GeorgiaDon

So, I discussed your question. Did you have a rebuttal, or are we to conclude you concede that an unregulated "free market" is in fact not a panacea leading to an ideal society. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

AADs are required at my dropzone, but that is only because it is located in a fairly densely populated urban area and the city asked for that during negotiations over opening (or actually re-opening) the DZ. From that perspective it has more to do with protecting people/property on the ground than it does with mandating protection for skydivers. I do not think there would be much support for mandating AADs for everybody, even though almost everybody I know uses one. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you want to include work week length, and workplace safety in that discussion too? If you look to history we do have great examples of how the free market works, if completely unregulated and unrestrained. Employers demanding 12+ hour workdays, 6 days/week, no vacation, no sick leave, absolutely no consideration for workplace safety were the norm. Take it or leave it. Think in terms of Bob Cratchit/Ebenezer Scrooge. The basic problem with a completely unregulated "free market" is, I think, not that people/employers necessarily want to be cruel or abusive. Rather, it is that those employers who spend any more than they absolutely have to on wages, workplace safety, pollution control, and the like are doing so at the expense of profit, and so place themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to employers who do not spend money on things they don't have to. The employer who pollutes, runs a dangerous workplace, and pays their employees as little as possible while working them as hard as possible can always produce a product at a lower cost, and so out compete the "socially conscious" employer. In an unregulated marketplace, rather quickly it is the "Scrooges" who will be the only employers left for employees to choose between. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just the over-privileged Tesla driving Silicon Valley species. I could tell you stories.You stuck installing microwave ovens? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yeah, mine says that too. Last week I drove up South Carolina Hwy 11 to I25, and then on up to Ashville. Have you done that route? The part on 11 around Table Rock is especially pretty. I think I'll head back that way when the leaves change. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think she's channeling aarco! Or maybe it's the other way around. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Take a look around you. Maths and PHD's (in real subjects) provide you with far more than prayer or imaginating ever has. They create material things. Christ shows me where to find them and how and when to use them.So if other (educated) people create things, and Christ tells you how and when to use them, what is it exactly that you do? Besides converting oxygen to CO2, that is? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep, pretty funny. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What's in that pipe you're smoking? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

One of the things that really pisses me off is that Republicans, and quite obviously you, think everything is some big fucking game of political "gotcha". No issue is immune from being manipulated for political advantage. No number of dead soldiers is too much to pay for an opportunity to make Obama look bad. I really don't give a shit about Obama's poll numbers. Seriously, have you guys ever grown up past High School student government/popularity contest elections? I do not subscribe to the belief that the US needs to be a hostile occupying force trying to run the world. We completely fucked things up in Iraq, starting with invading there in the first place. They wanted us to leave. The only way we could have left a significant force in place would have been against the wishes of the Iraqi government, i.e. a hostile occupation. Better to give them a chance to stand on their own feet. Well so things haven't worked out as well as we would have wished. Now they're in trouble and asked us for help. Considering our role in making Iraq a basket case, and the fact that we claim to be their "friend", it would be perverse to tell them "fuck you" now. I also subscribe to the notion that most Americans are not comfortable standing around with their thumbs up their ass in the face of ongoing genocide. ISIS vs the Kurds is pretty clear cut, unlike the situation in Syria where it is not at all clear that the opposition/resistance to Assad is at all friendly to the US. Indeed ISIS itself came out of that situation. So all in all I'm comfortable with limited support of the type carried out so far, air drops of food and water to refugees and some air strikes against people trying to massacre civilians. I would not support sending in troops again. If you believe we should have left an occupying force in place against the wishes of the Iraqi government, why would you quibble about sending in troops now? Once they are there, you'll have your military occupation in place. Of course, even the Romans were not able to maintain their empire forever. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure the Iraqi military will appreciate your volunteering. Maybe you can set up a "fund me" account so we can contribute to your plane ticket. I'm sure you don't mean that somebody else should take this on. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Is your news media reporting on how your thugs are keeping investigators from the site? About how when they can get there they are limited to just a couple of hours, which are mostly spent picking up the body parts your guys left rotting in the field? Does your news media show you the footage of your Russian stooges removing rings and watches from dead bodies? Going through wallets and removing credit cards? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for the insightful, detailed critique. I suppose you did your best, we should be thankful for that. DonWhat is amusing is when, when liberals say that the Dem party in the past isn't the same as the part of today, or recent past . . . then you see them equating all the Dem views of the past because it fits their illusion of the moment.Doesn't that just imply that Republican administrations suck for the economy regardless of who they are compared to? Don No. Not at all. What that implied was that the spin is subjective to what time period you want to subscribe to.The study covered the last 16 presidential terms (64 years). The trend is highly significant over that whole time period. What time period do you care to subscribe to? 4,000-2,000 BC? Whigs vs Torries? If you have to go back to the 1800s to find a period where your guys did better, that says a lot about the policies of the Republican party. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Has anyone ever explained to you what an extremists is? The extremists you are describing, in your comments above, say the same things about you . . . they want to wipe you off the planet . . . every single one of you. So lets look at mass genocide as you suggest . . . By your logic . . . vaporizing, burning, and radiation poisoning of babies is OK, as long as it is OUR side that does it, right? And since you are equating those PEOPLE with insects, and you exterminate insects with chemicals . . . you obviously are in favor of chemical weapons as well. You wouldn't be on any "No Fly Lists" would you?Holy crap! A turtlespeed post I agree with 100%! I think I need to go lay down for a bit. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for the insightful, detailed critique. I suppose you did your best, we should be thankful for that. DonWhat is amusing is when, when liberals say that the Dem party in the past isn't the same as the part of today, or recent past . . . then you see them equating all the Dem views of the past because it fits their illusion of the moment.Doesn't that just imply that Republican administrations suck for the economy regardless of who they are compared to? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Wait a minute! Where do the turtles fit in? If the Earth is balanced on turtles, where did they come from? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for the insightful, detailed critique. I suppose you did your best, we should be thankful for that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You are conveniently leaving out the part about the Iraqi government not wanting us to stay. So what you are really saying is "He could have preventing the entire mess by forcibly occupying the country, he chose not to." Do you believe it is appropriate for the US to forcibly occupy countries that have never done anything to attack us? Are you willing to pay taxes to maintain occupying armies, presumably in perpetuity? Are you willing to accept the continued steady stream of dead and disabled troops that would inevitably follow from permanent occupation of Iraq? Are you willing to relocate to Iraq permanently to shoulder your share of the burden, or would you expect someone else to take up the burden of endless deployments to a shithole country where every day brings the chance of death or mutilation, all for little or no actual benefit to the US? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting thought. We should give it a try. Wouldn't it be funny if they were both actually the same person, just playing everybody from opposite sides? Actually, I think all of us, conservatives, libertarians, and liberals, actually agree on about 90% of everything, so we never discuss that stuff. Most of the 10% we do disagree about isn't anything we can actually do anything about anyway. Here's hoping everybody* has a fun, safe, and productive (if you're into that kind of thing) weekend! Don *that's everybody, no exceptions. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for your reply (really!). The impression one gets from the media here is that Iron Dome is a lot more effective than 90%, if you consider than not every Hamas missile is worth shooting down, only those that are actually heading towards populated areas. Perhaps that impression is misleading. Is it the case that over 1,000 missiles have struck Israeli cities and towns in the current conflict, considering the number of missiles that that Hamas has fired? Anyway I'm sure there is room for improvement. I agree the cop analogy isn't a great one, I wasn't the one to first bring it up. Still I said "harm", not burglarize (though being robbed is a form of harm). The point still stands that we would not tolerate a situation in which it was routine for the police to kill numerous bystanders because they happened to be in a vicinity where criminals had been spotted earlier. I have already said several times that I support Israel, I consider Hamas to be homicidal fanatics, and I appreciate the difficult situation Israel is put in. Given the population density in Gaza, and Hamas' disregard for their own civilian population (or even desire for civilian cultivates they can use for propaganda), it's a given that any military response by Israel will result in dead and maimed civilians. I do recognize that Israel is trying to minimize casualties. However it doesn't play well (outside Israel) when a school full of refugees, or a hospital, is targeted because a suspected militant on a motorcycle rode nearby. One such highly visible incident easily outweighs a hundred times Israel withheld fire that the public never hears about. Let me ask you a couple of things: 1. Do you believe there is a military solution to the problem? Can Hamas and all the other islamic groups be defeated utterly, rendered forever incapable of harming another Israeli, and the Palestinian population be pacified to the point where the embargo can be relaxed, using force? 2. Can you imagine anything that Israel could ever do that would result in a change towards peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians? 3. What do you think the condition in Gaza and the West Bank will be like in 100 years? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That level of treason makes Watergate look trivial in comparison. I don't believe in hell, but if I did I'd hope Nixon burns in hell for that. I can't begin to comprehend the level of narcissism that would lead someone to prolong a war, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties, just for personal power. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

First, just to be clear this whole discussion is just a thought experiment about what can be done differently that might lead to a different (and more desirable) outcome. No-one of any significance is going to read any of this or actually take any action based on our banter. I do not really expect that either Israel or Hamas (or whatever other flavor of Islamic "resistance" group holds sway down the road) will do anything very different from what they have done for the last 65 years. So, I fear that 65 years from now the Israel/Palestine situation will continue to be a cancer, spewing venom into the rest of the Middle East and the broader world. So, back to the thought experiment. First, I did not suggest that Israel "do nothing". Doing "nothing" would mean allowing Hamas' missiles to reach their targets unimpeded. Doing "nothing" would mean allowing suicide bombers to walk unimpeded into Israel. Doing "nothing" would mean lifting the blockade and allowing Hamas to arm themselves unimpeded. I suggested none of these things. The current conflict has demonstrated that Iron Dome is a remarkably effective defense against missile attack. Hamas has launched thousands of missiles, and what number have gotten through and hit a "useful" target (something other than open desert)? Less than five? How many Israeli civilian casualties have there been? One dead and less than a dozen injured? I think in the light of Iron Dome it would be instructive to apply a cost/benefit/risk analysis to various alternative responses to provocation by Hamas. Let's start with the current (and historical) strategy of bombing launch sites. Benefit: ?? is there any benefit? Is there any evidence that Hamas has been deterred, or even impeded, in their actions? Given the extreme mobility of launch sites, which can be set up, fire off a missile, and run away before the Israeli response arrives, coupled with Hamas' fanaticism and complete disregard for the civilian population of either Israel or Gaza, it's hard for me to see how the Israeli response has had any sort of deterrent effect on Hamas. Cost: At least 1,800 dead Palestinians, at least 60% of whom are women and children. It's likely that every dead civilian generates extreme enmity towards Israel within the Palestinian population, and is a fantastic recruiting tool for Hamas and other radical jihadist organizations. Unfortunately for Israel this is like fighting the Hydra, where every part that is cut off grows into a new warrior. Or five. Another part of the cost is the repeated large-scale destruction of infrastructure and housing in Gaza. Because much of the "civilized" world is unwilling to see the population of Gaza starve or die of exposure, and because the embargo (see below) ensures that Gaza has no functioning economy or resources to rebuild itself, a burden is placed on the rest of the world to rebuild what was destroyed. This results in general enmity towards Israel as well as Hamas on the part of the global community. Yet another part of the cost is the effort to maintain the embargo on Gaza. Significant Israeli resources and money have to be devoted to be devoted to this aim. Also because of the extreme restriction of goods going into Gaza, and a ban on exports, there is no hope that Gaza will ever have a functioning economy. Gaza is totally dependent on the largesse of the global community: over 60% of the population has no income other than aid from international charities, and a majority of the children have an inadequate nutritional intake. Again, a great recruiting tool for jihadists, and a source of international enmity towards Israel. Of course, there is also the cost to Israel of maintaining a proportionally enormous military. A significant portion of this financial cost is borne by the US, but the social impacts are borne by Israel. All of these costs will have to borne in perpetuity, unless something happens to change the situation, hopefully in the direction of peaceful coexistence of Israel with its neighbors. You use a "cop analogy", but I think it's inadequate. It would fit better if we modified it to include: 1. Criminals are only rarely able to actually burgle your house or harm you or your family, due to highly effective alarms, impenetrable doors and windows, attack dogs roaming the yard, and so on. 2. Police rarely capture the criminals who attempt to harm you. 3. In the (generally unsuccessful) effort to capture the criminal, the police frequently (though not by direct intention) burn down the criminals house and kill his spouse and children. They also burn down the neighboring houses and kill those neighbors as well. 4. Survivors of the police action blame you, and decide to try to get revenge on you, not on the criminal who attracted the police in the first place. I think an instructive example can be drawn from immunology. Most people assume that the human body reacts to any invading organism by mounting an all out attack, resulting (if it is successful) in the eradication of the invader. This scenario only applies to some pathogens, such as Plasmodium (the cause of malaria). In many other cases the immune system just regulates the pathogen so it does not cause adverse symptoms; the pathogen continues to survive, and as a result we are chronically infected, but without symptoms (and so no disease). This happens because there is a cost to the immune response, and indeed in many cases the disease symptoms result from "collateral damage" done by the immune system to our own bodies as it attempts to eradicate the pathogen. There is always a balancing act that needs to be achieved between the cost of fighting the pathogen and the cost of not fighting the pathogen, and frequently the optimal balance is tolerating/managing the pathogen at a level that results in the lowest overall symptoms (=disease). Well enough for now, must get to work. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So Bush II was responsible for 9/11??? Not a position I would have expected of you. I think it's quite obvious whose post is a "spittle laced diatribe". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't disagree with your comments. I have great admiration for Carter's humanitarian work; the leadership of the Carter Center has put the eradication of a number of truly horrible diseases within reach, and millions of people no longer live under the threat of onchocerciasis, trachoma, lymphatic filariasis, etc. On the other hand, I do not agree with all of his foreign policy positions. I recall being especially miffed at his support for the Shah of Iran, for example. However, the point of my earlier post was to express my contempt for the remarkably juvenile tactic of branding anyone with whom one does not agree an "idiot". It doesn't improve matters that the poster whines about people "attacking the messenger", when in fact that is exactly and entirely what his thread does. When called on it, he responds with a spittle laced diatribe complaining about spittle laced diatribes. I've come to the conclusion that libertarians are much more interesting than conservatives when it comes to discussion and debate of ideas. Libertarians generally actually have the ability to discuss ideas logically, which makes me think about my own beliefs and principles more critically. Most of the conservatives who post here in Speaker's Corner seem incapable of explaining anything logically, and they seem to be overtly hostile to anyone who holds beliefs that deviate from theirs even slightly. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You can check every detail, but the reaper still lurks! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)