It is of course true that, all else equal, lower taxes are better. The problem is that all else is not equal--lower taxes cause deficits, and the size of our deficits is currently utterly unacceptable. Cutting spending isn't going to cover the gap, especially not with our numerous foreign commitments. So somebody will have to end up paying more taxes, and the question is who. To argue against the proposed Kerry tax hike, you have to argue not
vincible
I guess most of the positive reasons for overthrowing Milosevic also exist for overthrowing Hussein. But you can come up with a whole lot of negatives for the Iraq invasion that didn't apply to the Serbia invasion. I supported both wars, but one could reasonably support the first and not the second. There's the argument that invading Iraq would hurt the fight against Al Qaeda, by increasing resentment toward the US, or diverting resources from
Intoxication is frowned upon universally, you overlook that "universally" hah. Apparently we live in different universes, which intersect only at politicalmachine.com. Lots and lots of people think that occasionally getting drunk is a perfectly valid way to have a good time. Opinion in this thr
Bakerstreet, what's the big deal if a product makes someone intoxicated? Why do you object to occasional intoxication so much? I know people who get drunk every weekend. Would you have as much objection to them as you do to someone who smokes pot every weekend? And just because his argument doesn't address *your* objections doesn't mean its not an argument. You're saying it's not an effective argument *to you*.
Rephrasing that: he's pointing out that there are costs to the current policy, and there would be benefits from a change in policy. Sounds like advocacy to me. Whether it's *successful* advocacy is an entirely different question.
What, can't he advocate his position in the hope of changing people's minds?
don't buy the "demand would go up" arguement I thought your other blog on the subject, about how your friend couldn't find a source for pot, and resorted to buying it online and was scared to death afterward, was a perfect illustration of why the quantity consumed would go up if it was legalized. <
Keep in mind that demand would probably go way up, if it was legal--prices would fall and there'd be no fear of the law. So we'd have a lot more than 20 million smokers and therefore a lot more money than you suggest. (Though of course some of this increased demand would come from people giving up substitute goods which are taxed (ie tobacco, alcohol) so it's not pure profit.)
lifting of the sanctions were simply a benefit of the war, not it's intended conclusion Certainly I agree with you there. But I don't think it's practical to wait for good intentions before seeking good results. Certainly not in politics. <TABLE c
Are you saying that there is an element of the pro-war movements whose motivation was the lifting of the sanctions? Ironically, what tipped me over the line into being a hawk was hearing a vehemently anti-war friend describe the horrors of sanctions. From a
Vincible - "found to be fake" and "probably a fabrication" mean different things. Yes, they don't use the exact words "found to be fake." I don't know what other possible conclusion one could draw after reading that article, though. What justification do you have for believing the claim that At
"Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist." That was found to be a fake. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id
Yeah, I was and still am a conflicted hawk on Iraq--not that I thought war was a great option, but that all the other options were worse. But I always felt the administration was exaggerating the evidence, even before the war. Personally, I think that Bush really did feel that war was necessary, so he tried to present the strongest case for war possible. And at times that meant that he relied on shaky evidence.
Kerry's mantra seems to be "I'm not Bush! I'm not Bush!" No, that's the mantra of some of his supporters. This is silly. Bush has been in the national spotlight for four years--of course everyone has an opinion of him, positive or negative. Kerry hasn't really been in the spotlight for more tha
It's beyond me how people can bash Kerry for saying the word "liar" about some Republicans while defending Bush for saying that "Kerry says one thing and does another" and other words to that effect, which, of course, means "Kerry is a liar." It's no wonder we can't get an unscripted answer out of candidates these days when we insist everything be in Washingtonese. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-Qu
I'm pretty sure in order to take the Federal matching funds there are limitations. I'm also pretty sure Bush didn't accept the funds because of the limitations. I'm not sure about Kerry. Neither accepted funds for the primary. Both will accept the federal funds for the general election, but those don't
Bush has made a bunch of negative comments about Kerry and flip-flopping. Also he's attacked Kerry's senate record--remember Bush's comments about the "deeply irresponsible" 1995 intelligence bill? And as you say, other Republicans have attacked Kerry, many of whom probably have Bush's approval or at least consent. He is party leader, after all. (This was the pattern during the 2000 election, after all--he'd
Another hypocrisy test: how would you feel if Democrats started running campaign ads showing the caskets of American soldiers being brought home after dying in Iraq? Are these principled stands or political ones you're taking here? ("You" not being aimed at anyone in particular.)
somebody who used to work 120 hour work weeks only to have forty hours of that work week get siphoned straight away into federal coffers to support these parasites Okay, let's keep the problem in perspective. Whether or not the "system" is being widely abus
I'm fine with the 9/11 images. But there's an awful lot of hypocrisy in banning televised coverage of the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, supposedly out of respect for the dead and their families, then showing a casket draped in an American flag being carried out of the WTC and using it in an explicitly political campaign commerical.
In my opinion, the most effective strategy is to not build a military unless you're about to use it. It's often not cost-effective as a deterrent compared to bribes, once you factor in the cost from building and maintaining it, and the opportunity cost from delaying social production, techs, wonders, etc. Also, if you only build the military when you're about to use it, it means that you aren't stuck with obsolete ships when a real war comes around. Sometimes this means that I
I love Risk! Don't get many chances to play it these days, though. I remember some really intense, hard-core games of Risk... there was one game where someone spiked other people's drinks with vodka, and another game where a friend of mine sent his girlfriend to go tickle one of his opponents, so that that opponent wouldn't be paying attention while he concluded a covert deal with me... good times :)
[quote]Sirian found another bug. I always wondered why the AI build staff when they don't have the tech yet. I was always a little upset about it. I work hard to research key techs and the AI get's it for free Due to Sirian it happens when you put it in your governor's list.[/quote] I don't want to take away from Sirian's real accomplishments, but this bug was first posted on the forum by KitWarrior several months ago.
[quote]vincible, I saw you lurking in the MWC thread and thought I'd say hi! How's school going? [/quote] You have sources everywhere, I see :) It's the last couple days until the general exam. I'm taking it easy at this point. The consensus has been that medium or maybe large is hardest, for a very long time. On small maps, the AI's tactical weaknesses are really obvious and really easy to exploit, and trade provides you with all the income you need. On really big maps, ev
Don't be silly, it's the Midwest. There's no terrain to hide behind for three hundred miles in any direction.