Violence, Resources and the Government

willardhaven

willardhaven

CAGiversary!
Feedback
12 (100%)
I'm usually not involved in these forums but I want to hear some thoughts on violence, war and the real problems in the world.

Hillary Clinton's ranting about Iran really fascinated me; more that someone could sound so insincere about destroying millions of people (same goes for McCain). I don't care about the candidates themselves (as Obama would probably act similarly to the others).

Everyone is freaking out over gas prices and food, but realistically there is enough food for everyone and with the proper regulations, the fuel could be efficiently used.

I am not really sure what the solutions are but I'd like to hear what you guys think.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I'm usually not involved in these forums but I want to hear some thoughts on violence, war and the real problems in the world.

Hillary Clinton's ranting about Iran really fascinated me; more that someone could sound so insincere about destroying millions of people (same goes for McCain). I don't care about the candidates themselves (as Obama would probably act similarly to the others).

Everyone is freaking out over gas prices and food, but realistically there is enough food for everyone and with the proper regulations, the fuel could be efficiently used.

I am not really sure what the solutions are but I'd like to hear what you guys think.[/QUOTE]

McCain is playing to the Republican base, many of them really are as bloodthirsty as the bad guys in a Death Wish movie. McCain is pretty Gung Ho about bombing Iran and even sings about it.

Hillary is IMHO trying to show she has the brass for the job and not letting herself be seen as feminine. Hillary has said she would "obliterate" Iran and nuke just about everyone else (in defense of Israel or something).

Obama aside from saying he would take care of things on the Pakistan border if Musharef would not has not come close to that level of saber rattling.

The current food crisis has many factors involved but a large part of the problem is speculators driving up prices. It will not really effect us that badly, but will starve millions in poorer countries.

There is nothing that can be done about the price of gas, I have yet to hear a single decent idea for a short term fix.
 
I detest your usage of Death Wish... you do realize that the bad guys are street thugs and muggers...

The story is about Paul Kersey (Bronson) who is initially a "bleeding-heart liberal" but then becomes a vigilante after an attack on his family.

As a conservative, I identify with Kersey much more than the street thugs...

As far as gas prices are concerned, a lot of that is also based on speculation and the bubble will eventually burst. However, stabilizing the value of the dollar and creating more competition in the market would help speed the relief.
 
[quote name='BigT']I detest your usage of Death Wish... you do realize that the bad guys are street thugs and muggers...[/quote]

You left out the rapists and torturers but like I said...

As far as gas prices are concerned, a lot of that is also based on speculation and the bubble will eventually burst. However, stabilizing the value of the dollar and creating more competition in the market would help speed the relief.
Click to expand...

I do not see the bubble bursting anytime soon, the oil companies are pretty sophisticated at tweaking supply to stop from there being a glut and China and India seem willing to buy up oil even if demand slacks here.
 
What is strange to me is the country's fixation on gas being $5 per gallon and a loaf of bread inflating to the same price, while there are people who can't buy any food at all elsewhere. Someone could give up on buying ridiculous things for a while and have no monetary issues. I realize there are many people who cannot afford basic needs, however it is much easier to come by them here than in other countries.

Do you guys think that by helping foreign nations (not through violence but through assistance) the U.S. would help itself?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']

Do you guys think that by helping foreign nations (not through violence but through assistance) the U.S. would help itself?[/QUOTE]

Not really.

Whenever our government has tried to help any country through $ handouts, most of it never actually gets to the people that need it, it all gets skimmed. Even worse if done through the U.N.

And as unpopular as it is, and as much as you might hate to hear it, much of the help other people need can only come in the way of violence (see Darfur).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Whenever our government has tried to help any country through $ handouts, most of it never actually gets to the people that need it, it all gets skimmed. Even worse if done through the U.N.

[/quote]


Proof?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Proof?[/QUOTE]

Link
Link
Link
Link


It's a well known fact there is no to little oversight in foreign aid $. Just google "foreign aid stolen" or something like that.

You don't honestly subscribe to the philosophy of throwing more money at problems, solves them, do you?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
You don't honestly subscribe to the philosophy of throwing more money at problems, solves them, do you?[/quote]


Good point... each individual problem is much more complex than one that can be solved by "throwing money" or troops for that matter.
 
[quote name='Msut77']McCain is playing to the Republican base, many of them really are as bloodthirsty as the bad guys in a Death Wish movie. McCain is pretty Gung Ho about bombing Iran and even sings about it.[/QUOTE]

Rule #1 of these forums as well as anywhere else political conversation is concerned: take with a large helping of salt the opinions of those who claim those opposed to what they want are "bloodthirsty bad guys," "evil" or "traitors."

As for the candidates and issues, both parties have horrible records and all three remaining main-party candidates don't let us down in this regard, unfortunately. I would suggest that most of our problems in this country from a political standpoint are directly attributable to our dissatisfying two-party system, in which we feel somehow compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils. Make your vote count by voting for something good, even with the understanding that it may not come for a while, is my advice.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Proof?[/QUOTE]

Are you serious? You've never heard of the "oil for food" program, to cite one of the more egregious, heinous and infamous examples?
 
I actually plan on voting for Ralph Nader, due to the fact that he is strictly concerned with shaking up the status quo and getting some new ideas in.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Rule #1 of these forums as well as anywhere else political conversation is concerned: take with a large helping of salt the opinions of those who claim those opposed to what they want are "bloodthirsty bad guys," "evil" or "traitors."[/QUOTE]

Say whatever nonsense you wish, McCain fucking sang a song about starting a war with country that is not a threat to us while we are currently fighting on two fronts one of which McCain wishes to stay fighting in until the next Millennium.

Assuming Hillary does not make it (and this is a very safe assumption) there is only one rational choice.
 
Gary Hart's "Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran"

Sept 26, 2007

Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.

Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.

(and it continues....)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/unsolicited-advice-to-the_b_65984.html
 
Thrust your links didn't prove your point. You used words like "NEVER" get to the people that need it, and "ALL" gets skimmed. Absolutes are tough to prove; but it's a nitpicky semantic argument and I won't push it.

Those who feel that foreign aid could improve are absolutely right. I buy into the "teach a man to fish..." logic and feel that it's ridiculous to send so much aid to the poor abroad when we have poor rotting in our streets at home.

Still, you may think it's naive or idealistic, but IMO we ought to at least try to help some of those that need it. Just because a policy has problems doesn't mean you should kill it completely: my view is that one ought to try to take a failing program with a good idea, and fix it.

Moreover, I think it is an easy out for people feeling pangs of guilt for not being more charitable to rationalize thus: "Well you can't really trust the (insert charity foundation/aid program here) b/c you don't know where the money is actually going." I'm not saying it's not true, just that it may be an over-used crutch.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Say whatever nonsense you wish, McCain fucking sang a song about starting a war with country that is not a threat to us while we are currently fighting on two fronts one of which McCain wishes to stay fighting in until the next Millennium.

Assuming Hillary does not make it (and this is a very safe assumption) there is only one rational choice.[/quote]

If we go to war with Iran, it will coalesce the two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan into one big front.

Smart, right?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If we go to war with Iran, it will coalesce the two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan into one big front.

Smart, right?[/quote]

It's laughable that you really think there are "fronts" to this war on terroism; and that people think this fight can be fought with traditional methods and the use of large numbers of ground forces.

If you're being facetious then just ignore this post.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']It's laughable that you really think there are "fronts" to this war on terroism; and that people think this fight can be fought with traditional methods and the use of large numbers of ground forces.

If you're being facetious then just ignore this post.[/quote]

Would we justify war with Iran due to their coziness with terrorists?

I don't think the American people can be fooled into believing Al Queda and Iran are on the same side. That sounds too much like Iraq.

I think the justification for war with Iran would require ... hmm ... blaming high gas prices on them and them alone?

It'll be a shame if Hillary wins the nomination. Then, there won't be any antiwar candidate.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Would we justify war with Iran due to their coziness with terrorists?

I don't think the American people can be fooled into believing Al Queda and Iran are on the same side. That sounds too much like Iraq.

I think the justification for war with Iran would require ... hmm ... blaming high gas prices on them and them alone?

It'll be a shame if Hillary wins the nomination. Then, there won't be any antiwar candidate.[/quote]

What do you mean "we?" If you're talking about our current administration the answer is "No, they don't feel the need to justify war."

If your asking about me personally: I'd like something more than "coziness." Hell, some Americans would argue that the USA is cozy with terrorists, since we offered them flight classes and don't have (in thier view) tough enough anti-terror laws.

If your asking about future politicians: I dunno, McCain probably, Hillary to a lesser degree and Obama to an even lesser degree.

FYI, Hill's "obliterate" comment was probably a political ploy to show she has moxie and can handle the job. I wouldn't read too much substance into that.

Lets lighten it up a bit: Who do you guys think would win in a physical fight between all three candidates? McCain is kind of decrepid, but has military training. Obama probably has a height and weight advantage, but I bet Hillary has tenacity, and would go for nut shots. McCain seems like he would titty twist the shit out of her.
 
[quote name='BigT']I detest your usage of Death Wish... you do realize that the bad guys are street thugs and muggers...

The story is about Paul Kersey (Bronson) who is initially a "bleeding-heart liberal" but then becomes a vigilante after an attack on his family.

As a conservative, I identify with Kersey much more than the street thugs...[/QUOTE]

And of course, you realize, that the point is that Bronson is ultimately no better than the thugs he kills, premeditatedly shooting them in the back. Identifying with Kersey *is* identifying with street thugs.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

Still, you may think it's naive or idealistic, but IMO we ought to at least try to help some of those that need it. Just because a policy has problems doesn't mean you should kill it completely: my view is that one ought to try to take a failing program with a good idea, and fix it.[/quote]
Oh I absolutely do. There are many organizations, especially run by churches, that do a far better job than our government throwing our tax money at other governments.

Moreover, I think it is an easy out for people feeling pangs of guilt for not being more charitable to rationalize thus: "Well you can't really trust the (insert charity foundation/aid program here) b/c you don't know where the money is actually going." I'm not saying it's not true, just that it may be an over-used crutch.
Click to expand...

I would much much much much prefer donating my money to private or religious charity organizations (and I do) because they are inherently more responsible with it. They depend on proof of their strict and frugal oversight to keep getting donations. Where as the government simply takes money from your paycheck to redistribute, and if you don't, you go to jail.... That's not oversight.

Not to mention that privae and religious organizations don't need a lot of oversight when they have boots on the ground from their organizations handing out food, teaching, and giving medical care in person. The government does almost none of that. It's literally packing money into "foreign aid" cannons to fire and forget.

Ideally we would have government cooperating more with the highly efficient private aid.....But, as you know, where religion in America is concerned, most people seem are far more concerned with how offensive a religious monument in a courthouse is than highly efficient charity they provide.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I prefer donating my money to private or religious charity organizations (and I do) because they are inherently more responsible with it. They depend on proof of their strict and frugal oversight to keep getting donations.[/QUOTE]

Last I checked government programs have far, far less overhead than charity groups.
 
Moreover, every dime the government spends is accounted for an available to the public for review. You may not get as much detail as youd like, but it's all there.

And what when charities and churches aren't getting the job done? We've been over this recently, but you get my point: they're falling short and people are still suffering. Just be selfish and let em suffer eh? Aight Ayn Rand.
 
[quote name='trq']And of course, you realize, that the point is that Bronson is ultimately no better than the thugs he kills, premeditatedly shooting them in the back. Identifying with Kersey *is* identifying with street thugs.[/QUOTE]

I did not think that so many others watched the series or took it so seriously, this is pretty awesome.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

And what when charities and churches aren't getting the job done? We've been over this recently, but you get my point: they're falling short and people are still suffering. Just be selfish and let em suffer eh? Aight Ayn Rand.[/QUOTE]

I'm not selfish, I've stated before I give at least 10% of my income to charities, but I'm not going to put up my financial records to prove it.

Ok so you are arguing charities fail. I am arguing that government hand-out foreign aid fails. Do you really want to crunch the numbers to see which fails more?

Moreover, what do you suggest to improve the worlds problems? Especially when most are suffering because of the oppressive regimes over them.
 
I wasn't calling you personally selfish thrustbucket, just the policy.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
Moreover, what do you suggest to improve the worlds problems?[/quote]

I already told you:

[quote name='pittpizza'] IMO we ought to at least try to help some of those that need it. Just because a policy has problems doesn't mean you should kill it completely: my view is that one ought to try to take a failing program with a good idea, and fix it.
[/quote]

The How-To's of which I'll leave to the experts. This is obviously not a ground-breaking idea, but it's better than "Ahhhh fuck it!"
 
[quote name='Msut77']I did not think that so many others watched the series or took it so seriously, this is pretty awesome.[/QUOTE]

I also enjoy thinking about Reagan holding up "Rambo" and "Born in the U.S.A." as proud representatives of his ideals, completely unaware of what they're really about.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']The How-To's of which I'll leave to the experts. This is obviously not a ground-breaking idea, but it's better than "Ahhhh fuck it!"[/quote]

That's just it though - it's the "how to's" that are the crux of the problem. To humanity's credit (or detriment), we are highly innovative in acquiring resources. Thus, there really isn't any problem w/ the logistics problems of distributing money. The real problem is human psychology.

To paraphrase a cliched saying about men, "Humans are only as faithful as their options." If the US gov. is sending money/aid to a 3rd world country, it's reasonable to assume that (some or all) the money/aid will pass through the scrutiny of an unsavory character w/ a big ego and use that money/aid as a bargaining chip to the people who actually need that stuff in the first place. As a result, that money/food/aid only makes the situation worse for the people it's intended for since the people who control the flow of materials will keep on skimming even larger and larger cuts on ever shipment.

"You want this food? Give me your daughter so I can rape her."

"You want this medicine? Give me your land so I can build hotels that only foreigners can afford and all the money can go to me."

"You want this money? Give me your wife & all of your children so I can sell them into slavery or prostitution."

The thing about 3rd world countries is that the level of corruption is so high that it takes place in open view because the perpetrators have (what passes for) the governmental body in their pockets. You literally have to bribe someone to stay honest and it's difficult to do that for a long term because it's much easier to take the bribe and keep the money/aid anyway to do whatever they please. I've seen it firsthand in Thailand, Burma, Laos, Liberia, Russia, Cuba, Mexico, etc. and even in my own birthplace - the Philippines.

Accountability can only take you so far. You can have the greatest distribution system in the galaxy but as long as humans are somewhere along the channels, that stuff will be always be skimmed. To really change a system, you need to change the people who run the system and that takes education & a LOT of time. Incentive-laden altruism is a difficult thing to teach.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']

Accountability can only take you so far. You can have the greatest distribution system in the galaxy but as long as humans are somewhere along the channels, that stuff will be always be skimmed. To really change a system, you need to change the people who run the system and that takes education & a LOT of time. Incentive-laden altruism is a difficult thing to teach.[/QUOTE]

Which is why the only real good charity, imo, is the type that involves service, not money.

If you really want to help the downtrodden in the third world then make a trip to go there, get hooked up with some volunteer program, and take stuff they need and hand it yourself to the people that need it. Which is what the church does that I donate to.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Say whatever nonsense you wish, McCain fucking sang a song about starting a war with country that is not a threat to us while we are currently fighting on two fronts one of which McCain wishes to stay fighting in until the next Millennium.

Assuming Hillary does not make it (and this is a very safe assumption) there is only one rational choice.[/QUOTE]

I wish I could live in a world where I willfully take quotes out of context, blindly viewing them through my tinted glasses to make them mean whatever I desire them to mean to discredit someone on that basis. Oh, wait, I don't wish that at all, but it's exactly what you're doing here.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I wish I could live in a world where I willfully take quotes out of context, blindly viewing them through my tinted glasses to make them mean whatever I desire them to mean to discredit someone on that basis. Oh, wait, I don't wish that at all, but it's exactly what you're doing here.[/QUOTE]

Not at all, we can go to the youtubes if you like.

Not that an actual response is expected from you anyway as I said before you are posting nothing but nonsense.
 
[quote name='trq']And of course, you realize, that the point is that Bronson is ultimately no better than the thugs he kills, premeditatedly shooting them in the back. Identifying with Kersey *is* identifying with street thugs.[/quote]

The beauty of mediums such as books or movies is that multiple interpretations are possible.

Although over time killing does come easier for Kersey, I really never noticed that the movie overtly portrays him as a monster. For one, he is initially deeply disturbed by his actions and even later, I never sensed an epiphany on his part or any hints in the movie to suggest that the director wished to portray him as becoming a thug. On the contrary, the police is depicted as being impotent and Kersey, the vigilante, is portrayed as a hero among people who brings safety back to the streets. Even the police is reluctant to arrest him because I believe that they sympathize with his crusade on some level.

Now, it's been several years since I've watched this movie (I'm due for a Bronson movie night... I'm a big fan and us Eastern Europeans need to stay together in spirit...), but based on the observations I pointed out above, I viewed it more as an us vs. them story of revenge (I'm sure that mykevermin will love that concept ;)). Cetainly, one can understand where Kersey is coming from if one puts himself in his shoes... Is it so easy to judge the actions of a person whose wife was murdered and daughter raped? In light of the impotent police, he is forced into action perhaps out of revenge and guilt for failing to protect his family (lots of parallels b/w Kersey and Frank Castle...) Kersey's actions may be justified under a Lockean constuct: the state is shirking its responsibility to diffuse conflict and protect its citizens, thus citizens must take it upon themselves to carry out the state's work.
 
[quote name='BigT']The beauty of mediums such as books or movies is that multiple interpretations are possible.

Although over time killing does come easier for Kersey, I really never noticed that the movie overtly portrays him as a monster. For one, he is initially deeply disturbed by his actions and even later, I never sensed an epiphany on his part or any hints in the movie to suggest that the director wished to portray him as becoming a thug. On the contrary, the police is depicted as being impotent and Kersey, the vigilante, is portrayed as a hero among people who brings safety back to the streets. Even the police is reluctant to arrest him because I believe that they sympathize with his crusade on some level.

Now, it's been several years since I've watched this movie (I'm due for a Bronson movie night... I'm a big fan and us Eastern Europeans need to stay together in spirit...), but based on the observations I pointed out above, I viewed it more as an us vs. them story of revenge (I'm sure that mykevermin will love that concept ;)). Cetainly, one can understand where Kersey is coming from if one puts himself in his shoes... Is it so easy to judge the actions of a person whose wife was murdered and daughter raped? In light of the impotent police, he is forced into action perhaps out of revenge and guilt for failing to protect his family (lots of parallels b/w Kersey and Frank Castle...) Kersey's actions may be justified under a Lockean constuct: the state is shirking its responsibility to diffuse conflict and protect its citizens, thus citizens must take it upon themselves to carry out the state's work.[/QUOTE]

You have never seen Death Wish III have you?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Did anybody willingly watch it?[/QUOTE]

It is the only reason I kept my VCR, well that and the GI JOE movie.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is the only reason I kept my VCR, well that and the GI JOE movie.[/quote]

:lol: I'll bite. What happens in Death Wish III?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']:lol: I'll bite. What happens in Death Wish III?[/QUOTE]

Bronson gets some from a girl young enough to be his granddaughter, the flirtation/foreplay scene consists of her offering Charles Bronson some chicken. Bronson fights a gang of plunger wielding rapists with a machine gun (not an uzi or sub machinegun) a rocket launcher and the largest handgun known to man. One of the main bad guys is Alex Winter from Bill and Ted's excellent adventure and he sexually assaults Deanna Troi.

It also has some of the worst use of ethnic stereotypes and fake bodies known to man.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You have never seen Death Wish III have you?[/quote]

My comments were only about the first Death Wish. Most of the sequels were cash-in attempts that focused a lot on extreme action and not so much on social commentary.

But, yeah, like I said before, I'm a huge Bronson fan, so I have watched the entire Death Wish Series and have it on DVD (all 5 parts). All I remember is that part III is an all out urban war with punk gang members... very heavy weopanry is used and Bronson makes the Wildey Magnum popular.
 
[quote name='BigT']The beauty of mediums such as books or movies is that multiple interpretations are possible.[/QUOTE]

Well, I could debate the validity of the "it can be anything you want" approach to art (in this case, the book's author is pretty explicit about its meaning and Bronson himself was adamant that people shouldn't imitate his character), but I ain't gonna argue with a fellow Charlie B fan.

True story: I was once at a charity event in LA, and on the way out, the woman walking ahead of me dropped her purse. She couldn't stoop to pick it up easily, so I knelt down and handed it back to her. She smiled, thanked me nicely, and continued on her way. I looked past her to see who she was meeting, and there, waiting by a limo, was Charles Bronson himself. We made eye-contact for a moment, and apparently he'd seen the bit with the purse, because, silently and stone-faced, he nodded -- once -- in approval.

Forget legal voting ages and losing your virginity: that day, I became a Man.

CharlesBronsonMachineGunKelly.jpg


Remember: before Chuck Norris goes to sleep, he checks under his bed for Charlie Bronson.
 
I don't have any proof, but i do remember hearing that a lot of the aid that goes to war torn countries ends up in the hands of warlords, essentially funding their war. Once you deliver the aid to these places, you have no control over what it's used for anymore. Most of the time it never reaches the people who truly need it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Not that an actual response is expected from you anyway as I said before you are posting nothing but nonsense.[/QUOTE]

But clearly ascribing traits you know to be false characterizations and taking quotes out of context is not nonsense. Yes, I see now.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']But clearly ascribing traits you know to be false characterizations and taking quotes out of context is not nonsense. Yes, I see now.[/QUOTE]

What you said is nonsense because I did not do any of those things. I offered to go to the video but you do not seem inclined to go that route and instead insist on telling fibs.

I totally called it when I said you were not going to make an actual response.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What you said is nonsense because I did not do any of those things. I offered to go to the video but you do not seem inclined to go that route and instead insist on telling fibs.

I totally called it when I said you were not going to make an actual response.[/QUOTE]

Well, what can I say? You just don't want to understand what was meant. You want what was said to mean what you want it to mean. Since you won't accept that what you posted was complete and unadulterated bullshit, there isn't really any room for discussion.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You just don't want to understand what was meant. You want what was said to mean what you want it to mean.[/QUOTE]

Not at all and you really should stop lying.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Not at all and you really should stop lying.[/QUOTE]

Hyper-partisan attacks are really unbecoming, but somehow you still manage to continue with them constantly and endlessly. Go ahead and have the last word.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Hyper-partisan attacks are really unbecoming, but somehow you still manage to continue with them constantly and endlessly. Go ahead and have the last word.[/QUOTE]

Calling you a liar for lying is not being partisan, if you wanted to actually have a discussion about this we could have as I pointed out gone to the source but you would rather be a whining putz.
 
So I guess the solution lies in one of two avenues:

1) Stop trying, become isolationist and let em solve their own problems.

2) Make SURE that our aid is getting to those who need it.

2 is much harder than one, and would likely involve "helping" those African nations like we "helped" Iraq.

Africa is so fucked. It sounds racist, but it's like those people are just completley incompetent in effectuating a just government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top