OK. Nothing to do with the Spanish definition, then.I was using the dictionary definition of pupulism, meaning anybody who supports policies for ordinary people, rather than the privileged elite. I see it as the first to ending coporate capitalism.
OK. Nothing to do with the Spanish definition, then.I was using the dictionary definition of pupulism, meaning anybody who supports policies for ordinary people, rather than the privileged elite. I see it as the first to ending coporate capitalism.
Dean may not be delivering any cross of gold speeches but he's the most populist of the lot. His fundraising is very populist. He's populist in the sense that he represents the people more than the party. He's alos pretty much revitalized the Democratic Party after its fawning almost-Bush stances of the last few years.Originally posted by goyabean
Dean isn't a populist. He puts on a show just like everybody else.
I'm pretty sure Foreign Policy is an important issue Unne because it decides whether or not Russia nukes us, or if we kill a few thousand Guatamalans
I'm also sure a toddler could do a better job with foreign policy than Bush
So long as we're not waging open war on our allies or something, or doing something that really harms our nation in some way... --Unne
I pretty much agree with what Unne said. As much as the right wing repubs scare me, the liberal democrats scare me 10 times that much.
That was exactly my point. Anybody who is moderate in mainstream spectrum of politics is not a populist. I consider Kusunich(sp?) to be a populist, but I'm not registred with the Democratic Party. Dean's undoing will be in his view of post-war Iraq. He was against the war but now wants to send more troops to Iraq! That policy will infuriate the ayatollahs in Iraq. That has 2 horrible consequences: uprising from the 17 million Shiites and popular support for radical clerics who want the country to basically emulate Iran. For the most part, the ayatollahs have been moderate. They protected hospitols during the looting and have kept the radicals from dominating transitional politics. Their only conditions being free elections, rather than US planned 'electoral college,' and the immediate removal of any occupying force. Basically they just want their sovereignty and it is in the best interest of US foreign policy not to piss them off.Originally posted by eestlinc
His fundraising is very populist.
Smile even though its breaking
Environment. I can't say I could possibly give less of a crap about the environment, so long as we aren't causing mass-extinctions. -- Unne
We are causing mass extinctions. If you don't give a crap now - fine, but 50 years down the line you may think differently. I remember you saying you have asthma, Unne, and I know that a lot of asthma is caused by pollution. I wouldn't have a clue if your asthma falls into that category, but I'd think about the problems pollution causes for others.
The declining environment might not affect you, but it may affect your kids, or your grandkids. I don't think it's right to disregard the next generation(s).
I'm not planning on having any kids, and disease will exist no matter what we do to the environment. Our life expectancy today is 2 or 3 times longer than it would be naturally, so we must not be doing that badly, huh? I expect that it will continue to go up, and that our quality of life will continue to improve in the future. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see, I guess. No real way to tell.
We should try not to muck things up if it's avoidable, and I don't think we should go around killing animals for fun or anything, but personally, I believe that my own well-being is more important than the well-being of trees and fishes. Trees and fishes matter insofar as it doesn't harm me by destroying them, I suppose. If blasting a rainforest into extinction will cause the world to become crappier for me, then sure, save it. But saving the environment for the environment's sake, I don't know if I really care one way or another. In 50 years I'll be 70 (or dead) and the environment will likely matter to me even less than it does now.
The environment is actually a bigger problem than we may realize.
The biggest piece of it being the topic everybody seems to ignore or just not believe in: Global Warming.
We did a two-week study of global warming in my Technology and Society class, and we all turned in research papers regarding the subject. It does exist, it's happening now, and though it probably won't lead to the silliness of Kevin Costner's Waterworld, it will begin melting a part of the icecaps that cannot freeze back again.
A climate change of this nature may only be a few degrees on average, but the rate at which we're filling the sky with greenhouse gases will prevent some species from adapting in time. Our world is not supposed to change this fast.
The solution? Something we've known about for years. GET RID OF FOSSIL FUELS!! They're going to run out, they're costing us a fortune, they're polluting our environment, and we have alternatives. We can be solar, wind, and hydro power plants. We could have cars that run on hydrogen or whatnot.
Jimmy Carter started to create funding for alternative fuel source research, but as soon as Reagan took office, it got nixed.
Bush is an ally to oil companies. He will do nothing to help solve this problem, as the oil companies are making a whole lot of money in prolonging it.
Which Final Fantasy One Enemy am I?
You Are TIAMAT; You are the most terrible dragon to fly the skies of the planet. With your many heads, you are all-seeing and all-doing. Though fiendishly powerful inside your fortress of stolen machines, sometimes your terrible abilities are the Bane of your existence...
Which Final Fantasy One Enemy are You?
I think many people exaggerate the effects of global warming. How do we know that the recent increase in temperature isn't just some trend? In the early 20th century, there were crude reports of somewhat elevated temperatures. For all we know, "global warming" could just be caused by a century-long trend in solar activity, like sun spots.
In respect to fossil fuels, you can't just snap your finger and say "We're not going to use fossil fuels anymore." Do you know how many appliances, services and industries rely on fossil fuels? The only other energy source that's anywhere near as cost-efficient is nuclear power, and too many people are wary of that - there hasn't been a single nuclear plant built in the U.S. for the last twenty-some years. Nothing else comes close. Even if there were another efficient source, making such a change to the economy would be a long, gradual process, which could take decades. Trust me, fossil fuels aren't leaving any time soon.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Yes and no, Doc. They won't go away, but at the rate we're consuming said fossil fuels, they'll be gone relatively soon. Consider these facts on energy and America:
- The United States has approximately 5% of the world's population, and yet consumes 25% of the world's energy.
- Because of the aforementioned rate of consumption, the U.S. emits the highest carbon dioxide levels of any country in the world. With no change in energy policy or consumer behavior, that rate will increase 34% by the year 2010.
- The global demand for energy has tripled in the last 30 to 50 years, and will quite possibly triple yet again in another 50 years.
I'm not going to try and paint all of this as Armageddon, because that isn't necessarily the case. Statistics will show that, as a whole, Americans have gotten considerably better at conserving energy, but there's still a considerable amount more that we could be doing.
And Alces, as much as using renewable sources would ease the strain on our supply of petroleum and natural gas, Doc is also right in stating that any of those renewable sources (i.e. wind, water, solar and nuclear) just aren't efficient or enough in volume to handle the demand that the world carries. The only viable renewable source that anyone can think of is fusion, but that's still a few generations off at this time.
Ahh, but you are ALSO in the comfort of your safe, warm home, and are also putting words into the soldiers' mouths, albeit the opposite way.Originally posted by DocFrance
Ya know, it's really easy to say that we shouldn't be in Iraq right now from the comfort of your safe, warm home. Try asking the men and women who are living and dying right now in that hell-hole - I guarantee most (if not all) of them will say that this is what needs to be done.
Here we go:
Iraq war: I'm against it on principle. See, Bush had a STONE COLD LEAD PIPE reason for going into Iraq and throwing Saddam out of power, with the UN's blessing (and assistance), that would have built upon the goodwill 9/11 fostered for the U.S.'s better standing in the world. Saddam had killed millions of his own people and committed many, many human rights violations. That in itself would've been enough for the normal American. It may not have been enough for the UN, but combined with other stuff, they would have helped.
Instead, Bush & co. made up a reason almost fully out of thin air, and engaged the armed forces in America's first EVER pre-emptive strike on a country. Never before had they done this. They always before had a concrete reason to invade a country. It may not have been the best reason (Vietnam) but it was concrete. Not this time. Not only did he alienate half the country with that decision, he alienated the rest of the world, as well. And even worse, he kept saying that the U.S. was upholding UN mandates, when the UN itself CONDEMNED HIS ACTIONS. This does not strike me as an honest mistake.
Foreign Policy: See above. That one action destroyed all goodwill that 9/11 brought out. That, plus continued support of Israel (I'm a radical about this one; I think we should pull out COMPLETELY of that area of the world, and let 'em sort it out on their own), and support of a country where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, supports a president with faulty logic at best.
The Economy: Don't really care about jobs, or the stock market. Neither is fully within the current President's purview. The defecit, however, is. And in FY 2003, the defecit was the second highest since the Office of Public Debt was created in '87. The highest was, unsurprisingly, a Reagan year. The one year defecit of 2003 was higher than the 4 year defecit of Clinton's FIRST term. And had we 16 years of Clinton's SECOND term defecit trends, the defecit accrued during that time wouldn't even be 1/3 of what it was FY 2003. And, like I said, defecit, unlike other economic issues, is directly attributable to the laws passed during the current president's administration. In other words, tax cuts HURT far more than they HELPED...
Philosophy: Far too much religion. Look no further than seeking a Marriage Amendment to the constitution. Mr. Bush, your father supported an amendment that was far more likely to be enacted than yours would be, and that fell well short. Also, if you can't get such things codified by Congress (majority in both houses, and sign into law), what makes you think it'd be any easier to get an amendment (2/3 majority in both houses, THEN 3/4 majority of the states) to that effect?
Environment: Don't really care, but it's been set back nearly a dozen years thanks to some of the stuff Bush approved of.
Patriot: The worst infringement upon Americans' civil rights since SLAVERY. Thank god it's starting to be judged unconstitutional...
Bush is Stupid!: Nah. Uninformed, maybe. Manipulated, yes. Slow, possibly. But not stupid. I doubt anyone who is stupid could get INTO an Ivy League college, let alone graduate...
Still a gigantic force on the 'Net...and still bigger in person!
I think many people exaggerate the effects of global warming. How do we know that the recent increase in temperature isn't just some trend? In the early 20th century, there were crude reports of somewhat elevated temperatures. For all we know, "global warming" could just be caused by a century-long trend in solar activity, like sun spots. ~ DocFrance
There's no correlation between sun-spot activity and the rise in temperature, as far as I can remember. I do know that the sea temperature has risen more in the last century than it did when it came out of the last ice-age. Maybe it is a natural process, but I don't think there's any evidence for a specific natural phenomenon causing the increase. The rise in temperature does, however, correspond surprisingly well with man's activities. But ignore it if you wish (I admit it's easier that way).
In the end, it probably won't affect our generation too much. A few thousand more species will disappear, but who cares just so long as they don't impact on me? I'm much happier being in a city where there's virtually no wildlife. Grey is a much better colour than green. I don't see many birds anymore, but what does that matter?
Our kids might have a slightly different take on it all. When the fossil fuels begin to run out in 50 years time and there's nothing in the way of renewable energy, then people might have a rethink. And when there are more wars over oil, people might begin to regret what we did (i.e. very little).
Oh well, to hell with it. It doesn't affect me.
Keep in mind two things:In the early 20th century, there were crude reports of somewhat elevated temperatures.
First, Global warming began when we started burning fossil fuels en masse. In the early twentieth century, the industrial revolution had already come to the states, and by that time factories were sprouting up like weeds, many of them burning coal.
Secondly, the Earth may be in a warming trend. What the studies on Global Warming show is not just a rate of temperature increase, but an accelerated rate of temperature increase. The Earth can change, and it has changed before. It's the rate of change that we've induced that it might not be able to handle.
Keep in mind that Ivy League schools have a policy like many schools of accepting Legacy students. When you have a famous parent, especially one who went to that school (I believe GBush went to Yale as well), you have a good shot at getting in the school.Bush is Stupid!: Nah. Uninformed, maybe. Manipulated, yes. Slow, possibly. But not stupid. I doubt anyone who is stupid could get INTO an Ivy League college, let alone graduate...
And if I remember correctly, GW passed the school with a C average. No, he's not a total idiot, but he has been an awfully naive president. If you watched the debates from election 2000 and really pay attention to whether Bush's arguments actually follow, you'll see a lot of what I mean.
Gore's problem during that debate was that he was so much more well prepared that he got y about it.
Which Final Fantasy One Enemy am I?
Which Final Fantasy One Enemy are You?
Grey is a much better colour than green. I don't see many birds anymore, but what does that matter? --Burtsplurt
Computers don't grow on trees, for example. A nice big stinking polluting factory and a loud ugly transportation system and a huge steaming fuel-chugging power plant, among many other things, are all necessary to give you the luxury of just typing those sentences to me. Should we all revert back to the status of nomads living in huts? That's about what it'd take to have us no longer hurt nature. I just read an article about people complaining about power plants which use wind power, because the huge fields of windmills are decimating the bird population. If you flip on the lights, you're killing something somewhere, that's all there is to it. Life on this planet exists by killing other life. That's nature. Nature does it to itself. We do it to nature. Nature does it to us when it has the chance. We just happen to be much better at it than anything else.
Given a choice between birds and trees, and having my computer and the power to run it, a warm house, food on demand, cars to take me places, and all sorts of other things, I'm going to have to be selfish and pick myself, I guess.
If/when fossil fuels run out, then the problem's solved itself, right? We'll find something else.
Patriot: The worst infringement upon Americans' civil rights since SLAVERY. Thank god it's starting to be judged unconstitutional... --IlGreven
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, if nothing else. Civil rights are often rejected in times of war. What they did to the Japanese living in this country in the World Wars for example. They could be rounding up Arabs by the millions and throwing them into camps. Not saying that that makes the Patriot Act OK, but it's not the worst thing since slavery by any means.
The Earth can change, and it has changed before. It's the rate of change that we've induced that it might not be able to handle. --KingAlces
The earth itself can handle it. Not sure if we can, but that's our problem. I think it would take a great deal to wipe out life completely on this planet. I don't even know if humans could manage it if we tried our best to do it on purpose.
Posting Permissions
