Theres even one where a bull sticks his horn straight up a Man’s ass, all the way, and throws him into the air. Speaking of, imagine the shit fit prude American censors would have with that on live TV. Germans just laugh over this cultural exchange.
Death to us. Cuz, lastly, if you search “rodeo” you’ll find Americans stole the noble Man’s sport and mutated it into a death match killing spree of harmelss, defenseless little cows.
Please be specific. Give me dates (years at least) and events.
Or is it as long as we weren’t a superpower we were ok?
I don’t think r.j. has issue with being a superpower. I think he’s pointing out that when we, the country as a whole, started letting the government assume responsibility for our entire lives is when we began down the slippery road to hell. At some point since WWII, the government started meddling in economics more and more and artificially inflated the market. You have to pay the piper at some point, but the government keeps pushing it off. But the longer you push it off, the harder the crash when it comes. I think he’s saying he need to plan for the inevitable crash so that 1) it won’t be as bad and 2) we can start the recovery process sooner.
However, that may be *not at all* what r.j. meant and I make no claims to actually know what he’s thinking :)
Please be specific. Give me dates (years at least) and events.
Or is it as long as we weren’t a superpower we were ok?
I don’t think r.j. has issue with being a superpower. I think he’s pointing out that when we, the country as a whole, started letting the government assume responsibility for our entire lives is when we began down the slippery road to hell. At some point since WWII, the government started meddling in economics more and more and artificially inflated the market. You have to pay the piper at some point, but the government keeps pushing it off. But the longer you push it off, the harder the crash when it comes. I think he’s saying he need to plan for the inevitable crash so that 1) it won’t be as bad and 2) we can start the recovery process sooner.
However, that may be *not at all* what r.j. meant and I make no claims to actually know what he’s thinking :)
So why do you think the gov’t should get involved in other aspects of life, rj? Why do you think gov’t can help with global warming or oil or anything else if meddling is what caused all the problems?
Or do you think the gov’t should stay out of those things too?
So why do you think the gov’t should get involved in other aspects of life, rj? Why do you think gov’t can help with global warming or oil or anything else if meddling is what caused all the problems?
Or do you think the gov’t should stay out of those things too?
I know what I think.
Exactly. The guvment has proven time and time again that it does one thing good--screw stuff up. I think it was JimK on another thread that said that the only guvment agency that’s ever been profitable is NASA. Imagine that, the only agency the guvment can make money from was created to take us off this blue rock…
So why do you think the gov’t should get involved in other aspects of life, rj? Why do you think gov’t can help with global warming or oil or anything else if meddling is what caused all the problems?
Or do you think the gov’t should stay out of those things too?
I know what I think.
How do you feel about the Gulf War? Do you think the government should “get involved” in national security? I see energy as a security/infrastructure issue. Less so climate change. As you should know, I’ve never really advocated any particular governmental response regarding climate change.
I think the government should get out of the way and stop meddling in many of the things it meddles in. But I’m not in favour of abolishing governments altogether, ie anarachism. The governments primary role is to safeguard the rights of its citizens. So it should act to protect rights when they are threatened. Energy scarcity threatens those rights. And because the market for energy is not a free market, but one controlled by OPEC and threatened by economically unsustainable growth rates in China, then a case can be made for the US government (and others) to act to secure energy, rather than waiting for a warped market to direct the required new investment.
That’s what the Iraq War was - the US government acting decisively to secure energy. Had they succeeded it would have been a good move, and with lots of ancilliary benefits, like combating terrorism, removing Saddam, etc. Now, Iraq oil production is still lower than it was before 2003, and the other countries in the area like Iran and Saudi Arabia, seeing America’s military fallibility, have become emboldened and no longer dance to America’s tune (SA by capping production, Iraq by moving away from the dollar). And with no end in sight, America needs an ENERGY PLAN B. If they invested money into new energy technology the way they invest it in military they’d make quite an impact. And like the military, they could sell that technology round the world.
So why do you think the gov’t should get involved in other aspects of life, rj? Why do you think gov’t can help with global warming or oil or anything else if meddling is what caused all the problems?
Or do you think the gov’t should stay out of those things too?
I know what I think.
How do you feel about the Gulf War? Do you think the government should “get involved” in national security? I see energy as a security/infrastructure issue. Less so climate change. As you should know, I’ve never really advocated any particular governmental response regarding climate change.
I think the government should get out of the way and stop meddling in many of the things it meddles in. But I’m not in favour of abolishing governments altogether, ie anarachism. The governments primary role is to safeguard the rights of its citizens. So it should act to protect rights when they are threatened. Energy scarcity threatens those rights. And because the market for energy is not a free market, but one controlled by OPEC and threatened by economically unsustainable growth rates in China, then a case can be made for the US government (and others) to act to secure energy, rather than waiting for a warped market to direct the required new investment.
Provide for the common defense is one of the few jobs that the government should have. And yes the US government should act to secure energy. You know like allowing drilling in ANWR and off the coasts. Or here’s a really shocking idea, go nuclear. The solution in the short/long term is not looking for new energy sources, its utilizing the energy sources we know will work. Oh wait all the enviro-nuts do everything they can to make sure we stay beholden to foreign oil.
That’s what the Iraq War was - the US government acting decisively to secure energy. Had they succeeded it would have been a good move, and with lots of ancilliary benefits, like combating terrorism, removing Saddam, etc. Now, Iraq oil production is still lower than it was before 2003, and the other countries in the area like Iran and Saudi Arabia, seeing America’s military fallibility, have become emboldened and no longer dance to America’s tune (SA by capping production, Iraq by moving away from the dollar). And with no end in sight, America needs an ENERGY PLAN B. If they invested money into new energy technology the way they invest it in military they’d make quite an impact. And like the military, they could sell that technology round the world.
Tell you what r.j., since you think that the US military is completely fallible, why don’t you go and take them on. I’m sure you’ll have great success, like the Mahdi army keeps having. Why the ambushes they’ve been staging against the military at night and in sandstorms have resulted in killings of 20-30+. Of course those are Mahdi fighter deaths. But yeah definitely weaker, you just keep telling yourself that.
And the US military technology is done by private defense contractors. Two different companies worked on the next gen fighter, one designed the F-22, the other the F-23. The one who built the F-22 won. Hell the US military doesn’t even own its cruise missiles, until they are actually fired. So again do you want the government in charge, or do you want private industry doing the work?
CNN)—A man, incensed that a 6-year-old girl chose to walk through a path reserved for upper caste villagers, pushed her into burning embers, police in north India said Wednesday. She was seriously burned.
Dalits, or “untouchables,” are victims of discrimination in India despite laws aimed at eliminating prejudice.
The girl is a Dalit, or an “untouchable,” according to India’s traditional caste system.
India’s constitution outlaws caste-based discrimination, and barriers have broken down in large cities. Prejudice, however, persists in some rural areas of the country.
The girl was walking with her mother down a path in the city of Mathura when she was accosted by a man in his late teens, said police superintendent R.K. Chaturvedi.
“He scolded them both and pushed her,” Chaturvedi said. The girl fell about 3 to 4 feet into pile of burning embers by the side of the road.
Betcha them embers wuz hotter than normal due to global warming which is caused by the US. Slavery is worse than any caste system, and its still alive and well in the US. Death to America.
Tell you what r.j., since you think that the US military is completely fallible, why don’t you go and take them on.
I said fallible, not completely fallible. In fact the term “completely fallible” doesn’t make much sense. Of course, the US military is incredibly strong, but Iraq has shown that there is a limit to how much it can do, without stretching their resources too thin.
And the US military technology is done by private defense contractors. Two different companies worked on the next gen fighter, one designed the F-22, the other the F-23. The one who built the F-22 won. Hell the US military doesn’t even own its cruise missiles, until they are actually fired. So again do you want the government in charge, or do you want private industry doing the work?
Sure, if the US wanted to invest in new energy technology, then outsourcing that work makes sense.
I said fallible, not completely fallible. In fact the term “completely fallible” doesn’t make much sense. Of course, the US military is incredibly strong, but Iraq has shown that there is a limit to how much it can do, without stretching their resources too thin.
The military can scale up or down based on budgets.
So, that’s sort of a politcal problem vs a US military problem.
I said fallible, not completely fallible. In fact the term “completely fallible” doesn’t make much sense. Of course, the US military is incredibly strong, but Iraq has shown that there is a limit to how much it can do, without stretching their resources too thin.
The military can scale up or down based on budgets.
So, that’s sort of a politcal problem vs a US military problem.
OK, so if America felt it needed to invade Iran, as well as fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you would need such a massive budget increase that you couldn’t afford it. Not only that but Iran has economic clout. It could embargo oil, block the straits of hormuz, or trade oil in another currency. Ten years ago, Iran wouldn’t have had the leverage to even consider those things. Now, (unfortunately, I might add) Iran can defy America more openly because America doesn’t have the leverage to act with the sort of assertiveness that the most hawkish neocons would like too. That’s not a statement of the rights and wrongs of American foreign policy, just an observation of the realism America now has too face.
...And part of that reality surely must include the need to source energy from somewhere other than under the sand in the Middle East.
I said fallible, not completely fallible. In fact the term “completely fallible” doesn’t make much sense. Of course, the US military is incredibly strong, but Iraq has shown that there is a limit to how much it can do, without stretching their resources too thin.
The military can scale up or down based on budgets.
So, that’s sort of a politcal problem vs a US military problem.
OK, so if America felt it needed to invade Iran, as well as fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you would need such a massive budget increase that you couldn’t afford it.
Ummm, no. We could triple what we spend on Iraq and Afghanistan now and still then just start to approach our historical spending on other conflicts…
Pelosi made some statement about the economy today. Kinda reminded me of the gas thread. Her plan is more stimulus spending… if you can call that a plan…
I said fallible, not completely fallible. In fact the term “completely fallible” doesn’t make much sense. Of course, the US military is incredibly strong, but Iraq has shown that there is a limit to how much it can do, without stretching their resources too thin.
The military can scale up or down based on budgets.
So, that’s sort of a politcal problem vs a US military problem.
OK, so if America felt it needed to invade Iran, as well as fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you would need such a massive budget increase that you couldn’t afford it.
Ummm, no. We could triple what we spend on Iraq and Afghanistan now and still then just start to approach our historical spending on other conflicts...
Historically, you weren’t a net importer of oil, not to mention other natural resources. And you didn’t owe ten trillion dollars, or whatever it is now.
Historically, you weren’t a net importer of oil, not to mention other natural resources. And you didn’t owe ten trillion dollars, or whatever it is now.
BS Chomsky style defense. Your random ‘facts’ don’t prove your point.
We could afford 15% of GDP (vs. the 5 we are spending now) for 5 years to fight a war… if we choose to spend it…
Historically, you weren’t a net importer of oil, not to mention other natural resources. And you didn’t owe ten trillion dollars, or whatever it is now.
BS Chomsky style defense. Your random ‘facts’ don’t prove your point.
We could afford 15% of GDP (vs. the 5 we are spending now) for 5 years to fight a war… if we choose to spend it...
Who’s BS Chomsky?
Have you read about Joseph Stiglitz 3 trillion dollar war? He may wrong in his calculation, but right in pointing out some of the indirect costs which don’t get counted on the 5% now.
Historically, you weren’t a net importer of oil, not to mention other natural resources. And you didn’t owe ten trillion dollars, or whatever it is now.
BS Chomsky style defense. Your random ‘facts’ don’t prove your point.
We could afford 15% of GDP (vs. the 5 we are spending now) for 5 years to fight a war… if we choose to spend it...
Who’s BS Chomsky?
Have you read about Joseph Stiglitz 3 trillion dollar war? He may wrong in his calculation, but right in pointing out some of the indirect costs which don’t get counted on the 5% now.
Yeah, and I think its an exaggeration. The war definitely has hidden costs but it’s not three trillion.
and I have no reason to believe we could not have absorbed spending three times what we did if we chose too.
Wait, 5% of GDP? I’ve seen the financial estimates of the war at $100-150B per year, but our GDP, according to the CIA factbook, is ~$14T. That puts the war cost at ~1% of GDP.
No, it’s going to be Medicare and socialized medicing that bankrupts us, not this war.
Wait, 5% of GDP? I’ve seen the financial estimates of the war at $100-150B per year, but our GDP, according to the CIA factbook, is ~$14T. That puts the war cost at ~1% of GDP.
No, it’s going to be Medicare and socialized medicing that bankrupts us, not this war.
You are right. An article I read said, heck, let’s use the high crazy numbers and say 5% as a basis… we still can afford it… and that figure stuck with me…
