Refi

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: June 25, 2009, 02:11:21 pm »

I think the problem in your understanding arises from either the fact that you think total hegemony is possible for any single country and thus they can enforce fairness, or the fact that you subscribe to the idea of a global world. Other countries aren't global, other countries are: Me first.

You need to read up on Reciprocal Altruism, and the story of the Suckers and the Cheaters.


That is why other countries must be opened, and made to be global.
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 25, 2009, 01:49:35 pm »

I think the problem in your understanding arises from either the fact that you think total hegemony is possible for any single country and thus they can enforce fairness, or the fact that you subscribe to the idea of a global world. Other countries aren't global, other countries are: Me first.

You need to read up on Reciprocal Altruism, and the story of the Suckers and the Cheaters.
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 25, 2009, 01:46:34 pm »

Tell me then, my fine dictator, when Overpopulation converges on your country, do you expect Mexico to reciprocate when they are the ones with a booming economy and plenty of jobs? Everyone other leader in the world understands: My own People first. I'm sorry to say this but I would not want you for a dictator. I would want someone who, when times are tough, protects their own citizens from dramatic influx of labor and the devaluation you know it causes. In all the world, only white people cannot ask for this, cannot ask for the safeguard of their own People and their own countries. So you think it's okay to deny it.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: June 25, 2009, 12:41:56 pm »

Non at all, as long as they are documented, and understand and obey the laws and the language of the state.
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 25, 2009, 09:13:18 am »

I don't view the world as having borders, that age is over.

Then you have no problem with immigration policy either, I suppose. That Mexican immigrant is just as entitled to the freedoms our ancestors earned, that Iraqi is just as entitled to them, as an American citizen.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: June 24, 2009, 06:42:28 pm »

If provincial politics start to deteriorate I will just form a new strategy.

I wouldn't sacrifice domestic problems for foreign policy concerns, nor visa versa.

I don't view the world as having borders, that age is over. We have a global economy and everything that happens anywhere in the world will directly impact us.
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 24, 2009, 03:25:27 pm »

Alright, so you would "invest" based on the possibility of greatest return. What if you came to realise that investing in your own citizens gives them empowerment and success, while expecting "returns" [read: repairations] from abroad only breeds resentment and more terrorism and war? Your foreign policy is a lot like that of a Frenchman.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: June 24, 2009, 02:22:06 pm »

Hypothetically, if you only have ten dollars, and making American people free and improving their quality of life costs $20, and making Iraq free and improving their quality of life costs $20, you're saying that you would spend $5 on America and $5 on Iraq?

Actually, my policy doesn't work that way.

I wouldn't "spend money" on anyone. I would invest it, with the expectation for a return. In the case of Iraq I would expect compensation for the effort, in the case of domestic policy, I would expect economic benfits.

The problem with policy today is that money isn't spent in such a way as to facilitate returns. This is something I would change, the government should compliment the wealth creation of tax payers, not have a parasitic relationship to them.

When it comes to things like aid, or welfare. I would loan money, not give money.
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 24, 2009, 01:55:36 pm »

Let me put this to you another way.

If you are a father, and you have a child who wants a Beany Baby, and also some poor kid wants a Beany Baby, assuming you're able and willing to buy one but not two, who gets it, Toys for Tots, or your own son?
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 24, 2009, 09:09:52 am »

Hypothetically, if you only have ten dollars, and making American people free and improving their quality of life costs $20, and making Iraq free and improving their quality of life costs $20, you're saying that you would spend $5 on America and $5 on Iraq?
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: June 23, 2009, 08:02:38 pm »

I would suggest doing both in equal measure, simultaneously.
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 23, 2009, 06:41:10 pm »

This is to say, assuming we don't have infinite money, where should it be spent as a priority? Programs to improve the quality of life here, or wars fought to improve it elsewhere?
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 23, 2009, 06:32:43 pm »

Which should be our first priority, the health, happiness, freedom, and wellbeing of our own people, or that of foreigners?

Which is it, stamp out oppression abroad, or at home?