|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| gay in korea wrote: |
| I love how people have gotten defensive. |
This is really a counter-productive thing to say. Tell people they're getting defensive, and lo! they get defensive. Tell people they are too sensitive, and guess what, they'll get sensitive! How people get out of their 20s still saying things like this amazes me.
Sorry, gay, not really even aimed at you anymore. Just getting something out of my system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| If Obama doesn't have the balls to make tough decisions that have near term political consequences for him but long term benefits to the country, he's in the wrong line of work. |
I actually find it scary that America is spending billions in Iraq and Afghanistan and getting nothing economically in return. All that treasure has been sunk. Who benefited in Iraq? The Kurds and Shiites. Who lost? The Ba'athists and the American people. I am sort of glad Saddam Hussein is gone for the Iraqi people, but I don't want a bankrupt America. America needs that money spent in America. A 3.8 trillion dollar budget is too insane for words.
I voted for Obama, because I thought he would reverse some of the policies of George Bush and invest in America, maybe invest in alternative fuels, industry, and maybe health care, though it's not my number one priority. Too much is going into these wars. I really hope less and less goes into Iraq. They have oil. I know America invaded Iraq and all, but enough has been spent there. When are their oil revenues going to come into play?
Voting for McCain wouldn't have really made much of a difference.
I can't imagine McCain would have done a better job. How would he have done so as a president who was trying to cater to the extreme right?
Last edited by Adventurer on Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| gay in korea wrote: |
| I love how people have gotten defensive. |
This is really a counter-productive thing to say. Tell people they're getting defensive, and lo! they get defensive. Tell people they are too sensitive, and guess what, they'll get sensitive! How people get out of their 20s still saying things like this amazes me.
Sorry, gay, not really even aimed at you anymore. Just getting something out of my system. |
Yes, it is an interesting debating tactic. Although if by "defensive" gay meant "angry" I cannot say. For the record, I am not angry, Gay actually seems to be level headed in his style and outlook. Still, I must agree with Kuros, saying things like "don't be be so defensive" isn't that productive nor fruitful.
That said, people don't always fit with their stated philosophy. Many conservatives were open to more central planning in health care and conservative philosophy rejects that. Many liberals accept Obama's continuation of the Bush doctrine (ie. perpetual war for perpetual peace) but I gather that this is anathema to liberal philosophy. By that same token, (and remember Glen Beck calls himself a libertarian?) some libertarians say they oppose gay marriage. The philosophy of liberty accepts gay marriage, so anyone who thinks gay marriage should be illegal isn't, by definition, a libertarian.
Seriously, if you want to know the current state of libertarian thinking go to either Cato or Reason. Those are the two leading institutions on libertarian thought today.
The Cato Institute or its blog Cato@Liberty
Reason or its blog Reason Hit & Run |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Back to the topic of the thread, I'm not sure how leaving would make us look any weaker than staying. If we would've left after one year, we wouldn't have looked at weak as we do now after nine years of staying. And now we're broke. How embarrassing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| Back to the topic of the thread, I'm not sure how leaving would make us look any weaker than staying. If we would've left after one year, we wouldn't have looked at weak as we do now after nine years of staying. And now we're broke. How embarrassing. |
And there is no end in sight. I know. Obama claims to be holding deadlines etc regarding Iraq, but with his other hand is sending in more contractors.
About the gays. I attend all kinds of functions organized by local libertarians. I don't think I've ever heard the topic of gays bought up. Their right to do whatever they want is clearly covered by individual rights/liberty. Though, we certainly don't "celebrate" them. Maybe that's the problem here. The Dems will talk lovely about celebrating their diversity etc. We don't make them feel special. Because they aren't. That said, the Dems run candidates who don't support individual rights. So, if you want platitudes, go Dem. If you want actual individual equality, maybe not so much. Same goes for African Americans and other Celebrated Vibrant Diversity. The Dems will run candidates who look like them, but turn around and escalate the war on drugs (a war on poor brown people, in effect). Libertarians can't bring themselves to use the world "celebrate" outside of a birthday. But they would liberate the drug prisoners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-03-01-pentagon_N.htm
| Quote: |
Pentagon panel has contractor contacts
WASHINGTON � More than half of the panel members appointed to review the Pentagon's latest four-year strategy blueprint have financial ties to defense contractors with a stake in the planning process, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
Congress created the 20-member panel in 2006 to analyze the Defense Department's four-year plan, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. Lawmakers called for the committee to provide an independent "alternate view" of the Pentagon's plan, which shapes future military policy and spending on weapons and other needs.
A dozen of the unpaid panelists were appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and eight by the top Republican and Democrat members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees. Eleven work for defense contractors as employees, consultants or board directors, records show.
"The Pentagon often talks about its cooperation with industry, but this makes you wonder who's wearing the pants in this relationship," said Mandy Smithberger, national security investigator for the Project on Government Oversight. |
USA Today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I voted for Obama, because I thought he would reverse some of the policies of George Bush and invest in America, |
I am very curious about this. Exactly what was that thought based upon?
Yes, USA Today, not exactly a bastion of investigative journalism.
This is not some big, dark, secret conspiracy. The information is right out there in plain view if one would only care to look. Or do you really think these guys are making decisions while totally disregarding their own interests? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why Defense Cuts Are Nothing to Fear
(I know the images don't display, but I present the codes for convenience, just copy and paste into an empty tab within your browser, and as a protest against Dave's overly broad anti-image policy)
[IMG]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Defense%20trends%20full.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/pie%20chart%20defense.jpg[/IMG]
| Conor Friedersdorf wrote: |
The United States could substantially cut its defense budget and still spend more money on our military than every country that even plausibly threatens us combined. Can someone explain why that isn't enough? There is one explanation. If you're someone like Bill Kristol, who wants to maintain American troops in countries all over the globe forever, favors military intervention in countries like Libya that pose no threat to us, is ideologically committed to remaking more foreign countries via force, and favors ratcheting up the likelihood of military confrontation with countries like Iran and China, current levels of "defense" spending makes perfect sense. Imperial garrisons are expensive to maintain, after all, and more foreign wars will be costly to wage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| If Obama tried to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan he would be accused by conservatives of 'cutting and running' and 'not staying the course'. If he takes the advice of his military commanders and goes for the 'surge' option he is accused of wasteful military spending. What option does he have? The republicans in the senate would never allow any decrease in military spending anyway. |
So true. The media goes along with that. Unfortunately, one doesn't get elected or stay elected doing what they believe is right in some important things. Its a sad state of affairs in America.
Ultimately, we collectively are to blame because we still have the power of the vote. The lobbyists, special insterest, etc, can vote with dollars but not elect them. Too many Americans are either fooled or apathetic.
The people, collectively, have gotten the government we deserve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I know things are slowly changing but the fiscal hawks in Washington need to take a harder look at the hundreds of US bases all over the globe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the very few positive things to come out of the debt deal was putting defense expenditures up for discussion. That tells me the Tea Party doesn't care about it much. The military-industrial complex does and it is rolling in money so the push-back from their lobbyists will be strong--and will find an open ear in every congressional district with a contract. Cutting won't be easy.
I would further say that just mandating cuts is a poor way to go about things. A much better approach would be to look at the over-all defense picture, design a strategy to meet the needs, then allot expenditures to meet that strategy. That however, does not look likely. We are probably trapped in a crappy approach to the problem.
If we do succeed in cutting back, a positive side benefit will be releasing those brilliant minds from searching for 'better' ways to kill people and putting that creativity to work improving life, in alternative energy for example. The whole world would gain by that kind of innovation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
One of the very few positive things to come out of the debt deal was putting defense expenditures up for discussion. That tells me the Tea Party doesn't care about it much. The military-industrial complex does and it is rolling in money so the push-back from their lobbyists will be strong--and will find an open ear in every congressional district with a contract. Cutting won't be easy.
I would further say that just mandating cuts is a poor way to go about things. A much better approach would be to look at the over-all defense picture, design a strategy to meet the needs, then allot expenditures to meet that strategy. That however, does not look likely. We are probably trapped in a crappy approach to the problem.
If we do succeed in cutting back, a positive side benefit will be releasing those brilliant minds from searching for 'better' ways to kill people and putting that creativity to work improving life, in alternative energy for example. The whole world would gain by that kind of innovation. |
All this worthless spin and it doesn't mean a thing. President Obama, as commander-in-chief, has the power to end the wars. The fact of the matter is that he is just as evil, just as mendacious, and just as culpable as any of the neo-Cons who took us illegally into Iraq.
Obama could end the trillion dollar wars overnight. He has the power. But he won't do it, because everything he stands for is a lie. Simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
RIP United States of America (1776-2011)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NohopeSeriously wrote: |
RIP United States of America (1776-2011)
|
It took a couple centuries (at least) for the Roman Empire to fall apart. Even if the USA is on the decline, it still has a long way to go. At least that's what I keep telling myself.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
One of the very few positive things to come out of the debt deal was putting defense expenditures up for discussion. That tells me the Tea Party doesn't care about it much. The military-industrial complex does and it is rolling in money so the push-back from their lobbyists will be strong--and will find an open ear in every congressional district with a contract. Cutting won't be easy.
I would further say that just mandating cuts is a poor way to go about things. A much better approach would be to look at the over-all defense picture, design a strategy to meet the needs, then allot expenditures to meet that strategy. That however, does not look likely. We are probably trapped in a crappy approach to the problem.
If we do succeed in cutting back, a positive side benefit will be releasing those brilliant minds from searching for 'better' ways to kill people and putting that creativity to work improving life, in alternative energy for example. The whole world would gain by that kind of innovation. |
All this worthless spin and it doesn't mean a thing. President Obama, as commander-in-chief, has the power to end the wars. The fact of the matter is that he is just as evil, just as mendacious, and just as culpable as any of the neo-Cons who took us illegally into Iraq.
Obama could end the trillion dollar wars overnight. He has the power. But he won't do it, because everything he stands for is a lie. Simple as that. |
I'm tired of seeing this idea and phrase of ending wars overnight. Logistically and politically that's impossible, not to mention it having disastrous results on the country where the troops are. If my memory is correct if the president did the unthinkable and announced without warning that the war was over and Americans had to all get out that it would take at least 6 months for that to happen due to the logistics of moving everyone and everything, etc. etc.
I hope that the wars will end soon. I feel the solution, at least as far as I can tell, is to re calibrate much of the military for small scale surgical solutions. The team that carried out the Osama raid is more useful than spending lots of money on new tanks or sending large numbers of grunts over and building huge bases. Our army, most armies, suck at nation building and police work against insurgents. A leaner, cheaper, military has the potential to be more effective. The war on terrorism should end. The defense cuts that are coming will hopefully help this situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
