Paul Ryan thinks you are a bunch of fucking idiots. - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Typical.

 

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13592523-romneys-health-plan-war-kept-out-of-rnc-spotlight?lite&__utma=238145375.1451631187.1346202519.1346373095.1346508564.6&__utmb=238145375.1.10.1346508564&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1346508564.6.6.utmcsr=nbcnews.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Cpolitics%7Cpolitics=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Internal%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=97077596

 

 

Gee I wonder why? ( not )

Didn't Clint suggest the shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan?

And then Mitt said he wants to make the most powerful military so that others won't challenge the US.  Playing to the base.

Romney another war monger we really need this now!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

It is a question worth considering. Has Obama really caused these problems or has he been stuck cleaning up someone else's bull?

Please explain how you clean up excessive debt by increasing it.

Please explain how you stop wars and policing the world by expanding it.

Please explain how you close Gitmo by keeping it open.

You see, in just about every way, Obama hasn't done anything to address the problems created by his predecessors. He's continued and expanded upon nearly all of Bush's policies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 


...
It is a question worth considering. Has Obama really caused these problems or has he been stuck cleaning up someone else's bull?

People are still trying to spin this yarn?

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

Romney another war monger we really need this now!
 

You mean the guy who didn't mention war once in his acceptance speech...a fact that was hammered home by the mainstream media?  Oh, and by the way, he's the first GOP nominee since 1952 not to do so.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

That clearly negates everything he said about Iran and Russia during the entire road to the primary, right?  Just because you want to desperately emulate Ronald Reagan so damn much doesn't mean you have to pretend to have Alzheimer's, too.

No, and why should it?  His comments about Iran and Russia are spot-on.  Russia is not our ally.  They work against our interests at almost every turn.  Iran is a massive threat, one that we are not confronting with the requisite strength.  Romney is right on both of these issues.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Ah, here we go again with SDW speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

"What a massive achievement that Romney didn't talk about war at the convention!  He's no warmonger!"

 

"We aren't confronting Iran with enough requisite strength!"

 

Yeah...you don't see a problem with your last two statements?  Really?

Uh huh! I notice this kind of stuff so much I don't think he's even aware of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

With Bush in charge and the looming economic downturn where someone in charge ( yes folks it was a Republican ) largely doing nothing for 8 years previous yes unquestionably. Look what the last administration's actions ( or lack there of ) led to.

You raise a good point. Before slamming an official for something go back and verify that he caused it rather than being the poor sap in office when the shit finally hit the fan.

do we blame the flooding of New Orleans on the mayor at that time. Or on the guy 10 years before that was told the levees would never withstand a major storm and brushed the reports under the table cause he didn't want to spead the money.

Do we blame unbalanced budgets on the current Congress or no the previous one that created tax cuts etc that gave the rich less to pay and put what money there is into military spending with no way to pull it out for something else.

And so on.

It is a question worth considering. Has Obama really caused these problems or has he been stuck cleaning up someone else's bull?

Good points! It's easy to see for thinking people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

It is a question worth considering. Has Obama really caused these problems or has he been stuck cleaning up someone else's bull?

 

Please explain how you clean up excessive debt by increasing it.

 

Please explain how you stop wars and policing the world by expanding it.

 

Please explain how you close Gitmo by keeping it open.

 

You see, in just about every way, Obama hasn't done anything to address the problems created by his predecessors. He's continued and expanded upon nearly all of Bush's policies.

You would only ask the first question if you were a fan of a certain type of economic theory. If you aren't of that group it's easy to see how this could happen and it was even predicted before it happened. It's much better than what could have happened.

As far as useless wars where were you when Bush started his almost decade long debacle? And Romney will be no different only worse because he's smarter.

That's a matter of opinion. Not one myself ( or many others ) share.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Typical.

 

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13592523-romneys-health-plan-war-kept-out-of-rnc-spotlight?lite&__utma=238145375.1451631187.1346202519.1346373095.1346508564.6&__utmb=238145375.1.10.1346508564&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1346508564.6.6.utmcsr=nbcnews.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Cpolitics%7Cpolitics=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Internal%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=97077596

 

 

Gee I wonder why? ( not )

 

 

Didn't Clint suggest the shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan?

 

And then Mitt said he wants to make the most powerful military so that others won't challenge the US.  Playing to the base.

Well if you say it fast enough it sounds like it makes sense! Kind of like Iraq and 911. Smoke and mirrors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 


...
It is a question worth considering. Has Obama really caused these problems or has he been stuck cleaning up someone else's bull?

 

People are still trying to spin this yarn?

The yarn is what Republicans want you to believe. That history started when Obama took office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Horse Shit.

 

Look! jimmac has learned a new phrase.

 

You know saying this twice in a row doesn't make you right, don't you?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Those same problems ( that were already present ) are what led to the situation we have now. They aren't separate.

 

I didn't claim they were. This is just you trying to argue against a straw man. I'm saying that the spiraling spending, even higher deficits and debt and higher unemployment are a result of Obama's actions.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I still maintain someone had to do something to keep it from getting much worse ( even if it cost us ). Yes MJ even if you don't feel that way or acknowledge it. I feel these are facts also. I also feel Romney would make things worse yet again.

 

You can feel all you want. You can even feel that things are facts. None of that makes it so. We have these facts (we don't have to feel that they are facts, they are facts all on their own):

 

1. Spending is higher under Obama.

2. Deficits are much higher under Obama.

3. The debt is much higher under Obama.

4. Unemployment is higher under Obama (and was much, much higher under Obama for a lengthy period of time.)

5. Workforce participation is lower under Obama.

6. Private sector job creation has not even kept up with population growth under Obama.

 

Undebatable questions:

• Did Obama inherit a mess? Sure.
• Did he make it better? Definitely not.

 

Debatable questions:

• Did he prevent it from getting worse? Highly debatable. In fact there's a lot of reason to believe the actions he took would predictably make things worse and would not prevent things from getting worse, only prolong a bad situation.
• Did he make things worse short term but better long term? Can't know now, but highly debatable. More likely he, at best, just kicked the can down the road.

Wash, rinse, repeat! Yes we know already. ( eyes roll if they could ) Saying multiple times doesn't make it any more true.

And yes your second statement is highly debate able even if you say it's not.

Wouldn't this be ( according to your logic which seems to say your drawing a conclusion from an unproven scenario and stating it as inplied fact ) your own version of ( even though it's not in question form ) begging the question? ( wink if I could )

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

The yarn is what Republicans want you to believe. That history started when Obama took office.

Well you're the one who acted like history started when Bush took office for goodness sake. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Wash, rinse, repeat!

So you have no argument. Got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yes we know already.

Good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Saying multiple times doesn't make it any more true.

I know. Facts are simply true no matter how many times you say them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Ah, here we go again with SDW speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

"What a massive achievement that Romney didn't talk about war at the convention!  He's no warmonger!"

 

"We aren't confronting Iran with enough requisite strength!"

 

Yeah...you don't see a problem with your last two statements?  Really?

I never called it a massive achievement.  I was just asking if it makes sense that he's a war monger given the fact he is the only candidate since 1952 not to mention war.  As for his other statements, I fail to see how they make him a war monger, either.  He's simply correct that Iran needs to be confronted with strength, not weakness.  Weakness makes war more likely.  Did you learn nothing from the Cold War?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

So you have no argument. Got it.

 

 

 

 

Good.

 

 

 

I know. Facts are simply true no matter how many times you say them.

You are correct..he has no argument.  Especially against these points you raised: 

1. Spending is higher under Obama.

2. Deficits are much higher under Obama.

3. The debt is much higher under Obama.

4. Unemployment is higher under Obama (and was much, much higher under Obama for a lengthy period of time.)

5. Workforce participation is lower under Obama.

6. Private sector job creation has not even kept up with population growth under Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Apparently you didn't because you aren't in favor of gutting our defense spending to much more reasonable levels.

I just looked outside to see if any pigs were flying because I agree with this statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Apparently you didn't because you aren't in favor of gutting our defense spending to much more reasonable levels.

 

I just looked outside to see if any pigs were flying because I agree with this statement.

When you talk about cutting defense spending, are you referring to reducing spending on military action in Afganistan and elsewhere, or actually cutting military infrastructure and R&D?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Both.  There is absolutely no reason we need to spend more on defense than nearly the entire world combined.  Cut our military spending in half and we still spend more than the next 4 countries combined.

On infrastructure, where do you see the savings coming from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

When you talk about cutting defense spending, are you referring to reducing spending on military action in Afganistan and elsewhere, or actually cutting military infrastructure and R&D?

Yes to both. Strong national defense does not require us to have over 900 military bases and a military presence in 140 countries around the world. This is not to maintain our "national security", this is to police the world and meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations. It is not only very costly to maintain such an empire, it is wrong and must be stopped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I think that we can start by not operating 11 aircraft carriers--more than the rest of the world has operating combined.  The size of our military is outrageous--and it's meant to fight conventional wars that are so 20th century.

Carriers are certainly not cheap, but they are a very effective platform from which to project military power and, in many ways, rather well-suited to modern military needs, such as counter-terrorism operations. Not sure I'd choose those to cut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

When you talk about cutting defense spending, are you referring to reducing spending on military action in Afganistan and elsewhere, or actually cutting military infrastructure and R&D?

 

Yes to both. Strong national defense does not require us to have over 900 military bases and a military presence in 140 countries around the world. This is not to maintain our "national security", this is to police the world and meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations. It is not only very costly to maintain such an empire, it is wrong and must be stopped.

I'm not sure how much the US actually polices and meddles, except in the high-profile cases that would probably happen anyway and tend to involve the UN and/or NATO.  However, it does seem like there should be some savings available in reduction in sheer number of foreign bases. Are you at all nervous of how things might develop elsewhere if the US military presence were substantially reduced around the world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Do we need 11?  With 3 more on the way?

 

Want to know what's also effectively counter-terrorist?  Making the world a better place to live in for everyone.  Inspiring and educating the next generation.  Cutting back on the rampant jingoism that has plagued our nation and the rest of the world for far too long.

Those three are part of the replacement program, so won't be additive in the end. I think the intended total number, long-term, is ten. The world is a large place at carrier speed.

Making the world a better place does sound like a great idea, but it's hard to achieve if significant parts of the rest of the world don't show any sign of wanting to be a "better" place, and certainly don't want to be educated by us. It ends up looking like more of the meddling that jazzguru was complaining about. I'm not convinced that strategy effectively replaces military strength at this stage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'm not sure how much the US actually polices and meddles, except in the high-profile cases that would probably happen anyway and tend to involve the UN and/or NATO.  However, it does seem like there should be some savings available in reduction in sheer number of foreign bases. Are you at all nervous of how things might develop elsewhere if the US military presence were substantially reduced around the world?

Let's take one example: Iran. Do you not realize that the United States is responsible for the current regime there coming into power? This is all well documented and available for all to see, but nobody takes the time to understand the history. Iran is just one of many examples where interventionist policies on the part of the U.S. and other nations have created or exacerbated the problems our governments now claim to be trying to solve.

I'm not saying we should be xenophobic isolationists. I'm saying we should have open and fair trade with all nations, but stay out of their internal affairs. And absolutely, we can still have a strong national defense so that if another nation does want to attack us, we are ready and able to defend ourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'm not sure how much the US actually polices and meddles, except in the high-profile cases that would probably happen anyway and tend to involve the UN and/or NATO.  However, it does seem like there should be some savings available in reduction in sheer number of foreign bases. Are you at all nervous of how things might develop elsewhere if the US military presence were substantially reduced around the world?

 

Let's take one example: Iran. Do you not realize that the United States is responsible for the current regime there coming into power? This is all well documented and available for all to see, but nobody takes the time to understand the history. Iran is just one of many examples where interventionist policies on the part of the U.S. and other nations have created or exacerbated the problems our governments now claim to be trying to solve.

 

I'm not saying we should be xenophobic isolationists. I'm saying we should have open and fair trade with all nations, but stay out of their internal affairs. And absolutely, we can still have a strong national defense so that if another nation does want to attack us, we are ready and able to defend ourselves.

Lots of people take the time to try to understand history - you are not the only one. Intervention has a mixed history of success, and I don't disagree that it has had some spectacular failures. I assume that you are crediting the US as responsible for the current Iranian regime on the basis that the revolution was a result of dissatisfaction with the US-backed Shah's regime, but that intervention doesn't seem like a great example of US military power - it was mostly intelligence agency stuff. And the resulting Islamic state might well have happened anyway. Is that really pertinent to the issue of military spending.

I will add more later, but defense could really take some over-hauling (cutting and changing).  There is a ton of waste and the military we have is very outdated, designed for a different war.

It isn't just as easy as saying we need 13 carriers or 7.  It is also about modernizing and adapting to present needs. A lot of streamlining, too.  And cutting.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Carriers are certainly not cheap, but they are a very effective platform from which to project military power...

And that right there is a huge part of the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Where would you cut things then?  I disagree that we need ten, but let's hear what you feel is reasonable to cut, muppetry.

Not really competent to judge as I'm not privy to DoD/DoE long-term strategy, but I'll speculate. Possibly reduce military bases and personnel stationed oversees, on the basis that an effective carrier fleet can provide alternative cover. The army may be overfunded - back to your comments on 20th century warfare. Then I'd look for efficiency improvements - the military is notoriously prone to overpaying contract work, and the tendency to cycle people too fast through many of the high-level policy positions leads to very poor continuity in funding prioritization, and a resulting inefficient use of funds. There is a terrible tendency to take a new post and then change things whether needed or not, just to be seen to have had an effect; when this happens every 18 - 24 months it is crippling. Not to mention somewhat questionable competence in those positions, but that's a tougher problem to solve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Carriers are certainly not cheap, but they are a very effective platform from which to project military power...

 

And that right there is a huge part of the problem.

That they are not cheap, or that they are effective? Or are you arguing that the US should not wish to be able to project military power?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Lot's of people take the time to try to understand history - you are not the only one. Intervention has a mixed history of success, and I don't disagree that it has had some spectacular failures. I assume that you are crediting the US as responsible for the current Iranian regime on the basis that the revolution was a result of dissatisfaction with the US-backed Shah's regime, but that intervention doesn't seem like a great example of US military power - it was mostly intelligence agency stuff. And the resulting Islamic state might well have happened anyway. Is that really pertinent to the issue of military spending.

We can only speculate as to whether an Islamic state would have happened anyway. The point is it DID happen, and largely due to U.S. interventionism in the form of black ops.

This and other similar situations are very much pertinent to the issue of military spending, as our current levels of spending and presence around the world is being justified by our leaders as necessary to "fight terrorism" and Iran is often referred to by those same leaders as a major sponsor of the "terrorism" they claim to be fighting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

That they are not cheap, or that they are effective? Or are you arguing that the US should not wish to be able to project military power?

The last. I should have highlighted what I was referring to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Lot's of people take the time to try to understand history - you are not the only one. Intervention has a mixed history of success, and I don't disagree that it has had some spectacular failures. I assume that you are crediting the US as responsible for the current Iranian regime on the basis that the revolution was a result of dissatisfaction with the US-backed Shah's regime, but that intervention doesn't seem like a great example of US military power - it was mostly intelligence agency stuff. And the resulting Islamic state might well have happened anyway. Is that really pertinent to the issue of military spending.

 

We can only speculate as to whether an Islamic state would have happened anyway. The point is it DID happen, and largely due to U.S. interventionism in the form of black ops.

 

This and other similar situations are very much pertinent to the issue of military spending, as our current levels of spending and presence around the world is being justified by our leaders as necessary to "fight terrorism" and Iran is often referred to by those same leaders as a major sponsor of the "terrorism" they claim to be fighting.

You are arguing that the Iranian Revolution was a direct result of covert US military action? I'm missing the connection - in what sense? In terms of current spending - yes - one justification is to maintain a military force that can combat terrorist activities. Do you disagree that the threat exists, its provenance, its current support base, or how to combat it? Iran quite clearly is such a sponsor, so what are you proposing in relation to that issue? If you are simply suggesting foreign base reductions, I agree that could be a way forwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

That they are not cheap, or that they are effective? Or are you arguing that the US should not wish to be able to project military power?

 

The last. I should have highlighted what I was referring to.

OK right. So how should it react to foreign state or foreign-based terrorist threats if it cannot project military power? That's a weak position to take.