Bernie Sanders: "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2016, 10:44 PM
RE: Bernie Sanders: "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor"
(11-03-2016 01:25 PM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  He was talking about more than just poverty though, he was talking about criminal justice; black people, no matter what their economic situation, have to deal with the burden of a presumption of guilt, or at least heightened suspicion, in their interactions with police that white people, regardless of how much or how little they have, aren't as oppressed by.

Not trying to step on your dick here, but we shouldn't have to read what he meant from the words he didn't say. I personally am a little blunt in what I say, just to make sure that I'm not misunderstood. It happens anyway, but that's just human interaction. Or did I not see the whole quote? That's been known to happen. My lack of perfection really pisses me of. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
12-03-2016, 06:13 AM
RE: Bernie Sanders: "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor"
(11-03-2016 09:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 01:12 PM)yakherder Wrote:  I'm cheaper than the air strikes and smart weapons that seem to be preferred. I'm also all for drastically cutting numbers in recognition of front lines supported by poorly trained masses being obsolete. The budget is much higher than it needs to be due largely to the inefficient way funding is managed.

Nothing to say about the earlier misstatement of my point?

Hmm.

As for you being cheaper, I'm fine with spending money to keep you alive -- and that is essentially what we're doing when we build strike fighters to obviate the need for front lines in arty range, and so on. It's all good. Call me crazy, but I think you're worth more alive than dead, and I don't mind paying for life-support systems to help that end.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that engaging in unnecessary conflict is silly. It throws the tens of thousands of dollars we've invested in your training away on conflicts which have no bearing on our national security, and in the cases that do bear on national security more often harm it than help it.

I don't care if you like or don't like killing. I prefer that you like it so that you won't incur further expenses upon returning by having PTSD. I don't care if you're a danger junkie, and it's not my job to finance your thrills.

As a practical matter, I'm talking about our country's national interests, and I think those are best served by a non-interventionist foreign policy. If that doesn't satisfy your urge for thrills, buy tickets to Magic Mountain and leave my tax dollars alone.

(11-03-2016 01:35 PM)yakherder Wrote:  I read what you wrote, but also had other responses in mind as I replied. Sorry for my laziness in regards to dividing up quotes and individually addressing different people.

Forgive my difficulty in navigating the clutter.

I'll get back to your original point later tonight. More to say on it than I care to type in 6 second increments while "working" :/

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
12-03-2016, 09:01 PM
RE: Bernie Sanders: "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor"
(11-03-2016 09:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  My point, which you seem to have missed, is that engaging in unnecessary conflict is silly. It throws the tens of thousands of dollars we've invested in your training away on conflicts which have no bearing on our national security, and in the cases that do bear on national security more often harm it than help it.

I don't care if you like or don't like killing. I prefer that you like it so that you won't incur further expenses upon returning by having PTSD. I don't care if you're a danger junkie, and it's not my job to finance your thrills.

Your opinion I'm okay with. I don't happen to agree, but if that's your stance then, by all means, place your votes and express your views to those making the decisions to inform them of that view. My simple request, whatever your stance may be, is again to leave my life out of the process. I'm not eager to die, but if I'm not ready and willing to, I can't do my job when the time comes. I've confronted those fears, as anyone in the field of combat arms should. Let that be my problem. And yes, some of us may even be eager to engage some unknown future enemy on the battlefield, we may be adrenaline junkies, etc. I'm not asking you to spend your tax dollars just so we can have our fun, so to speak. Again, I'm just saying that, should the opportunity arise, don't hold us back just for the sake of being protective of our well being, knowing that it's what we want to do.

(11-03-2016 09:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  As a practical matter, I'm talking about our country's national interests, and I think those are best served by a non-interventionist foreign policy. If that doesn't satisfy your urge for thrills, buy tickets to Magic Mountain and leave my tax dollars alone.
My own view is that your tax dollars are nothing more than a symbolic representation of the resources we control. If you disagree, so be it. Make whatever decision you feel you must. Regardless of who you put in office, however, I firmly believe that no matter how non-interventionist they may be going in, once they see the bigger picture, hear the onslaught of anti-terrorism briefings, and see what's at stake and how completely dependent the economy of the first world is on a complex trade network built on the backs of unstable, developing countries, they will ultimately choose the path of intervention. The only difference will be whether they are transparent about it. If they are still trying to maintain the illusion that they are non-interventionalist, then they will likely opt for more secretive methods of force, such as has been Obama's policy. The conventional forces have been mostly pulled back, as he promised. To make up for that, surgical air strikes (such as by drones) and the use of special operations forces have increased astronomically. Our various elite units have been on a near constant deployment rotation throughout the world, while conventional units that could in fact handle a number of those tasks are left sitting around doing nothing.

Whatever form of intervention is chosen, the reality is that life absolutely does have a price tag on it. If an advanced health care system and everything else that makes up our privileged society relies on a number of resources that come from the above mentioned unstable regions, which it does, and the people depend on that system to support their continued survival and well being (however well being might be defined within the context of the culture in which you live), then the dollar value of sending ground forces should have equal weight to the dollar value of lobbing high explosives with an astronomical price tag in the hopes that they accomplish the intended goal, whether that goal be security related or resource related. If that astronomical price tag soaks up tax dollars that could be used to support lives back home, and we could accomplish the same goal with a much lower cost and perhaps a small loss of life, it would be irrational not to consider the option with the bigger picture in mind.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: