Frasier Online
home About The Show Episode Guide Merchandise Forum Reviews Gallery Contact

Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

A forum for any Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes. All registered members are able to start their own polls in this forum

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet?

Yes
15
29%
No
37
71%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby JT » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:08 am

Moon-Crane wrote:I wondered how long i would be before someone on the Rep side used the 'T' word.



Whats the 'T' word?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:27 am

JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:I wondered how long i would be before someone on the Rep side used the 'T' word.



Whats the 'T' word?


Terrorism, JT. I didn't see the point of Palin trying to sling that card against Obama by associating him to someone from his past using such an emotive word. Leave that to all the conspiracy and militia sites out there shovelling such content. It looks like it'll backfire - i just don't think it would be difficult to associate someone from McCain's past who would make him look like a mug - especially in financial circles.

I also wish McCain wouldn't keep saying he 'will get Bin Laden'. To say he knows exactly how to do it but can't reveal those details at the moment is pretty stupid, i'm afraid. And surely the World and its dog understands that finding and killing Bin Laden, were it possible, would make zero difference to the situation now? Granted, he'd be a golden token symbol in these media led times.

Both sides are as bad as each other, and always look to find the most centrist position, even if it means compromising their beliefs... the scramble to win is all. I guess we all get what we deserve. I still can't see either side making much difference to the current climate.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:10 am

Moon-Crane wrote:Is Palin certain she really wants to go down the path of digging up potentially dubious people from her opposition's dim and distant past? Really? Things like that usually open up some pretty unfortunate floodgates. Regrettably smells of desperation when i hear things like that. I hope she's got something for the next bite she's likely to get on her ass.


Funny you should say that... I must say, I do think this revelation has more than a whiff of political opportunism about it (I remember Dubya's drink driving history being brought up at a similar stage in 2000) but once the mud starts to fly everyone gets dirty. This has certainly dented Palin's whiter-than-white image, that's for sure.

I also wish McCain wouldn't keep saying he 'will get Bin Laden'. To say he knows exactly how to do it but can't reveal those details at the moment is pretty stupid, i'm afraid. And surely the World and its dog understands that finding and killing Bin Laden, were it possible, would make zero difference to the situation now? Granted, he'd be a golden token symbol in these media led times.


I agree. McCain's assertion that he "will definitely get Bin Laden" is quite clearly preposterous. Surely no intelligent voter will take him seriously on that 'promise'? I do think it would serve some military purpose though, as well as providing a media-led propaganda coup. While Bin Laden obviously has no direct action in organised terrorism now, he's still the poster boy for Muslim extremism and his capture would strike a significant blow to morale. I have to be honest though, I'm uneasy with language like 'capture or kill'. Surely there should be a trial first? I know he's pretty much admitted his involvement in 9/11 but a repeat of the scenes we saw when Saddam was hung would do nothing to improve the West's standing in the Muslim world. Violence begets violence, and the cold bloodied execution of Bin Laden will only breed more terrorists.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:24 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:I wondered how long i would be before someone on the Rep side used the 'T' word.



Whats the 'T' word?


Terrorism, JT. I didn't see the point of Palin trying to sling that card against Obama by associating him to someone from his past using such an emotive word. Leave that to all the conspiracy and militia sites out there shovelling such content. It looks like it'll backfire - i just don't think it would be difficult to associate someone from McCain's past who would make him look like a mug - especially in financial circles.

I also wish McCain wouldn't keep saying he 'will get Bin Laden'. To say he knows exactly how to do it but can't reveal those details at the moment is pretty stupid, i'm afraid. And surely the World and its dog understands that finding and killing Bin Laden, were it possible, would make zero difference to the situation now? Granted, he'd be a golden token symbol in these media led times.

Both sides are as bad as each other, and always look to find the most centrist position, even if it means compromising their beliefs... the scramble to win is all. I guess we all get what we deserve. I still can't see either side making much difference to the current climate.


O.K, both sides are as bad as each other in terms of politicking, and I prefer to be more precise than using 'emotive' terms such as terrorism in reference to Obama and Ayers. Ayers is a left wing loon, and Obama has a history of associations with these types that, despite his mostly reasonable tone, cast justifiable suspicion on any attempts to cast himself as a centrist of some sort.
Bin Laden is mostly a golden token at this point. I don't know if its stupid to say he will get him but the methods are classified.
And yes, both sides in the presidency are limited as to how much difference they can make.
As for each trying to cast themselves as centrists, McCain has a long established record of this. He has walked the walk. He clearly wins here. Obama has 'the most liberal record in the Senate' (what short time he's been there) - no matter what the hell he says. Its funny how the main stream media for so long admired McCain for his 'maverick' behavior in standing up to the 'conservative wing' of his party. Don't hear much about that anymore do ya? Gee, wonder why.
Hear Obama's references to distributing wealth in a 'fair and equitable' way recently? Also, there is a Democrat/Liberal pundit that is a regular 'contributor' on the Fox news channel by the name of Bob Beckle who said something astonishing, yet amusing and not at all surprising despite it's directness. He was criticizing the charge that Obama and the libs were 'socialists'. He then segued into this: "There is nothing at all wrong with taking money away from a certain group and giving it to the masses".

'nuff said.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:42 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote: ... I'm uneasy with language like 'capture or kill'. ...


I would expect a trial also if the circumstances allowed it, but the fact that so many liberals would agree with your above sentiment is among the many reasons I think liberalism is so destructive today. He's a God damned enemy, Blue Sky. Pure and simple. And a dangerous one. Our first plan and instinct towards people like that should be to simply kill them, or if circumstances permit, capture them, extract intelligence - by torture if necessary - then put on trial, convicted and executed.
If "Violence begets violence, and the cold bloodied execution of Bin Laden will only breed more terrorists" then so be it. Justice and retribution is the principle. If justice breeds more terrorists, then maybe its a never ending cycle. But its one that must be fought. Oh, and by the way, what I described above is not 'cold blooded'. It is necessary and just.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:11 am

JT wrote:Bin Laden is mostly a golden token at this point. I don't know if its stupid to say he will get him but the methods are classified.


So, are you saying McCain has access to information on how to locate Bin Laden that Bush doesn't? Or are you saying Bush simply hasn't used that information?

I find both very hard to believe.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:17 am

JT wrote:Our first plan and instinct towards people like that should be to simply kill them, or if circumstances permit, capture them, extract intelligence - by torture if necessary - then put on trial, convicted and executed.
If "Violence begets violence, and the cold bloodied execution of Bin Laden will only breed more terrorists" then so be it. Justice and retribution is the principle.


And you say liberalism is destructive? I'm not sure if you're just stoking the fires there JT; I'd be very worried if you actually believed all that guff.

In your opinion, will the violence only end with the total annihilation of the Muslim world?
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:09 pm

I guess the ultimate conclusion to going the eye for an eye route is the Earth ending up looking like Mars... but at least it stopped the other side, eh?
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Hans the German Butler » Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:44 pm

JT, I fully understand the "get Bin Laden at any cost" approach and if he can't be captured and brought to justice then 'killed in the heat of battle' would work for most people.

As to extracting information from him - I don't see that happening. In one sense, the man is a coward in that he sends impressionable young kids off to blow themselves and other people up. In another sense he spent years fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan for his cause. I would say the man's prepared to die if he needs to. I would also imagine that he has been preparing himself not to talk if he's caught.

I find talk like "extract intelligence - by torture if necessary" to be ludicrous. Firstly, torture has been proven to be the least effective method of extracting information from captives - the fact that "water-boarding" worked in one case doesn't make it more effective in every case - the facts prove otherwise. Second, by any standard of enlightened humanity, it's just plain wrong. Thirdly, it reduces western society to the level of the terrorists they're trying to stop. Nation states cannot repay terrorism with terrorist tactics of their own - or do the burning villages and raped women in Vietnam not bear adequate testimony to that. Fourthly, it creates more terrorists. If he becomes a torture martyr it rallies more fundamentalists to the cause. If he was caught, theoretically, would it not be more effective to beam pictures around the world of him living in good conditions and being humanely treated prior to his eventual punishment, death or otherwise, to show the clear demarcation between right and wrong.

Ok - maybe the hatred of the west is not going to diminish, but when your choices are adding fuel to the fire or containing the fire - you don't need to be a rocket scentist to work out which one is more likely to put the fire out in the long-term.
ROZ: It's not like she worships the Devil
FRASIER: She doesn't need to, he worships her!
Hans the German Butler
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby JT » Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:03 am

Hans the German Butler wrote:I find talk like "extract intelligence - by torture if necessary" to be ludicrous.



Fair enough, but I don't think that torture in extreme circumstances is ludicrous.

Hans the German Butler wrote:Firstly, torture has been proven to be the least effective method of extracting information from captives - the fact that "water-boarding" worked in one case doesn't make it more effective in every case - the facts prove otherwise.


I have heard otherwise, but if there are indeed more effective methods - and this may be a case-by-case thing - then they should be exhausted first for both practical and moral reasons. I don't believe in torture for punishment or retributive reasons - although in extreme cases I wouldn't be so bothered by it on an emotional level. To be clear, I will give a hypothetical example. If a terrorist ass wipe cooperates with us in giving us information we need to protect ourselves and we reasonably believe this to be the case, then to torture that terrorist would be immoral. However, if that terrorist ass wipe were to respond to our requests with the likes of "you Infidel pigs will all die, to hell with you all", then that particular ass wipe, after other techniques are reasonably exhausted, is ripe for 'other' more unfortunate techniques designed to protect us. Otherwise would reinforce my belief that liberals are "so broadminded that they can't even take their own side in a fight".

Hans the German Butler wrote:Second, by any standard of enlightened humanity, it's just plain wrong.


See above. Or, if one were to prefer, I will just have to bear the tag of being unenlightened.

Hans the German Butler wrote:Thirdly, it reduces western society to the level of the terrorists they're trying to stop. Nation states cannot repay terrorism with terrorist tactics of their own - or do the burning villages and raped women in Vietnam not bear adequate testimony to that.


It would not be terrorism. How possibly can some sort of equating of the two be valid? Any criminal raping of women in Vietnam, etc. has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


Hans the German Butler wrote:Fourthly, it creates more terrorists.


Only if the New York times gets a hold of it and does their usual unpatriotic thing.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Hans the German Butler » Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:01 pm

JT wrote:Fair enough, but I don't think that torture in extreme circumstances is ludicrous.


Surely it's a far greater mark of a person or a country's character that they don't sacrifice right principles even in the most extreme circumstances

I have heard otherwise, but if there are indeed more effective methods - and this may be a case-by-case thing - then they should be exhausted first for both practical and moral reasons. I don't believe in torture for punishment or retributive reasons - although in extreme cases I wouldn't be so bothered by it on an emotional level. To be clear, I will give a hypothetical example. If a terrorist ass wipe cooperates with us in giving us information we need to protect ourselves and we reasonably believe this to be the case, then to torture that terrorist would be immoral. However, if that terrorist ass wipe were to respond to our requests with the likes of "you Infidel pigs will all die, to hell with you all", then that particular ass wipe, after other techniques are reasonably exhausted, is ripe for 'other' more unfortunate techniques designed to protect us. Otherwise would reinforce my belief that liberals are "so broadminded that they can't even take their own side in a fight".


I thought that quote about liberals was funny when I first read it but its repetition becomes tiresome to the reader and bespeaks laziness on the part of the writer.

We're hardly talking about a fight though when a person is tied to a gurney and has water forcibly swirled around their lungs to simulate drowning. It is cruel, unusual and inhuman. I don't want anyone to be harmed by terrorist activity and I have no problem with accurate intelligence leading special or regular forces to a surgical action that kills or extracts terrorists. I accept that there may be limited "collateral damage" as a result. I don't even really have a problem with extraordinary rendition, so long as it doesn't lead to torture. My natural leaning is also against capital punishment - however if a terrorist suspect is tried in a state where that is the penalty then so be it. Torture is not an expected punishment and cannot be acceptable.

See above. Or, if one were to prefer, I will just have to bear the tag of being unenlightened.

I realise that tag won't bother you greatly, in the same way as having a "broad-minded" tag doesn't bother me. I have however taken my own side in a fight and the side of others. I once ridiculously almost faced charges for breaking the jaw of a person who was about to clobber someone with a house-brick.

It would not be terrorism. How possibly can some sort of equating of the two be valid? Any criminal raping of women in Vietnam, etc. has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


I think I'll rely on my own judgement as to whether or not torturing someone counts as terrorising them. There are degrees of terror - filming someone's decapitation and broadcasting it via the internet may be an extreme form of terrorisation but water-boarding surely has a place on the terrorisation scale too.

For the record - I'm not the sort of person who believes that denying prisoners cable TV or porn is in breach of their human rights - so I'm no bleeding-heart as you might see it. I am however against torture, soldiers pissing on prisoners or getting them to simulate sex acts. That's not even because it might offend their religious sensibilities - they've chosen to misinterpret their own religion to justify murder so I think their religious beliefs lose credibility. It is because it degrades both prisoner and captor.

Only if the New York times gets a hold of it and does their usual unpatriotic thing.


I happen to believe it is more patriotic to try to put the situation right and, if necessary, to blow the whistle when your Government is in breach of international law. The US is a proud country, and rightly so, it has given so much to the modern world. Maintaining that pride and dignity should be far more important than any temporary gains from a cover-up of torture.
ROZ: It's not like she worships the Devil
FRASIER: She doesn't need to, he worships her!
Hans the German Butler
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby JT » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:21 am

Hans the German Butler wrote:
JT wrote:Fair enough, but I don't think that torture in extreme circumstances is ludicrous.


Surely it's a far greater mark of a person or a country's character that they don't sacrifice right principles even in the most extreme circumstances

I have heard otherwise, but if there are indeed more effective methods - and this may be a case-by-case thing - then they should be exhausted first for both practical and moral reasons. I don't believe in torture for punishment or retributive reasons - although in extreme cases I wouldn't be so bothered by it on an emotional level. To be clear, I will give a hypothetical example. If a terrorist ass wipe cooperates with us in giving us information we need to protect ourselves and we reasonably believe this to be the case, then to torture that terrorist would be immoral. However, if that terrorist ass wipe were to respond to our requests with the likes of "you Infidel pigs will all die, to hell with you all", then that particular ass wipe, after other techniques are reasonably exhausted, is ripe for 'other' more unfortunate techniques designed to protect us. Otherwise would reinforce my belief that liberals are "so broadminded that they can't even take their own side in a fight".


I thought that quote about liberals was funny when I first read it but its repetition becomes tiresome to the reader and bespeaks laziness on the part of the writer.

We're hardly talking about a fight though when a person is tied to a gurney and has water forcibly swirled around their lungs to simulate drowning. It is cruel, unusual and inhuman. I don't want anyone to be harmed by terrorist activity and I have no problem with accurate intelligence leading special or regular forces to a surgical action that kills or extracts terrorists. I accept that there may be limited "collateral damage" as a result. I don't even really have a problem with extraordinary rendition, so long as it doesn't lead to torture. My natural leaning is also against capital punishment - however if a terrorist suspect is tried in a state where that is the penalty then so be it. Torture is not an expected punishment and cannot be acceptable.

See above. Or, if one were to prefer, I will just have to bear the tag of being unenlightened.

I realise that tag won't bother you greatly, in the same way as having a "broad-minded" tag doesn't bother me. I have however taken my own side in a fight and the side of others. I once ridiculously almost faced charges for breaking the jaw of a person who was about to clobber someone with a house-brick.

It would not be terrorism. How possibly can some sort of equating of the two be valid? Any criminal raping of women in Vietnam, etc. has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


I think I'll rely on my own judgement as to whether or not torturing someone counts as terrorising them. There are degrees of terror - filming someone's decapitation and broadcasting it via the internet may be an extreme form of terrorisation but water-boarding surely has a place on the terrorisation scale too.

For the record - I'm not the sort of person who believes that denying prisoners cable TV or porn is in breach of their human rights - so I'm no bleeding-heart as you might see it. I am however against torture, soldiers pissing on prisoners or getting them to simulate sex acts. That's not even because it might offend their religious sensibilities - they've chosen to misinterpret their own religion to justify murder so I think their religious beliefs lose credibility. It is because it degrades both prisoner and captor.

Only if the New York times gets a hold of it and does their usual unpatriotic thing.


I happen to believe it is more patriotic to try to put the situation right and, if necessary, to blow the whistle when your Government is in breach of international law. The US is a proud country, and rightly so, it has given so much to the modern world. Maintaining that pride and dignity should be far more important than any temporary gains from a cover-up of torture.


I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this issue, but just a few points that summarize my thoughts:

1. If faced with a situation where we have a terrorist who is suspected of having information that could save us from an imminent nuclear attack, and the terrorist refuses to impart this information, and we are against the clock, and all other reasonable efforts have failed - and we decide that it is 'against our interest' to use physical means to get the terrorist to talk, then that would be as ridiculous as allowing a mugger to shoot you in the face because you don't believe in physical violence....

and..

2. Hence the best bumper sticker synopsis of this perversion, "A liberal is someone who is so broadminded they can't even take their own side in a fight".

3. To equate raping in Vietnam and abu graib, etc. with the conditional need for physical interrogation measures is worse than claiming that opening McDonald restaurants around the world is a manifestation of U.S imperialism.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Hans the German Butler » Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:52 am

JT wrote:
Hans the German Butler wrote:
JT wrote:Fair enough, but I don't think that torture in extreme circumstances is ludicrous.


Surely it's a far greater mark of a person or a country's character that they don't sacrifice right principles even in the most extreme circumstances

I have heard otherwise, but if there are indeed more effective methods - and this may be a case-by-case thing - then they should be exhausted first for both practical and moral reasons. I don't believe in torture for punishment or retributive reasons - although in extreme cases I wouldn't be so bothered by it on an emotional level. To be clear, I will give a hypothetical example. If a terrorist ass wipe cooperates with us in giving us information we need to protect ourselves and we reasonably believe this to be the case, then to torture that terrorist would be immoral. However, if that terrorist ass wipe were to respond to our requests with the likes of "you Infidel pigs will all die, to hell with you all", then that particular ass wipe, after other techniques are reasonably exhausted, is ripe for 'other' more unfortunate techniques designed to protect us. Otherwise would reinforce my belief that liberals are "so broadminded that they can't even take their own side in a fight".


I thought that quote about liberals was funny when I first read it but its repetition becomes tiresome to the reader and bespeaks laziness on the part of the writer.

We're hardly talking about a fight though when a person is tied to a gurney and has water forcibly swirled around their lungs to simulate drowning. It is cruel, unusual and inhuman. I don't want anyone to be harmed by terrorist activity and I have no problem with accurate intelligence leading special or regular forces to a surgical action that kills or extracts terrorists. I accept that there may be limited "collateral damage" as a result. I don't even really have a problem with extraordinary rendition, so long as it doesn't lead to torture. My natural leaning is also against capital punishment - however if a terrorist suspect is tried in a state where that is the penalty then so be it. Torture is not an expected punishment and cannot be acceptable.

See above. Or, if one were to prefer, I will just have to bear the tag of being unenlightened.

I realise that tag won't bother you greatly, in the same way as having a "broad-minded" tag doesn't bother me. I have however taken my own side in a fight and the side of others. I once ridiculously almost faced charges for breaking the jaw of a person who was about to clobber someone with a house-brick.

It would not be terrorism. How possibly can some sort of equating of the two be valid? Any criminal raping of women in Vietnam, etc. has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


I think I'll rely on my own judgement as to whether or not torturing someone counts as terrorising them. There are degrees of terror - filming someone's decapitation and broadcasting it via the internet may be an extreme form of terrorisation but water-boarding surely has a place on the terrorisation scale too.

For the record - I'm not the sort of person who believes that denying prisoners cable TV or porn is in breach of their human rights - so I'm no bleeding-heart as you might see it. I am however against torture, soldiers pissing on prisoners or getting them to simulate sex acts. That's not even because it might offend their religious sensibilities - they've chosen to misinterpret their own religion to justify murder so I think their religious beliefs lose credibility. It is because it degrades both prisoner and captor.

Only if the New York times gets a hold of it and does their usual unpatriotic thing.


I happen to believe it is more patriotic to try to put the situation right and, if necessary, to blow the whistle when your Government is in breach of international law. The US is a proud country, and rightly so, it has given so much to the modern world. Maintaining that pride and dignity should be far more important than any temporary gains from a cover-up of torture.


I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this issue, but just a few points that summarize my thoughts:

1. If faced with a situation where we have a terrorist who is suspected of having information that could save us from an imminent nuclear attack, and the terrorist refuses to impart this information, and we are against the clock, and all other reasonable efforts have failed - and we decide that it is 'against our interest' to use physical means to get the terrorist to talk, then that would be as ridiculous as allowing a mugger to shoot you in the face because you don't believe in physical violence....

and..

2. Hence the best bumper sticker synopsis of this perversion, "A liberal is someone who is so broadminded they can't even take their own side in a fight".

3. To equate raping in Vietnam and abu graib, etc. with the conditional need for physical interrogation measures is worse than claiming that opening McDonald restaurants around the world is a manifestation of U.S imperialism.


1. Threat of nuclear attack hasn't happened - therefore torture isn't justified even by your own reckoning. And if a mugger was pointing a gun in my face I'd give him all my money to avoid being shot - not try to wrestle the gun from him unless I had to

2. Narrow minded and repetitive crap - although I did find it funny the first time you used it. It's just diminished in the 387 times since.

3. Rape can be an act of terrorism, torture is an act of terrorism. I've stayed in a McDonald hotel and didn't feel terrorised for a second. If you're going to use analogies they shouldn't be so hyperbolistic as to lack credibility.
ROZ: It's not like she worships the Devil
FRASIER: She doesn't need to, he worships her!
Hans the German Butler
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

Postby Moon-Crane » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:07 pm

Dragging this thread up from a bit of a hiatus. What's going to be the repercussions of the current economic crisis in California? I know people like to be dramatic but some quarters are talking up the possibility of the State's financial collapse. California has been rated as one of the top dozen or so economies in the whole world, so any trouble there is going to be massive across the whole of America, let alone rippling through other countries?

Anyone Stateside got a handle on what's happening?
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

Postby CatNamedRudy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:33 pm

Unfortunately, I don't know a lot about the situation. I do recall though that back in, I think, the 80s California pretty much went through the same thing. It really didn't have much of an effect on anyone else that time around.
This is the STUPIDEST day I've ever had!
User avatar
CatNamedRudy
 
Posts: 24607
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA: King Scott Walker reigning!

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

Postby Moon-Crane » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:55 pm

I've only really read bits on our BBC site, the LA Times and Washington Post sites, so i don't know if LAT and WP hold much credence in comparison to some other places. Apparently there's no budget in place yet and the State is $24 Billion in hock. Seems they're just looking to slash public sector areas and welfare to try and reduce that deficit, but i think some people are questioning the affect of doing this in the midst of a recession when so many more people need help. I think Arnie's determined not to raise Taxes in any area at all.

Does California account for a larger slice of the whole US GDP now than it did back in the 80s? They say it accounts for 12% at the moment?
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

Postby CatNamedRudy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:05 pm

You're gonna need JT to answer the economic questions MC. Sorry!

I'm not sure what measures California has taken previously to reduce their spending and their debt but I do know that part of the problem is that they have an incredibly high population of illegals who get benefits but don't pay taxes. That puts a strain on an already strained system.

I know in Wisconsin though, the state govt. is taking some drastic steps to save money. Every single state employee, including those that are contracted or working on grants has to take 16 unpaid furlough days over the next 2 fiscal years. Plus, the non represented people who were supposed to get a 2% pay raise in June, didn't get it. Fortunately for me, I'm represented and the raise was contracted so I still got mine!
This is the STUPIDEST day I've ever had!
User avatar
CatNamedRudy
 
Posts: 24607
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA: King Scott Walker reigning!

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

Postby Moon-Crane » Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:20 pm

CatNamedRudy wrote:You're gonna need JT to answer the economic questions MC. Sorry!

I'm not sure what measures California has taken previously to reduce their spending and their debt but I do know that part of the problem is that they have an incredibly high population of illegals who get benefits but don't pay taxes. That puts a strain on an already strained system.

Makes sense, given the location. How do illegals stay and manage to sign up for benefits rather than being turfed out when they show their faces? I assumed it would be tougher than over here.

I know in Wisconsin though, the state govt. is taking some drastic steps to save money. Every single state employee, including those that are contracted or working on grants has to take 16 unpaid furlough days over the next 2 fiscal years. Plus, the non represented people who were supposed to get a 2% pay raise in June, didn't get it. Fortunately for me, I'm represented and the raise was contracted so I still got mine!


It says on the BBC site that Arnie has closed a bunch of state offices for three days per month until 2010. i guess that's something similar to what you're dealing with.

I guess JT will pop up. I know he's still around, posting occasionally. I thought he'd have been having a go at the new President by now - probably just doing it on other Rep boards.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

Postby CatNamedRudy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:23 pm

How do the illegals stay and receive benefits? I wish I knew the answer to that. It's a huge bugaboo of mine.
This is the STUPIDEST day I've ever had!
User avatar
CatNamedRudy
 
Posts: 24607
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA: King Scott Walker reigning!

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Pla

Postby Moon-Crane » Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:29 pm

Diggin up an old thread here, but didn't know where else to put it.

I can't be bothered to check through the pages of the thread, but i recall JT proudly claiming how US universities/education are the greatest in the world - so, it must be a bit embarrassing to have one of your presidential candidates denigrating them?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384204-503544/santorum-obama-wants-to-indoctrinate-students-by-boosting-college-enrollment/
I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely [...] The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.


Strange that a now fundie religious nut would claim institutions built on critical thinking and debate are the places where the 'indoctrination' is performed. I'd have thought it's logical for anybody going into higher education with an insular view is going to have their mind opened to the wider world. It's called growing up. Mind, he's pulling the 62% line out the same ass as i am when i say 87% of statistics are make up.

Santorum is a nasty horrible person. Anyone who's voting for him needs their head examined.

And i'm also sick of people, such as his wife, always using the 'it was god's will' line as a reason for doing anything. People who say that need shooting in the face (ok, just laughed at and have fingers pointed at them).

So you've got these idiots at one end of the spectrum, and the nutters too lazy to do basic research at the other who are still claiming that Obama is a foreigner/muslim/antichrist.

Whackjob 1
Whackjob 2

You can tell it's an election year :lol:
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Pla

Postby CatNamedRudy » Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:32 pm

Santorum is a nasty horrible person. Anyone who's voting for him needs their head examined.

And i'm also sick of people, such as his wife, always using the 'it was god's will' line as a reason for doing anything. People who say that need shooting in the face (ok, just laughed at and have fingers pointed at them).


THIS! So much THIS!
This is the STUPIDEST day I've ever had!
User avatar
CatNamedRudy
 
Posts: 24607
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA: King Scott Walker reigning!

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Pla

Postby JT » Thu May 10, 2012 2:48 am

Moon-Crane wrote:Diggin up an old thread here, but didn't know where else to put it.

I can't be bothered to check through the pages of the thread, but i recall JT proudly claiming how US universities/education are the greatest in the world - so, it must be a bit embarrassing to have one of your presidential candidates denigrating them?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384204-503544/santorum-obama-wants-to-indoctrinate-students-by-boosting-college-enrollment/
I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely [...] The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.


Strange that a now fundie religious nut would claim institutions built on critical thinking and debate are the places where the 'indoctrination' is performed. I'd have thought it's logical for anybody going into higher education with an insular view is going to have their mind opened to the wider world. It's called growing up. Mind, he's pulling the 62% line out the same ass as i am when i say 87% of statistics are make up.

Santorum is a nasty horrible person. Anyone who's voting for him needs their head examined.

And i'm also sick of people, such as his wife, always using the 'it was god's will' line as a reason for doing anything. People who say that need shooting in the face (ok, just laughed at and have fingers pointed at them).

So you've got these idiots at one end of the spectrum, and the nutters too lazy to do basic research at the other who are still claiming that Obama is a foreigner/muslim/antichrist.

Whackjob 1
Whackjob 2

You can tell it's an election year :lol:


Not to defend Santorum (I 'voted' for Romney in my state caucus), but American colleges and Universities are among the LEAST tolerant and ideologically diverse institutions in the U.S. This despite being ostensible places of debate and critical thinking. Hard sciences yes. Social sciences are another matter, as is the general slant among faculty and students. Look no further than the fact that an organization like MEChA has chapters on just about every campus in the country. Check them out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEChA
Basically they are a Latino 'Aryan' nation of sorts.

If the Aryan Nations tried to set up chapters on an American campus they would have not only the school administration and local media screaming to high hell, but would probably have the FBI up their butts. And rightly so. But with MEchA, well they just seem to need that 'diversity'.

American colleges and universities are social and political indoctrination mills.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Pla

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat May 12, 2012 10:09 pm

JT wrote:Not to defend Santorum (I 'voted' for Romney in my state caucus), but American colleges and Universities are among the LEAST tolerant and ideologically diverse institutions in the U.S. This despite being ostensible places of debate and critical thinking. Hard sciences yes. Social sciences are another matter, as is the general slant among faculty and students. Look no further than the fact that an organization like MEChA has chapters on just about every campus in the country. Check them out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEChA
Basically they are a Latino 'Aryan' nation of sorts.

If the Aryan Nations tried to set up chapters on an American campus they would have not only the school administration and local media screaming to high hell, but would probably have the FBI up their butts. And rightly so. But with MEchA, well they just seem to need that 'diversity'.

American colleges and universities are social and political indoctrination mills.


Hmm, i'm not sure what your criteria is for such a claim, but think i could name a whole bunch of less tolerant institutions than a US college or university. I've never heard of Mecha before, but for arguments sake, i'll take your word that they're the equivalent of a Stormfront for hispanics. They should be openly criticised and denounced on any points that are opnely discriminatory/racist, and as long as any law breakers are properly dealt with then that's all that matters to me. Same as with Aryan idiots. They ain't going to stop thinking the way they do, but break the law in some way and take the punishment.

It may well be crazy to allow these mecha guys such freedoms in colleges/uni but unless you can show cases where aryan groups have tried to start up similar groups and been banned from doing so then i can't say for sure they'd point blank be refused. It's certainly not illegal to hold such views no matter how distasteful. I defintely agree with you that there'd likely be clear vocal opposition to them. Any racist groups for their own races need to be called out and, if necessary, ridiculed out of existence. I guess it's handier to have a legal public group to monitor than let them slide away to their own private little shacks?

In it's own stupid way, it surely shows that colleges and universities aren't intolerent or non-diverse? I know you're not going to tell me that colleges and universities are intolerant to the needs of your average waspy person. Depends what you mean by intolerant, mind. What's your take on the treatment of Jessica Ahlquist, for example?

If you're going to declare them indoctrination mills, i'm assuming none of your fellow like minded thinkers ever went to a college or uni? How did they make it out of such institutions with their own beliefs in check? I guess you're just the strong, lucky ones? It's all those other people who can't think for themselves, right?

I'd rather take my chances through the US education system than be near those 'teachers' at Answers in Genesis :D
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Pla

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat May 12, 2012 10:30 pm

Also, since you mention Romney, i see he's jumping firmly on the standard hypocritical bandwagon for aligning with the xtian fundies and their pretend family value bullshit, which doesn't even pretend to mask homophobia, misogyny and general intolerance. All that twisting and selective choosing from the pretend words of jeebus as justification for not treating all human beings with unconditional equal rights.

I've no particular love for Obama, but at least he's finally, if meekly, come out before an election vote to say people of any sex should be able to marry each other without any problem. Shock fucking horror, treating people with equal rights, what's the country coming to. You've got the usual (religious) groups spitting their venom about it, you've got your usual idiots on Fox news (and other places) with their usual stupid denouncements and gavel-thumping, blah, blah.

All those despicable 'moralisers' make me sick, and if Romney want's to piggy-back with them he can go drop dead for all i care.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Re: Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Pla

Postby JT » Thu May 17, 2012 6:08 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:Hmm, i'm not sure what your criteria is for such a claim, but think i could name a whole bunch of less tolerant institutions than a US college or university.


I am not comparing universities to the Neo Nazis or Black Panthers. Universities and colleges are main-stream, essential institutions. And supposedly tolerant and open-minded. Ha!

Moon-Crane wrote:It may well be crazy to allow these mecha guys such freedoms in colleges/uni but unless you can show cases where aryan groups have tried to start up similar groups and been banned from doing so then i can't say for sure they'd point blank be refused.


Come on now. Don't be silly. Surely, I shouldn't have to show you or anyone else a case where a neo nazi group tried to establish chapters on college campuses to illustrate the bias and hypocrisy. This should be plainly obvious. I can't understand why so many liberals demand such 'proof' before they accept the clearly obvious.

Moon-Crane wrote:I Any racist groups for their own races need to be called out and, if necessary, ridiculed out of existence.


But too often if the racist group isn't white, they aren't called out and ridiculed out of existence. In the MeCha case its taken to a ridiculous level. Evidently within the diverse, open-minded and tolerant university culture these are just young Hispanics trying to find themselves amidst the hegemonic white European oppression. Never mind their motto is "For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing" ("Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada"). Or they proclaim "we are a bronze people with a bronze culture–before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation–we are Aztlán." Diversity. ha. Or another similar illustration, how about the supposed main-stream organization National Council of La Raza? La Raza? Which by charter is 'focused on improving opportunities for Hispanics.' What if I wanted to start an organization called the 'National Council of The Race' with the charter 'to improve opportunities for Anglos'? Come on now.

Moon-Crane wrote: In it's own stupid way, it surely shows that colleges and universities aren't intolerent or non-diverse?


You have absolutely got to be kidding me? Why is this so hard for you? They are tolerant and diverse in one direction only. The only direction they tolerate. That by definition is intolerance and non-diversity. This should be readily apparent.


Moon-Crane wrote:If you're going to declare them indoctrination mills, i'm assuming none of your fellow like minded thinkers ever went to a college or uni? How did they make it out of such institutions with their own beliefs in check? I guess you're just the strong, lucky ones? It's all those other people who can't think for themselves, right?


Again, you have got to be absolutely kidding me. I majored in computer science. I stayed out of the stupid zoo - the prevailing political and social culture. Stayed away from dumb ass History, Political Science, Sociology, Ethnic Studies people. Stayed away from campus protests and politically oriented groups. How can one really think that my survival proves that they are not overwhelmingly activist and liberal in culture.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2019. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC.