EPTso much corruption....
Why America Sucks - Page 4
| Blogs > Louder |
|
The6357
United States1268 Posts
so much corruption.... | ||
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:37 Louder wrote: Nonsense and assumptions. Who are we protecting Japan and Germany from with 100,000 troops between the two, for example? The notion that if we don't occupy the entire world nobody is safe is fallacy Japan isn't allowed an army in their constitution. If you didn't garrison it I'd invade it in a shot. To be honest I feel safer knowing Japan is defended by American soldiers rather than Japanese. American soldiers may have a stereotypically bad reputation but Japanese have a rather worse one historically. As for Germany, Cold War legacy, it takes forever for the army to catch up. | ||
|
notsoeloquent
United States64 Posts
| ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
1) American Soldiers are one of the best paid in the world 2) A lot of that is DoD R&D spending. Universities receive a lot of portions of DoD money. 3) For those comparing it to, say education spending, you're morons. Education is on the shoulders of the state - Education spending far exceeds that of military spending, nearly 1.1 trillion. | ||
|
Faronel
United States658 Posts
 | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:27 7mk wrote: Are there really 50 000 american soldiers in germany? Are you sure thats true cause that sounds really ridiculous. Yes, where do you live? One of their casernes is like 300m from my apartment  Not that I do mind, most people here like to have them around. | ||
|
sctechie
United States11 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:26 Louder wrote: Yes. I thought it was pretty obvious. It was about the numbers, not the idiot author with obvious bias. *sigh* I'm not even getting into it. What is the author's bias exactly, pretty sure the article started out referencing UK defense spending cuts. What exactly that has to do with bias towards the US, I'm not sure. You're no better than the "tea party' party people. Misinformation is the same regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. | ||
|
Gnaix
United States438 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:48 sctechie wrote: *sigh* I'm not even getting into it. What is the author's bias exactly, pretty sure the article started out referencing UK defense spending cuts. What exactly that has to do with bias towards the US, I'm not sure. You're no better than the "tea party' party people. Misinformation is the same regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. lol It brings up the UK because it's a British newspaper. As the man keeps saying, JUST READ THE DAMN NUMBERS. The reason he linked the article was to show the comparisons in numbers. lol | ||
|
Sadist
United States7326 Posts
Now if he said he converted to christianity or was a republican....that would be an april fools joke | ||
|
agorist
United States115 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:05 Louder wrote: I live in Texas. So yeah, it's pretty likely. At softball games for my daughter I hear the other parents talking about arranging a local 'tea party' chapter. Not that a one of them have any idea what the actual Boston Tea Party was about, or how absurd the current 'Tea Party' movement actually is. Did you know that in America, people who don't believe in God are considered, by the general population, to be even less trustworthy than Blacks and Homosexuals? For a country well known for racism and homophobia, that's quite a thing. I'm particularly thrilled you've identified issues with our society -- however, I've always been rather disappointed with you proposed solutions. There's nothing wrong about the tea-party movement; it represents a rather large swathe of government dissent -- some good, some bad. It's a very "American" movement, which, I think you'd agree with. And as a segment of popular culture, sure, it's going to be filled with many buffoons. You don't like wealth disparity -- sure, nobody likes unnatural wealth disparity. It doesn't help that our government is actively funneling money into the hands of the ultra-rich, but there was always an alternative. Ask yourself why as governments grow larger and more powerful we keep ending up with (as a world economy) an ultra rich demographic that is accruing more and more wealth. First, in their favor -- their wealth just doesn't sit and rot in some castle. They make money by investing and placing their money in places where it will provide some return. This is only possible by offering some service or product that society deems wanted. The problem with is that in many ways their earned wealth comes from involuntary means -- government subsidy, government bailout, and/or government monopoly. You're right about one thing -- these lucky individuals maintain their status quo by utilizing government to their advantage. But, the knee-jerk reaction to utilize government to chastise these individuals and impose some form of egalitarianism is just as flawed and immoral as their reign of manipulation and will only end up serving their benefit, or, leave us all in a less fortunate situation. Reducing military spending (which I'm all for) should not be pursued in order to spend money elsewhere. It is time we stop spoonfeeding the parasitic class and their lackeys. | ||
|
sctechie
United States11 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:38 KwarK wrote: Just because Steve Pinker said the world is getting more peaceful doesn't mean anyone who doesn't think that is uneducated. The 20th century has seen countless genocides, mass murders and the invention of total war. It has seen biological warfare unleashed on the Chinese, nuclear warfare on the Japanese and millions dying in genocide. I personally think Steve Pinker's an idiot and I'd go so far as to say you're an idiot for linking him without in any way adding thoughts or analysis of your own. Ehh, words are cheap on the internet. So, here's Prof. Pinker's bio from his own website: "Steven Pinker is Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Until 2003, he taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, and most recently, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature." Regardless of your OPINION on his work (your own research would be what?), I don't think you can call him an idiot. However, I am perfectly justified calling people on the internet who obviously don't know what they are talking about idiots. Take 30 seconds, go find me a link supporting your viewpoint and I'll be happy to read it. I like to educate myself. So, I prefer to go with someone who actually knows what they are talking about rather than just another internet 'tough guy'. Thanks. | ||
|
nAi.PrOtOsS
Canada784 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:14 sctechie wrote: Someone else who doesn't know what they're talking about. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/006259.html It's a shame I had to stop lurking at TL after all these years to post in some stupid 'blog' forum post with a bunch of uneducated fools. I don't really think you can come to a conclusion that the last 100 years have been more peaceful then any other 100 year time span throughout history. In the article you linked the author for the most part only talks about a decrease in violence in regards to capital punishment, he mentions Darfur and Iraq but fails to mention WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the genocies commited by the Ottoman Empire/Turkey, and many many many other violent events. All this article concludes is that there is a decrease in violence with regards to capital punishment. Not that there has been a decrease in violence in the last 100 years. Edit: Also learn some fucking respect, if you don't like blogs or conversing with people who post on blogs dont fucking read it. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
MuscLe
United States29 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
We also have a long history if intervening in other countries but seem to be just offended if anyone even suggests some sort of check to the US international will. The post is well justified, and its also true that more than half of Americans share this view of "the rest of the world is fucked up, and apparently just needs us to invade them etc to teach them lessons." Lastly, I will state that the US is the worlds leading terrorist state, being responsible for more civilian deaths in each period of the last 10, 20, 30 and 40 years than any other nation or group. | ||
|
sctechie
United States11 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:56 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 02 2010 03:14 sctechie wrote: Someone else who doesn't know what they're talking about. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/006259.html It's a shame I had to stop lurking at TL after all these years to post in some stupid 'blog' forum post with a bunch of uneducated fools. I don't really think you can come to a conclusion that the last 100 years have been more peaceful then any other 100 year time span throughout history. In the article you linked the author for the most part only talks about a decrease in violence in regards to capital punishment, he mentions Darfur and Iraq but fails to mention WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the genocies commited by the Ottoman Empire/Turkey, and many many many other violent events. All this article concludes is that there is a decrease in violence with regards to capital punishment. Not that there has been a decrease in violence in the last 100 years. Edit: Also learn some fucking respect, if you don't like blogs or conversing with people who post on blogs dont fucking read it. Here, I did your work for you. Another piece that has an opposing viewpoint. http://mises.org/resources/2674 BTW, I wasn't drawing any conclusions. I was responding to some guy that posted a couple of inflammatory pictures as evidence of some larger point that we live in the most violent time in the history of the world. What I was trying to point out, is that the issue is a lot more nuanced than a bunch of pictures from 60 (yes SIXTY) years ago. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On April 02 2010 04:11 cursor wrote: Lastly, I will state that the US is the worlds leading terrorist state, being responsible for more civilian deaths in each period of the last 10, 20, 30 and 40 years than any other nation or group. [citation needed] | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:53 agorist wrote: I'm particularly thrilled you've identified issues with our society -- however, I've always been rather disappointed with you proposed solutions. There's nothing wrong about the tea-party movement; it represents a rather large swathe of government dissent -- some good, some bad. It's a very "American" movement, which, I think you'd agree with. And as a segment of popular culture, sure, it's going to be filled with many buffoons. You don't like wealth disparity -- sure, nobody likes unnatural wealth disparity. It doesn't help that our government is actively funneling money into the hands of the ultra-rich, but there was always an alternative. Ask yourself why as governments grow larger and more powerful we keep ending up with (as a world economy) an ultra rich demographic that is accruing more and more wealth. First, in their favor -- their wealth just doesn't sit and rot in some castle. They make money by investing and placing their money in places where it will provide some return. This is only possible by offering some service or product that society deems wanted. The problem with is that in many ways their earned wealth comes from involuntary means -- government subsidy, government bailout, and/or government monopoly. You're right about one thing -- these lucky individuals maintain their status quo by utilizing government to their advantage. But, the knee-jerk reaction to utilize government to chastise these individuals and impose some form of egalitarianism is just as flawed and immoral as their reign of manipulation and will only end up serving their benefit, or, leave us all in a less fortunate situation. Reducing military spending (which I'm all for) should not be pursued in order to spend money elsewhere. It is time we stop spoonfeeding the parasitic class and their lackeys. I do think cutting military spending and shifting money elsewhere is a legitimate part of a larger solution. My original blog post is more about the American mindset and why it makes America suck. The Tea Party movement is certainly American in it's ignorance - any number of polls taken at events across the country demonstrate that they didn't even know what the proposed health care legislation was going to do - they just opposed it. The Reaganites and their "any government is bad government" line are clearly people so far detached from reality that there is simply no validity to their opinions. The notion that the wealthy re-invest in society is not entirely true. Capitalism at large relies on the idealistic assumption that there is a fair balance of power between the provider and the purchaser of a good or service, between the employer and the job holder. I don't think I need to provide evidence that this assumption is false - but if I do, look at worker conditions in the industrial revolution in this country. It's a perfect example of wage slavery. Building on that, you have the wealthy class spreading wealth amongst itself, accumulating wealth, and not allowing wealth to trickle down in any way. They re-invest to the extent it directly benefits them, and only them - often in ways that directly harm the lower classes. Current mortgage derivative and credit default swap induced economic crisis is a case in point. Better yet, let's talk about privatization of government functions for the sole benefit of the wealthy. Privatizing the prison system, for example, has been demonstrated to raise cost, and also raise the incarceration rates. It's no coincidence that when the drug war really heated up in the early 90s, privatization was just getting rolling. Defense, health care, penal system, corporate welfare (bank bailouts? omfg) - it's an endless pattern of misuse and abuse of public wealth for the benefit of the upper class. And poor people everywhere are convinced these things are good, simply because they are convinced government is bad, therefore privatization is automatically good. Same for regulations and so forth. But as long as Americans have their TV, their assault rifles, their wars to cheer with blind patriotism, and their superstitious religion, and the carrot on a stick showing them that "yes you too can be rich and powerful", there will always be a status quo that is owned entirely by the wealthy. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On April 02 2010 03:54 sctechie wrote: Ehh, words are cheap on the internet. So, here's Prof. Pinker's bio from his own website: "Steven Pinker is Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Until 2003, he taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, and most recently, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature." Regardless of your OPINION on his work (your own research would be what?), I don't think you can call him an idiot. However, I am perfectly justified calling people on the internet who obviously don't know what they are talking about idiots. Take 30 seconds, go find me a link supporting your viewpoint and I'll be happy to read it. I like to educate myself. So, I prefer to go with someone who actually knows what they are talking about rather than just another internet 'tough guy'. Thanks. Which part of that qualified him on military history? Appeals to authority are a great logical fallacy to employ but it's normal to appeal to an authority within the field of the argument. Otherwise I could just counter your argument with Gandalf. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://blog.core-ed.net/aliarchives/napalm%20girl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.outofbox.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/death-camp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.lesmanantsduroi.com/Images7/tranchee-mort.jpg)
