Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vilanat]

Military R&D had partially and in some cases even mainly led to many technologies such as the Internet, GPS, digital imagery, Canned food, countless medical applications, Jet planes, countless logistics solutions, countless sensory technologies, renewable energy technologies, water desalination and many others that you take for granted. i don't see how you can end world hunger without a lot of the technologies that began life as military funded projects. You could argue that some other entity would have invested in those if the military hadn't, but well, that's entirely within the realm of fantasy alternate history.

[martinuzz]

Before we start spending less money on stuff that kills and more on actual developmental aid, we need to fix the current situation, where for example, if you want to build the poor folks a water pump, you have to spend 5 dollars on a pump, 1 dollar on local labour costs, 1000 dollars on bribes, and 10000 dollars on armed guards and munitions to protect the labourers installing the pump* (and shoot copper thieves/starving children who try to steal pump parts). And stop paying charity CEOs 100k or more per month.

* note that these are fictive numbers for argument's sake

[Loud Whispers]

Kevin Spacey has confirmed that in a fight between the two fictional characters, Francis Underwood and Donald Trump, Francis would win

[Helgoland]

This may not be a good way to discuss implementation of policies, but that discussion will never even begin until we accept that the primary issue here is one of priorities.  I'm very used to getting the whole 'reality is more complicated than you're making it out to be' bit, but no discussion can ever constructively dig into the crunch of details until there is agreement on the premises and guiding principles that discussion will operate on.

Hm, I guess we're talking past each other: As far as I can tell, we already agree on the fundamentals of this issue: The US military is too big, military action is often, but not always a bad thing, conflict prevention and development aid are preferrable to military action, etc etc.

Maybe it's a cultural issue: When a German talks like you do, they usually espouse some sort of vulgar pacifism, usually accompanied by a big helping of anti-Americanism and NIMBYism. And I guess when an American talks like I do, they're usually Republican and quite far on the hawkish side.
Maybe we should just skip ahead to the specifics: When do you consider military intervention to be desirable or even just justifiable?

[smjjames]

Maybe we should just skip ahead to the specifics: When do you consider military intervention to be desirable or even just justifiable?

Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait, or maybe the Bosnia conflict? Although that one was a massive coalition and we can't intervene every time someone invades someone.

Theres also stuff like peacekeeping, but generally the UN is supposed to be in charge of that.

[penguinofhonor]

Did anyone else watch the Bill Clinton interview on CNN last night?

[Frumple]

Don't watch TV in general, so... no. Did find a transcript here, though. Reading through it now.

Anything particularly interesting about it?

E: Can't speak for how he said it, but the words transcribed seemed... competent? Fairly well chosen, did a pretty good job of staying on the metaphorical high ground instead of sniping at people, had a bit of human interest at the end. Appears to be a pretty good showing?

[smjjames]

Don't watch TV in general, so... no. Did find a transcript here, though. Reading through it now.

Anything particularly interesting about it?

E: Can't speak for how he said it, but the words transcribed seemed... competent? Fairly well chosen, did a pretty good job of staying on the metaphorical high ground instead of sniping at people, had a bit of human interest at the end. Appears to be a pretty good showing?

I watched a little bit and have heard about it in general. I think Hillary should defend herself rather than have her husband defend her. I mean, you don't see Carly's husband defending her on CNN.

Also, apparently CNN is going to be streaming the debate in 3D virtual reality: http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/09/24/cnn-will-live-stream-democratic-debate-in-virtual-reality/

How about something for those who don't have a VR headset?

[Frumple]

Far as I've noticed hillary's said all she needs to say on the email stuff. Pretty okay with someone calling that bullshit what it is regardless of their relationship to the person in question, heh. Didn't even strike me as a defense, though, personally, just someone with better insight than most explaining the situation as what it is, as the interviewer requested. Then a little bit of fluffing on the side, heh.

I'd probably recommend reading that transcript I just linked, yeah. It's not even that long, and is probably significantly better for finding out what was actually said than second hand information (which is, as we all know by this point, often brutally warped) or partially absorbed listening.

[RedKing]

So apparently while he was here, the Pope met with Kim Davis. And reportedly backed her.

Suddenly, all those US progressives that have been wearing Pope t-shirts are going, "Wait wha??"

[smjjames]

He wasn't defending her over the emails (which now just needs to let the investigation run it's course), he was defending her over the accusation of 'worst seceretary of state ever'. It's just my opinion that Hillary needs to defend herself over that rather than have Bill defend her.

So apparently while he was here, the Pope met with Kim Davis. And reportedly backed her.

Suddenly, all those US progressives that have been wearing Pope t-shirts are going, "Wait wha??"

He's a mixed bag of conservative and progressive, progressive with some things and hyper-conservative on others.

[i2amroy]

Yeah, I think it's important for us to remember that just because this Pope is much more liberal than previous Popes in some things doesn't necessarily mean that he is "liberal" in everything. AFAIK his stance on gays has always been "while we don't necessarily approve of gay couples, we should at least love/tolerate them", and the idea of conscientious objection sort of fits that to a "T" (of course the problem with the idea is that ideally in such a situation someone else should immediately be able to step in and complete the paperwork/etc. right there instead of your conscientious objection being the same as a forbidal). It's one of the two big things I've noticed (the other being abortion) where the Pope's views, while still not right-wing nutcase levels, are noticeably more conservative than liberal.

[mainiac]

He wasn't defending her over the emails (which now just needs to let the investigation run it's course)

The investigation hasn't run the course?  But we've already been through so many weeks of exclusives and revelations.  Oh joy, more of this!

[Frumple]

Suddenly, all those US progressives that have been wearing Pope t-shirts are going, "Wait wha??"

Instead of wearing memorabilia shirts, they should be campaigning for the pope to wear a sign around his neck that says, "Still Catholic, Folks." And maybe a bell or somethin', I'unno. So that people will be less surprised that he is, in fact, the catholic pope. To the rest of it, by and large the dude's not actually terribly more progressive, if at all, than previous popes. He's just largely better at framing things so he looks less like a backassward jackwad. Directs words towards the more defensible/positive aspects, still as catholic as soiling yourself in a confessional.

And @smj, I'm just kinda' scratching my head at that. Her record's largely public knowledge. There's still no real need to defend, and just about everything that's really necessary to say has been said, imo. Trump et al spewing bullshit doesn't really change that to any substantial degree. I guess it'll need to be repeated at some point, because people have the political memories of lobotomized goldfish, but still.

Beyond that, hell, if your husband isn't going to go to bat for you, who should? Him staying mum on the subject, especially considering his background and history, would probably be worse from the campaigning point of view than anything else. Hillary'll say what needs saying in time, to the extent she hasn't already.

And nah, mainiac, far as I'm aware it's run the course several times already. Think they've just started up another one or somethin'. They can't seem to find anything more damaging, somehow.

[smjjames]

He wasn't defending her over the emails (which now just needs to let the investigation run it's course)

The investigation hasn't run the course?  But we've already been through so many weeks of exclusives and revelations.  Oh joy, more of this!

I haven't heard anything of the investigation formally concluding. Besides, she still has that hearing later in October and they're releasing thousands more sometime today. So, while it may very well be BS, it hasn't gone away and the emails are still dripping.