Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Adam wrote:

In reply to:

---

Now let's say that saving the people of Iraq from a cruel dictator was the main reason for the war. There is a problem with that angle. And that problem is Africa. Whether by massacres and genocide, disease and epidemics (AIDS), cruel dictatorships or just plain malnutrition, the state of living for the average African is far more dire than the average Iraqi. Take Rwanda. The Congo. Sudan (hey, if we're going to right a wrong, how about we build a new pharmaceutical plant to replace the one we blew up, so the Sudanese people can receive treatment for various diseases, like TB, at a price they can actually afford, rather than dying by the thousands from treatable diseases). Anyway, my point is, the US has never been altruistic when it comes to using it's might. And though there are millions of Africans truly struggling for survival every day, who are far more deserving of a better way of life than those whose main struggle is for rights and not survival , they are denied that chance because they have little to offer the US in return.

---

We are not denying anyone in Africa their "chance" for survival. We are not responsible for one genocidal, corrupt regime after another which marks the governments of Africa. The US gives an enormous amount of food aid. We cannot stop the local despots from stealing a non trivial portion of that aid. We are not responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa. African governments reject Western pharmaceuticals for the treatment of AIDS because their party-line is that AIDS is not caused by a virus. Kenya is the exception and has an effective abstinence program. The conventional wisdom in Africa is that if a man contracts AIDS he should have sex with a young virgin. As you might expect, rape is simultaneously rampant and ineffective as a treatment. Muslim populations in Africa refuse polio and measles vaccines because their wise men tell them these vaccines are part of Jewish plot to cause infertility among Muslim men thereby depriving them of their "demographic weapon."

It's about time people take responsibility for their own lots. I don't know how a peaceful person can deal with warlords and their "technicals" children armed with AK47s and Toyota 4wd pick up trucks mounting 20 caliber machine guns, but that's the world of sub Saharan Africa. Why don't you expect Saudi Arabia, a neighbor to use some of their petro dollars to help people? All their "aid" is funding for Islamic centers which propagate the Wahabi Jihadist philosophy and terror. Israel gives more aid to Africa than Saudi Arabia which is swimming in enormous petro wealth.

You want the US to deal with the abomination of North Korea? Fine, convince the South Koreans that we should do that, or do you want us to act unilaterally in the Korean peninsula?

Forgive me for saying, but your comments appear to be well meaning but confused and based on misperceptions of global, regional and local realities.

I've been staying out of this one lately but still following it because honestly, you're all in over my head as far as my knowledge of what goes on out there in the world goes(especially you with the Africa stuff 2x6). However, I would like to say that this has to be one of the most interesting threads I have read on here in a while. Maybe I am just starting to get tired of the which speaker should I get, the M22 or the M60 threads

I enjoy this thread. Kudos to everyone for being at least somewhat civil. I've only needed to apologize once.

3rd World poverty, epidemics, dysfunctional economies/gov'ts, brutal tribal violence, etc... is tragic. And we also have great suffering here at home.

Solutions appear hard to come by there. Adam Smith would suggest that eventually all the world will have their lots lifted as economic progress continues, but most folks seem to dislike the MNCs and their involvement in the 3rd World.

Turbodog,

What, you don't think if Kerry used my masterful "Bush and his doughnut car" analogy in his speeches, he would win the election in a landslide?!

Okay, yeah, you're right...no more posting at 3am for me.
-JT

I want to change up a little...

I am pro Bush but I will list the things I believe he is wrong about.

1) Homeland security: Yup, not enough is/has been done. Perhaps the miiiiiiiiiiiiles of red tape that average joe doesn't know about it keeping him from changing much but I think the 911 commision had some good points about how we ARE going to be attacked again. I've heard lots of good ideas on what needs to be done. Government bureaucracy is going to ruin the day once again, perhaps the Libertarians are right on some things... There is NO reason the national guard isn't patroling BOTH our borders. And then there is the whole port authority inspection process.

2) Perscription Bill: Good intentions, bad implimentation. It's just more overhead stacked onto a failing social security. I will conceed I believe this was done to help in his relection (he is a politician afterall )

3) Amneisty. I just think its a bad idea to reward ppl for breaking the law, what's going on in cali is laughable (the laws they are trying to pass in some areas). The whole *we need ppl to take jobs ppl don't want* is just a bad arguement. By saying that you are advocating an ACTUAL lowerthanlow class.

4) Constitution Amendment. The gay marriage issue is just not something that needs to be stamped into the constitution ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. That is totally a social issue that needs to be worked out amoungst our nation. Personally I have not yet worked up an opinion to that issue.

5) Spending. I'm not against funding things that need to be funded but we NEED smaller government. Perhaps this moment in history is just not a good time to stand by those principles, I donno. One could equate it to objecting to military spending during ~1943, sometimes you just have to do something.

6) etc, I know there is prolly more I just can't think of it right now.

That said, I still believe THIS President is honorable and doing an overall FINE job.

I'm somewhere in the middle, but I'm glad to see someone that is pro Bush admit he is wrong about some things. A lot of pro Bush people seem to think you agree with everything as he does or you are a Dem, Anti-american, etc. No matter which side you fall on, people need to be able to think for themselves instead of just blindly agreeing with everything their party leader says.

My biggest with Bush is the spending. We likely need to raise taxes ( a little) and cut spending ( a lot) in order to a surplus and starting paying off our enormous debt. Any business would have been bankrupt a long time ago.

I realize this is not just Bush and it has been going on for a long time. The budget thing they had that forced balanced spending (add some here, take away from here) that ended in 2002 ( I believe) was a good start in that direction, but it has ended under Bush.

As long as I don't think they are a complete moron on other issues, my vote goes to the guy that will start putting a plan in place to fix the deficit. We're throwing money away on interest and debt, whereas if there was an overall surplus (I know, it will take a long time) we could actually be getting some interest and having extra money from that to put into things.

People and businesses must have a surplus (in the long run) to survive and not go bankrupt...why not govt?

Getting a little off topic.....

Our local tv station ran a bit on how Americans living in Canada are being urged (by other Americans) to register for the vote. The feeling is that if it's a close election their votes can make a difference.

Apparently there are about 600,000 living here. I think that represents more votes than the state of Wyoming or Montana.

Zarak and Inane,

I agree completely. As a matter of fact, when the polls show that Bush's approval is falling, I believe it. The reason? Republicans like us that do not like SOME of the things that he has done. My points of contention are:

1) - Security & imigration. To me, these are one and the same. No freaking amnesty. Every time the police arrest anyone, they should verify citizenship. If you don't have the paperwork saying you belong here or do not have a valid visa, then we should immediately take your behind to the US border that faces the direction you need to go, and toss you out. No stop home for clothes, no nothing. Gone. On the spot deportation. If you wanna be here, fill out the friggin paperwork. Note, this issue is also one that the Dems try to paint us as racist on. I'll clarify. I don't give a damn if you are from Mexico, Norway, Australia, France, Germany, Iran, whatever. What I'm talking about applies to everyone. No racist undertones about it. You are WELCOME here if you fill in the paperwork, and we say it's OK to be here.

2 - Spending. WTF? I know the last election was close, and he is trying to win over a few center-left folks for this time around, but come on! He let Ted (burp) Kennedy write the education bill. That thing is a virtual botttomless pit of money. ( Then he lets himself get kicked in the head every day for over 3 years by the DNC saying he cut spending(?). AND HE WON'T FIGHT BACK! Arggggh! )

3 - Aw, shoot. You get the point. There are more.

The important thing for the Dems to remember is that even though a LOT of us that support W are not 100% perfectly happy with him. If I was polled tomorrow, I would probably give him a low approval rating. A large portion of Bush's low approval rating is the fact that his own base thinks he's not far enough to the right. Thay being said, my choices are to vote for him in November or to vote for Joh... whoaaa!!! what am I saying? Stop. Rewind. It's either vote for Bush, or write in Mickey Mouse.

I would have to agree with just about everything you guys just said. Bush knows his conservative base will vote for him in Novemeber, so he gives voters the appearance of moving left to attract more moderates. Same with Kerry, he knows the left will vote for him so he's been trying to move right a little to get the moderates, as well.

One other Bush complaint. Before 9-11 his biggest issue seemed to be the faith-based social services thing. I think the country would benefit from a return to individual responsibility, strong family values, and caring communities, but funding churches so that they can dispense welfare will not fly with the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Constitution.

Regarding deficits, nowhere are the problems more clear than in California's current dilemna. During a recent period of economic boom the state gov't filled their coffers to a record surplus. The amateurs in the legislature and the pansy in the governors office increased spending like nobody's business. Economic boom ended, tax revenues plummeted, and now it's either raise taxes or cut spending (or put it on a credit card, which is what is most likely to happen ).

IMO, the key to increasing tax revenues is increasing economic activity and production. To make it through inevitable periods of contraction or stagnation, the gov't needs to spend prudently during good times and bad. Some deficit spending won't hurt during those lean times, but sheesh! Arnold has been unable to cut spending anywhere without special interests rallying the media into a frenzy.

I've been enjoying this thread immensely, especially since TurboDog graced us with that rather large brain dump many many posts ago.

While many of my opinions are still on the liberal side of the equation, I've read enough from the flip-side (no, not the flip-flop side) to give me a reason to re-evaluate my stance.

I've always been a moderate at heart and believe that both sides have valid ideas to offer. It's great to see this thread serving as an example that real political debate is possible -- and can be fruitful, as well. It should be required reading for Congress.