Bernie

[spookini]

Really? So pointing more guns at our heads is your solution for everything?

Magenta, if you believe there is a population problem (and I ain't saying there is), the only solution is to lower the population.
There's no alternative.

(Yet.  Remember, the moon won't be colonized until Gingrich's 2ND TERM.)

[goodfornothin]

Bill, I have no idea what you are talking about.  Hahhaa

What exactly do I need to research?
So what do I have wrong?

[magentawave]

I'm not a eugenicist and since statistics prove that the more educated humans become the less children they crap out, then I would think the kinder solution is education. It's working in the developed countries.

Really? So pointing more guns at our heads is your solution for everything?

Magenta, if you believe there is a population problem (and I ain't saying there is), the only solution is to lower the population.
There's no alternative.

(Yet.  Remember, the moon won't be colonized until Gingrich's 2ND TERM.)

[PonoBill]

Ummm, we don't actually have much of a population problem. The current population growth rate is 1.1 percent per year worldwide, and the rate is declining rapidly. By 2020 it will probably be under 1 percent and may decline precipitously to world population shrinking. Not from famine, or war, or catastrophe, or even education but just from economic changes. When you are poor children are an asset, when you are not they are a liability. And poor is a very relative term. Education is undeniably an element, but the closest correlation to  population growth, infant mortality, and expected lifespan is GDP.

Once again, this TED talk is illuminating:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen

Here's a somewhat newer version of Professor Rosling talking to the US State Department. Not as good IMHO, but a little newer data

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html

Watch it carefully any you might have a little less doom and gloom about the state of the world.

[Admin]

Obama is Bush 2.0 and the next creepy US Murderer In Chief will be Bush 3.0 and on it will go until the sheeple stop believing they need psychopaths to rule over them.

There is a huge difference between initiating wars and finding those wars impossible to leave without catastrophic results (massive loss of life, infiltration by extremists, likely collapse). 

The forthright campaign promise would have been, "we need to get out, these countries are going to implode behind us, it is going to be hard to watch".

[eastbound]

and despite huge pressure, obama is, so far, not putting us boots on the ground in syria

but magenta, i am acutely aware of all you cite--and dont just read lib media--i read murdoch's ny post and wsj each day--certainly shows me the other pov--and admin says it wel

funny--used to trade us treasuries at a big WS shop where i was a lonely libdem--i pleaded with my gop colleagues to vote for clinton so we'd have tons of debt to trade--by the end of clinton, there were few treasuries to trade, and we were sucking serious wind, almost outta buriness--after 8 years of bush the us was issuing more debt than ever, and there was almost too much supply to trade. go figure

[SuppaTime]

We have a resource, population and climate problem.

Good, the population problem is an easy fix:  policies to de-incentivize large families.  Maybe progressive tax penalties for families w/ more than 2 children; free 2ndary education for 1-kid households, as good measure.  And of course, you'd have to ensure access to low-cost, safe abortions.

Careful what you wish for. Japan's economy has been in a malaise for almost two decades and the main reason is their inverted population - not enough young people entering the workforce to maintain all the old people. China recently turned back their policy of one-child because it is not economically sustainable. Germany, Spain, and Italy all rely on immigration to counter the effects of a declining birth rate.

The world definitely can benefit from fewer people but our entire economy is built around a growing population and in particular, growth in young new workers. It is much like deflation - nobody likes inflation but ironically, deflation is even worse. It is going to be a big problem at some point in the future.

[eastbound]

econ growth may not be the panacea it is universally considered.

[magentawave]

But the WSJ and Murdoch's stuff is totally pro status quo too.

and despite huge pressure, obama is, so far, not putting us boots on the ground in syria

but magenta, i am acutely aware of all you cite--and dont just read lib media--i read murdoch's ny post and wsj each day--certainly shows me the other pov--and admin says it wel

funny--used to trade us treasuries at a big WS shop where i was a lonely libdem--i pleaded with my gop colleagues to vote for clinton so we'd have tons of debt to trade--by the end of clinton, there were few treasuries to trade, and we were sucking serious wind, almost outta buriness--after 8 years of bush the us was issuing more debt than ever, and there was almost too much supply to trade. go figure

[eastbound]

it aint cnn and cnbc, that's for sure---nor is it npr or bbc

[magentawave]

I understand what you're saying and I used to believe that too. I changed my mind 5 or 6 years ago and what is going on now in the middle east validates my change in thinking. What we see now in the middle east is total chaos. Have you seen the photos of war torn Syria lately? They are bringing Syria down and Iran will be next just like PNAC said it would do in the late 90's. You have the US working with ISIS in Syria while at the same time they are telling us that ISIS is the new and more dangerous enemy. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the region and streaming into Europe. Day by day these wars are emboldening the radicals and converting former moderate muslims into jihadists. It is a horrible mess thanks to years of western intervention and the only sane, rational and moral solution is to leave immediately and protect the US from those that have been radicalized and hopefully as the years go on they will mellow out and not want to kill us.

Obama is Bush 2.0 and the next creepy US Murderer In Chief will be Bush 3.0 and on it will go until the sheeple stop believing they need psychopaths to rule over them.

There is a huge difference between initiating wars and finding those wars impossible to leave without catastrophic results (massive loss of life, infiltration by extremists, likely collapse). 

The forthright campaign promise would have been, "we need to get out, these countries are going to implode behind us, it is going to be hard to watch".

[magentawave]

it aint cnn and cnbc, that's for sure---nor is it npr or bbc

All those are status quo too because they never venture outside the "allowable opinion."

[Admin]

I understand what you're saying and I used to believe that too. I changed my mind 5 or 6 years ago and what is going on now in the middle east validates my change in thinking. What we see now in the middle east is total chaos. Have you seen the photos of war torn Syria lately? They are bringing Syria down and Iran will be next just like PNAC said it would do in the late 90's. You have the US working with ISIS in Syria while at the same time they are telling us that ISIS is the new and more dangerous enemy. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the region and streaming into Europe. Day by day these wars are emboldening the radicals and converting former moderate muslims into jihadists. It is a horrible mess thanks to years of western intervention and the only sane, rational and moral solution is to leave immediately and protect the US from those that have been radicalized and hopefully as the years go on they will mellow out and not want to kill us.

The only leadership role we should have in the Middle East is leading ourselves out. 

Yes, Barrack promised more and delivered less in that regard, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  His (our) involvement in Syria is indeed a continuation of our previous (decades of) failed actions, aimed at manipulating the people of this area to meet our goals of the moment. 

All that said, it is a mistake not to think that there are degrees of lousy.  Keep in mind that of the candidates on both sides, the majority (I believe the only exceptions are Bernie and Rand) are pounding Barrack for not being "Hawkish" enough in Syria and many are calling for a full re-commitment of troops back to Iraq.  It is easy to think that things cannot be worse when you are ankle deep in shit.  That perspective changes when you are nose deep.

[magentawave]

Yes to everything you said except that I don't think it was, as you said, "failed actions," since PNAC (The Project for a New American Century) pretty much laid out on their website in the mid to late 90's all the countries in the middle east the US was going to invade. They even said it would take a "new pearl harbor" to get the US sheeple behind their plan, hence 911.

Rand isn't Ron (unfortunately) but I do agree that Rand Paul and Bernie would probably be the least harmful when it comes to foreign policy.

I understand what you're saying and I used to believe that too. I changed my mind 5 or 6 years ago and what is going on now in the middle east validates my change in thinking. What we see now in the middle east is total chaos. Have you seen the photos of war torn Syria lately? They are bringing Syria down and Iran will be next just like PNAC said it would do in the late 90's. You have the US working with ISIS in Syria while at the same time they are telling us that ISIS is the new and more dangerous enemy. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the region and streaming into Europe. Day by day these wars are emboldening the radicals and converting former moderate muslims into jihadists. It is a horrible mess thanks to years of western intervention and the only sane, rational and moral solution is to leave immediately and protect the US from those that have been radicalized and hopefully as the years go on they will mellow out and not want to kill us.

The only leadership role we should have in the Middle East is leading ourselves out. 

Yes, Barrack promised more and delivered less in that regard, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  His (our) involvement in Syria is indeed a continuation of our previous (decades of) failed actions, aimed at manipulating the people of this area to meet our goals of the moment. 

All that said, it is a mistake not to think that there are degrees of lousy.  Keep in mind that of the candidates on both sides, the majority (I believe the only exceptions are Bernie and Rand) are pounding Barrack for not being "Hawkish" enough in Syria and many are calling for a full re-commitment of troops back to Iraq.  It is easy to think that things cannot be worse when you are ankle deep in shit.  That perspective changes when you are nose deep.