Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[unknown]

I think Daleks said it better

and where have YOU been?

edit: nevermind...you answered this in the social thread

 

[Pessimism]

And for knowing fuck all about economics. But that's ok, because they have "good intentions."

I thought that was the general understanding about most politicians?

 

[damnromulans]

So how about those Chinamen?

Next superpower, or missing a vital link?

 

[Einherjar86]

I thought that was the general understanding about most politicians?

Which is why they shouldn't have such a large hand in economics.

 

[Cythraul]

I thought that was the general understanding about most politicians?

Most people don't even acknowledge this. Republicans at least sometimes pay lip service to sensible economics. Democrats rarely even pretend to support sensible economic policy. Yet, if it's true generally of politicians that they are economically illiterate, then most people don't seem to acknowledge it, since most people seem to be pretty cocksure when it comes to policy preferences. That's why it's worth pointing out. Tell me, if you think what I said is generally true of politicians, then why would you not want the Democrats to be prickless fucks? If they are among the ignorant, as we're assuming here, then on what grounds do they base their policies (other than moralizing and fantasy) and why would you want such people to "grow pricks" and have the power to meddle with things?

 

[Pessimism]

Whoa there chief, don't go looking into that post for my actual grounded opinion. I don't like this political system, and I certainly don't like this bipartisan standard the country basically enforces. I don't like either party, and if it were both possible and feasible I would leave this country if it were allowed. You should know as well as I do that the general American is a mere intellectual shadow when compared our other-country kin. The population as a whole does not look into the issue's they vote for, let alone what they believe in.

But when it comes right down to it, that a choice must be made (and that choice must be between only those parties, because there is no chance in hell of a third party winning shit), I would rather vote for a Democrat who has no theocratic agenda than for a republican who does. That is the only reason I would want a Democrat to have a damned spine.

Yes they both pander, yes they are all ill-equipped for the jobs they are elected for (although I wouldn't go so far as to say they have"handlers", whatever that means) - but until the old stock dies off there isn't really an alternative (unless of course, the majority pull their collective heads out of their asses and unite for a common good... bwuahahahahahahahaha). The only reason I would appreciate the Democrats having a bit more consonance would ultimately be because of what I mentioned. A good example of this potential unity would have been what the recently passed health-care revision could have been, instead of what it turned into (garbage). I would still like to stress the point that I don't agree with either party collectively and think they are both fucked. My hatred for Democrats as a whole is just less when compared to republicans.

As for the lip service comment: insincere support does not equate to support, if anything it is more antithetical to a position.

edit: I forgot to talk about economic policy in regards to Dems and Repub's - instead focusing on moral fantasy lol. My statement wasn't solely focused on Democrats or Republicans when I said they're inept. Frankly, they can get their information from a variety of sources - much like everyone can. The problem is though that many economic theorists are having a hell of a time agreeing on proper courses of action. Prime example being how to handle the types of loans banks are allowed to have and the interest they reap from said loans (and then what they use the money for). It's not like both parties do not have the resources to create and unite behind a good policy that favors one direction or another (as in spending/saving habits that are conservative or not), but this doesn't happen, so obviously there is a problem. It's possible information is not getting properly rooted to House/Senate creature C. When all is said and done however, I don't want what you have stated; if anything, what I would want would be either party (and the members therein) to gain a working understanding of the mechanics of all things they propose, cease the mind numbing bickering, and unite with the common good of the people in mind. What I would also love is that if they didn't understand something, they would admit to it. I would really love to see this bipartisan fuckery cease completely.

Awesome sidenote: Comparison of the bill with a few others...

Bill Moyers interview on health-care

Just funny

 

[Cythraul]

As for the lip service comment: insincere support does not equate to support, if anything it is more antithetical to a position.

Well, that's why I said "lip service." I don't like Republicans either, btw.

 

[Pessimism]

I figured, I have this memory somewhere in my head where you said you were a libertarian. Not sure if it's true or not.

P.s. I miss your old school debating. I don't think I've read an argument from you since like... shit '08? I honestly don't remember.

Edit: Libertarian is such a broad spectrum of things though, the title does not encapsulate its meaning properly.

 

[unknown]

So how about those Chinamen?

Next superpower, or missing a vital link?

I hear they pee on your rug

 

[Dak]

They pee on your fucking rug, man.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The elected officials don't need to understand foreign policy, economics, or the Constitution.

You do realize that most elected officials have a political science degree or three (even a Masters), and in school, polisci majors are forced to understand these things and know their ins and outs, right?

 

[Einherjar86]

Using the term "understand" is a red herring itself, because no politician truly tries to understand it; they try and interpret it, and interpreting is more useful to someone's agenda.

 

[Pessimism]

In all honesty not all politicians only know jack shit. There are certainly other variables though that obstruct knowledge and the formulation of idea's - some would say it is the political process itself, others would say it is the bullshit "arena" American politics has become (which forces its members to partake in stupid fucking games to win votes or do anything BESIDES solely focus on things that benefit the public).

And if I hear one more argument about "if the health-care bill is so good then why don't the politicians use it" I am going to break down and fucking cry. Do you idiots not know how great FEHB is for an appointed representative? I guess not!

 

[Dak]

Using the term "understand" is a red herring itself, because no politician truly tries to understand it; they try and interpret it, and interpreting is more useful to someone's agenda.

Good point.

@V5: Having a degree in political science means you understand how to play the political game, not that you understand any of the things I mentioned in the prior post.

People play games to win, are in business to make money, etc. Politics is no different, and what is good for the politician and what is good for the masses can often be mutually exclusive. Being a "statesman" has always been painted as giving your life in the pursuit of improving your country/state/nation. But in history it is almost always been the chosen profession of the narcissistic and the greedy.

Politicians attempt to spin into uselessness any legal restrictions to personal advancement, while declaring the same or other restrictions over others to their fullest degree.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

 

[Einherjar86]

That's pretty funny.

I wonder what people think of the ideas expressed in this article, primarily the "alternative voting" method he describes. I think it sounds pretty intriguing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html?src=me&ref=general

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Not to steal your spotlight Pat, but this looks like a pretty major story.

Excerpt from this article:

Pentagon targets Wiki whistleblowers

A small, cash-strapped website that publishes documents governments want kept secret has caught the attention of the Pentagon, which says the site poses a possible threat to US troops.

A report by the US Army Counterintelligence Center says the whistleblower website WikiLeaks poses a potential danger to safeguarding troops, protecting sensitive information, and "operational security."

"WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining," Wikileaks posted on the microblogging site Twitter.

"If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible," it added, about an hour later.

Editor followed

The Twitter feed also said that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange, an Australian, had been tailed on his way from Iceland, and another site employee was detained for 22 hours. Computers were also seized, it said.

"We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks."

"We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike."

WikiLeaks also urged its Twitter followers to contact them if they knew anything about the 'operations against us'.

The last Twitter message from the site was published 16 hours after the first ones and said:

"To those worrying about us--we're fine, and will issue a suitable riposte shortly."

It appears to be mainly about this incident, which Wikileaks tweeted about on Feb. 20:

Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs.

 

[supseudonymous]

From http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQydsIWmNQZpwRriADac51u5rx8gD9EMFM1G0:

Military on alert as SKorean ship sinks near North

By KWANG-TAE KIM (AP) – 5 hours ago

SEOUL, South Korea — A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea early Saturday, prompting the South's military to rush vessels to the site to rescue its sailors and raising fears of an attack by the North.

The ship, on a routine patrolling mission with 104 crew members on board, began sinking off the coast of South Korean-controlled Baengnyeong Island close to North Korea around 9:45 p.m. (1245 GMT, 8:45 a.m. EDT), Rear Adm. Lee Ki-sik of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told reporters late Friday.

Lee said an unexplained hole in the bottom of the ship caused the vessel to take on water. South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported that the ship was damaged by an explosion, and said the military had not ruled out the possibility of an attack by North Korea.

A rescue mission was under way. Officials told Yonhap there were some deaths among the sailors but did not specify the number. The military, meanwhile, moved to strengthen its vigilance near the maritime border, the site of three bloody naval clashes between the warring Koreas. The divided peninsula remains in a state of war because the three-year Korean conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953.

Earlier Friday, North Korea's military threatened "unpredictable strikes," including a nuclear attack, in anger over a report that South Korea and the U.S. were preparing for possible instability in the totalitarian country.

After the ship began sinking, President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers, including the defense minister and other top military officials. After three hours, they agreed to meet again Saturday without making any statement about the cause of the incident, presidential spokesman Lee Dong-kwan said.

Lee ordered the military to focus on the rescue, he said.

Six naval ships and two coast guard vessels rushed to save the crew, Yonhap said. Rescue helicopters and ambulances also sped to the scene, military officials said.

A naval official told Yonhap there were deaths among the sailors, and the cable network YTN said some 40 crew members were missing. However, military officials told the AP they could not confirm deaths, and said 58 sailors had been rescued, with two being airlifted for emergency medical treatment.

Yonhap reported earlier that a South Korean ship fired shots toward an unidentified target in the direction of North Korea, raising fears of an exchange of gunfire.

The military official confirmed that South Korean torops fired shots but said the object detected by radar may have been a flock of birds.

Senior government officials told South Korean media the ship may not have been the target of an attack, but could have struck a rock or been impaired by an explosive on board.

Baeknyeong Island, four hours by boat from the port of Incheon, is the westernmost point of South Korea and is a key military post for South Korea because of its proximity to the North.

 

[Pessimism]

Been following the Wikileaks thing for a couple days now, and I heard about the S. Korean ship this morning.

the object detected by radar may have been a flock of birds.

What the christ.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So am I reading this wrong or are we actually WITHDRAWING from Iraq?

In Iraq, The Mother of All Moves: From Tanks to Toothpicks, Tons of Equipment Being Moved with U.S. Troops in Biggest Withdrawal Since Vietnam