| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| But the coons that went into my coonskin coat and cap were killed primarily to protect corn crops and their meat was eaten. Still, people get all up in my biz when I wear it. It's so annoying. But my leather jackets are never a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When there's a riot in France and it's over a million people who are mostly white, it's excused as "leftists and hooligans," deflecting blame (rightfully so) from the majority of French who didn't riot. But when thousands of Muslims riot in Paris, it's no longer considered just fringe lunatic and hooligan Muslims -- all Muslims are blamed. It's blamed on Muslim culture, even though Bastille Day has been a long-celebrated holiday by the French, commemorating the violent and deadly riot that sparked years of violence which included public beheadings of many thousands of human beings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ropebreezy wrote,
I really spent a lot of time reviewing this and though from your link, it does appear that the federal govt spends equal amounts almost .... this is in fact very misleading.
Lots of defense spending is "hidden" and almost all who follow defense issues now speak of a "trillion dollar" defense budget (and how I hate that word / newspeak for that department!). That would put it up to 40% higher than that budget figure.
the problem is that in America, money can be spent on defense without the direct will/blessing of the people. It is hidden in discretionary spending and that accounts for a vast amount of the hidden budget. Also, the billions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan are not included either. Nor the billions for nuclear weapons testing and maintenance. Nor is "black budget" spending. Some commentators state that up to 50-60% of US debt is due to military spending / over spending. This "hide your credit card bill from the public " spending is a big double standard when these same politicians keep preaching about small "c" conservative values of a balanced budget, frugalness blablabla....
So I have to stick to my original assertion. Also, looking at % of GDP is misleading when looking at such a large entity like the U.S.A. So let's not go there....
My next double standards?
How about David Letterman?
Or Why can men walk around bare chested and not women?
DD
http://eflclassroom.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ropebreezy
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
ropebreezy wrote,
I really spent a lot of time reviewing this and though from your link, it does appear that the federal govt spends equal amounts almost .... this is in fact very misleading.
Lots of defense spending is "hidden" and almost all who follow defense issues now speak of a "trillion dollar" defense budget (and how I hate that word / newspeak for that department!). That would put it up to 40% higher than that budget figure.
the problem is that in America, money can be spent on defense without the direct will/blessing of the people. It is hidden in discretionary spending and that accounts for a vast amount of the hidden budget. Also, the billions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan are not included either. Nor the billions for nuclear weapons testing and maintenance. Nor is "black budget" spending. Some commentators state that up to 50-60% of US debt is due to military spending / over spending. This "hide your credit card bill from the public " spending is a big double standard when these same politicians keep preaching about small "c" conservative values of a balanced budget, frugalness blablabla.... |
Where in the budget are these hidden costs placed? I'm genuinely curious, I don't claim to know much about the federal budget outside the website I linked. What you say sounds plausible but I'd like to see some evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not placed in the budget. It is negotiated through backroom deals with Congress and is a continual process.
I'll get some links shortly. I didn't collect them in my reading but there is a lot of surprising info out there about discretionary spending. What the government publishes in pie charts etc... are either projects (knowingly exaggerated to hide spending) or fudging of the actual appropriations and spending. Really astounding and it seems the government too, doesn't play fair when reporting its income 
I also didn't list in my list above - the rapidly increasing cost of Veterans Affairs. A cost not listed in Defence calculations but which is just eating up huge chunks of dollars and will continue to do so alarmingly.
This document by a reputable organization shows how discretionary spending is out of control. These 2005 figures put it at almost $1 trillion and the largest proportion of that is military $). It has only gotten worse. That's why you can really think in a way that military associated industries probably do run Washington in some way.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/93690_1.pdf
The spending by the fed. gov. is just without checks and balances, especially any "capping". It is just print money and go.... and one wonders why there might be trouble looming - if not economic then military...
DD
http://eflclassroom.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benji
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How is David Letterman a double standard? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How is David Letterman a double standard? |
Well, I'm just saying.....
You can't be both banging the help and then bang on others for banging the help....
even comedy (as satire) presupposes some moral neutrality on the part of the accuser / comedian.
I'll still watch the guy and laugh but I won't laugh very hard now when he starts joking about this or that politician's tryst.
DD
http://eflclassroom.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A double standard I don't understand is how people who think it's so wrong to look at Penthouse (women who consent to being seen) are so often the same people supportive of the Patriot Act where Americans sneak and listen in on other Americans having phone sex without their knowledge or consent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| But the coons that went into my coonskin coat and cap were killed primarily to protect corn crops and their meat was eaten. Still, people get all up in my biz when I wear it. It's so annoying. But my leather jackets are never a problem. |
They are a problem, and it's too bad AR groups haven't been as effective in communicating that to the public as they should have been. I don't think it's a double standard (at least for most of the activists) so much as a strategy that turned out to be misguided. In the 1980s and 1990s AR groups had some success in making people aware of the violence of the fur industry ... I guess the thinking was that fur was an easier target because it was possible to bury the fur industry without asking people to make (what seemed like) radical changes in their lives. I think some AR activists felt it would be easier to educate the public about meat and leather once the furriers went out of business. Unfortunately that hasn't happened.
In any case, there are other ways to feed and clothe humans and protect crops. Killing animals isn't the answer, whether they're cows or raccoons. But I agree that AR groups should be more conscious of the need to send a consistent message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| In any case, there are other ways to feed and clothe humans and protect crops. Killing animals isn't the answer, whether they're cows or raccoons. But I agree that AR groups should be more conscious of the need to send a consistent message. |
Coons destroy entire rows of corn. If they were just having a snack here and there, it wouldn't be a problem. The worst part is that it's important to stagger the maturity dates so the crop matures gradually to give time to sell it while it's fresh. For the racoons, it pretty much serves them a fresh meal every night. Here's what just a small amount of damage looks like: http://www.erie-county-ohio.net/eswcd/wildlife/jpg/raccoon_damage.jpg In short, they can effectively destroy an entire crop if allowed.
I've heard of people using cages, but they must not have many coons to deal with. And these varmints are not afraid of the dog anymore: http://www.warbaby.com/IMAGES/CoonDog.jpg 
In addition to becoming vegetarians, animal rights activists need to boycott corn as well, given how many racoons, crows, and especially worms get killed while growing it. Actually, most vegetable crops get sprayed for bugs, where millions of insects die from poisoning. In truth, more animals die from vegetable farming than animal farming, given the vast quantity of insects and worms that have to be killed to have a decent vegetable crop. Although many farmers spray fruit trees and bushes, I never do and don't think it's really necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's not practical and possible to boycott all fruits and vegetables, but there are other ways to protect crops and we should support vegan farmers when we can. There's no excuse for using animal products (fur, meat, dairy, etc.) when it's very easy to avoid them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| It's not practical and possible to boycott all fruits and vegetables, but there are other ways to protect crops and we should support vegan farmers when we can. There's no excuse for using animal products (fur, meat, dairy, etc.) when it's very easy to avoid them. |
Do you object to killing possums and rabbits in NZ or rabbits, foxes and wild cats in Australia? All of which cause a massive damage to an environment which has not evolved to cope with them. I own a couple of very warm possum and wool blend socks and have personally killed a number of possums and rabbits (even hedgehogs, you would be surprised at the damage they can do).
Many animals through no fault of their own have either been introduced to environments, or environments have been changed that allow said animals to grow in population size to damaging levels. We have the option of killing them or letting their population grow to a level where they will hurt other species. If we have to kill them shouldn't we make use of them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Triban
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
All the other double standards I can think of seem to be about gender!
1. A man who sleeps around is a stud. A woman who sleeps around is a *beep*.
|
My friend gave a great explanation of this:
"A man has to work for it to happen, a woman just lets it happen."
That's why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Location: Jeonju
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like Dick Gregory's (black 1960s comedian) approach. He named his autobiography NIGGER, and told his mother not to be upset when she heard that word, that from now on that meant they were just promoting his book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| It's not practical and possible to boycott all fruits and vegetables, but there are other ways to protect crops and we should support vegan farmers when we can. There's no excuse for using animal products (fur, meat, dairy, etc.) when it's very easy to avoid them. |
Do you object to killing possums and rabbits in NZ or rabbits, foxes and wild cats in Australia? All of which cause a massive damage to an environment which has not evolved to cope with them. I own a couple of very warm possum and wool blend socks and have personally killed a number of possums and rabbits (even hedgehogs, you would be surprised at the damage they can do).
Many animals through no fault of their own have either been introduced to environments, or environments have been changed that allow said animals to grow in population size to damaging levels. We have the option of killing them or letting their population grow to a level where they will hurt other species. If we have to kill them shouldn't we make use of them? |
Sorry, I meant to get back to this discussion sooner. This writer says it better than I could: Biological Xenophobia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
