Jump to content

Sulaco

Member
  • Posts

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sulaco

  1. Definitive post on the "Bush Doctrine gotcha" http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OD...GQzZjg0MzYyZjk=
  2. That's the same question! What would your posisition be inherently requires one to make a judgment, including whether Israel was justified. Again, Palin's response was pefectly appropriate diplo-speak. had she said soemthing specific you would be calling her reckless. When she is prudently vague, you call her inexperienced. It has, by the way, been amusing to catch in the microcosm of your posting over the past 3-4 weeks, the feelings of panic and subsequent panic-generated anger that the left must be feeling across the US. You shouldn't be so scared - Palin will have many opportunities for real missteps. What you latch onto now, is suitable only for desparate attacks by the insecure.
  3. Oy vey - why nitpick? Where the hell does the Russian Federation come from but constant conquest. And of course the Soviet Union took a whole lot of "re-conquest" to build. Unless you're russians, in which case you were just liberating all the little russians and chornozhopi asiatics from western oppression. Purely defensive.
  4. Large military - bahahaha. Nato ships are currently sitting in a port in the Black Sea. They move through the sea with impunity. Russia sends a few frigates for a military exercise in the Carribean. With everyone knowing if war came those frigates would not get out of the mediterrenean. Superpower status is not based on the size of your army. It's force projection baby. What have the Russians accomplished with the invasion of Georgia - they showed they have a large enough army to ebat up on small republics. They have also put into sharp contrast for any third world tin pot dictator more rational than Assad that when it comes to getting troops "over there" their capability pales in comparison with that of the czech component of Nato. This is the undercurrent that few of the hoi poloi lauding Russia will catch - but Nato ships in Poti are a clear message to everyone else. And far more intimidating than shitty Russkie tanks rolling over shittier ex-Russkie tanks.
  5. A prefectly appropriate diplomatic answer. In fact it's the answer any president or Sec State would give today. The difference between saying "man contributes to climate change" and "man is responsible for climate change" may be a difficult one for a 5th grader to parse. It's perfectly clear you ain't qualified to judge her responses.
  6. Gibson's explanation was simplistic. In fact the Bush doctrien has become some amorphous it is hard to be specific about it. I generally see it as if the "promotion of democracy" factor dominated. Part of the reason for that is that US has practicied preemptive defence since Pearl Harbour (see just about every war after WWII). Preemption is ahrdly unique to the Bush doctrine.
  7. Another world poll! http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?arti...m&buid=3281 Yes! Let's give these nuts from abroad a say in the selection of our leadership!
  8. Not just that. He won the county that was targetted by an large swing of votes.
  9. So many lies, so little time. I still question, however, how Gov. Palin's daughter's pragnancy make Palin a hypocrite for not extending new funds to the aforementioned program? She walks the walk doesn't shee? Rather than having the tax payer help her unwed tenage preganant daughter along she is going to take the cost herself. Sounds like the budget cut is in keeping with her actions here. But, let's examine the argument further. It appears that the argument is: Palin supports certain type of sex-ed as a way of preventing pregnancy. Her daughter got pregnant. Therefore she is a hypocrite, or her prescription is a failure. The corollary is that if I can find a person who has tought his daughter about condoms and the pill, who supports such teaching in school, and whose daughter after receiving such instruction did get pregnant, tthen he whole idea of teaching about condoms and the pill as a way of preventing teen pregnancy is bunk. What a strange way of arguing.
  10. Regarding the alleged cuts to that teen mothers state program: http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/006281.html Also encapsulated well here: The Non-Existent Cut of [Jonathan Adler] Thus - these was not a cut in existing budgeting for the center.
  11. As the old Polish joke goes: Who invented the telephone? Famous Russian inventor Belkov.
  12. The Russian response should be amusingly inept. The resulting depression in Mother Russia will be less amusing, but fun to watch nontheless.
  13. The lack of response? Irrelevant? Or perhaps everyone is more interested in watching.
  14. Disadvantages of Tort Reform: 1. The various united States have, as a tradition, relied on private action to regulate industry. Rather than bureaucracy intiated regs the general approach has been for private persons to sue tortfeasors for various torts. Losses in court by these tortfeasors would modify the behavior of the class of potential tortfeasors. In practical terms - the medical malpractice of one doctor would result in a suit. If negligence can be proven then the plaintiff would recover. Insurance companies constatnly keep records of cases won and lost. The become general knwoledge in the emdical community. Furthermore, to protect themselves and their policy holders, these insurance companies update the doctors on what constitutes negligence for purposes of torts. Doctors modify their behavior or insurance companies up their rates or drop coverage. A shift away from this system, which tort reform achieves, limits the upside risk of insurance companies. These companies can relax their monitoring as their losses become more foreseeable. No longer does the "lawsuit market" inform the doctors of what is acceptable behavior and what constitutes negligence. No longer are doctors subject to the same insurance company scrutiny. The result is that their work slips. The final result? Government regulation of medical practice and a new bureaucracy - paid for by taxes on everyone. Great! Now I have no per se problem with insurance comapnies. In fact I have enjoyed litigating on their behalf. I do have a problem with the government protecting them, and by extension doctors, from the risks they willingly undertake. 2. The little guy gets screwed is right! As potential awards drop lawyers will no longer take plaintiff's cases of what now has become marginal value. In med mal this is especially true as med mal cases are very expensive to develop. The money to develop these cases is usally fronted by plainitff's lawyers who then expect a profit base on the contingency fee earned if the case is won. As the potential contingency fees drop, the risk vs. benefit comparison on any given case changes. Fewer little folk will be able to procure lawyers. But whatever - many prefer what I describe here as negative results.
  15. First - there is a general concept in US comman law as an aggreegate - a person with the age capacity to do A, does not necessarily have the capacity to do B. The argument aboput drinking and enlistment is specious. Now onto age of capacity to enter into contracts: Ergo - while the common law of various states does govern contracts between the enlisted and the military to some extent, the common law as to incapacity based on minority status is inapplicable to whether a valid contract is formed. Furthermore, lest we forget, penalties for breaking the enlistment contract are "criminal" in nature. There is no reason to believe that civil common law should be applied to the breaking of contracts. It might be - but that's up to the military code, federal courts and congress. As an aside - the age of capacity to enter contracts is 18 in most states. Furthermore, even if a contract is entered into when a person is under 18, it can become valid if the party reaches the age of capacity and at that point continues to benefit from the contract.
  16. http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/ Here is his blog re: the book. Blubber misstates the logic chains in the book with apparent malice. Or he just hasn't read it.
  17. A class in Realpolitik. Unless one's plan is to become a vassal state it is best to band with the weaker against the strongest. The stronger China is the more threatening it is to Russia - especially since China is far more likely to covet Russian lands than is the US. - if for no other reason than that logistics of invasion would be lless burdensome on China. Who is m ore likely to colonize the far east of the Federation. Is the logic that difficult here? All this of course can be attacked through various analytical means - but one has to attack the assumptions - argue for different paradigms. You are making realpolitik arguments but are completely misapplying the theory.
  18. Your statement again: Therfore, from Gates saying: "Canadian, Dutch and British troops are ill-suited for the fierce counterinsurgency war they are waging in southern Afghanistan," you went to believing that it was crystal clear he was calling the troops incompetent. Now that's a lack of parsing ability. I just pointed out that's quite the logical jump. No defending yourself really. You just end up looking more foolish. And let's call it a steak hole - all right? Not a big fan of sweets you see?
  19. World of difference between "incompetent" and "ill-suited for a purpose." But hey - don't let that get in the way of your inferiority complex. "By jingo we'll get 'im for those remarks!!!" M. Dancer is more correct here - the problem is that weaknesses are bgeing announced publicly, not that Gates is worrying about the suitability of other NATO forces in Afghanistan.
  20. But the paper dollar permits one to enjoy strip joints on the cheap.
  21. Lived in Canada for 11 years. Before Bush Jr.'s time. Bush Sr. and Clinton era. The US was smugly disliked at that time. Canadian teachers had no problems showing that dislike - it extended to many aspects of the US and was often based on misinformation. Bush is a nice excuse to dislike the US today. But once he is gone it will be same as it was before he came. The US will be disliked but Canucks will not be able to say it's just Bush they hate. Nothing much changes. But I guess Bush provides nice cover.
  22. I am not unsympathetic to your point re foolish arguments. There is one caveat however, you claim she had a change of mind based on her words. I claim her actions in the past not only show her true view of governance but also undermine her credibility when claiming she had changed. But we're beating a dead horse.
  23. I forget. What was the name of the last national entity which was forced to use explosive packed speed boats against the US Navy?
×
×
  • Create New...