Pages: 1 … 166 167 168 169 170 … 695

 

2011-12-17 08:08:57
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

If by "public," you mean "institutional," you're right. Overt public (as in general public) anti-semitism is quite low, as well. Sure, there are isolated pockets of it, just like other types of racism, but those are the exception, rather than the rule.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-12-17 08:36:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5600|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Annual budget is just a little over 1 trillion, but it should be orders of magnitude smaller.

And sorry, Jay, but Paul sounded like an absolute nut job last night when it came to foreign policy. Sounded like an addle-brained old man, tbh.
Because he wants an isolationist America that minds its own business? I mean, I know that would make your job boring, and advancement more difficult. Tough noogies. It's what is best for America.
No, because he thinks isolationism would be good for America in a globalized world. It would kill our economy. I'm only in the military for another three years...your jibes are meaningless.
You really believe that our military is propping up our economy? What kind of ass backwards logic is that? People conduct trade because it's beneficial. It won't suddenly become a disbenefit to trade with us if our military vanished. Don't be absurd.

These aren't colonial days where we need a large military to keep the local brown people in check. Those days are over.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-12-17 12:24:01
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:


Because he wants an isolationist America that minds its own business? I mean, I know that would make your job boring, and advancement more difficult. Tough noogies. It's what is best for America.
No, because he thinks isolationism would be good for America in a globalized world. It would kill our economy. I'm only in the military for another three years...your jibes are meaningless.
You really believe that our military is propping up our economy? What kind of ass backwards logic is that? People conduct trade because it's beneficial. It won't suddenly become a disbenefit to trade with us if our military vanished. Don't be absurd.

These aren't colonial days where we need a large military to keep the local brown people in check. Those days are over.
Since when was isolationism strictly about the military? You really need to open your aperture a bit Jay.

I swear you've lost it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-12-17 12:51:03
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5600|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:


No, because he thinks isolationism would be good for America in a globalized world. It would kill our economy. I'm only in the military for another three years...your jibes are meaningless.
You really believe that our military is propping up our economy? What kind of ass backwards logic is that? People conduct trade because it's beneficial. It won't suddenly become a disbenefit to trade with us if our military vanished. Don't be absurd.

These aren't colonial days where we need a large military to keep the local brown people in check. Those days are over.
Since when was isolationism strictly about the military? You really need to open your aperture a bit Jay.

I swear you've lost it.
Umm, since it's what Paul advocates? He's not talking about closing our borders to trade, quite the opposite. He's advocating a strictly defensive posture for our military. Enough for defense, offense only after a mobilization. You know, the kind of military we had prior to WWII. I think we as a nation are tired of the endless interventionism advocated by the hawks of both parties. It's not just the neo-cons, there are plenty of Dems that advocate offensive war as well. They need to have their toys taken away from them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-12-17 13:43:04
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

And I'm perfectly fine with that.

You keep making leaps in logic that take you right off cliffs.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-12-17 14:33:10
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6713
you keep going on about logic. are you reading russell lately or something? are you a logician? do you secretly have a philosophy degree and you haven't been telling any of us about it?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-12-17 15:22:26
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

Oh? So you have to be reading a particular author or hold a philosophy degree to understand logical arguments?

Good to know. I'll just shut off my fucking brain, then.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-12-17 15:39:22
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6713
no but you just keep going on and on using the word logic as some sort of counter to everyone's debates, and i'm wondering what your fixation is with attacking people's logic. if you were an expert in logic and were actually applying some form of logical analysis here, then i'd understanding your critique. but you're not. so i'm asking why, of all things, you keep harping on about people's logic? a flaw in an argument isn't necessarily a flaw in logic.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-12-17 16:13:01
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

To argue that isolationism = defensive only military and that anyone who disagrees is for a large, aggressive military and interventionist foreign policy. That is flawed logic. A leap in logic, as I stated.

To be more specific, the latest example uses a straw man (claiming a position I never had, then arguing against it), as well as a false dilemma (see above).

Is that enough to assuage the affront to your intellectual elitism, or do I need to further prove myself?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-12-17 16:20:02
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6713
no intellectual elitism here, i'm not a logician in the philosophical or mathematical sense. i was just asking about your penchant for rebuking people on the grounds of their 'logic'. a straw man is a rhetorical device, not a logical one.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-12-17 16:22:59
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5600|London, England
Well FEOS, you're guilty of it yourself. In fact, you called Ron Paul crazy for having his defense-oriented foreign policy beliefs. Of course the Murdoch media is all doing it too so I guess I understand why you would repeat it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-12-17 16:24:52
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

Uzique wrote:

no intellectual elitism here, i'm not a logician in the philosophical or mathematical sense. i was just asking about your penchant for rebuking people on the grounds of their 'logic'. a straw man is a rhetorical device, not a logical one.
It's a fallacy, which is based in flawed logic.

But good try. If you don't link logic and rhetoric closely, then you must have a very difficult time holding your own in a debate.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-12-17 16:24:54
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6713
if i was american i'd vote ron paul. i'd also make feos redundant. then i'd put up health costs.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-12-17 16:26:21
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6713

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

no intellectual elitism here, i'm not a logician in the philosophical or mathematical sense. i was just asking about your penchant for rebuking people on the grounds of their 'logic'. a straw man is a rhetorical device, not a logical one.
It's a fallacy, which is based in flawed logic.

But good try. If you don't link logic and rhetoric closely, then you must have a very difficult time holding your own in a debate.
no, in my mind logical arguments are based on logical, solid, formal propositions. a logical fallacy is normally one of structure, e.g. at its most basic, the formal syllogism. rhetorical arguments and fallacies (like the straw man) aren't structural or formal in nature - they're not logical at all, in fact they're purposefully illogical. it's smokes and mirrors. rhetorical flourishes. that's where i make the distinction.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-12-17 16:27:33
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

The military will never be redundant. People with a modicum of intellect realize you must take an integrated, balanced approach to foreign policy, leveraging all instruments of national power. That's why Ron Paul will never get elected--he doesn't realize that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-12-17 16:31:01
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5600|London, England

FEOS wrote:

The military will never be redundant. People with a modicum of intellect realize you must take an integrated, balanced approach to foreign policy, leveraging all instruments of national power. That's why Ron Paul will never get elected--he doesn't realize that.
We have nuclear weapons. You and the rest of the military has been obsolete since 1945, you just refuse to accept it.

Edit - also, the only reason for any diplomacy is to increase trade. You can't increase trade over the barrel of a gun.

Last edited by Jay (2011-12-17 16:32:02)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-12-17 16:35:30
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6713
pretty sure i've already had this debate, over like 6 pages. funnily enough, the guy dependent on the state military budget for a living didn't budge.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-12-17 16:41:12
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5600|London, England
Well, it's the party line that the Murdoch Press has been harping on. Op-ed's every day about how defense expenditures are paramount to a healthy nation. Lots of people have a lot to lose if Paul does take power. Hell, I would lose money myself. I have Halliburton stock.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-12-17 16:44:04
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The military will never be redundant. People with a modicum of intellect realize you must take an integrated, balanced approach to foreign policy, leveraging all instruments of national power. That's why Ron Paul will never get elected--he doesn't realize that.
We have nuclear weapons. You and the rest of the military has been obsolete since 1945, you just refuse to accept it.

Edit - also, the only reason for any diplomacy is to increase trade. You can't increase trade over the barrel of a gun.
Jesus. You've gotten as bad with this as Dilbert is with his anti-America/Israel shit. You must've REALLY hated your time in the Army and are now seriously hating having done it.

You don't back up diplomacy with nuclear weapons. Seriously. For you to think nuclear weapons play a role in anything other than existential defense--and if you think that is the only role for a military--you are so blinded by your hatred of a 4.5 year period of your life that you can't be objective about anything tangentially associated with it. Therapy, man. It works wonders.

For about the fifth fucking time: I'm not fucking advocating using the military to increase trade. And to clue you in: there are far more reasons for diplomacy than to increase trade. That's a big reason, but there are a lot more.

I've said here multiple times: we get more budgetary bang for the buck from the State Dept than from DoD. Always have. Emphasizing DoD over DoS in the ME is a huge mistake. Not DoD's role.

You think the military has no role in trade? Read a history book. War of 1812. Barbary Coast Pirates (USMC Hymn much?). Sea of Aden. Straits of Malacca. The Civil War. Most wars have been about trade, when you boil it down. Because economics is a key national interest that countries are willing to fight over. And those first couple of fights listed? Yeah. Those were initiated by Founding Fathers. You know? The ones your boy Ron Paul always goes on about wanting to emulate? Guess he'll send the Navy (which you think isn't needed) to defend America's trade routes in an interventionist manner, if he gets elected then, eh?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-12-17 17:24:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5600|London, England
Is it still 1803? Do we still have to worry about Barbary Pirates? You say to read a history book, I'm telling you to take your nose out of them and look at the world. We have no merchant shipping to protect. How large of a military would you say it takes to deal with piracy? A couple mil? The military is largely obsolete and has been for a long time.

You fancy the saber rattling of the other candidates? What would war with Iran do for us besides wasting lives and money? Think about it. Who really benefits?

Oh, and me being anti war has nothing to do with disliking my time in the military.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-12-17 18:35:04
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6348|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

I've said here multiple times: we get more budgetary bang for the buck from the State Dept than from DoD.
Bang for the buck? How so?
You think the military has no role in trade? Read a history book. War of 1812. Barbary Coast Pirates (USMC Hymn much?). Sea of Aden. Straits of Malacca.
The difference is the military is now protecting the shipment of manufactured goods from China to America, not the import of raw materials and the export of manufactured goods. That and the importation of ME oil to run your inefficient vehicle fleet and industry.
So having a powerful military is taking you backwards, not forwards.
Fuck Israel
2011-12-17 18:37:04
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6958

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I've said here multiple times: we get more budgetary bang for the buck from the State Dept than from DoD.
Bang for the buck? How so?
You think the military has no role in trade? Read a history book. War of 1812. Barbary Coast Pirates (USMC Hymn much?). Sea of Aden. Straits of Malacca.
The difference is the military is now protecting the shipment of manufactured goods from China to America, not the import of raw materials and the export of manufactured goods. That and the importation of ME oil to run your inefficient vehicle fleet and industry.
So having a powerful military is taking you backwards, not forwards.
ME oil is very little compared to imported Canadian or Mexican oil. might as well invade mexico then i guess.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-12-17 18:41:32
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6348|eXtreme to the maX
It is now, historically thats not been the case.

And ME exports must be maintained or the global price goes up, including Canadian and Mexican oil.
Fuck Israel
2011-12-17 18:50:12
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6901|BC, Canada

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I've said here multiple times: we get more budgetary bang for the buck from the State Dept than from DoD.
Bang for the buck? How so?
You think the military has no role in trade? Read a history book. War of 1812. Barbary Coast Pirates (USMC Hymn much?). Sea of Aden. Straits of Malacca.
The difference is the military is now protecting the shipment of manufactured goods from China to America, not the import of raw materials and the export of manufactured goods. That and the importation of ME oil to run your inefficient vehicle fleet and industry.
So having a powerful military is taking you backwards, not forwards.
ME oil is very little compared to imported Canadian or Mexican oil. might as well invade mexico then i guess.
I'd say invade Canada, but we would go all Red Dawn on their asses.








Wolverines!
2011-12-17 19:34:22
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6653|'Murka

Jay wrote:

Is it still 1803? Do we still have to worry about Barbary Pirates? You say to read a history book, I'm telling you to take your nose out of them and look at the world. We have no merchant shipping to protect. How large of a military would you say it takes to deal with piracy? A couple mil? The military is largely obsolete and has been for a long time.
It's ironic you're the one telling me to look at the world, considering your position.

The point being, if we followed your way of thinking, our global commerce would be wrecked by knuckleheads with dinghies and rpgs or any asshole tinhat dictator who wanted to close his or his neighbor's ports. Because you'd do away with our blue water navy and you'd erase any linkage of military to economic or diplomatic instruments of power. So the countries that DON'T take your (and Ron Paul's) myopic world view would reign supreme. I guess you two are OK with that.

I don't have a problem with the rise of other countries. I do have a problem with our fall.

Jay wrote:

You fancy the saber rattling of the other candidates? What would war with Iran do for us besides wasting lives and money? Think about it. Who really benefits?
Of course not. I don't fancy saber rattling of anyone. It's nonsensical. Just as much as Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Jay wrote:

Oh, and me being anti war has nothing to do with disliking my time in the military.
I didn't say anti war. Anyone with any sense is anti war. I said anti military.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 166 167 168 169 170 … 695

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard