light them the fuck up

no prisoners

The Savior wrote:light them the fuck up

no prisoners

They are bad guys even bad guys have difficulty rooting for. Their repugnacity (I made that noun up) will no doubt contribute to their collapse

So I was wondering how Rand Paul is on the defensive regarding his isolationist philosophy when it comes to the current ISIS problem. I think Rand should stick to his guns here although I realize its probably impossible to do so in the current political climate. The thing is, we never left the Middle East. We are still there militarily and industrially. Maybe we should follow a true isolationist strategy and pull out all together. Everybody! Oh right oil. We may never be able to destroy ISIS completely so don't we need to address the underlying reason of why so many extremists hate us so much?

Rand is an idiot

I know you’re all dying for my take on Scottish Independence, so here are my somewhat meandering thoughts, unformed in large part because I have mixed feelings and also because I drank beers while watching Rutgers lose. My UK political news gets a very heavy RAWK (LFC message board) bias, which means instead of my usual center-right news consumption, I’m getting the full socialist treatment as my main course. That said, the usual English suspects on RAWK are much more anti-Yes than I would’ve guessed, but that’s neither here nor there.

If I lived in Scotland, I would vote no. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has read anything I’ve ever written in the politics thread and has paid even a little attention to the referendum campaign. A driving message behind the Yes campaign has been to create a state that strives to eliminate the evils of inequality through spending state tax and oil revenue well and other stuff. Very idealistic aims underlying a lot of the Yes crowd, which isn’t a bad thing, but they do not share my ideals. Also I hate change, and this is really massive change.

Beyond the aspirational politics, I think the uncertainty stemming from independence might be a major deal-breaker even if I was ideologically inclined to be led into the future by the SNP or Labour or whatever the heck the leading party in the new Scotland would be. Krugman, for all his faults, isn’t totally useless when it comes to straightforward economic questions, and his points about the potential currency problems are massive.

The other major piece of uncertainty stems from EU membership. Spain with its own separatist issues has said (I think?) that they will not support Scotland’s admission. Most people kinda think Scotland will be allowed into the EU, and it seems Scotland very much wishes to be admitted to the EU, but this is not a done deal. I would not vote no for this reason (see following parenthesis), but I think people who care about Scotland being in the EU should at least consider it. (On the other side of this the UK may hold a referendum in 2017 to withdraw from the EU, and I would certainly vote Yes in that referendum so a) Scotland might find itself outside of the EU anyway through no fault of its own and b) my cries of avoiding uncertainty when withdrawing from large unions are selective).

I think if Scotland were to become independent it will run itself into the ground within the next few decades with pie in the sky lefty economic policies if the troubles with currency or EU membership don’t fuck it up much sooner. But that’s just like my opinion.

I think the civic engagement that has come from the campaign has been pretty awesome. The idea of devolution of powers to the various nations is something the UK should embrace, and there should be serious devolution within England as well. I don’t know if new local governance should set up at the EU constituency level or county level or what, but there’s a need for some enhanced level of local authority. There’s a serious debate that ought to be had about the consolidation of power in Westminster, which in this day in age is absurd, and the UK can do better. If this does occur, those pushing the referendum will be owed a debt of gratitude. Merseyside clearly wants a different kind of government than Essex does, and there oughta be a better way to make that work.

If I tried to place myself in the shoes of a lefty inclined person, I’m not really sure where I’d be at on the independence vote. This might be my American politics lens showing, but I think it’s weird that the independence vote is simultaneously left wing, nationalist, and pro-oil. National pride is a bit icky on the left here, and the concept of pushing a state heavily reliant on oil revenue for its egalitarian ethos is also a bit tough to envision on environmental and other grounds.

Obviously Wiz isn’t some fire breathing Scotsman, and he’s fully bought into the idea of an independent Scotland being an ideal case to set up the kind of state he wants to live in. That’s pretty cool no matter where you sit on the political spectrum. There’s a tremendous amount of cynicism flowing from the Better Together camp about the likelihood of this ideal state succeeding (in this case I think richly deserved, but that’s me being negative and cynical). In an analogous situation, I’d love the hell out of the chance to try and form some new country where we could pursue interesting policies I supported to better humanity and whatnot.

At the end of the day I am rooting against it, but wouldn’t be heartbroken if Yes wins both because Wiz would be happy and he seems like a nice guy and because the UK would lose 58 non-Tory seats for the 2015 elections. I really don’t want Ed Milliband to be prime minister. Really looking forward to Thursday.

if anyone knows scotch, it's you

I don't like scotch, possibly explaining my opposition to independence

jerseyhoya wrote: I hate change

while you could have added "and I especially hate change that entails broader participation in governance", this alone was sufficient

I'm not a fan of change when it looks like there's limited possible upside and huge possible negative consequences to the shift. I think there's a massive presumption on the side of No in situations like this. If Yes wins, the union is broken permanently. The uncertainty surrounding the questions the advocates for independence haven't answered will be unavoidable. If No wins, and the UK fails to follow through on offers of further devolution or the country as a whole continues to be led in a manner a majority of Scottish find abhorrent, they can make a fresh push for independence 10 years down the line. The position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland, and making a major, irrevocable change like this on the back of short term momentum is something that would worry me. I don't know where the broader participation in governance comes into things.

jerseyhoya wrote: The position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland

What's the "right" amount of time? The same as the duration of "majority opinion" favoring such a move in, say, the late 1700s? A majority of colonists were probably undecided about revolution against George III in 1775

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: The position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland

What's the "right" amount of time? The same as the duration of "majority opinion" favoring such a move in, say, the late 1700s? A majority of colonists were probably undecided about revolution against George III in 1775

More than a week and a half.

I think on something like this you should probably have two votes spaced a year apart or have a super majority threshold or something. Catching a brief bit of momentum to hit 50%+1 to split up a country that has been together over 300 years and done pretty well seems flawed.

jerseyhoya wrote:More than a week and a half.

I think you're misunderestimating the period during which pro-independence sentiment has percolated

possibly willfully

I say that because if you're suggesting you really believe this thing is a whim just a week & a half in existence, well, that's ridic

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:More than a week and a half.

I think you're misunderestimating the period during which pro-independence sentiment has percolated

possibly willfully

I say that because if you're suggesting you really believe this thing is a whim just a week & a half in existence, well, that's ridic

I mean, I can't help you read if you don't want to read. "The position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is a pretty clear sentence. The polling is also pretty easy to read and understand. You're possibly willfully misrepresenting the objectively true thing I said. Or maybe you're just struggling.

jerseyhoya wrote:I mean, I can't help you read if you don't want to read. "The position of independence has not been a long held majority opinion in Scotland" is a pretty clear sentence. The polling is also pretty easy to read and understand. You're possibly willfully misrepresenting the objectively true thing I said. Or maybe you're just struggling.

Yeah that's it, I'm struggling, while you're right pretty much always about political events (Romney's chances, etc)

Here's the thing; you don't understand how change actually happens. Change doesn't wait around for majorities to decide it's time. Majorities ratify change that has already happened. A close electoral win for Team Cameron - about all it can hope for - is a loss for it. But not for you, because how could that be, look at the scoreboard.

What do your professors teach you?

Gonna be insane participation. Cant beat that. True representation of the thoughts of Scots. Democracy in action. It is kinda weird that if they secede, then the UK is pretty well seriously conservative, which is not a stellar byproduct.

Any discussion of this yet: Iran’s Participation in Meeting to Aid Iraq Is ‘Not Appropriate,’ Says Kerry.

Seems to me if you're not including Iran in a regional discussion about confronting ISIS, you're not conducting a regional discussion.

the entire ISIS mess is being handled poorly, from every level.

How about we just get the hell out of there and let them do to each other whatever it is they want to do and worry about our own stuff. I hate to go all isolationist, but there is nothing that we can do that's going to solve anything and us being there probably hurts peace in the region over the long haul. Or at the very least, we are delaying the inevitable.

Then take the billions of dollars we'll save and put it into the green technologies we'll need to ween ourselves off that black heroine we love so much.

Simplistic, I know, but it gets old listening to this stuff for decades. They hate each other, they'll never forgive and forget, and there is no peace they will all accept. Let's stop banging our heads against this particular wall just because the defense industry and AIPAC says we should.

Circulate a message throughout Islamic State's area of operation that they must disgorge all those connected with the murders of the parties whose heads were chopped off within the next [suitable period of days*]. Where appropriate, the disgorged will be tried for these crimes.

If these parties are not disgorged, after a period of [another suitable period of days*], most if not all of the populous areas of the geographic area Islamic State has staked out will be incinerated, along with every man woman, child & donkey in those vicinities, and allah will rest responsibility for this carnage on the shelterers of the head-chopper-offers.

Welcome to statehood

* I'm imagining 2 weeks, only to indicate the time lag is brief.