501

(11 replies, posted in Politics)

1. Criminals will always have guns.
2. When the citizenry is armed, criminals face greater risks committing violent crimes.
3. When criminals face greater risks, then they are more likely to be deterred.

The only argument against this is that increased gun ownership will increase gun accidents or misuse. But to make this argument stick, you would have to prove that the cost of increased gun accidents or misuse outweighs the benefits of crime deterrence. Until I have seen proof for that conclusion, I am solidly pro-gun.

502

(97 replies, posted in Politics)

> Cougar wrote:
that tells me a lot about your country, and i don't even know which one your from, but i can tell from your attitude that your gov blames us for your woes, and takes no blame their self, second your in a country where democracy either isn't around or hasn't been around long.

the fact is we spend a ton of money keeping you people safe, and in return we get flamed.... well you better start appreciating, cause if anyone but mit or obama wins you will be fighting your own battles from now on and we will laugh at you when your crying oh please help us....at that time remember this day idiot.>

LOLz. I'm an American citizen. For the Empire!

503

(97 replies, posted in Politics)

Flint,

I maintain that Hitler defeated Germany. Had someone like Rommel seized power before the war turned sour for Germany, history may have played out differently.

I mean, only a fool like Hitler would rally conquered subjects behind an unpopular Stalin with wanton depopulation, theft, and rape etc.

504

(97 replies, posted in Politics)

I am prescribing what the American Empire should do as a political realist advancing its own selfish interests. Moral questions or cosmopolitan pipe dreams aren't my concern.

The fact is that China has started an arms race. They are disrupting the balance of power at the expense of America. America can either fight sooner where victory is easily secured, or delay the war until China is a challenging adversary. The rational choice is obvious.

Worn, AlJazeera says you are wrong about Chinese militarism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OMh01iSbX1E

505

(97 replies, posted in Politics)

My strategy doesn't involve land combat. The US could probably crush China's army in a conventional land battle, but there is no way we could take the country. The US is still unchallenged on the seas, and I am suggesting we use it to destroy China's fleet and blockade them. Without food imports, China's government will be forced to capitulate.

Of course, denying humanitarian aid violates UN rules, and I am suggesting we ignore them. If the EU gives us crap about it, we can always mention how Britain denied food imports to Germany in WW1 and firebombed Dresden in WW2.

To restate my reasons for going to war. China has started an arms race. I'm not so concerned about its army, but its fleet is unacceptable. They want Japan, South Korea, and Australia to think about what Beijing will think. That is why a war is inevitable. It will hurt the US a lot, but it will hurt more if we delay.

506

(97 replies, posted in Politics)

A war between China and the United States is inevitable. China has started an arms race in the pacific. It is investing in a large a deep seas fleet, which has alarmed both Japan and South Korea. Most importantly, it has alarmed the United States. As a result, the United States has made arrangements with its allies in the pacific, and committed more military resources to defending the area.

World War III is coming. The sooner we fight the Chinese, the better. I recommend destroying China's fleet and dock, and blockading it. Our economy will take a hard hit, we may even have to raise taxes, but the Chinese rely on food imports. Denying humanitarian aid to China will infuriate the UN, but they will capitulate. The communist regime will face collapse unless it satisfies US demands.

The demands, of course, should be reasonable. They include:

1. China will cease building a deep seas fleet, and surrender all deep sea military vessels to the US.
2. China will cease hacking the US, and cooperate in extraditing its hackers to the US.
3. China will limit the size of its military and investment in military research.
4. China will enforce foreign patents.
5. China will discontinue manipulating its currency.
6. China will cease meddling in Middle Eastern and South American affairs.

This is a war the US could win in the present day. The Chinese government would not resort to nuclear war, because a nuclear war is more expensive than those concessions. They are not being asked to give up territory, for example. However, if we allow the arms race to continue, a costly conventional war or exchange of nuclear missiles becomes a real possibility. We gamble less now than we do later.

Too bad Obama is weak.

507

(44 replies, posted in Politics)

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> Yes, I didn't see Zarf link them all together...nice one smile

Also, I am the most authoritarian one here?! How did that happen?>

You've spent too much time in China?

508

(106 replies, posted in Politics)

How can you agree with a meaningless statement?

509

(106 replies, posted in Politics)

LP,

"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

If that's the quote you are referring to, then my reply is that the statement is meaningless. Churchill had to have been drunk when he made it.

Flint,

Well, young people like me don't like a substantial sum of our paycheck going to the federal government. So we should change it now! Besides, the baby boomers deserve it. Most selfish generation there ever was.

Fool,

Nope. It's not. It's not the government's job to provide anything, but to enable. This reprioritization is worth the price of blood as far as I'm concerned.

511

(85 replies, posted in Politics)

My IQ is in the top 80th percentile. And I am pretty sure I am smarter than Xeno.

512

(106 replies, posted in Politics)

Power has a simple formula: FeAu.

All the talk about human rights, justice, and legitimacy are nonsense. Power is just FeAu.

513

(85 replies, posted in Politics)

Sex is good. Drugs are bad, okay?

514

(106 replies, posted in Politics)

Democracy is no different from Theocracy. It assumes its own correctness.

515

(85 replies, posted in Politics)

I don't consume alcohol. I refuse to end up like my parents. Come home from work and get wasted. Seriously, wtf?

Come on now. Rick Perry was right about one thing. Social Security is a ponzi scam. Pretty soon one in 2 workers will be supporting a person on social security. That's not sustainable. Moreover, my generation is likely to receive less than what we paid in. Rather than spend that money on a lame retirement plan, I would rather spend it on assets of my own choice.

And public pensions... What idiot came up with that idea in the first place?

Next up. Teachers unions and the cancellation of all public pensions and social security. smile If you don't buy assets, then you don't deserve to live after 65.

Finally.

No more unions!

Harah! Harah! Freedom is around the corner. The reign of the evil cartel is about to end!

I would have throught Kissinger would use a private jet. The man has lost his style.

520

(44 replies, posted in Politics)

Flint,

I believe there is harm in drugs, and will never consume drugs myself. However, I recognize that criminalization makes the problem worse. An effective strategy to combat drugs must involve education and rehabilitation. Focusing on the suppliers gets you Los Zetas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_zetas

521

(44 replies, posted in Politics)

I'm coming to Vegas.

522

(44 replies, posted in Politics)

WTF? Flint and Yell aren't that far away from me...

I thought we were at each other's throats.

523

(44 replies, posted in Politics)

I guess I'm a center-right libertarian. lol.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=4.38&soc=-2.67

I agree with Flint. Some of the questions were objectionable. In particular, the ones he cited. Especially the one party state one, lol. You could agree with the statement, but believe that debate is a good thing.

I also found these questions objectionable.

1. It is right to sometimes use military force if it's against international law.
-My answer is: it's neither right or wrong. I simply don't recognize any international organization as a legitimate authority, and I wouldn't care what they thought if I were President.

2. One can not be moral without religion.
-My answer: They are really asking two questions. First, that non-religious people can have morals. Secondly, that non-religious people will be more likely to harm others. On the first I agree. To appeal to morality is to automatically invoke an authority. On the second, I do not.

Problem: We lack the technology to drill it cost effectively.

525

(18 replies, posted in Politics)

> The Yell wrote:

If I could only see Bill Clinton use that as a defense for signing Defense of Marriage Act into law, I would die fulfilled

i mean just imagine him squinting and wagging his finger "Just a minute...you betrayed a LOT of hard-working American women...now if you'll excuse me I have to go back to work">

LOL. I would so do that if I were President. On condition, of course, that social conservatives agreed to support decriminalizing prostitution.