LawTalkers - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

Originally posted by taxwonk
And what you are failing to grasp is that IT IS NOT OKAY TO FUCKING KILL, TORTURE, AND TERRORIZE PEOPLE INTO A "DEMOCRACY."

tell that shit to sitting bull

Sexual Harassment Panda

06-02-2005 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Was this in the 80's?

It was the year that Ben Stein was in charge of the Ideology Purity Committee, whenever that was.

Bad_Rich_Chic

06-02-2005 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
At a convention I was standing next to Bo Derek (she hadn't been able to get away from me yet) and Ben Stein came up and told her that the Republican Party had no place for people that were Pro-Choice. I told Ben Stein that I was not aware that he was Log Cabin Republican. He asked me why I thought he was a Log Cabin Republican, and I said because only a homosexual Republican would tell Bo Derek to leave the party. In no time I was standing all by myself sipping my cheap cocktail.

:D

Unfortunately, this story proves Bo Derek is humorless and has no style. Otherwise she would at least have gotten you another cheap cocktail.

taxwonk

06-02-2005 04:25 PM

And so we turn back to morality...

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
tell that shit to sitting bull

This is what I'm saying...

Tyrone Slothrop

06-02-2005 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What you are failing to grasp is that free markets and democracy are intertwined. One doesn't last very long without the other. Countries that head down the socialist path end up becoming dictatorships because that is the only way they can survive. Cuba is a perfect example. Burma is another. Venezuela is a perfect modern example. Countrys with growing economies either stay democracies, or if they are not, turn into democracys. If you want a foreign policy that focuses on turning countrys into democracy's you need to focus on economics.

I know we've had this conversation before, and I'm not sure what I can add to what we said then, or to taxwonk's suggestion that it's not OK to torture and rape and murder people in the name of free markets.

This century has seen plenty of dictatorships that did not simply turn into democracies. Some obvious examples include Germany, Italy, Japan, the Soviet Union, and China. Meanwhile, people may choose, in a democratic fashion, to abandon free markets. Take, for example, Venezuela, Chile, or -- according to many conservatives, Sweden and the rest of Europe, until this week at least, although coverage I've seen suggests that French voters want their markets to be less free, not more.

And then I return to the idea -- bizarre to a conservative these days, I'm sure -- that it's not OK to torture and rape and murder people in the name of free markets.

Shape Shifter

06-02-2005 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Please. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

All of the deposed Nixon officials are coming out of the woodwork to tee off on him. Stein is no different. One might have hoped he was. For a guy who graduated first in his class from Yale Law School, and had a promising early career, he sure burned out.

Stein went to Yale?!*

*lame crossover joke to the FB. Serious replies not necessary.

Sidd Finch

06-02-2005 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Only a twisted mind could come up with the crazy idea that the communist takeover of Cambodia was caused by Nixon. The Khmer Rouge were support by the North Vietnames. Of course they later lost control of them, but intially they were pawns of the North Vietnam. Nixon bombed Cambodia and got invovled in Cambodia because the North Vietnamese were there. It was when US influence was completely pulled from the region that the Khmer Rouge took over.

I've read quite a bit about Cambodia and never seen the argument that Pol Pot's government was supported by the North Vietnamese. Admittedly it's been a long time, but given that (1) the Khmer Rouge were Maoists and allied with China, a long-time enemy of Vietnam, and (2) that North Vietnam invaded Cambodia and drove the Khmer Rouge from power, I think my recollection is right.

But I'm just a liberal, so there ya' go. I'm just forgetting all the benefits inherent in installing a puppet military dictatorship.

Secret_Agent_Man

06-02-2005 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
That still does not change the fact that Chile now has the strongest economy in Latin America, and has the highest standard of living (maybe number 2) in South America. When the coup occured, Chile was close to the bottom, its standard of living was declining rapidly, there was massive inflation, and incredible capital flight from the country. Pinochet may have been a nasty dude, but the country has kept his economic policies in place making Chile the economic miracle of Latin America.

Sure thing. So, in retrospect, the torture was all worthwhile. I deputize you to go to Chile and spead this news across the country through a hand-held loudspeaker.

That Mussolini dude got a bad rap too -- he kept the trains running on time.

I've never heard anything really positive about the economic policies of Stalin or Hussein -- but I'll try to keep an open mind.

Don't like the comparisons? Differences of degree rather than of substance.

S_A_M

Sidd Finch

06-02-2005 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Allende was elected President with only 36.6% of the vote. But anyway, he decided that was a mandate to turn Chile into a Socialist state. Inflation hit 1000% a year, the economy collapsed, and tax revenue dried up. Allende decided the only way to keep the government going was nationalizing the countrys industry. This was furthering deepening the crisis so he turned to the Soviet Block for Aid (which is exactly what happened to Cuba). Nixon was faced with the choice of potentially letting Chile turn into another Cuba or support the coup. He supported the Coup. Considering that Chile could have turned into another Cuba condemning the entire country to abject poverty for generations to come, I think the call was the right one. Nixon may have been a criminal, but when it came to foreign policy he knew exactly what he was doing. He had a much better grasp international politics and strategy than all of his political enemies.

Yeah, it's a terrible thing when a democratically elected leader interprets a narrow victory as a mandate for dramatic changes.

Really, the only solution to such a problem is violent overthrow, preferably sponsored by a foreign country, and the installation of a military dictatorship. Torturing a few thousand people is helpful too.

Secret_Agent_Man

06-02-2005 04:41 PM

Quote:

What do you mean by a "free market"?

Sweden. Norway. Denmark. Finland.

Germany. France. The U.K. in the 1960s and 1970s.

All markets much, much less "free" than in the U.S.
Dictatorships in the making? Who knew?

P.S. Nixon introduced wage and price controls.

S_A_M

Sidd Finch

06-02-2005 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What most liberals hate to admit (or don't understand) is that fascism and socialism are closely related cousins.

Shortly after South Africa finally moved away from apartheid, there was a white conservative anti-government author -- often compared to Newt Gingrich -- who similarly opined that apartheid was socialism. His view was that, since both require massive government intervention in society, they are the same beast. He conveniently ignored the fact that it was conservative and pro-business parties who supported apartheid, while socialists and communists fought it, often at the cost of their lives.

Today, you remind me of that author. But hey -- I'm sure Chile could not have pursued progressive economic policies without torturing a few thousand people, and I guess they just weren't ready for democracy back in the 70s.

Sidd Finch

06-02-2005 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know we've had this conversation before, and I'm not sure what I can add to what we said then, or to taxwonk's suggestion that it's not OK to torture and rape and murder people in the name of free markets.

Again, you are missing the point.

In Spanky's opinion, it is perfectly okay.

Sidd Finch

06-02-2005 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
What do you mean by a "free market"?

Sweden. Norway. Denmark. Finland.

Germany. France. The U.K. in the 1960s and 1970s.

See? You are proving Spanky's point. All of those countries are well on the way to becoming fascist dictatorships.

Quote:

P.S. Nixon introduced wage and price controls.

Well, you might have to grant Spanky his argument on that one.

Replaced_Texan

06-02-2005 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
This ended up being a great thing for Chile and us. Allende had destroyed Chile's economy and may have turned it into another Cuba.

Did you happen to hear this piece on NPR about the so-called "Chicago Boys" in Chile in the 70s?

Not Bob

06-02-2005 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Did you happen to hear this piece on NPR about the so-called "Chicago Boys" in Chile in the 70s?

Who cares? What's good for ITT, PepsiCo, and Anaconda Copper is good for the country. Free enterprise trumps all.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:27 PM.

Page 330 of 334