Wow, Rob, I thought you were anti-deficit and anti-Big Government; this proposal flies in the face of both. More importantly, I think you're confusing "militarism" with "patriotism" -- the best way to prevent future Vietnams, Iraqs (still a police state), and Afghanistans would be to not have a standing army which is ripe for such abuse, whatever form it takes:
The most patriotic act of George Washington was to *disband* his army, taking a pass on vesting himself with absolute authority -- an example the last two strutting, braggart, war-criminal fools who fancy themselves "war presidents" have utterly failed to follow, making them Unpatriots-In-Chief, in my book. We now have an army who swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the liberties enshrined in which we are told we must give up in the name of "supporting the mission," exactly the sort of outcome Brutus warns us about in AFP X, and not by failure to make military service compulsory.
It's time to recognize terrorism for what it is -- a law enforcement problem, not a military one. What are "signature strikes" but an excuse to fire drone-based missiles on any gathering of multiple bearded, berobed, turban-wearing, AK-47-toting Muslims? We've now codified the very policy which has led to blowing away so many wedding and funeral parties as to ensure a steady supply of new terrorists willing to suicide-bomb an airliner out of revenge -- a self-perpetuating state of permanent war where the Liberty our troops are supposedly fighting to uphold keeps trickling away, drip by drip, and habeas corpus no longer applies "because war" (see NDAA -- the lower-court injunction against its indefinite detention clause stands to be overturned by the Supremes this fall)...
A sad and sorry state of affairs for a nation whose founding principles are the opposite of its current reality -- the only noble purpose for a standing army is to defend to the death the liberties enshrined in the Constitution, which we celebrate Memorial Day to remind us are the only thing really worth fighting and dying for -- not to secure energy resources or increased military-derived revenue for our politician-favored corporations.
Putting you on "ignore" now, as all your responses to me, are nothing but ad-hominem attacks on my sources. Let me know if you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation.
Krugman isn't "my hero", just the best pundit available to this newspaper. He's not right about everything, but then again, the facts and figures do tend to back up what he has to say:
Cutting spending kills jobs, which contracts the economy. What's amazing, is that even under this all-out assault, our economy still manages anemic growth.
This country doesn't have a DEFICIT crisis, it has a REVENUE crisis. Which is not surprising since the official policy of one party is that cutting revenue (taxes) increases revenue, a prima facie logical fallacy if ever there was one.
What's discouraging, is the Obama administration's energy policy recently being edited this week to replace the term "energy efficiency" with "clean coal", which is yet another huge disappointment. Obama had every opportunity to be the "transformative" leader he campaigned as, only to knuckle under to every fearmongering special-interest group out there once taking office. Much better to call for an expansion of nuclear power, without waiting for any solution to the long-term waste disposal problem...
Godwin's Law is the act of comparing someone else's position to Hitler, or calling someone a Hitler-lover, NOT the act of making a valid historical point. Krugman states the obvious, which is without Hitler, there would have been no need for a massive ramp-up in government spending, which created enough jobs to end the Depression. Saying such a position makes someone a Hilter-lover, IS an example of Godwin's Law, and has no place in intelligent conversation.
Swapping out an incandescent bulb for fluorescent saves energy, but I don't see how this lowers anyone's standard of living. Experts tell us that conservation can save more energy than we could hope to drill our way into, which is why I find it curious that it isn't part of the conversation. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Consider some of the new hybrid supercars coming out from the likes of BMW, etc. which do 0-60 in 4 seconds while achieving 80mpg, and tell me again how conservation necessarily reduces living standards? Germany has consistently reduced energy consumption, which you would have us believe dooms their economy, but their strong economic performance seems to contradict your position.
Saying conservation would doom us to economic disaster is FUD not backed up by fact.
Gee, what insightful commentary you linked to. Yeah, Krugman's rooting for another Hitler, that's his point exactly. :rolleyes: Godwin's Law still holds true...
I won't argue with that editorial that the House Republicans are an odious lot. But it's yet another example of the MSM feeding us the standard doctrine and ignoring the reality of what's going on in Washington, D.C. these days. I expect, as soon as next week, we'll be hearing about the "Grand Bargain" being reached to eliminate Social Security -- and that this charge will be led by Democrats like Colorado's own Bennet and Udall.
Can't find my link, guess we'll just have to wait and see. But what's really happening, is the extremist bent of the GOP has caused a rightward shift in the Democratic Party, which can no longer be assumed to be the protectors of Social Security.
"If America is to remain an economically vibrant world leader, these trends must be reversed."
Which is exactly the opposite of what happens with those austerity measures you support. How many teachers, cops, and firefighters have lost their jobs over the past few years? How many older workers have been forced into early retirement? The result is more folks on the public dole, and less government revenue as they're no longer paying income tax, making interest payments on the deficit a larger *percentage* of a smaller budget.
Austerity is fine when the economy is surging -- instead, Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest, where were you austerity-loving deficit hawks then? Oh, right, cheering him and his un-funded wars and labeling those opposed as traitors... good job. Imagine if those trillions had gone towards paying down the debt, it would've been made inconsequential by now, and we'd have plenty of breathing room to spend tax dollars on *jobs programs* to fix our decaying infrastructure.
Government is not a business, and shouldn't be run like one.
Yes, we CAN spend our way out of the recession, given that every dollar spent creating jobs, or building/repairing infrastructure, returns $1.40 to the economy.
I'd love to explain, since this seems like radical nonsense, but I'll just quote Noam Chomsky instead:
"There was once an interview with Jeff Greenfield in which he was asked why I was never asked onto Nightline. He gave a good answer. He said the main reason was that I lacked concision. I had never heard that word before. You have to have concision. You have to say something brief between two commercials.
What can you say that’s brief between two commercials? I can say Iran is a terrible state. I don’t need any evidence. I can say Ghaddaffi carries out terror. Suppose I try to say the US carries out terror, in fact it’s one of the leading terrorist states in the world. You can’t say that between commercials. People rightly want to know what do you mean. They’ve never heard that before. Then you have to explain. You have to give background. That’s exactly what’s cut out. Concision is a technique of propaganda. It ensures you cannot do anything except repeat clichés, the standard doctrine, or sound like a lunatic."
The only reason austerity seems sensible, and I seem like a lunatic, is the country's been thoroughly propagandized through the brainwashing influence of television -- which I don't have, meaning I have to do my own research and base my opinions on facts almost nobody else has even been exposed to. Making it impossible to argue my points within the character limit imposed on this forum, and giving Rob all the cover he needs to stick with the cliches of standard doctrine which are killing off the American middle class.
"An increased energy production is in the best interest of the national economy and security, and local bias people should not be allowed to stand in the way."
Wouldn't conservation achieve the same goals? This ALEC-templated legislation (unfortunately, Colorado is one of three states which gives ALEC a tax exemption, despite its being a blatantly partisan lobbying operation) assumes that only by increasing supplies can energy security be achieved. What about reducing demand? Not part of the conversation...
Rob Douglas: The decline of patriotism
Wow, Rob, I thought you were anti-deficit and anti-Big Government; this proposal flies in the face of both. More importantly, I think you're confusing "militarism" with "patriotism" -- the best way to prevent future Vietnams, Iraqs (still a police state), and Afghanistans would be to not have a standing army which is ripe for such abuse, whatever form it takes:
http://constitution.org/afp/brutus10.htm
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsa...
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.ca/2012...
The most patriotic act of George Washington was to *disband* his army, taking a pass on vesting himself with absolute authority -- an example the last two strutting, braggart, war-criminal fools who fancy themselves "war presidents" have utterly failed to follow, making them Unpatriots-In-Chief, in my book. We now have an army who swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the liberties enshrined in which we are told we must give up in the name of "supporting the mission," exactly the sort of outcome Brutus warns us about in AFP X, and not by failure to make military service compulsory.
It's time to recognize terrorism for what it is -- a law enforcement problem, not a military one. What are "signature strikes" but an excuse to fire drone-based missiles on any gathering of multiple bearded, berobed, turban-wearing, AK-47-toting Muslims? We've now codified the very policy which has led to blowing away so many wedding and funeral parties as to ensure a steady supply of new terrorists willing to suicide-bomb an airliner out of revenge -- a self-perpetuating state of permanent war where the Liberty our troops are supposedly fighting to uphold keeps trickling away, drip by drip, and habeas corpus no longer applies "because war" (see NDAA -- the lower-court injunction against its indefinite detention clause stands to be overturned by the Supremes this fall)...
A sad and sorry state of affairs for a nation whose founding principles are the opposite of its current reality -- the only noble purpose for a standing army is to defend to the death the liberties enshrined in the Constitution, which we celebrate Memorial Day to remind us are the only thing really worth fighting and dying for -- not to secure energy resources or increased military-derived revenue for our politician-favored corporations.
May 25, 2012 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Has America grown comfortably numb?
@markhartless
Putting you on "ignore" now, as all your responses to me, are nothing but ad-hominem attacks on my sources. Let me know if you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation.
May 19, 2012 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Has America grown comfortably numb?
Krugman isn't "my hero", just the best pundit available to this newspaper. He's not right about everything, but then again, the facts and figures do tend to back up what he has to say:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/arc...
Cutting spending kills jobs, which contracts the economy. What's amazing, is that even under this all-out assault, our economy still manages anemic growth.
This country doesn't have a DEFICIT crisis, it has a REVENUE crisis. Which is not surprising since the official policy of one party is that cutting revenue (taxes) increases revenue, a prima facie logical fallacy if ever there was one.
May 17, 2012 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Do you think energy-related severance taxes should be withheld from counties that place restrictions or moratoriums on oil and gas production?
What's discouraging, is the Obama administration's energy policy recently being edited this week to replace the term "energy efficiency" with "clean coal", which is yet another huge disappointment. Obama had every opportunity to be the "transformative" leader he campaigned as, only to knuckle under to every fearmongering special-interest group out there once taking office. Much better to call for an expansion of nuclear power, without waiting for any solution to the long-term waste disposal problem...
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publica...
May 17, 2012 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Has America grown comfortably numb?
"Your hero was using Godwin's Rule. Not I"
Godwin's Law is the act of comparing someone else's position to Hitler, or calling someone a Hitler-lover, NOT the act of making a valid historical point. Krugman states the obvious, which is without Hitler, there would have been no need for a massive ramp-up in government spending, which created enough jobs to end the Depression. Saying such a position makes someone a Hilter-lover, IS an example of Godwin's Law, and has no place in intelligent conversation.
May 17, 2012 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Do you think energy-related severance taxes should be withheld from counties that place restrictions or moratoriums on oil and gas production?
Swapping out an incandescent bulb for fluorescent saves energy, but I don't see how this lowers anyone's standard of living. Experts tell us that conservation can save more energy than we could hope to drill our way into, which is why I find it curious that it isn't part of the conversation. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Consider some of the new hybrid supercars coming out from the likes of BMW, etc. which do 0-60 in 4 seconds while achieving 80mpg, and tell me again how conservation necessarily reduces living standards? Germany has consistently reduced energy consumption, which you would have us believe dooms their economy, but their strong economic performance seems to contradict your position.
Saying conservation would doom us to economic disaster is FUD not backed up by fact.
May 17, 2012 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Has America grown comfortably numb?
@ericsmorris:
Gee, what insightful commentary you linked to. Yeah, Krugman's rooting for another Hitler, that's his point exactly. :rolleyes: Godwin's Law still holds true...
May 11, 2012 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Has America grown comfortably numb?
@rokboat:
I won't argue with that editorial that the House Republicans are an odious lot. But it's yet another example of the MSM feeding us the standard doctrine and ignoring the reality of what's going on in Washington, D.C. these days. I expect, as soon as next week, we'll be hearing about the "Grand Bargain" being reached to eliminate Social Security -- and that this charge will be led by Democrats like Colorado's own Bennet and Udall.
Can't find my link, guess we'll just have to wait and see. But what's really happening, is the extremist bent of the GOP has caused a rightward shift in the Democratic Party, which can no longer be assumed to be the protectors of Social Security.
May 11, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rob Douglas: Has America grown comfortably numb?
"If America is to remain an economically vibrant world leader, these trends must be reversed."
Which is exactly the opposite of what happens with those austerity measures you support. How many teachers, cops, and firefighters have lost their jobs over the past few years? How many older workers have been forced into early retirement? The result is more folks on the public dole, and less government revenue as they're no longer paying income tax, making interest payments on the deficit a larger *percentage* of a smaller budget.
Austerity is fine when the economy is surging -- instead, Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest, where were you austerity-loving deficit hawks then? Oh, right, cheering him and his un-funded wars and labeling those opposed as traitors... good job. Imagine if those trillions had gone towards paying down the debt, it would've been made inconsequential by now, and we'd have plenty of breathing room to spend tax dollars on *jobs programs* to fix our decaying infrastructure.
Government is not a business, and shouldn't be run like one.
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/greed...
Yes, we CAN spend our way out of the recession, given that every dollar spent creating jobs, or building/repairing infrastructure, returns $1.40 to the economy.
I'd love to explain, since this seems like radical nonsense, but I'll just quote Noam Chomsky instead:
"There was once an interview with Jeff Greenfield in which he was asked why I was never asked onto Nightline. He gave a good answer. He said the main reason was that I lacked concision. I had never heard that word before. You have to have concision. You have to say something brief between two commercials.
What can you say that’s brief between two commercials? I can say Iran is a terrible state. I don’t need any evidence. I can say Ghaddaffi carries out terror. Suppose I try to say the US carries out terror, in fact it’s one of the leading terrorist states in the world. You can’t say that between commercials. People rightly want to know what do you mean. They’ve never heard that before. Then you have to explain. You have to give background. That’s exactly what’s cut out. Concision is a technique of propaganda. It ensures you cannot do anything except repeat clichés, the standard doctrine, or sound like a lunatic."
http://www.alternet.org/economy/15528...
The only reason austerity seems sensible, and I seem like a lunatic, is the country's been thoroughly propagandized through the brainwashing influence of television -- which I don't have, meaning I have to do my own research and base my opinions on facts almost nobody else has even been exposed to. Making it impossible to argue my points within the character limit imposed on this forum, and giving Rob all the cover he needs to stick with the cliches of standard doctrine which are killing off the American middle class.
May 11, 2012 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Do you think energy-related severance taxes should be withheld from counties that place restrictions or moratoriums on oil and gas production?
"An increased energy production is in the best interest of the national economy and security, and local bias people should not be allowed to stand in the way."
Wouldn't conservation achieve the same goals? This ALEC-templated legislation (unfortunately, Colorado is one of three states which gives ALEC a tax exemption, despite its being a blatantly partisan lobbying operation) assumes that only by increasing supplies can energy security be achieved. What about reducing demand? Not part of the conversation...
May 11, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )