"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

[Surely]

havent been following the other thread. havent actually been watching the news lately.

but the Un policy of diplomacy is ****. the un should be dismantled

But if they dismantled the UN then where would America spend the extra $598,292,101 (the number from 2009)?

 

[PearlWatson]

There is also debate over whether the earth is flat.

Still, I agree that it is not reasonable to expect there to be no debate when the way people make money is at stake.

LOL!

I didn't see the comparison to flat earthers coming from a Warmiac scoundrel pushing his Armageddon dogma, and of course all "scientists" are pure of heart with no self-interested motives.

 

[One Brow]

... of course all "scientists" are pure of heart ...

"All scientists" are not anything. Scientists are a very diverse group, highly competitive, and love to show each other up. Getting them to agree on things is, as the well-worn expression says, like herding cats. It's in part because they so competitive and ego-driven that, when they do agree on something, it's for better reasons than group-think.

 

[PearlWatson]

"All scientists" are not anything. Scientists are a very diverse group, highly competitive, and love to show each other up. Getting them to agree on things is, as the well-worn expression says, like herding cats. It's in part because they so competitive and ego-driven that, when they do agree on something, it's for better reasons than group-think.

All scientists are not anything, but they are highly competitive and love to show each other up.

 

[One Brow]

All scientists are not anything, but they are highly competitive and love to show each other up.

Fair enough. The nature of science is that it is more difficult to succeed unless you are highly competitive and love to prove other people wrong, as far as I can tell, but of course not every scientist fits that mold, just like not every basketball player is a phenomenal athlete.

 

[franklin]

All scientists are not anything, but they are highly competitive and love to show each other up.

That is a very distinct kind of ownage. Nicely done, sir.

I've thought about using this tactic a time or two, but it would quickly backfire after one of my drunken tirades.

 

[franklin]

Here's the thing, I'm my own kind of extremist. I believe that liability laws could solve this problem for us. If someone's actions damage you then you should be able to hold them accountable. That is perfectly in-line with my concept of individual rights. Currently we have a situation where if your actions damage others (driving your car, for instance) you cannot be held accountable if your actions are specifically permitted buy law. Chemical manufacturers are allowed to dump by products into our air as long as they do so within defined limits. So the government is telling them that they can do a certain amount of damage to others without the people being damaged having any recourse. In my opinion a truly free market would say first that you can manufacture whatever you'd like, but you take 100% responsibility for your actions and if anyone anywhere is damaged by your actions then you are fully liable.

That is an extreme position and would wreck our economy if implemented tomorrow. I understand that. But in my opinion that is the correct solution to our environmental problems. To take it a little further, cars' exhaust is poisonous. If things were done the way I think they should be done we would need to capture and dispose of all by-products we produce or else be liable for the damage they cause, so driving a personal vehicle that burns gas would not be realistic unless technology was developed that allowed us to capture or abate all the harmful emissions. Unlike now where we can produce harmful emissions as long as we have our sticker saying we are harming others within the allowable limits provided by law.

This is pretty radical the way I think you are going with it, but I don't think the foundation of the concept is extreme at all. I'm more in favor of having incentives built into the system that control damages. It's obvious a startup chemical manufacturer could do more damage than they could ever imagine compensating for. This is the flaw I see in your view, and where moving from Laissez faire to regulated free market is advantageous.

I'm in favor of a high gas tax for many reasons, one is for environmental benefit (weird how us right leaners want to destroy the environment, right?). We socialize pollution and allow everyone to burn as much gas as they want. Why not provide an incentive for good behavior (conservation) and a build in a penalty for the adverse? Your compensation is built into the system and cannot be averted. It's also the easiest way to combat GW (real or perceived) and wouldn't cost us a dime if properly offset. How radical is that? We can reverse pollution without costing anything through incentives alone. Crazy.

Disclaimer: I had been drinking a little before that post, so i'm fairly sure I meant what I wrote, but if my argument has gaping holes (more than usual) you know why.

I fully approve. Also, you've added more than your "fair share" to this thread. Thank you.

 

[LogGrad98]

But if they dismantled the UN then where would America spend the extra $598,292,101 (the number from 2009)?

Pretty sure the politicians can come up with some way to spend it. I know, how about a bridge to nowhere to help my brother's not-so-struggling construction company by paying him 10x the next highest bid? Yep, that and a few dozen more projects ought to cover it.

 

[DutchJazzer]

But if they dismantled the UN then where would America spend the extra $598,292,101 (the number from 2009)?

just send the politicians to red light district to spend it there

 

[Deleted member 365]

I say, before we can ever commit troops to a war, all politicians in Wash must commit one family member for the cause (cannot be the wife). Perhaps then we'll stop this useless warmongering.

 

[Gameface]

It's obvious a startup chemical manufacturer could do more damage than they could ever imagine compensating for.

Damn good point.

 

[Sneakers]

Go back 6 years and simply replace "democrat" with "republican" and "Obama" with "Bush" and you have the same thing. And really Obama has done a good job of making himself the bad guy. I am a staunch moderate, I think both sides have something to offer and only when we get past partisan politics will we really make progress, but it is obvious Obama is very little filler in an attractive, politically correct package. He talks the part, he looks the part, he has good sound-bites, but the invasion of Libya should be enough to convince even the staunchest democrats that Obama does not care one whit about the constitution. It is not the only time he has done an end-run around due process.

Keep calling it the invasion of Libya. Doesn't make it really what's happening. and no, Obama is nowhere near Bush level yet, not even close.