Hey PL's, Pass This Along to Your Messiah

Hmmmm. Didn't take long for the "you don't think like I do, so you must not be a True American" weak b-s to come dribbling out...:

"As I understand history, the U.S. stood against the spread of totalitarian regimes left and right (and the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen carried flags and Bibles). And you are still free to leave this country and bow down and kiss the boots of which ever totalitarian system you choose: Chavez, Castro, Kim, Ahmadinejad, etc."

Yep, and the sky is also blue.....sometimes. Just can't get enough of that good ol' "Amerika, love it or leave it" old-time religion.

"I can't tell if this is another, "Communism is a great idea if only the RIGHT KIND OF PEOPLE implemented it" argument......Reagan knew that communist theory is incompatible with human nature and quickly devolves into facism/totalitarianism....nobody can implement communism......The point of this article that Pharoh Obama needs to understand is that US foreign policy is about the best interests of the US people, not helping other peoples [unless it's directly in our best interests].....Reagan knew that democracy evolves from within a society, not the dictates of outsiders, thus Reagan supported democratic elements from within rather than do nation building...... "

Like Iran/Contra....

In the end, it's hard to beat it if you can't recognise it.

Interesting. But just to note...fuel cells are really just batteries. When you plug the battery into the wall to recharge it...something has to have put the electricty to that wall plug.

So, moving to fuel cells powering cars is just going to mean that plant power generation needs to expand. If we did elect to change power generation to something viable like nulcear power generation?...then we surely might diminish our need of fossil fuels. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Except this quote:
"One widely researched use for such cells would be to produce electricity to power an electric car, using hydrogen and oxygen from the air. The only emission from such a vehicle, researchers say, would be water."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011...#ixzz1HYaHP5Nn

seems to indicate they think they can pull power from sunlight and air. I've read other things that claim the same, basically hydrogen powered cars may be a possibility in the not too far future. Of course you'll need lots of sunlight to generate the hydrogen. I'm not an enviro engineering geek so I don't understand the specifics but I am optimistic that technology will solve our energy problems in the long run.
Totally agree with you on switching to nuclear though. It just makes too much sense not to.

Communism and hyper-capitalism are more akin to one-an-other than socialism and liberalism in my opinion. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I disagree. Communism as related to hyper-capitalism—both sell hope in lieu of reality (unsure of the connection)? However, the U.K. since the turn of the 20th Century serves as a concrete example of how liberalism becomes socialism.

The former steam roll the people and the latter, where I am not overly liberal, are more serving of the people. We can’t as a civilized nation and let our people go hungry or without shelter, but we cannot burden the tax base with expensive taxes either. It’s a balance.

I agree I B Hankering that the Soviet Union spent billions ensuring that we were just as hated as they were elsewhere in the world. I would also say that the idiotic way the Middle East was divided up after WWII is a big driver in the unrest there. And if you have unrest, you have to have someone who caused it. And that brings them right back to us. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

That is precisely the disaffection that the Soviets exploited. However, partitioning was a multinational affair. The U.S. had limited influence in convincing its allies to give up imperialism (e.g., France in Vietnam). It was the trade-off the U.S. accepted to keep these nations as constructive allies in Europe during a post-war dual between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. Furthermore, anything not claimed by the West was subject to being dominated by the U.S.S.R., especially S.W. Asia (Iran, Iraq, etc,). Ostensibly, this was why the U.S. became so intricately involved in Iranian affairs. (BTW, Carter, et al, was taken unawares by the collapse of the Shah’s regime, notice how well that’s worked out for the U.S.)

Being egged on by the Soviets and the zealots, their poverty or misery take your pick because it depends on which dictator or monarch they were subject to and their religion has fueled their hatred. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Those who adhere to Wahhabism are not looking for a “fair share” of the pie. They are seeking to eliminate the pie and anyone who believes there should be a pie.

I do not agree with you that Islam or Conservativeism is the greatest enemy. I stand by what I said that globalization and oil / energy dependency are now our greatest threats. Were it not for the oil in the Middle East, we wouldn’t have a care less what goes on there beyond ordinary human caring. It is our best interest to tame this part of the world, but we keep approaching it with a Western-world mind. That just won’t work. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I am in agreement with you on globalization. Were the U.S.’s need for oil to end tomorrow (@ gulflover – thanks for the links), it would still need markets to sustain it’s economy. And there’s the rub—the U.S. exports more than goods and services. It also exports ideas and culture—ideas and culture that are completely unacceptable to those, such as bin Laden, who profess to be followers of Wahhabism. Oil is a major factor, but again, if you remove it from the equation, it would not end the U.S.’s current struggle with the Islamic world. Other, more predominant antagonisms will continue to drive the conflict.

Hmmmm. Didn't take long for the "you don't think like I do, so you must not be a True American" weak b-s to come dribbling out...:

"As I understand history, the U.S. stood against the spread of totalitarian regimes left and right (and the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen carried flags and Bibles). And you are still free to leave this country and bow down and kiss the boots of which ever totalitarian system you choose: Chavez, Castro, Kim, Ahmadinejad, etc."

Yep, and the sky is also blue.....sometimes. Just can't get enough of that good ol' "Amerika, love it or leave it" old-time religion.

"I can't tell if this is another, "Communism is a great idea if only the RIGHT KIND OF PEOPLE implemented it" argument......Reagan knew that communist theory is incompatible with human nature and quickly devolves into facism/totalitarianism....nobody can implement communism......The point of this article that Pharoh Obama needs to understand is that US foreign policy is about the best interests of the US people, not helping other peoples [unless it's directly in our best interests].....Reagan knew that democracy evolves from within a society, not the dictates of outsiders, thus Reagan supported democratic elements from within rather than do nation building...... "

Like Iran/Contra....

In the end, it's hard to beat it if you can't recognise it. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Excuse me, but could you please repeat that? You are “dribbling” incoherently.

You're excused.

I disagree. Communism as related to hyper-capitalism—both sell hope in lieu of reality (unsure of the connection)? However, the U.K. since the turn of the 20th Century serves as a concrete example of how liberalism becomes socialism Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I was thinking more of complete laissez faire type capitalism that existed during the robber baron period of American history. A economic system that allows working children in factories and the Chinese to death building the railroads is what I was referring to.

I would like to think that here in America we can avoid moving any farther towards socialism. I think socialism is a rather childish and false sensitivity. I believe, in theory at least, we are all created equal, but nowhere are we promised an equal outcome in life. To me, that is what socialism promises, and that something will never happen. It's a dream dreamed up by dreamers.

(BTW, Carter, et al, was taken unawares by the collapse of the Shah’s regime, notice how well that’s worked out for the U.S.) Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I wonder how aware we were of the impending Egyptian Revolution.

Those who adhere to Wahhabism are not looking for a “fair share” of the pie. They are seeking to eliminate the pie and anyone who believes there should be a pie. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I love your analogy. BTW, I had to look up Wahhabism.

I am in agreement with you on globalization. Were the U.S.’s need for oil to end tomorrow (@ gulflover – thanks for the links), it would still need markets to sustain it’s economy. And there’s the rub—the U.S. exports more than goods and services. It also exports ideas and culture—ideas and culture that are completely unacceptable to those, such as bin Laden, who profess to be followers of Wahhabism. Oil is a major factor, but again, if you remove it from the equation, it would not end the U.S.’s current struggle with the Islamic world. Other, more predominant antagonisms will continue to drive the conflict. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Sad but true, like you said, they hate out pie.

I was thinking more of complete laissez faire type capitalism that existed during the robber baron period of American history. A economic system that allows working children in factories and the Chinese to death building the railroads is what I was referring to. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I was unclear on this point. Now that you’ve explained it, I can say I agree. I know what high school history books say about Robber Barons and laissez faire capitalism, but what actually existed is what PJ so affectionately refers to as “crony capitalism.” Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, maintains that the role for government in a true capitalistic system is to provide a level playing field for all competitors. By that, he meant that government should never favor one competitor over another and should also insure that no one competitor had an unfair advantage over another. In the U.S., that premise was violated throughout the later part of the 19th century. During that period, railroads were the dominant economic interests in the United States. The government often offered the railroads subsidies—the federal government supported the transcontinental lines and state and local governments supported the development of secondary routes—for important undertakings which required far more capital than private entrepreneurs could raise by themselves. The end result was the rise of the Robber Barons. One of my favorite anecdotes from this period is about a particular Senate session of the Pennsylvania legislature in the 1870s that was ended with these words, “The Pennsylvania Railroad, having no more business to come before this chamber, we stand adjourned.” For decades afterwards, the Pennsylvania Railroad’s lobbyist was referred to as the state's unofficial “51st senator” (then, as now, the Pennsylvania Senate had 50 members).

I would like to think that here in America we can avoid moving any farther towards socialism. I think socialism is a rather childish and false sensitivity. I believe, in theory at least, we are all created equal, but nowhere are we promised an equal outcome in life. To me, that is what socialism promises, and that something will never happen. It's a dream dreamed up by dreamers. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I agree.

I wonder how aware we were of the impending Egyptian Revolution. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

My statement was based on news reports like these:

US Didn’t See Egypt Coming Saturday, 5 February 2011
Speaking to the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday, CIA official Stephanie O’Sullivan said that President Obama had actually been brief about the “instability” in Egypt late last year, though they had no information that such a massive revolution would arise, nor what form it might take.
http://www.siasat.com/english/news/u...e-egypt-coming

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...ama_ignor.html

Young Leaders of Egypt's Revolt Snub Clinton in Cairo
March 15, 2011 1:17 PM
ABC News' Kirit Radia and Alex Marquardt report:
A coalition of six youth groups that emerged from Egypt’s revolution last month has refused to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived in Cairo earlier today, in protest of the United States’ strong support for former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who was ousted by the uprising.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...mments/page/4/

Let me add this for comparison: In the late 1970s, the Shah of Iran tried to institute democratic political reforms. He did this to appease the Carter administration’s demands for change. The consequence was that Carter’s policies emboldened secular reformers to aspire for changes greater than the Shah was willing to permit. Once the revolution was underway, the Carter administration fully expected the Shah to use the forces at his command to hold his place. Meanwhile, the Shah vacillated. In the long run, the Shah did very little to preserve his position because of the mixed messages he was receiving from the Carter administration: 1) public messages calling for democratic reform, and 2) private messages encouraging him to hold his positions with the means he had at his disposal. (pp. 30-31, Robert Jervis. Why Intelligence Fails: Lessons from the Iranian Revolution and the Iraq War (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 2010. pp. ix, 238.)

History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme a lot—Mark Twain