When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Jason]

I'd say that those reparations have been paid by the endless foreign aid programs dozens of times over.

Oh yeah? Give me an example.

Uh, do you even read about how much money this country throws overseas?

I'm not a fan of American foreign policy either, mind. It created more enemies than the country knows how to deal with.

What a selfish way of looking at it - it's bad because of the harm it has created for us? Seems to me the scale of violence has been massively tipped to affect countries that are not the United States.

I didn't mean it like that, you're taking two plus two and ending up with twenty-two. I've never endorsed American foreign policy that is geopolitical in nature. It's an entire campaign of blowback, and it blew back on the United States. I'm saying that if we didn't get involved in that kind of geopolitics to begin with we wouldn't have had to become the welfare provider to the world.

This is why I'm against taxation. The American people pay the penalty for the sins of the government. That's wrong. So yes, from my perspective it's not my problem. I didn't keep slaves, I didn't kill anyone, I didn't overthrow governments, and I didn't pillage resources. We're living in a world of false entitlements. These people don't deserve MY tax dollars. They deserve the tax dollars of those who participated in their destruction.

Well, it's not like you're doing anything about it, are you? You realize you're not living in a totalitarian government, right? You know there's a whole history of American government policy being effectively shaped as a result of very hard work done by ordinary citizens? If you don't like how your money is spent you can damn well do something about it other than just make complaints on the web.

I am doing something about it. I'm not voting Obamney. It's called following one's conscience.

[rab2591]

RE: troops, I know a fair few people who went into the army when I was at school. Some of them were nuts. Some of them just didn't have any thing else to do, so I'm sort of wary of condemning them rather than the machinery that sends them there.

Very much agreed. Recruiters came to our school every week and stood around during lunch going to different tables, talking, signing people up. I swear I remember the army and navy advertising on the school news. Kids these days are completely bombarded with recruitment tactics. So they are, to an extent, duped into signing up. You really can't blame the students-turned-soldiers.

I'm wary of calling these people 'murderers' when most are just unassuming young kids who were, after years of sh*tty public education, conned into the machine.

Those who don't think for themselves or are too ignorant to think for themselves deserve whatever happens to them, including my condemnation of their actions as state-sanctioned murderers.

American student's aren't taught to think for themselves. The public education system breeds stupidity and completely discourages free thinking. Thus I find it asinine to condemn them for not doing what they were never taught.

[Jason]

Ignorance is not excusable, especially when said ignorance is exploited for malevolent ends. And it's a damn shame. I can't think of a worse punishment for American youth than twelve years of public school and then however long in the military.

But isn't that what the United States government wanted all along? Obedient workers and military pawns who would never question just how f***ed up everything is? The same could be said for the people who ran the extermination camps during the Holocaust. If they knew something was wrong and still went ahead with it, they're part of the problem and not the solution.

Deserters are more "patriotic" than those who blindly lead the charge into the state's mischief.

[hypehat]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

[Jason]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

[hypehat]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Uh, do you even read about how much money this country throws overseas?

Yes, which is why I know that you are drawing a false connection between US foreign spending with the countries that the United States have actively destroyed. There is a sharp difference between the military aid that takes up a large percentage of US foreign spending and humanitarian aid which is comparatively much smaller. Furthermore, an extraordinarily large percentage of foreign spending constitutes military aid to countries that have helped or are helping the US in actively repressing other countries, in the name of protecting overseas economic interests. You can't expect me to swallow that the overwhelming amount of money given to the three usual US favorites - Israel, Egypt, and Colombia - in any repays the countries that were destroyed. In fact, the military aid serves to continue the trend of wreaking havoc on the world.

And furthermore, the amount the US spends in foreign aid is shameful to begin with - ranking as one of the lowest countries in the industrialized world in terms of per capita spending.
 

I didn't mean it like that, you're taking two plus two and ending up with twenty-two. I've never endorsed American foreign policy that is geopolitical in nature. It's an entire campaign of blowback, and it blew back on the United States. I'm saying that if we didn't get involved in that kind of geopolitics to begin with we wouldn't have had to become the welfare provider to the world.

Given what I noted above, this is an entire false description of what is happening. The United States doesn't give what little it gives, in comparison to other countries, because they are paying back countries. To repeat, the majority of foreign aid is merely a continuation of the long standing policy of protecting economic interests. In this case, it is done by arming the countries who support US attempts to undermine countries unfriendly to outside investment. And, unfortunately, we can't erase the past, we can only make up for it. So yes, it would have been nice if "we didn't get involved in that kind of geopolitics" but we did.

And besides, this discussion of reparations was only ever intended as a sidebar. Paying reparations for past crimes is one thing, paying for humanitarian aid is something different, and we are meant to support it because we know that, on average, in spending less money than we would spend on two CDs we end up saving millions of lives.  Or, the flip side is we know that by refusing to spend the amount we would spend on two CDs that we put millions of lives at risk.

I am doing something about it. I'm not voting Obamney. It's called following one's conscience.

You're not voting at all. And for a guy who pretends to be against the status quo, you couldn't have have given a more status quo response - in other words, accepting the farce that is spun out by mainstream politicians that democracy is enacted through the process of voting and that change happens through the voting booth. In reality, real democracy requires ongoing day-to-day participation; and in places where change needs to occur, it requires relentless activism. If you look at the major accomplishments within the US, they didn't come through voting - they came because ordinary people fought for them, typically in massive solidarity movements. The reason why you're supposed to think that pulling a lever every four years (or not pulling a lever every four years) constitutes important political action is because you're not supposed to consider doing the things that actual produce real change. I'm sorry but "I'm not voting Obamney" is about as effective as saying "I'm voting Obama" or "I'm voting Romney". In other words, the effect it has is roughly none. Hell, a huge number of Americans don't vote in each election and that certainly hasn't "helped" to change things. Or does their lack of participation in the elections need to be accompanied with lots of posturing and swagger and degrading comments about regular people being sheep in order for the non-action to have some real impact?  Christ, this is why both the corporate world and the corporate-driven government drops to their knees every day and thanks the good Lord that people like you exist and it only helps matters when you actually believe that your thoroughly mainstream and bourgeois attitude is in some way different or dangerous.

[Jason]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

[Jason]

I am doing something about it. I'm not voting Obamney. It's called following one's conscience.

You're not voting at all. And for a guy who pretends to be against the status quo, you couldn't have have given a more status quo response - in other words, accepting the farce that is spun out by mainstream politicians that democracy is enacted through the process of voting and that change happens through the voting booth. In reality, real democracy requires ongoing day-to-day participation; it requires relentless activism. The reason why you're supposed to think that pulling a lever every four years (or not pulling a lever every four years) constitutes political action is because you're not supposed to consider doing the things that actual produce real change. I'm sorry but "I'm not voting Obamney" is about as effective as saying "I'm voting Obama" or "I'm voting Romney". In other words, the effect it has is roughly  none, which is why both the corporate world and the corporate-driven government drops to their knees every day and thanks the good Lord that people like you exist and it only helps matters when you actually believe that your thoroughly mainstream and bourgeois attitude is in some way different or dangerous.

I'm actually voting Gary Johnson. Problem is, of course, the United States isn't a democracy...not yet anyway. And again...short of another American Revolution (which I doubt would ever happen because it would take people away from Dancing with the Stars), how do you expect those in government who don't obey the law to actually obey the law without resorting to violence?

[hypehat]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

You missed mine and Rab's point. The people I know had no choice, insomuch as they saw it. To turn around and say 'MURDERERS' is missing some nuance from the guys I knew who joined because they couldn't or wouldn't get housing benefits, couldn't stay with their parents, no chance of higher education (not necessarily self-inflicted), saw a life of mediocrity manning a till in an ASDA...

Nah. Sheep. Murderous swine. f*** them, amirite.

The 'ignorant' are people too, but your quasi-intellectual viewpoint does not allow for that possibility. It's all black and white to you.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm actually voting Gary Johnson.

Fair enough - the point remains the same though Johnson is a deceitful lunatic, but what else is new?

Problem is, of course, the United States isn't a democracy...not yet anyway.

Depends on one's definition of democracy. What it is is a country that is structurally set up to allow people to have a legitimate impact on the way the country is run (and here I'm not talking about voting). This, in itself, is a good thing, but it's also the reason why those who are in charge (and really it's not the government who is in charge) are frightened and do everything they can to ensure that the people who have the real power in the country (the actual people) either don't realize they have this power, don't know how to enact this power, or (in the worst case scenario, the one designed largely by the Libertarian movement) believe that it is crucial to give up the instruments that can allow them to enact their power.

And again...short of another American Revolution (which I doubt would ever happen because it would take people away from Dancing with the Stars), how do you expect those in government who don't obey the law to actually obey the law without resorting to violence?

Well, history tells us that there are ways to do it without "resorting to violence" but, yes, if dramatic ideological change is ever to happen (and for this, it is crucial to be aware of the ruling power source which is located in corporate power) it is going to be difficult to accomplish it without some force because those who own the country more than likely will not be willing to let go of it without a fight. But there are other convincing strategies to effect real change, as outlined by people like Walter Benjamin in his article "Critique on Violence."

But doubting it "would ever happen" is again, a really dangerous point of view and falls precisely under the category of people not realizing they have this power.

[Jason]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

You missed mine and Rab's point. The people I know had no choice, insomuch as they saw it. To turn around and say 'MURDERERS' is missing some nuance from the guys I knew who joined because they couldn't or wouldn't get housing benefits, couldn't stay with their parents, no chance of higher education (not necessarily self-inflicted), saw a life of mediocrity manning a till in an ASDA...

Nah. Sheep. Murderous swine. f*** them, amirite.

The 'ignorant' are people too, but your quasi-intellectual viewpoint does not allow for that possibility. It's all black and white to you.

I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that no one forced them to make the decisions they made. Of course they're people...I'm not disputing that. What would be more honorable is if people enlisted in the military because they were actually trying to defend their country and not fight geopolitical wars for oil.

[Jason]

I'm actually voting Gary Johnson.

Fair enough - the point remains the same though Johnson is a deceitful lunatic, but what else is new?

Problem is, of course, the United States isn't a democracy...not yet anyway.

Depends on one's definition of democracy. What it is is a country that is structurally set up to allow people to have a legitimate impact on the way the country is run (and here I'm not talking about voting). This, in itself, is a good thing, but it's also the reason why those who are in charge (and really it's not the government who is in charge) are frightened and do everything they can to ensure that the people who have the real power in the country (the actual people) either don't realize they have this power, don't know how to enact this power, or (in the worst case scenario, the one designed largely by the Libertarian movement) believe that it is crucial to give up the instruments that can allow them to enact their power.

And again...short of another American Revolution (which I doubt would ever happen because it would take people away from Dancing with the Stars), how do you expect those in government who don't obey the law to actually obey the law without resorting to violence?

Well, history tells us that there are ways to do it without "resorting to violence" but, yes, if dramatic ideological change is ever to happen (and for this, it is crucial to be aware of the ruling power source which is located in corporate power) it is going to be difficult to accomplish it without some force because those who own the country more than likely will not be willing to let go of it without a fight. But there are other convincing strategies to effect real change, as outlined by people like Walter Benjamin in his article "Critique on Violence."

But doubting it "would ever happen" is again, a really dangerous point of view and falls precisely under the category of people not realizing they have this power.

Well, wasn't it Stalin who said the person who counts the votes is the one who makes the decisions? This is why I'm an anarchist...you're always going to have someone left out in a democracy, which is why I can never throw myself behind the concept. If you leave everyone alone and let everyone do their own thing, no one's toes get stepped on by the state. In that respect, I'm an old-fashioned communist...I see no intrinsic value whatsoever in the state.

[hypehat]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

You missed mine and Rab's point. The people I know had no choice, insomuch as they saw it. To turn around and say 'MURDERERS' is missing some nuance from the guys I knew who joined because they couldn't or wouldn't get housing benefits, couldn't stay with their parents, no chance of higher education (not necessarily self-inflicted), saw a life of mediocrity manning a till in an ASDA...

Nah. Sheep. Murderous swine. f*** them, amirite.

The 'ignorant' are people too, but your quasi-intellectual viewpoint does not allow for that possibility. It's all black and white to you.

I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that no one forced them to make the decisions they made. Of course they're people...I'm not disputing that. What would be more honorable is if people enlisted in the military because they were actually trying to defend their country and not fight geopolitical wars for oil.

Life forced them to make that decision. The same thing that forced you to make every shitty decision you've ever made. I don't doubt for a second that they wouldn't have wanted to have the opportunity I had as a white middle class dude, but the difference between you and me is that I don't look down on them for having to make that awful decision due to forces outside of their control.

Nah, it's all black and white to you.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, wasn't it Stalin who said the person who counts the votes is the one who makes the decisions?

Stalin is one to talk -- the man was one of the most notorious murderers of the 20th Century and wouldn't know the first thing about real democracy. Or maybe he would but he just wouldn't care.

 

This is why I'm an anarchist...you're always going to have someone left out in a democracy, which is why I can never throw myself behind the concept.

Anarchism and democracy are not incompatible nor are they mutually exclusive concepts. You've never heard of compromise? Compromise doesn't mean being left out. It means having an understanding that the ultimate good might not be in getting things your way all the time but rather in working with others and that if one were to recognize the value of this then it stands to reason that everyone would get their fair share of compromise. And if one is so intent in having their way then that's why anarcho-democractic systems should be the way to go because they are based on free associations - if someone wants to participate in a society they can but they can also choose to join another, begin their own, and so forth. But in a society where one has more freedom to do what they want, I would imagine that compromise would be regarded as a virtue, not as something that thwarts the legitimacy of democracy.

If you leave everyone alone and let everyone do their own thing, no one's toes get stepped on by the state. In that respect, I'm an old-fashioned communist...I see no intrinsic value whatsoever in the state.

Old-fashioned communists are not against the state per se - they are against political power which is why old fashioned communists occasionally suggest strengthening the state because that can more easily lead to a society with no political power. Also, society has never functioned where people "do their own thing" no does human behavior suggest that we want to. In fact, quite the opposite - we have to be conditioned to accept separation as the norm.

[Jason]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

You missed mine and Rab's point. The people I know had no choice, insomuch as they saw it. To turn around and say 'MURDERERS' is missing some nuance from the guys I knew who joined because they couldn't or wouldn't get housing benefits, couldn't stay with their parents, no chance of higher education (not necessarily self-inflicted), saw a life of mediocrity manning a till in an ASDA...

Nah. Sheep. Murderous swine. f*** them, amirite.

The 'ignorant' are people too, but your quasi-intellectual viewpoint does not allow for that possibility. It's all black and white to you.

I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that no one forced them to make the decisions they made. Of course they're people...I'm not disputing that. What would be more honorable is if people enlisted in the military because they were actually trying to defend their country and not fight geopolitical wars for oil.

Life forced them to make that decision. The same thing that forced you to make every sh*tty decision you've ever made. I don't doubt for a second that they wouldn't have wanted to have the opportunity I had as a white middle class dude, but the difference between you and me is that I don't look down on them for having to make that awful decision due to forces outside of their control.

Nah, it's all black and white to you.

I don't even look down on them. I don't look up to them, that's for damn sure - especially the ones who think they're somehow "better" than we mere civilians are. Maybe I'm coming to my conclusions from a different perspective and therefore unable or unwilling to see the true human side of it.

The other day I was invited to a family gathering on my girlfriend's side for one of her cousins (via marriage) who was returning from his second tour of Afghanistan. I was so thoroughly disgusted by the whole AMERICA f*** YEAH attitude and constant cries of "OMG YOU'RE A HERO" that I felt ashamed of holding the flag. At that moment it became really clear to me - the United States of America, meaning what it claims to stand for and represent, is one giant lie. We were all taught in school about peace and liberty and justice for all...and then you eventually realize that you were sold the ultimate propaganda package. The American Dream? Doesn't exist.

The most damning condemnation is reserved for those who fight wars for that kind of hypocrisy. So yes, it is black or white to me. The real sad part is that those people will never know just how much they were sold down the river by the same country they swore up and down to protect.

In this respect, that scumbag Henry Kissinger was absolutely right. Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. That's what they signed up for, so damn it, that's the bed they sleep in.

[Jason]

This is why I'm an anarchist...you're always going to have someone left out in a democracy, which is why I can never throw myself behind the concept.

Anarchism and democracy are not incompatible nor are they mutually exclusive concepts. You've never heard of compromise? Compromise doesn't mean being left out. It means having an understanding that the ultimate good might not be in getting things your way all the time but rather in working with others and that if one were to recognize the value of this then it stands to reason that everyone would get their fair share of compromise. And if one is so intent in having their way then that's why anarcho-democractic systems should be the way to go because they are based on free associations - if someone wants to participate in a society they can but they can also choose to join another, begin their own, and so forth. But in a society where one has more freedom to do what they want, I would imagine that compromise would be regarded as a virtue, not as something that thwarts the legitimacy of democracy.

That's the same kind of society I've been referring to. If people want to have a communist, socialist, capitalist, whatever society...let them have it. As long as all participation is voluntary, that's fine.

[rab2591]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

You missed mine and Rab's point. The people I know had no choice, insomuch as they saw it. To turn around and say 'MURDERERS' is missing some nuance from the guys I knew who joined because they couldn't or wouldn't get housing benefits, couldn't stay with their parents, no chance of higher education (not necessarily self-inflicted), saw a life of mediocrity manning a till in an ASDA...

Nah. Sheep. Murderous swine. f*** them, amirite.

The 'ignorant' are people too, but your quasi-intellectual viewpoint does not allow for that possibility. It's all black and white to you.

I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that no one forced them to make the decisions they made. Of course they're people...I'm not disputing that. What would be more honorable is if people enlisted in the military because they were actually trying to defend their country and not fight geopolitical wars for oil.

Life forced them to make that decision. The same thing that forced you to make every sh*tty decision you've ever made. I don't doubt for a second that they wouldn't have wanted to have the opportunity I had as a white middle class dude, but the difference between you and me is that I don't look down on them for having to make that awful decision due to forces outside of their control.

Agreed again.

Hell, I was one pen-stroke away from signing up for the Navy when I was in High School - I had nothing better to do and I felt like following in my father's footsteps. I wasn't a "murderer" - I just wanted to travel, I wanted to feel important in the eyes of my society and family...back then I didn't realize that the military was a vast machine that created wars for itself to fight. I never questioned any of that because I was never taught to really think for myself back then. Thus, I don't blame others for joining.

@The Real Beach Boy: I recommend you read 'Free Will' by Sam Harris. He makes a great case about how free will doesn't exist, and how any decision we have made has been controlled solely by our brain chemistry and external forces. And thus I really don't blame anyone for the "decisions" they have made...thus I don't throw around the term "murderer" too often, in regards to US soldiers.

[rab2591]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

You missed mine and Rab's point. The people I know had no choice, insomuch as they saw it. To turn around and say 'MURDERERS' is missing some nuance from the guys I knew who joined because they couldn't or wouldn't get housing benefits, couldn't stay with their parents, no chance of higher education (not necessarily self-inflicted), saw a life of mediocrity manning a till in an ASDA...

Nah. Sheep. Murderous swine. f*** them, amirite.

The 'ignorant' are people too, but your quasi-intellectual viewpoint does not allow for that possibility. It's all black and white to you.

I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that no one forced them to make the decisions they made. Of course they're people...I'm not disputing that. What would be more honorable is if people enlisted in the military because they were actually trying to defend their country and not fight geopolitical wars for oil.

Life forced them to make that decision. The same thing that forced you to make every sh*tty decision you've ever made. I don't doubt for a second that they wouldn't have wanted to have the opportunity I had as a white middle class dude, but the difference between you and me is that I don't look down on them for having to make that awful decision due to forces outside of their control.

Nah, it's all black and white to you.

The other day I was invited to a family gathering on my girlfriend's side for one of her cousins (via marriage) who was returning from his second tour of Afghanistan. I was so thoroughly disgusted by the whole AMERICA f*** YEAH attitude and constant cries of "OMG YOU'RE A HERO" that I felt ashamed of holding the flag. At that moment it became really clear to me - the United States of America, meaning what it claims to stand for and represent, is one giant lie. We were all taught in school about peace and liberty and justice for all...and then you eventually realize that you were sold the ultimate propaganda package. The American Dream? Doesn't exist.

I'm 100% with you here.

As George Carlin says, "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Gah, it's actually overwhelming to contemplate how screwed up our society is.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

You missed mine and Rab's point. The people I know had no choice, insomuch as they saw it. To turn around and say 'MURDERERS' is missing some nuance from the guys I knew who joined because they couldn't or wouldn't get housing benefits, couldn't stay with their parents, no chance of higher education (not necessarily self-inflicted), saw a life of mediocrity manning a till in an ASDA...

Nah. Sheep. Murderous swine. f*** them, amirite.

The 'ignorant' are people too, but your quasi-intellectual viewpoint does not allow for that possibility. It's all black and white to you.

I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that no one forced them to make the decisions they made. Of course they're people...I'm not disputing that. What would be more honorable is if people enlisted in the military because they were actually trying to defend their country and not fight geopolitical wars for oil.

Life forced them to make that decision. The same thing that forced you to make every sh*tty decision you've ever made. I don't doubt for a second that they wouldn't have wanted to have the opportunity I had as a white middle class dude, but the difference between you and me is that I don't look down on them for having to make that awful decision due to forces outside of their control.

Nah, it's all black and white to you.

I don't even look down on them. I don't look up to them, that's for damn sure - especially the ones who think they're somehow "better" than we mere civilians are. Maybe I'm coming to my conclusions from a different perspective and therefore unable or unwilling to see the true human side of it.

The other day I was invited to a family gathering on my girlfriend's side for one of her cousins (via marriage) who was returning from his second tour of Afghanistan. I was so thoroughly disgusted by the whole AMERICA f*** YEAH attitude and constant cries of "OMG YOU'RE A HERO" that I felt ashamed of holding the flag. At that moment it became really clear to me - the United States of America, meaning what it claims to stand for and represent, is one giant lie. We were all taught in school about peace and liberty and justice for all...and then you eventually realize that you were sold the ultimate propaganda package. The American Dream? Doesn't exist.

The most damning condemnation is reserved for those who fight wars for that kind of hypocrisy. So yes, it is black or white to me. The real sad part is that those people will never know just how much they were sold down the river by the same country they swore up and down to protect.

In this respect, that scumbag Henry Kissinger was absolutely right. Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. That's what they signed up for, so damn it, that's the bed they sleep in.

I know several guys I've grown up with who joined the military, so I spent a lot of time with them, ROTC guys, as well as active duty friends of theirs, and I tell ya, I've never been around such an extreme bunch of death, violence and firepower obsessed freaks in all my life. And these are the same guys who are now so bloated with earnest and humble pride due to having served and who will not tolerate a single word of dissension from the common line/support-out-troops ethos! And these are guys who I KNOW enlisted because they liked the idea of getting to go kill and blow people up in other countries..... I'm not saying these guys represent all soldiers, but it should be known that these types are out there...

[Jason]

Those are the types I have absofuckinglutely ZERO respect for. I may be a gun rights advocate but I don't go nuts about wanting to kill people or "f*** sh*t up", as it were.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

I'd say that those reparations have been paid by the endless foreign aid programs dozens of times over.

Oh yeah? Give me an example.

Uh, do you even read about how much money this country throws overseas?

I'm not a fan of American foreign policy either, mind. It created more enemies than the country knows how to deal with.

What a selfish way of looking at it - it's bad because of the harm it has created for us? Seems to me the scale of violence has been massively tipped to affect countries that are not the United States.

I didn't mean it like that, you're taking two plus two and ending up with twenty-two. I've never endorsed American foreign policy that is geopolitical in nature. It's an entire campaign of blowback, and it blew back on the United States. I'm saying that if we didn't get involved in that kind of geopolitics to begin with we wouldn't have had to become the welfare provider to the world.

This is why I'm against taxation. The American people pay the penalty for the sins of the government. That's wrong. So yes, from my perspective it's not my problem. I didn't keep slaves, I didn't kill anyone, I didn't overthrow governments, and I didn't pillage resources. We're living in a world of false entitlements. These people don't deserve MY tax dollars. They deserve the tax dollars of those who participated in their destruction.

Well, it's not like you're doing anything about it, are you? You realize you're not living in a totalitarian government, right? You know there's a whole history of American government policy being effectively shaped as a result of very hard work done by ordinary citizens? If you don't like how your money is spent you can damn well do something about it other than just make complaints on the web.

I am doing something about it. I'm not voting Obamney. It's called following one's conscience.

So... you're doing something about it by wasting your one big shot at making a difference...

Right... so... I don't get it.

Btw: Hey If we have any Ohio fans here, vote Romney! We need you guys out of everyone!

[Dunderhead]

Kant pretty much obliterates the entire sense of morality that your leaning on, and you have to deal with that.

As he does your own, since for Kant, it is as rational beings that people are able to think as social beings, and not just as isolated individuals with their one-sided desires and goals. For him, it is the faculty of reason that most plausibly connects human beings with each other, and which turns a merely natural society of competing individuals into a human community with common ground.

Not so. There's nothing particularly Kantian about Welfare. In Schiller's Aesthetic Education state action is explicitly dismissed as a means of realizing the ultimate potential of humanity first of all. Second of all, participating in mandatory welfare programs isn't really very ethical as they rely entirely on force as arbitrator. You cannot compel people to behave morally, that's a purely anti-Kantian notion. Being forced to contribute to welfare funds does not make you ethical, doing anything because you're compelled to and for that reason alone is actually unethical. Supporting Welfare and leaning on emotional appeals to guilt others into supporting it politically does not entitle you to some moral superiority.

Kant is also quite explicit that, if we cannot use arbitrary religious morality to determine the best course of action, and common sense doesn't provide us any direction, we have to do what is right in a practical sense. Welfare is completely antithetical to this, there is nothing practically necessary about welfare, it does not have to exist, its benefit is extremely dubious and by all actual, empirical, practical measures of its net-effect, Social Security is a counterproductive, wasteful pipe-dream.

The net present value is negative, period. You can't argue this fact away, because, well, it's a *fact*. If social security was a bond that cost $X today, and gave some yearly return, X would be a negative value. Think about that, "investing" in social security means we, as a society, lose money. It's not defensible.

[Dunderhead]

Why do people try and pawn things off as if they can just understand the world without reading anything? You sit around and bitch about how people who read Ayn Rand are losers but when someone is trying to talk about real moral philosophy written by a real philosopher, than all of a sudden it becomes "I don't need to read, whoever learned anything by reading a book?"
If you want to talk about moral philosophy, talking about the most important moral philosopher of the last 250 years maybe has some value.

What I"m really and simply saying is regarding that the writings of any philosopher: their writings are only doing some of the work. Philosophy as well as literature/poetry ANY art form is a living entity (or something like that) a great novel should perhaps alter the way you view your own reality and that of the world and perhaps awaken you to new ways to experience and process life. Same with philosophy. If all you do is hole yourself up and read, you're missing the point....

And I never said people who read Ayn Rand are losers. The "semen stained copy of The Fountainhead" line was not mine......

I get this type of lecture all the time, I don't really understand it. None of my friends really read at all, they sort of putter around with pseudo-classics, spend months or even years reading the same book, and then try to play their lack of motivation off all nonchalantly, "you can't spend all your time reading, you have to actually experience life". It's a nonsensical argument that I see people using to justify their own lack of engagement with serious ideas. It never really strikes me as an especially well observed or profound observation, "you can't spend all your time reading", well of course you can't, who said you could? I'm not sure how a few hours a day became "your whole life".

As far as I'm concerned you can never read enough, of course you have to be moderate about it, you have to pace yourself and take measures not to burn out, but I can't help but notice that the people who are always telling me this always act like somehow they've matured beyond reading.

I think you misunderstand what the point of reading and studying art is, art is pure appearance. The reality of things is created by the things themselves, the appearance of things is created by man, as Schiller said. In the realm of pure abstraction, in the domain of beauty, pure form nullifies all concepts, all distinctions break down, the difference between action of sense is overcome. When man is in the realm of beauty, only then is he truly man, only then is he free to create the world according to his own law, the law of absolute moral necessity. The more you're able to distinguish between pure reality and pure appearance, the more control you'll gain over how the world appears to you and how representations affect your intellect.

In some sense you're right, there's a twinkling germ of truth in what people are trying to say when they make comments like that, but it's very corrupted. Reading doesn't teach you anything about the world, it only teaches you about yourself, you have to expand your mind to a point where it's able to contain all of reality. It's a process of attaining the infinite, it's the goal of every individual, you may never be able to realize it, but you should try your f***ing utmost to get there. Going through a phase where you read Nietzsche, or spending 6 months halfheartedly trudging through a copy of Ulysses or focusing your energy exclusively on embarrassing science fiction/fantasy epics doesn't count as serious reading in my mind, only as an affectation and pretense of genuine taste.

[Jason]

I'd say that those reparations have been paid by the endless foreign aid programs dozens of times over.

Oh yeah? Give me an example.

Uh, do you even read about how much money this country throws overseas?

I'm not a fan of American foreign policy either, mind. It created more enemies than the country knows how to deal with.

What a selfish way of looking at it - it's bad because of the harm it has created for us? Seems to me the scale of violence has been massively tipped to affect countries that are not the United States.

I didn't mean it like that, you're taking two plus two and ending up with twenty-two. I've never endorsed American foreign policy that is geopolitical in nature. It's an entire campaign of blowback, and it blew back on the United States. I'm saying that if we didn't get involved in that kind of geopolitics to begin with we wouldn't have had to become the welfare provider to the world.

This is why I'm against taxation. The American people pay the penalty for the sins of the government. That's wrong. So yes, from my perspective it's not my problem. I didn't keep slaves, I didn't kill anyone, I didn't overthrow governments, and I didn't pillage resources. We're living in a world of false entitlements. These people don't deserve MY tax dollars. They deserve the tax dollars of those who participated in their destruction.

Well, it's not like you're doing anything about it, are you? You realize you're not living in a totalitarian government, right? You know there's a whole history of American government policy being effectively shaped as a result of very hard work done by ordinary citizens? If you don't like how your money is spent you can damn well do something about it other than just make complaints on the web.

I am doing something about it. I'm not voting Obamney. It's called following one's conscience.

So... you're doing something about it by wasting your one big shot at making a difference...

Right... so... I don't get it.

Btw: Hey If we have any Ohio fans here, vote Romney! We need you guys out of everyone!

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14227.msg330987.html#msg330987