I'm Gay - Page 4 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 04:13 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
^ Like the Bush admin in regard to the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater, the rest of the military industrial complex and Iraq?

That's what I love about the liberal right. It's OK to steal from the middle class to make millionaires billionaires, as long as none of it goes to poor people.

Duh
DP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 04:47 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
^ Like the Bush admin in regard to the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater, the rest of the military industrial complex and Iraq?

That's what I love about the liberal right. It's OK to steal from the middle class to make millionaires billionaires, as long as none of it goes to poor people.

Duh
Epiphanic.
Qubes is online now  
post #33 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 05:52 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
^ Like the Bush admin in regard to the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater, the rest of the military industrial complex and Iraq?

That's what I love about the liberal right. It's OK to steal from the middle class to make millionaires billionaires, as long as none of it goes to poor people.

Duh
This statement means that you believe that the Government can spend your tax dollars more effectively than private business.

We are seing a major shift in the way our governments will fight wars going forward. The ideological way of thinking of Government fighting Government is gone. It is asymetrical. Government forces are not equipped for the rapid response necessary.

We as a people have to make a fundamental choice.

A: Are we going to allow ourselves to be attacked and then respond in the traditional way (Marines, Army, Air Force, Navy) with major amounts of damage to the countries we are in and the people who are there?

B: Shift the use of force towards a more privatized (read mercenary) force and concentrate on the technological/cyber, financial, and ideological areas that are more "palatable" to the American public.

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #34 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 06:22 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
This statement means that you believe that the Government can spend your tax dollars more effectively than private business.
No it really doesn't. I support neither social nor corporate welfare. Government has a fundamental responsibility to defend our nation. Stripped of national defense obligations, our federal government could be all but abandoned toward the empowerment of state governments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
We are seing a major shift in the way our governments will fight wars going forward. The ideological way of thinking of Government fighting Government is gone. It is asymetrical. Government forces are not equipped for the rapid response necessary.

We as a people have to make a fundamental choice.

A: Are we going to allow ourselves to be attacked and then respond in the traditional way (Marines, Army, Air Force, Navy) with major amounts of damage to the countries we are in and the people who are there?

B: Shift the use of force towards a more privatized (read mercenary) force and concentrate on the technological/cyber, financial, and ideological areas that are more "palatable" to the American public.
This is where you seem conflicted beyond all reason. One cannot promote both imperialism and conservatism. These ideologies couldn't possibly be more conflicted. The road toward national security and conservatism entails the promotion of a strong and mobile military based almost entirely on American soil. If we are forced to engage in warfare, then Congress must declare war and institute a military draft.

The road toward small government conservatism entails abandoning the current path of imperialism and global hegemony, toward the end of national defense (as opposed to offense) and the welfare of our country (as opposed to the empowerment of our government). Read that to mean that we should extricate our military from S. Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, and most especially Iraq, and we should do so as quickly as possible.

In regard to your choice of A or B, I select C: none of the above.

And don't concern yourself with "We as a people have to make a fundamental choice". The big brother government you support will make the choice for you.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #35 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 06:45 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
No it really doesn't. I support neither social nor corporate welfare. Government has a fundamental responsibility to defend our nation. Stripped of national defense obligations, our federal government could be all but abandoned toward the empowerment of state governments.



This is where you seem conflicted beyond all reason. One cannot promote both imperialism and conservatism. These ideologies couldn't possibly be more conflicted. The road toward national security and conservatism entails the promotion of a strong and mobile military based almost entirely on American soil. If we are forced to engage in warfare, then Congress must declare war and institute a military draft.

The road toward small government conservatism entails abandoning the current path of imperialism and global hegemony, toward the end of national defense (as opposed to offense) and the welfare of our country (as opposed to the empowerment of our government). Read that to mean that we should extricate our military from S. Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, and most especially Iraq, and we should do so as quickly as possible.

In regard to your choice of A or B, I select C: none of the above.

And don't concern yourself with "We as a people have to make a fundamental choice". The big brother government you support will make the choice for you.
Well done, I may copy that over to another thread later.

edfreeman is offline  
post #36 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 07:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
No it really doesn't. I support neither social nor corporate welfare. Government has a fundamental responsibility to defend our nation. Stripped of national defense obligations, our federal government could be all but abandoned toward the empowerment of state governments.



This is where you seem conflicted beyond all reason. One cannot promote both imperialism and conservatism. These ideologies couldn't possibly be more conflicted. The road toward national security and conservatism entails the promotion of a strong and mobile military based almost entirely on American soil. If we are forced to engage in warfare, then Congress must declare war and institute a military draft.

The road toward small government conservatism entails abandoning the current path of imperialism and global hegemony, toward the end of national defense (as opposed to offense) and the welfare of our country (as opposed to the empowerment of our government). Read that to mean that we should extricate our military from S. Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, and most especially Iraq, and we should do so as quickly as possible.

In regard to your choice of A or B, I select C: none of the above.

And don't concern yourself with "We as a people have to make a fundamental choice". The big brother government you support will make the choice for you.
So then you choose to ignore the realities of modern warfare and economics with an Isolationist position. Interesting.

I too do not believe in corporate welfare. Since when is cutting taxes, i.e. saying that the Gov't won't steal as much money, welfare?

I agree that the main purpose of a Government is to protect its citizens. Our government does not wish to do so though. This is evidenced by its complete unwillingness to destroy our enemies. This unwillingness comes from a generationaly learned behaviour that started in the 60's. I am sorry, humans are humans. If someone comes up to me on the street and punches me in the face I draw and fire. It is called self defense.

We started down the path of "Well it is wrong to use any more force than what is necessary to stop the beating." Bullcrap! That assumes that the stranger who just hit you is a reasonable person. Do reasonable people walk up to strangers and punch them in the face? No they don't.

Our enemies use our "Proportional Force" fetish against us. Plain and simple, you come at us we destroy you. Our Hegemony is good for the world.

If you don't believe it then we have a fundamental disagreement where my opinion is backed by over 60 years of evidence.

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #37 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 07:52 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2002 clk320
Location: Lancaster, Kentucky
Posts: 8,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
So then you choose to ignore the realities of modern warfare and economics with an Isolationist position. Interesting.

I too do not believe in corporate welfare. Since when is cutting taxes, i.e. saying that the Gov't won't steal as much money, welfare?

I agree that the main purpose of a Government is to protect its citizens. Our government does not wish to do so though. This is evidenced by its complete unwillingness to destroy our enemies. This unwillingness comes from a generationaly learned behaviour that started in the 60's. I am sorry, humans are humans. If someone comes up to me on the street and punches me in the face I draw and fire. It is called self defense.

We started down the path of "Well it is wrong to use any more force than what is necessary to stop the beating." Bullcrap! That assumes that the stranger who just hit you is a reasonable person. Do reasonable people walk up to strangers and punch them in the face? No they don't.

Our enemies use our "Proportional Force" fetish against us. Plain and simple, you come at us we destroy you. Our Hegemony is good for the world.

If you don't believe it then we have a fundamental disagreement where my opinion is backed by over 60 years of evidence.
Hey man, I have been on HIS ignore list for YEARS.
the clk man is offline  
post #38 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 08:04 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
There is a huge chasm that separates the extremes of isolationism and imperialism. It is called non-interventionism, and that is where 98% of our world's nations exist. Your failure to recognize or acknowledge that fact stands as evidence of your own extremist views.

And who are these enemies you speak of? Are they enemies of America or enemies of global hegemony? You seem to have translated your christian hierarchical views (god > man > animal) toward an imperialistic world view. It's OK for the US to impose its collective will upon lessor (?) nations, but it's not OK for other nations to impose their collective will upon us, is that right? 'Do as I say, not as I do' really doesn't cut it. True leaders lead by example. The U.S. should inspire imitation, not desire intimidation.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #39 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 08:25 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
Nah not biased, tasteless yes, biased no. I am prejudiced against liberals who think that freedom is given to us by government. That makes me prejudiced against soul-less, evil, nare-do-wells, who want my money, all in the name of giving someone else a "helping hand."
Apparently you don't understand at all [I bet you hear that a lot]. Liberals tend to think that Government takes away freedom, not that it is given to us by the government.

I believe that is considered diametrically opposed.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #40 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-02-2008, 08:31 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTRower View Post
This statement means that you believe that the Government can spend your tax dollars more effectively than private business.

We are seing a major shift in the way our governments will fight wars going forward. The ideological way of thinking of Government fighting Government is gone. It is asymetrical. Government forces are not equipped for the rapid response necessary.

We as a people have to make a fundamental choice.

A: Are we going to allow ourselves to be attacked and then respond in the traditional way (Marines, Army, Air Force, Navy) with major amounts of damage to the countries we are in and the people who are there?

B: Shift the use of force towards a more privatized (read mercenary) force and concentrate on the technological/cyber, financial, and ideological areas that are more "palatable" to the American public.
You are partially correct. We do have to make a decision to address asymmetrical warfare. It is a shame we did not make this decision back in 2003 when Bushie decided to invade Iraq. It would have made many things much better in the past six years.


But your choices are slightly flawed. A. is correct. But B. is incorrect in that you suggest that we retool to privatized force. The correct B. answer is to retool the US Armed Forces to more correctly address asymmetrical warfare while at the same time maintaining our ability to forward project should that be necessary in a true country to country conflict. We have the technology and the skillset to do that duel mission but will require a complete retooling of forces to make it happen.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    How gay are you? GeeS Off-Topic 223 12-13-2013 06:41 PM
    How gay are you?? deathrattle Off-Topic 54 12-18-2007 09:35 PM
    you're gay yoseyman Off-Topic 2 12-19-2006 06:21 PM
    I know you're gay because.......... RockSolid Off-Topic 6 01-10-2006 05:47 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome