5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
At 4/7/14 05:06 PM, WallofYawn wrote: So, to summarize:
I don't care if they force us to get Obamacare, because other countries force thier people to do the same: It's socially and economically responsible, if all your people have health care. It's just something everyone needs and should be required to have, and that's not violating any rights, that's addressing an issue with the only solution there is, and that's that.
Nope...that is most definitely NOT that.
First of all, not everyone needs healthcare. See what health coverage is is a way of managing risk. This is all ANY insurance is. The risk managed by healthcare is the threat to financial security posed by getting sick. Now I'm pushing 40 so my risk is greater. Someone who is 18 with no family history of serious disease does not have much risk. So why make them buy something that they, reasonably & rationally, do not have a need to own? (Yes some people do get sick when they are young, my daughter being one, but this does not change the statistics.)
Secondly, I don't really care about what is 'socially' acceptable. What is 'socially' acceptable/just/equal/etc quite often makes for bad public policy. Beyond that, it can also lead to the destruction of liberty and individual rights. Just see the erosion of economic liberty caused by the ACA on the Left and anti-gay marriage measures on the Right.
Third, this is not economically responsible. The ACA is wreaking havoc on the health industry. The government has a long and HORRIBLE history of messing with the healthcare industry. Much of the inflation of healthcare prices comes from the federal government's involvement. About 1/3 of the country is insured by Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare. These programs fix prices at a 1984 level. An example of this is the last billing statement I got for my daughter's treatment (I'm on Tricare). The bill was $1,200. Tricare paid $120. The provider eats the difference, he cannot come after me for the $1,080 that he was NOT paid. Furthermore, these programs require the providers to dedicate an employee to deal with the government contractor to get paid. These expenses are transferred to those with private insurance and those few able to self-insure.
To summarize point 3: government involvement in healthcare is one of the MAIN things causing medical prices to rise!
Fourth, it is an infringement on people's right to the pursuit of happiness. See the source material that Jefferson drew upon for the Declaration of Independence originially was the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. By requiring someone to buy a product/good/service they do not need/want the government is depriving them of their means to acquire wealth and spend the fruit of their labor as they see fit.
Finally, this is NOT the only solution NOR should it be the first one tried.
* Tort-reform to reduce the cost of liability insurance for providers.
* Deregulation: before ACA each state came up with mandated things to be covered in all healthcare plans. The ACA doubled down on this foolishness. Examples of what I'm talking about: men paying for OB/GYN coverage or women paying for prostate cancer coverage. In the information age, there is no reason why people cannot go online and pick what they want coverage for a la carte.
* Increasing competition. In the information age, insurance is now a good that can be traded across state lines. So why should states be regulating it? Allowing consumers in Missouri to buy insurance from providers in South Carolina would reduce A LOT of the bureaucratic cost of insurance.
So no my friend, the debate is NOT over nor should it be.
What sucks is that Obamacare is only one type of coverage, meant to take business away from the others, and to force people who can't switch over or don't want to, to pay a hefty fine for not having it. It's complicated because over in European countries, there is on kind of health care, it is usually free or affordable, and it is all they have: one plan, multiple options.
Who cares about Europe? Part of the reason they can have such programs is after WWII the US took over much of the defense of Europe effectively reducing their needs for large military budgets and ending an epoch of warfare. When the US reduces our military footprint over there, their defense budgets will go up. Their domestic spending will go down.
Furthermore, each European country is pretty homogenous. They also have relatively small populations, you're comparing apples to walnuts.
In the USA it's: multiple plans, limited options depending on the plan, and now they're forcing it so there' as only one plan, or a handful of them, and then penalizing people for not getting with the program.
It's called competition. As the government increasingly got involved in healthcare this impacted private insurance negatively and is one of the main reasons why healthcare costs skyrocketed.
We are a diverse country with many different environmental factors that vary across geographic region and even county to county. Plans need to be able to be tailored to individual needs. A one-size-fits-all policy would be very ill-fitted to the needs of Americans.
It's just...stupid way of going about it really. Although, I don't see Republicans offering any alternatives.(why is that?)
Why?
Well from 2008-2010 the Republicans held no power in the federal government. They could only talk about the shortcomings of the ACA. So it is very much a Democratic bill. Now with the state of having a divided government, nothing that the Republicans could offer to replace would go anywhere.
Also, not everyone agrees that the ACA needs to be replaced. As I stated previously, I think there are small things that the government can do in terms of regulation to reduce costs...but I don't think exchanges and individual mandates are justified at this point.
I actually think this is a fascinating question.
The answer is: yes. All of history points to American society splintering and breaking apart. All empires fall and shrink, and I doubt that we will be any different.
When will this happen? I don't know. 50 years? 100? Probably no more than 250 years from now.
Like the Greek, Roman, and English empires that came before us...we are a mish-mash of different cultures and attitudes trying to be one society. The more we try and be 'one' and seek national solutions to local problems/issues we will create more tension around the natural fault lines of our society.
Now, another problem is that we have it good. This is a double edged sword. On one hand, economic prosperity is good and makes our society stable. Too stable for revolution/uprising. However, that is also our undoing. The Greeks & Romans had their own versions of 'industrial revolutions' where merchant and middle classes developed. Along with this came notions of 'social justice' and 'spreading the wealth' (Marx did not invent Communism...just recognized collectivism as something that re-occurs throughout history). The problem comes when these social programs become fiscally unsustainable. This creates more dissatisfaction in economic bad times than what we've seen in previous economic bad times.
At some point the American system is not going to be able to provide the safety net they've promised...and at that point revolt will become possible.
At 4/5/14 10:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/5/14 06:16 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Colorado Sheriffs Fighting New Gun control laws they won't enforce!What a bunch of fucking tools. Bringing the ADA in on it! HAHAHA! I know cuntry folk aren't the most educated, but these yokels are giving the dumbest of them a bad name.
Has nothing to do with being 'country folk' my friend...it's more the way lawyers twist the law to fit their needs or make a name for themselves.
In what reasonable scenario does the difference between a 15 round mag and a larger one make a difference? Anyone? Bueller? EXACTLY. Way to ass fuck your own argument you fundamentalist idiots.
In honesty...not much.
But here's the counter question: what harm comes from having larger magazines? My .12guage shotgun holds seven shells. I can put 63 projectiles on target in about the same amount of time as I can empty my 30 round AR-15 mag. The difference: I can put those projectiles on target in a much tighter grouping than I can do with the AR-15.
This is one of the reasons a shotgun is used more often in crime than assault rifles.
Similarly, a person armed with a .45 and multiple 7 round mags can be more effective than someone armed with an AR-15.
The reality is: high capacity mags don't really make much difference EITHER WAY.
@ Camaro
I think our biggest disagreement at this point is over wealth.
At its most basic, wealth is having more financial assets than you have liabilities. Your criticism that having a few acres in Nowhere, Wyoming is not worth anything to YOU is invalid. The value you place on rural land does not impact the value of that land. You're not part of that market. On the other hand, the rancher who wants to lease my land for hay production is a financial asset to me. That land has value to someone...it doesn't matter that that someone is not you.
As for your apartment, it may have value but as a service not as an asset. If you're paying rent, you're not gathering wealth. That money is permanently taken away from you in exchange for a temporary service. Now if we're talking about a condo that you own...then that would be wealth.
As for people being unable to gather wealth...I think that's bullshit.
There are no legal barriers to getting wealth. In fact, gaining wealth has never been easier. Companies like Scottrade makes buying stocks cheaper than ever.
What it comes down to is:
* Do people have the self-discipline to save money?
* Do people have the work ethic to work extra jobs to get ahead in their early 20s...and use the extra income to pay off land or other investments?
* Does our schools teach our students about savings and investment?
* Are people risk takers, or risk averse?
I have seen this with my own eyes. I know guys with GEDs who work multiple jobs to pay off their land. They put off building a nice home until they can put more than 20% down or they can build it themselves...they live in a trailer and do it piecemeal.
On the other hand I've seem other peers who make the same amount and have the same opportunities. HOWEVER, they choose to not invest in themselves. They find comfort in their SEC. They may bitch about not having money and how some people 'get all the breaks'. But the reality is they don't want to give up their vices and/or they don't want to take the risk of investing.
It's not because they are bad people...but because they are held back by either ignorance or temperament. We can take a large whack at the issue through education.
Now I will give you that there is a small minority of the impoverished who are totally at the mercy of external forces. But that is a small minority.
At 4/2/14 09:45 PM, Warforger wrote:One of my major issues with what is said is I don't think the other side wants to listen and hear some hard truths about poverty.What other side?
From my perspective the 'other side' is the Liberal/Progressive/Democratic side. Whenever someone talks about poverty on the micro-level (ie: the economic behavior of individuals and how it effects their SEC), we get yelled at for 'blaming the poor' as if we're picking on them.
Likewise, there are voices on my side that are quick to label 'tax & spend' and not listen to the benefits of Macro-level solutions proposed by Liberal/Progressive/Democrats.
I think both sides don't want to listen and hear some hard truths about poverty.
As I said. :)
Camaro,
One of my main points is both sides need to come towards the other.
I am actually for government programs that aid the poor such as school lunch programs. In fact I'd like to see it expanded from breakfast and lunch to dinner. I'm also for tax credits and other incentives to bring businesses to the inner cities. I also support increasing training/education programs for urban areas.
On the other hand, the idea that there are people who cannot turn money into wealth is I believe flatly wrong. One of the cornerstones of the idea of White Privilege is that even poor white people have more wealth than not only their own SEC counterparts...but ppl in the middle class who are minorities. One report I saw was that rural poor making $15k/yr had more wealth than urban black professionals making $60k/yr. The main difference is in rural areas there is a value in owning land, which is wealth. As a teacher I've tried to expand on this by incorporating lessons about things like wealth vs richness, interest rates (how they work for & against you), investing, savings, etc.
In the end I think the reason some people struggle with gaining wealth comes down to two things: fear and ignorance. Those are things that can be mitigated through education.
At 4/1/14 11:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The biggest disadvantage of the A-10 in the current unconventional war can best be summed up with this analogy: Our current wars are like surgery, a scalpel works better than a sledgehammer. The A-10 is a sledge hammer. It's out of its element and very expensive for being so. Mind you, I love the A-10 and would love to keep it, just facing the afct of our current state.
The surgery analogy is not all that apt. I'll give you that in Iraq it required precision. Which guess what? An avionics upgrade will allow it to accomplish precision strike in urban settings.
On the other hand, the conflict in Afghanistan has not required the strategic precision you're describing. While there has been some urban combat a lot of it has been in the field.
Furthermore, what is more expensive? Two planes that can carry more weapons or sending in four planes with better gas mileage that carry less?
Technically yes, but for your point, no. Consider it like an NFL team against a High school football team. You could put in the NFL scout team and it still would be a massive rout. Iraq put up a pathetic resistance to the original push in 2008. Definitely not enough to warrant a bloated budget.
Again it was because we destroyed their defense back in the early 1990s and kept them weak. However, we still started it as a conventional war. We also have conventional threats out there such as N. Korea.
Nope.Then, no dice. Concession not granted.
While I admit your skepticism is appropriate on an internet BBS, I think you know I'm a legitimate authority here.
Definitely. Yet, even if the economy collapsed I would have a hard time seeing the government not be able to flex its military will domestically. Mind you, that the biggest boom in military production came in the midst of the biggest recession ever recorded. If the economy collpased and the US government found the need to re-enlist the current heavy hitters, I have a hard time seeing it encounter much difficulty doing so.
1) They would have a seriously hard time flexing their muscle. If you can't pay people, they won't fight for you. You may be able to flex muscle in DC against ppl like the 'Bonus Army' in the 1930s. But I don't think you'll be able to hold on to territory outside the major cities especially outside of the 'Blue States'. You think dealing with Iraqi & Afghani insurgents were bad...wait until you meet American ones!
2) One of the problems with modern military equipment is it will take a lot more lead time to get the military back to strength. It takes a lot longer to build an aircraft than it did in the 1940s. In a war that threatens our existence...we won't have the time to produce new equipment.
That's always a possibility, but a wel over a 100 billion dollar a year (number picked out of thin air) possibility?
I think it's a greater possibility than ppl WANT to believe.
Hey I get it...but the thing is we all do to some degree or another (although I respect where you're coming from). But I am NOT saying that we need to completely gut those services. However, I would like to see them made more efficient.
I agree with you. I want efficiency too...that's why I would like to see the Army completely overhauled and reorganized. Instead of paying combat arms troops to do 'base detail' (ie: painting rocks) let's keep the active duty SOF and combat support. Move about 80% of combat arms to the reserves and Guard where they can be used (in the Guard) to help with natural disasters and the like.
However, what is currently being proposed concerning the Navy & Air Force is cutting the leg muscle we need to be a lean, quick military.
Here's the thing, their assistance in funding comes at a cost. Many states loose money on the deal...and the poor schools in those states pay the price (not the rich/middle class ones). I don't see this federal assistance as beneficial in anyway.You mean they lose in that they are required to do things to get the money? If that's what you mean, that is why I said with no strings attatched. It would merely be a fund broken up by the estimated/census number of school age students in each state.
No, what I mean is when you take money out of a state in Federal taxes it is run through the federal government bureaucracy. So a lot of this money is wasted before being filtered back to the states. In many cases states get back less than the ppl there pay in. In cases where they get more...it's usually born on the backs of other state's poor school districts.
I will never buy the "vote with your feet" argument. It's draconian and foolish. "If you don't like one aspect of this law, give up your home, your friends, your family, your memories, your community, your favorite places, your comfort zone, and go elsewhere." See the flaw in that line of thinking? It asks a lot in order to make the problem, which may be huge, seem small in comparison. Also, I don't trust the states to handle it properly. There is a possibility, if we just let it go, that would end up with two entirely different regional educations: the urban/liberal, and the rural/conservative. Such a division would not only leave one of the sides unprepared (who depends on what issue) for life, whilst creating a huge compatibility divide.
1) It's happening. People vote with their feet in ways other than moving: charter schools, private schools, home schooling, etc. Also, I will turn down jobs/promotions to other states if I don't like that state's policies. I refuse to move to California or New York (the only exception being military orders if I was still on active duty). I'm getting ready to start a job in St. Louis. I'm not going to live in Illinois.
2) We already have a divide. Rural schools have less money than urban ones. Even poor schools in urban areas. HOWEVER outside of creationism and prayer at school functions...there's not much of inserting religion in education in rural education. Our parents still want our kids learning math, computers, and science (if their parents are engaged). But what will not help this divide? One-size-fits-all federal intervention.
We need a national floor to ensure every student at least is taught (key word taught, not necessarily learned) a base level of information, or enough to function as a voting citizen in our society.
I disagree. You're taking it out of the hands of teachers and into the hands of bureaucrats. Instead of having experts in the field, you're producing teachers who are bureaucrats themselves teaching a canned curriculum that will suppress innovation in teachers and students.
As a teacher myself...the national floor is doubling down on the bad policies of Clinton and Bush.
At 4/1/14 12:25 AM, Camarohusky wrote: ... When people speak they never just say what the words in their statement say. They say a combination of everything they believe, every goal they seek to achieve, and every background thing they have said. So In the case where Paul Ryan and Michelle Obama say essentially the same thing on its face, about inner city people, their backgrounds, peers, and goals indicate significantly different meanings. ...
Here's the problem with that: when we try and read people's intentions we often miss the message.
I come from a random redneck small town in rural Missouri. I grew-up around poverty, and I have a certain perspective on it. I see it as layered.
However, when I speak about poverty...and especially urban poverty...am I a racist because:
* Currently the popular (wrong) assumption is that Republicans are racists...and I'm a Republican?
* I have friends from my hometown who are racist (and some of whom are/were even members of the KKK).
* I seek policy goals when I vote that favor small/limited government (which is also currently conflated with racism).
One of my major issues with what is said is I don't think the other side wants to listen and hear some hard truths about poverty.
The poor are, to a degree, responsible for their socio-economic situation.
I am NOT blaming people for their situation. I see the issue as having Macro and Micro level roots. On the Macro level government policy and the business cycle effect people's SEC status. But these are not the whole of the problem.
I think Ruby Payne is on to something when she describes The Hidden Rules of Poverty. People learn about handling money from their parents. If parents do not value education, savings, and investment then their children will pass on these economic values. Instead, what gets handed down from generation to generation is a credit/spend means of handling money.
Money is not something that can be grown into wealth, instead it is a means to buy food & shelter and what is left over is to buy 'stuff'. This then results in people living paycheck-to-paycheck.
Risk aversion is also a value that is passed on. Starting a business costs money. Going to college is not something a man does in certain social classes...his job is to get a job and support a wife & kids.
This is the Republican/Libertarian criticism of Democratic policies. They seem, on the Micro level, to inhibit upward mobility by providing economic disincentives to savings and investment.
Until Dems and Repubs can actually talk to each other and realize that there's movement in the other's direction each can take without calling each other names...we're not going to fix anything.
At 4/1/14 03:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Yeah, but using an A-10 for general close support is like using an M-60 when an M-16 would do.
Nope.
First of all, it's a bad analogy. The M-16 is a piece of shit rifle and should not be used in combat by anyone other than America's enemies. :)
There is no such thing as 'general' anything in combat.
Outside of SOF operations, you want to use overwhelming force when calling in air support. Furthermore, you can equip the A-10 with a myriad of weapons that you cannot equip on an AH-64.
Finally, this is about the ONLY USAF weapons system that the Army would fight tooth and nail to save.
First of all, drones have only been tested in low counter-air threat environments. If we have to go up against China, Russia, or even N. Korea we will be using them in areas that are heavily defended by counter-air weapons. Cruise missiles are far more effective at defeating counter-air systems.That's true. In conventional war, cruise missiles are highly useful as they allow for high ordinance strikes with high evasion and high distance. However, I was speaking in terms of our current unconventional wars, where high ordinance is less needed, and anti-air is not much of a worry.
Well you need to remember that the war in Iraq started as a conventional war. To assume, and develop policy around the idea that there will be no more conventional wars defy history and will be a mistake that will be paid for in blood and treasure. A price that will be exponentionally greater because of this assumption.
You're going to have to give me a little more than that. ;)
Secondly, there are non-kinetic abilities that cruise missiles have that drones do not. On this you'll just have to trust me. :)
Nope.
Not really hypothetical. This period of overall geopolitical peace is known as the Pax Americana. Yes there are 'brush wars' but no major power conflicting with other major power wars. The reason is it is built upon the power projection of the US military.I think the concept of globalization has changed the dynamic dramatically. Just like the McDonald's hypothesis (which has since been broken) I see conventional war as very rare. The economy has become its own nuclear deterrent. Instead of mutually assured death and destruction, heavy powers going to conventional war wil create mutually assured despair and poverty. The intertwined web also keeps the lesser tied powers from going to war. The US is heavily relint on Chinese manufacturing. China is heavily reliant upon the Western economy. Russia is heavily dependent upon China's demand for oil. If the US and Russia became beligerent, China would be dead weight pulling super strongly against war. Russia would risk losing its primary oil customer and the US would risk losing its factory. China, living off of US money and Russian oil has a vested interest in seeing the two powers remain peaceful.
2008: Our economy came within hours of total collapse. At that point, economic collapse would most likely result in a collapse of the peace.
China is currently suffering some serious economic problems. If they believe they are bordering on collapse they may do something stupid to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Maybe not with Taiwan, but Japan, Russia, or India. After all, a war would be a good way to get rid of millions of ppl about to retire and cause problems with their social security system.
I posit that there would need to be serious upheaval for conventional war to strike.
Agreed. But not outside the realm of what is possible or even likely.
Crimea is an example of the brush wars. Russia knows it can exert its influence without the rest of the world actually doing anything (in the same exact way the US knew it could exert influence over Iraq without any armed opposition from the world powers.) Russia may be sabre rattling right now, but that's still a LONG way away from actually starting a conventional conflict.
Take it away and fault lines will more than likely begin to rumble again. The Crimea is an example of this.
Not necessarily. At one time the USSR and the US were like Rome and Carthage: two great powers competing with one another for dominance. The US won. The difference is we did not 'salt the Earth' in Moscow like Rome did in Carthage.
Therefore, put into a historical perspective and seeing how international relations have gone down for practically all of time (including periods of globalization and technological advancement that rival our own). The war in Iraq is a brush fire war a la Rome's push into Northern Europe...to keep the Empire safe from the barbarians at the gate.
On the other hand, Russia's adventures in the Caucuses and Eastern Europe would be akin to the rise of the Germanic tribes that nibbled at the edges of Rome. Putin is testing the West to check our resolve, and I think he likes what he sees.
In a contest of speed and maneuverability less muscle is actually a good thing. (Just making the point that "muscle" in one conflict is a hinderance in another.)
It very much is a question of priorities. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate some things. Now I do think we should look into cutting some things from the military. However, do we want to trim the fat or the muscle? To cut cruise missiles and aircraft is cutting into the muscle.
True, that's why runners are not body builders. HOWEVER, they DO develop their leg muscles.
I decline to comment here as I have a vested interest in two of these services.
* Let's be honest with ourselves: Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid are far greater expenses than our military spending and these program have some serious existential flaws.
Hey I get it...but the thing is we all do to some degree or another (although I respect where you're coming from). But I am NOT saying that we need to completely gut those services. However, I would like to see them made more efficient.
* The Federal Department of Education is also a complete failure. Federal oversight and meddling have eroded the effectiveness of programs such as Head Start.The Federal government should be in education, but you are right in that what it is doing now is more harmful than helpful. The government whould have two roles: primarily to assist in funding with no strings attatched; and to set a floor for teaching standards. (i.e. ensuring that religion is not taught as science and the whole Texas removal of critical thinking garbage doesn;t enter the cirriculum.)
Here's the thing, their assistance in funding comes at a cost. Many states loose money on the deal...and the poor schools in those states pay the price (not the rich/middle class ones). I don't see this federal assistance as beneficial in anyway.
Secondly, let Kansas or whoever teach creationism. If that's what's socially acceptable there. People will vote with their feet. Furthermore, kids are not all that open-minded and outside influences (parents and their church) will counteract any good federal meddling will do.
* I'm sorry, but taking on the ACA when we were facing the most serious economic collapse since the Great Depression was reckless and irresponsible. It's implementation is highly problematic. It's time to scrap it.Budget-wise, you're absolutely correct. However, socially, the deepest depths of a recession is the BEST time to enact a new social safety net.
I'm not convinced. We tried that in the Great Depression and it really made the situation worse.
* The minimum wage pushed people at the margins out of the labor force (they could not compete)
* FDR's SecTreas even admitted that all their tinkering was just making things worse.
In the Great Recession we've seen very slow growth compared to the recessions under both Bushs and the early '80s recession under Reagan.
It's not that I'm heartless...it's just that I want it to work. But I think history shows they are ineffectual and may do more harm than good.
At 3/31/14 06:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's an A-10 used at 30% to 40% of its potential. Get it? Not exactly a great joke.
Okay...just checking. :)
Honestly, I think getting rid of the A-10 is stupid. Everyone is focusing on its role as 'Tank Killer'. The reality is it is a great close air support platform. It can take a helluva lot of ground fire and still return to base. Its pilots also routinely train with ground forces, making them far more effective than other CAS pilots.
Now there are problems. The airframes are getting older. However, I think we should stop buying the JSF and switch those funds to new production A-10s and F-16s.
Other times, we need cruise missiles because the can do SO much more than drones can.In what capacity? Size of warhead or precision?
First of all, drones have only been tested in low counter-air threat environments. If we have to go up against China, Russia, or even N. Korea we will be using them in areas that are heavily defended by counter-air weapons. Cruise missiles are far more effective at defeating counter-air systems.
Secondly, there are non-kinetic abilities that cruise missiles have that drones do not. On this you'll just have to trust me. :)
Just because we have been fighting guerilla war does not mean that we'll be facing insurgents for the remainder of American Empire.Then it's merely a question of priority. Do we focus on our current budget issue, or keep a huge obstacle in the way of balancing the budget in favor of defendaing against a very hypothetical attack?
Not really hypothetical. This period of overall geopolitical peace is known as the Pax Americana. Yes there are 'brush wars' but no major power conflicting with other major power wars. The reason is it is built upon the power projection of the US military.
Take it away and fault lines will more than likely begin to rumble again. The Crimea is an example of this.
It's pretty much a question of priorities and either direction is a gamble. Either we gamble the budget against a possible attack or we gamble the ability to defend against such an attack in favor of the budget.
It very much is a question of priorities. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate some things. Now I do think we should look into cutting some things from the military. However, do we want to trim the fat or the muscle? To cut cruise missiles and aircraft is cutting into the muscle. If I were king for a day I'd do cuts that:
* Preserve the strength of the Navy (it is our most strategically important branch).
* Preserve the strength of the Air Force (our second most strategically important branch).
* Return the Army to a reserve force (as the Constitution dictates).
* Cut the JSF and redistribute the funds to new manufacture F-16s and A-10s.
* Cut the active duty Army by 50%, perhaps making half the Army as Reserve & Guard forces.
* Cut Army bases in Europe as part of the 'Asian Pivot'.
On the other hand, we need to examine our domestic spending.
* Let's be honest with ourselves: Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid are far greater expenses than our military spending and these program have some serious existential flaws.
* The Federal Department of Education is also a complete failure. Federal oversight and meddling have eroded the effectiveness of programs such as Head Start.
* I'm sorry, but taking on the ACA when we were facing the most serious economic collapse since the Great Depression was reckless and irresponsible. It's implementation is highly problematic. It's time to scrap it.
We must make painful decisions. But the easy answer of cutting the military is foolish.
At 3/26/14 01:15 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You know why A-10s are being phased out? Because they're obsolete (though, methinks Russia might be doing their best to change that). Seriously, when's the last time we fought a TRUE tank battle? 1991. That's 23 years of A-10 funding for 23 years of work that may rate A-3 or A-4 at best (get it, the planes aren't being used to their full potential)r A
What is an A-3 or A-4?
The US also has TONS of missile options to use. And guess what Drones allow us to do? Use dumber bombs to the same smart capability as smart ones. Check that, to a SMARTER capability. A cruise missile is fired from very far away (often over 100 miles). In order to hit the target these missiles must be super smart, and therefore are super expensive. A drone allows us to use much cheaper shorter range missiles that need only be accurate from 1-5 miles out. Not to mention if a cruise missile needs to be aborted it becomes a total loss. A drone strike can be aborted any time during flight before the close range missile launch and will cost only the fuel and time the mission used up.
The MQ-9 Reaper is the workhorse of the drone community and uses more than the Hellfire missile. (The Hellfire is SO 2004!) It can actually use 2000lbs smart and laser guided bombs.
Other times, we need cruise missiles because the can do SO much more than drones can.
Much of our bloated military is meant to fight an antiquated fight against other bloated militaries. The world of warfare and politics has changed so much since the first Gulf war when much of our current tech was at its height. As Q put it in Skyfall: we can do more damage on a computer in our PJs than many of our weapons could at all. The same power rests in a corporate executive.
To those of us who study war and are military professionals, there is danger in focusing on the last few wars. Often the enemy changes tactics on us and we can find ourselves in a war completely unlike the last war.
Just because we have been fighting guerilla war does not mean that we'll be facing insurgents for the remainder of American Empire.
However, like I indicated before, Russia is a wild card and could change all of this quite quickly.
Exactly. There are still geopolitical fault lines that threaten to erupt. ESPECIALLY if the US steps back from being the Empire.
At 3/31/14 08:35 AM, Gilot wrote: if someone is muslim that doesnt mean that he is an terrorist
I see you're new.
It's considered bad form to dredge up a topic that has been dead for sometime (ie: the last post on this one was in 2010!).
If you find the topic interesting:
* Make sure it's topical. (ie: make sure it's still relevant)
* Find something new to say about it, perhaps there's a new report/study/event.
Generally, if it's worth bringing back from the dead...it's worth creating a whole new topic instead of 'bumping' a dead one.
At 3/22/14 05:19 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Sure, the wall street collapse definitely crushed McCain's chances of an upset, but the real disaster was the entirety of the McCain campaign. To be honest, I find it hard to believe that McCain could have pulled it off even if the crash had waited until after the election was over.
2008 was the Democrats year. The Republican candidate should not have had any real chance...largely for the things you and Warforger cite.
I was just pointing out that McCain was surging and doing better than I expected he would. Was his surge enough to defeat Obama? Who knows...that's water under the bridge. :)
I was just (failed attempt at humor) nitpicking your original post. Since it was a disaster that destroyed McCain's surge...and allowed Obama to 'seal the deal'.
@ MOSFET
Gary Kleck is NOT the entirity of the social science conducted on the issue of gun control. But since you brought it up, I'll start there:
DGU
The problem is in how do we define Defensive Gun use (DGU). Originally, most researchers only defined it as when shots were fired. Makes sense, right? HOWEVER, you do not necessarily have to pull the trigger to effectively use a gun in self-defense. What Kleck theorized was that the presence of a gun can cause a criminal to stop from victimizing someone. Therefore he expanded the definition of what counts as a DGU.
Now there are some debates on this. However, what we do know is even if you take the lower range and more strictly defined definition of a DGU...you have more legitimate use of firearms than you have criminal use. (The total number of ppl getting shot is about 100,000. Murders: 11,000-16,000.)
Public Health and Gun 'science'
So what about the article you linked to about how much more likely you are to be shot/killed by a firearm if you own one compared to ppl who do not shoot?
Those studies would not be published in serious, peer-reviewed social science journals. Why? First of all, it's NOT because their numbers are wrong. It's because the question they are asking doesn't pass the 'giggle test'. The 'giggle test' is when you think about the question...is it one that is important and/or relevant. Or is it absurd and/or insignificant.
Their question is absurdly insignificant. Just think about it: if you engage in shooting and own a gun...you are more likely to get injured by shooting.
DUH!
Engaging in an activity increases your odds in being injured by that activity.
* If I do not jump out of airplanes...I'm not at a great risk of dying/injured in a sky diving accident. I mean I can still get hurt if a skydiver falls on me.
* If I do not fly, I'm not at risk of dying in an airplane crash...unless that airplane crashes on my house!
* If I'm Amish and don't drive...I'm not going to be injured in a car accident unless an irresponsible driver plows into my horse-drawn carriage!
This is my point: the researchers at the CDC behave like there is no science conducted on this so they are starting at square one answering questions that are either absurdly basic, have already been examined/answered, and/or irrelevant.
Correlation
I'm going to link to an article written by a blogger on the opposite side from me:
Real Clear Science's Newton Blog
As you can tell, when you look at the issue internationally there is no correlation between guns and homicide.
Now if you've read the article, you're probably thinking: 'Mason...he FINDS a strong correlation!'
True, but he does so through cherry-picking. He takes out S. Africa...but leaves in the US (another outlier). Why does he take out S. Africa?
"That is a country with a history of apartheid, ethnic conflict and violence. It is obviously skewing the results."
Now, I think this is a clear example of cherry-picking data to produce a result you want. Consider:
* S. Africa had apartheid...the US had segregation.
* S. Africa had ethnic conflict...the US had KKK, lynching, race riots, etc.
* S. Africa had violence...we had a Civil War and the violence I mentioned above.
* S. Africa did not have a black president until the early 1990s...the US did not elect a black president until 2008.
So why would you include one and not another exclude the other?
You wouldn't if you wanted to be scientific (much less...be published). If they are outliers...you take them BOTH out. I would like to have the guy's data set so I could run it myself. The result would most likely be a return to zero, if not slightly negative correlation (a negative correlation means that more guns = less homicides).
Factors that influence gun crime
So what are the causes of gun crime?
To begin, a correlation is important because in order to have causation you have to have correlation. (However, correlation does NOT mean causation!) As I've shown, any correlation between guns and gun crime (in my example: homicide) is either weak, nonexistent, or negative.
So guns are not really the problem.
* ELF: Ethno-Linguistic Factionalization is a measure social scientists use to describe the way ethnicity and language differences cause strife in society.
--This is why comparisons between the US and Europe & Japan are irrelevant: those are societies that are 90%+ ethnically homogenous. The US on the other hand is exceptionally diverse...including two minorities that are: 1) sizeable and 2) second-class.
* Socio-Economic Class
* Education
* Economic prosperity
So if we waste time worrying about further gun control we are wasting resources on something that will produce little results. Instead, we should be treating the causes not the symptoms.
After all, in public health when you have the means of addressing the pathogen you treat the disease...not the symptoms. To treat the symptoms only is supportive care you do when you cannot solve the problem.
Let's solve the problem...not waste our time at square one!
Assault Rifles
The refrain I hear from gun-control advocates is that "guns designed for the battlefield do not belong in the hands of civilians".
When I hear that...I know the person talking has either NO comprehension or VERY LITTLE comprehension of the subject.
* The rounds shot by assault rifles are NOT high powered...they're actually intermediate powered (ie: between a pistol caliber and traditional rifle caliber).
* According to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1869, and codified in the Hague Convention, military rounds cannot make death inevitable. Therefore, the most common rounds available to assault rifle shooters are actually the LEAST LETHAL ones I can buy. When I use my AK-47 to hunt deer I have to use ammo that's 10x more expensive than military ammo to be legal and lethal.
* High rates of fire does not equal more lethality.
--The faster I shoot...the more recoil causes my shots to be inaccurate. If I pull the trigger as fast as I can, I am shooting about 12-20 feet over a target that's 6ft tall. (Not a receipe for mass murder!)
--I can get better results using my shot gun. Each single buckshot round holds pellets...which are .30 caliber (about the size of an AR-15 round...only made out of more lethal materials). I'm also putting all nine in a much tighter pattern. The slower rate of fire means that with just 7 shells I can put the equivalent of two high capacity AR-15 magazines on target FAR more accurately than I can with any 'assault rifle'.
* Assault rifles are not used in crime. Statistically speaking, they are used in between 0.5-3%. Which is either insignificant...or zero. They are simply not well-suited for use in crime.
High capacity magazines
As I've linked to previously, criminologists at Penn State have found that:
* Hi-cap magazines in assault rifles are not used in crime.
* Hi-cap magazines are too common, especially for assault rifles, for legislation to be effective.
* Hi-cap magazines on handguns DOES hold some promise for reducing the damage caused in fire fights.
So here we see the only logical expansion of gun control: size limits on HANDGUN magazines.
(BTW: if you refer to mags as 'clips'...it shows an ignorance of firearms.)
At 3/29/14 02:13 PM, Ranger2 wrote: When it comes to West vs. East, you can't think of it in terms of right and wrong. The West and East do what they do for the same reason; to spread their interests and beat out their competitors. I think the West at least tries to have a better human rights record than the East, although both are not above supporting corrupt dictators.
Ultimately, the question is not democracy vs authoritarianism. It's who do you want to be more powerful? The West or the East? Seeing as I live in the West, if somebody is going to be in charge, I'd rather it be us than them.
1) I agree with you that we should not overly put an emphasis on 'right vs wrong' on intl relations. There comes a point where a country has to act in what is primarily their best interests. It's not always nice, perfect, or clean.
2) What I was describing operates along a spectrum. The West overall tries to influence governments to better human rights in their countries. (It doesn't always work, nor is it always perfectly executed.) On the other hand, it is the stated policies (quite often) of Eastern powerhouses such as Russia and China to not get involved with the domestic affairs of countries they interact with.
That's just fact.
What More wants to do is just score philosophical/ideological points.
At 3/29/14 09:56 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Spread human rights ...the west is doing that ?
...cherry picks...
So regardless of what they really are the Billions of our tax dollars are sent there to prop these 'governments' friendly to the west up !
Umm...does the West make mistakes? Fuck yeah (oh and BTW...it may actually be a violation of international law to put the ppl in GitMo on trial). Sure.
However, look at what I was saying. The West makes an attempt to at the end of the day do more good than harm. The West IS concerned with advancing human rights. Unfortunately, international relations are very messy. We have to act in our best interests.
My point is China and Russia are on one end of the spectrum of promoting human rights and the West is on another. Are we perfect? No. But do we do what they do? No.
I leave you with this article by a man who in my opinion is a great American.http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=5305883934H11690&redirect=false&contributor=Mish
Question: if you don't want to consider other's points. Why should we pay attention to you?
At 3/28/14 11:06 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Before you try & convince me or anyone else here, the UN as a body, that these people actually make a difference, you explain it to those people, when they believe you , maybe I'll actually listen to your points.
To not listen based upon what someone else does or does not believe is the sign of a closed heart and an intentionally ignorant mind.
You make Buddha sad.
At 3/27/14 09:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: ...As for the little nations, it has lost a great deal of effectiveness due to China and Russia. ...
Well put my friend.
The only thing I'd add is that I think it is a cultural thing too. Russia and China are not societies centered around individual rights. To quote Spock: 'The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few...or the one.' Their societies are organized around what is in the best interest of the society which in turn leads to a strong central state.
So what?
I agree with you that geopolitically speaking undermining the West's attempts to spread human rights to developing countries helps Russian & Chinese prestige in those regions/countries. However, I don't think that's the totality. I think almost as equally strong of a factor is that they legitimately see gassing civilians with Sarin, putting down political revolutions, not allowing women/minorities/homosexuals full citizenship, etc...as domestic issues that are none of Moscow's or Beijing's concern.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND PLAIN ENGLISH
I've said this several times on NG, so I'm sure many of you have seen it. But, given that we're currently talking about what is and is not a right I thought it appropriate to once again deconstruct the second amendment using historical context as well as the rules of grammar.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. SOURCE: US Archives
* To begin with the text has two clauses: a preamble and the action clause. In the 18th Century it was common for documents of great importance to get a preamble. Even if it was only one sentence long. This is something that makes the second amendment unique among all 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights. It is the only amendment they felt necessary to justify.
* The commas denote the preamble. While the National Archives version has two commas in it (the form approved by Congress), the actual amendment as ratified and accepted by SecState Thomas Jefferson (the form that has the power of law) only has one comma: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,. What does this mean? It means that the militia language is only about introducing the amendment and justifying it.
* Using the militia as the justification means: we're not talking about hunting and we're talking about every male over 14 or 15. So if you want to play the 'militia card'...then it means every male should be required to own an assault rifle and be ready to be drafted.
* In the preamble, there is no verb acting upon the words 'A well regulated Militia'. Therefore, 'Militia' cannot be the subject of the amendment because there is no action ascribed to it.
* The Constitution, before the Bill of Rights, only addressed the powers of the federal government and its relationship with the states. This is why 'the People' is only mentioned once: in the preamble. The Bill of Rights was created to address what rights were retained by individuals (ie: the People) and the states. Therefore, when we see 'the People' we are reading about an individual right.
* The People's right to 'keep and bear arms' is the subject since there is a verb clause: 'shall not be infringed'.
The take aways:
* It is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution (what, under US legal tradition is considered our basic civil rights).
* The militia language is only an introduction, and not a subject being acted upon in the amendment.
* This right cannot be taken away except under extraordinary circumstances.
At 3/23/14 11:23 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 3/23/14 10:11 AM, TheMason wrote: It is also based on the concept of self-defense natural right.Self defense is not a right. Nor should it be. It's a justification.
No self-defense is a right and has a long legal and philosophical history. Especially if we're talking about natural law which are basic human rights necessary for survival within the state of nature or (for the religious) endowed by the Creator.
Findlaw.com
Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence.
Furthermore, self-defense is even prevelant in international relations theory.
1) A country has an inherent right to self-defense against other nations and NGOs that seek to attack it.
2) A member of the armed forces retains the right of self-defense under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and Rules of Engagement (RoE). Furthermore, it is not stated as a justification...but a right.
I'm sorry my friend, history, policy, and law is not on your side here.
A right implies that it is socially acceptable. No violence is socially acceptable. A justification implies that it's bad, but you had good reason to do it. Our society holds all violent acts to be bad, but allowable in cases where the violence is intended to stop a worse harm.
Not at all.
First of all, a right is what a person and/or organization are allowed to do. Social acceptability should not be the primary consideration.
For example, in my neck of the woods homosexuality is not socially acceptable. Furthermore, some states have had votes on banning same-sex marriage. A passing vote on a referendum is a significant sign that something is or is not socially acceptable. In this case, gay marriage is socially unacceptable in many parts of the country. So...under your interpretation (or what you've been taught about the law), gays do not have the right to be gay or marry because this behavior is deemed 'socially unacceptable'.
In no way should what is 'socially acceptable' be a yard stick for determining what is and what is not a 'right'. That is a path to infringing on people's freedom and liberty.
Secondly, the source of our rights does not derive from social convention or even social consensus. It derives from the Constitution. Under the Constitution the people have a right to bear arms. In plain English (and yes it is plainly written), owning a firearm is defined as a right retained by the people. Now what is not plainly written, but implied, is the right of self-defense. Even the language of the militia supports this, after all the militia is a means of community, state, and national self-defense.
This sounds like a semantic difference, but it makes a difference legally too. If self defense were truly a right, the concept of proportionality would not matter. If you had the right to defend yourself it would not matter how you did it. With justification, proportionality plays into the "worse harm" portion. If someone picks a fist fight with you, bringing out a gun and shooting them (save special circumstances) itself becomes the worse harm and you have committed an unjustifiable crime, and not acted in true self defense.
Then we have no rights.
After all, proportionality is placing limits on a right and there are limits placed on practically every other amendment in the Bill of Rights.
* I cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater as a joke.
* I cannot kill a female member of my family because my religion tells me she has violated God's will and it is the honorable thing to do.
* I cannot assemble in many areas without receiving a permit first.
Yes, self-defense is also a justification. But then again, so is freedom of speech.
Furthermore, proportionality is not really much of a factor. A person can kill you with their fists. They can cause you serious harm with just their fists...thereby posing a threat to your ability to provide for yourself and family. If someone attacks you and is pummeling you...you don't know when they are going to stop. When you say uncle? When you stop moving? When clear fluid is oozing from your ears? When you stop breathing? It is very reasonable to assume that any attack, with some limitations, should warrant the use of whatever means I have available to me to thwart. Even if it means I'm using a gun against someone armed only with their fists.
I agree that there are reasonable limits on it. Now, when is the right of self-defense is limited?
* Did you start the fight?
* If you are not at home, did you have the ability to flee/disengage? (This is why I think Zimmerman could have been found guilty.)
It also is a strong matter of perception. One thing I can tell you that really drives the fire of the anti-gun crowd is the rhetoric of the pro-gun crowd. Much of the buzz words make the gun crowd seem like fanatics hardly fit for civilized society (eg. "over my dead body"). Other statements both fanatical and flat out wrong. "Owning a gun is a God given right!" Actually, it's not. It's a privilege granted to you by the Constitution. Treat it like a privilege. I can guarantee that if the pro-gun crowd dropped the shitty buzz words, the anti-gun crowd would be much more forgiving, because, seriously, what's scarier than a nutcase with a firearm?
No...it is a right. The Constitution even says so...again in plain English. So then is every amendment that applies to individuals a privilege?
This cuts both ways. Here's some of the buzz phrases that the anti-gun crowd uses that drives me nuts:
* 'Common sense gun control'
* 'A firearm designed for the battlefield does not belong in civilian hands' / 'military style assault rifles are only designed to kill people'
* 'If it will just save one life'
* 'Not doing public health studies on guns is not looking at the problem scientifically'
These are either designed to manipulate emotions rather than engage critical thinking, and/or flat-out wrong.
* How can you know what is 'common sense' if you don't know much about guns?
* Military firearms are, by law, specifically designed to fire ammo that does NOT make death inevitable! The ONLY guns designed specifically to kill people: handguns. They also have little military value...so I can see tighter regulation on ownership, carry, and mag capacity (and STILL be Constitutional).
* Since 1904 the number of gun accidents have fallen by over 94%...and not because of trigger locks, gun safes, etc. Furthermore, social scientific studies show that guns are used more defensively than they are used criminally. Further gun control will not contribute to saving lives.
* Social scientists have been studying this for decades. It's pretty conclusive; further gun control will not produce desired results. By making it a 'public health' issue, you are taking it out of the hands of people who understand how to conduct such methods of inquiry and putting it in the hands of people who only have a tentative grasp of social scientific methods. Furthermore, the intent of public health research is not to understand causality but to make policy recommendations based upon theories formed from observation. This is acting on correlation...not causation.
I agree, we need to dialogue. Because I can see how my side can be off-putting. But again...so can the anti-gun crowd. That side comes off as pompous, arrogant fools who talk about something they know nothing at all about. I don't mean to be offensive. BUT, that is what people like Piers Morgan, the MSNBC crowd, and troupe of celebrities that schill for gun control sound like to people like me who are quite knowledgeable on the subject.
At 3/21/14 11:24 PM, Warforger wrote: Right, and who would be more likely to go to war? Subservient Russia and China or the US and China? Considering all Russia's done with China is try to be friends with an uncaring China and all the US has done is condemn and limit their influence I think it's clear.
Who is subservient between the US and China? China?
No they are not as militarily capable...but they are an economic powerhouse. We hold each other by the short & curlies.
And don't paint the Russians as 'just wanting to be friends'...they are a power that has Imperial amibitions. They want to expand.
Also, the history between China and Russia is far longer and far bloodier than the 100 year history between the US and China.
Is the answer clear? Yes...but you refuse to see it.
And for what purpose would Russia piss China off in N. Korea? Why would they piss of someone who has the same foreign policy objectives everywhere in the world?
*sigh*
It has nothing to do with foreign policy. They care more about their own domestic interests than international interests. If Russia or China felt that their domestic power were threatened and war with a certain country...they would go to war with that country whomever it was.
As for N. Korea specifically...they've done it before throughout the Cold War. China and Russia often used Pyongyang to one-up one another. As Russia gets back up after getting knocked on their ass in the 1980s and 1990s...and now that they are returning to old habits...why wouldn't they return to this old habit?
1) The DPRK does share a border with Russia and is a source of cheap labor for hard jobs (such as lumber jacks in Siberia).
2) Involvement with DPRK does undermine both China and the US.
Makes perfect sense.
Maybe, but what I'm saying is that to say that China and Russia are going to go to war when neither have anything to get out of it to me is ridiculous especially after the fact that they've demilitarized their borders dismantling much of the military forces stationed between them. Given the fact that Russia actively helps China and helps train their military I doubt China is looking to invade Russia but rather be more assertive vs. the US.
Well...if all that were the case you'd be right in thinking it ridiculous.
But you're wrong.
1) Borders, in the cyber/air/TBM age can easily and quickly be re-militarized.
2) We have had military training exercises with Russia...but guess what? It all means shit. China and the Russians are going their separate ways in terms of the military...whatever you assert. If you look at the history they were never that close. Any military cooperation was purely for them to gain military capabilities that is more in keeping with their military philosophy and doctrine. The West is about quality over quantity. Russia and China are about overwhelming quality with quantity. Russian jets are cheaper. The AK-47 is superior to Western rifles in everything but long range accuracy (the least important thing for an assault rifle).
In the end, any military cooperation between China and Russia is born out of convenience...NOT loyalty or bonds of kinship. After all both countries have lingering racial prejudices against the other.
At 3/19/14 10:44 PM, Warforger wrote: Oh no it's harder for me to get a gun. Oh no the Federal government is trying to enforce laws the Federal government passed and were upheld as Constitutional. Oh no, how dare they infringe on our rights.
1) Is the reason it is harder to get a gun based on any scientific understanding of the problem?
No.
2) Does further gun control take resources away from the actual causal factors of crime and violence?
Yes.
3) Is further gun control policy predicated on the actual functionality and capabilities of firearms?
No.
4) Is further gun control policy predicated on spreading fear and appealing to the ignorance of non-shooters?
Yes.
5) Has federal gun control been tested in the Supreme Court and upheld as constitutional?
No. Up to this point, it has all been about states and/or local cases.
Seriously, the idea that the right to own a gun is a civil right is ridiculous.
Then no such thing as civil rights exist in the US. It is an individual right enshrined in the Bill of Rights...the amendments to the Constitution are the source of all individual, protected rights in our country.
It is also based on the concept of self-defense natural right.
At 3/21/14 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote: Right, but the question is if it's not ok to deny other civil rights to people who are mentally ill or present a danger to society, then why is it ok to deny them the right to bear arms IF it's a civil right? If you can either it's ok to deny people their civil rights based off of their mental health or the right to bear arms is not one of the rights listed in "natural law", it's not part of the social contract and in fact the "right to bear arms" is a privilege; not a right.
In doing this you make the entire bill of rights privileges.
Also, the right to bear arms is a basic natural law...if not the basic one. How? It's rooted in the concept of self-defense. The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that the Founders wanted a strong Navy...but for 'boots on the ground' defense they wanted the people to be responsible for defending their own homes, towns, counties, and states. They, rightfully, saw having a standing Army as 1) a threat to freedom and 2) a drain on the treasury.
The second purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that the Founders also understood that people by and large are responsible for their own self-defense against thuggery. Giving us the right to bear arms (and the 2nd Amendment gives it to the people...NOT the militia) gives us that ability.
So at it's core, the right to bear arms is fundamental to natural law. Now taking it away would be the realm of Diving Right, Fuedalism, and Communism.
At 3/20/14 06:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Since this was posted in poli, keep it political people. DO NOT BUMP THESE old threads either or I will shut this lickity split. Keep it fun and not a mod headache
But Mr Mod Sir...bumping three Shaggytheclown threads while looking in the bathroom mirror at midnight will bring him back!
How much fun would that be?
At 3/20/14 07:38 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: By the way, guess who called the 2008 Presidential election almost 9 months before election night?
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/860543#bbspost15476839_post_text
<falsetto> Nailed it! </falsetto>
Not to nitpick...
The funny thing is...counter to your worry about 'a disaster' I think it was a disaster that put him in office! McCain was quickly closing the gap...until September 18th and the economic collapse. McCain was running around in a panic...while Obama was cool and handled the situation with grace and sense of competency that laid to rest concerns over his experience level in most voter's minds in 2008.
At 3/18/14 12:16 AM, Warforger wrote:
Well aside from Ukraine, what's their stance on Sudan? Gaddaffi-Libya? Assad-Syria? Iran? Venezuela? Cuba? That's more of what I meant, not country specific issues like Crimea.
China's stance is whatever goes on domestically inside a country is that country's business. It's not like the West where we feel that we need to intervene to feed starving child or keep X minority from being exterminated by Y majority.
And what consequence is that to what I was saying? None really. What will matter in a future conflict is:
* What would be seen as enough in China's/US's/Russia's best interests to go to war with Russia, US, or even India?
* How would the other countries see their best interest in being served in a war between these two powers? Would it be better to get involved or let them fight it out and bloody each other?
If Russia and China were to go at it for whatever reason...then I see the US deciding to intervene on the side of China since so much of American business is done with China and we sell a ton of bond debt to them. (Thus a victorious China...or at least a status quo China would be in our best interest.)
Yes and no. The Chinese have used the Russians...however they've started going their own way. Their newest generation of fighters are more like copies of our aircraft than a MiG or Sukhoi. They copy and add to what they feel are the best equipment.No I mean the same programs India has with Russia China has with Russia where the Russians help train their soldiers and provide equipment.
Yes I know what you said and my answer remains the same. Does China use Russian military tech? Yes, it's cheaper than American tech and the Russians are willing to sell stripped down versions. However, the Chinese have over the past 20 years started going their own way and developing tech of their own so they can not be dependent on the Russians.
Meanwhile, the Russians and Indians have been cooperating on new designs. One MiG was even given the moniker: 'Raptor Killer'.
At 3/21/14 03:04 PM, Warforger wrote:At 3/21/14 02:37 PM, Feoric wrote: China and Russia are not a unified bloc. Russia is a troll that pisses off the West, while China is a wildcard. Sometimes their interests overlap but don't mistake that for an alliance. China does not want to set precedent in supporting revolutionaries and foreign intervention-- Tibet and Taiwan should be obvious examples as to why they take a non-interventionist stance. Russia likes to take a "balancing" role to counteract Western interests - the Fox News of geopolitics, if you will.Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that while their motives may be different their objectives are basically the same, so it's a bit insane that these two powers would go to war with the US joining them simply because of some border issues. It'd be like if the US went to war with France and Germany because they didn't help invade Iraq.
No...more insane like the beginning of WWI...maybe WWII. Russia could begin trying to help with N. Korea they same way they 'helped' in Syria. This would bring the DPRK more into Russia's sphere of influence and out of China's sphere of influence. Pyongyang does not play well with their neighbors so an abduction of an actor, shelling of an island, or missile test gone wrong (a test missile does damage to China, Japan, S. Korea, or Hawaii/Alaska)...and the spark is lit.
I'm not claiming to know specifics...but I think the region has the potential to be a tinderbox. And I further think the alliances will not be what most people think they will be.
At 3/20/14 06:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It is interesting to see some of the older threads by the more senior users. You can see how their views use to be 10 or so years ago.
I'm not sure I want to read what I was saying 10 years ago!
At 3/21/14 01:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 3/21/14 12:01 PM, wildfire4461 wrote:The revolution is comin'What revolution ? The one where citizens die because they will never win with violence. That's not to say that the general lack of training, tactics and quality health/physical conditioning the average American with a few guns is going to bode well for them.
Again LL1...why do you insist on pursuing things of which you have little or no understanding?
The conventional military is not well equipped to deal with insurgency. Even after 12-13 years of insurgent warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan the military struggles with it.
Now I am NOT advocating an armed resistance to the US government at this point. Obama is not Hitler. The missing Malaysian airliner is proof that the US spy system is not omnipresent.
That said, in urban areas there are gangs who are already well versed in guerilla warfare tactics. In rural areas, hunting prepares rednecks with ample training to tackle all but the most elite soldiers. And even then...once the SeALS hit the first house and surprise is blown...they will be taken out at the third or fourth.
Beyond that, in a hypothetical civil war...many states have sophisticated weapons systems at their disposal. Do you really think that if Texas decided to go rogue their Air National Guard would just give up their fighters and drones?
You foolishly overestimate military capabilities.
At 3/17/14 02:38 PM, Warforger wrote:At 3/16/14 02:36 PM, TheMason wrote: China and Russia are NOT friends but actually bitter rivals. In any conflict, I see the US and China as allies against Russia.For what possible reason? Their foreign policies are nearly identical.
Um...no.
The Chinese are a lot more practical. They would not endanger their domestic economy to make gains against Taiwan...or push into N. Korea.
Likewise, as an end to the Democratic Peace theory, I could see India (a regional power on the rise to global power) coming into conflict with China. Recently they have been developing military technology with Russia...so I could see Russia & India aligned against US & China.Guess who also has been developing military technology with Russia? China.
Yes and no. The Chinese have used the Russians...however they've started going their own way. Their newest generation of fighters are more like copies of our aircraft than a MiG or Sukhoi. They copy and add to what they feel are the best equipment.
At 3/16/14 03:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 3/16/14 02:30 PM, TheMason wrote: There is this law called The War Powers Act which came about in response to the Vietnam War. It sought to define limits on presidential power as CiC regarding military action that does not require a formal declaration of war.Technically you are wrong too. What you speak of is actually the War Powers Resolution. This is a key difference, as resolutions have no legal or binding effects whatsoever. As of yet Presidents give token credence to the resolution as to not alienate Congress. Regardless of this token patronage, the resolution is still entirely powerless.
Not necessarily.
Going to war is not a power of the president. It is a power of the Congress. Therefore, in this case I'm not sure that it makes all that much of a difference it being a resolution instead of an act. After all, the Congress does have the power to withold spending on the action and force the president to recall the troops.
