This country is so fucked, how can a man this ignorant be a frontrunner for a national party! :lmfao: :weep:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/herman-cain-warns-china-is-seeking-nuclear-capability.php
Quote
Benjy Sarlin November 1, 2011, 10:58 PM 21612 302
Herman Cain may have some surprises at his first national security briefings should he win the presidency.
In an interview with PBS, Cain appears to suggest that Americans should consider China dangerous in part because they're pursuing "nuclear capability." In fact, China tested its first nuclear device in 1964 and has had a stockpile of warheads for decades.
The relevant passage:
HERMAN CAIN: I do view China as a potential military threat to the United States.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what could you do as president to head that off?
HERMAN CAIN: My China strategy is quite simply outgrow China. It gets back to economics. China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy — much bigger — but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China.
And secondly, we already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defense a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity. So yes they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.
Hotair, one of the blogs to catch Cain's comment, suggests there is some slight ambiguity there — that he may be referring to nuclear-powered aircraft carriers — but the context makes it a close call at best.
Cain's foreign policy knowledge has been a liability in recent months and he's downplayed its importance overall.
"I'm ready for the 'gotcha' questions, and they're already starting to come," Cain said in a CBN interview last month. "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I'm going to say you know, I don't know. Do you know?"
So he should have said "greater" nuclear capability. Big whoop. You know how much these guys have to talk in a given day?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2011, 08:29:31 PM
So he should have said "greater" nuclear capability. Big whoop. You know how much these guys have to talk in a given day?
Yeah it's obviously a slip of the tongue. But hey we can still make fun of him.
What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.
China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty. The US is the most developed country in the world. There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.
it prays that China keeps growing until America and Europe have their shit back together. China is going to pop, we have to hope it is later rather than sooner or we're fucked.
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.
China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty. The US is the most developed country in the world. There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.
Oh, there's a way we could outperform China.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcodinghorror.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776feb51970c-pi&hash=e2347e96c5c9a68ab325a23a62561686fadc41ff)
Take that, Perm!
Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 03, 2011, 12:36:10 AM
Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?
:huh: That's not the Russian Federation.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 03, 2011, 01:13:23 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 03, 2011, 12:36:10 AM
Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?
:huh: That's not the Russian Federation.
Well, technically the Russian Federation was a member of the Soviet Union. Of course, the name was more verbose than it is now...toss in a "socialist" here or there.
Before I want to criticize Caine too much, is he talking about Red or White China?
"China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy — much bigger — but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China."
I thought this was more dubious than the slip of the tongue on developing/increasing nuclear capability. It is arithmetically correct in the short term, but the exponential effects will still leave the USA standing in the longer term.
But then, in the longer term, China's demographics are poor and moving up the value chain is harder than the early phase of simply stopping from wilfully crippling the economy :hmm:
Quote from: Habbaku on November 03, 2011, 01:13:23 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 03, 2011, 12:36:10 AM
Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?
:huh: That's not the Russian Federation.
Missiles are being launched at it from Bucharest, Czechoslovakia is split up. That's the Russian Federation.
The map is generally weird. It has Eastern Germany for example.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:21:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.
China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty. The US is the most developed country in the world. There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.
Oh, there's a way we could outperform China.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcodinghorror.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776feb51970c-pi&hash=e2347e96c5c9a68ab325a23a62561686fadc41ff)
Take that, Perm!
Now that gives a true murder boner. :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 03, 2011, 03:53:23 AM
"China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy — much bigger — but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China."
I thought this was more dubious than the slip of the tongue on developing/increasing nuclear capability. It is arithmetically correct in the short term, but the exponential effects will still leave the USA standing in the longer term.
But then, in the longer term, China's demographics are poor and moving up the value chain is harder than the early phase of simply stopping from wilfully crippling the economy :hmm:
I was even less impressed with his facile "oh, well, we'll get the US economy back to 5 or 6 percent growth."
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 05:30:43 AM
The map is generally weird. It has Eastern Germany for example.
Yeah, and Hungary has annexed Slovakia (or the other way around), and Yugoslavia is already broken up.. It does not really correspond to any real period of time.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2011, 09:24:54 PM
Yeah it's obviously a slip of the tongue. But hey we can still make fun of him.
It is obviously a reflection of his belief, up to this point, that China didn't have nuclear weapons. We can make fun of him for many more pressing reasons, though. This blunder just shows that he isn't nearly qualigfied to be president, but we have known that for months. He can be a great candidate without being a great candidate for president, and I hope he stays the course as long as possible. Despite saying some silly and ignorant things, he also says a lot of important things that no one else has the balls to say.
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.
China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty. The US is the most developed country in the world. There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.
The US
can certainly outgrow China in absolute and per-capita terms. Why it would want to do so (give the likely environmental, political, and social costs) is, of course, the better question in your post.
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.
China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty. The US is the most developed country in the world. There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.
The notion is based on economics leading to political power of course. It is naturally in everybody's economic interests that every country be rich and prosperous...but political power, unlike economics, is a zero-sum game.
Quote"I'm ready for the 'gotcha' questions, and they're already starting to come," Cain said in a CBN interview last month. "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I'm going to say you know, I don't know. Do you know?"
That would be President Riki Tiki Tavi.
It's kinda funny having people like Anne Coulter screaming about the unfairness of sexual harassment cases against politicians.
So what it takes to be a presidential candidate these days is to be a dumb fucker and proud of it? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2011, 09:56:15 AM
So what it takes to be a presidential candidate these days is to be a dumb fucker and proud of it? :hmm:
I don't think you
have to be proud of it...
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2011, 09:56:15 AM
So what it takes to be a presidential candidate these days is to be a dumb fucker and proud of it? :hmm:
That has always been true. It shows you are salt of the earth American who will not be soft on the threat by dirty foreigners.
I was about to say that it strikes me that all you would need for a trap question for Cain is ask him who the Premier of China, President of Mexico, or Prime Minister of Canada is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2011, 09:50:18 AM
Quote"I'm ready for the 'gotcha' questions, and they're already starting to come," Cain said in a CBN interview last month. "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I'm going to say you know, I don't know. Do you know?"
That would be President Riki Tiki Tavi.
President Riki's got lots of good qualities - loyalty, courage, and the ability to kill cobras.
Quote from: Viking on November 03, 2011, 03:40:42 AM
Before I want to criticize Caine too much, is he talking about Red or White China?
pretty sure china is yellow.
QuoteHotair, one of the blogs to catch Cain's comment, suggests there is some slight ambiguity there — that he may be referring to nuclear-powered aircraft carriers
Why the hell would he be talking about nuclear-powered aircraft carriers?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 03, 2011, 12:36:10 AM
Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?
The game involves an Africa as well-stocked with nuclear weapons as the United States and a Chinese/Indian condominum. It's not what you'd call: realistic.
He was talking about the anti-ship ballistic missile.
I think Cain just mispoke. But he's really not ready for prime time. He seems to have little knowledge or basis in domestic economic policy, and he jokes about his lack of foreign polich knowledge. He'll be done for when he goes against any knowledgeable candidate, GOP or Dem. I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates. He's a decent guy with a good sounding message but I feel he'll fade quickly enough as people understand that he's not too well informed, and we just don't need that as President.
Quote from: KRonn on November 03, 2011, 09:14:33 PM
I think Cain just mispoke. But he's really not ready for prime time. He seems to have little knowledge or basis in domestic economic policy, and he jokes about his lack of foreign polich knowledge. He'll be done for when he goes against any knowledgeable candidate, GOP or Dem. I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates. He's a decent guy with a good sounding message but I feel he'll fade quickly enough as people understand that he's not too well informed, and we just don't need that as President.
I don't understand it either... I think it might just be because he's amusing.
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2011, 06:34:04 AMI don't understand it either... I think it might just be because he's amusing.
I think it's a function of how much some Republicans don't want to vote for Romney. It must be upsetting for Santorum that the possibly insane Congresswoman from Minnesota and the Pizza guy are seen as more serious challengers :(
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2011, 08:56:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2011, 09:49:08 PM
What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.
China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty. The US is the most developed country in the world. There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.
The US can certainly outgrow China in absolute and per-capita terms. Why it would want to do so (give the likely environmental, political, and social costs) is, of course, the better question in your post.
I don't think it can. There are limits to per-capita growth that you can hit after you employ most of the potential inputs, and further per-capita growth can come mainly productivity improvements. It's hard to get productivity to grow at more than 3% per year over the long term, and even that is shooting for the moon.
Which brings me to something that I always found a little silly. Why is it that the economy is good when it's growing quickly, and bad when it's growing slowly? Isn't that kind of focusing on the journey, and not the end goal?
I realize that given the constant productivity growth, the economic growth has to keep up to keep people employed, and it's unemployment that's causing misery, but still I think that too much emphasis is placed on the movement, and not enough pondering is done about where the fuck we are winding up.
Quote from: KRonn on November 03, 2011, 09:14:33 PM
I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates.
They all get a turn. I think we still have Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul to go through as fresh alternatives to Romney.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 10:32:49 AM
I don't think it can. There are limits to per-capita growth that you can hit after you employ most of the potential inputs, and further per-capita growth can come mainly productivity improvements. It's hard to get productivity to grow at more than 3% per year over the long term, and even that is shooting for the moon.
True for China as well as the US.
You aren't actually arguing that the US
cannot outgrow China on an absolute or per capita basis, just that it would be hard. Which, of course, was exactly my point with which you
thought you were disagreeing! :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2011, 11:49:21 AM
True for China as well as the US.
No, it's not. China is expanding because it has a lot of potential still unfulfilled. US is much closer to the ceiling.
QuoteYou aren't actually arguing that the US cannot outgrow China on an absolute or per capita basis, just that it would be hard.
I am, actually. Sustained productivity growth at 6-8% would be impossible for a US economy to achieve.
QuoteWhich, of course, was exactly my point with which you thought you were disagreeing! :cool:
I was actually disagreeing with that point. To imply that it's possible for me to not disagree with the argument that US can grow per-capita GDP faster than China is very insulting.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 10:35:57 AM
Quote from: KRonn on November 03, 2011, 09:14:33 PM
I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates.
They all get a turn. I think we still have Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul to go through as fresh alternatives to Romney.
Is Romney going to be the new Guiliani? So far as they all trade places as the "serious" challenger to Romney, Romney is staying at about the same spot in the polls, say ~25%.
When the alternatives drop out and this becomes a 2 person race, is Romney going to be able to go over 50%? I guess Cain will collapse, but I doubt many of his supporters will be predisposed to support Romney. At the same time, I would think the 25% supporting Romney are the more moderate, and thus less zealous, Republicans, and probably less likely to turn out for caucuses or primaries.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 10:32:49 AMI realize that given the constant productivity growth, the economic growth has to keep up to keep people employed, and it's unemployment that's causing misery, but still I think that too much emphasis is placed on the movement, and not enough pondering is done about where the fuck we are winding up.
My two cents: it's because serious utopian thinking is out of fashion. End of history and all.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2011, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 10:35:57 AM
Quote from: KRonn on November 03, 2011, 09:14:33 PM
I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates.
They all get a turn. I think we still have Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul to go through as fresh alternatives to Romney.
Is Romney going to be the new Guiliani? So far as they all trade places as the "serious" challenger to Romney, Romney is staying at about the same spot in the polls, say ~25%.
When the alternatives drop out and this becomes a 2 person race, is Romney going to be able to go over 50%? I guess Cain will collapse, but I doubt many of his supporters will be predisposed to support Romney. At the same time, I would think the 25% supporting Romney are the more moderate, and thus less zealous, Republicans, and probably less likely to turn out for caucuses or primaries.
It also depends on the timing of the jokers dropping out. Republican primaries are generally first past the post type of affairs, which means that that even 25% may be good enough for Romney to get a big lead, if there are enough bozos still left to split the vote.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2011, 12:16:29 PM
Is Romney going to be the new Guiliani? So far as they all trade places as the "serious" challenger to Romney, Romney is staying at about the same spot in the polls, say ~25%.
When the alternatives drop out and this becomes a 2 person race, is Romney going to be able to go over 50%? I guess Cain will collapse, but I doubt many of his supporters will be predisposed to support Romney. At the same time, I would think the 25% supporting Romney are the more moderate, and thus less zealous, Republicans, and probably less likely to turn out for caucuses or primaries.
McCain ended up being the more palatable of the "moderate" choices last time(Romney was considered to be challenging him from the right, as health care wasn't on the radar then).
Romney does have one point in his favor. Right now, none of his opponents look strong against Obama. Perry did when he entered, but he's handled his campaign poorly so far.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 12:19:46 PM
It also depends on the timing of the jokers dropping out. Republican primaries are generally first past the post type of affairs, which means that that even 25% may be good enough for Romney to get a big lead, if there are enough bozos still left to split the vote.
The problem I see for Romney is that it seems to me that this time there is Romney as a plausible candidate and a bunch of jokers, with Perry as a somewhat hybrid figure. Perry seems to be a natural home for the joker vote if he can hold it together.
Last time the field did reduce: eventually to McCain vs. Huckabee. McCain was too "left wing" for a lot of the joker vote, but he at least had a strong military background and history as a republican. Romney just has a history as a Massachusetts Republican (read: basically a Democrat) and a rich Wall Street guy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2011, 12:38:55 PM
McCain ended up being the more palatable of the "moderate" choices last time(Romney was considered to be challenging him from the right, as health care wasn't on the radar then).
Romney does have one point in his favor. Right now, none of his opponents look strong against Obama. Perry did when he entered, but he's handled his campaign poorly so far.
But Romney is never going to really attract much of the right wing vote because he is so transparently phony with his right wing stances. In the Republican primary world where McCain in 2008 was a "moderate", the choice for conservatives was between a candidate saying the right things but was clearly pandering (Romney) vs. a guy that didn't always say the right things but was a war hero and stand up guy.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 12:03:06 PM
No, it's not. China is expanding because it has a lot of potential still unfulfilled. US is much closer to the ceiling.
So China can grow at its current rate forever? I doubt that.
QuoteYou aren't actually arguing that the US cannot outgrow China on an absolute or per capita basis, just that it would be hard.
I am, actually. Sustained productivity growth at 6-8% would be impossible for a US economy to achieve. [/quote]
So because it cannot have sustained growth at rates of 6-8% indefinitely, it is impossible for the US to outgrow China on an absolute basis and it is impossible for the US to outgrow China on a per capita basis in any timeframe whatever?
That is seriously what you are arguing?
QuoteI was actually disagreeing with that point. To imply that it's possible for me to not disagree with the argument that US can grow per-capita GDP faster than China is very insulting.
You are insulted by the truth? Bummer. Is it all truths that you find insulting, or just some of them?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2011, 12:38:55 PMRomney does have one point in his favor. Right now, none of his opponents look strong against Obama. Perry did when he entered, but he's handled his campaign poorly so far.
I wonder if the economy could impact on this too. If there's a sense that it's improving the GOP will go for an 'electable' candidate, if it keeps going as it is now then they think Obama's doomed so they can vote their hearts.
I think Perry may get a second wind, possibly. Also I think Gingrich could come back.
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
So China can grow at its current rate forever? I doubt that.
Is this one of those infamous grumbler gotchas, where the argument hinges on ignoring simplifying common sense assumptions?
Of course China can't grow at the current rate forever, and maybe in 2100 both US and China will be at rougly the same level of potential that other factors would drive the relative growth rates. However, the context of this discussion is rooted in Cain's comments about what US economy can do under better leadership, and he's running for the 2013-2017 term.
Quote
So because it cannot have sustained growth at rates of 6-8% indefinitely, it is impossible for the US to outgrow China on an absolute basis and it is impossible for the US to outgrow China on a per capita basis in any timeframe whatever?
That is seriously what you are arguing?
Again, are you arguing on substance, or is what you're getting at sort of like "on one day, US economy can actually grow faster than China's economy". Sustained just means something that's not a spike, but a clear trend.
QuoteYou are insulted by the truth? Bummer. Is it all truths that you find insulting, or just some of them?
Is that the truth? I think I know what I can agree with and what I can't agree with. The argument I think you're trying to make (although of course you can be playing a gotcha game and claim that you were making some other possibly trivial argument) is so stupid that I know for a fact I can't agree with it. That is the truth, I do know that I can't agree with it.
Quote from: KRonn on November 03, 2011, 09:14:33 PM
I think Cain just mispoke. But he's really not ready for prime time. He seems to have little knowledge or basis in domestic economic policy, and he jokes about his lack of foreign polich knowledge. He'll be done for when he goes against any knowledgeable candidate, GOP or Dem. I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates. He's a decent guy with a good sounding message but I feel he'll fade quickly enough as people understand that he's not too well informed, and we just don't need that as President.
Just like Obama.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2011, 02:18:03 PM
Is this one of those infamous grumbler gotchas, where the argument hinges on ignoring simplifying common sense assumptions?
No, it is one of those debates where you ignore what I say and state simply that it isn't possible, even with the caveats that I placed on my contention. Then, when I note that your argument that it simply cannot happen ignores my caveats, you say it just can't happen. That's when I stop the discussion, beause you are ignoring the actual discussion in favor of some strawman you seem to have created.
It clearly
is possible for the US to "outgrow China in absolute and per-capita terms. Why it would want to do so (give the likely environmental, political, and social costs) is, of course, the better question." Which was my contention tobegin with.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbaumT.jpg&hash=92a999139ec08b4b2bfbcf75281e98a06c6208a3)
:lol:
:D
Kill the character and you kill the man, right?
I'm still going to vote for him, faggots.
I least I know he dosn't suck dick.
You can't kill something that's already dead.
And Herman Cain most definitely sucks dick.
Comunist obama-lover!
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2011, 07:32:49 PM
Kill the character and you kill the man, right?
I'm still going to vote for him, faggots.
I least I know he dosn't suck dick.
You were going to vote Perry until Valmy convinced you otherwise, is that it?
I'll vote for anyone but Obama.
The Magic Negro:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfxVkLhlu5s
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2011, 07:46:09 PM
I'll vote for anyone but Obama.
Why? Cause the Lt told you so?
I'm disappointed he didn't seem to say something profoundly stupid we could make fun of at the last debate. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2011, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2011, 07:46:09 PM
I'll vote for anyone but Obama.
Why? Cause the Lt told you so?
No. It was actually the voices in my head.
Is it my idea or Languish is becoming extremely lefty?
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2011, 12:36:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2011, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2011, 07:46:09 PM
I'll vote for anyone but Obama.
Why? Cause the Lt told you so?
No. It was actually the voices in my head.
Is it my idea or Languish is becoming extremely lefty?
Languish's median has been a 'radical libertarian' point of view for several years. As such it tends to be opposed to whomever the sitting president is.
Good point.
I can understamd that.
Will Languish oppouse me when i become PM of Eretz in 2030?
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2011, 12:57:31 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2011, 12:36:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2011, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2011, 07:46:09 PM
I'll vote for anyone but Obama.
Why? Cause the Lt told you so?
No. It was actually the voices in my head.
Is it my idea or Languish is becoming extremely lefty?
Languish's median has been a 'radical libertarian' point of view for several years. As such it tends to be opposed to whomever the sitting president is.
No shit. At least you're a statist, so you're getting something right.
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2011, 12:36:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2011, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2011, 07:46:09 PM
I'll vote for anyone but Obama.
Why? Cause the Lt told you so?
No. It was actually the voices in my head.
Is it my idea or Languish is becoming extremely lefty?
You've shifted quite a bit. I think the soldiers in the US army are a bad influence.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2011, 12:57:31 AM
Languish's median has been a 'radical libertarian' point of view for several years. As such it tends to be opposed to whomever the sitting president is.
Yeah, but I think it has less to do with ideological purity but a the common languish phobia of not wanting to admit a mistake or admit being wrong. The solution is not to be for anyone. Also being against things is easier then being for. It's difficult being on defense, much easier to be on the attack.
I'm for things.
Things suck. :thumbsdown:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2011, 02:23:05 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2011, 12:36:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2011, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 13, 2011, 07:46:09 PM
I'll vote for anyone but Obama.
Why? Cause the Lt told you so?
No. It was actually the voices in my head.
Is it my idea or Languish is becoming extremely lefty?
You've shifted quite a bit. I think the soldiers in the US army are a bad influence.
Did I?
I have always been clearly on the right as far as Eretz Yisrael is concerned.
Maybe you are right in the sense that I have lost the tipical jewish misgivings for the american right.
Most jews still believe republicans are racists antisemites, and we should place as many layers of defense as possible between then and us. (as blacks, latinos, gays, etc)
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2011, 04:58:20 AM
Did I?
I have always been clearly on the right as far as Eretz Yisrael is concerned.
Maybe you are right in the sense that I have lost the tipical jewish misgivings for the american right.
Most jews still believe republicans are racists antisemites, and we should place as many layers of defense as possible between then and us. (as blacks, latinos, gays, etc)
I'm curiously where you picked up some of the stuff. Obama is an evil socialist etc? I mean, you come from a Socialist country.
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2011, 12:36:54 AM
Is it my idea or Languish is becoming extremely lefty?
No, not in terms of policies. Yes, in thinking that the field of Republican candidates is filled with crackpots.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2011, 12:36:54 AM
Is it my idea or Languish is becoming extremely lefty?
No, not in terms of policies. Yes, in thinking that the field of Republican candidates is filled with crackpots.
Well it is full of crackpots.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2011, 03:20:02 PM
Well it is full of crackpots.
No argument. I was trying to clarify the premise in Seeb's question.