The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Fortunately in the United State very few consumer markets are regulated by the government. From now on I will use manipulate because you think that business regulation and market regulation are the same thing. When the government regulates a market, and by that decides what the consumer needs, or what the pricing should be then that is market manipulation. Can you name a consumer market where the government decides how much people need or get. Or how much of a product people should buy. Farm products are one. The government did regulate the airlines and the telecom industry but not anymore. The Government tiried to fix gas prices, but that didn't work. Some gas markets are manipulated. But now you want to decide what kind of news media people should get.

You're funny when you're militantly ignorant. Please keep telling me about different kinds of regulation.

Wrong. These are products only the collective can purchase.

While we seem to disagree on semantics here, you are proving my point.

Wow. Yes I agree our news media produces too much opinion and not enough fact for my liking. But that does not mean I think government should do anything about it.

Not necessarily, I agree. I was just trying to talk about it.

As I understand, you think the market performs poorly, but you're not willing to have the government spend any money to fix it.

I don't like the fact that hollywood studio use so much smoking in their moviews but that doesn't mean I think that the government should step in censor movies.

OK. I'm with you there. I was thinking that the remedy for an insufficiency of a certain kind of speech was more speech, actually.

All taxation is forced. Any money the government spends is paid for by forced taxation. You are forced to help pay for national defense even if you don't agree with it. Same goes with public education and welfare.

If people democratically choose to tax themselves to have the government buy these things, it must be the right choice, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush's statements don't make it more difficult for us to win in Iraq. Bush's statements help encourage the troops.

Actually, I think Bush has said plenty of things that make it more difficult for us to win in Iraq. Raising the idea of bombing Al Jazeera, for example.

Why can't they hold off until after the election. What would that hurt?

Because we live in a democracy. You might familiarize yourself with the principle, since you think it's what we're trying to bring to Iraq.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're funny when you're militantly ignorant. Please keep telling me about different kinds of regulation.

You call defense and investment and you call me militantly ignorant?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While we seem to disagree on semantics here, you are proving my point.

There are certain products individuals can't buy and certain products that are not for individual consumption. Certain people can't buy food so the government steps in and buys it for them. Defense is something that individuals can't buy individually so the government has to step in a buy it for the collective. But when a person can buy a product, and it is for individual consumption, then the choice should be left up to the person whether or not to buy the product. If they have a choice and it only affects them why should the government step in. All consumer products, including media, is included in this catagory. Can you not see that?

When ever governments have stepped in and controlled consumer markets the results have always been disastrous. Can you name a consumer market where the government has stepped in where it hasn't been disastrous?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I understand, you think the market performs poorly, but you're not willing to have the government spend any money to fix it.

The market is performing fine. The people are getting exactly what they want. I just don't like what the people are asking for. But that is my problem. When the market is not providiing the people what they want at the best quality and at the best possible price then there is a problem with the market.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. I'm with you there. I was thinking that the remedy for an insufficiency of a certain kind of speech was more speech, actually.

More speech. It doesn't work that way either. If I think there should be more people in movies eating apples or talking about science, I am not going to force hollywood to put the heroes of the movies to eat apples or talk about science.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If people democratically choose to tax themselves to have the government buy these things, it must be the right choice, right?

Absolutely not. It is almost always the wrong choice. Whenever the public decides that the government should take control of a consumer market, or start producing a consumer product the results are disastrous. That is what the whole soviet system was based on. But many democracies have taken control of certain consumer markets and always to disastrous effect. Look at farms subsidies, quotas, tariffs etc. Government should not be in the business of producing, controlling, etc of consumer products.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, I think Bush has said plenty of things that make it more difficult for us to win in Iraq. Raising the idea of bombing Al Jazeera, for example.

I will agree with that. Telling them to bring it on wasn't helpful either.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because we live in a democracy. You might familiarize yourself with the principle, since you think it's what we're trying to bring to Iraq.

I understand democracy fine. Where you are confused is that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should do it. Dean may have the right to say we can't win in Iraq but that doesn't mean that he should do it, or saying it is a good thing.

I may have the right to march down mainstreet screeming that all liberals are morally bankruptc, traitors and should be shot. But that does not mean that it would be helpful to our country if I did so.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The market is performing fine. The people are getting exactly what they want. I just don't like what the people are asking for.

I think the fact that these three sentences seem to you to make sense encapsulate the problem I am having in discussing this with you. So, I give up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I understand democracy fine. Where you are confused is that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should do it. Dean may have the right to say we can't win in Iraq but that doesn't mean that he should do it, or saying it is a good thing.

I may have the right to march down mainstreet screeming that all liberals are morally bankruptc, traitors and should be shot. But that does not mean that it would be helpful to our country if I did so.

I think what is helpful to our country is when we have full and open debate about issues of national importance, like wars, and when our political leaders consider that debate when they formulate policy. I think the debate produces better policy, just as competition makes markets work better.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think what is helpful to our country is when we have full and open debate about issues of national importance, like wars, and when our political leaders consider that debate when they formulate policy. I think the debate produces better policy, just as competition makes markets work better.

Does it make it less helpful when the opposition party is "debating" by making statements in which it really does not believe because it can't figure out any other way to get votes?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Does it make it less helpful when the opposition party is "debating" by making statements in which it really does not believe because it can't figure out any other way to get votes?

I think there are both Democrats and Republicans who are willing to take positions out of political expediency rather than principle, and I believe that this has been true since 1856 or so. I also believe that Howard Dean believes what he said about Iraq, and that those of you who support Bush's current policies could make a better effort to engage with the realities that have driven people like Dean and Murtha to take a different view.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think there are both Democrats and Republicans who are willing to take positions out of political expediency rather than principle, and I believe that this has been true since 1856 or so.

1856? How about since the beginning.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I also believe that Howard Dean believes what he said about Iraq, and that those of you who support Bush's current policies could make a better effort to engage with the realities that have driven people like Dean and Murtha to take a different view.

Those of us who support Bush don't have to do anything, and really can't do anything. I have no problem with Senators issuing written press releases saying how they disagree with Bush policy. But calling a press conference, or making televised speeches, where they say the war is insane, immoral and we can't win - that is irresponsible. If they want the Bush administration to hear their views, why don't they tell that to them in private? Why does it have to be public. If they are doing it to make sure people know they disagree, they can just put it on the record. But why all the publicity stunts? What do they accomplish?

As I said making public shockwaves about the fact that the war is a failure accomplishes nothing. It does not affect how Bush conducts his policy and in no way going to change how things are done. It is fine if they put themselves "on the record" as disagreeing or stating how they think things should be done, but the rest of it serves no purpose except to demoralize the troops and encourage the enemy.

[Spanky]

Where the hell is beaker?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Simple factual question for you and bilmore: Have you read James Fallows' article in The Atlantic? Yes or no?

Yes.

(Spanky, it's a good read. Go here:

http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.m...oIraqiArmy.pdf

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where the hell is beaker?

About 130 miles south of Minot.

Why?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1856? How about since the beginning.

Bilmore will tell you that the GOP was about as young as can be in 1856. And for the couple years before that, they were idealistic and principled.

Those of us who support Bush don't have to do anything, and really can't do anything. I have no problem with Senators issuing written press releases saying how they disagree with Bush policy. But calling a press conference, or making televised speeches, where they say the war is insane, immoral and we can't win - that is irresponsible. If they want the Bush administration to hear their views, why don't they tell that to them in private? Why does it have to be public?

Because we live in a democracy, and because having a debate about these things produces better, more-informed policy.

If they are doing it to make sure people know they disagree, they can just put it on the record. But why all the publicity stunts? What do they accomplish?

As I said making public shockwaves about the fact that the war is a failure accomplishes nothing. It does not affect how Bush conducts his policy and in no way going to change how things are done. It is fine if they put themselves "on the record" as disagreeing or stating how they think things should be done, but the rest of it serves no purpose except to demoralize the troops and encourage the enemy.

What I said above.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
About 130 miles south of Minot.

Why?

I like the Avatar.

This Atlantic Monthly article is not short.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
This Atlantic Monthly article is not short.

I can understand your concern.

Most good things are short.

(It's worth it. He does good work generally, and this one is no exception. The USMC Small Wars division put it on their journal site as soon as it came out. (yay- it's free.) Very good historical summary of what's happened so far, with some editorializing. His predictions, I think, are too pessemistic, but he supports himself enough so that you can't just dismiss the work.)