On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
I assume from your posting you're voting Republican. Is this because you don't like Obama's policies? You like Romney's policies? Or a combination of the two?
Both. I think Romney will be a good president if elected. I also generally subscribe to what he is selling. On the flip side, Obama has proven to be a horrible leader, and I disagree with almost everything that he has done and wants to do.
I guess I'm just wondering if it's an "anyone but Obama" type of mentality because I honestly cannot fathom Romney's position being good for anybody but the rich at the moment. I don't say that to be rude, but it seems he's been worse than Obama when it comes to no details and flip-flopping.
I have repeatedly said in this thread and others that I think that a plywood board would be a better president than Obama and beat him.
EDIT: I also believe that Romney's "flip-flopping" is grossly exaggerated.
Thanks for the reply. When you say you disagree with almost everything Obama has done/wants to do. I'd love to hear some specifics and why? I just haven't heard a convincing argument against Obama, whereas I have heard many against Romney and I'd love to hear an intelligent position (which you seem to have).
I assume you oppose the 3 big things - Obamacare, his handling of the economy (including tax policy) and the "role of government" - but do you mind being more specific about what is wrong with Obamacare (or universal health care in general?) In a time of unprecedented economic turmoil, is his approach to the economy that bad or unexpected?
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
Stewart doesn't actually care about mandatory service -- the question was structure in a way that proposed it as an option. Stewart has historically always supported any mechanism that, in principle, made the connection and consequences between mainstream society and our military actions stronger, and more tangible.
Most of America lives in a fucking bubble that want's to be the most powerful military force in the world without paying for it endangering their own lives or the ones they love. Mainstream society sees the military as some kind of self sufficient, cottage industry, separate from the day to day lives of Americans, when in actuality it is a massive expenditure that tax payers pay for.
All Stewart is actually arguing for is a society where America's actually understand and care about what the military actually does. If the government actually raised taxes to pay for wars, LIKE THEY SHOULD, then people would probably wake the hell up.
Anti-war lefties have been making this kind of argument since the end of Vietnam - it's never worked because the 'disconnect' between most Americans and the military is a myth that exists only in the heads of people like Stewart and yourself.
The idea that if we brought back the draft or raised taxes for war, that the American people would suddenly start putting flowers in their hair and singing "We Shall Overcome" while clogging the streets from coast to coast is a fantasy.
The entire train of thought is an insult to the intelligence of the masses, which of course means it's just an expression of the mindset that the common man is stupid and the purveyor of the argument has risen out of the dust by his own inherent superiority.
Wow DeepEmBlues. That's the stupidest, more condescending, weakest strawman argument I've read in this thread in weeks.
How is arguing that real participation, whether through taxation or service, somehow controversial or pacifist? It would undeniably make people more conscientious and invested in the operation of the military. t's possibly the most pro-Military statement you can make.
Civilians demanding that the government use the military responsibly is not the same as ignoring the threats in the world.
Seriously dude, fuck you.I made the argument fifty pages ago about the importance of US military in global security and my disappointment in other UN allies for not getting more involved in actively spreading democracy.
It's not outrageous or unpatriotic to demand that average citizen have a better understanding of what a 'surge' in Iraq or 'nation-building' actually fucking means.
Edit: I know I shouldn't being telling people to fuck off, but I'm genuinely insulted by the insinuation that me or Jon Steward must be hippy-dippy idiots. DeepEM Blues and I have been posting in this thread for a long ass fucking time, and I thought he would give me a little more credit than that. Jesus.
On October 09 2012 04:50 ticklishmusic wrote: Here is a video of Romney debating himself. His flip flopping is actually that bad.
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
Can someone please link this gentleman the page in this thread where Obama's supposed excesses were debunked?
I actually looked for something to debunk this and couldn't find anything. Figured this would stir some people up unless someone already had a rebuttal.
Comparison with the royal family is pretty dumb, they handle most of their own expenses from their family money and estates income. It's only official business like travel and security that they get reimbursed for.
And is it just me, or does the Royal Family not actually do anything important?
You're Canadian, they're your heads of state, you tell me. Do you think you're getting your money's worth out of them?
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
Stewart doesn't actually care about mandatory service -- the question was structure in a way that proposed it as an option. Stewart has historically always supported any mechanism that, in principle, made the connection and consequences between mainstream society and our military actions stronger, and more tangible.
Most of America lives in a fucking bubble that want's to be the most powerful military force in the world without paying for it endangering their own lives or the ones they love. Mainstream society sees the military as some kind of self sufficient, cottage industry, separate from the day to day lives of Americans, when in actuality it is a massive expenditure that tax payers pay for.
All Stewart is actually arguing for is a society where America's actually understand and care about what the military actually does. If the government actually raised taxes to pay for wars, LIKE THEY SHOULD, then people would probably wake the hell up.
Anti-war lefties have been making this kind of argument since the end of Vietnam - it's never worked because the 'disconnect' between most Americans and the military is a myth that exists only in the heads of people like Stewart and yourself.
The idea that if we brought back the draft or raised taxes for war, that the American people would suddenly start putting flowers in their hair and singing "We Shall Overcome" while clogging the streets from coast to coast is a fantasy.
The entire train of thought is an insult to the intelligence of the masses, which of course means it's just an expression of the mindset that the common man is stupid and the purveyor of the argument has risen out of the dust by his own inherent superiority.
Wow DeepEmBlues. That's the stupidest, more condescending, weakest strawman argument I've read in this thread in weeks.
How is arguing that real participation, whether through taxation or service, somehow controversial or pacifist? It would undeniably make people more conscientious and invested in the operation of the military. t's possibly the most pro-Military statement you can make.
That's what I'm feeling aswell, it would have the exact opposite effect. It would make people like (appriciate, understand, etc, no all encompassing word is coming to mind) and want to spend money on the military and would lead to the exact opposite of a pacifist experience. Even going to war with a draft may not create pacifists other than the people at home. It's a lot more complicated than that.
As for my interpretation of Stewarts suggestion; Some form of civil duty would create a better mentality for how to build a functioning nation. A society isn't every man for himself, it never was and it never will be. As such you should try to create the best community you can, not just for the rich, or the middle class, or the poor, or whatever other social groups you can name. Extremes suck and the only way for you to realize this is to get engaged in reality.
The idea that anyone has the right to strip you of your liberty and force you to fight for their ideals seems bizarre to me. I can imagine it in a system like America in which the young are indoctrinated to believe that their lives are subservient to the concept of the United States with pledges
It's always funny when foreigners say stuff like this about the United States, just confirms that they're just as ignorant of Americans as Americans are of them. Especially in the context of the discussion you made this reply to.
There is an awful lot about the United States like the pledge of allegiance or the insane level of veneration the founding fathers get and the flag worship that, from a European perspective, is really, really creepy. Maybe it's because we're older, maturer states or maybe it's because unlike the United States we've seen what it's like for a border to move, a state to evolve and a real war to be fought on our soil but you just don't get that here. Nationalism is seen for what it is more clearly in Europe and that affords the people protection from abuse of the idea of the country by those willing to demand support from the concept of duty.
In any case, regardless of whatever consequences we can extrapolate from such a policy, we cannot escape the obvious fact that MANDATED participation in either the military or some other civic service is in fact requiring work from someone under threat of the law. I hate to use the word slavery because I think it cheapens the term, but using coercion or force to get work out of people against their will is not moral imo under any circumstance.
I'm not exactly sure we have the means to accommodate so many people for civil service. I'm of the opinion our bureaucracy is already needlessly big anyways and our military has far too many applicants than quotas allow at the moment. We'd need some huge governmental restructuring to enact such a measure.
But, at the bottom of it all, I also don't believe there should be mandatory service. While I love the idea on paper, forcing people against their will won't do society much good. If anything I rather they just have civics courses taught in high school.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
Stewart doesn't actually care about mandatory service -- the question was structure in a way that proposed it as an option. Stewart has historically always supported any mechanism that, in principle, made the connection and consequences between mainstream society and our military actions stronger, and more tangible.
Most of America lives in a fucking bubble that want's to be the most powerful military force in the world without paying for it endangering their own lives or the ones they love. Mainstream society sees the military as some kind of self sufficient, cottage industry, separate from the day to day lives of Americans, when in actuality it is a massive expenditure that tax payers pay for.
All Stewart is actually arguing for is a society where America's actually understand and care about what the military actually does. If the government actually raised taxes to pay for wars, LIKE THEY SHOULD, then people would probably wake the hell up.
Anti-war lefties have been making this kind of argument since the end of Vietnam - it's never worked because the 'disconnect' between most Americans and the military is a myth that exists only in the heads of people like Stewart and yourself.
The idea that if we brought back the draft or raised taxes for war, that the American people would suddenly start putting flowers in their hair and singing "We Shall Overcome" while clogging the streets from coast to coast is a fantasy.
The entire train of thought is an insult to the intelligence of the masses, which of course means it's just an expression of the mindset that the common man is stupid and the purveyor of the argument has risen out of the dust by his own inherent superiority.
Wow DeepEmBlues. That's the stupidest, more condescending, weakest strawman argument I've read in this thread in weeks.
How is arguing that real participation, whether through taxation or service, somehow controversial or pacifist? It would undeniably make people more conscientious and invested in the operation of the military. t's possibly the most pro-Military statement you can make.
Civilians demanding that the government use the military responsibly is not the same as ignoring the threats in the world.
Seriously dude, FUCK YOU. I made the argument fifty pages ago about the importance of US military in global security and my disappointment in other UN allies for not getting more involved in actively spreading democracy.
It's not outrageous or unpatriotic to demand that average citizen have a better understanding of what a 'surge' in Iraq or 'nation-building' actually fucking means.
That's nice. Doesn't change the fact that your argument is built on a myth.
I didn't say it was controversial or pacifist, I said it was a fantasy.
The argument that people are not conscientious or invested in the military is ignorant.
You're implying that citizens aren't demanding the government use the military responsibly, obviously you're ignorant of the level of affection and attention and interest the people have in the strength and well-being of the military.
I didn't say it was outrageous or unpatriotic, I said it was a fantasy. What you are doing is arguing based on a fantasy world. You have built an argument on assumptions born of ignorance. Do you think that the average citizen didn't or doesn't understand what the surge in Iraq was or what nation-building actually fucking means? I would argue that the average citizen has a more realistic outlook on both than the top-hat boys in the State Department and the young guns in the White House (regardless of administration).
There is an awful lot about the United States like the pledge of allegiance or the insane level of veneration the founding fathers get and the flag worship that, from a European perspective, is really, really creepy. Maybe it's because we're older, maturer states or maybe it's because unlike the United States we've seen what it's like for a border to move, a state to evolve and a real war to be fought on our soil but you just don't get that here. Nationalism is seen for what it is more clearly in Europe and that affords the people protection from abuse of the idea of the country by those willing to demand support from the concept of duty.
This just proves my point even more. You don't actually know about the importance of the pledge of allegiance (none, zero, zip, nada, the thing was a joke and anyone who has gone to school in the US knows that it is a joke and is treated as a joke or as nothing at all by students). You don't know actually know about the level and nature of veneration of the Founding Fathers, or about "flag worship."
Which is why it is really, really amusing, you paint a picture of an America that 95% of Americans would not recognize. Great you think this stuff is super-duper ultra-mega important to us, it isn't. If you get creeped out by this fantastical America in your minds, that's just hilarious to me.
You're transposing the European experience onto America and it just doesn't work. Sorry to say you're ignorant again, but we did fight real wars over here. Your contention that you see what nationalism really is more clearly is just laughable. Your states are older but hardly more mature. And this idea about abuse of the idea of country, God, you really don't know what you're talking about. Sorry KwarK, but America invented the idea of protesting against abuse of love of country.
You, like so many foreigners, have conceptions about America that are just so incredibly inaccurate that it's amazing to read what you're writing. Literally everything I and everyone I went to school with was taught - from the time we were old enough to be taught about citizenship and government until the day I graduated high school - about how to act as Americans and as citizens completely contradicts what you believe about us.
On October 09 2012 06:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: In any case, regardless of whatever consequences we can extrapolate from such a policy, we cannot escape the obvious fact that MANDATED participation in either the military or some other civic service is in fact requiring work from someone under threat of the law. I hate to use the word slavery because I think it cheapens the term, but using coercion or force to get work out of people against their will is not moral imo under any circumstance.
You may want to think about what you're saying. You are basically delegitimizing the whole concept of a draft, which I think is an essential power of the state in prosecuting industrial scale warfare.
The idea that anyone has the right to strip you of your liberty and force you to fight for their ideals seems bizarre to me. I can imagine it in a system like America in which the young are indoctrinated to believe that their lives are subservient to the concept of the United States with pledges
It's always funny when foreigners say stuff like this about the United States, just confirms that they're just as ignorant of Americans as Americans are of them. Especially in the context of the discussion you made this reply to.
There is an awful lot about the United States like the pledge of allegiance or the insane level of veneration the founding fathers get and the flag worship that, from a European perspective, is really, really creepy. Maybe it's because we're older, maturer states or maybe it's because unlike the United States we've seen what it's like for a border to move, a state to evolve and a real war to be fought on our soil but you just don't get that here. Nationalism is seen for what it is more clearly in Europe and that affords the people protection from abuse of the idea of the country by those willing to demand support from the concept of duty.
I agree with most of this, only I'd caution against assuming that a superlative number of people are ignorant of Nationalism's pitfalls here in the US.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
Stewart doesn't actually care about mandatory service -- the question was structure in a way that proposed it as an option. Stewart has historically always supported any mechanism that, in principle, made the connection and consequences between mainstream society and our military actions stronger, and more tangible.
Most of America lives in a fucking bubble that want's to be the most powerful military force in the world without paying for it endangering their own lives or the ones they love. Mainstream society sees the military as some kind of self sufficient, cottage industry, separate from the day to day lives of Americans, when in actuality it is a massive expenditure that tax payers pay for.
All Stewart is actually arguing for is a society where America's actually understand and care about what the military actually does. If the government actually raised taxes to pay for wars, LIKE THEY SHOULD, then people would probably wake the hell up.
Anti-war lefties have been making this kind of argument since the end of Vietnam - it's never worked because the 'disconnect' between most Americans and the military is a myth that exists only in the heads of people like Stewart and yourself.
The idea that if we brought back the draft or raised taxes for war, that the American people would suddenly start putting flowers in their hair and singing "We Shall Overcome" while clogging the streets from coast to coast is a fantasy.
The entire train of thought is an insult to the intelligence of the masses, which of course means it's just an expression of the mindset that the common man is stupid and the purveyor of the argument has risen out of the dust by his own inherent superiority.
Wow DeepEmBlues. That's the stupidest, more condescending, weakest strawman argument I've read in this thread in weeks.
How is arguing that real participation, whether through taxation or service, somehow controversial or pacifist? It would undeniably make people more conscientious and invested in the operation of the military. t's possibly the most pro-Military statement you can make.
Civilians demanding that the government use the military responsibly is not the same as ignoring the threats in the world.
Seriously dude, FUCK YOU. I made the argument fifty pages ago about the importance of US military in global security and my disappointment in other UN allies for not getting more involved in actively spreading democracy.
It's not outrageous or unpatriotic to demand that average citizen have a better understanding of what a 'surge' in Iraq or 'nation-building' actually fucking means.
That's nice. Doesn't change the fact that your argument is built on a myth.
I didn't say it was controversial or pacifist, I said it was a fantasy.
The argument that people are not conscientious or invested in the military is ignorant.
You're implying that citizens aren't demanding the government use the military responsibly, obviously you're ignorant of the level of affection and attention and interest the people have in the strength and well-being of the military.
I didn't say it was outrageous or unpatriotic, I said it was a fantasy. What you are doing is arguing based on a fantasy world. You have built an argument on assumptions born of ignorance. Do you think that the average citizen didn't or doesn't understand what the surge in Iraq was or what nation-building actually fucking means? I would argue that the average citizen has a more realistic outlook on both than the top-hat boys in the State Department and the young guns in the White House (regardless of administration).
Oh come on. First of all, many of the people in the state department are former military. Secondly, did you see the audience at some of those republican primary debates? They want to go to war with Iran. Even though we just had an awful war in Iraq!
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
Stewart doesn't actually care about mandatory service -- the question was structure in a way that proposed it as an option. Stewart has historically always supported any mechanism that, in principle, made the connection and consequences between mainstream society and our military actions stronger, and more tangible.
Most of America lives in a fucking bubble that want's to be the most powerful military force in the world without paying for it endangering their own lives or the ones they love. Mainstream society sees the military as some kind of self sufficient, cottage industry, separate from the day to day lives of Americans, when in actuality it is a massive expenditure that tax payers pay for.
All Stewart is actually arguing for is a society where America's actually understand and care about what the military actually does. If the government actually raised taxes to pay for wars, LIKE THEY SHOULD, then people would probably wake the hell up.
Anti-war lefties have been making this kind of argument since the end of Vietnam - it's never worked because the 'disconnect' between most Americans and the military is a myth that exists only in the heads of people like Stewart and yourself.
The idea that if we brought back the draft or raised taxes for war, that the American people would suddenly start putting flowers in their hair and singing "We Shall Overcome" while clogging the streets from coast to coast is a fantasy.
The entire train of thought is an insult to the intelligence of the masses, which of course means it's just an expression of the mindset that the common man is stupid and the purveyor of the argument has risen out of the dust by his own inherent superiority.
Wow DeepEmBlues. That's the stupidest, more condescending, weakest strawman argument I've read in this thread in weeks.
How is arguing that real participation, whether through taxation or service, somehow controversial or pacifist? It would undeniably make people more conscientious and invested in the operation of the military. t's possibly the most pro-Military statement you can make.
Civilians demanding that the government use the military responsibly is not the same as ignoring the threats in the world.
Seriously dude, FUCK YOU. I made the argument fifty pages ago about the importance of US military in global security and my disappointment in other UN allies for not getting more involved in actively spreading democracy.
It's not outrageous or unpatriotic to demand that average citizen have a better understanding of what a 'surge' in Iraq or 'nation-building' actually fucking means.
That's nice. Doesn't change the fact that your argument is built on a myth.
I didn't say it was controversial or pacifist, I said it was a fantasy.
The argument that people are not conscientious or invested in the military is ignorant.
You're implying that citizens aren't demanding the government use the military responsibly, obviously you're ignorant of the level of affection and attention and interest the people have in the strength and well-being of the military.
I didn't say it was outrageous or unpatriotic, I said it was a fantasy. What you are doing is arguing based on a fantasy world. You have built an argument on assumptions born of ignorance. Do you think that the average citizen didn't or doesn't understand what the surge in Iraq was or what nation-building actually fucking means? I would argue that the average citizen has a more realistic outlook on both than the top-hat boys in the State Department and the young guns in the White House (regardless of administration).
I would love to live in this country where the populace are so informed.
On October 09 2012 06:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: In any case, regardless of whatever consequences we can extrapolate from such a policy, we cannot escape the obvious fact that MANDATED participation in either the military or some other civic service is in fact requiring work from someone under threat of the law. I hate to use the word slavery because I think it cheapens the term, but using coercion or force to get work out of people against their will is not moral imo under any circumstance.
You may want to think about what you're saying. You are basically delegitimizing the whole concept of a draft, which I think is an essential power of the state in prosecuting industrial scale warfare.
Yes, I understand I am delegitimizing the concept of a draft. I don't believe in a draft, under any circumstances. I would also eliminate mandatory jury duty as well, but that's a separate topic. I don't believe in mandated industrial scale warfare either. If the nation is really at threat, and enough people are not willing to volunteer their service to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
On October 09 2012 06:48 jdseemoreglass wrote: In any case, regardless of whatever consequences we can extrapolate from such a policy, we cannot escape the obvious fact that MANDATED participation in either the military or some other civic service is in fact requiring work from someone under threat of the law. I hate to use the word slavery because I think it cheapens the term, but using coercion or force to get work out of people against their will is not moral imo under any circumstance.
You may want to think about what you're saying. You are basically delegitimizing the whole concept of a draft, which I think is an essential power of the state in prosecuting industrial scale warfare.
No, it's a defensible position IMO. It is absolutely a good position to insist that industrial scale warfare is never moral or just. For the pro-Europe people here, the whole reason why Europe has given up its military traditions is precisely because of how shockingly brutal the world wars were. You cannot closely examine the history of World War I and come out as a classical liberal believer in the evolution of man.
But that's different from saying we should never have a draft. A draft is not moral or just, but it may be necessary if the national choice is win or die. As it is for South Korea and Taiwan. And as it is NOT for the United States.
If we had a president that didn't apologize for America and instead had a president that loved this country a lot more people would just volunteer to serve.
I'm intrigued. What do YOU think nation-building means?
What we did in Germany and Japan was real nation-building, not nation-building on the fly and the cheap the way it's been practiced by Bush and Obama.
Oh come on. First of all, many of the people in the state department are former military. Secondly, did you see the audience at some of those republican primary debates? They want to go to war with Iran. Even though we just had an awful war in Iraq!
"They want to go to war with Iran, I disagree, [step in logical progression missing here], they're not informed/attentive/smart!"
I would love to live in this country where the populace are so informed.
Then stop smelling your own farts and talk to people? I used to think people were just dumb and uninformed too, but if you actually have a real conservation with them, not gotcha interviews on the street or stuff like that, they amazingly almost always speak intelligently!
The idea that anyone has the right to strip you of your liberty and force you to fight for their ideals seems bizarre to me. I can imagine it in a system like America in which the young are indoctrinated to believe that their lives are subservient to the concept of the United States with pledges
It's always funny when foreigners say stuff like this about the United States, just confirms that they're just as ignorant of Americans as Americans are of them. Especially in the context of the discussion you made this reply to.
There is an awful lot about the United States like the pledge of allegiance or the insane level of veneration the founding fathers get and the flag worship that, from a European perspective, is really, really creepy. Maybe it's because we're older, maturer states or maybe it's because unlike the United States we've seen what it's like for a border to move, a state to evolve and a real war to be fought on our soil but you just don't get that here. Nationalism is seen for what it is more clearly in Europe and that affords the people protection from abuse of the idea of the country by those willing to demand support from the concept of duty.
Well we really don't have much of a choice in terms of the veneration of our founding fathers. I mean our law is founded in the Constitution. And some of the precedents, like the 'Separation of Church and State' is based on their intentions. That's not actually in our Constitution. So that veneration is kind of coded into our law at this point.
Europeans have flags and anthems, though. What is different?
On October 09 2012 07:08 Darknat wrote: If we had a president that didn't apologize for America and instead had a president that loved this country a lot more people would just volunteer to serve.
I've already got a daddy
We have quite a bit to apologize for. I'd like to see a little more of that
EPT
