PDA

View Full Version : Sten on the Fluke nonsense



Mister D
03-13-2012, 01:16 PM
Nor is the core issue that, whatever the merits of government contraception, America is the Brokest Nation in History — although the Fluke story is a useful reminder that the distinction between fiscal and social conservatism is generally false. As almost all those fashionable split-the-difference fiscally conservative/socially liberal governors from George Pataki to California’s pathetically terminated Terminator eventually discover, their social liberalism comes with a hell of a price tag. Ask the Greeks how easy it is for insolvent nations to wean the populace off unaffordable nanny-state lollipops: When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you’re pretty much done for. No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It’s that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293094/fluke-charade-mark-steyn?pg=2

Conley
03-13-2012, 02:37 PM
It might be a disturbing sign of the times but shoring up our finances, while a difficult task to be sure, is a lot easier than remaking society.

wingrider
03-13-2012, 04:53 PM
you know that Fluke woman sure gets around.. Her name is even on my multimeter.

Mister D
03-13-2012, 04:54 PM
It might be a disturbing sign of the times but shoring up our finances, while a difficult task to be sure, is a lot easier than remaking society.

Steyn believes that they are linked.

Conley
03-13-2012, 04:59 PM
Steyn believes that they are linked.

Certain things the government could do would have an effect, like enforcing immigration law, or tightening up entitlement programs, but ultimately it's up to individuals I believe. We have the government we've elected.

MMC
03-13-2012, 07:11 PM
Yes a Living Government that will do everything it can to stay in power. To stay in control. At all costs!

Mister D
03-13-2012, 07:13 PM
Yes, it comes down to remaining in power. I'm inclined to say that we have few statesmen these days. I don't thin that all politicians are bad people but I do think they too often lack conviction.

Mainecoons
03-13-2012, 07:29 PM
I'll say it again: Fluke was a ringer, another liberal poser and liar fabricating an issue and distorting it beyone recognition.

Liberals = liars. Very simple math.

RollingWave
03-13-2012, 09:50 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293094/fluke-charade-mark-steyn?pg=2

if social conservatism and fiscal onces are linked, then how does that explain the GOP's rather obvious pro-military spending stance? or does that simply mean that in the end, Ron Paul's the only real conservative and that "true conservatives in the US is only the very small Libertarians (who are generally pro gays I might add)?



I'll say it again: Fluke was a ringer, another liberal poser and liar fabricating an issue and distorting it beyone recognition.

Liberals = liars. Very simple math.

It may be that Fluke's argument on the issue is missing the point, but the counter arguements mostly comming from a bunch of relgious men (and mens in general, and almost non of them doctors) on women's health, and focusing the argument generally on the church based aspect of it, is perhaps even more depressing and missing the point.

And of course. so is putting a totalirian interpetation on political matters in a black and white sense. which defeats the entire point of a democracy.

if the whole argument lies in wether government should pay for health care (and how much of it) we have a legitimate arguement, but from what I'm seeing the whole fiasco have not been about that.

Conley
03-13-2012, 10:01 PM
if the whole argument lies in wether government should pay for health care (and how much of it) we have a legitimate arguement, but from what I'm seeing the whole fiasco have not been about that.

You're right about that. I personally do believe it's possible to keep fiscal conservatism independent from social conservatism and many agree.

MMC
03-14-2012, 02:54 AM
Social Conservatism.....just what the hell is that.

RollingWave
03-14-2012, 03:45 AM
Social Conservatism.....just what the hell is that.

I'm guessing from what i've been hearing it involves

1.Anti Gay
2.Small government (however they define that)
3.Pro Guns
4.Pro Religion (or rather just pro Christianity, anti every other religion espeically islam)
5. Anti Abortion

Something along that line. Now I don't disagree with any of those in principal (except the religion part, I'm lukwarm on guns but understand why it's there in the US) but would find that the rational and arguments made for them are usually less than ideal. idealistically speaking I can much more logically side with Libertarians, though realistically I find i unlikely that their ideals can be implemented effectively .

Peter1469
03-14-2012, 06:58 AM
if social conservatism and fiscal onces are linked, then how does that explain the GOP's rather obvious pro-military spending stance? or does that simply mean that in the end, Ron Paul's the only real conservative and that "true conservatives in the US is only the very small Libertarians (who are generally pro gays I might add)?

Don't forget the neocons; they inserted themselves into the conservative movement in the late 1980s and 90s.

MMC
03-14-2012, 07:40 AM
Don't forget the neocons; they inserted themselves into the conservative movement in the late 1980s and 90s.

Yes and aligning themselves with the Southern Conservative Democrats. Must just be me. I never did understand how Socialism and Conservativism run parralel. Especially when one has no problem taking center stage. Which never was part of the True conservative make up.

Mister D
03-14-2012, 07:50 AM
if social conservatism and fiscal onces are linked, then how does that explain the GOP's rather obvious pro-military spending stance? or does that simply mean that in the end, Ron Paul's the only real conservative and that "true conservatives in the US is only the very small Libertarians (who are generally pro gays I might add)?




It may be that Fluke's argument on the issue is missing the point, but the counter arguements mostly comming from a bunch of relgious men (and mens in general, and almost non of them doctors) on women's health, and focusing the argument generally on the church based aspect of it, is perhaps even more depressing and missing the point.

And of course. so is putting a totalirian interpetation on political matters in a black and white sense. which defeats the entire point of a democracy.

if the whole argument lies in wether government should pay for health care (and how much of it) we have a legitimate arguement, but from what I'm seeing the whole fiasco have not been about that.

Weren't you suggesting earlier that the US maintain a military presence in east Asia? A lot of people around the world appreciate a US military presence while criticizing the US at the same time. Just how do you think a military presence in maintained? In any case, defense is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to focus on and the strategic default of...well just about everyone except the US and the USSR after 1945 created this situation.

What does "pro" and "anti" gay mean?

MMC
03-14-2012, 07:53 AM
I'm guessing from what i've been hearing it involves

1.Anti Gay
2.Small government (however they define that)
3.Pro Guns
4.Pro Religion (or rather just pro Christianity, anti every other religion espeically islam)
5. Anti Abortion

Something along that line. Now I don't disagree with any of those in principal (except the religion part, I'm lukwarm on guns but understand why it's there in the US) but would find that the rational and arguments made for them are usually less than ideal. idealistically speaking I can much more logically side with Libertarians, though realistically I find i unlikely that their ideals can be implemented effectively .

Anti-Gay.....Non-issue.
Pro-Religion.....Non issue.

Abortion is becoming less and less of an issue with younger people.

The right to bear Arms is a legit issue, and small government without any sort of definition Is their only claim to Fame.....which when one holds an empire, governement must reflect the size of the people. Prime example. If we were coloninzing other planets. Government would have to exist. It would expand with the growth of the population. With each aditional planet that was colonized.

Now the limitation of Government Interference or Intrusion with Individual Rights and Property rights. That is a diffent matter. Of course most of this has to be explained slowly and in Printing and Writing, with each word being defined specifically. So as there can be no confusion for Those Jethro's out there. To many naught naughts and they get confused all over again.

Peter1469
03-14-2012, 01:58 PM
Yes and aligning themselves with the Southern Conservative Democrats. Must just be me. I never did understand how Socialism and Conservativism run parralel. Especially when one has no problem taking center stage. Which never was part of the True conservative make up.

The NECONs left the democrat party when it stopped being the war party and because the p-word party during Vietnam. The NECONs co-opted the national security cons and tricked them into Big Government on in the DoD.

RollingWave
03-14-2012, 08:09 PM
Weren't you suggesting earlier that the US maintain a military presence in east Asia? A lot of people around the world appreciate a US military presence while criticizing the US at the same time. Just how do you think a military presence in maintained? In any case, defense is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to focus on and the strategic default of...well just about everyone except the US and the USSR after 1945 created this situation.

What does "pro" and "anti" gay mean?

Oh, I talk in self debate a lot on politics, so don't take too literally on particular posts in terms of self contradiction because I like to debate from various POV not from a fixed one. I do believe in that the military presence in the world of the US is neccesary, at the same time I'm merely pointing on the relative irony of the GOP's talk on cutting budget but not the military one.

Conley
03-14-2012, 08:12 PM
Many of the same ones clamoring for fiscal responsibility refuse any consideration of an auditing of the Defense budget. Of course, that may be because they're running their campaigns with money from the defense contractors passed through lobbyists.

Peter1469
03-14-2012, 08:14 PM
Many of the same ones clamoring for fiscal responsibility refuse any consideration of an auditing of the Defense budget. Of course, that may be because they're running their campaigns with money from the defense contractors passed through lobbyists.

Their one defense, no pun intended, is to say that we can't solely cut defense without cutting entitlement programs.

Mister D
03-14-2012, 08:59 PM
Oh, I talk in self debate a lot on politics, so don't take too literally on particular posts in terms of self contradiction because I like to debate from various POV not from a fixed one. I do believe in that the military presence in the world of the US is neccesary, at the same time I'm merely pointing on the relative irony of the GOP's talk on cutting budget but not the military one.

Understood. I think we need a new foreign policy myself. That is, we need a foreign policy period. We don't seem to have one now but maintain Cold War defense spending. For what?

RollingWave
03-15-2012, 03:39 AM
Understood. I think we need a new foreign policy myself. That is, we need a foreign policy period. We don't seem to have one now but maintain Cold War defense spending. For what?
I think the grand foreign policy of the US is actually relatively clear, try to maintain relative world stability with the USA at it's head, (aka the status quo), it's really that when broken down into different regions that the strategy sometimes fall apart, where overcostly wars and occupations doesn't really actually help that much in this aim, and sometimes really is counter productive (for example I might point out that the Afganistan and Iraq war did in fact quite directly destablize Pakistan and Iran, two country that prior to those war were at least relatively stable and is now potentially a far bigger threat than both Afganistan and Iraq was.)

Mainecoons
03-15-2012, 08:09 AM
Great post! A capsule summary of the U.S. misbegotten grandiosity that leads to constant, expensive, foreign military misadventurism and as you point out, a bunch of unintended consequences.

Mister D
03-15-2012, 08:17 AM
I think the grand foreign policy of the US is actually relatively clear, try to maintain relative world stability with the USA at it's head, (aka the status quo), it's really that when broken down into different regions that the strategy sometimes fall apart, where overcostly wars and occupations doesn't really actually help that much in this aim, and sometimes really is counter productive (for example I might point out that the Afganistan and Iraq war did in fact quite directly destablize Pakistan and Iran, two country that prior to those war were at least relatively stable and is now potentially a far bigger threat than both Afganistan and Iraq was.)

Relative world stability is in the interests of all the powers and I don't see why that cannot be a cooperative enterprise. At least behind the scenes if need be...We engage in overcostly wars and occupations because liberal western governments (is that redundant?) have a proselytizing mission to spread our universal principles around the globe. To me, that's hardly a foreign policy. It's more like a religious crusade.

RollingWave
03-15-2012, 01:33 PM
Relative world stability is in the interests of all the powers and I don't see why that cannot be a cooperative enterprise. At least behind the scenes if need be...We engage in overcostly wars and occupations because liberal western governments (is that redundant?) have a proselytizing mission to spread our universal principles around the globe. To me, that's hardly a foreign policy. It's more like a religious crusade.

Well, relative stabilty is in the interest of everyone, but with America at it's head part is not :grin:

lets do point out that America's pre-eminent status in the world is hardly without benifits to themself, and they have exploited it on many different occasions economically speaking .

Mister D
03-15-2012, 01:43 PM
Well, relative stabilty is in the interest of everyone, but with America at it's head part is not :grin:

lets do point out that America's pre-eminent status in the world is hardly without benifits to themself, and they have exploited it on many different occasions economically speaking .

No doubt it has benefits in addition to drawbacks but it's not like the lives of average Americans will be much changed by America asserting a less authoritative approach in the world.

RollingWave
03-15-2012, 08:03 PM
No doubt it has benefits in addition to drawbacks but it's not like the lives of average Americans will be much changed by America asserting a less authoritative approach in the world.

I suppose, though theortically speaking if large regional wars or worse break out somewhere the Average folks certainly would feel the heat. at best they'd see stock collaspe and price of many things go up, at worse the US would need to go in again and the cost would be even greater.

wingrider
03-15-2012, 11:10 PM
I suppose, though theortically speaking if large regional wars or worse break out somewhere the Average folks certainly would feel the heat. at best they'd see stock collaspe and price of many things go up, at worse the US would need to go in again and the cost would be even greater. why? I think American citizens are getting sick and tired of being and paying for the worlds police force,, If foriegn despots want their country to be a third world shithole with their citenzenry not having any rights or vote, what is that to us..

its kinda like the NAACP ging to the UN and asking for an investigation and a ruling by the UN on American voter ID , thing is the countrys that are bringing this up are China ( abortion) uganda ( no rights for the people) libya ( need I say more) Saudi arabia, (Women are chatell) and these countrys are gonna question our Voter laws.. rediculous

RollingWave
03-16-2012, 02:20 AM
Yeah Wing, that's great in theory, but the last time the US did that (after WW1) they were dragged back into an even bigger mess less than 25 years later. with the world so connected today, it is fairly unrealistic to say that what happen outside your border have no impact on you (let's not even start with that Mexico being a hell hole has direct impact on US illegal immigration for starter) . your old enough that surely you remember the energy crisis of the 70s right?

wingrider
03-16-2012, 03:39 AM
Yeah Wing, that's great in theory, but the last time the US did that (after WW1) they were dragged back into an even bigger mess less than 25 years later. with the world so connected today, it is fairly unrealistic to say that what happen outside your border have no impact on you (let's not even start with that Mexico being a hell hole has direct impact on US illegal immigration for starter) . your old enough that surely you remember the energy crisis of the 70s right?
yes i am .. but Carter threatened Saudi that we would start producing gasoline out of coal and they backed down and dropped the price of the oil.. the only thing he did right in my opinion.. but I say this.. If other countries want america to be their police force than they can pay for em .. just like a rent-a cop.. why should the American taxpayer foot the bill for their benefit.. if every country we have bases in would pay for the upkeep and the cost of these troops our DOD bill would be 25% of what it is now.

on the mexico thing.. I could stop that bullshit in 30 days completley.. I would put our military on the border all 1800 miles of it. with orders to stop all illegal entry into the United states,, WE have a department of homland security but the only thing they do is harrass and complicate all airplane travelers..ignorance in motion..

the bottom line is this,, Homeland Security, the Patriot act, and the NDAA is for one purpose and one purpose only.. to controll the American populace. that is all it is for.

RollingWave
03-16-2012, 04:15 AM
AFAIK, in most cases the US also isn't paying the host country anything for use of their land and facilities. the relative ability to project power for the US is often tied into its' bases around the world, let's point out that if US pulls out of the mid east.. say Iran goes nuclear.. the US really can't stop them short of using nukes themself. and let's just say that a Nuclear Iran either nuke Isreal and/or vice versa, then what? the entire middle east goes to hell and oil prices shoot through the roof?

The general argument in theory at least is that, the US being the wealthiest country, have the most to lose in the event of parts of the world going to hell, and that spreading out the cost of maintaining a presence around the world beats the potential cost they'll have to spend if something really bad happens (ala a WW3 type event). The question of course is that. is that spending really helping towards that end?

It seems unrealistic that other countries will pay US for their service, in the cases of Japan / Korea they'd probably ask the US to just let them go nuclear or something similar, and if one police around the world already irritate so much problem, can anyone imagine if the China or Japan police east Asia?

In the end, I find this argument usually end up back in a neccesary evil rout, since the alternatives are simply too unrealistic, while the possible worst outcomes simply too cost

wingrider
03-16-2012, 06:06 AM
AFAIK, in most cases the US also isn't paying the host country anything for use of their land and facilities. the relative ability to project power for the US is often tied into its' bases around the world, let's point out that if US pulls out of the mid east.. say Iran goes nuclear.. the US really can't stop them short of using nukes themself. and let's just say that a Nuclear Iran either nuke Isreal and/or vice versa, then what? the entire middle east goes to hell and oil prices shoot through the roof?

The general argument in theory at least is that, the US being the wealthiest country, have the most to lose in the event of parts of the world going to hell, and that spreading out the cost of maintaining a presence around the world beats the potential cost they'll have to spend if something really bad happens (ala a WW3 type event). The question of course is that. is that spending really helping towards that end?

It seems unrealistic that other countries will pay US for their service, in the cases of Japan / Korea they'd probably ask the US to just let them go nuclear or something similar, and if one police around the world already irritate so much problem, can anyone imagine if the China or Japan police east Asia?

In the end, I find this argument usually end up back in a neccesary evil rout, since the alternatives are simply too unrealistic, while the possible worst outcomes simply too cost
not saying anthing bad here or I hope you don't take this wrong . but I just noticed that your location is tiawan.. that explains a lot , The US has been backing and protecting your country for a lot of years, so of course you want us to coninue to do so.. not that its a bad thing but most of the countries that we have to protect ( excluding yours i think) really don't like us and are only using us for money and protection.

RollingWave
03-18-2012, 07:05 AM
Well, Taiwan hasn't been base for any US forces since the mid 70s, and really we want to buy a shite load of stuff from the US but the US actually refuse (political reasons mostly), yeah Taiwan is part of the projection range of the US forces, so certainly we do benifit to some extend (most recently the 7th fleet sailed over during the late 90s missile crisis) .

I'm merely pointing out that, it's probably not in the US interest either to see say... Taiwan and South Korea getting overruned by their communist neighbors. or going nuclear (the CIA did in fact stop both country's nuclear program during the cold war). how these relative interest weigh against each other is really a difficult political question that have no fix answer, but like i've pointed out, the current setup is a reflection much of the events that eventually ended with WW2.

On a personal level, I wouldn't mind at all if US pulls out as long as this means that

A. we can go nuclear

and

B. we can buy whatever we can afford from the US arsenal maybe with the exception of the highest of the high tech stuff.

But from a historical and geopolitical prospective, I'm not particularly optimistic of this ending well, I think everyone would agree that whatever the price the US have paid as the world police, it hasn't been nearly as devastating as the price they paid in WW2, and would most likely pay if there's a WW3.