|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,875 Year: 4,132/9,624 Month: 1,003/974 Week: 330/286 Day: 51/40 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Four More Years... | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
What a stupid comparison - defense is nothing like a Harley.
America spends a disproportionatly vast quantity on 'defense'. It doesn't need to. If it brought it's defense spending more in line with the rest of the world, the world would be better off, and America would be better off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
We don't have the largest military, in terms of soldiers. I believe China owns that honor. You are correct, the disgrace of having the most foot soilders goes to China. America does however have better equiped soldiers, more planes, more tanks, more missiles and a vastly larger navy. Which do you think is more significant in modern warfare? A guy with a rifle, or a bomber?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, first you have to show me that what I wrote was actually "propaganda" and not factual. Do you consider former Reagan staffers, The Washington Post, and Time magazine "propagandists" and "avowed Bush bashers"?
quote: Um, no, I didn't provide a "side", I provided facts, which you apparently can't specifically refute. Instead, it looks like you are prepared to handwave them away because they come from a messenger you don't like.
quote: I read the relevant sections of your site, and while it may have brought up some minor factual errors, it also argues agains some straw men. For instance, nowhere in "Lies" does Franken imply that the Bush regime did nothing at all with regards to terrorism before 9/11. The point the chpter makes is that the Clinton team had identified bin Laden specifically as a major threat and had planns to take him out, yet the Bush regime chose to not implement this plan. Can you show me evidence which shows that Clinton didn't in fact have this plan, or that Bush actually did enact it? Your website mentions the attack on the Pope as an example of an inaccuracy, which may be true. However, what about all of the other thwarted terrorist plots I mentioned? Additionally, you made the claim that Clinton got us into this mess by leaving us unprepared for terrorism. According to the Washington Post, Clinton beefed up funding for all sorts of anti-terrorism defense and created a stockpile of drugs and vaccines. Are you going to just ignore this evidence and refuse to admit that you were wrong? Lastly, please note that the person who constructed the website you cited in his "free time", according to him, used a LOT of quotes from Condoleeza Rice in press conferences as evidence to counter Franken's claims. There are also a lot of quotes from various conservative popular press books, and also several instances of the website author apparently not understaning satire. I don't know about you, but I'm maybe thinking that maybe the professional spin doctor of the whitehouse's job isn't to present all the facts, so maybe her version of things might be less trustworthy than, oh, The Washington Post's or Time magazine's. Ironically, the following website, which was listed as an "excellent" source by your website, generally gives "Lies" high marks for accuracy. It does list an error, which I acknowledge. http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_07_archive.html "For the most part, Franken does get his facts right." The reason it's ironic that your site lists this site is because this site reams Bush a new one all over the the place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Ooops, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Certainly the Republicans have made their deal with the devil (religious right), but it's really the god of supply-side Reaganomics that they worship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
America spends a disproportionatly vast quantity on 'defense'. It doesn't need to. If it brought it's defense spending more in line with the rest of the world, the world would be better off, and America would be better off. The technology that gives America an edge over the poor disenfranchised masses costs a lot of money. Morally, I am opposed to military buildup. Realistically, the masses will eventually even the playing field and compromise our capitalist lifestyle if we do not keep them in check. as a Christian, I say let it happen. For an American who wants their kids to have it all as well, however, the price insures the Empire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Holmes,
You're pushing me as if you want me to defend Bush, but I've already said I'm no fan of Bush. I'm not saying you're wrong about Bush (I'm not saying you're right, either), but that I think you're approach is wrong. It seems alarmist and based too much on inuendo, circumstantial information and rushed conclusions. It seems the kind of approach that once the truth is finally out it's too late because the defendant has already been hung. I prefer measured and temperate approaches. I'm already on record as saying they should follow the evidence wherever it leads. On this important point I think we agree. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
That suggests that christians (assuming you represent a typical christian) are only moral if it is convenient or does not in any way impinge on their lifestyle. What kind of ethic is that?
Not to mention that most of the countries with the highest standard of living (that your average American could only fantasize about) and the least disparity among income groups are places like Switzerland, Sweden, Norway,..and even Germany which all have exceptionally low military spending and only tiny armies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You did not read my post. I said that as a Christian I was opposed to military buildup. I said that an American with kids who wanted to preserve their lifestyle may support it. I am not that American. I have no kids. You also brought up the countries with low military spending. They only have low spending because they sit under the American umbrella of protection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4087 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Maybe my statement, which you quoted was not clear enough. I was NOT talking about Limbaugh Republicans at all. I was talking about the people on the edges of the parties that can slip back and forth. Notice the phrase "cost him people that might have been attracted to his camp in 2000". The thread has moved on, but I thought I'd at least let you know I got this now, as well as the rest of your post. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Sorry for taking what you said incorrectly and I retract my question and its implications.
However, regarding the other countries with low military spending, Switzerland for example had very high military spending and during WWII were devoted to highly armed neutrality. They may not have been able to fend off the Nazi's for long, but they would have made it a major engagement. So they were not relying on the US for protection. And like Norway, they remain outside of most interntational organizations including the EU which together with NATO would be responsible for their protection. France has a huge military but still only a fraction of what the US spends. Average quality of life and living standards are much higher than in most of the US. High military spending is like EU farm subsidies, if a group with a large lobby wants tax money, they usually get it...the military in the US has a huge lobby and a lot of representatives working for them when they should be working for the public...on both sides of the aisle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5954 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
schrafinator writes: I provided facts, which you apparently can't specifically refute...Are you going to just ignore this evidence and refuse to admit that you were wrong? Look, Schraf,I do not have the time or interest to play ping pong with you with facts and opinions on this topic. That are people in the political arena who will do that for both sides. Go argue with them. Just because my interests lie elsewhere does NOT mean you are right! I stand by my point that there are different points of view on what actually happened and who knew what and when.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
quote: I'm not asking you to defend Bush, and I apologize if my tone makes it seem this way. My "alarm" is mainly regarding the seeming dismissal of evidence which is out there. Could you please answer the question of my last post. Are the points that I mentioned shown or not shown in the links I provided? If not I would like more than references to my alarmism, innuendo, or circumstantial information. The points themselves, as far as I can tell, are not merely circumstantially concluded, they are real. Neither is the POSSIBLE conclusion one can reach, circumstantial. Circumstantial suggests that things could have just happened at the same time and so appear worse or more interrelated than they really were. It is clear that Ken Lay was a friend of Bush-Cheney, pumping in lots of money while championing free market solutions to the CA crisis, and hoping to get that as part of national policy... unless the article written about him in a positive light before the collapse of Enron was a rushed conclusion and the statements made by an Enron executive (in support of Ken Lay) was "innuendo"? It is also hard for me to believe that PBS and the FERC both rushed to a conclusion based on innuendo, that Enron (one of many companies) made vast profits during the CA crisis, and at least the FERC (later on) concluded that the crisis was manufactured. If you need more evidence on the manufactured part I can find more articles. And it is certainly nothing to do with circumstance and innuendo that Bush now says he does not really know Ken Lay, which is wholly contradictory from the facts. He IS doing this and that raises a very valid question of WHY? And it is certainly not mere circumstance and innuendo that Cheney does not want to release information about energy policy discussions which Ken Lay certainly would have taken part in at the time. Given these valid points, it is not a rushed conclusion to say there is a very solid appearance of impropriety and perhaps a coverup of illegal activity (especially with the actions of Bush and Cheney in the face of an investigation, and the reality that Enron has been shown to actively manipulate things for profit). That is all I am saying. It is very suggestive and should be investigated, but investigations appear to be headed to wrap up everything before reaching the doorstep of the White House. Just as the investigation into 9-11 was stopped at the doorstep of the White House, and now the investigation into use of intelligence on Iraq is set to stop at the doorstep of the White House. My money is on if/when Ken Lay goes to jail, the White House washes its hands and walks away, without so much as a simple probe. Yet the above points are more suggestive of impropriety than what the Republicans had on Clinton when they launched an entire probe into all aspects of Clinton's life. You can disagree with my side of the bet, or believe that it is more likely that the activities stated above were not necessarily illegal, or even unethical (perhaps just distasteful), but my eyebrows go up when it seems you are saying anyone believing those points are real are somehow rushing to judgement, or that even if they are true do not create a very solid appearance of impropriety. Am I misunderstanding your posts? PS--- I want to add that although I am against Bush now, I was firmly opposed to Gore and held no real reservations against Bush before the election (to tell the truth I was even kind of rooting for him of those two). Just being a kind of news junkie I have become more and more despondent as Bush (even during the election) has come out with clear falsehoods, entangled himself in clear improprieties, and then managed to have investigations or federal oversight quashed. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I've had my say. Why not direct your efforts toward someone interested in discussing this with you?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I think the military aspects are most worthy of having its own topic. The non-admin mode (owner of two Yamaha motorcycles) might well even pursue the "Harley-Davidson" analogy.
In general, should we be focusing more on what Ralph Nader's impact on the presidential election might/should be? That was the original theme of this topic. Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-25-2004] Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024