The Tank has Gone to Hell

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Introduction
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[edit]Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
[edit]Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

The cheese sauce is usually made up of 2 or more types of cheese. A good moderately aged Gruyère (aged at least 8 to 12 months) is usually one of them, since it has such great flavor.

Another popular cheese is Emmenthaler, the stereotypical ‘Swiss cheese’ with the big holes. Emmenthaler does make the sauce very stringy and somewhat gooey, which can make it a bit hard to handle.

Martha’s preference was to use Vacherin Fribourgeois, which has a full, distinctive flavor and does not make the sauce stringy.

Her secret ingredient was one block of the ‘spreadable cheese’ that comes wrapped in foil triangles in a round cardboard box (e.g. Laughing Cow). The otherwise icky cheese helps all the cheeses melt together and stay together coherently.

The other important components in a fondue sauce are white wine and kirsch. Here in Switzerland, a young Chasselas Romand, aka Fendant, with a slight sourness is used. If you can’t get hold of such a wine, a Sauvignon Blanc will do, perhaps with a squeeze of lemon juice. And kirsch just adds that extra kick.

www.justhungry.com/proper-swiss-cheese-fondue

[ussusimiel]

This is deeply ironic. A thread titled "The Tank Has Gone to Hell" starts off with interpersonal arguments and general bitching and slowly morphs into an educational discussion on the definitions of and distinctions between libertarianism, liberalism and socialism.

That reminds me of this poem by Sonia Sanchez:

Code: Select all

       TCB

wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
                   whitey.
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
                   ofay
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
                   devil.
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
                   pig.
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
                   cracker.
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
wite/mutha/fucker
                    honky.

                            now.  that it's all sed
let's get to work.

Maybe if every thread in the 'Tank began with an admission that we've gone to hell then we could get down to some real debate (as we've done here) and then we could end each thread with some fondue to celebrate (very bourgeois ).

u.

[Prebe]

Liberals should have loved Bush for his massive expansion of government and regulation. Conservatives should love Obama for his warmongering.

Excellent Cail.

[Avatar]

The other important components in a fondue sauce are white wine and kirsch. Here in Switzerland, a young Chasselas Romand, aka Fendant, with a slight sourness is used. If you can’t get hold of such a wine, a Sauvignon Blanc will do, perhaps with a squeeze of lemon juice. And kirsch just adds that extra kick.

It's perfectly possible to make a completely authentic fondue with beer and a mature cheddar instead of white wine and Swiss cheese. There are countless varieties. I've made a lot of them, and that simple beer and cheddar fondue is still one of my favourites.

Liberals should have loved Bush for his massive expansion of government and regulation. Conservatives should love Obama for his warmongering.

Excellent Cail.

I wonder, returning to the topic of liberalism, if this thing about liberals wanting bigger government is something unique to the US? I'm almost as liberal as you can get, but I don't want government to have more power or be "bigger."

Foreign liberals? How about you all? Personally, the smaller and less intrusive the government is, the better I like it.

--A

[Cail]

I wonder, returning to the topic of liberalism, if this thing about liberals wanting bigger government is something unique to the US? I'm almost as liberal as you can get, but I don't want government to have more power or be "bigger."

Yes you do, you just don't acknowledge it. You want a welfare system, universal health care, and regulatory infrastructure, do you not?

[Cagliostro]

I think Cag is perfectly justified in saying it was, anyway. As in, it was a good point that reminded him of something else that he has been thinking. At this, erm, juncture, I think everyone is just observating.

Yep, that's what I was doing. It is definitely stereotyping, but it was something I thought of as odd. Personally, I'd probably rather have those responsible being the ones taken out rather than involve a lot of people in a full war, but that's my druthers. Not having to kill people at all would be even better, but perhaps I watch too much Dr. Who. But hypocracy exists in every grouping of people, and almost certainly every person.

[Cybrweez]

I wonder, returning to the topic of liberalism, if this thing about liberals wanting bigger government is something unique to the US? I'm almost as liberal as you can get, but I don't want government to have more power or be "bigger."

Yes you do, you just don't acknowledge it. You want a welfare system, universal health care, and regulatory infrastructure, do you not?

I guess it goes back to definitions. But I would think that's straightforward, if you want govt to take care of a host of things, then by definition, its going to be "bigger". And in US, if you want govt to take care of things, or you think you belong to govt and its there to build things for you, you're considered liberal. Certainly Democrat, which may not be the exact same thing, but in US they are considered so, generally.

[Cail]

I wonder, returning to the topic of liberalism, if this thing about liberals wanting bigger government is something unique to the US? I'm almost as liberal as you can get, but I don't want government to have more power or be "bigger."

Yes you do, you just don't acknowledge it. You want a welfare system, universal health care, and regulatory infrastructure, do you not?

I guess it goes back to definitions. But I would think that's straightforward, if you want govt to take care of a host of things, then by definition, its going to be "bigger". And in US, if you want govt to take care of things, or you think you belong to govt and its there to build things for you, you're considered liberal. Certainly Democrat, which may not be the exact same thing, but in US they are considered so, generally.

Right, but to many (Av certainly) those things qualify as "basic services".

[Prebe]

The term "liberal" is simply taken to mean two different things I think: In´Europe it means monetary and social liberalism with small government and free market forces with a minimum og government intereference. I haven't quite figured out why the dems in the US are called liberals to be honest,

[ussusimiel]

I wonder, returning to the topic of liberalism, if this thing about liberals wanting bigger government is something unique to the US? I'm almost as liberal as you can get, but I don't want government to have more power or be "bigger."

Foreign liberals? How about you all? Personally, the smaller and less intrusive the government is, the better I like it.

--A

What is interesting to me, as a European 'liberal', is that the question of how large or small government is hardly ever comes up. The size of government seems to be naturally limited by the size of the economy. During the recent boom the size of our civil service expanded greatly and now it is in the process of contracting again. (We can't run indefinite deficits as the US can (according to MMT).)

When there is a problem here the first thing people ask is, 'What is the Government going to do about it?' This being the case you would think that government would always be expanding and expanding to the point where people found it intrusive, but it doesn't seem that way. Certainly people do complain about things like Health and Safety regulations, but there is a sense that much of this is driven by the EU. (I am fairly sure that they also reduced work-related deaths significantly.)

The greatest complaint about government is often about the delivery of services, especially health and education, rather than about there being too much of it. People (myself included) generally trust the government because it has, usually, helped them rather than hindered them. (Any time that I have been unemployed I have been able to get social welfare until I returned to work. I also got to return to university as a mature student during the '90s fully funded by the state.)

It is also noticeable that people usually see government and politicians as separate. This may stem from the fact that we have had a history of coalitions and the worst excesses of politicians have always come when there was only a single party in power.

u.

[wayfriend]

I haven't quite figured out why the dems in the US are called liberals to be honest,

Progressivism means to progress ... to change. It means when you think of way to do something better, do it. During the post Great Depression, a better way to do things meant expanding the government and increasing social safety nets. In another age something different may mean doing something different. In Europe, I am sure it is again something else. However, it is human nature to associate what they did with who they are, as if they would always do the same thing all the time.

And yes, conservatism is at heart resistance to change. And even trying to return things to the way they were many decades ago.

There are fair-weather progressives and conservatives who choose a side because they see an advantage for them in what is currently at stake.

But I think real progressives and conservatives are what they are because they either believe in evolving or in preservation.

[Avatar]

I wonder, returning to the topic of liberalism, if this thing about liberals wanting bigger government is something unique to the US? I'm almost as liberal as you can get, but I don't want government to have more power or be "bigger."

Yes you do, you just don't acknowledge it. You want a welfare system, universal health care, and regulatory infrastructure, do you not?

I guess it goes back to definitions. But I would think that's straightforward, if you want govt to take care of a host of things, then by definition, its going to be "bigger".

I don't see a government that provides those things as being "bigger" or having more power. It is already in its power to provide those things...it is as "big" as it needs to be. It doesn't need "more" power to provide them...it has as much power as it needs too.

In´Europe it means monetary and social liberalism with small government and free market forces with a minimum of government interference.

That's pretty much how I see it too. It's there to provide certain things that people need which can't easily be provided privately to everybody, or to those who need assistance in obtaining them. Not much else. Certainly not to tell me who I can marry or sleep with, for example.

Certainly people do complain about things like Health and Safety regulations, but there is a sense that much of this is driven by the EU.

Pretty sure the UK's H&S regs pre-date the EU...

The greatest complaint about government is often about the delivery of services, especially health and education, rather than about there being too much of it.

Pretty much the same here, except of course nobody trusts the government because they have largely failed to help people much.

--A

[Cail]

Rationalize it however you like, but European governments are anything but small. They might not tell you who to sleep with, but they tell you what you can name your kids, and what you have to wear. Germany's TUV stuff (and CE to a lesser extent) is just downright draconian.

[Cybrweez]

Didn't we talk about what words were illegal? Maybe that was Australia tho.

[Cail]

Didn't we talk about what words were illegal? Maybe that was Australia tho.

I think it was. But the ANZAC countries are using the EU governments as a model.

[Zarathustra]

But I think real progressives and conservatives are what they are because they either believe in evolving or in preservation.

That's an extremely simplistic characterization--indeed, a caricature--that is only possible by framing (as the Left always does) everything in terms of the necessity of government, to the exclusion of any other way to achieve these goals.

Conservatives are fine with evolution of society, they just don't see the government as the way to do it. That's where the distinction comes down. Our society has come a long way since the first progressives--Woodrow Wilson, FRD, etc.--and government had very little to do with it. What "evolution" does progressivism propose? More entitlements. Larger safety net. Cradle-to-grave coddling. PROGRESS! Making more people dependent upon the government doesn't lead to any evolution. That's stagnation.

Can you name a single progressive policy that actually makes society move forward and evolve?

The greatest force for evolution in society is the free market. All the transformative ways that we interact with our world and with each other have been facilitated by visionaries among private citizens and the market force of corporations, the true engines of social evolution and change.

"Progressives" have their own protectionist, preservative tendencies as they resist the innovation and evolution which originates in the free market, by putting up roadblocks of regulation, applying the brakes of legislative mandates. Just look at how much money and time it takes to bring a new life-saving medicine into being, to the market. "Progressives" don't want to make this easier, faster, more innovative. They slow it down in the name of protectionism. They limit corporations in the name of preserving the environment .... not that this is bad, it's just not progressive. Is conservation no longer part of the Left's environmental agenda? Sustainability?

Utter bullshit. The idea that Progressivism has anything to do with progress is a big fat lie used to sell the idea of bigger government, more federal power, less economic freedom, more regulation. And they tell this lie in the hopes that gullible people--who aren't themselves innovators or visionaries--will mistake dependency upon the government as some form of positive evolution.

[[Syl]]

You make an interesting point, Z., though you lose me a bit when you start talking about leftist conspiracies and monolithic practices.

I think the difference is that us "progressives" (I actually dislike the word) don't view government as other. Ideally, it's for, by, and of the people, which is us. That's why we get alarmed when we see corporate interests (which are only for, by, and of those who can afford it) start to take control of that government.

The free market is a powerful tool, but it's not, by itself, a socially liberating one. The free market has brought us things like slavery, colonialism, and mortgage-backed derivatives (and less traditionally free markets things like international drug trafficking, sex slaves, weapons smuggling, etc.).

And if everybody could be innovators and visionaries, we'd probably call it something else.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Clearly, the words we use to describe various political movements have become so muddled that we can no longer tell the difference between Progessive, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Conservative, Liberal, Fascist, etc.

We need new words to identify people's sociopolitical ideologies or a system of numbers that identify where people are on certain topics. With the numeric method, we know when someone describes themselves as 10/30/45/95/40/80 that they support higher taxes on the wealthy, labor over employers, a strong military, etc. (the numbers are random--I do not have a scale designed at this time)

The phrase "I am a Republican" can mean anything these days.

I think the difference is that us "progressives" (I actually dislike the word) don't view government as other. Ideally, it's for, by, and of the people, which is us. That's why we get alarmed when we see corporate interests (which are only for, by, and of those who can afford it) start to take control of that government.

This is best definition of "progressive" that I have ever heard. Although not progressive, myself, I also strongly dislike the encroaching power of corporate money that is destroying our political system.

[Zarathustra]

Syl, it goes without saying that there was no freedom involved in slavery. That's not an element of a free market. Sure, it was private sector, but that's entirely different. Private sector can take many forms.

I don't view government as other, I view the encroachment by government into my life and my wallet as other. Just because the government is ostensibly by/for/of the people doesn't mean that anything it does is for the good of the people. Slavery was legal. Blacks weren't recognized by our Constitution as whole, free persons.

I'm absolutely against crony capitalism, as I've said before. But that's more a problem of the government than it is a problem of corporations. It's not a function of a business to run the government. They don't start out with this goal. It only becomes necessary when they realize their competitors are using the government to get an advantage over them, and the government is picking winners/losers in the marketplace. Then they are forced to get involved for their own survival. Government could end this by severing the ties. There's very little that corporations can do to stop it, if they want to stay in business. The government has made them (to some degree) dependent, too.

The free market is a powerful tool, but it's not, by itself, a socially liberating one.

I don't see how you can look at history and say this with a straight face. Free market capitalism has been the single largest liberating force in the history of mankind. Economic freedom is the manifestation and the means of independence. It is independence not only from repressive governments, but over the limiting factors of physical existence itself. The freest countries are the most prosperous, most capitalist societies. Do you think this is a coincidence?