Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Irrelevant sarcasm serves no purpose in this discussion.
It's perfectly relevant sarcasm and its point is timeless and wise. Exaggerate any tendency to the extreme and its flaws become readily apparent. All real solutions emanate from a state of balance. Giving every toddler a gun (another sarcastic interjection) won't get anyone very far down the yellow brick road.
No, it's not an insult. It was a general comment to any person who thought along the lines I described, which were an exaggeration of the extremism suggested by the OP. Stupid is not an insult when it describes something that is illogical. "Loony", "kooky" and "naive" are insults when there's no substance behind them. The OP and I have made up anyway.
But to address the pacifism I feel... I know human beings are aggressive creatures, perhaps too much so. All this aggression is rooted in fear. I just don't see how a parabolic dependence on weaponry actually results in safety. If your enemy stood before you naked without a weapon would you kill him? Can people not see themselves in their enemies? How much damage do we need to create, to witness, and ultimately, to experience before we realize this method is counterproductive? I assert that I have no enemies. That is my right and I create no enemies wherever I go. If someone thinks I am their enemy, that's their thinking and doing, not mine. Why do I need to give their foolishness any of my time and energy? This is a tough issue that humanity must resolve quickly. There is no solution when both sides are always wrong.
No one wants to go to war but being completely prepared for one usually precludes it from starting in the first place. Just take a look at the Cold War for proof of that. The world is still here and the USSR has dissolved.
One of the primary functions of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief of our armed forces. For Obama to suggest a basic unilateral disarmament is an abrogation of that responsibility and should automatically disqualify him from consideration for the office. Not a day goes by where I don't find another reason to despise that silver-tongued weasel.
He has trouble eating the chicken eggs that he steals cause that tongue just won't bend, don't know how he hasn't starved yet with his appeaser egg-swiping ways.
He has trouble eating the chicken eggs that he steals cause that tongue just won't bend, don't know how he hasn't starved yet with his appeaser egg-swiping ways.
Lol, nice try baiting me but I did get a chuckle out of the above.
I was never planning to vote for that radical leftist empty-suit Obama anyway but I just ran across this and it scared the hell out of me. This IDIOT plans on unilaterally disarming the nation. Probably to fund his ridiculous socialist proposals. God I hope that the American people aren't stupid enough to elect this kook.
Why is when you don't know anything about military or foreign policy do you people make any comments? Really.
We don't need 2000 or more nukes to destroy this world. 500 nukes will do just fine. Besides, whats the point of been worried about nuclear attacks from states when Reagan "star wars" work?(as conservative keep telling us) Of course, even if 'star wars' is ineffective, the MAD doctrine still works aganist big nations(china and Russia etc) and smaler nations(iran, syria etc), who of course can't reach us and they have no incentive to give nukes to terrorist group.
We also don't need $500 billion dollars(approx) to defend our country or defend our interest(to protect american citzens and balance of power). Of course, that $500 billion doesn't include, VA budget, it doesn't include Iraq war budget and it doesn't include nuclear weopons budget. The total military budget reaches almost $700 billion dollars.
Frankly, we don't need a military which takes up almost 70% of our income tax with no threat from nations near our border or in our region(military is ineffective with terrorism).Its time we reduce the military budget to pay down the debt and income tax cuts.
Here is cato on military budget based on 2005 budget.
No one wants to go to war but being completely prepared for one usually precludes it from starting in the first place. Just take a look at the Cold War for proof of that. The world is still here and the USSR has dissolved.
One of the primary functions of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief of our armed forces. For Obama to suggest a basic unilateral disarmament is an abrogation of that responsibility and should automatically disqualify him from consideration for the office. Not a day goes by where I don't find another reason to despise that silver-tongued weasel.
You are saying the Cold War was successful? It was successful for the defense contractors! It was successful for our government that raped our labors to fund ways of destroying all of us! Our weapons cache had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR. Its replacement still has nuclear weapons and it's not exactly our friend.
Armaments are nothing but a waste of human energy. They by themselves do not keep us safe. A gun doesn't keep anyone safe. Security is NOT something outside of oneself, it is within. Once you have it, nothing external is necessary. THAT is peace. And its a helluva lot cheaper. What needs excision is the fear that our enemies won't realize the same thing. Reliance on weapons shows the strongest lack of faith imaginable.
Why is when you don't know anything about military or foreign policy do you people make any comments? Really.
We don't need 2000 or more nukes to destroy this world. 500 nukes will do just fine. Besides, whats the point of been worried about nuclear attacks from states when Reagan "star wars" work?(as conservative keep telling us) Of course, even if 'star wars' is ineffective, the MAD doctrine still works aganist big nations(china and Russia etc) and smaler nations(iran, syria etc), who of course can't reach us and they have no incentive to give nukes to terrorist group.
We also don't need $500 billion dollars(approx) to defend our country or defend our interest(to protect american citzens and balance of power). Of course, that $500 billion doesn't include, VA budget, it doesn't include Iraq war budget and it doesn't include nuclear weopons budget. The total military budget reaches almost $700 billion dollars.
Frankly, we don't need a military which takes up almost 70% of our income tax with no threat from nations near our border or in our region(military is ineffective with terrorism).Its time we reduce the military budget to pay down the debt and income tax cuts.
Here is cato on military budget based on 2005 budget.
Your statement that I know nothing about the military and/or foreign policy couldn't be more wrong. I've done many papers in college, admittedly 15 years ago, on such issues and I've never stopped paying close attention. Plus, I'm a veteran so don't even try to go there.
It's not necessarily the threat of the Islamofascists that I'm worried about. It's the inevitable conflict with China over resources and influence in Southeast Asia that concerns me. For anyone to think that we can drop our guard now is foolish in the extreme.
What is the primary function of the US government? Of course. It is national security. But as things stand now, most of the budget goes towards entitlement programs and if that fool Obama gets elected, it's only going to get worse.
As you can see, most of our budget goes to social programs which are draining the Treasury at a horrific pace.
Also, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is actually lower than previous levels:
If you want to lower income taxes, which I agree with, and start paying down the debt, then the place to start is with the out-of-control entitlement programs that shouldn't exist in the first place.
It was an admirable try Jessica but in baseball parlance, a definite "swing and a miss."
Obama is a complete idiot and I woudn't vote for him if you paid me $100 to walk across the street to do it.
You are saying the Cold War was successful? It was successful for the defense contractors! It was successful for our government that raped our labors to fund ways of destroying all of us! Our weapons cache had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR. Its replacement still has nuclear weapons and it's not exactly our friend.
Armaments are nothing but a waste of human energy. They by themselves do not keep us safe. A gun doesn't keep anyone safe. Security is NOT something outside of oneself, it is within. Once you have it, nothing external is necessary. THAT is peace. And its a helluva lot cheaper. What needs excision is the fear that our enemies won't realize the same thing. Reliance on weapons shows the strongest lack of faith imaginable.
Gotta go....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Dude, almost everything you said was completely and utterly wrong and easily disproven with concrete and irrefutable fact. History and reality stand in the way of your assertions. But, burn that last bowl and pleasant dreams.
Well, I guess that's been handled. Done, done and done.
Good job, Satch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
