How long will the US democracy last?

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: ntdz

That is a pretty strong corrolation. At LEAST 5 out of our last 6 major wars have ended up benefiting the economy. This is not a fallacy as you say. There is significant proof that war does in fact boom the economy. Just look at WW2, the war almost single handedly got us out of the great depression.

Regardless of whether or not a correlation DOES exist...you are deliberately implying that we can and should easily be trading deaths of people in exchange for economic progress

makes me wonder what you would be thinking if another more powerful country was preying on us looking for "economic advancement"...I'm sure your tune would change

Where did I say that it was worth it to trade lives? The liberals want to talk about logical fallacies, so here is an example of a strawman. He's putting words into my mouth, which I never said, and then attacking me for the words HE HIMSELF put into my mouth. Nice try, I never said any such thing. In fact, I don't think it's worth it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: ntdz

That is a pretty strong corrolation. At LEAST 5 out of our last 6 major wars have ended up benefiting the economy. This is not a fallacy as you say. There is significant proof that war does in fact boom the economy. Just look at WW2, the war almost single handedly got us out of the great depression.

Regardless of whether or not a correlation DOES exist...you are deliberately implying that we can and should easily be trading deaths of people in exchange for economic progress

makes me wonder what you would be thinking if another more powerful country was preying on us looking for "economic advancement"...I'm sure your tune would change

Where did I say that it was worth it to trade lives? The liberals want to talk about logical fallacies, so here is an example of a strawman. He's putting words into my mouth, which I never said, and then attacking me for the words HE HIMSELF put into my mouth. Nice try, I never said any such thing. In fact, I don't think it's worth it.

No, it's not. You haven't addressed the words that mislead the conversation.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: filterxg

Oh and militaries will become decreasingly relevant. You'll continue to see a decrease in Cold War era bases, and when the Middle East stuff wraps up our military will begin to come home for good. But unless WW3 happens, which isn't likely thanks to globalization, it will no longer be much of a judge of power.

Until China or India or ... realize they do have a military and decide that they want a bigger piece of the pie. To think it won't ever happen is retarded.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: ntdz

That is a pretty strong corrolation. At LEAST 5 out of our last 6 major wars have ended up benefiting the economy. This is not a fallacy as you say. There is significant proof that war does in fact boom the economy. Just look at WW2, the war almost single handedly got us out of the great depression.

Regardless of whether or not a correlation DOES exist...you are deliberately implying that we can and should easily be trading deaths of people in exchange for economic progress

makes me wonder what you would be thinking if another more powerful country was preying on us looking for "economic advancement"...I'm sure your tune would change

Where did I say that it was worth it to trade lives? The liberals want to talk about logical fallacies, so here is an example of a strawman. He's putting words into my mouth, which I never said, and then attacking me for the words HE HIMSELF put into my mouth. Nice try, I never said any such thing. In fact, I don't think it's worth it.

No, it's not. You haven't addressed the words that mislead the conversation.

Please show me where I said, or even implied, that we should go to war just to boom the economy. SHOW ME THAT. I never said it.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Condor & Ntdz thread Summary: War good, Liberals bad.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: ntdz

That is a pretty strong corrolation. At LEAST 5 out of our last 6 major wars have ended up benefiting the economy. This is not a fallacy as you say. There is significant proof that war does in fact boom the economy. Just look at WW2, the war almost single handedly got us out of the great depression.

Regardless of whether or not a correlation DOES exist...you are deliberately implying that we can and should easily be trading deaths of people in exchange for economic progress

makes me wonder what you would be thinking if another more powerful country was preying on us looking for "economic advancement"...I'm sure your tune would change

Where did I say that it was worth it to trade lives? The liberals want to talk about logical fallacies, so here is an example of a strawman. He's putting words into my mouth, which I never said, and then attacking me for the words HE HIMSELF put into my mouth. Nice try, I never said any such thing. In fact, I don't think it's worth it.

No, it's not. You haven't addressed the words that mislead the conversation.

Please show me where I said, or even implied, that we should go to war just to boom the economy. SHOW ME THAT. I never said it.

Damn, ntdz must be a strawman!

 

[CaptnKirk]

It's Toast !

 

[ExpertNovice]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The British and Roman empires were both Imperialist nations. Imperialist in the true sense in that they were trying to take over other countries. Britain, Spain, France, Mexico, etc. all took over the United States and the new "Americans" wrested control from the above. Since then the U.S. has not been an imperialist nation.


Teh Roman empire was a bit different in that it became quite supporive and fond of anything and everything immoral. Yes, a certain segment of our society has followed in their footsteps and others have been quiet but so far, not all Americans have embraced immorality.

What, however, will destroy us is the group that has been working to change us into a communistic nation for decades. Although now their perferred form of Government is Fascism rather than Communism since Fascism can be passed, in it's early stages, as Capitalism.

Once we get another Clinton or even a Gore in office, not sure about Kerry, and they sign a treaty with the U.N. that userpts our Constitution they will then be able to fully remove our freedom of speech, right to defend ourselves, protection from illegal searches and seizures, etc. Then, our nation, as we know it, will be completely destroyed. Not before then.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I think a revolution could occur within 20 years (hopefully non-violent). Aside from the debt, technology is going to cause the state to lose control of a lot of areas. Once government issued currency becomes obsolete, the end is near for the modern social democratic state.

Haha - 'hopefully not violent'.

Man you live in a dreamworld.

This is America just look at our past.

 

[Vic]

The US is not a democracy and never was. Democracies are inherently unstable and tyrannical. The US is a federalist representative republic.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
The US is not a democracy and never was. Democracies are inherently unstable and tyrannical. The US is a federalist representative republic.

Could you go a more in-depth to that? Aren't we a constiutional republic?

 

[CaptnKirk]

'Democracy' is a concept . . .

Representative Republic is the result.

 

[Malfeas]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Correct me if I'm wrong.

The British and Roman empires were both Imperialist nations. Imperialist in the true sense in that they were trying to take over other countries. Britain, Spain, France, Mexico, etc. all took over the United States and the new "Americans" wrested control from the above. Since then the U.S. has not been an imperialist nation.


Teh Roman empire was a bit different in that it became quite supporive and fond of anything and everything immoral. Yes, a certain segment of our society has followed in their footsteps and others have been quiet but so far, not all Americans have embraced immorality.

What, however, will destroy us is the group that has been working to change us into a communistic nation for decades. Although now their perferred form of Government is Fascism rather than Communism since Fascism can be passed, in it's early stages, as Capitalism.

Once we get another Clinton or even a Gore in office, not sure about Kerry, and they sign a treaty with the U.N. that userpts our Constitution they will then be able to fully remove our freedom of speech, right to defend ourselves, protection from illegal searches and seizures, etc. Then, our nation, as we know it, will be completely destroyed. Not before then.

You do realize that roughly for the last 1,000 years of the Roman state it was a CHRISTIAN entity. And if you choose like most historians to define the lifespan of the Roman state from the founding of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople it existed for almost 2000 years. Now compare that to 238 for the U.S.A.

And I have a feeling from you political rantings that a lifetime supply of sedatives and a straight jacket are in your future.

Now to the OP, I think the time left for the economic and military dominance of the US will evaporate in less than a century. Partly from the increase of trade and wealth in other countries and the subsequent international relationships created from this, but mostly from our own political system. We are our own worst enemy. IMO this is due to the continually rising gap in wealth between the rich and poor, and the disproportionate amount of influence the wealthy wield in the government.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic
The US is not a democracy and never was. Democracies are inherently unstable and tyrannical. The US is a federalist representative republic.

Could you go a more in-depth to that? Aren't we a constiutional republic?

A federal republic requires a constitution, else the central government could dissolve at will the semi-autonomous governments of the individual states.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

A nation is strong as long as it's strength is respected and feared. The goal is to be left to prosper without outside interference. Social programs are fine and neccessary as long as they don't tap the strength of the nation. We just went a little too far when we squandered our military and space programs for that social outreach.

This mindset is valid in a non-global economy but is totally outdated and useless in today's world. Like it or not, globalization is here to stay and "outside intereference" is inevitable as our economies become more inter-dependent.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
You support the "Christian" philisophy of unending war and death. You must watch the televanglists on TV... which one is your favorite?

_______________

the Christian philosophy of unending war is a pretty realistic view of things. If anything, our history has proven that there will always be wars and of course there will always be death. The optimistic, secular humanist view that man is getting better and better morally and war is just a product of ignorance that can eventually come to an end was ditched by most realists after two consecutive world wars. by the way, the Christian notion of unending war isn't exactly true. we do believe all wars will come to an end at the return of Christ.

indidentally, my favorite TV preacher is Dr. Ed Young from Second Baptist Houston, he's an excellent expositor of the Bible, not an overdramatic windbag who puts on a show that disgraces other legitimate Christian preachers and teachers.

He blew the death thing too. Christians do believe in eternal life. I guess he doesn't read much.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

That was the lesson of Jesus, right Condor?

Historically, it seems like Rome won that one. Did I mention that I don't attend church?

DooD

Historically Rome won???

Rome is long gone, Christianity is still here. Who won?

Read the dmned post! He was referring to a time period and I was referring to the fact that Rome won in that Christ died on the cross. It was some time after that before Rome fell.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

A nation is strong as long as it's strength is respected and feared. The goal is to be left to prosper without outside interference. Social programs are fine and neccessary as long as they don't tap the strength of the nation. We just went a little too far when we squandered our military and space programs for that social outreach.

How is spending money on war better than on social programs? Don't get me wrong, I don't like social programs either. I just don't see how war is any better, and is quite possibly a lot worse.

As for NASA, from where I am standing the whole thing is a complete boondoggle. It should be dismantled entirely ASAP.

Monies spent on war are recirculated into the economy. They also provide a facade of strength. Much of what caused the Soviet system to fall wasn't stuff that we actually could do, but what they feared we could. The Soviets have traveled here enough in recent years that the fear is dissipating and you can witness that they are getting more bold almost monthly.

Biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. Money spent on war is just about a complete waste. First of all, it takes thousands of able bodies men and women out of the workforce, and second of all it wastes resources that would otherwise go towards more desirable consumer wants (i.e. healthcare, college education, housing, electronics etc. etc.). This is true of any government program, not just war. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

The cold war is over, it is time to cut back on all areas of government spending, especially military spending. I would start by getting out of Iraq ASAP, and then after that start closing down the U.S. military bases that are currently in 100+ countries around the world.

U are one BS, ignorant liberal aren't you? Just asking. Obviously not a student of economics.

We had an economic boom in the 20's after WW1, a HUGE economic boom in the 40's during/after WW2, a boom in the 50's following Korea, Vietnam yielded little, a HUGE boom after Gulf war 1, and now we are entering a period of strong economic growth again after Afghanistan/Iraq2. How can you explain that? Is it just coincidence that we see economic strength after wars?

Edit: Was meant for Dissipate, not Condor.

Didn't we just have a thread about fallacies?

Correlation does not equal causation!

Anyone who thinks war is good for the economy is completely loony tunes. I just explained two key reasons why war is a detriment to the economy. These facts are established from a priori principles of economics.

I can't believe there are people who actually think we should be at war in order to 'stimulate the economy.' Maybe we should send you and Condor to the front lines?

Myth #2: The Beneficence of War

A second fallacy is the idea of war as an engine of prosperity. Students are taught that World War II ended the Depression; many Americans seem to believe that tax revenues spent on defense contractors (creating jobs) are no loss to the productive economy; and our political leaders continue to believe that expanded government spending is an effective way of bringing an end to a recession and reviving the economy.

The truth is that war, and the preparation for it, is economically wasteful and destructive. Apart from the spoils gained by winning (if it is won) war and defense spending squander labor, resources, and wealth, leaving the country poorer in the end than if these things had been devoted to peaceful endeavors.

During war, the productive powers of a country are diverted to producing weapons and ammunition, transporting armaments and supplies, and supporting the armies in the field.

William Graham Sumner described how the Civil War, which he lived through, had squandered capital and labor: "The mills, forges, and factories were active in working for the government, while the men who ate the grain and wore the clothing were active in destroying, and not in creating capital. This, to be sure, was war. It is what war means, but it cannot bring prosperity."

Nothing is more basic; yet it continues to elude the grasp of our teachers, writers, professors, and politicians. The forty year Cold War drained this country of much of its wealth, squandered capital, and wasted the labor of millions, whose lifetime work, whether as a soldier, sailor, or defense worker, was devoted to policing the empire, fighting its brush wars, and making weapons, instead of building up our civilization with things of utility, comfort, and beauty.

Some might respond that the Cold War was a necessity, but that?s not the question?although we now know that the CIA, in yet another massive intelligence failure, grossly overestimated Soviet military capabilities as well as the size of the Soviet economy, estimating it was twice as large and productive as it really was. The point is the wastefulness of war, and the preparation for it; and I see no evidence whatever that the American people or their leaders understand that, or even care to think about it. An awareness and comprehension of these economic realities might lead to more searching scrutiny of the aims and methods that the Bush administration has chosen for the War on Terror.

Only a few days after 9-11, Rumsfeld declared that the war shall last as long as the Cold War (forty plus years), or longer?a claim the administration has repeated every few months since then?without eliciting the slightest notice or questioning from the media, the public, or the opposing party. Would that be the case, if people understand how much a second Cold War, this time with radical Islam, will cost us in lives, treasure, and foregone comfort and leisure?

From:

Ten Recurring Economic Fallacies

Well, you get an A for cut and paste. Now, do you want to work on comprehension?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond
The only reason that some Americans have this ridiculously skewed view of war and its "benefits" is because they've never had a war fought on their homeland. If that terrible day ever came I'm certain that they'd change their minds about the "benefits" of war.

The reason we haven't had a war (you forgot the civil war, heh?) fought on our homeland is because of great leaders, the likes of George Bush. Do you know nothing of history? The war for independence - where was that? Where was the Alamo?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
i really have to disagree with condor on this one. i dont think that there is any historical evidence to suggest that unchecked foreign war/imperialism would result in positive growth for any nation. there needs to be a balance between outward growth (which may now be an obsolete notion) and inward improvement. otherwise, the two cultures cited in the OP would probably be a close model for what will become of us.

I take my ques from reality that surrounds me. Anniston AL is building the Striker vehicle, my neighbor in Georgia is working to armor Humvees. War spending almost certainly channels money internally and the bulk of it goes to labor.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Tab
Condor, ndtz... Do you guys have any formal education?

What is formal? Comfortably pissing away my waking hours in a university classroom? I have bunches of techie stuff under IBM (654+ hours academic equivalent - 10 hours of prep for each 8 of classroom time) and about 167 academic university hours - Cum Laude. The univdersity hours were the easier and the 30 some hours in my educational minor were the very easiest. Academic education teaches you how to understand reality, not reality! Many who rave about the education they have attended forget that the largest reason they did so was to avoid any whisper of actual production. So you want what? Pedanrtic dialog? I don't waste my time on that. I'm here to impress no one. Oh, and since you ask, put your educational cards on the table.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Pedro69
Condor & Ntdz thread Summary: War good, Liberals bad.

Not really - war neccessary, cowards bad!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's Toast !

Know your source:

This is the most refreshingly different dystopia to be released in a long time, and should be read by all interested in the genre. Unlike other dystopias, this has not one distorted society, but two - an official opposition that is being used by the lords of society.

The story starts in hyper-consumerist hyper-mercantilist Mallcity 14 where everyone is required to purchase as much as possible and go as far into debt as possible, where the only value is newness and everyone is bombarded with commercials and computer surveilance. The hero escapes during a computer glitch, and is brought to those who oppose Mallcity and the rampant consumerism.

Some will notice what may be an anti-capitalist theme to the book, never noticing that this really isn't capitalism but a distorted type of monetarism. The alternative society is communal.

As this dystopia was recently written you will notice many parallels to our current society, which is the way a dystopia is supposed to operate: extrapolation from current trends. That will be quite a refreshing change from 1984 or Brave New World.


meeting with sport management alumnus Jason Gonella '94 and TV-R alumnus Tom Jaronski Jason Gonella

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: BBond
The only reason that some Americans have this ridiculously skewed view of war and its "benefits" is because they've never had a war fought on their homeland. If that terrible day ever came I'm certain that they'd change their minds about the "benefits" of war.

The reason we haven't had a war (you forgot the civil war, heh?) fought on our homeland is because of great leaders, the likes of George Bush. Do you know nothing of history? The war for independence - where was that? Where was the Alamo?

The Alamo was in Mexico. After the Texas war for independance was won Texas became it's own republic, 9 years after that did it join the Union.

The Mexican-American war had only 2 battles (and those were fought before war was declared) fought on what was then American soil. Most of the battles were fought in Mexico and the (disputed) Republic of California.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: BBond
The only reason that some Americans have this ridiculously skewed view of war and its "benefits" is because they've never had a war fought on their homeland. If that terrible day ever came I'm certain that they'd change their minds about the "benefits" of war.

The reason we haven't had a war (you forgot the civil war, heh?) fought on our homeland is because of great leaders, the likes of George Bush. Do you know nothing of history? The war for independence - where was that? Where was the Alamo?

The Alamo was in Mexico. After the Texas war for independance was won Texas became it's own republic, 9 years after that did it join the Union.

The Mexican-American war had only 2 battles (and those were fought before war was declared) fought on what was then American soil. Most of the battles were fought in Mexico and the (disputed) Republic of California.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!

I took my daughter to see the movie. She had no inkling what the Alamo was and that was after 4 years of wonderfully expensive academic education. She spells better than I do, though!