Up for Debate: Governments react to Syrian massacre

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 12:32am

The U.S. and other countries have expelled Syrian diplomats following reports that approximately 100 people — including many children — were killed in the town of Houla and that the Syrian government was also involved in the killings. Another 72 people were also reported killed on Tuesday. After more than a year of unrest, in which perhaps 10,000 or so have died, will this be the action that leads the international community to mobilize against Syria? Short of a cease-fire, should the U.N. look to use force in Syria or should it find other less direct ways to support opposition to the Syrian regime?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Syria | Up for Debate

78 Comments on this post:

By: Beernazi on 5/30/12 at 12:57

Why the flat tax isn't as good as it sounds:


By: yogiman on 5/30/12 at 1:08

Can you explain why you are condemning Mitt Romney for his announcement of the children's education, brrrrk? Don't you have any children you're concerned about? Aren't you interested in the education of today's children and the children of the future?

Wouldn't it be nice if they could be taught to read and write a simple sentence?

I don't know how old you are, but I do now what we were taught in my childhood on reading and writing... and even arithmetic. Back then, we had to learn to multiply 12 time 12 as one our first 'learnings'.

When the "guvmunt" took over the children's education, that simply put those children on the bluff side of the hill.

There isn't supposed to be a "loser" in childhood... it's too heartbreaking for a child to loose. "Guvmunt" doesn't think they will learn more from competition so there should be no winner.

You have smart children and dumb children and children that hate going to school. And the "guvmunt" equals all children and holds the intelligent ones back in line with the dumb ones.

That is nothing more than socialism, brrrrk, and socialism is just one more step toward communism. Are you ready for a one world government to place us under their control?

Reading many posts on the internet, it's amazing how many people can't even write and spell close to English language.

By: yogiman on 5/30/12 at 1:13

An interesting letter to the "president":


By: brrrrk on 5/30/12 at 1:22


brrrrk, blah blah blah when I was a kid blah blah blah lazy people blah blah blah immigrants blah blah blah usurper blah blah blah birth certificate blah blah blah socialism.

By: BenDover on 5/30/12 at 1:26

It depends on whether your basic premise is to optimize the portion of society's wealth that government manages or to optimize the overall economy, blanket. With no popular political resistance to spending, government can grow unchecked until it consumes all of the economic pie. I question whether that is the best use of society's resource... or more specifically, I question what happens when the tipping point is reached when society focuses on punishing production and rewarding sloth.

By: Beernazi on 5/30/12 at 1:31

Well, a flat tax won't resolve that issue.

btw....did you know that the White House brews its own beer?


By: BenDover on 5/30/12 at 1:37

I didn't know that. Very interesting.

By: BenDover on 5/30/12 at 1:38

I think it's one of the few things that would help resolve the issue, blanket.

By: Beernazi on 5/30/12 at 1:40

Well, it would make tax spending more transparent, but it's throwing out the baby with the bath and would do more harm than good.

By: BenDover on 5/30/12 at 2:04

How so? Why would it be worse to have everyone concerned about how much of their money government was spending instead of just a minority of people?

Wouldn't it be good to get all the political cronyism out of the tax code?

Simplifying it would surely put auditors and accountants to more productive work that could actually add value to society rather than focusing on compliance and avoidance activities.

I did suggest a standard deduction for basic necessities.

By: yogiman on 5/30/12 at 2:09

You must have been that kid sitting in the back of the room, brrrrk. That's where the kids were put that didn't want to learn. But they still had to learn a little because they couldn't ignore everything the teacher was trying to teach them.

Was that you in the last row?

By: Beernazi on 5/30/12 at 2:10

Ben, please read the link I posted that addresses some of the BIG problems a flat tax would present and if you still feel that way, I'll have to get out my Bristol Stool Scale. Don't make me do it - lol!

By: yogiman on 5/30/12 at 2:16

I used to make my own brew and wine, Beernazi. After a couple of batches you didn't want any more commercial beer. Did you know you can make a batch of grape wine with a can of frozen grape juice? Good for that last drop before bed. Helps put you to sleep better. But hell, at my age, I just shut my eyes.

By: BenDover on 5/30/12 at 2:16

I read the link already. A flat tax is bad because it's not progressive. Nothing really to substantiate it beyond that except that observation that government cannot be as large a portion of the economy under a flat tax as it is under a progressive tax. I argue it would get a smaller portion of a bigger pie.

The down-side from a liberal perspective to ditching a progressive tax would seem to be the abandonment of the Robin Hood ideal.

By: Beernazi on 5/30/12 at 2:26

I'm pulling out the Bristol Stool Scale.....

yogi, I too am a brewer and I agree that once you learn to brew, commercial beer isn't nearly as appealing anymore. I've made a mean Nut Brown Ale and a few good Stouts.

By: slacker on 5/30/12 at 2:45

9-9-9 plan
bada bing bada boom

By: slacker on 5/30/12 at 2:47

yogi for you, the 9-9 plan.
Lithium at 9am
Lithium at 9pm

By: Beernazi on 5/30/12 at 2:49

yo, slacker! what up?

By: slacker on 5/30/12 at 2:54

nazi, back from a dental appointment. My typing is a bit slurred.

By: brrrrk on 5/30/12 at 3:00

BenDover said

"I read the link already. A flat tax is bad because it's not progressive."

Really? Did we read the same article? The point that the article was making was that there are things like infrastructure that we all pay for, but those who take advantage of those things the most pay far less for them given their use. Our legal system, being another example, is used far more by businesses, and yet we all pay for it.

By: slacker on 5/30/12 at 3:00

nazi, my attempts at beer brewing were disastrous. Couldn't drink the stuff. I unsuccessfully tried kits for pilsner, and finally gave up.

By: Beernazi on 5/30/12 at 3:03

brrrrk, I think it's a 7 on the scale. What say you?

By: brrrrk on 5/30/12 at 3:07

Beernazi said

"brrrrk, I think it's a 7 on the scale. What say you?"

At my age I try to avoid scales... :-)

By: Beernazi on 5/30/12 at 3:20

lol - I know that feeling!

By: yogiman on 5/30/12 at 3:46

Sorry, slacker,

I'm afraid it would have the same effect on me as it is on you.

By: Rasputin72 on 5/30/12 at 4:26

Compromise is a tool of sorts.......To that end perhaps we should stop all corporattions from political contributions and limit the amount that can be donated by individuals, In turn perhaps someone will take away the voting rights of all that pay no federal income tax.

Sounds like a fair compromise until such time as the entitlement and welfare group realized that if you tripled what the big corporations give it would have little or no effect on their welfare programs. These large corporations offer money but not votes. It is the 47% who pay no federal income tax that elect our national officials.

P.S. You could quadruple the money that large corporations give and it would not offset the votes of the 47% who pay no federal income tax,.

By: yogiman on 5/30/12 at 6:08

It would have an effect when they stand at the polls and "slip a few bucks" in their hands for a vote.

By: spooky24 on 5/31/12 at 5:04

What happened to the topic? Again.