough taxable income at the current rate of taxation to pay the projected social security plan. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away. Whether or not you believe that privatizing for each individual social security recipient is the winning plan, pooh-poohing it without an alternative is pretty useless.

Why do they think taxes should be lowered, even when the government is already in deficit? Obviously, because they can't see past the next fiscal year and they're excited about having the money in their hands right now. And people who want to raise taxes are obviously socialists, so they're beneath contempt, so fuck 'em.

I am in no way a fiscal wizard and cannot effectively argue the current situation. However, my conservatism will not allow me to advocate the raising of taxes.

Why do they support the War in Iraq? Because Bush convinced them that it was in their own best interests two years ago, and they're just too stubborn to admit they were wrong. Besides, the kind of people who run around saying "nya nya, I told you so" are beneath contempt, so fuck 'em.

Having had a parent spend 7 months in Baghdad and talking with him extensively about what he saw over there, I must take issue with this statement. It is true that many of the reasons that have been provided by this administration for the war in Iraq have been proven to be false, and they have handled the reasoning behind the war horribly, I believe that since we are in Iraq now, we must make the best of this bad situation. Are we nation building? You better believe we are. That whole area has been a gathering shitstorm for 30+ years and we are just now starting to address it. We do have allies in the fight. We did go to the UN. We did get UN approval for action in Iraq. We have found evidence of bribes taken by individuals in the governments of those countries that opposed our actions in Iraq. God, I said that poorly.

In summary, we are currently embroiled in a shitstorm in Iraq. It sucks, but leaving will suck more. I cannot depend on Kerry not to leave, therefore I support Bush on this issue.

Why do they so strongly oppose high taxes for the wealthy? Because they all think they're going to be wealthy someday, or because they're already wealthy, or because their parents are wealthy. And the people who don't make that much money obviously didn't try hard enough, so they're beneath contempt. Fuck 'em.

I do plan on becoming wealthy and am working towards that happening eventually. I don't see anything wrong with that. Why do you see bad in that belief Wong? Am I supposed to believe that being rich is a random occurence that has nothing to do with personal choices and only with connections and familyties? Either way, there are benfits to decreasing the tax load on the wealthier segment of the population, but I would go more for a business oriented approach. Instead of decreasing the tax burden on the indiviual wealthy person, I would try to reduce the tax load on the general operation a business. Whether it be payroll taxes or the like, as before not fiscally savvy, I would improve the business which should benefit more than just the owner of said business. I am a proponent of the fair tax and hope that it gets a fair shake when it is run through the House in the future.

I hope I made a least some sort of a good showing for the board's conservatives. If not, oh well, Fuck 'em.

[Talon Karrde]

Notice how the worthless trolling dipshit makes no attempt whatsoever to actually refute the point. Or, for that matter, to prove that I have a history of being an "insane Liberal". What claims of mine are "insane", Tiger-boy?

In all fairness, you are a liberal

Notice how he didn't question that portion of the statement, moron.

Notice my smiley face.

[Axis Kast]

Wong - if you weren't so busy trying to dodge my arguments, you'd've noticed my indictments: your insistance on an overwhelming conservative media bias, your intentional mischaracterization of the Republican party as a bunch of depraved, self-serving meglomaniacs, your attempts to spin Dan Rather's pathetic attempt at "fair" journalism into something meaningful.

As for Sheppard? You're one to talk. A man who hasn't gone a day in the past two years I've been here without going out of his way to verbally kiss Mike Wong's ass. Hell, you only target me because you know it'll get your ass out of the frying pan. The sad thing about it is, apparently you need the people on SD.net to validate you. Too bad.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I believe welfare to be a necessary evil. I don't like it, but I know that it is necessary in many circumstances. I do however, hate the abuse of welfare, the irrational spending for a plasma tv when that person isn't feeding their kids pisses me the hell off. I'm a bastard, I know.

A vast minority of assholes does not a crooked system make. The true problem with welfare is that it removes people from the system if they get a job that pays barely more than the checks. Think about it: Would you work 40+ hours a week for a paltry sum, or would you rather not do anything and recieve the same amount?

My only argument is where the changes to the current marriage policies will stop. Will the next step allow for a younger marriage age? Does young love not qualify as love if the parents say so? If I can marry a man, why can't I marry 4? 45? 3500? What is the reason behind limiting it to one? These are not the leaps in logic that are posed by marrying pets or inanimate objects.

Children can not consent. And let's say you allow marriage between two people of the same gender... it's still two people, fuckwit! It has NOTHING to do with marrying more than one person! So you're right, they're not the same leaps in logics as beastiality or marrying a RealDoll... they're different leaps in logic!

At what point do we make changes to find that balance between environment and industry? Where do we balance taxes and tax cuts? I'm not smart enough to answer this one. My conservatism is forcing me to lean towards industry.

Fuck global warming. Even without that in mind, the amount of toxins industries are emitting are not good for the environment. Please do not be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.

I am in favor of choice in the case of rape, abuse or the safety of the mother. In all other case I take the, keep the damn thing in your pants rule. Sorry, there are consequences for your actions. What excuse do you have for eliminating a life because it inconvieniences you? Oh you had sex with some random guy you thought was cute and now you're preggers? Sorry, you should have kept your legs closed. Not much chance of a case of preggers without sex happening. Yep, call me a prude, but goddamn, have some personal responsibility.

Yes, because all unwanted pregnacies are the results of druken one-night stands. Let's say a couple that gets by, but can't afford any long-term expenses are having safe-sex and the condom breaks. I guess it's too bad that they love each other and lost the statistical draw, eh? I wouldn't stop at labeling you a prude, bastard.

Why do they want to destroy Social Security? Because they all believe they're going to be quite well-off when they retire, so they won't need it. And the kind of people who worked for Enron or didn't save enough money must be stupid and useless, so they're beneath contempt, so fuck 'em.

Social Security will bankrupt the country in its current state. There will not be enough taxable income at the current rate of taxation to pay the projected social security plan. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away. Whether or not you believe that privatizing for each individual social security recipient is the winning plan, pooh-poohing it without an alternative is pretty useless.

The problem is that all the ways to fix Social Security are not going to go over well with the people at large, and so they won't be passed. Because getting re-elected is more important than the well-being of the country. This problem is entirely non-partisan.

I am in no way a fiscal wizard and cannot effectively argue the current situation. However, my conservatism will not allow me to advocate the raising of taxes.

Why don't you do some simple math? Increased spending + less funding = larger deficency.

In summary, we are currently embroiled in a shitstorm in Iraq. It sucks, but leaving will suck more. I cannot depend on Kerry not to leave, therefore I support Bush on this issue.

Oh, come on! You honestly think Kerry would pull our troops out of Iraq?

It's like you want me to lower my impression of you.

Instead of decreasing the tax burden on the indiviual wealthy person, I would try to reduce the tax load on the general operation a business.

You know, if the tax burden on the wealthy was increased, the problems with the deficency could just about be dealt with... assuming spending wasn't increased without thought about current deficit. You see, once you're making $64,000 a year, you don't get any more income take taken away from you. Can you concieve of the amount of revenue that could be collected, were income tax applied to the whole of, say, Oprah Winfrey's yearly income? That's just one of thousands of millionaires... not to mention all those folks making six-figures.

[MKSheppard]

Oh, come on! You honestly think Kerry would pull our troops out of Iraq?

Why not? John Kerry supported that type of action 30 years ago.

[Darth Wong]

I believe welfare to be a necessary evil. I don't like it, but I know that it is necessary in many circumstances. I do however, hate the abuse of welfare, the irrational spending for a plasma tv when that person isn't feeding their kids pisses me the hell off. I'm a bastard, I know.

That's an easy position to take, but it's also pointless. Welfare fraud is already illegal; what do you want to do, make it more illegal?

After some consideration I have decided that I don't see any reason, other than for religious reasons, which the government should be ignoring, that the government should not give the same legal rights to gay couples. My only argument is where the changes to the current marriage policies will stop. Will the next step allow for a younger marriage age? Does young love not qualify as love if the parents say so? If I can marry a man, why can't I marry 4? 45? 3500? What is the reason behind limiting it to one? These are not the leaps in logic that are posed by marrying pets or inanimate objects. What standards can one assign to this tradition that will not eventually be destroyerd due to objectiuons by a vocal minority.

Gay-marriage bans are a form of gender discrimination; the only difference between a straight marriage and a gay one is the gender of one of the partners. This is exactly the reasoning one of the state supreme courts used to legalize gay marriage before the legislature stepped in. This rationalization does not even remotely apply to any of the other examples you cited.

So in the 80's, when global cooling was the current imminent ecological disaster backed by hundreds of scientists theories and reams of data, we should have inacted all the wanted policies to warm the earth? Seriously, this is not the Day After Tomorrow, which I just saw and can I say *vomit* at the liberal bias, the earth does have a weather cycle that we may or may not be affecting. At what point do we make changes to find that balance between environment and industry? Where do we balance taxes and tax cuts? I'm not smart enough to answer this one. My conservatism is forcing me to lean towards industry.

Of course the Earth has a weather cycle. That doesn't change the fact that the determination of whether global warming is real is unaffected by the question of whether we made it happen. If it's happening, and if it's going to harm our society, then we should try to do something to slow it down.

I am in favor of choice in the case of rape, abuse or the safety of the mother. In all other case I take the, keep the damn thing in your pants rule. Sorry, there are consequences for your actions. What excuse do you have for eliminating a life because it inconvieniences you? Oh you had sex with some random guy you thought was cute and now you're preggers? Sorry, you should have kept your legs closed. Not much chance of a case of preggers without sex happening. Yep, call me a prude, but goddamn, have some personal responsibility.

Your position is logically inconsistent. If a fetus has human rights, then it's wrong to abort it even in cases of rape. If a fetus does not have human rights, then there's no reason to ban it regardless of whether you think the woman has been "responsible" enough.

Social Security will bankrupt the country in its current state. There will not be enough taxable income at the current rate of taxation to pay the projected social security plan. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away. Whether or not you believe that privatizing for each individual social security recipient is the winning plan, pooh-poohing it without an alternative is pretty useless.

Simply adjusting the taxes and benefits is an obviously workable solution, but people refuse to accept that reality because "do not raise taxes, ever" and "do not cut social security, ever" are two pillars of the conservative and old-person political platforms, respectively. Doesn't change the fact that it's the only solution which is guaranteed to work.

I am in no way a fiscal wizard and cannot effectively argue the current situation. However, my conservatism will not allow me to advocate the raising of taxes.

You can't argue something on the basis of the fact that you lean toward it.

Having had a parent spend 7 months in Baghdad and talking with him extensively about what he saw over there, I must take issue with this statement. It is true that many of the reasons that have been provided by this administration for the war in Iraq have been proven to be false, and they have handled the reasoning behind the war horribly, I believe that since we are in Iraq now, we must make the best of this bad situation. Are we nation building? You better believe we are. That whole area has been a gathering shitstorm for 30+ years and we are just now starting to address it. We do have allies in the fight. We did go to the UN. We did get UN approval for action in Iraq. We have found evidence of bribes taken by individuals in the governments of those countries that opposed our actions in Iraq. God, I said that poorly.

Indeed. The whole area has been a shitstorm and the US has been putting its fingers into this shitstorm for decades. They just refused to leave it to stew in its own juices and simply treat it as a sovereign trading partner. As for your other claim, you did not have approval to invade Iraq, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

In summary, we are currently embroiled in a shitstorm in Iraq. It sucks, but leaving will suck more. I cannot depend on Kerry not to leave, therefore I support Bush on this issue.

It's amazing how easily you could transplant this conversation to the Vietnam era.

I do plan on becoming wealthy and am working towards that happening eventually. I don't see anything wrong with that. Why do you see bad in that belief Wong?

I never said it was bad to be wealthy; I said it was bad to be wealthy and refuse to pay higher taxes than some poor shmuck working 70 hours a week in a garage, even though you can afford it far more easily while retaining a much higher standard of living. Must I show mathematically how a 40% tax rate on a guy making $500,000/yr will still leave him much better off than a 30% tax rate on a guy making $50,000/yr?

Am I supposed to believe that being rich is a random occurence that has nothing to do with personal choices and only with connections and familyties?

It has to do with both. But anyone who believes there's truly a level playing field for everyone in this society is on crack. Moreover, it's totally irrelevant to the question of whether the wealthy can easily afford it.

Either way, there are benfits to decreasing the tax load on the wealthier segment of the population, but I would go more for a business oriented approach. Instead of decreasing the tax burden on the indiviual wealthy person, I would try to reduce the tax load on the general operation a business. Whether it be payroll taxes or the like, as before not fiscally savvy, I would improve the business which should benefit more than just the owner of said business. I am a proponent of the fair tax and hope that it gets a fair shake when it is run through the House in the future.

Just keep in mind the mathematics of the situation: if you need X dollars to run your government, and you reduce the share of X that any particular group pays, then one of two things will happen:

• You bring in less than X, thus causing a budget deficit.
• Everybody else must pay more in order to bring up your revenues to X.

No doubt a conservative will simply say that tax cuts will make the economy go into overdrive and thus eliminate this dilemma, but that assumes you are above the optimum tax rate. If you are already at or below the optimum tax rate, then tax cuts are purely destructive to the operation of the government.

That's why I voted for the tax-cutting Conservative Party in Ontario three times in a row, because I felt that our tax rate was far above the optimum. Subsequent events bore out that interpretation, as Conservative tax cuts in Ontario (and spending cuts) allowed them to take a $12 billion/yr deficit inherited from the previous government and turn it into a balanced budget over a few years. But the US is starting out at a much lower tax rate than Ontario was, and the tax cuts do not seem to be having the projected effect. Doctrine must eventually give way to results, and the wisdom of tax cuts depends on the situation.

I hope I made a least some sort of a good showing for the board's conservatives. If not, oh well, Fuck 'em.

You actually did a much better job than Tiger-boy and "vapid one-liner" Karrde.

[Darth Wong]

Wong - if you weren't so busy trying to dodge my arguments, you'd've noticed my indictments: your insistance on an overwhelming conservative media bias, your intentional mischaracterization of the Republican party as a bunch of depraved, self-serving meglomaniacs, your attempts to spin Dan Rather's pathetic attempt at "fair" journalism into something meaningful.

Yet again, you seem to believe that you can back up unsupported accusations by simply rewording them.

As for Sheppard? You're one to talk. A man who hasn't gone a day in the past two years I've been here without going out of his way to verbally kiss Mike Wong's ass. Hell, you only target me because you know it'll get your ass out of the frying pan. The sad thing about it is, apparently you need the people on SD.net to validate you. Too bad.

You're a moron; Shep has accused me of being a "fucking idiot" on numerous occasions. You just can't stand the fact that no one, not even your fellow conservatives, can take you seriously, so you're lashing out like a petulant child.

[Axis Kast]

A vast minority of assholes does not a crooked system make. The true problem with welfare is that it removes people from the system if they get a job that pays barely more than the checks. Think about it: Would you work 40+ hours a week for a paltry sum, or would you rather not do anything and recieve the same amount?

The problem with welfare is that it reduces the incentive to become a productive member of society.

If you’re on the dole, it’s not a matter of what you want; it’s a matter of what government regulations stipulate that you must do in order to be eligible for public assistance. That’s why Clinton moderate welfare plan was remotely acceptable to conservatives. While it did promote social equality over economic efficiency, it at least did so by forcing recipients to enter into the workforce and thus improve their chances of advancement over the long term. Certainly to a greater extent than staying on the dole without seeking a job would have, for example.

Furthermore, there’s a limit to the extent that we should offer in welfare. We certainly don’t want to encourage the same kind of welfare culture that has developed – and, in fact, begun to thrive – in Europe, for example.

The same goes with minimum wage: the wage laws are affecting fewer and fewer workers as American society becomes more educated and the average person finds an entry-level position in any given field with starting pay over $5.15 an hour. By raising the minimum wage, the government could only raise unemployment – firms would begin firing or avoid hiring in order to prevent having to pay more money to jobs they don’t consider worth the added cost.

Fuck global warming. Even without that in mind, the amount of toxins industries are emitting are not good for the environment. Please do not be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.

The problem is that pollution is a global issue; this is the same tension encountered at Kyoto: America’s reductions may be substantial from our point of view, but they’re a relative spit in the bucket – and a useless one, at that – so long as China and the developing world fail to comply.

That said, a pollution credit system is the most economical answer if indeed we must scale back in certain industries.

Why don't you do some simple math? Increased spending + less funding = larger deficency.

No. John F. Kennedy lowered taxes and trimmed the budget during his presidency, but, because of economic growth, the lower tax level still brought in more per capita than had the higher tax rate before, meaning that the federal budget was actually larger. This is the same situation the Republicans hope to replicate by facilitating investment from the most wealthy sectors of the American population.

By encouraging investment, we create more wealth in the long-run. Hence the reason for investment tax credits, small business tax credits, abolition of the capital gains tax, and a savings tax credit.

Indeed. The whole area has been a shitstorm and the US has been putting its fingers into this shitstorm for decades. They just refused to leave it to stew in its own juices and simply treat it as a sovereign trading partner. As for your other claim, you did not have approval to invade Iraq, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Stew in its own juices"? We didn't have that luxury after 1991, dimwit.

Not to mention that treating the Middle East as "a soverign trading partner" would get us nowhere, since the regimes in question wouldn't change their policies regardless of ours. Without progressive government, they're not going to do anything constructive with any profit they make anyway. The places will remain terrorist shitholes.

[Graeme Dice]

Wong - if you weren't so busy trying to dodge my arguments, you'd've noticed my indictments:

He's not dodging your arguments because you haven't made any. Statements made without factual support aren't arguments, they are opinions.

[Imperial Overlord]

Yes Shep and we've suffered attacks by waves of Vietnamese suicide bombers ever since.

Iraq isn't Vietnam. If we leave Iraw, we are still fighting Islamic fundies. When we left Vietnam, we didn't have to keep fighting.

[Darth Wong]

"Stew in its own juices"? We didn't have that luxury after 1991, dimwit.

Prove it. I know you have trouble with this whole concept of backing up your claims rather than simply repeating them with more verbiage added, but for once, just try.

Not to mention that treating the Middle East as "a soverign trading partner" would get us nowhere, since the regimes in question wouldn't change their policies regardless of ours. Without progressive government, they're not going to do anything constructive with any profit they make anyway. The places will remain terrorist shitholes.

And they won't have much incentive to terrorize us if we stop shitting in their drinking water. The fact that they will terrorize each other and themselves is, quite frankly, not our problem. Ideally they would stop, but the notion of forcibly "converting" them to our way of life is not even vaguely realistic. And as we have seen, the cure can easily become worse than the disease.

[Stormbringer]

Yes Shep and we've suffered attacks by waves of Vietnamese suicide bombers ever since.

Iraq isn't Vietnam. If we leave Iraw, we are still fighting Islamic fundies. When we left Vietnam, we didn't have to keep fighting.

We did have Communists still to deal with though. And that gave America a nice big black eye. And you'll note that we went farther than just getting out, we cut off South Vietnam entirely. Which despite the fact they were actually doing some good sealed them.

[Graeme Dice]

Not to mention that treating the Middle East as "a soverign trading partner" would get us nowhere, since the regimes in question wouldn't change their policies regardless of ours.

Of course they would. The more money going into the country, the more money the average person is likely to have. Once you raise the standard of living and education of enough people, the government tends to sort itself out.

[Ma Deuce]

As for your other claim, you did not have approval to invade Iraq, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

The UN may not have approved the initial invasion, but they later did approve the occupation...

[MKSheppard]

Which despite the fact they were actually doing some good sealed them.

Yep. The final NVA offensive was not guerilla war, but sending a metric
assload of tanks down the main highways towards Saigon. An offensive
which the B-52s would have torn to shreds, but Congress refused to
let Ford kick their asses back to the stone age, despite the fact
that they had stopped all pretenses of guerilla war and were fighting
as a conventional army.

[Axis Kast]

Why do they so strongly oppose high taxes for the wealthy? Because they all think they're going to be wealthy someday, or because they're already wealthy, or because their parents are wealthy. And the people who don't make that much money obviously didn't try hard enough, so they're beneath contempt. Fuck 'em.

And this is you, Mike Wong, trying to pass off value-laden bullshit as a balanced assessment of Republican opinion.

It seems dodgy at first, but one has to wonder what that squarish protrusion on his back is, because it sure as hell looks suspicious and I can't imagine what other apparel a normal person would wear that produces a squarish bulge in the middle of his back.

And this is you, Mike Wong, giving credit to loony conspiracy theories from helplessly biased left-wing sources.

Obviously, the concept of burden of proof does not occur to you. The "experts" cited by cnsnews based their argument upon claims which were factually wrong. This throws their expertise into doubt and their conclusions into the shitter.

Not to mention the fact that White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said that "they were found in Jerry Killian's personal records". I guess he's in on the forgery too, right?

And this is you, Mike Wong, furiously wanking to reports later found to be forgeries.

Prove it. I know you have trouble with this whole concept of backing up your claims rather than simply repeating them with more verbiage added, but for once, just try.

After 1991, we were compelled to keep troops in the Middle East to contain Saddam – actions that led to widespread discontent on the part of Islamic fundamentalists who resented the American presence (which was, ironically, linked to provided for common security).

And they won't have much incentive to terrorize us if we stop shitting in their drinking water. The fact that they will terrorize each other and themselves is, quite frankly, not our problem. Ideally they would stop, but the notion of forcibly "converting" them to our way of life is not even vaguely realistic. And as we have seen, the cure can easily become worse than the disease.

Which is why they were bombing us in 1993, correct?

Which is why TIME Magazine reported that the Iraqi insurgents were ready to “follow us home” even if we disengaged, correct?

We can never fully disentangled ourselves from the Middle East. At best, we can return to the pre-Iraq status-quo, in which our activities are still seen as undue meddling and our attempts to pursue our interests in the region – as every other nation does – are seen as intolerable, and worthy of violent retribution. You don’t seem to understand that these societies breed terrorists that go after the United States.

Of course they would. The more money going into the country, the more money the average person is likely to have. Once you raise the standard of living and education of enough people, the government tends to sort itself out.

Which is why, after billions were spent on Zimbabwe after 1980, the lot of the average Zimbabwean has risen immeasurably, correct?

Are you a FUCKING MORON?! Dictatorships DON’T DISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH THEY PRODUCE, asshat. We can’t raise standards of living and education by continuing to deal with regimes that shit all over their own people. It didn't even work with the fucking Shah, and he was, to some extent, in our back fucking pocket.

[Graeme Dice]

Which is why, after billions were spent on Zimbabwe after 1980, the lot of the average Zimbabwean has risen immeasurably, correct?

What part of my argument did you fail to read? Did I say that we should give them money? Nope, looks like thats yet another strawman from the master of the fallacy.

[Stormbringer]

Not to mention that treating the Middle East as "a soverign trading partner" would get us nowhere, since the regimes in question wouldn't change their policies regardless of ours.

Of course they would. The more money going into the country, the more money the average person is likely to have. Once you raise the standard of living and education of enough people, the government tends to sort itself out.

That's if the money doesn't wind up in the hands of a few richer than shit sultans and their cronies like has happened in Saudi Arabia and most of the Middle East. The problem is those nations are largely autocratic and they act like the kings of the days of yore; get rich and let the people starve. Aside from few skilled (and as oft as not western) workers the money doesn't get to the common people.

In the few countries that have done the intelligent choice they've made some inroads to fundamentalism. Unfortunately it's not nearly enough; they're still the same sort of bigoted jackasses; now they're just hypocrites.

[Vympel]

And this is you, Mike Wong, giving credit to loony conspiracy theories from helplessly biased left-wing sources.

Loony conspiracy theories? Did you even watch that debate? Why the fuck did he say "let me finish" when neither the moderator or Kerry was making a *sound*? That he was 'wired for sound' is not exactly a fringe theory in light of that fact.

[MKSheppard]

What part of my argument did you fail to read? Did I say that we should give them money? Nope, looks like thats yet another strawman from the master of the fallacy.

You said:

Of course they would. The more money going into the country, the more money the average person is likely to have. Once you raise the standard of living and education of enough people, the government tends to sort itself out.

There are a lot of countries where your theory doesn't work, as Kast
was pointing out in his stupid fuckwitted way.

[Stormbringer]

Which is why, after billions were spent on Zimbabwe after 1980, the lot of the average Zimbabwean has risen immeasurably, correct?

What part of my argument did you fail to read? Did I say that we should give them money? Nope, looks like thats yet another strawman from the master of the fallacy.

He's pointing out that money in doesn't mean improvement in autocratic shitholes. It doesn't matter whether it's aid money or trade. If it's horded by the powerful and doesn't make it down to the common people it won't matter.