Action Was Reckless - Tulsi Gabbard

[wkmac]

if it makes you feel better. Hopefully you'll never need the help of the guy who gets brutalized today while you look the other way.

You are making a whole lot of assumptions there.

 

[newfie]

Sounds like you're letting your emotions talk. As Monkey said, what you do is laudable but there are many places one can be laudable but no one can be laudable in all places.

Yea and that's the common argument for indifference.

 

[newfie]

You are making a whole lot of assumptions there.

I may be. and these discussions sometimes end up going around the barn and stray away from the original point.

I''ve watched my libertarian friends and others of similar mindset I follow on twitter express their outrage over the missile barrage and state as you have that the Syrian problem is not our problem.

my main counter to that is at what point is it our problem. How much death and destruction do you have to see. how many innocents do you need to see slaughtered before you decide its too much.

that level of acceptance is what you have to figure out. that level of indifference is what will define you. That's not my assumption because you have to be the one that figures out how long you can decide you wont care about the worlds problems.

There is much brutality in the world. Do you draw the line when they start using Sarin gas or do you need to see some nukes before you get concerned? is a hundred thousand deaths , a million , a hundred million the magic number before your disgust overwhelms your indifference?

So I do agree I do not want to get drawn into another conflict and therefore when we have that discussion I am perfectly fine with making that argument and agreeing with that point. The one that bothers me as I watch others go down that path is that those same friends of like minded libertarian philosophy basically seem to be saying friend the world I don't care what happens out there because it already happens too much for me to worry about. that part does not sit well with me.

 

[wkmac]

I may be. and these discussions sometimes end up going around the barn and stray away from the original point.

I''ve watched my libertarian friends and others of similar mindset I follow on twitter express their outrage over the missile barrage and state as you have that the Syrian problem is not our problem.

my main counter to that is at what point is it our problem. How much death and destruction do you have to see. how many innocents do you need to see slaughtered before you decide its too much.

that level of acceptance is what you have to figure out. that level of indifference is what will define you. That's not my assumption because you have to be the one that figures out how long you can decide you wont care about the worlds problems.

There is much brutality in the world. Do you draw the line when they start using Sarin gas or do you need to see some nukes before you get concerned? is a hundred thousand deaths , a million , a hundred million the magic number before your disgust overwhelms your indifference?

So I do agree I do not want to get drawn into another conflict and therefore when we have that discussion I am perfectly find with making that argument and agreeing with that point. The one that bothers me as I watch others go down that path is that those same friends of like minded libertarian philosophy basically seem to be saying friend the world I don't care what happens out there because it already happens too much for me to worry about. that part does not sit well with me.

Let us at least clarify one point, I don't say it isn't "our" problem, I say the US gov't started it, thus it is their problem if it is anyone's problem. And no I don't use the collective term "we" in such situations because there is no we. It's them or as George Carlin rightly points out, "it's a big club and "WE" ain't in it!"

Now, please continue.

 

[Catatonic]

Yea and that's the common argument for indifference.

So you think we should pay to take care of all the kids and innocent adults in America who are in jeopardy of getting ill or dying because of their lack of resources to pay for it.

This all comes down to taking money away from American tax-payers and giving it to the Jordanians in peril.
I am not indifferent ... I just don't want to pay for it.

Someone who doesn't want to take care of American citizens and wants to take care of Jordanians is a muddle-headed hypocrite.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

[newfie]

Let us at least clarify one point, I don't say it isn't "our" problem, I say the US gov't started it, thus it is their problem if it is anyone's problem. And no I don't use the collective term "we" in such situations because there is no we. It's them or as George Carlin rightly points out, "it's a big club and "WE" ain't in it!"

Now, please continue.

I'm trying not to be the contrarian but it appears you just illustrated my point. That's the argument that does not sit well me. That's the argument I cant in good conscience wrap my arms around.

 

[newfie]

So you think we should pay to take care of all the kids and innocent adults in America who are in jeopardy of getting ill or dying because of their lack of resources to pay for it.

This all comes down to taking money away from American tax-payers and giving it to the Jordanians in peril.
I am not indifferent ... I just don't want to pay for it.

Someone who doesn't want to take care of American citizens and wants to take care of Jordanians is a muddle-headed hypocrite.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

I'm not really speaking to the refugee problem that's another issue. I'm speaking to the point that we fired a few missiles and the response of indifference I've heard as a result.

 

[Catatonic]

I may be. and these discussions sometimes end up going around the barn and stray away from the original point.

I''ve watched my libertarian friends and others of similar mindset I follow on twitter express their outrage over the missile barrage and state as you have that the Syrian problem is not our problem.

my main counter to that is at what point is it our problem. How much death and destruction do you have to see. how many innocents do you need to see slaughtered before you decide its too much.

that level of acceptance is what you have to figure out. that level of indifference is what will define you. That's not my assumption because you have to be the one that figures out how long you can decide you wont care about the worlds problems.

There is much brutality in the world. Do you draw the line when they start using Sarin gas or do you need to see some nukes before you get concerned? is a hundred thousand deaths , a million , a hundred million the magic number before your disgust overwhelms your indifference?

So I do agree I do not want to get drawn into another conflict and therefore when we have that discussion I am perfectly fine with making that argument and agreeing with that point. The one that bothers me as I watch others go down that path is that those same friends of like minded libertarian philosophy basically seem to be saying friend the world I don't care what happens out there because it already happens too much for me to worry about. that part does not sit well with me.

As long as it is your money do what you want.
When you talk about taking resources paid for by US taxpayers and ignoring all the police brutality here in the USA and go out and pay for non-Americans being mistreated by their gov

 

[newfie]

As long as it is your money do what you want.
When you talk about taking resources paid for by US taxpayers and ignoring all the police brutality here in the USA and go out and pay for non-Americans being mistreated by their gov

OH GAwd . did you really just try to take me out to left field

 

[Catatonic]

I'm not really speaking to the refugee problem that's another issue. I'm speaking to the point that we fired a few missiles and the response of indifference I've heard as a result.

Well, I did not hear that and personal responses are not of interest to me anyway.
I only care about what my Central National government does ( as well as my State and Local governments).
I want the US citizens to express their outrage at getting involved in another implacable and unsolvable piece of soil that is not the US.

 

[wkmac]

I'm trying not to be the contrarian but it appears you just illustrated my point. That's the argument that does not sit well me. That's the argument I cant in good conscience wrap my arms around.

What my argument is should be irrelevant to you because it has zero bearing on your life. What I say has zero consequences on your life of what you do so why does it concern you? It shouldn't because tomorrow you will wake up thinking and doing the same as you did today regardless what I think and say.

 

[vantexan]

Sounds like you're letting your emotions talk. As Monkey said, what you do is laudable but there are many places one can be laudable but no one can be laudable in all places.

OK, let's not bomb military targets to try to steer rogue governments in the right direction. But if we aren't willing to do that let's not take in hundreds of thousands of refugees who are the result of rogue gov't actions. If you aren't willing to try to stop millions from becoming refugees then you should have no say in bringing them into our country where huge sums are spent to sustain them while our own citizens suffer. The U.S. doesn't have to get into direct conflict with rogue regimes but it ought to be doing everything possible to protect innocent civilians in their own countries. Safe zones, no fly zones. And make it clear to everyone that there will be hell to pay if they attempt to harm those civilians. If one truly believes it would be better to bring said civilians to our country rather than protect them in their own then one has an agenda that's beyond doing what's best for those civilians.

 

[newfie]

Well, I did not hear that and personal responses are not of interest to me anyway.
.

Again I'm speaking to a level of acceptance or tolerance of world brutality.

 

[Catatonic]

OH GAwd . did you really just try to take me out to left field

Honestly, I'm not sure where you are.
I know you have an emotional view on this as you should.
I feel very emotional about cannabis legalization (not the same level or importance ... I understand).
To me, it comes down to what we (The USA) can afford on our budget.
Jordanians that live under a non-Democratic government that is not answerable to it's citizens is a lesson to future Jordanians and other non-Democratic governments.

 

[newfie]

What my argument is should be irrelevant to you because it has zero bearing on your life.

I know its a me and only me world. My point exactly.

 

[Catatonic]

Again I'm speaking to a level of acceptance or tolerance of world brutality.

I accept that other people not living in the USA are not my responsibility and I shouldn't have to pay to support them.

 

[wkmac]

OK, let's not bomb military targets to try to steer rogue governments in the right direction. But if we aren't willing to do that let's not take in hundreds of thousands of refugees who are the result of rogue gov't actions. If you aren't willing to try to stop millions from becoming refugees then you should have no say in bringing them into our country where huge sums are spent to sustain them while our own citizens suffer. The U.S. doesn't have to get into direct conflict with rogue regimes but it ought to be doing everything possible to protect innocent civilians in their own countries. Safe zones, no fly zones. And make it clear to everyone that there will be hell to pay if they attempt to harm those civilians. If one truly believes it would be better to bring said civilians to our country rather than protect them in their own then one has an agenda that's beyond doing what's best for those civilians.

I've never argued that we should take in any refugees, nor have I argued we shouldn't. As to bombing military targets, show me how such targets are an actual direct threat to me at this very moment right here where I live and not in some constructed theory built more out to fear than fact.

 

[wkmac]

I know its a me and only me world. My point exactly.

See, you're making real progress here. Good job.

 

[newfie]

Honestly, I'm not sure where you are.
I know you have an emotional view on this as you should.
I feel very emotional about cannabis legalization (not the same level or importance ... I understand).
To me, it comes down to what we (The USA) can afford on our budget.
Jordanians that live under a non-Democratic government that is not answerable to it's citizens is a lesson to future Jordanians and other non-Democratic governments.

not really an emotional view , just not sure where I'm drawing the line yet.

 

[bbsam]

OK, let's not bomb military targets to try to steer rogue governments in the right direction. But if we aren't willing to do that let's not take in hundreds of thousands of refugees who are the result of rogue gov't actions. If you aren't willing to try to stop millions from becoming refugees then you should have no say in bringing them into our country where huge sums are spent to sustain them while our own citizens suffer. The U.S. doesn't have to get into direct conflict with rogue regimes but it ought to be doing everything possible to protect innocent civilians in their own countries. Safe zones, no fly zones. And make it clear to everyone that there will be hell to pay if they attempt to harm those civilians. If one truly believes it would be better to bring said civilians to our country rather than protect them in their own then one has an agenda that's beyond doing what's best for those civilians.

Have millions come here from Syria?