Bravo.
Talk about win!
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Talk about win![/quote]
WIN!
He raises a lot of good points, and then draws the exact wrong conclusions. And again there is the the formerly somewhat amusing but now just depressing castigation of one party and praise of the other, while he fails to realize that there is essentially no difference between the two.
Also he’s incredibly annoying. He needs to just sit down for a minute.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
He raises a lot of good points, and then draws the exact wrong conclusions. And again there is the the formerly somewhat amusing but now just depressing castigation of one party and praise of the other, while he fails to realize that there is essentially no difference between the two.
Also he’s incredibly annoying. He needs to just sit down for a minute.[/quote]
I think what he’s talking about REAL repubilcans when he says republican. THese days your right, there is no difference between the two. Can you give an example of some of the wrong conclusions that he’s drawing???
I’m talking about “real” republicans, too. There haven’t been any significant differences between the two in quite a while.
Regarding his conclusions, he mentioned the middle class basically getting the shaft. Which is true, but then he goes on to say that we need to give more money to businesses and corporations? That’s part of what has us in this mess to begin with. They pay far too little in taxes, while real wages for the middle and lower classes have stagnated. I thought “a rising tide” was supposed to “lift all ships?” Apparently not.
He rails against irresponsible government spending, and then goes on support military spending. This is the most asinine combination of values I’ve ever seen in my life. We spend too much, but we need to maintain or expand the department that sucks up more of our money and gives us less return than any other? The interest alone on past military budgets is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
He talks about our need to “defend ourselves” (he doesn’t mention from whom) while failing to comment on how we already have enough nukes to destroy the planet a couple of times over. Nor does he deem it appropriate to mention that we wouldn’t have nearly as many enemies as we do if not for our imperialist foreign policies. So I guess we need to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to protect ourselves from a problem that we largely created with those billions of military spending. Does this sound “fiscally responsible”?
He tries to criticize abortion (which nobody really likes, but some see as a necesary evil to prevent a bunch of unwanted children, who will probably lead crappy lives because their parents don’t want them and probably can’t afford them, from being born) with the 5th Amendment, which sounds reasonable on the surface, but then commits him to defending all sort of microbial species, insects, etc. that he presumably has no compunctions about killing.
I also think it’s sad that he speaks about the necessity of living with the consequences of your actions, but hey! that doesn’t appply to military intervention in foreign countries! That’s totally different!
I was right there with him until he compared aborting downs syndrome babies with a hate crime.
[quote]saroachman wrote:
I was right there with him until he compared aborting downs syndrome babies with a hate crime.[/quote]
He is using “liberal logic” in many of his rants.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m talking about “real” republicans, too. There haven’t been any significant differences between the two in quite a while.
Regarding his conclusions, he mentioned the middle class basically getting the shaft. Which is true, but then he goes on to say that we need to give more money to businesses and corporations? That’s part of what has us in this mess to begin with. They pay far too little in taxes, while real wages for the middle and lower classes have stagnated. I thought “a rising tide” was supposed to “lift all ships?” Apparently not.
He rails against irresponsible government spending, and then goes on support military spending. This is the most asinine combination of values I’ve ever seen in my life. We spend too much, but we need to maintain or expand the department that sucks up more of our money and gives us less return than any other? The interest alone on past military budgets is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
He talks about our need to “defend ourselves” (he doesn’t mention from whom) while failing to comment on how we already have enough nukes to destroy the planet a couple of times over. Nor does he deem it appropriate to mention that we wouldn’t have nearly as many enemies as we do if not for our imperialist foreign policies. So I guess we need to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to protect ourselves from a problem that we largely created with those billions of military spending. Does this sound “fiscally responsible”?
He tries to criticize abortion (which nobody really likes, but some see as a necesary evil to prevent a bunch of unwanted children, who will probably lead crappy lives because their parents don’t want them and probably can’t afford them, from being born) with the 5th Amendment, which sounds reasonable on the surface, but then commits him to defending all sort of microbial species, insects, etc. that he presumably has no compunctions about killing.
I also think it’s sad that he speaks about the necessity of living with the consequences of your actions, but hey! that doesn’t appply to military intervention in foreign countries! That’s totally different!
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]saroachman wrote:
I was right there with him until he compared aborting downs syndrome babies with a hate crime.[/quote]
…I’d say the abortion would be the greater moral evil… by far actually. Though I suppose it depends on the “hate crime”.
More or less what I expected. If you just want to hear stuff that makes you feel good about your country, just turn on Fox News, and quit cluttering up the board.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
He talks about our need to “defend ourselves” (he doesn’t mention from whom) while failing to comment on how we already have enough nukes to destroy the planet a couple of times over. Nor does he deem it appropriate to mention that we wouldn’t have nearly as many enemies as we do if not for our imperialist foreign policies. So I guess we need to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to protect ourselves from a problem that we largely created with those billions of military spending. Does this sound “fiscally responsible”?
[/quote]
How about drug addicts, pedophiles, gangs, and terrorists’? If we were so imperilalist we would have invaded Russia, India, Iran, North Korea or any other country that has the bomb that we don’t like but we havent have we? As a mattter of fact Clinton gave North Korea some oil so they would’nt makes nukes and then they did it anyway. Not to mention the 47 million we just sent to Africa to fight AIDS…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
skaz05 wrote:Nope.
More or less what I expected. If you just want to hear stuff that makes you feel good about your country, just turn on Fox News, and quit cluttering up the board.
[/quote]
Whoa there big fella! Sorry if you feel offended, I just don’t agree with your previous post.
By the way, I don’t have cable, so I don’t get fox news. I don’t even watch much TV anyway so I guess I don’t know where to go to feel good about my country.
Thanks for caring though, I’m flattered.
You don’t have to agree with the theory of gravitation, either. It still works just fine. There’s very little opinion in that post, so if you disagree, fine, but you are wrong. Really the only thing you could disagree with is the part on abortion.
[quote]jawara wrote:How about drug addicts, pedophiles, gangs, and terrorists’? If we were so imperilalist we would have invaded Russia, India, Iran, North Korea or any other country that has the bomb that we don’t like but we havent have we? As a mattter of fact Clinton gave North Korea some oil so they would’nt makes nukes and then they did it anyway. Not to mention the 47 million we just sent to Africa to fight AIDS…
[/quote]
what do drug addicts, pedophiles, gangs, and the like have to do with our foreign policy? So $47 million for AIDS relief makes up for over 50 military interventions since WWII? I’m sure those nations agree.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
jawara wrote:How about drug addicts, pedophiles, gangs, and terrorists’? If we were so imperilalist we would have invaded Russia, India, Iran, North Korea or any other country that has the bomb that we don’t like but we havent have we? As a mattter of fact Clinton gave North Korea some oil so they would’nt makes nukes and then they did it anyway. Not to mention the 47 million we just sent to Africa to fight AIDS…
what do drug addicts, pedophiles, gangs, and the like have to do with our foreign policy? So $47 million for AIDS relief makes up for over 50 military interventions since WWII? I’m sure those nations agree.
[/quote]
He was naming things/people we defend ourselves from with weapons. Next time, at least make an attempt to understand someone before blindly attacking their post.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
jawara wrote:How about drug addicts, pedophiles, gangs, and terrorists’? If we were so imperilalist we would have invaded Russia, India, Iran, North Korea or any other country that has the bomb that we don’t like but we havent have we? As a mattter of fact Clinton gave North Korea some oil so they would’nt makes nukes and then they did it anyway. Not to mention the 47 million we just sent to Africa to fight AIDS…
what do drug addicts, pedophiles, gangs, and the like have to do with our foreign policy? So $47 million for AIDS relief makes up for over 50 military interventions since WWII? I’m sure those nations agree.
[/quote]
The latter has alot to do with foreign policy. The coke that gets into the U.S. mostly comes from South America. The drug leads to addiction and gangs. So if you take the time to look at it you can see that they ARE connected. If we had better border control we probably wouldnt have this problem.
If all the other nations out there don’t like our “intervention” why don’t we just stop all foreign aid?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m talking about “real” republicans, too. There haven’t been any significant differences between the two in quite a while.
Regarding his conclusions, he mentioned the middle class basically getting the shaft. Which is true, but then he goes on to say that we need to give more money to businesses and corporations? That’s part of what has us in this mess to begin with.[/quote]
Prove this. Now. Where did he say we should give more money to corporations? Oh wait, that’s right, he didn’t. Guess which party gives the most subsidies? Both. Put that up your ass and light it on fire.
[quote]
They pay far too little in taxes,[/quote]
Yeah this post totally has very little opinion, like, really.
[quote]
while real wages for the middle and lower classes have stagnated. I thought “a rising tide” was supposed to “lift all ships?” Apparently not.[/quote]
What in the hell is a ‘real wage’? And why is their not an equally ambiguous ‘real rise’ to accompany it?
[quote]
He rails against irresponsible government spending, and then goes on support military spending. This is the most asinine combination of values I’ve ever seen in my life.[/quote]
The constitution allows for military spending. It is one of the ONLY things that the federal government should actually be doing, and he has given his opinion on that… multiple times.
[quote]
We spend too much, but we need to maintain or expand the department that sucks up more of our money and gives us less return than any other?[/quote]
The military is a public good. Health care and social security are not.
As compared to the rest of the budget, it isn’t as horrible as you describe.
[quote]
He talks about our need to “defend ourselves” (he doesn’t mention from whom) while failing to comment on how we already have enough nukes to destroy the planet a couple of times over.[/quote]
Personally. I personally have the right to defend myself from attackers.
[quote]
Nor does he deem it appropriate to mention that we wouldn’t have nearly as many enemies as we do if not for our imperialist foreign policies.[/quote]
This is a bit laughable, and once again this is an opinion, not a fact. What enemies have we made from imperialism? … … … … … … Er… I don’t think we’ve made ANY. Supporting Israel? Yeah, thats made some enemies. Invading Iraq? Well, it may have made some people displeased, but other than the Iraqi insurgents, everyone who “hates” us for that hated us FAR before the war started.
Again, opinion, not fact. The military is a bit bloated, but their are plenty of other areas of spending (that AREN’T public goods) we can cut the hell out of first.
[quote]
He tries to criticize abortion (which nobody really likes, but some see as a necesary evil to prevent a bunch of unwanted children, who will probably lead crappy lives because their parents don’t want them and probably can’t afford them, from being born) with the 5th Amendment, which sounds reasonable on the surface, but then commits him to defending all sort of microbial species, insects, etc. that he presumably has no compunctions about killing.[/quote]
…What? Where the hell does the 5th state that non-humans get due process?
Er… we ARE living with em’. That’s why we’re still in Iraq. People who want to just straight up LEAVE Iraq, now there’s not taking responsibity for our actions for ya.
[quote]jawara wrote:The latter has alot to do with foreign policy. The coke that gets into the U.S. mostly comes from South America. The drug leads to addiction and gangs. So if you take the time to look at it you can see that they ARE connected. If we had better border control we probably wouldnt have this problem.
If all the other nations out there don’t like our “intervention” why don’t we just stop all foreign aid? [/quote]
So Prohibition would have worked if we had just been more efficient in enforcement?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
So Prohibition would have worked if we had just been more efficient in enforcement?
[/quote]
Yes. It would have. Doesn’t make it right.