That has got to be the best flame I've ever heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icepick
Printable View
That has got to be the best flame I've ever heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icepick
*polysci flashback*
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79
That's about what I expected. :)
You haven't posted there yet, but I won't be surprised in the slightest at what you'll say in the 'Ideal Society" thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by sggg
Commie!!Quote:
Originally Posted by sggg
Heh, yeh.. I guess my score could pretty much speak for itself in both threads. You saved me having to read through that entire thread. Cheers. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
You would have posted exactly what I would have, albeit more eloquently, sans guns and boom!Quote:
Originally Posted by sggg
This is why I like this forum. The (political) flaming isn't out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Good catch. One could make a good argument that SDI is impractical. You've made pretty good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
Yet more proof of Bush being impractical. Large gov't programs are inherently impractical and inefficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
I'm not clear on what you're arguing here. Are you saying Bush has not been acting on the behalf of Americans? Or are you saying he's only implementing policies that benefit select individuals/campaign contributors? Or are you saying that his foreign policies have helped foreigners (Iraqis, Afghans, etc) but NOT Americans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
You assert Bush's foreign policies have been inefficient from an economic standpoint. One could argue foreign policies should primarily be judged on how they enhance American prestige/security and not on how they impact the bottom line.
All told, good answers to my question "What specific policies of the Bush administration would you characterize as impractical and irrational."
It's not that it had no relevance. It's that by getting mad and going off I've no way of responding to you. Tracer and I disagree about (some things about) Bush, it's just that he presented his argument in a way in which I could respond. It's hard to engage on an issue if the dialogue consists of "OMGSTFU!"Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I'm not sure conservatives oppose Kyoto on partisan grounds. The term partisan, when used in politics, refers to blindly taking a position solely for political gain. I haven't seen that Republicans are gaining any political advantage. If anything, they leave themselves open to the (continued) charge that they're heartless bastards that want to torch the planet. This is why I argue that conservatives oppose Kyoto b/c they think it is bad public policy (they believe it will cripple our economy and hurt the economic well-being of all Americans).Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I think this is a good point. If drilling in ANWAR condemns the most pristine nature preserve in N America to a sea of oil wells (though that would be a HECK of a lot of oil ;) ), we should probably think twice. But drilling in ANWAR wouldn't do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I'm sure we can both agree that regurgitating 'the same tired disingenuous proganda' is never a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
:lol: j/k!Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Anyways. I think it's a good idea to make the most of our natural resources and manage our planet responsibly. However well-intentioned Kyoto is, I don't happen to think the Treaty does that, and compliance (or the lack thereof) by signatories doesn't do anything to reassure me it would.
Not necessarily true. See Allyson Pollock et al., "Public Services and the Private Sector" (http://www.catalystforum.org.uk/pdf/paper1.pdf)Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Consider: Canada has a larger health care program than the states, but it only spends 9.7% (of its GDP) -- +/-2% less than in the US (over 11%). (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf). The jump in Canadian Health Care Expenditures as a precentage of GDP occured during the 90s when we tried to reduce the size of the health care system and adopt American strategies (such as Private Public Partnerships). In 1980 Health Expenditures in Canada were 7.1 as a percentage of GDP. The smaller American system is inefficient, countless studies proof of this. See Paul Pierson, "Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment" (Cambridge University Press, 1996,) pp. 132. Also, see Pat Armstrong et al., "Heal Thyself: Managing Health Care Reform" Garamond Press, 2000) Chapter 3. There is a big difference between the American system and the government run one; regardless of the policy area, the publicly run, larger systems are ALWAYS more effective.