Ron Paul Supporters not welcome in Louisiana GOP

[Diogenes]

D,

Thanks for the attaboy up thread.

You deserve it. I have watched this issue for a long time, and in my estimation you did more to force activity on the Polywell than any other person of which I am aware. (Except Dr. Bussard Himself.)

[Diogenes]

I think that we should try to avoid another major war at all cost. It would completely oblitterate the economy and cause massive loss in human lives. Whoever takes part in this will enter history as a villain and will probably be reduced to a 3rd world country.

A thought occurred to me recently. Everything I see the Liberals/Socialists do, appears to me as though they will eventually result in massive bloodshed. I have suddenly begun to suspect that they consider this to be a feature, not a bug, and that it's not that they can't do math, it's that they do actually understand the eventual consequences of bad economic policy, they just don't care about the eventual results as long as they get their piece of the pie in the interim.

A Characteristic of Liberal Mindsets throughout history is to constantly force "change". Eventually, with enough small changes in direction, a society that was evolving for the better, begins to evolve for the worse, and eventually collapses because once an optimal peak is reached, any further change in the tuning parameters will push it off resonance.

[seedload]

Regarding our dropping of the bomb, I will let you answer:

I was born 30 years after WW2. My father was born right at the end of it. Neither of us had anything to do with what happened in Austria and Germany during WW2.
What YOU are doing is called "kin liability", something the Nazis did as well, only that YOU are actually taking it to extremes that would make the Nazis jealous.

But, since you open the door:

Is there anything else you want to mention that we didn't do correctly as a result of your nation's war and genocide? Dropping the nuke, spending too much on defense, and the middle east have all been mentioned. What else?

[Diogenes]

It discourages any nation or coalition of nations from starting a major war.

... with the US maybe.
I think that half the spending would have been enough to ensure that though. I mean any serious confrontation with the US would be completely suicidal, given the US' historic tendency to make use of nuclear weapons if they feel they have to.

Here we go again on US Defense spending. Do I have to pull out all the real data again? Or are we gonig to base the discussion on half-truth agenda based misrepresentations all over again?

You do realize you are talking to skipjack?

[MSimon]

I mean any serious confrontation with the US would be completely suicidal

The people behind 9/11 didn't think so. I guess they found out otherwise the hard way. Something that needs to be done from time to time to avoid the "paper tiger" label.

See they had been provoking for a decade or two and were ignored. WTC I is a case in point. Traced back to Saddam. You can look it up.

Saddam finally got his at the end of a rope. Do they still use hemp in Iraq?

[MSimon]

In absolute numbers the US spends more than ever on defense and more than anybody else and that at a time when the same people in favor of said spending are calling for less "wasteful government spending".

The only way to tell how much is waste is to cut it back until a World War starts. Only when you have not enough will you know how much was too much.

I'd rather not find out.

A LOT of my libertarian friends so smart on many things are really stupid on this matter. Evidently they totally missed the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century.

It roughly compares to the mindlessness of so many of my friends on the right when it comes to prohibition. The difference being that the consequences of being wrong about prohibition are much less that the consequences of being wrong about the necessity and level of military spending.

Unless Obama uses the SWAT teams developed for Drug Prohibition to instigate a coup. But the results of that are not in yet.

[williatw]

I think that we should try to avoid another major war at all cost. It would completely oblitterate the economy and cause massive loss in human lives. Whoever takes part in this will enter history as a villain and will probably be reduced to a 3rd world country.

A thought occurred to me recently. Everything I see the Liberals/Socialists do, appears to me as though they will eventually result in massive bloodshed. I have suddenly begun to suspect that they consider this to be a feature, not a bug, and that it's not that they can't do math, it's that they do actually understand the eventual consequences of bad economic policy, they just don't care about the eventual results as long as they get their piece of the pie in the interim.

A Characteristic of Liberal Mindsets throughout history is to constantly force "change". Eventually, with enough small changes in direction, a society that was evolving for the better, begins to evolve for the worse, and eventually collapses because once an optimal peak is reached, any further change in the tuning parameters will push it off resonance.

Liberals/Socialist want to blow up the power and scope of government to do what they think is "progressive" Conservatives want to do the same do accomplish what they think is moral/traditional. Conservatives rail against anything that they think smacks of socialism, gov intruding on people like "socialized medicine" but have a big woody for anything that is about law enforcement/military/security. Its okay for jack-booted body armor wearing thugs to kick in our doors as long as they are doing for some approved purpose like the war on drugs. The fact that we incarcerate a higher percentage of our citizenry then any other industrialized nation is fine and dandy with most conservatives, that’s no threat to our freedoms/civil liberties; it’s the idea of "mandatory health care" that scares the shit out of them. The enormous expansion of gov after 9/11 fine as long as it is for the “correct” purpose of getting “bad guys”. That why I am getting increasingly libertarian as I have gotten older. They seem to be the only ones who sincerely want to shrink the power and scope of federal power to something our founders would recognize.

[GIThruster]

What annoys me is the double morale and double talk that these GOP politicians demonstrate when they critizise spending on science and education as wasteful government spending, while they happily will throw money after defense corporations with both hands.

As you're pretty confused here let me clue you in. The US still spends far more on science than the rest of the world combined. It also gives more to charities than the rest of the world combined, does more against chronic diseases and general medical support of the third world and buys more premium grade toilet paper. It does not spend more on education specifically because education is the responsibility of the individual states. All federal dabbling in education is in the strictest sense violation of federal law. So when a politician makes the spotlight by asking for cuts or increases in federal spending on education, this is all nonsense from the start. Take it in context, if you're from CA or NJ where we have exceedingly high property taxes to pay for very expensive educational systems, you don't want to see your federal taxes used to support DE, TN or AR where people pay next to no tax and don't care about their educational system. Since you're not an American and don't pay taxes here in the first place, what use is your ignorant opinion on this subject? Literally, what do you care how much any American pays for science, education or our military and why should anyone care about your opinions of the same?

[ladajo]

... with the US maybe.
I think that half the spending would have been enough to ensure that though. I mean any serious confrontation with the US would be completely suicidal, given the US' historic tendency to make use of nuclear weapons if they feel they have to.

Here we go again on US Defense spending. Do I have to pull out all the real data again? Or are we gonig to base the discussion on half-truth agenda based misrepresentations all over again?

You do realize you are talking to skipjack?

Yeah, I know. He still doesn't accept the real numbers that I and others have shown him.
I'll be sure to ask the Russians I am working with next week what they think. Last time I talked with them, they were wondering why we were cutting back.

[Skipjack]

Is there anything else you want to mention that we didn't do correctly as a result of your nation's war and genocide? Dropping the nuke, spending too much on defense, and the middle east have all been mentioned. What else?

You are misinterpreting my intentions with my post. I never put any moral value to the fact that the US used the nuclear bomb when deemed necessary. I simply put it as a fact and a reason why any rational country will not attack the US in an open war that requires a massive military force. I do find it rather interesting though that it is actually some of you, who seem to interpret my post as an attack against the US. Maybe you should question your own opinions on this matter?

Since you're not an American and don't pay taxes here in the first place, what use is your ignorant opinion on this subject? Literally, what do you care how much any American pays for science, education or our military and why should anyone care about your opinions of the same?

Your ignorance is is your weakness...

[Skipjack]

The US still spends far more on science than the rest of the world combined. It also gives more to charities than the rest of the world combined, does more against chronic diseases and general medical support of the third world

Are we talking now relative to the GDP, or in absolute numbers
Also the numbers that I posted were from Wikipedia. You can look them up there.
Finally, my problem is not with the defense spending per se as much as with the fact that the conservatives are asking for pretty much everything else to be cut except defense spending. I find this dangerously one sided. And if there is a strategy behind this, I do find the direction worrying.

The only way to tell how much is waste is to cut it back until a World War starts. Only when you have not enough will you know how much was too much.

One word for you: Procurement models. It is not just a matter how much you spend but also how you spend it.
Also, I mentioned before that the US has the power to crush any enemy they want to. Another world war would be bad news though, since it would probably mean the end of western civilization as we know it. So lets better work on avoiding it, rather than preparing for it.

[ladajo]

Also, I mentioned before that the US has the power to crush any enemy they want to. Another world war would be bad news though, since it would probably mean the end of western civilization as we know it. So lets better work on avoiding it, rather than preparing for it.

It really is more complicated than you think. Having great quality and amounts of military kit is for naught if you cannot use it to full potential. Many a country continue to miss this point as we speak. They spend big money on stuff, and then wonder why they get their butts kicked.
Military power is much more than just numbers of ships, tanks, planes and men. It is much more than the number and quality of your people. It is a complicated aggregate that can not be explained in a few simple sentances.
I will try and captue a large part of it with something I say when talking on this with folks that understand it more than you, but they still don't really get it.

"It is easy to get there, what is really hard is staying."

The US military is the most powerful in the world (by far) because it can get there and stay there. No one else can. Having the ability to get there is not cheap, having the ability to stay is magnitudes more "expensive".
What is interesting to me, is that in this you do not see that the US military construct (which is not just the military), is a balance of the right amount of stuff to "Get there" when needed, and then once "there", be able to do the job required. We do not have enough stuff currently to meet the real and potential needs we see in my opinion. And these needs are not just "fighting wars", which is where you seem to be focused. There is much more going on than that.
Skip, I think you are a good man, and you are smart and thoughtful. But you are also very niave and somewhat view limited on this topic.

If you want we can pick apart a case study or two so you can learn a little better. Maybe you can ask LTGBrown why and what he is doing in Albania as well. If you do want to do a case study, how about European Anti-Piracy around the Horn of Africa. You may find it enlightening on how and why it is done the way it is.

[Diogenes]

I think that we should try to avoid another major war at all cost. It would completely oblitterate the economy and cause massive loss in human lives. Whoever takes part in this will enter history as a villain and will probably be reduced to a 3rd world country.

A thought occurred to me recently. Everything I see the Liberals/Socialists do, appears to me as though they will eventually result in massive bloodshed. I have suddenly begun to suspect that they consider this to be a feature, not a bug, and that it's not that they can't do math, it's that they do actually understand the eventual consequences of bad economic policy, they just don't care about the eventual results as long as they get their piece of the pie in the interim.

A Characteristic of Liberal Mindsets throughout history is to constantly force "change". Eventually, with enough small changes in direction, a society that was evolving for the better, begins to evolve for the worse, and eventually collapses because once an optimal peak is reached, any further change in the tuning parameters will push it off resonance.

Liberals/Socialist want to blow up the power and scope of government to do what they think is "progressive" Conservatives want to do the same do accomplish what they think is moral/traditional.

You say moral, I say functional. Society cannot exist without a common moral understanding such as an acceptance that stealing is wrong, and so is murder.

Conservatives rail against anything that they think smacks of socialism, gov intruding on people like "socialized medicine" but have a big woody for anything that is about law enforcement/military/security.

It is the ONLY area where governmental money is legitimately spent. Of course the vast bulk of our budget is spent on massive, but unconstitutional social programs courtesy of FDR and LBJ.

Its okay for jack-booted body armor wearing thugs to kick in our doors as long as they are doing for some approved purpose like the war on drugs.

Provided they do so with a warrant, as is required by our body of governing law. If you are complaining about warrant-less searches, I agree, but if you are complaining about warrant issued searches, then you need to grow up. Possession and Distribution of drugs is against the law. (And it should be.)

The fact that we incarcerate a higher percentage of our citizenry then any other industrialized nation is fine and dandy with most conservatives, that’s no threat to our freedoms/civil liberties; it’s the idea of "mandatory health care" that scares the shit out of them.

As would it scare the shit out of anyone with a f*cking clue as to what comes next. If you aren't afraid of it, then you just don't understand the consequences of it. As for locking up our citizens, you can thank LBJ for that problem too. His "War on Poverty" has made so many fatherless children (Paid for by the Government, and not taught right from wrong because there was no one there to do it.) that they exploded the crime statistics. Only a Democrat IDIOT would not understand that if you pay women to have children without a male role model in the children's lives, most of the time you are going to get violent and dangerous adults as a result. Our Inner cities operate in accordance with the "Lord of the Flies" doctrine, and virtually all of our excess crime can be traced back to this exact program.

The problem with you, and most other people I argue with is that you are so F*cking Ignorant! You don't have a G*DD*MN Clue about what happened and when, and you come on the scene only knowing about your little corner of the world when you were growing up, and you have not the slightest comprehension of the big picture.

Our crime is out of control because DEMOCRAT Policies CAUSED it to go out of control. Every fatherless bastard now locked up can thank Democrats since LBJ for forcing them to "embrace the suck." Unstable families make unstable Adults. It's as simple as that.

The enormous expansion of gov after 9/11 fine as long as it is for the “correct” purpose of getting “bad guys”. That why I am getting increasingly libertarian as I have gotten older. They seem to be the only ones who sincerely want to shrink the power and scope of federal power to something our founders would recognize.

You have a very severe misunderstanding of the nature of conservatives and what they want. You use horrible examples, and you assign the imprimatur of "Conservative" to policies that are not at all conservative. We've only had ONE conservative President, and even he didn't always implement a conservative policy. Only in the areas where he did implement conservative policy was he successful.

Conservatives favor the Military because that is one of the LEGITIMATE purposes of the Federal Government. Defending the Nation is an absolute requirement, but funding trillion dollar social programs for idiots is not.

Now you mention drugs and jack booted thugs. Grow up little child! Drugs are an existential threat to any society, and if you had any degree of experience with drug addicts, you wouldn't have to have this explained to you.

Bush, and his expansion of "Homeland" security is not conservative. Bush ran up expenses without regard to cost, and conservatives bitched at him every step of the way. Pork Busters and others used to routinely criticize his willingness to blow money on expanding government. George Bush was not a conservative, he just happened to convince people he was while he was running for office, but once he took the reins of government, he moved in the same direction as everyone else who looks at government as the solution to all our problems.

The lure of spending money and telling others what to do is just seemingly too great for most people to overcome. It requires self control and discipline, and it has been a long time since we've had a leader that had those characteristics.

Bush did more damage to the conservative cause than could any of the opposition. He implemented unconservative polices, and left the public with the impression that those ideas were ours. They were not, and we bitterly complained. The foolish man did not understand if he went that direction, when next the Democrats came to power, they will use his excesses as excuses for excesses far beyond his already too great abuses of power.

[Diogenes]

What annoys me is the double morale and double talk that these GOP politicians demonstrate when they critizise spending on science and education as wasteful government spending, while they happily will throw money after defense corporations with both hands.

As you're pretty confused here let me clue you in. The US still spends far more on science than the rest of the world combined. It also gives more to charities than the rest of the world combined, does more against chronic diseases and general medical support of the third world and buys more premium grade toilet paper. It does not spend more on education specifically because education is the responsibility of the individual states. All federal dabbling in education is in the strictest sense violation of federal law. So when a politician makes the spotlight by asking for cuts or increases in federal spending on education, this is all nonsense from the start. Take it in context, if you're from CA or NJ where we have exceedingly high property taxes to pay for very expensive educational systems, you don't want to see your federal taxes used to support DE, TN or AR where people pay next to no tax and don't care about their educational system. Since you're not an American and don't pay taxes here in the first place, what use is your ignorant opinion on this subject? Literally, what do you care how much any American pays for science, education or our military and why should anyone care about your opinions of the same?

The arrogant assumption that Foreign opinions should hold any regard here in America is as astonishing as it is unwanted. Mind your own D*mn Country SkipJack! STFU about ours! Interference from the socialism minded nitwits in Europe has already causing enough trouble over here.

[Skipjack]

The arrogant assumption that Foreign opinions should hold any regard here in America is as astonishing as it is unwanted. Mind your own D*mn Country SkipJack! STFU about ours! Interference from the socialism minded nitwits in Europe has already causing enough trouble over here.

So are yours. I want to remind you that it was the collapse of your economy thanks to the politics of the Bush administration that caused the world wide financial crisis...
Further, since another world war actually any larger war would very much affect me and my country as well (most wars have a negative economic impact), I think it is natural for anyone with brains to be concerned about that.
Also, if you remember both my wife and my son are US citizens which puts me very much in a position to worry about their savety and the future of their home country, not to mention that in many of my posts here I represent my wife's opinions as well.

Finally, I do feel a very strong connection with the United States and its people. I have many friends and business partners there, all generally very nice and likeable people. So I do feel concerned about things happening in the US.
And maybe my wife and I will move to the US together...