HMO's = Making the world better?

It's wrong for you to smoke a cigarette, but okay for'mos to parade around in front of little kids (well, San Fransiscan kids,) in naught but a leather thong = making the world better?

On the other hand, Corporate greed = keeping the world from gettng worse?

China would stay out of the fray. Here's why:

They have a huge manufacturing sector, with the US being a HUGE customer. They are not going to sacrifice their fuel for our appetite for cheap imported crap so that they can back an isolated insane pipsqueak state with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to offer them. NK has very limited resources, no manufacturing sector since the economy collapse, and no local demand for what they manufacture.

It's all about money and China isn't going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg because they happen to be neighbors, even with the alliances they have previously held. Ain't gonna happen. China would be perfectly happy if NK simply went away.

Worldcitizen Ok I'll spell it out for you....

Not being responsible for protecting the lives of forign citizens does not mean in any way that indiscriminate killings are called for, favored, or ignored. It simply means that it's not the president's job to protect them, it's the presidents job to protect americans. So NOT starting a useless war that will get americans killed as well as forigners is wrong but it is wrong because of the americans who die. ( Please Keep in mind we are talking about the president's job here befor some asshole reads what i just wrote and starts screaming that I'm an raving lunatic.)
Honoring treaties by protecting specific countries and their citizens is right because it upholds the treaty that is mutually benificial to both countries and their citizens. IE by defending citizens of NATO countries the US will protect the lives of americans by insureing that they are under the same protection of said treaty. What I am saying is that the President isn't sitting around going "shiat americans are getting killing by terrorists, but going to war will kill forigners so i shouldn't do that." If you agree with the military action in Afganistan then you SHOULD see the logic here.

Not once did i call for mass killings and destruction of all non-americans. Thinking back i should have kept that post to myself to avoid emotional kneejerk reactions.

Hebalo
You equate "conservative" with "CONSERVATION".

That's like equating
"Liberal" with "LIBERALISM"
or
"Socialist" with "SOCIALISM"
or
"over-punctuated caps-lock freakist" with "OVER-PUNCTUATED CAPS-LOCK FREAKISM"

No, those would be more akin to equating "conservative" with "CONSERVATISM." Your suffix is off, as you're using "ism", not "ation," and that changes the meaning.

The original "conservation" comparison would be more akin to equating

"Liberal" with "LIBERATION."
or
"Socialist" with "SOCIALIZATION."
or
"over-punctuated caps-lock freakist" with "OVER-PUNCTUATED CAPS-LOCK FREAKATION"

The first one doesn't necessarily work because there were plenty of liberals who were against the liberation of Iraq and even Afghanistan.

The second one isn't necessarily true because I know Socialists who don't actually socialize a whole lot.

The third one doesn't work because freakation isn't a word. ^_^

If only I could invent a teleportation device! Just imagine it: There would be no borders; Governments wouldn't be able to justify their extortive existance anymore (you need your government to protect you from other evil governments.) In fact, governments would be undefendable, laws would be unenforceable, and personal responsibility would reign supreme again, like in the old west. You either were good with a gun, or polite as hell. Even if you were good with a gun, you could be taken out by a posse if necessary.

Absolutely. *golf clap*

There are a few 'traditional' conservative Farkers around. None are currently in this thread though. They are a dying breed.

Hey, I was just out eating a sammich! Oh, wait. Am I too centrist to count?

WorldCitizen
I don't think you can use isolationism as an application of either the left or the right. "Conservative" and "Liberal" do not seem to denote one's level of isolationism vs. internationalism.

I wasn't. I was saying that when a conservative is isolationist, he usually follows a certain line of logic. When a liberal is isolationist, he usually follows a totally different line of logic. I was only referring to those liberals and conservatives who are isolationist.

I think if you want to go that route, you would have to divide each party up into two wings. Each party has its own brand of isolationism and internationalism, making "liberal" and "conservative" very bad ways to try to classify isolationist vs internationalist.

You've hit the nail on the head. Each party has its own broadly defined isolationist and interventionist branches, and each of said branches has its own general logic behind it, so while you can't pit isolationism vs. interventionism solely in terms of liberal vs. conservative, you CAN compare and contrast the liberal and conservative forms of isolationsim without actually pitting them against each other in a versus match.

I disagree. Considering how today's liberals lean towards isolationism while conservatives are more likely to support international intervention, I think you have the definitions the wrong way around.

Did you skip the part I wrote about the administration? Democrats are morphing into left-wing conservatives, and the republicans have become right-wing liberals. The question on my mind is if this is simply a result of the strange polarity of the Bush administration, and if the parties will revert to form later. Are the democrats really becoming conservative, or is just that their reflexive distaste for the right is influencing their approach to policy decisions?

The reason this is all so confusing is that the liberal-left and conservative-right pairings were so strong in the past. And as Egoy pointed out, people's affiliations, the so called "culture wars" of the left and right are what is driving the country, and not the liberal and conservative aspects.

When Rush decries "liberals", he is not referring to the base philosophy of liberalism. He is against the left wing policies that have liberals embraced in the past 60 years.

I'm liberal, and I hate the left. There is too much shortsightedness and ignorance. But I am no fan of Rush: right wingers are worse. I can respect true conservatives, even though we might have a difference of how we approach a problem.

Whoppeee, muhohohahahaha, yaaaaaaaaaaaaay, heheheheheee, NUKES! NUKES!NUKES!NUKES!NUKES! nothing like a good ol fashion crispity, crunchy, nuke war like we had back then, eh boys and girls?

I totally agree with you. williamzabka [TotalFark]

This is probably going to lead to me getting flamed so bad I'll need to bathe in ice but....

This downhill slide while it had started earlier was just made worse when bill and monica and a cigar got together. It caused even more bible thumpers to the right. Caused hell with the election following, probably got bush elected, and caused the liberals to choose two lackluster canidates (possible saving betetr ones for later?? honestly there ahd to be sombody better than gore or kerry) furthur pushing the left down and then guess what the largely liberal media and "educated" sectors of society find something to latch onto (the war) and harp about as if they had never considered it might be a good idea. Then the gloves came off and the shiat hit the fan and who knows when the country will recover. Wars used to galvinze the country, now the country is torn apart by each latest cnn story about the war.

Mr_Fabulous

"There are a few 'traditional' conservative Farkers around. None are currently in this thread though. They are a dying breed."

Hey, I was just out eating a sammich! Oh, wait. Am I too centrist to count?

Count me in, too! Hey bud, can you get me a sammich while you're at it? Thanks! ^_^

*Sigh*

He's planting the flag of liberty for all to see. Nice move.

"Mr. President."

"Uh... yeah Boy Genius?"

"Tell the American people that you have initiated the spread of freedom and liberty. They will associate you with security and peace thus further polarizing the plight of good versus evil."

"Huh? Like I told you before, You need to SIMPLIFY, you know, ummmm, what I say..."

"Errr... Yes. My appologies Mr. President."

"Well???"

"Do the holdin' a rake thingy..."

"HELL YEAH! WOOOO HOOOO. Good Call!"

"Hey BG?"

"WHAT???"

"Can I go to the ranch tomorrow??? Please?"

Anybody who things conservatives are all-for internationalism have their heads firmly up their asses.

Rammek88

...and, anybody who thinks this current administration is conservative have their heads firmly up their asses.

Worldcitizen Point conceded You are correct my initial statement was not the whole truth and indeed legally the president does have the responsibility. In my defense i have only these two things which do not stand up but i will state regardless.
1)I'm at work and trying not to get caught and that statement was long and typed hurridly i should have qualified but was angry and in a hurry.
2)I was specifically referring to the iraq war in whihc no treaties are coming into play regardless you are correct my initial statement is wrong but the thought is not don't blame my ideas blame my typing, or lakc of ability to communicate them.

WorldCitizen, Thank You Black Jesus!

I disagree, in part. I think China will stay out of this, but I think it is because N. Korea is a country that carries out China's dirty work, much like how Israel is to the U.S. N. Korea can go start some trouble, or take care of a problem for China, and China can hold its hands up and say, "Hey, I had no idea!" Again, much like the U.S. and Israel. It seems to me that that if N. Korea was not heavily under China's influence, the latter would never stand for the former's acquisition of nukes. Imagine China's reaction if S. Korea or Japan obtained nukes?

/just speculation

I think it's terrible that each party has made it their duty to shun practically everything each party stands for, all they do is sling poo at each other and don't get anything done. I am from Minnesota, last year our state elected officials didn't get anything done except petty bickering, where is the common citizen in all this? Right in between the crossfire getting full of poo more than either side. It's getting so polarized and sickening to listen to the crap on both sides. I remember after Sep. 11, 2001 I have never seen our government and it's people come together like ever before and accomplish so much, now, all that is gone and there is nothing left except dirty crap all over everything, and it's getting smeared on everybody in the middle the most.

2005-01-27 01:57:13 PM BearToy

"For the last couple of decades, nuclear weapons design and testing has been done using supercomputer models."

False...they've only done tests where pounds of explosives could be tested in the past decades (a FAR approximation of what they can actually do). Full scale testing will not be complete until late in this decade, with the supercomputers running non-stop until they come up with a "close" approximation. And, don't you remember underground testing?


"They virtually 'detonate' the devices well within the confines of a mainframe."

How about several of the most powerful computers ever built, not A mainframe...it was even in a thread on Fark several weeks ago. You're talking about Trillions of calculations/second for years, not something you can do in your office. Or, for that matter, no other government in the world is attempting to even try at this time, because they don't have the computing power.


"We could have small, (relatively) cheap 100 megaton fusion weapons ready to go that nobody would have ever seen any evidence of a physical test."


It would still have to be the size of a large-large car, and would not be transportable by an ICBM today. Moreover, cheap being in the Trillions of dollars? I want your bank roll if something the Russians gave up in the 60's because it was just not cost-effective (why they and we chose multiple warhead designs for a buckshot effect) is relatively cheap to you. More? A 100 megaton explosion can't even be simulated with today's technology...just ask FermiLab.


"That's all esoteric though. Antique 20 kiloton fission bombs in metropolitan areas will do the trick."


This is as close as you've come to a valid point, but here goes again...an antique nuclear weapon is an oxymoron. It costs almost as much to maintain a nuclear weapon as it did to develop it in the first place. The detonators age, and the Plutonium becomes very unstable even over the course of a decade.

Egoy


This is probably going to lead to me getting flamed so bad I'll need to bathe in ice but....

This downhill slide while it had started earlier was just made worse when bill and monica and a cigar got together. It caused even more bible thumpers to the right. Caused hell with the election following, probably got bush elected, and caused the liberals to choose two lackluster canidates (possible saving betetr ones for later?? honestly there ahd to be sombody better than gore or kerry) furthur pushing the left down and then guess what the largely liberal media and "educated" sectors of society find something to latch onto (the war) and harp about as if they had never considered it might be a good idea. Then the gloves came off and the shiat hit the fan and who knows when the country will recover. Wars used to galvinze the country, now the country is torn apart by each latest cnn story about the war.

EXACTLY what I was trying to convey in my earlier posts. Good job, imo.

I think the result of all this is that honest debate has been lost in favor of "which side's fanatics can talk the loudest?"

To be fair, though, my opinion is that the posts towards the bottom of this thread have been less "my side! your side!" and more informative and worthy of "honest debate"

Anyone that believes Pakistan is anything but our enemy doesn't understand the middle east situation. At all.
The whole reason that Pakistan is a country was to get the Muslims out of India. Weapons in the hands of Muslims are almost as bad as weapons in the hands of Christians.

EnormousJuan What the world needs now is John Wilkes Booth

No kidding. Where's Squeaky when we need her?

VideoVader


Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so."

can you read that w/ a straight face, vader?

ya gotta take into account...this is the guy who said it was a state's rights issue, then cooked the idea of a federal constitutional ammendment to deny it.

topically, after somebody does a little dance that involves that many steps...i tend to put them pretty low on the believability-o-meter.

ahem, get all the fellow farkers and farkettes and colonize mars, no more earthly worries then.

/just getting tired of politics in general these days

To everyone who said:

"It doesn't matter if our troops are tied up in Iraq"

I wonder if you'd care if we were tied up there if you had your government issues on, and had to deal with roadside bombs and suicide car bombers every day.

I'm willing to bet you wouldn't.

What a bunch of jackasses

True. Good point. In fact, Japan has already taken steps to upgrade its military, which has drawn reaction from China. But China's involvement only to deter Japan and S. Korea, I think, lends some credibility to my claim that N. Korea is China's henchman. I'm of the opinion that China is waiting to see what comes of these six-party talks. I think if China told N. Korea outright to abandon its nuclear weapons, and was actually serious about it, N. Korea would fold.

(last comment directed at WorldCitizen)

Worlcitizen Good to see we agree on something. LOL

honestly though people the culture war is one that personally as a "conservative" I feel that america cannot afford to have the left win that fight.

Or the right for that matter.

Whats wrong with obtaining stem cells for otherwise discarded umbilical cords? nothing but the hard right will have nothing to dow ith it.

Who cares about the high mortality rate of clones they die when they are only a few weeks gestated....
except what happens when we improve methods and that high mortality rate reaches into the few months gestation stage if the left wins this could happen.

either way in terms of "culture war" i hope there is middle ground somewhere.

Nick15 wins the thread

Hilarious cartoon dude

gah way too much agreement in this thread now... I leave to do some work and see what happens.. this isn't allowed on Fark dang nammit!!

Nick15

Typical right-winger whining.

You run the federal government. Short of procedural obstruction within a few narrow constructs, there is nothing the dirty liberals can do to slow the enactment of your agenda.

Complaining about liberals is the only thing the mouthbreathing right knows how to do. even though said liberals are powerless to actually interfere with God's President or to enact any of their own ideas

Try leading. Try for one day accepting responsibility for yourselves. See if you can go a day without mentioning the non-existent opposition. Really, just try one day to explain your failures without summoning the "dirty liberal wrecking crew" card.

You run every branch of government. Stop whining. Stop looking for someone to blame.

War on Drugs
Result: more drugs than ever

War on Terror
Result: a mostly terrorist free nation (Iraq) is now full of them and you can buy a nuke now if you want to

Can we please have a "War against me getting beer and a BJ"?

milk_plus
No worse than liberals biatching when they look bad in the media even though they control the media.

...i don't know if that's a strawman, or just retarded.

maybe its a strawman with a few extra chromosomes?

we control Fox Egoy? ;)

/fanning the flames

When is marrige a right? thats not a human right! No where in the UN charter of human rights does it say Marrige is a human right. Who said anything about gay marrige anyway i certinly didn't mention it. It is not a political issue let gay marrige lie and get it out of politics.

I higly doubt the pit of a 100mt bomb could hold shape i also highly doubt any scientist would be willing to create such a monster. Seeing as how the shock wave of the earlier mentioned 57 megaton bomb was measurable on it's 6th trip around the world something a little less that twice as big would be rather disturbing.

/sigh.

next thing you know someone will be in here offering gmail invites.

/let the flames retard themselves...
//or is that let the retards flame themselves?
///meh almost quittin time anyhow.

The media is largely liberal come on admit it. excepting fox of course.