US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i wish perry would win the rep nominee

I can't really say I would be funny or crazy.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i wish perry would win the rep nominee

He really needed to take an acting class or two. There's ways to bounce back from something like that. For instance, just say you meant two, that way it would have been a simple slip of the tongue...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

He really needed to take an acting class or two. There's ways to bounce back from something like that. For instance, just say you meant two, that way it would have been a simple slip of the tongue...

Problem is that he already said three in a previous recorded statement. It was his own policy. Not sure which is worse, forget your own policy, or be forced to change it because you can't admit you forgot a part of it.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

No, ACORN doesn't exist anymore. Yes, its former members do. I'm not sure why that would be an issue you'd argue though. I'm not. But it's not unusual that people who know each other and share values and skills from their jobs, which they then lose, would go find new jobs that also emphasized those values and mindsets, whether its Organize Now, SEIU, or the WFP. If you think that's evidence of some hidden evil conspiracy, I have a tinfoil hat to give you. Although I'm not even sure what this conspiracy is supposed to be.

ACORN doesn't exist anymore because of the scandal they were involved in.
You don't need an "evil right-wing conspiracy" when the Democrats in congress pulled their funding over it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/2...ng-resolution/

...whether or not Soros had donated to a cause...

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Who's behind the Wall Street protests?

Originally Posted by Kaiba

Incorrect. That's Fabian Socialism, which is still very strong today.

Owens wanted the same thing as George Bernard Shaw, and the Webbs.
He just went about it a different way.
Of course I do agree with some of what old George had to say about communism:
“A man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool. Any man who is still communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger one.”

Owen's plan was more or less this:
1. Create commune ( ie. New Harmony)
2. Have everyone realize how awesome these communes are.
3. Everyone joins, and we have kittens and butterflies, and the old capitalist dog eat dog society goes down the drain.

The fact that New Harmony was an epic fail kind of screwed this plan over, and Marx made a more realistic version, one that actually looked at the present system. If you disagree, you have to remember that really no one outside of academics has any clue who the heck Robert Owen is. He has had no influence on socialism as it has existed since the death of Marx.

Guess that means all socialism is epic fail.
That's no different than Marx's ridiculous nonsense about the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which leads to government "withering away" as if by magic.

I said originally in this conversation:
Karl Marx screwed up socialist philosophy.
Had it gone the Owenist route, things may have been quite different.


Perhaps you misunderstood.
I was referring to Marx's hatred of the bourgeoisie and Owens desire to work with them for a better society.
Marx was wrong, Owens was right and history has proven it with Lenin's NEP, the fall of the USSR, China's move towards "market-socialism," and the various Social-Democratic states that combine elements of corporatism with socialism in a peaceful, non-democidal manner.
There is no further need to discuss how badly Marx's theories failed in the 20th Century.
History has weighed and measured Marxism and found it grossly wanting.

Why is Apple prevented from asking for a bailout if it becomes a business as opposed to a corporation?
I still don't see the huge difference between corporations and businesses, and why the former is bad and the latter is good. You stated that corporations are bad because they require government approval. I pointed out that Apple is a corporation, but they didn't need government approval to form, and I don't believe that if Apple was a corporation instead of a business, things would be very different for it.

*facepalm*

Apple wouldn't get a bailout in a capitalist system because in capitalism government doesn't pick winners and losers.
The market, i.e. the people, choose which companies survive and which ones die with their buying power.
It doesn't get more democratic then that.

You don't know what a corporation is do you.
What part of CREATURE OF THE STATE do you not get?
A corporation can only exist with government approval.
A business does not need government approval to exist.
Your city or county is probably a municipal corporation, does that make it a business?
NO!
Are non-profits business?
NO!
But they are corporations.
Sole proprietorships and limited liability companies (LLCs) are businesses, but they are NOT corporations.

I don't remember this specifically about Owen from past research, but it's not unreasonable. That said, what you define as a corporate structure is just hierarchy, and that's something that will never, ever go away. It's part of all societies, even if you include non-human ones.

Eh, I know nothing of non-human societies...but I'll take your word for it that you do there space-cadet.

Hierarchy isn't the issue, corporate structure is.
In a corporation you can have people with no experience running it in charge through nepotism, education, favors, or other means.
Whereas Owens wanted managers who worked their way up through the ranks via experience before they are put in charge.
That's the difference.

This is still fractional-reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking is when that percentage is any number less than 100%.

You forgot the part about Interest.
Lending someone money without interest allows them to pay back only what they borrowed, plus a fee.
In the portion of the article you sighted, the bank cannot lend out more than 20% of what it has in actual value.
In capitalism that value is money backed by a commodity like gold.
In corporatism that "value" is backed by a promise to pay: i.e. debt.
Here, watch these videos to learn about how corporatist money works (you can thank Sugetsu for introducing me to them).

Well, sure. I'll also be able to trade with guns, and cows, and tanks of gasoline. That doesn't make those currency. If anything, it'll be easier to trade with the above, as if the fiat currency collapses, you'll be more interested in getting something to eat as opposed to stockpiling gold.
Furthermore, how do you regulate it? What's going to stop me in that society from just selling fool's gold, or lesser quality gold?

Gee, what stops people from counterfeiting paper money...I know...NOTHING!
While I do like fish, I'm not particularly fond of RED HERRING, so please stop.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Maybe your beef is with Interest.

Yes, as usual you understand where I'm coming from DQ.

I'm all for favouring other forms of banking (particularly those that are owned by it's members, and non-profit), but you can't really get away from fractional reserve. It's the entire point, you give money to the bank/building society/etc. so that it can lend it to people who need it, either to start a new business, build a house etc.

Islamic banking fascinates me also.
A secular version might be workable.

[Kaiba]

Perhaps you misunderstood.
I was referring to Marx's hatred of the bourgeoisie and Owens desire to work with them for a better society.
Marx was wrong, Owens was right and history has proven it with Lenin's NEP, the fall of the USSR, China's move towards "market-socialism," and the various Social-Democratic states that combine elements of corporatism with socialism in a peaceful, non-democidal manner.
There is no further need to discuss how badly Marx's theories failed in the 20th Century.
History has weighed and measured Marxism and found it grossly wanting.

I think we're ultimately arguing over trivialities here - namely, whether Robert Owen was an actual intellectual and whether he wanted the destruction of the capitalist system.
Nevertheless, I still argue that there are huge differences between Owen and the Fabians. The Fabians sought to work with society, creating socialism through democratic reforms and passing laws - Social Security would be an example.. Owen never did that, and I have no idea where you got the idea that he wanted to work with the bourgeois. Maybe when he was still a factory owner, but by the time he was creating New Harmony, he wasn't part of it anymore, and he definitely wasn't participating in the system at that point. His goal was to create his model society that would be SEPARATE from the democratic capitalist system, the capitalist system would see how good this collective would be, and happiness. You're right that he never sought to completely destroy the system like Marx did, but he never tried to reform through it the political process like the Fabians. He just tried to isolate people away from the system, which was just as foolish, if not more so, than Marx. Marxism is wrong, I just see it as less wrong than Owenism, and more wrong than the Fabians.

You don't know what a corporation is do you.
What part of CREATURE OF THE STATE do you not get?
A corporation can only exist with government approval.
A business does not need government approval to exist.
Your city or county is probably a municipal corporation, does that make it a business?
NO!
Are non-profits business?
NO!
But they are corporations.
Sole proprietorships and limited liability companies (LLCs) are businesses, but they are NOT corporations.

I don't think I'm being clear.
You state that corporations are creatures of the state. I'm asking how, and how, if they weren't corporations and just a group or business, things would drastically change. I would assume, after all, that being a creature of the state means you listen to the state. But non-profits don't listen to the state, otherwise the NRA would be crowing about Obama right now, and every corporate business would be kowtowing to him. We see that isn't happening. Corporations are not constantly dependent on the government after all.

Suppose we have no corporations. We still have businesses, we still have groups of interested people, and they will talk to the government to get what they want. That will never, ever change. I'm not an economics expert, and I admit it. But from everything you've said, I just feel like a corporation is just an over-arching word to describe groups like businesses and non-profits, and so on.

Eh, I know nothing of non-human societies...but I'll take your word for it that you do there space-cadet.

Hierarchy isn't the issue, corporate structure is.
In a corporation you can have people with no experience running it in charge through nepotism, education, favors, or other means.
Whereas Owens wanted managers who worked their way up through the ranks via experience before they are put in charge.
That's the difference.

Dogs, ants, lions, etc. That's what I'm referring to. All species that have societies, have an alpha male and those who serve him.

Also, I used to be a libertarian, so let's see if I can go ahead and guess your entire argument:

In a corporation you can get away with having incompetent people run things because you can just ask the government to bail you out. This wouldn't happen in a capitalist system because there would be no bailouts, so the more efficient business would win every time.

.........If I'm correct, can I go ahead and ask why you don't like Rand? Because well, this is pretty much what she says.

You forgot the part about Interest.
Lending someone money without interest allows them to pay back only what they borrowed, plus a fee.
In the portion of the article you sighted, the bank cannot lend out more than 20% of what it has in actual value.
In capitalism that value is money backed by a commodity like gold.
In corporatism that "value" is backed by a promise to pay: i.e. debt.
Here, watch these videos to learn about how corporatist money works (you can thank Sugetsu for introducing me to them).

A couple thing here:
1. That "fee" you casually mention? That's interest.
2. You fail basic mathematics. The bank can lend up to 80% of its reserves, not up to 20%. If I'm correct, most banks are at 85% or 90%.
3. You're conflating two separate values. The value which the bank has, and the value which the borrower took from the bank. The former, under modern society, is backed by money, which is backed by the FDIC, something which is stable and can be regulated, unlike gold. The latter is your promise to pay, debt, which the borrower possesses towards the bank. But in an orderly society, it's possible to make sure that debt gets paid. After all, what promise to pay has the bank made under the current corporatist system?

Gee, what stops people from counterfeiting paper money...I know...NOTHING!
While I do like fish, I'm not particularly fond of RED HERRING, so please stop.

I think we're talking past each other here. Let me ask this before I deal with this, because this is something which is for me an obvious assumption. If the current fiat money system, the dollar, collapses completely, what do you think happens? My belief is basically catastrophe, a society where people are going to be concerned about finding their daily meal more than anything, and well, you can't eat gold.

[Ithekro]

You can't eat gold, but since it has been used for thousands of years as a currency system even under barter, it will likely be accepted even if the dollar falls, because unless all the currencies around the world also fall, someone will still have money and thus have a a potential backing with gold/silver. Thus it is still engrained that we can buy stuff with gold. Sure you can't eat it, but you can give it to someone that grows a lot of food, and he'll use it to buy other things that are not food that you might not have, but someone else that doesn't need food might have. That person can get something else with that gold that is not food from someone else that makes something. That person may then use that gold to buy food from someone else completely different from the first guy that was selling food.

In a pure barter system, you have to have something the other guy wants if you want to buy what he has. If you have nothing he wants, you get nothing. Thus you invent something the majority of people will accept in place of something you might want...in this case gold...and use it to purchase things. That gold gets scattered around based on whatever someone thinks it is worth to get things that they can't realistically trade for. Thus trade happens even if the people do not have things each other need. This is a valuable thing, because sometimes a thing one group has cannot be traded to someone who doesn't need that thing, and so on.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

You can't eat gold, but since it has been used for thousands of years as a currency system even under barter, it will likely be accepted even if the dollar falls, because unless all the currencies around the world also fall, someone will still have money and thus have a a potential backing with gold/silver. Thus it is still engrained that we can buy stuff with gold. Sure you can't eat it, but you can give it to someone that grows a lot of food, and he'll use it to buy other things that are not food that you might not have, but someone else that doesn't need food might have. That person can get something else with that gold that is not food from someone else that makes something. That person make then use that gold to buy food from someone else completely different from the first guy that was selling food.

In a pure barter system, you have to have something they other guy wants if you want to buy what he has. If you have nothing he wants, you get nothing. Thus you invent something the majority of people will accept in place of something you might want...in this case gold...and use it to purchase things. That gold gets scattered around baed on whatever someone thinks it is worth to get things that they can't realistically trade for. Thus trade happens even if the people do not have things each other need. This is a valuable thing, because sometimes thing one group needs cannot be traded to someone who does't need that thing, and so on.

in the event of a collaspe of the entire world economic system, you can keep your gold and i will keep my potatoes

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

in the event of a collaspe of the entire world economic system, you can keep your gold and i will keep my potatoes

Enjoy your carbo diet. I am growing sprouts and wheat.

Unless of course, you want a swap......

[Ithekro]

As I have said, patatoes won't work. You can grow them, and eat them. But as people get a lot of them, they won't want any more of them. Or they don't like to eat potatoes...then what. They won't buy them from you.

Plus they would be a pain in the ass to carry around.


How many potatoes for a high end computer? How much for a gun? How much for a tractor. How much for an acre of land? It would be worse than the days when a Pound Sterling actually weighed a pound.

How do you subdivide a potato and have it keep any worth for later trades?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

I think we're ultimately arguing over trivialities here - namely, whether Robert Owen was an actual intellectual and whether he wanted the destruction of the capitalist system.
Nevertheless, I still argue that there are huge differences between Owen and the Fabians. The Fabians sought to work with society, creating socialism through democratic reforms and passing laws - Social Security would be an example.. Owen never did that, and I have no idea where you got the idea that he wanted to work with the bourgeois. Maybe when he was still a factory owner, but by the time he was creating New Harmony, he wasn't part of it anymore, and he definitely wasn't participating in the system at that point. His goal was to create his model society that would be SEPARATE from the democratic capitalist system, the capitalist system would see how good this collective would be, and happiness. You're right that he never sought to completely destroy the system like Marx did, but he never tried to reform through it the political process like the Fabians. He just tried to isolate people away from the system, which was just as foolish, if not more so, than Marx. Marxism is wrong, I just see it as less wrong than Owenism, and more wrong than the Fabians.

Owens used money (fiat money called time stores) which his workers used as a means of exchange.
His system of socialism differed very much from Marx.
They lived in a cooperative community but still had private property.
Here, just read about it.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/hn...ewharmony.html

I agree there were certainly differences between Owens and the Fabians, after all Owens would never have tolerated this:

I don't think I'm being clear.
You state that corporations are creatures of the state. I'm asking how, and how, if they weren't corporations and just a group or business, things would drastically change. I would assume, after all, that being a creature of the state means you listen to the state. But non-profits don't listen to the state, otherwise the NRA would be crowing about Obama right now, and every corporate business would be kowtowing to him. We see that isn't happening. Corporations are not constantly dependent on the government after all.

How would it change?
That's obvious.
There would be no corporate-welfare, no military industrial complex, no public-private partnerships, and no lobbying to the extent there is now.
Nor would there be the Oligopolies we have such as those in the auto industry, software industry, media, oil industry, food industry, textile industry, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc., et nausium.
Those don't exist in acutal capitalism because government doesn't pick and choose among businesses which will win or lose.

Suppose we have no corporations. We still have businesses, we still have groups of interested people, and they will talk to the government to get what they want. That will never, ever change. I'm not an economics expert, and I admit it. But from everything you've said, I just feel like a corporation is just an over-arching word to describe groups like businesses and non-profits, and so on.

Corporations can be controlled (meaning government can determine what they sell and how) by the state legally.
Business cannot, and I'm not talking about safety issues here.
I'm referring to things like the kinds of cars that can be built, the size of crops in a given acrage, the types of firearms a company may sell to the public, etc.
Under capitalism, the government cannot order a business to produce anything or restrict it from producing most things (there are exceptions of course).

Also, I used to be a libertarian, so let's see if I can go ahead and guess your entire argument:

In a corporation you can get away with having incompetent people run things because you can just ask the government to bail you out. This wouldn't happen in a capitalist system because there would be no bailouts, so the more efficient business would win every time.

.........If I'm correct, can I go ahead and ask why you don't like Rand? Because well, this is pretty much what she says.

Because in her Objectivist view government has little to no place in society.
Her attitude expressed in Atlas Shrugged is offensive to me.
While we all have individual inalienable human rights, we also have collective responsibility.
She didn't see it that way.
I'm not a Libertarian,
I'm a classical liberal and they are not the same thing.
I understand that government has a role in society, but the abuse of that role is what a classical liberal seeks to stop.
Governments should serve the people, not oppress them.
However, by that same token, the people as a whole should be the vangards of government from those who would corrupt and abuse government power for their own selfish ends.

A couple thing here:
1. That "fee" you casually mention? That's interest.
2. You fail basic mathematics. The bank can lend up to 80% of its reserves, not up to 20%. If I'm correct, most banks are at 85% or 90%.
3. You're conflating two separate values. The value which the bank has, and the value which the borrower took from the bank. The former, under modern society, is backed by money, which is backed by the FDIC, something which is stable and can be regulated, unlike gold. The latter is your promise to pay, debt, which the borrower possesses towards the bank. But in an orderly society, it's possible to make sure that debt gets paid. After all, what promise to pay has the bank made under the current corporatist system?

1) No it's not. Interest is accumulated over time as a continous percentage on the total mony borrowed. For example: a Mortgage on a home will cost a home owner up to 97% of the home value on top of the cost of the home.
In an interest free loan the percentage agreed upon is paid only, not a continous percentage which in some cases may vary.
Take a 30-year fixed rate of 5% on a house that costs 500,000 dollars.
You put 20% down bringing the monthly payment to 1111 dollars a month before interest. With interest it's 1667 (rounded up for ease of example) per month.
That's an extra 555 per month or 200,000 dollars, or 50% of what is borrowed (since 20% was put down).
In an interest free loan the total pertage/fee is given up front.
Therefore, the buyer already knows how much the fee will be.
In Islamic Banking (which is the best example) this is typically 20% maximum for real-estate loans.
Thus the buyer pays less overall, and knows up front how much he/she will have to pay.
The rate does not change from the time the contract is made, and there are no other hidden fees.

2) Reserve Requirements:
Not in the US it's not.
Bank reserves requirements no longer exist.

If they do have reserves it is usually only around 3%, but by law it can be zero.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...1----000-.html

3) I'll let Robert Kiosaki explain it to you:

I think we're talking past each other here. Let me ask this before I deal with this, because this is something which is for me an obvious assumption. If the current fiat money system, the dollar, collapses completely, what do you think happens? My belief is basically catastrophe, a society where people are going to be concerned about finding their daily meal more than anything, and well, you can't eat gold.

It will vary from place to place in the US.
The more prepared areas that have stocks of food, weapons, and good community cohesion will fair well.
The cities will be as you say, a total collapse.
There are already radio commercials out where I'm at that advertise they take silver and gold for goods and services.
Utah has also made such arrangements.
I would not be surprised if other states take similar precautions.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Problem is that he already said three in a previous recorded statement. It was his own policy. Not sure which is worse, forget your own policy, or be forced to change it because you can't admit you forgot a part of it.

Yeah, but at least he wouldn't have looked stupid on national TV.

Later he can admit his mistake in print, which tends to look better, and will blow over.


@GundamFan: I can agree that it's deplorable that banks are allowed to be as leveraged as they are, there should be laws requiring some higher reserve ratio, I'd say somewhere in the region of 10-20%. That would mean most banks would be able to weather all but the worst storms.

However Interest in itself is more arguable. I say let it exist, if people want to borrow from an interest giving institution, let them. If they'd prefer to get a loan from a JAK equivalent, islamic banking, building society, mutual or credit union, let them choose. If the market is properly open, the consumer can choose for himself. Don't forget that many of these alternatives impose restrictions that many consumers can't meet. There'll always be a market for loan sharks.

Let the banks do as they may (with relevant regulations to prevent a financial death spiral), so long as government isn't on the line to bail them out, I don't see any major issues.

You should investigate Credit Unions, they're already wide spread in America, they're owned by their depositors (not anonymous shareholders), they provide higher interest on deposits, and lower interest of loans, and if your Credit Union goes down, you only have yourself to blame. However Banks are always trying to get legislation hostile to Credit Unions through Congress...

[Kaiba]

Owens used money (fiat money called time stores) which his workers used as a means of exchange.
His system of socialism differed very much from Marx.
They lived in a cooperative community but still had private property.
Here, just read about it.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/hn...ewharmony.html

I'm frankly fairly insulted that after everything I mentioned about him, you act like I've never heard of Owen and what he did in New Harmony with that link.
Not to mention you didn't even contradict what I'm saying is the difference between the Fabians and Owen - Owen sought to create a society separate from the capitalist world. The Fabians sought to change that world through the political and democratic process. That's the difference, and is the reason why Owenism is completely irrelevant when New Harmony failed.

How would it change?
That's obvious.
There would be no corporate-welfare, no military industrial complex, no public-private partnerships, and no lobbying to the extent there is now.
Nor would there be the Oligopolies we have such as those in the auto industry, software industry, media, oil industry, food industry, textile industry, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc., et nausium.
Those don't exist in acutal capitalism because government doesn't pick and choose among businesses which will win or lose.

First, I asked earlier about historical examples of this capitalist system, or anything close to it. You keep talking about this capitalist system, but everything I've heard about it makes me wonder if anything even remotely like this has actually occurred.

Secondly, every single thing you've mentioned has nothing to do with corporations persay. It has to do with the role of government in economics. You act like if you get rid of corporations and replace them with businesses, the US government would no longer deal with the economic sphere - even though the justification of the US government for meddling with the economy has nothing to do with corporations. Eliminating corporations won't eliminate the Commerce Clause, or the Necessary and Proper clause, and the government will be capable of everything it's doing now as long as those exist. Corporations aren't the enabler of governmental interference.

Not to mention that it's one thing to bailout GM, but not bailing out the banks? Would have wiped out the savings of anyone who had money in those banks. Oh, that's just great.

1) No it's not. Interest is accumulated over time as a continous percentage on the total mony borrowed. For example: a Mortgage on a home will cost a home owner up to 97% of the home value on top of the cost of the home.
In an interest free loan the percentage agreed upon is paid only, not a continous percentage which in some cases may vary.
Take a 30-year fixed rate of 5% on a house that costs 500,000 dollars.
You put 20% down bringing the monthly payment to 1111 dollars a month before interest. With interest it's 1667 (rounded up for ease of example) per month.
That's an extra 555 per month or 200,000 dollars, or 50% of what is borrowed (since 20% was put down).
In an interest free loan the total pertage/fee is given up front.
Therefore, the buyer already knows how much the fee will be.
In Islamic Banking (which is the best example) this is typically 20% maximum for real-estate loans.
Thus the buyer pays less overall, and knows up front how much he/she will have to pay.
The rate does not change from the time the contract is made, and there are no other hidden fees

First you already mentioned that you know how much you have to pay under the old system - 200,000.
Secondly, your complaint really comes down to me as "people pay too much for stuff."

Thirdly, and most importantly, this has nothing to do with the original topic, fractional-reserve banking. Fractional-reserve banking is the concept that banks do not keep all of their deposited money, and will lend it out. That's it. I have no idea what your interest stuff has anything to do with it, and if you're really arguing against usury, you can go back to the Middle Ages ( or Islamic banking, which should be noted that while theoretically has 100% reserve requirements, it really doesn't). I have no idea why banking run by religious freaks should be something to be respected.

2) Reserve Requirements:
Not in the US it's not.
Bank reserves requirements no longer exist.

If they do have reserves it is usually only around 3%, but by law it can be zero.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...1----000-.html

Bullshit. If reserve requirements were ZERO, it would mean that the bank isn't holding any money, and that no one can get money when they withdraw from a bank. That's obviously not true.

And Oh God, Kiyosaki? Really? What's next, Peter Schiff and Glenn Beck?

[Vexx]

10 questions for the GOP candidates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15687815

1) You pretty much have to go outside the US for this sort of article, the media reporting of GE, Disney, and Murdoch certainly won't do it. Their narrative is pretty much the "horse race" theme, how they looked, did they sound confident as they asserted the Earth was flat, etc. PBS used to be better at this but its been effectively squelched by starvation and corporate co-opting (look who sponsors what now...).

2) These are 10 pretty basic policy questions that I have zero confidence that any of these empty suits can answer... meanwhile, almost any decent "Cross Examination" debate team in a high school could toss a few pages on the subject questions without referring to their notes.

[solomon]

Vexx, I still think PBS/NPR is okkaayyyyy.

They can't be heavily pointed in their questions but they ask decent questions and don't sop over the candidates like they are Capitol version of Kim Kardashian.

It is true though, real pointed questions are done by places like the BBC, The Economist, etc.

[Demongod86]

Well, aside from Paul/Huntsman, the rest of the republicans are war hawks who want to send kids who aren't theirs to fight wars funded by money we don't have.

Honestly, why the heck are we thinking about deploying boots on the ground? We're talking about Iran getting a nuke? We have several thousand of them, and the B-2s with which to deliver them, and if the parties could get their crap together, then F-22s with which to escort them. If push came to shove and we really needed to remind the world as to why the heck people shouldn't fuck with nukes, well, stealth bomber with global range+nuclear-capable...you sort it out.

Honestly...have we forgotten about the fact that we have an air force full of stealth jets, one model of which is fully nuclear-capable, meaning we have enough firepower to scour any offending nation off the face of the planet?

So much ado about nothing.

If a crazy dictator wants to move hell or high water to get nukes, then someone's going to have to remind the world why these things didn't get used after WW2. And the nation of a crazy bunch of theocratic loonies seems like such a wonderful demonstration ground, doncha think?

In the meantime, I say sell Israel a few B-2s and a squadron of F-22s and F-35s. Once Israel gets the capabilities to conduct a covert nuclear strike and make it look like an accident at a bad guy's weapons facility, I think dictators in the region are going to think twice before opening up their traps with heated rhetoric backed by a fledgling nuclear program.

[Ithekro]

The main worry there is retaliation from the other nuclear powers for even using a nuclear weapon in anger again. Not sure if that anti-ballistic missiles system is fully rated yet.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

In the meantime, I say sell Israel a few B-2s and a squadron of F-22s and F-35s. Once Israel gets the capabilities to conduct a covert nuclear strike and make it look like an accident at a bad guy's weapons facility, I think dictators in the region are going to think twice before opening up their traps with heated rhetoric backed by a fledgling nuclear program.

Even if someone manage to destroy Iran's nuke facility and manage to ''make it look like an accident'' they are oing to blame Israel and the US anyway.

[Mentar]

And I bet that all the Iran war advocates still consider themselves to be among the "good guys". Really, you should be listening to yourselves.

I can't even eat as much as I want to hurl.

[cors8]

These jokers think that there will be no repercussions if we just bombed Iran. The current regime would love nothing more than to have an outside power attack them to unite the population.

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by cors8

These jokers think that there will be no repercussions if we just bombed Iran. The current regime would love nothing more than to have an outside power attack them to unite the population.

If you have a bunch of crazy theocratic loonies pursuing a nuclear weapon come hell or high water with economic sanctions, do you have a better alternative, or do you just let them stockpile nukes?

Nobody's saying to put boots on the ground. Just crater their nuclear facilities. This can quite easily be done with nuclear weapons. Nuclear facilities+nuclear weapons=nuclear accident. You don't need a fleet of bombers to do this. Just one or two B-2s, perhaps with a few F-22s flying air cover (though they need to be flyable first...they have an oxygen problem atm). Just go in the dead of night, carry out a quick bombing run, then get out of dodge while everyone else is none the wiser.

Then you can probably deny everything too if there's no evidence of American/Israeli intervention beyond the fact that those stupid Iranian loonies had their reactor go boom.