Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are again proving my point. One person's purient interest is another person's "education."

One jurors reasonable person is another jurors unreasonable person. One appellate court's abuse of discretion standard is not an abuse of discretion according to another appellate court. One parole board's idea of good behavior is not good behavior to another parole board. On patent examiner's idea of a obvious invention is a non-obvious invention to another patent examiner. Etc and so on.

These sorts of not easy to define lines exist throughout our legal system.

The FCC is not stopping Howard Stern from getting his message out. They are just regulating that portion of his message that he wishes to convey on the public airwaves.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We have minimal military support from our allies in both places, mainly because none of our allies have much of a military to speak of. This is do to the fact that western europe made a brilliant tactical move and relied on the US to defend it for the 50 years after WWII and instead put money into socialist programs.

We have minimal military support from our allies because none, save possibly Britain and France, aspire to project military force beyond Europe. Those countries' efforts to preserve their colonies showed they couldn't really do this, and France is only sort of our ally anyway. Germany and Japan both have the economy to support militaries of this sort, but we made good and sure after World War II that neither would be projecting military force much beyond its borders, and we did this very well. None of the other countries in Western Europe aspire to be world powers. And aren't we happy being the only Western superpower? Do you think those countries would necessarily be our allies if they were our equals militarily?

Meanwhile, other industrial countries spend more on foreign aid than we do, so they carry their burdens in other ways.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Meanwhile, other industrial countries spend more on foreign aid than we do, so they carry their burdens in other ways.

Cite please. And this time, cite something that has actual data, not just bare conclusions. TIA.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
None of the other countries in Western Europe aspire to be world powers.

Yes, they do. They just have failed socialist economies so do not have the economic power to do so.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And aren't we happy being the only Western superpower?

I wouldn't have a problem with Britain being a superpower but certainly not France or Germany or Russia.

But that isn't the point. The point isn't that we are happy being a superpower. The point is that with all we fucking do for the world, you think we could get some help when we get attacked.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Do you think those countries would necessarily be our allies if they were our equals militarily?

I think Britain would and some eastern bloc countries, like poland, that really do aspire to democracy.

Lazy french and smug germans, no.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
One jurors reasonable person is another jurors unreasonable person. One appellate court's abuse of discretion standard is not an abuse of discretion according to another appellate court. One parole board's idea of good behavior is not good behavior to another parole board. On patent examiner's idea of a obvious invention is a non-obvious invention to another patent examiner. Etc and so on.

These sorts of not easy to define lines exist throughout our legal system.

The FCC is not stopping Howard Stern from getting his message out. They are just regulating that portion of his message that he wishes to convey on the public airwaves.

I do not want what we can and cannot say determined by bureaucrats based on fuzzy math applied selectively depending on who the speaker is. I suspect, given Stern's huge audience, that if this were settled by a jury he would win.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
We have minimal military support from our allies because none, save possibly Britain and France, aspire to project military force beyond Europe. Those countries' efforts to preserve their colonies showed they couldn't really do this, and France is only sort of our ally anyway. Germany and Japan both have the economy to support militaries of this sort, but we made good and sure after World War II that neither would be projecting military force much beyond its borders, and we did this very well. None of the other countries in Western Europe aspire to be world powers. And aren't we happy being the only Western superpower? Do you think those countries would necessarily be our allies if they were our equals militarily?

Meanwhile, other industrial countries spend more on foreign aid than we do, so they carry their burdens in other ways.

In other words, given that they already had US guns, they chose butter. I would like to see us pull out all of our troops from the western part of the continent and move them to the eastern part, where they will be more appreciated.

edited to add: I suspect your foreign aid 'fact" is dependent on the defintion of "foreign aid." Cite please.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I do not want what we can and cannot say determined by bureaucrats based on fuzzy math applied selectively depending on who the speaker is.

It isn't. Stern can say whatever he wants on the internet or cable or via satellite (so long as it is not child pornography). It is only that he cannot do it on the public airwaves.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I suspect, given Stern's huge audience, that if this were settled by a jury he would win.

Only if the average IQ of those on the jury was below 100.*

*This is not an insult to your intelligence, but it is an insult directed towards those who are Stern fans.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I believe the Sierra Club does some international stuff. They made a decision not to get involved in immigration issues a few years ago, but there is a faction intent on changing this. According to an e-mail I received from interested parties, one of the current directors (Paul Watson, an animal-rights activist) said: "We're only three directors away from controlling the board. And, once we get three more directors elected...[We'll] change the entire agenda of that organization."

I am still not clear on what you think about the motives of these people. Is it that they truly love the environment and animals and they perceive that too many people wreak havoc on the environment, therefore less immigration means less people. Or is it that they hate foriegners and they just use the SC as an excuse to keep foriegners out? Or some of both?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Cite please. And this time, cite something that has actual data, not just bare conclusions. TIA.

Go find your own cite, troll. As club will recall, I've posted that data before.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
But that isn't the point. The point isn't that we are happy being a superpower. The point is that with all we fucking do for the world, you think we could get some help when we get attacked.

If Iraq attacked us, they'd be lining up. Hell, they lined up when Iraq attacked Kuwait.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In other words, given that they already had US guns, they chose butter. I would like to see us pull out all of our troops from the western part of the continent and move them to the eastern part, where they will be more appreciated.

edited to add: I suspect your foreign aid 'fact" is dependent on the defintion of "foreign aid." Cite please.

Butter for other countries.

Not even. Do your own searches, and you'll find that we not only spend less per capita GNP on foreign aid, the two biggest recipients are Israel (really a First World country now) and Egypt. This is not money spent on development, but a bribe for peace. Other countries carry the load of promoting Third World development.

The shift you wish for in Europe is already happening. Our troops were in Germany to defend it against Russia. This is no longer necessary, and Romania (e.g.) is cheaper. We don't necessarily want to get out of Western Europe, though, because our presence gives a clout that we like.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Go find your own cite, troll. As club will recall, I've posted that data before.

That is intellectually honest to call me a troll when you cannot back up what you have to say with facts.

It all depends on how you are defining foriegn aid. You clearly would not include the cost of invading Iraq as foreign aid. But what about private donations by US citizens?

So you cannot make blanket statements in regards to what the US does and does not spend on foreign aid unless you are at least willing to define what you mean by the term.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is intellectually honest to call me a troll when you cannot back up what you have to say with facts.

You said we're more generous that other countries. I cited something from the Hoover Institute that said you're wrong. (And I've posted numbers before, as you should recall, since you have been here in one guise or another since Alaska was Russian.) Run your own Google search for "foreign aid percentage GDP" and see what you turn up.

It all depends on how you are defining foriegn aid. You clearly would not include the cost of invading Iraq as foreign aid. But what about private donations by US citizens?

Beats me. Why don't you look into it?

So you cannot make blanket statements in regards to what the US does and does not spend on foreign aid unless you are at least willing to define what you mean by the term.

You started with the blanket statements, and so far your hot air makes a noise like "whiff."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop [angry drunken ramblings]

I like you better sober.

It just depends on how you define foreign aid.

I would include private philanthropy by US citizens as foreign aid as well as any costs of deploying our military in foreign lands to the extent it is to protect foreign countries (i.e., south korea, saudia arabia, etc.).

I would agree that having our military in places like Columbia to fight drug lords probaby serves our interest enough and the problem is caused by our failure to treat drug addiction in the US so as to not count it as foriegn aid. But Iraq is a mixed bag. Certainly the cost of rebuilding Iraq is foriegn aid.

So unless we can even discuss what is and what is not foriegn aid, we cannot come to an understanding of what we each are referring to when we use that term.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I like you better sober.

It just depends on how you define foreign aid.

I would include private philanthropy by US citizens as foreign aid as well as any costs of deploying our military in foreign lands to the extent it is to protect foreign countries (i.e., south korea, saudia arabia, etc.).

I would agree that having our military in places like Columbia to fight drug lords probaby serves our interest enough and the problem is caused by our failure to treat drug addiction in the US so as to not count it as foriegn aid. But Iraq is a mixed bag. Certainly the cost of rebuilding Iraq is foriegn aid.

So unless we can even discuss what is and what is not foriegn aid, we cannot come to an understanding of what we each are referring to when we use that term.

I'll take this as an admission that, defined conventionally, I am right. You're saying other things that we do should be called foreign aid. Fine. Club's point was that we spend more on our military, mine was that others spend more on foreign aid -- maybe together it's a wash. Clearly we have decided that we're going to have a more militaristic foreign policy, and there are often good reasons for this. But you don't have to call our stationing of troops in South Korea "foreign aid" to agree that its a good thing.

The cost of rebuilding Iraq is not foreign aid unless the money we spent blowing it up is subtracted from the total. You're probably counting the money we spent blowing it up, too, and maybe double-counting to consider the benefits we conferred thereby on the Iraqis and the Saudis. The Kuwaitis make triple. The Israelis make quadruple. Hey, with this kind of counting, we give a lot in foreign aid!