Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[quote name='cindersphere']Again on point one there is no evidence to your claim. There is a lot more evidence to the claim that these places where isolationist thought originate from are places that have felt a greater amount of casualties from war per capita (2008 was a great example of this as most most of the states that Democrats gained and kept were from places with a high concentration of casualties, i.e. Vermont, Montana, Maine, Alaska etc.). States more war torn tend to be less inclined with military action.

As for the world war comments, your completely right it is hard to believe a new world war will happen, and for good reasons. The most important being most major powers in the world right now are Democratic. You know how many times Democracies have wage war against each other. 0 times. You can make a case for Britain's declaration of war against Sweden in WW2, both Democratic at the time, but it was more of a reaction to the Swedes joining the Nazi party to attack Russia. The US never declared war on them, even though you could classify them as Nazis. Casualties between Sweden and Britain were 0. They were at war but Britain never attacked Sweden. Most major powers are now Democracies, China is an exception but if you look at internal urban areas you see the massive erosion of communism brought about by the introduction of international commerce. So yes more people are more skeptical of world wars, but for more reason than a disassociation with war. Yes other countries are looking for a competitive edge however nobody is saying the US should completely step out, people are saying that we should not go into useless wars of ideology (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Third point, the burden of proof is on you, prove that companies keep down costs. Your the one making the assertion, not me. Your the one that seems to be making the claim govt needs private companies to keep defense costs down. Provide evidence or your point is invalid.

Edit added something

As for a specific cut, I will play ball and give you one in the news recently. DoD has been funding and pushing for the launch of the X37B, a space craft that was launched, whose purpose is being kept secret. Big hint though, probably has to do with the US continued want to deliver quicker non nuclear strikes to other countries in case of China goes rogue. Cost benefit is low compared to current technology in this area. Only difference is now we can bunker bust FROM SPACE!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

The burden of proof is on me to prove fatherofcaitlyns claim that private industry cannot do things more cost effective than the government....thats cute. I didnt bring up the defense spending, he did, then he went on a rant about the cost of soldiers, but completely ignored the rest of the contract spending. (strawman arguement)

Oh well, so I guess we can all agree that cuts need to be made in all programs across the board. Which happens to be what I said since the beginning, we cannot get rid of defense spending, and we cannot get rid of social programs, so we need to cut where we can from both areas. Im glad we can finally agree on this.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I accept your apology Knoell. I thought most people who were commenting about gov't spending would be well informed about something that important (US supporting its biggest ally in the Middle East with billions of dollars each year), but hey, sometimes I give people more credit than they deserve.[/QUOTE]
Oh I know, but you know, the proof thing :roll:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']But in any case, since The New York Times polled tea party participants and found they have a higher level of intelligence than the average American[/QUOTE]

I might be wrong but I think what you are referring to is the poll which found out more 'baggers have gone to college compared to the general public i.e. not even those just above voting age or even say age 21 and which doesn't even mean they graduated or even completed a semester... Anyhoo it isn't as if education necessarily means "smarter" or even not completely clueless.

Example:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0428/tea-party-leader-obama-hides-birth-cert-nuts/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Im beginning to see the US is raising a generation of people who feel too safe. You are all stuck in your ideals that the world would be a much safer place if the US didnt stick their heads in everything. Yet if we withdrew what would happen? do you even know? or does it sound good to take up this isolationist policy? We are a victim of our own success, and we get too comfortable, now the things we fought for 70 years ago, we take for granted today and then some. Another world war is not impossible, get that through your heads at least.
We are becoming the equivalent of the Romans, fat and comfortable until everything comes crashing down.[/QUOTE]

Where the fuck is the burden of proof for blanket statements like those. Linksplz
 
[quote name='IRHari']Where the fuck is the burden of proof for blanket statements like those. Linksplz[/QUOTE]


you people lol
 
[quote name='Knoell']The burden of proof is on me to prove fatherofcaitlyns claim that private industry cannot do things more cost effective than the government....thats cute. I didnt bring up the defense spending, he did, then he went on a rant about the cost of soldiers, but completely ignored the rest of the contract spending. (strawman arguement)

Oh well, so I guess we can all agree that cuts need to be made in all programs across the board. Which happens to be what I said since the beginning, we cannot get rid of defense spending, and we cannot get rid of social programs, so we need to cut where we can from both areas. Im glad we can finally agree on this.[/QUOTE]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/17/eveningnews/main636644.shtml

"It costs $110 to house one KBR employee per day at the Kempinski, while it costs the Army $1.39 per day to bunk a soldier in a leased tent," DeYoung said.

Documents obtained by CBS News show an auditor repeatedly flagged improper fees for soldiers' laundry. At one site, taxpayers reportedly paid $100 for each 15-pound load of wash - $1 million a month in overcharges.

...

I know neither of these qualify as proof, right?
 
In case nobody has dogged tea party ideas point for point.

[quote name='elprincipe']This is where I can't tell if you're serious or not. But in any case, since The New York Times polled tea party participants and found they have a higher level of intelligence than the average American, if you're serious, you either mean that the average American is pretty stupid, or that there are plenty of stupid people in the tea party movement regardless. Yes, there are plenty of stupid people in the movement, just like with almost any group, but according to the NYT apparently less of them than the average movement.[/QUOTE]

Let's go over the proposals.

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2010/02/20/tea-party-policy-proposals/

- Amending the constitution to require a balanced budget and a two-thirds majority for any tax hike.

This won't work. During a recession, governments have to run deficits to maintain some stability. Let's apply this logic right now. We would have to complete disband the military and cut SS payouts by half. Riots much?

- Permanently repealing all tax hikes scheduled to begin in 2011.

Which does nothing positive while running a deficit except increase the deficit.

- Requiring every bill in Congress to be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill to be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent.

The health care bill was available on the Internet for months and people still didn't read it.

- Requiring each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

Why? If a bill is considered unconstitutional by somebody, sue and take it to the Supreme Court. Checks and balances and all that.

- Permitting all health insurance plans to be sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines. Allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.

Free market magic. If this happens, every insurer will be located in whatever state is most sympathetic to the insurer. It won't improve the aggregate health of the citizenship.

- Adopting a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and “replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words
— the length of the original Constitution.”

A flat tax shifts the tax burden towards those with the least ability to pay it. Also, they don't actually propose a document just a document length. That is half assed. "Fix it, but I don't know how!" isn't a solution.

- Imposing a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

Inflation is measured incorrectly. Measuring it correctly would increase growth rates in government programs.

- Allowing Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account “they own, control and can leave to whomever they choose.”

Finally, not a bad idea but it needs fleshed out. Of course, you're assuming a person will think the same way at age 18 as at age 62. Some people might realize they'll need SS halfway during their working years and they're screwed, right?

- Preventing any regulation or tax on the Internet.

Then, everything will be a scam. ISPs will provide sporadic service at best. You might as well CC every advertising agency with your browsing history.

- Improving education by eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school and improving the affordability of higher education.

How about involving parents in their children's academic lives? A good school is a waste if the parents don't care. For example, my wife never looks over my daughter's homework and test her on her spelling words. Amercian Idol is down to the final 5, don't you know? If I wasn't pointing out my daughter's mistakes on homework, she would be consistently missing one problem on math per day and she would have missed three words out of 15 on spelling.

- Authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.

Drill, baby, drill? I assume they aren't aware of what is happening in the Gulf Coast right now. As far as reducing regulation, is there any against alternative energy such as wind, solar or geothermal?

- Prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

I actually agree on this. Nobody should point out when Rush is making crap up. Then again, a disclaimer that the show is for entertainment purposes only wouldn't hurt.

- Creating a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs.

ZZZZZZ. A unlicensed group to find fraud and has no teeth to root it out. I suppose if they find something they can issue a citizen's arrest. We already have enforcement agencies. Ask them what they need to do their jobs better and see if it is worth it in terms of cost/benefit and constitutionality.

- Blocking state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

Every state and local government has received aid. Let's say you're the mayor of Detroit. There are so many abandoned and dilapidated buildings that you can't attract new businesses. The only way to improve the city's economic lot is to claim eminent domain and bulldozing the worthless buildings. With this proposal, there is nothing Detroit can do until the bricks and wood rot to dust.

- Preventing the EPA from implementing costly new regulations.

And if the regulations would save lives or improve aggregate health?

- Placing a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent. Also requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark.

Even if all earmarks are bad, they're only 1-2 percent of the budget. On top of that, why take a 2/3 majority to pass.

- Making all lawmaking regulators, including presidential appointed czars, be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president.

And when the other side blocks their appointment for months or years?

- Audit the Federal Reserve System.

Not a bad idea again. Then what?

- Making sure the federal government does not bail out private companies. The government should also immediately divest itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.

Not a bad idea other than an immediate creation of several corporate bankruptcies or making it more difficult for a small business to get a loan down the road.

- Amending the constitution to require congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times.

I'm on the fence with term limits. When I was younger, I was on board. Now, I understand the people who own politicians have plenty of spares laying around.

- Making all regulations “sunset” after 10 years unless renewed by congressional vote.

So, a regulation keeps sewage out of the drinking water expires and a political party holds a filibuster. I guess we'll drink shit water until the next election. Do you see how that is a bad idea?

- Broadcasting all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Intern

I'm sure I cut something off. C-SPAN is great. I think I've watched ... well, I can't remember the last time I watched C-SPAN. So, expanding C-SPAN coverage isn't going to make it more watchable.
 
I cant believe you wrote all that out just to disagree with every point with a one liner, lol come on.

by the way people are against wind power as an alternative energy source, so noone will be happy with any energy source, ever.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...Group_Sues_Wind_Farm_to_Stop_Bird_Deaths.html

well the birds, and oh yeah "the turbines are a blight on the landscape" lol

Other studies, also issued in January, showed wind turbines may be more dangerous to humans than had previously been thought.
On January 25, the London Daily Telegraph reported numerous studies show low-frequency noise emanating from wind turbines is causing a variety of ailments among area residents.
According to English physician Dr. Amanda Harry, who conducted one of the studies, “People demonstrated a range of symptoms from headaches, migraines, dizziness, palpitations, and tinnitus to sleep disturbance, stress, anxiety, and depression. These symptoms had a knock-on effect in their daily lives, causing poor concentration, irritability, and an inability to cope . It travels further than audible noise, is ground-borne and is felt through vibrations.”

Oh and heres someone against solar energy in the mojave desert

http://cleantechbiz.blogspot.com/2009/03/environmentalists-against-solar-energy.html

Oh nevermind with those other links I found one that encompasses environmentalists against all three forms (solar, wind, and geothermal) and more!

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1100
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Amending the constitution to require a balanced budget and a two-thirds majority for any tax hike.[/quote]
A constitutional amendment barring Keynesian economic theory. Lovely.
Requiring each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
Click to expand...
A better idea would be requiring people to take a Con Law 101 class before opening their ignorant mouths.
Permitting all health insurance plans to be sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines. Allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.
Click to expand...
Republican and industry talking points. I'm shocked.
Adopting a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and “replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words
Click to expand...
Something smells like shit. Never mind, it's Grover Norquist.
Allowing Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account “they own, control and can leave to whomever they choose.”
Click to expand...
And when they dick it up, we're still going to have to pay for them. And they will dick it up. Because nothing screams sophisticated investor like an Ohioan plumber.
Improving education by eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school and improving the affordability of higher education.
Click to expand...
Do we not have the choice on where to send our children to school now? Oh, right. You want me to pay to send your kid to Islamic school.
Prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Click to expand...
Paging Mr. Limbaugh, your flock is loose on the veranda and consuming all the tin foil.
Blocking state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
Click to expand...
Go talk to your state reps, children.
Making sure the federal government does not bail out private companies. The government should also immediately divest itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.
Click to expand...
We're in 100% agreement. Any day now the tea parties will start banging on the doors in Washington to force the Republicans to help the Democrats realize this idea.

Whaddya mean they aren't helping? It's in their platform.
Making all regulations “sunset” after 10 years unless renewed by congressional vote.
Click to expand...
That's an amazingly short sighted idea.

For a group that would identify as strongly strict constructionist, they sure seem to want to change the holy living shit out of the Constitution.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/17/eveningnews/main636644.shtml

"It costs $110 to house one KBR employee per day at the Kempinski, while it costs the Army $1.39 per day to bunk a soldier in a leased tent," DeYoung said.

Documents obtained by CBS News show an auditor repeatedly flagged improper fees for soldiers' laundry. At one site, taxpayers reportedly paid $100 for each 15-pound load of wash - $1 million a month in overcharges.

...

I know neither of these qualify as proof, right?[/QUOTE]

it really doesnt, you are talking about fraud and overcharges here. We were talking about if the government has the comparitive advantage to do most contracts without any private companies involved.

I do agree those type things are ridiculous and should be stopped, but the same could be said for medicare, should we shut down all private health care providers?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1823/
 
[quote name='Knoell']it really doesnt[/QUOTE]

Of course it doesn't.

The government couldn't just force a few E-1s to do laundry full time. It has to pay a private company $100 for a load of laundry.

As far as people in private industry defrauding Medicare, that doesn't prove private industry would be cheaper than public industry. I can walk into a doctor's office and tell them to run a bunch of blood work on me. If the goal is for the doctor and me to defraud my insurance company, I can just take a nap and he or she can have employees fill out paperwork. The insurance company will pay without batting an eye.

But we're talking about defense spending, right? So far, I've pointed out how private soldier and menial tasks performed by private companies cost more than public soldiers or menial tasks performed by a public company and you've pointed out...?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Of course it doesn't.

The government couldn't just force a few E-1s to do laundry full time. It has to pay a private company $100 for a load of laundry.

As far as people in private industry defrauding Medicare, that doesn't prove private industry would be cheaper than public industry. I can walk into a doctor's office and tell them to run a bunch of blood work on me. If the goal is for the doctor and me to defraud my insurance company, I can just take a nap and he or she can have employees fill out paperwork. The insurance company will pay without batting an eye.

But we're talking about defense spending, right? So far, I've pointed out how private soldier and menial tasks performed by private companies cost more than public soldiers or menial tasks performed by a public company and you've pointed out...?[/QUOTE]

its the same thing, both things are contracted out, the government for some dumb reason accepted the fee for $100 dollars for 15 pounds of laundry, and the government accepted that this medical machine or test costs 10 times as much to the government as the private sector pays.

You really are the strawman, setting up false arguements to make your arguement look valid. A case of fraud against haliburton is hardly an arguement of the standard of the industry.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The Bush government for some dumb reason accepted the fee for $100 dollars for 15 pounds of laundry, [/QUOTE]
ftfy.
 
[quote name='speedracer']ftfy.[/QUOTE]

you are naive to think this only happened under Bush, its happened under clinton, bush sr, and yes even the almighty obama right now. Not to mention Presidents are not involved in these type of decisions which leads me to wonder why you just had to say that.
 
I thought we were talking about this specific instance.

But yea, there's never been waste in any form in any government program before that. I could see how you would think that was the basis of my statement because that's what I actually think.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I thought we were talking about this specific instance.

But yea, there's never been waste in any form in any government program before that. I could see how you would think that was the basis of my statement because that's what I actually think.[/QUOTE]

I can't tell if you are serious or not....
 
[quote name='Knoell']I can't tell if you are serious or not....[/QUOTE]

We feel the same way about you.

Let's try this again, can you provide any example of the private industry supplying a weapon or service to the military cheaper than the public industry could?

I know your response will be that the proof is on me. I know any proof I provide you will be dismissed even if it is the norm. However, can you provide anything to back up your argument such as a link?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We feel the same way about you.

Let's try this again, can you provide any example of the private industry supplying a weapon or service to the military cheaper than the public industry could?

I know your response will be that the proof is on me. I know any proof I provide you will be dismissed even if it is the norm. However, can you provide anything to back up your argument such as a link?[/QUOTE]

heres a bunch of examples where the military is taking advantage of the efficiency of the private sector, not exactly what you wanted but efficient use of our tax payer dollars isnt exactly newsworthy like haliburton

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/iraq/2003-04-17-logistics2_x.htm
 
[quote name='Knoell']Quote:
Originally Posted by IRHari
Where the fuck is the burden of proof for blanket statements like those. Linksplz

you people lol[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the fact that you're holding ME to a higher standard than you're holding yourself. That's the fucking way it should be.
 
[quote name='Knoell']heres a bunch of examples where the military is taking advantage of the efficiency of the private sector, not exactly what you wanted but efficient use of our tax payer dollars isnt exactly newsworthy like haliburton

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/iraq/2003-04-17-logistics2_x.htm[/QUOTE]

I was looking for the US government using private companies to supply soldiers, services or weapons cheaper than a public company does, but not too shabby. If nothing else, you've shown they're imitating private companies to save money. Very good.

Next step, show me a private company performing a task at a cheaper rate than a public company. For example, does Bank of America perform its services cheaper than bank owned by the government could? Was there a bank owned by the government that performed the services BoA does now?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I was looking for the US government using private companies to supply soldiers, services or weapons cheaper than a public company does, but not too shabby. If nothing else, you've shown they're imitating private companies to save money. Very good.

Next step, show me a private company performing a task at a cheaper rate than a public company. For example, does Bank of America perform its services cheaper than bank owned by the government could? Was there a bank owned by the government that performed the services BoA does now?[/QUOTE]

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/dec/12/private-company-gives-military-pilots-the-chance/

and heres one involving the UN

Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution has written a long article about private military services entitled Peacekeepers, Inc.
The contrasting experiences in Sierra Leone between the military provider firm Executive Outcomes and the U.N.'s peacekeeping operation are the most often cited example of privatization's promise. In 1995, the Sierra Leone government was near defeat from the ruf, a nefarious rebel group whose habit of chopping off the arms of civilians as a terror tactic made it one of the most truly evil groups of the late twentieth century. Supported by multinational mining interests, the government hired the private military firm, made up of veterans from the South African apartheid regime's elite forces, to help rescue it. Deploying a battalion-sized unit of assault infantry (numbering in the low hundreds), who were supported by firm-manned combat helicopters, light artillery, and a few armored vehicles, Executive Outcomes was able to defeat the RUF in a span of weeks. Its victory brought enough stability to allow Sierra Leone to hold its first election in over a decade. After its contract termination, however, the war restarted. In 1999 the U.N. was sent in. Despite having a budget and personnel size nearly 20 times that of the private firm, the U.N. force took several years of operations, and a rescue by the British military, to come close to the same results.
​
Not that I see how me providing singular examples proves anything much like you providing singular cases of fraud does not prove anything.

Now unless you have proof that all or most military contracts with private companies cost more money than the military doing it themselves, I will hear no more of this BS.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I appreciate the fact that you're holding ME to a higher standard than you're holding yourself. That's the fucking way it should be.[/QUOTE]

How can I provide proof of my opinion? I said I (as in me) am starting to see we are raising a generation that does not understand the necessities and dangers in the world, and believe world war is impossible. I have noticed this as I was growing up, through grade school, high school, college, and now at work, people always say the same thing. "Why cant the US keep their nose out of everyones business"

So how else would you like me to prove my opinion? Proof, Proof, Proof, once in awhile take a step back and look at things with a clear head, and you will find all the proof you need on your own.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I haven't looked at the link yet, but your excerpt sounds like a good example of proving your point. Why wouldn't you accept it as proof?[/QUOTE]

because it is one example, you cannot take one example and spread it over an entire topic as the one and only way things are done.

There is waste in some areas of private contracts yes, but the government saves money in a ton of other areas as well. This started with someone suggesting to get rid of all private contracts, including any that make or save money (they obviously thought none did). This is the same as people who want to get rid of social programs because there is fraud, and overspending even though the government helps alot of people, and saves them money as well.

I say that both areas should be looked at and reformed to get rid of the bloated programs that cost so much god damn money, this shouldnt be a defense vs social program debate, It should be a debate in which we can lower spending, and the deficit on all fronts.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How can I provide proof of my opinion? I said I (as in me) am starting to see we are raising a generation that does not understand the necessities and dangers in the world, and believe world war is impossible. I have noticed this as I was growing up, through grade school, high school, college, and now at work, people always say the same thing. "Why cant the US keep their nose out of everyones business"

So how else would you like me to prove my opinion? Proof, Proof, Proof, once in awhile take a step back and look at things with a clear head, and you will find all the proof you need on your own.[/QUOTE]

Regarding world war, I would like to think we're easing off the cliff.

We're still top dog militarily. Nobody spends anywhere near as much money as us on weapons.

The #2 in the world is China. They're not interested in warring with us while we owe them so much money and there is a chance of it being paid back. There first shot against us will cost them up to $1 trillion.

The #3 in the world is Russia. They're making a big stink about missile defense, but their biggest concern is restoring their prestige when they controlled half of Europe. Their military and country overall took a massive hit in the 90s and they're still trying to come back. They're not going to pick a fight they can't possibly win. Considering how much money China would have riding on our victory, they're not going to help the Russians directly.

The #4 in the world is terrorists. Invariably, they're funded by oil rich states in the Middle East. Most of those countries are in decline and will be dead in a generation or two when oil is gone or simply taken. The biggest fear of terrorists is them getting a suitcase nuke from the hundreds that went missing from the USSR in the 90s. The fear is overblown.

http://www.techretriever.org/topics/Suitcase-bomb
Al Qaeda bluffing about having suitcase nukes, experts say / Russians claim terrorists couldn't have bought them
arrow_1.png

The idea of al Qaeda's acquiring suitcase nuclear bombs -- compact, easily portable bombs shaped like briefcases or backpacks that can be detonated by timers -- is the sum of all fears for Washington.
arrow_1.png

He said the suitcase nukes have a lifespan of only one to three years because some of the materials, such as the battery and the conventional explosives that produce the charge that sets off the nuclear reaction, deteriorate over time and must be replaced.
arrow_1.png

More deadly portable devices were kept in the Baltic republics and, possibly, Ukraine, he said -- close to the Soviet borders with its NATO neighbors.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/23/MNG8D5PM7L1.DTL (880 words)
Your typical Al Queda operative can't afford socks and is illiterate. He or she lacks the funds or the skills to maintain a suitcase nuke. Even if a suitcase nuke magically worked, the games the US plays to allow terrorist sponsoring states plausible deniability would be over. We've killed a few million Muslims after they probably killed 3000 or so of us. If they ever killed a few million, we would run out of Muslims to kill.

The #5 in the world is the European Union. While the last two world wars started there, I don't see them starting another one internally again. Besides, they're in a collective state of decline.

Where do you think the next threats are coming from and why?
 
Aren't libertarians/tea partiers always espousing the genius of the founding fathers? Lets not forget that after the French assisted us greatly during the revolutionary war we basically told them to fuck off when they asked for our help. We haven't always acted like the world police, but these days we seem to actively look for threats in the world to pounce on. Problem is that most of these "threats" are no more threatening to us than a kitten is to a pit bull. These little excursions have lasting consequences that we have to deal with for decades afterward, just like we'll be dealing with the consequences of the wars we're fighting today for years to come.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Regarding world war, I would like to think we're easing off the cliff.

We're still top dog militarily. Nobody spends anywhere near as much money as us on weapons.

The #2 in the world is China. They're not interested in warring with us while we owe them so much money and there is a chance of it being paid back. There first shot against us will cost them up to $1 trillion.

The #3 in the world is Russia. They're making a big stink about missile defense, but their biggest concern is restoring their prestige when they controlled half of Europe. Their military and country overall took a massive hit in the 90s and they're still trying to come back. They're not going to pick a fight they can't possibly win. Considering how much money China would have riding on our victory, they're not going to help the Russians directly.

The #4 in the world is terrorists. Invariably, they're funded by oil rich states in the Middle East. Most of those countries are in decline and will be dead in a generation or two when oil is gone or simply taken. The biggest fear of terrorists is them getting a suitcase nuke from the hundreds that went missing from the USSR in the 90s. The fear is overblown.

http://www.techretriever.org/topics/Suitcase-bomb
Al Qaeda bluffing about having suitcase nukes, experts say / Russians claim terrorists couldn't have bought them
arrow_1.png

The idea of al Qaeda's acquiring suitcase nuclear bombs -- compact, easily portable bombs shaped like briefcases or backpacks that can be detonated by timers -- is the sum of all fears for Washington.
arrow_1.png

He said the suitcase nukes have a lifespan of only one to three years because some of the materials, such as the battery and the conventional explosives that produce the charge that sets off the nuclear reaction, deteriorate over time and must be replaced.
arrow_1.png

More deadly portable devices were kept in the Baltic republics and, possibly, Ukraine, he said -- close to the Soviet borders with its NATO neighbors.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/23/MNG8D5PM7L1.DTL (880 words)
Your typical Al Queda operative can't afford socks and is illiterate. He or she lacks the funds or the skills to maintain a suitcase nuke. Even if a suitcase nuke magically worked, the games the US plays to allow terrorist sponsoring states plausible deniability would be over. We've killed a few million Muslims after they probably killed 3000 or so of us. If they ever killed a few million, we would run out of Muslims to kill.

The #5 in the world is the European Union. While the last two world wars started there, I don't see them starting another one internally again. Besides, they're in a collective state of decline.

Where do you think the next threats are coming from and why?[/QUOTE]

you have listed several examples of why we need to be on top of the game militarily. I also like how you condensed down how we dont need to worry about each nation into 5 short paragraphs. You should be Defense Secretary. But seriously I dont pretend to know everything about how we need to defend our country, I dont have access to the research, intelligence, or top secret clearence to get it. What I do know is that it is a very, very dangerous world out there, and people still want to kill people (not just us american evil doers want to). what I can promise you is that everything will not be puppy dogs, and rainbows if we cut all influence we have in the world.

China has the manpower, military, and manufacturing capability to be a militaristic powerhouse. We owe China lots of money, do you think that is a good thing? Do you think that if our government ever stumbled China wouldnt swoop in to take control for the sake of their economy? Think about it, did Great Britain, and France know that they were going to be pulled into a world war when hitler took over? Oh and when I was reading an interesting article on the growing Chinese threat, I stumbled upon a story in which it states that China is suspected of deflating its military spending.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12901/

You seem to pool our debt to China as an excuse for Russia not doing anything, yet dont you think they could ally as a blow to the US, Russia would be able to reunite their territories while China can secure their money in the US?

On to the Middle East, tensions there have unlimited possibilities in which major powers might not be too happy with what they do. World war one started with countries like this.

Of course all of these scenarios are simply my opinion(that means I cant prove it), but to do what you guys say, and withdraw all of our influence, and power for the sake of saving money? Its just not worth it to me. Country's are still vying for power, and we all arent one big happy family yet.

Edit: Oh and I wanted to ask you if you were really one of those people who thinks our soldiers are killing millions of innocent civilians in the middle east? If so Im going to have to block you because thats disgraceful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JolietJake']Aren't libertarians/tea partiers always espousing the genius of the founding fathers? Lets not forget that after the French assisted us greatly during the revolutionary war we basically told them to fuck off when they asked for our help. We haven't always acted like the world police, but these days we seem to actively look for threats in the world to pounce on. Problem is that most of these "threats" are no more threatening to us than a kitten is to a pit bull. These little excursions have lasting consequences that we have to deal with for decades afterward, just like we'll be dealing with the consequences of the wars we're fighting today for years to come.[/QUOTE]

here you go, you may want to study up on the fact that we havent just started waging war in the late 20th century....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

Oh and French aid was slow to us during the revolution. I think we can all appreciate what they did for us, but what manner did we ever leave the french hanging? Prior to our entry in both world wars, we supplied both great britain, and france with tons of supplies, and lost many lives to German attacks on our trade ships.
 
[quote name='Knoell']here you go, you may want to study up on the fact that we havent just started waging war in the late 20th century....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

Oh and French aid was slow to us during the revolution. I think we can all appreciate what they did for us, but what manner did we ever leave the french hanging? Prior to our entry in both world wars, we supplied both great britain, and france with tons of supplies, and lost many lives to German attacks on our trade ships.[/QUOTE]

Your link does not show how many wars the US has been in. Wars are different than military operations. Secondly your summation on how WWI was started is very misunderstood. There are some great books that will help explain why it started and how it was pretty much the only war in history that was unavoidable. It was not country dependent. A couple of the best ones (though probably hard to get a hold if you do not live near a university) are British Documents on the Origins of the War by GP Gooch, which is an 11 volume series on documents from the British politicians.

But the more pressing question I had was this, how does us keeping our nose out of foreign conflicts correlate to keeping our country safe? Thankfully we are no longer in the era of John Dulles' theories on defense, ie massive group suicide. However the US has shifted his position to a more rational way of keeping other countries from attacking us, reduced benefits of a first strike. Our govt has become technology decked that the initial benefit of attacking the united states is essentially zero. This is regardless of our presence in overseas conflicts perpetuated by the united states. What US policy has been since WWII has been empire building, which is why we go to Israel, Dominican republic, Germany, Okinawa, pretty much every international naval installation we have. Why would it be wrong to be against empire building, and how that show a generation of people who misunderstand the treat of war?

China is not an armed threat for the same reasons that Japan has not been a treat since WW2, namely they are deeply engrossed with American business, to the point that a few Chinese friends of mine think that advertising and brand presence in the United States is a sad joke compared to the presence felt in Urban China. There is more stopping China from attacking than simply US Debt to China (a good portion of which has already been sold to Japan).
 
[quote name='Knoell']How can I provide proof of my opinion? I said I (as in me) am starting to see we are raising a generation that does not understand the necessities and dangers in the world, and believe world war is impossible. I have noticed this as I was growing up, through grade school, high school, college, and now at work, people always say the same thing. "Why cant the US keep their nose out of everyones business"

So how else would you like me to prove my opinion? Proof, Proof, Proof, once in awhile take a step back and look at things with a clear head, and you will find all the proof you need on your own.[/QUOTE]

(most) opinions are based on facts. Facts are what opinions are based on. Cite the facts (with omglolzproof) that back up your opinion.

'get a clear head brah' or 'omg its common cents' isn't good enough, especially for shit like World War.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Your link does not show how many wars the US has been in. Wars are different than military operations. Secondly your summation on how WWI was started is very misunderstood. There are some great books that will help explain why it started and how it was pretty much the only war in history that was unavoidable. It was not country dependent. A couple of the best ones (though probably hard to get a hold if you do not live near a university) are British Documents on the Origins of the War by GP Gooch, which is an 11 volume series on documents from the British politicians.

But the more pressing question I had was this, how does us keeping our nose out of foreign conflicts correlate to keeping our country safe? Thankfully we are no longer in the era of John Dulles' theories on defense, ie massive group suicide. However the US has shifted his position to a more rational way of keeping other countries from attacking us, reduced benefits of a first strike. Our govt has become technology decked that the initial benefit of attacking the united states is essentially zero. This is regardless of our presence in overseas conflicts perpetuated by the united states. What US policy has been since WWII has been empire building, which is why we go to Israel, Dominican republic, Germany, Okinawa, pretty much every international naval installation we have. Why would it be wrong to be against empire building, and how that show a generation of people who misunderstand the treat of war?

China is not an armed threat for the same reasons that Japan has not been a treat since WW2, namely they are deeply engrossed with American business, to the point that a few Chinese friends of mine think that advertising and brand presence in the United States is a sad joke compared to the presence felt in Urban China. There is more stopping China from attacking than simply US Debt to China (a good portion of which has already been sold to Japan).[/QUOTE]

A major reason of ww1 was the network of alliances through europe and the world. I do not think I disputed that there were other reasons but OK.

My link shows that we have stuck our nose in the rest of the worlds business for the majority of our history.
I really dont understand what you are trying to say in your middle paragraph, you are kind of all over the place. Im still trying to figure out how we are still building an empire? Britain has bases in other countries, are they currently empire building as well? Why dont you weigh out the pros and cons of having those bases in other countries and then come back and tell me what you think.

Do you think the destabilization of the American government would warrant Chinese intervention to save their economy? You all act like it is a good thing that we owe other countries trillions of dollars.
 
[quote name='Knoell']A major reason of ww1 was the network of alliances through europe and the world. I do not think I disputed that there were other reasons but OK.

My link shows that we have stuck our nose in the rest of the worlds business for the majority of our history.
I really dont understand what you are trying to say in your middle paragraph, you are kind of all over the place. Im still trying to figure out how we are still building an empire? Britain has bases in other countries, are they currently empire building as well? Why dont you weigh out the pros and cons of having those bases in other countries and then come back and tell me what you think.

Do you think the destabilization of the American government would warrant Chinese intervention to save their economy? You all act like it is a good thing that we owe other countries trillions of dollars.[/QUOTE]

I am really not going argue now about the building of the US empire through various means. Simply if you want to understand more about this subject which I believe is derailing the original arguments, read Modern Times by Paul Johnson, I have the feeling you will probably like the contents of the book and he does a better job at explaining how the US since the spanish american war has created an empire. The cons outweigh the pros and for the entirety of history the same has always been so when casualties, money, and resources are taken into account.

Surely there are pros to having some international bases and a military presence. However I do not think this should be the default. Does are base in Okinawa really need to be there? Why are we maintaining and protecting the Japanese without a treaty? A lot of our 700 international bases have not appreciable benefit in terms of monetary gains nor in terms of military tactics. They are simply there to expand the influence of the American or are relics from past conflicts.

You act like the US is going to become destabilized and that China will persist to become a new super power. China is nearly two decades behind us militarily and their current growth levels are unsustainable. The internal situation in China is one that will most likely undermine the current trade gains that it is making today with the biggest issues in China pertaining to the relative poor ability to produce, import, and keep scientists and innovators in the county. Added to this China has the one of the biggest populations in the world and still has very real problems with energy and the ability to refine and gain raw materials. Beyond this the internal pressures in China from its own people are now mounting and creating a very real problem for China.

Beyond this do you really think that the US is really that close to becoming destabilized? Even with the current distrust in government and the rise of fringe groups like the tea party do you really think that is enough to destabilize and entire country? Nobody has said it was a good thing that we owe China a sizable amount of money, the problem is that you are using this as a legitimate reason for Chinese involvement and eventual lead into war. There is one, no indicators that this will happen and two, no indicators that the United States will become seriously destabilized to the point that other countries will intervene in the United States. So I will ask you to provide proof for the destabilization of the United States.
 
So in other words, "I dont feel like talking about it, just believe me, Im right."

If you believe the left you would think the US is on the verge of becoming a third world country. Gasp we all dont have health care! Gasp Theres a poor person over there. Gasp Theres pollution! We must be polluting like a third world country! Gasp white people are all racist when they refer to blacks. Gasp We spend to much on health care! Gasp our education system is behind EVERYONES. Gasp canada is so much better!

Im not saying the US is going to fall apart in the next year, decade or even century. I do believe however that if we decrease our influence in the world, our influence in the world will simply decrease. See what I did there? hehe
 
No Knell I am not asking for you to believe me on the building of the American Empire, I am however done playing your game of shifting the debate. This has been a big enough distractions from the original point of the thread.

If as you stated you believe your last sentence than your entire argument is moot and much ado about nothing. Your point has now become the US is safe in its power but we should still act as if we are about to be attacked. Yes I did see what you did there, you proved you would rather spin the wheels instead of fixing the engine. Salud.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']No Knell I am not asking for you to believe me on the building of the American Empire, I am however done playing your game of shifting the debate. This has been a big enough distractions from the original point of the thread.

If as you stated you believe your last sentence than your entire argument is moot and much ado about nothing. Your point has now become the US is safe in its power but we should still act as if we are about to be attacked. Yes I did see what you did there, you proved you would rather spin the wheels instead of fixing the engine. Salud.[/QUOTE]

The original thread is dead, and not relavent. The tea party is not a party founded on racial lines.

Who said we were safe in our power? I said the world is a dangerous place and if we decrease our influence, we will simply lose our influence in the world, and the world will become a more dangerous place than it already is.

What exactly needs to be fixed in the world? One second you guys want an isolationist policy, the next second you want world peace, the next you want us to save some country we didnt save fast enough, then you want us to give hundreds of millions in aid to foreign countries for natural disasters, I mean gosh withdrawing our influence in the world will not mean world peace, puppies, and kittens, you act as if the foreign policy issues the US are facing are the sole reason the world is horrible, and if we just withdrew everyone would be happy again.

Aside from the unpopular wars that make headlines every day, our military is a rock for other countries to found themselves on so that they have a chance at democracy and whether you like it or not it is the truth, alot of countries are a hundred times better off than they were because of the stability we bring to them. Go ahead highlight past failures, and our imperialistic tendancies, but I have a firm belief the rest of the world, including the homeland, is far better off with us in it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The original thread is dead, and not relavent. The tea party is not a party founded on racial lines.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. There, now we're back on topic.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']I disagree. There, now we're back on topic.[/QUOTE]

And I disagree with you.

Some tea partiers are racist (ie. the guy with a yellow shirt with the words "White Pride" in black across the chest Mr. Vermin linked to in post #210), but there isn't enough overt racism to have them displace the clan.

Even if every tea partier marched in full clan regalia, links to the facebook page of a group trying to make the movement look racist would be cited.

Since Knoell can't accept victory or defeat for the military outsourcing to private industry, let's see if anybody else besides me or speedracer wants to post the policies of the Tea Party and then defend or criticize them.
 
They're not all racists. Fine.

Now tell me. They weren't protesting Bush era big gov't, big debt, and big spending, because....?

Fill in the blank, anybody.
 
[quote name='IRHari']They're not all racists. Fine.

Now tell me. They weren't protesting Bush era big gov't, big debt, and big spending, because....?

Fill in the blank, anybody.[/QUOTE]

Everybody likes to think problems will fix themselves and everybody has different breaking points.
 
[quote name='IRHari']They're not all racists. Fine.

Now tell me. They weren't protesting Bush era big gov't, big debt, and big spending, because....?

Fill in the blank, anybody.[/QUOTE]

Well the key word is overt.

But the real point you nailed is that they certainly aren't so angry over anything legitimate.

FoC:

I don't think you understand the rules of Calvinball.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']And I disagree with you.


Since Knoell can't accept victory or defeat for the military outsourcing to private industry, let's see if anybody else besides me or speedracer wants to post the policies of the Tea Party and then defend or criticize them.[/QUOTE]

....you have not answered my last two posts on the subject, and I won't accept victory or defeat? what do you call what you are doing?

Secondly I am not going to list off 50 tea party points, and create one liners of why I agree or disagree with them. Pick a particular one and I would be happy to debate with you about it. Come to think of it, I did pick one, and you completely ignored that as well. Kind of hard to debate when the opponent convieniently ignores anything they cant criticize.
 
[quote name='IRHari']They're not all racists. Fine.

Now tell me. They weren't protesting Bush era big gov't, big debt, and big spending, because....?

Fill in the blank, anybody.[/QUOTE]

They were... Many of the same people who were opposed to Bush's big government and out of control spending are also against Barack Obama's big government and out of control spending. The first protest was in protest of the TARP Bailout by George W. Bush and the protests got more traction with the Health Care bill.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']And I disagree with you.

Some tea partiers are racist (ie. the guy with a yellow shirt with the words "White Pride" in black across the chest Mr. Vermin linked to in post #210), but there isn't enough overt racism to have them displace the clan.

Even if every tea partier marched in full clan regalia, links to the facebook page of a group trying to make the movement look racist would be cited.

Since Knoell can't accept victory or defeat for the military outsourcing to private industry, let's see if anybody else besides me or speedracer wants to post the policies of the Tea Party and then defend or criticize them.[/QUOTE]

If Knoell were Knowledgeable he might appreciate a historical parallel, look at all the fine examples of civilizations that have overly relied on mercenaries. The late Roman Empire, the late Byzantine Empire, the Condotierri of the Renaissance city-states...
 
[quote name='Knoell']....you have not answered my last two posts on the subject, and I won't accept victory or defeat? what do you call what you are doing?[/QUOTE]

I said they were good and I wanted to see if you would expand upon them. You didn't want to. I choose not to play the game if you don't want to keep score. Yeah, I don't understand Calvinball.

[quote name='Knoell']Secondly I am not going to list off 50 tea party points, and create one liners of why I agree or disagree with them. Pick a particular one and I would be happy to debate with you about it. Come to think of it, I did pick one, and you completely ignored that as well. Kind of hard to debate when the opponent convieniently ignores anything they cant criticize.[/QUOTE]

Do you want to argue about post #558 more in depth or did you want to take exception with something in post #557 or #559?
 
[quote name='KillerRamen']They were... Many of the same people who were opposed to Bush's big government and out of control spending are also against Barack Obama's big government and out of control spending. The first protest was in protest of the TARP Bailout by George W. Bush and the protests got more traction with the Health Care bill.[/QUOTE]

They certainly didn't have tea parties during any time during Bush's term in office. To claim the TARP bill was the only 'big gummint' thing that Bush did is just disingenuous.

Where were they during warrantless wire-tapping? No Child Left Behind? Medicare Part D? Increasing spending while decreasing taxes (lawl.)

All the while decreasing the impact of good things the government does like regulation (e.g. EPA.)

I'm really skeptical of the Tea Party movement because of their nonexistence during the Bush years. If I can get a plausible reason why they were MIA during Bush's term I might reconsider.
 
[quote name='IRHari']They certainly didn't have tea parties during any time during Bush's term in office. To claim the TARP bill was the only 'big gummint' thing that Bush did is just disingenuous.[/quote]

Or big spending, deficit increasing, budget busting... and so on and so forth.


So consider this a +1 I guess, we really need a wank emoticon.
 
[quote name='IRHari']They certainly didn't have tea parties during any time during Bush's term in office. To claim the TARP bill was the only 'big gummint' thing that Bush did is just disingenuous.

Where were they during warrantless wire-tapping? No Child Left Behind? Medicare Part D? Increasing spending while decreasing taxes (lawl.)

All the while decreasing the impact of good things the government does like regulation (e.g. EPA.)

I'm really skeptical of the Tea Party movement because of their nonexistence during the Bush years. If I can get a plausible reason why they were MIA during Bush's term I might reconsider.[/QUOTE]

Did I claim that TARP was the only big government action? No, the bailouts were the tipping point. Many of these individuals are not the type of people you would expect to go out and protest. Heck, the one in St Louis was started by a stay at home mom.

Historically, the Tea Parties were created in response to the actions of George W. Bush and they gained more support and got bigger under Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top