Four more years!

After reading the ten of thousands of words written in this thread and listening to the millions of words broadcast over the years, I see one main problem with all of them. All (almost) of them deal with means and very few deal with causes. All of the rhetoric is devoted to how it happened and none is devoted to why. All of the discussion of gun control boils down to the people who are afraid of guns trying to eliminate them and does nothing to control he causes of such disasters. Until all of the root causes of events are addressed, they will continue to happen. Do guns make it easier to cause massive deaths? Yes. But so do pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, an out-of-control automobile or any one of a number of other options.

An event such as Newtown is not an indictment of guns, but of a failed mental health system. Until the health system figures out a way to help individual with problems, there will always be people who commit such heanous acts.

I agree. The bigger issues that need to be addressed are mental health availability, affordability, and the social stigmas associated with seeking help for mental health problems.

KNick wrote:After reading the ten of thousands of words written in this thread and listening to the millions of words broadcast over the years, I see one main problem with all of them. All (almost) of them deal with means and very few deal with causes. All of the rhetoric is devoted to how it happened and none is devoted to why. All of the discussion of gun control boils down to the people who are afraid of guns trying to eliminate them and does nothing to control he causes of such disasters. Until all of the root causes of events are addressed, they will continue to happen. Do guns make it easier to cause massive deaths? Yes. But so do pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, an out-of-control automobile or any one of a number of other options.

An event such as Newtown is not an indictment of guns, but of a failed mental health system. Until the health system figures out a way to help individual with problems, there will always be people who commit such heanous acts.

thinkstoomuch wrote:PS My apologies for the sarcastic nature of this post. But if ten years isn't enough to beat what could be called a stone aged people with hand portable weapons then why do people keep insisting that the "whatever" will win.

How about the 18 years of Viet Nam?

I almost agree with you here.

Except personal responsibility took a major hit.

Major storm coming, "I don't need to go fill up the gas tank in my car or fill water containers, the government will come and save me", and so forth. No one needs to help your neighbor that's the government's job.

No I don't feel these are a good things. But it is what our masses seem to want.

No, the Democratic party is heavily weighted to the nanny state, see Europe.

Sheesh, get a grip. You´re blabbering such ridiculous rubbish...

Neither of you clearly knows anything about "Europe".
Or any kind of realistic understanding of even your own nation and it´s politicians wishes and aims.

And that´s before we even start considering the fact that Europe is not ONE nation. That there´s MORE difference between many European nations than there is between them and USA.

Spend money you don't have because who cares about the future.

Right... Because the Rep´s are not the ones that have racked up the big debts you mean?

What are you talking about. There were issues with lines in Northern Virginia suburbs, not exactly overwhelming non-White communities.

There was far more, embarassingly much so in a few cases i heard about especially in Florida.

A reporter from here commented that the Russian election (that he had covered just earlier) was a rolemodel in fairness in comparison(and he thought it was "not so good" at the time).

Agreed. the whole worlds up the nile at the moment, and it doesnt look like we have many, if any paddles. And as reducing debt is a lot harder than growing it, we can probably expect the recovery to take many more years.

I´m sad to tell you that USAs debt is so bad it will take many decades to get rid of it even if the economy was good AND USA actually managed to get a set of politicians who really worked on it instead of petty squabbling about how it must ALL be through cuts in spending. A "solution" btw which we already know does not work. That was the standard IMF solution to several nations in LESS trouble, and they went from free fall to crash and burn with policies like what the more vocal parts of the Rep´s are demanding.

I find it funny in a morbid way, that the people talking most about how they are going to make USA great, are the ones currently doing the most to turn their country into a scrapheap. And for anyone who missed the connection, i refer to the republicans(and a rare few democrats) belonging to the same faction as teaparty-ists, the kind of people who have already shown clearly what fools they are, by using the debt ceiling circus to push their partisan politics rather than actually doing their DUTY.

And in that also showed Obama´s biggest problem, he´s waaay too nice to the opposition.

Democracy is great, except for the part where those who promise more get elected more. Whoever said that democracy is not the best form of government, only the least worst of those discovered is surely correct.

IIRC, that was Churchill.

You can call me a fear-monger all you want but the idea that another country could tell us what to do is scary. And guess what? If we reach a situation where we need another country to sign off on our loans then that is a sad state of affairs indeed.

Yes it is. But as for Greece? They have allowed corruption to thrive for decades and then relied on a low value currency and tourism to make up for it.
Joining the euro killed the low currency which in turn drastically reduced it´s tourism value.

Go read about how Sweden pulled itself out of a bad situation in the 90s if you want a hint on at least a better way to do it(not great but better for sure). Our national debt has been steadily dropping ever since the 90s crisis (which was spawned by a housing bubble that burst VERY badly, comparable nationally to the US housing bubble except worse).
One part of the solution then was to drop the fixed value on the SEK. USA could do the same anytime, except that would hurt your import costs SEVERELY, which is of course why politicians doesn´t dare.

Here, they dared to do that, raise taxes and cut spending, massively.

I'm not convinced the United States is the greatest country on earth. And I swear that the country is trying harder with each passing day to disabuse me of the notion we are the greatest country.

Personally i keep glancing "across the keel"(that´s what the chain of low mountains along the border with Sweden is called ) at Norway, higher wages, an economy running decently strong still and a constant need of more workers...


*****
Huh, 11 pages in this thread? Don´t have the stamina for that, over and out after 2 pages i say...

You mean the conflict where the VC was backed and supported by the nation (and forces) of North Vietnam (whose military actually participated, we're not just talking about logistical support)? As far as assymetrical conflicts go, Vietnam is actually a pretty bad example for your argument.

thinkstoomuch, I'll continue our discussion by PM a bit later.

KNick wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:PS My apologies for the sarcastic nature of this post. But if ten years isn't enough to beat what could be called a stone aged people with hand portable weapons then why do people keep insisting that the "whatever" will win.

How about the 18 years of Viet Nam?

At the start of the Viet Nam Conflict, North Viet Nam did not have the industrial capability to be considered a "non-stone-age" society. Almost all of their war-fighting equipment, including everything that was sent to the VC, was manufactured either in China or Russia. 18 years later, that was still true. Inspite of 30+ years of industrial build-up since then, the combined Viet Nams would still be considered a "stone-age society".

There will almost always be someone outside the country involved who has an axe to grind with the government. As soon as the "rebels" prove they can survive or even if all they do is prove they can discommode the current regime, someone will provide them with the arms. Proxies can always be found when it comes to war. Everyone has enemies who will happily help someone else tear down a current government, even the US.

You need to research things a bit more before you start spouting facts. Vietnam (and it's not the combined Vietnams, it is one country and had been for 30+ years) has a significant manufacturing presence now, Vietnam is one of the places businesses are moving manufacturing to now that China's labor costs are increasing.

KNick wrote:Inspite of 30+ years of industrial build-up since then, the combined Viet Nams would still be considered a "stone-age society".

There will almost always be someone outside the country involved who has an axe to grind with the government. As soon as the "rebels" prove they can survive or even if all they do is prove they can discommode the current regime, someone will provide them with the arms. Proxies can always be found when it comes to war. Everyone has enemies who will happily help someone else tear down a current government, even the US.

Perhaps I am still thinking of them as they were fourty years ago when they shooting at me. But any jump in manufacturing has occurred in the last two decades and I doubt very much that it has changed the lives of the average Vietnamese farmer significantly.

KNick wrote:At the start of the Viet Nam Conflict, North Viet Nam did not have the industrial capability to be considered a "non-stone-age" society. Almost all of their war-fighting equipment, including everything that was sent to the VC, was manufactured either in China or Russia. 18 years later, that was still true. Inspite of 30+ years of industrial build-up since then, the combined Viet Nams would still be considered a "stone-age society".

There will almost always be someone outside the country involved who has an axe to grind with the government. As soon as the "rebels" prove they can survive or even if all they do is prove they can discommode the current regime, someone will provide them with the arms. Proxies can always be found when it comes to war. Everyone has enemies who will happily help someone else tear down a current government, even the US.

"Stone-age"? Vietnam today has an industrial production density higher than USA. In GDP %, Vietnams industry is over 40%, USAs is 23%.
Nowadays they even have a thriving production of advanced machine tools, the essential building block of new industry.

And before the war, it had been kept as an agriculturally focused colony by the French since the 19th century and then USA tried the same. But calling them "stoneage" even then is just pure prejudice.

The following is in a different thread but i thought it was more suitable here:

me wrote:

Daryl wrote:I love a grown up discussion. Good point about buzzwords in that politically I'm generally left (support gay marriage, many socialist welfare programs, income redistribution to a point, etc) but am right wing when it comes to personal and family security.
I don't think that the 57% of Americans that don't want an assault weapon ban are all right wing religious people, but I do think that statistic supports my contention that citizens of the USA on average think differently to the rest of the developed world. Certainly the US has a higher percentage of openly religious people, and what you call a leftish president would be quite right politically elsewhere. I have associated with Americans both socially and professionally for many years and seen their embarrassment when they express a religious sentiment or want to say grace at mixed gatherings and others look askance.
Regarding marriage I (and many others) believe that the term consenting adults is the only limiter. I don't agree that any religious group has sole custody of the term and should be offended by others using it. Neither should any religious group be forced to perform it if they don't want to. Most of our marriages are civil anyway, and many of the religious ones are only due to brides wanting the stone church trappings (first and last visit ever). Our tax and welfare authorities automatically assume that two adults living together are a partnership, until you tell them elsewise.

Having derailed a thread about politics into a conversation exclusively about guns it looks like the guns thread is being derailed into a discussion about politics (and not merely the politics of guns). Given this politics forum is moderator-lite I guess why should attempt to moderate ourselves insofar as possible. I'm therefore reposting you post, and my response to it in the 'four more years' thread. Let's see if we can keep this thread on track.

My response is as follows:

Daryl, all nations have things which define their cultural and political perspective. With Britain it is the loss of empire, the acceptance of that but a remaining yearning to be important on the world stage. With Germany its horror of what Germany, not just Hitler, did in WW2 and its subsequent division during the cold war - Germany's politics is conservative (the real meaning, not necessarily right wing) and consensus-seeking as a result. With Australia the days of the pioneers has its legacy and there is a result of the british empire there is kinship with Britain but also an overt rejection of some of its aspects.

The USA has its own things whih shape it. As an outsider familiar with many americans I'd list them in descending order of importance as 1)40 years of anti-communist, pro-capitalist, pro-american propaganda 2)the civil war 3)its current status as the only super-power 4)the pioneering spirit 5)the revolution against the british empire

Attempting to understand american politics and culture without a reasonable knowldge and understanding of these things is impossible. The USA has generally been slightly to the right of the rest of the world since its founding (although it was probably ever-so-slightly to the left in between 1900 and the late 1930s/early 1940s). Partly out of reaction to the USSR the USA shifted to the right in the 1940s. And then it shifted hard-right with Reagan in the late 1970s/early 80s - the time an entire generation had grown up with capitalist propaganda and has remained there ever since.