GOP--Sore Losers

Morzas · Post by **Morzas** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:44 am

He's an Oregonian, what the fuck did you expect?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:48 am

Millions of dollars in damages!

...We spent all day chasing those gerbils on the freeway.

Ooookay.

Admittedly, those Hummers in Sand Diego were worth a pretty penny, and their paint jobs were just ruined.

'Cause that's totally like flattening buildings and assassinating people.

-Crissa

Titanium Dragon · Post by **Titanium Dragon** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:51 am

Terrorism doesn't necessarily imply competence, Crissa, and most terrorism in reality is not blowing up buildings but local suppression, ALA KKK during reconstruction.

Morzas · Post by **Morzas** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:51 am

No, Crissa, you're wrong. The lives of a few people are worthless compared to the majesty of an SUV.

Titanium Dragon · Post by **Titanium Dragon** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:52 am

Are you guys seriously thinking I'm saying the ecoterrorists are nearly as big of a problem as the Army of God or Al Quaeda? If so, let me clarify: They're not.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:01 am

I think, and I'm not a professional on this, that they are making jokes at your expense TD.

Titanium Dragon · Post by **Titanium Dragon** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:05 am

MGuy wrote:I think, and I'm not a professional on this, that they are making jokes at your expense TD.

I'm moderately certain that you're correct, MGuy!

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:23 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:About nukes.

If nuclear weapons didn't exist, there would've been a World War. If not between Western nations and Asia (which would have been inevitable), then between Russia and China.

The world was very lucky to have nuclear weapons before a fight broke out between East and West. There have been many times when we came close to the brink of nuclear destruction, but if nukes didn't exist we would have had guaranteed destruction. Total War is a bitch like that.

Gambit of quick annihilation or guaranteed 'slow' destruction of the world? It's such a hard decision...

Total war or nuclear annihilation? Interesting question. I'll take total war. Germany is a decent place now, if all those cities had been nuked instead of carpet bombed it would be a radioactive waste.

Of course its not as you put it anyway. US foreign policy involved repeated threats of nuclear first strike. They usually worked. Vietnam apparently didn't since the anti war protests were loud enough that Nixon wouldn't risk the follow through. So no, US nukes have been a weapon used against smaller nations at constant risk of pissing off someone who has nukes.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:13 pm

Heath Robinson wrote:
tzor wrote:
Heath Robinson wrote:So you'd rather the alternative?
You mean there is an alternative? The UN or nothing? Total nonsese. There are an infinte possible sets of alternatives. The very structural nature of the UN has served its purpose; it is ill suited to the purpose it wants to become.
You said that rejecting the UN is not stupid ("How stupid do you have to be to want the UN?"). You have now claimed that it's not stupid to reject the UN in all its forms because the UN is "ill suited to the purpose it wants to become". So you'd rather have nothing, right now, than something because that something, you believe, won't be as good at the things that it might end up doing in the future.

Just to remind you of what your argument is, so that you can add or retract what you want.

For my argument; the UN offers real benefits in the current political environment that countries would be willing to pay for. It's not stupid to pay nothing to get those benefits, as the US has the oppurtunity to.

I think you have twisted my position slightly. The original conversation was the following:

tzor wrote:
Heath Robinson wrote:How stupid do you need to be to reject the UN?
Do you really want a serious discussion on that?

Oh right, this is the Gaming Den, this isn't the place for a discussion, it's not even the place for an argument, this is the room for the insults.

I mean how stupid do you need to want the UN?

From this we have a plethora of problems in and of itself. First and foremost “how stupid” questions are in and of themselves rhetorical questions similar to the infamous question “when did you stop beating your wife.” There are, in fact, very intelligent arguments on both sides. Even the notion of “rejecting the UN” is subject to debate; one could say that not paying dues and rejecting all treaties not personally approved according to the law of the local nation is a form of “rejection.”

Crissa asked in an earlier post about the “powers” of the UN. Power is an interesting concept and most power is an illusion. The result is that you have two types of people, the honest ones and the dishonest ones. There are many nations that do take the treaties and resolutions passed by the United States extremely seriously, with the full impact of law behind them. There are others who blatantly ignore anything the moment it is written.

It is, interesting in that where the UN has failed others have been trying to organize alternatives. Economically, this can be seen in the various groups modeled after the G8. Continental organizations such as the “Organization of African Unity,” “Organization of American States,” and even attempts to organize nations with organizations like the “European Union” have started to provide real organizational structure where the UN has failed to provide its mandate.

The UN in and of itself, to quote the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is “mostly harmless.” It does, however have a dark side; it constantly seeks to be the equivalent of the “World Union,” the ultra super-national legislative (and judicial) branch where its every resolution is immediately obeyed by everyone in the entire world. Such a situation, given the current structure of the UN is nothing short of madness. Only a drastically revised structure and a radically different constitution can allow the United Nations to be such a state, and even then, general structural problems with a world that is far from decided on any issue submitting to a single overall government.

The use of the UN may have been important in the cold war, but not in the 21st century. In fact I can’t even think of a single case in the 21st century where the UN was not more of a hindrance than a help. None.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:23 pm

Titanium Dragon wrote:You disagree with me? Just in recent times in the United States, we have had Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush Jr. We have people banning gay marriage, denying people equal rights, via direct popular vote. We have California voting more services and fewer taxes, as well as the prison problem across the nation where people want to put criminals away forever but don't recognize that it means that they can't spend as much money on anything else.

I generally favor republics over direct democracy but I do question your assertion that your examples prove that democracy doesn’t work. Sure Nixon was a drunk, spied on people and compiled an enemies list but if that is the biggest problem of democracy, I’ll take democracy any day of the week. That’s what is so nice about the United States, when there is a question between the idiot for life and the idiot for four or eight years, the latter is so much better. That is why, even though I think that the election of “The One” was the worst thing this nation has done this century (dwarfing the election of “The Dubya” by a factor of two) democracy is still alive and well and working in the United States. The same is true for individual votes. You don’t need direct democracy to go make crack head legislation; Prohibition managed to get itself all the way into the constitution in the last century. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. This is the principle why democratic republics work over the long run; not perfect, but they are generally better than the alternatives.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:34 pm

tzor wrote:From this we have a plethora of problems in and of itself. First and foremost “how stupid” questions are in and of themselves rhetorical questions similar to the infamous question “when did you stop beating your wife.” There are, in fact, very intelligent arguments on both sides. Even the notion of “rejecting the UN” is subject to debate; one could say that not paying dues and rejecting all treaties not personally approved according to the law of the local nation is a form of “rejection.”

Kaelik, you called it.

The rhetorical question was a statement of my position that you then argued against. It's only recently that you lost the plot of the argument - and I suspect this is an intentional strategem to avoid having to admit that you have lost.

If there are effective arguments on your side, then why the fuck haven't you been using them?

You understood my position, and quibbling over the meaning of a statement that you apparently already understood is just a bullshit strategy you're using because you don't want to have to accept a failue. Instead you'll strawman and distort my apparent statements until you've got an opposing position you can actually defeat.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:53 pm

tzor wrote:Sure Nixon was a drunk, spied on people and compiled an enemies list

It was less than a year ago that you posted something saying "What's actually so bad about Nixon? He lied, oh boo-hoo."

Just reminding you. So either you were trying to bury the facts then, or you really don't see those things as being a problem.

That is why, even though I think that the election of “The One” was the worst thing this nation has done this century (dwarfing the election of “The Dubya” by a factor of two)

[Insert Laugh Track]

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:18 pm

Koumei wrote:
tzor wrote:Sure Nixon was a drunk, spied on people and compiled an enemies list
It was less than a year ago that you posted something saying "What's actually so bad about Nixon? He lied, oh boo-hoo."

Context helps, I believe at the time I was talking about possible criminal acts, not character flaws. The current law against presidents compiling enemies lists was created after Nixon left office. No one was going to impeach him for spying on people, only for the Watergate coverup.

As for the drunk part, we learn new things every day. Now we know Kennedy was shacking Ms. Monroe as a FACT and that he was also playing hanky panky with some ladies at the White House pool. Now that's a definitel cover up! (But lying to your wife is still not an impeachable offense.)

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:24 pm

Oh, yes, the G8. Wonderful inclusive democratics there.

Wait, no. It's eight rich nations choosing what's best for their captains of industry, fuck-all to the rest of the world.

That's what you want to model your military negotiations on?

-Crissa

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:30 pm

Crissa, that is the current model of the Security Council of the UN, the big old military powers have the veto power. If the “Big 3” of the military might started getting together to act in their collective interest the world wouldn’t have a chance.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:50 pm

So...

-Crissa

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:16 pm

Actually, the G8 and G22 are more inclusive than the UN Security Council due to lack of ultimate veto power.

And really, the G8/G22 have the right to determine economic policy for their nations and a right to meet up to do so. The moral imperative to care for those less well-off is handled more by the IMF and World Bank institutions (who have sheepishly admitted their egregious mistakes of the 90s), not the GXs.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:23 pm

That's true. It's eight people with veto power over the rest of the world instead of three.

And indebting the rest of the world and forcing them to license crops from your agribusiness is just good economic sense!

Shame on them for, you know, being upset about it and all.

-Crissa

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:41 pm

Crissa wrote:That's true. It's eight people with veto power over the rest of the world instead of three.

The Security Council is comprised of more than 3 nations. There are 15 members, of which only the 5 permanent members (the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America) have vetoes. Proposals are approved only if they achieve 9 votes and are not vetoed. The non-permanent members of the Council are elected by the General Assembly.

You can find all this information on the UNSC article on Wikipedia.

Just correcting some misinformation.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:16 pm

Yeah, I was just being snotty. I think that only three have used the veto power, though.

-Crissa

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:47 pm

Crissa wrote:Yeah, I was just being snotty. I think that only three have used the veto power, though.

-Crissa

All 5 have. The People's Republic of China used their Veto a mere 6 times between 1946 and 2007, and every other permanent member has used theirs 18 or more times. The French Republic has used theirs the next fewest. The leader is the Russian Federation, at 123 vetoes.

The UNSC article has a lot of useful information.

Edit: It should be noted that I am a terrible pedant at times.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:37 am

It's all informative or whatever, but it doesn't really change my point, re: small group getting veto powers over everyone else. It's not like the G8 change their membership as frequently, either.

-Crissa

Titanium Dragon · Post by **Titanium Dragon** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:39 pm

I generally favor republics over direct democracy but I do question your assertion that your examples prove that democracy doesn’t work. Sure Nixon was a drunk, spied on people and compiled an enemies list but if that is the biggest problem of democracy, I’ll take democracy any day of the week.

The problem with Nixon was that he broke the law, and not little things either. Breaking into private property is a problem, and breaking into it with the intent of gathering blackmail material is pretty high on the "bad stuff" list. Obviously its lower than, say, supporting terrorists or authorizing the torture of POWs, but...

Nixon wasn't our worst president, though - there were at least four presidents who were inferior to him, and probably more.

All 5 have. The People's Republic of China used their Veto a mere 6 times between 1946 and 2007, and every other permanent member has used theirs 18 or more times. The French Republic has used theirs the next fewest. The leader is the Russian Federation, at 123 vetoes.

Thing is, though, a lot of shit doesn't even get done because people know it is going to be vetoed. So those numbers are not necessarily representative.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:21 pm

Titanium Dragon wrote:Thing is, though, a lot of shit doesn't even get done because people know it is going to be vetoed. So those numbers are not necessarily representative.

That's one of the hardest things to realize about modern politics. You would think that people propose things, they debate things, they amend things, they debate amendments, they vote on amendments, and they vote on the thing. NO SO. These days they pre count their votes in advance so if they won't submit it if they don't think it will pass. The same is true for cases where there is a veto threat. The only exception is when one wants the enemy to use a veto to make a political brownie points.

It's sort of one reason why the UN fails. Imagine if in the New York always wanted to score political brownie points against California. Now imagine if several of the big states, including the above two have veto power in the senate. Nothing would ever get done in the senate. Government requires that all parties want to reasonably get along with each other. When that is not the case the only workable solution is Diplomacy, not Government.

During the cold war, the UN was a central place for diplomats to meet and greet; this is the one area where the UN did something good.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:36 pm

"In the cold war, the UN worked because it gathered 270+ nations together to discuss the problems of two nations with veto powers."

"Without the cold war, it's better that an even smaller group gets together and just vetos totally without the input of the other 270+ nations."

Ooookay.

-Crissa