Conservative anti-spending movie hits theatres in October
362 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ridge;23920575]I'm saying the US is dumping tons of money into a political organization that is filtered and and a bit of it is redirected and the rest of it goes to the same causes the US already sends funds directly to. It's duplicity, and duplicity that we can not physically afford...[/QUOTE]
We've been able to afford it for almost 70 years now.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23920576]First, i already described why it seems like they give the most.
Second, not at all, they bail on UN peacekeeping missions a lot and have one of the least amount of soldiers in the UN peacekeepers
Third, so what?[/QUOTE]
First, why is that? I didn't see you say anything about it.
Second, We leave UN peace keeping missions when we are told we are no longer needed.
We have the least amount of soldiers in the UN because we have our own large fighting force, and we like to keep training and expectations uniform between all our troops.
Third, I'm saying that we have provided lots of support in many fashions to the UN, just so they can continue to come to our country and tell us we keep doing everything wrong, and if we want to be "enlightened," we should change to how the other countries in the UN work.
[QUOTE=Ridge;23920575]I'm saying the US is dumping tons of money into a political organization that is filtered and and a bit of it is redirected and the rest of it goes to the same causes the US already sends funds directly to. It's duplicity, and duplicity that we can not physically afford...[/QUOTE]
The UN also doesn't stay in countries for years, and year, and fucking years at a time, then when they leave they keep a tonne of boots on the ground for another 50+ years. So no, the UN is more effective because they aren't imperialist.
[QUOTE=Swilly;23920658]Key words :3:[/QUOTE]
Care to quote some posts that do include it?
[QUOTE=Ridge;23920710]Care to quote some posts that do include it?[/QUOTE]
I was just having some fun :ohdear:
yar, don't be lettin' the bilge water in ye brain get to ye!
All of ye land lubbers be screaming with the rage of a thousand suns, ye need to partake in a bit of partying. Or be at least laughin' at some those cat pictures on that there internet.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23920707]The UN also doesn't stay in countries for years, and year, and fucking years at a time, then when they leave they keep a tonne of boots on the ground for another 50+ years. So no, the UN is more effective because they aren't imperialist.[/QUOTE]
You are an idiot. The countries we have bases on right now (Britain, Germany, Cuba, Japan immediately come to mind) keep us there for support, both in terms of defense, and economy. We have legally binding leases for the land our bases are on.
The UK, now that was an imperialistic country. We have not taken populated land and kept it without payment since probably the mid-1800s...
[QUOTE=Ridge;23920690]First, why is that? I didn't see you say anything about it.[/quote]
look up?
[quote]Second, We leave UN peace keeping missions when we are told we are no longer needed.[/quote]
lol, not at all.
[quote]We have the least amount of soldiers in the UN because we have our own large fighting force, and we like to keep training and expectations uniform between all our troops.[/quote]
so does every other country that has UN peacekeepers. What's your point?
[quote]Third, I'm saying that we have provided lots of support in many fashions to the UN, just so they can continue to come to our country and tell us we keep doing everything wrong, and if we want to be "enlightened," we should change to how the other countries in the UN work.[/QUOTE]
Please tell me where in the UN charter it says "hay gais, go to the US and bitch about it"
oh that's right, you've never read the charter. or seen it
or ever heard of it probably.
[QUOTE=Swilly;23920769]I was just having some fun :ohdear:
yar, don't be lettin' the bilge water in ye brain get to ye!
All of ye land lubbers be screaming with the rage of a thousand suns, ye need to partake in a bit of partying. Or be at least laughin' at some those cat pictures on that there internet.[/QUOTE]
Well, then, open up the rum, shall we?
[QUOTE=Ridge;23920799]You are an idiot.[/quote]
this is y ur wrong, nah nah nah.
[quote]The countries we have bases on right now (Britain, Germany, Cuba, Japan immediately come to mind) keep us there for support, both in terms of defense, and economy. We have legally binding leases for the land our bases are on.[/quote]
Have been there since, derp, ww2.
There is no excuse for 800+ military bases spread across the world.
[quote]The UK, now that was an imperialistic country.[/quote]
since ww2.
[quote]We have not taken populated land and kept it without payment since probably the mid-1800s...[/QUOTE]
imperialism is not just integrating land.
[QUOTE=Ridge;23920815]Well, then, open up the rum, shall we?[/QUOTE]
Not until ye make up with the our other crew mates...I will not be havin' mutiny while drunk. I be forgettin' me brown pants for that.
If U.N. dues are based on GDP, then why is it that starting this year and through 2012, the US will be paying $100 million more per year, despite a free-falling GDP?
[editline]01:33PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;23920916]Not until ye make up with the our other crew mates...I will not be havin' mutiny while drunk. I be forgettin' me brown pants for that.[/QUOTE]
There be no mutiny. I call parlay!
Even on it's worst day the US is extremely rich
[QUOTE=Warhol;23920870]Have been there since, derp, ww2. [/quote]
Because devastating a country, economically, and physically, then waving as you walk out the door is the right thing to do, right?
[quote]There is no excuse for 800+ military bases spread across the world.[/quote]
This goes against your UN doctrine. Somebody needs to be there to police the place and make sure everyone is playing nice, right? Without FOBs, it would take weeks to mobilize and relocate a force to a conflict zone.
[quote]since ww2.[/quote]
Actually, WW2 was the beginning of the end for the UK.
[quote]imperialism is not just integrating land.[/QUOTE]
Let me guess, influencing governments? Every country does it, or tries to.
the us STILL has money, I'm not sure why you conservatives seem to be fixated on that.
and the GDP is slightly increasing, albiet slowly. Of course i'm lying, because we all know that muslim commie in the white house will destroy america
[QUOTE=Lambeth;23921012]Even on it's worst day the US is extremely rich[/QUOTE]
We have 3 trillion dollars in debt. Thats not rich.
[editline]01:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Warhol;23921024]the us STILL has money, I'm not sure why you conservatives seem to be fixated on that.[/QUOTE]
Our liabilities outnumber our assets. That implies we have negative money
[quote]and the GDP is slightly increasing, albiet slowly.[/QUOTE]
Economy has reached stagnation again. It was slowly improving the first half of this year, but it has stalled out again.
[QUOTE=Ridge;23921015]Because devastating a country, economically, and physically, then waving as you walk out the door is the right thing to do, right?[/quote]
So putting military bases there fixes that?
[quote]This goes against your UN doctrine. Somebody needs to be there to police the place and make sure everyone is playing nice, right? Without FOBs, it would take weeks to mobilize and relocate a force to a conflict zone.[/quote]
...Are you fucking serious? you're saying the US is running low on people willing to fight?
[quote]Actually, WW2 was the beginning of the end for the UK.[/quote]
The UK government was willing to give up its stolen land, and guess what, they did. And three countries still remain in the UK.
[quote]Let me guess, influencing governments? Every country does it, or tries to.[/QUOTE]
influencing governments =/= voicing grievances.
[editline]08:40PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;23921026]We have 3 trillion dollars in debt. Thats not rich.[/quote]
debt =/= poor
[quote]Our liabilities outnumber our assets. That implies we have negative money[/quote]
again, how do you fucking reach that conclusion.
[quote]Economy has reached stagnation again. It was slowly improving the first half of this year, but it has stalled out again.[/QUOTE]
Economies do that when they recover. called: improvement
[QUOTE=Warhol;23921093]So putting military bases there fixes that?[/QUOTE]
It provides a location where we can keep people that will help stabilize the country. Ya know, kinda like we did in Germany following WWII.
[quote]...Are you fucking serious? you're saying the US is running low on people willing to fight?[/quote]At the time, sending troops by boat was the best way to get them to faraway lands. It takes weeks to cross the ocean. Having people in the region that can be deployed by train or plane or on the road is much easier and faster.
[quote]The UK government was willing to give up its stolen land, and guess what, they did. And three countries still remain in the UK. [/quote]Good for them. If somebody asks us to leave, we'll let our leases expire, and go. Or find a way to renegotiate the terms.
[quote]influencing governments =/= voicing grievances.[/quote]Care to elaborate on what you mean, then?
[quote]debt =/= poor[/quote]It does when there is more debt than there is income to pay it off
[quote]again, how do you fucking reach that conclusion.[/quote]I took accounting classes in college, and that is often referred to as "fact" in those classes.
[quote]Economies do that when they recover. called: improvement[/quote]Stopping is not moving forwards
[QUOTE=Ridge;23921191]It provides a location where we can keep people that will help stabilize the country. Ya know, kinda like we did in Germany following WWII.[/quote]
I think Germany is stabalised already.
[quote]At the time, sending troops by boat was the best way to get them to faraway lands. It takes weeks to cross the ocean. Having people in the region that can be deployed by train or plane or on the road is much easier and faster.[/quote]
No idea what you're babbling about.
[quote]Good for them. If somebody asks us to leave, we'll let our leases expire, and go. Or find a way to renegotiate the terms.[/quote]
It's not like Manhattan is the only fucking place available in the fucking world, ridge.
[quote]Care to elaborate on what you mean, then?[/quote]
you think by "pointing out what's wrong with the US" somehow means you're influencing the government.
[quote]It does when there is more debt than there is income to pay it off[/quote]
Economies don't really work like that. They're fueled by taxes and they spend them. Debt builds up, but that doesn't mean you not have money.
[quote]I took accounting classes in college, and that is often referred to as "fact."[/quote]
I'm amazed you were able to get into uni. you said "took", i'm assuming you got kicked out.
Regardless, accounting =/= an economy.
[quote]Stopping is not moving forwards[/QUOTE]
Then you have no idea how economies work. Stop, forward, stop, forward.
Any rise acts like that. there's times where it drops, but you pick it back up.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23921350]I think Germany is stabalised already.[/quote]
And now we lease the bases from the German government.
[quote]No idea what you're babbling about. [/quote]
Talking about the 40s,50s and 60s. By ship was the easiest and most economically viable way to transport troops and equipment to another continent.
[quote]It's not like Manhattan is the only fucking place available in the fucking world, ridge. [/quote]
Nor did I say it was. But the people in Manhattan would say it is.
[quote]you think by "pointing out what's wrong with the US" somehow means you're influencing the government. [/quote]
I mean by, say, a foreign country's President coming to the US and publically criticizing a state law.
[quote]Economies don't really work like that. They're fueled by taxes and they spend them. Debt builds up, but that doesn't mean you not have money.[/quote]
No, that is how governments work. Economies work by people having money to spend on things like food and utilities and entertainment. Government does very little for the economy.
[quote]I'm amazed you were able to get into uni. you said "took", i'm assuming you got kicked out.[/quote]
Resorting to personal attacks now? Shame you've run out of flimsy arguments...
[quote]Regardless, accounting =/= an economy.[/quote]
It teaches you how to balance a business. Something few politicians have done nowadays.
[quote]Then you have no idea how economies work. Stop, forward, stop, forward.[/quote]
Dont forget backward. Government interference and regulation has helped do a lot of that lately...
[QUOTE=Ridge;23921579]And now we lease the bases from the German government.[/quote]
should have already done that like 30 years ago.
[quote]Talking about the 40s,50s and 60s. By ship was the easiest and most economically viable way to transport troops and equipment to another continent.[/quote]
what does ships have to do with Peacekeeping.
[quote]Nor did I say it was. But the people in Manhattan would say it is.[/quote]
again, you're not making sense
[quote]I mean by, say, a foreign country's President coming to the US and publically criticizing a state law.[/quote]
he can't have an opinion?
[quote]No, that is how governments work. Economies work by people having money to spend on things like food and utilities and entertainment. [B]Government does very little for the economy.[/B][/quote]
[quote]Dont forget backward. [B]Government interference and regulation has helped do a lot of that lately[/B]...[/QUOTE]
lol
[quote]Resorting to personal attacks now? Shame you've run out of flimsy arguments...[/quote]
lol, you conservative folk are a joke.
[quote]It teaches you how to balance a business. Something few politicians have done nowadays.[/quote]
the economy is not a business.
[quote]Dont forget backward. Government interference and regulation has helped do a lot of that lately...[/QUOTE]
lol, deregulation is why the US is in a recssion in the first place.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23921815]should have already done that like 30 years ago.[/quote]
1980? We probably were
[quote]what does ships have to do with Peacekeeping. [/quote]
Lost track of your argument? We were talking about why we keep military bases in foreign countries. So we dont need to use ships, was the answer.
[quote]he can't have an opinion?[/quote]
He can have an opinion all he wants, but to come to our country and blast us for our laws, when his country is in the middle of an undeclared civil war is just shameful. You never see Bush or Obama going to another country and tell them they are doing things wrong.
[quote]lol, you conservative folk are a joke.[/quote]
Again with the attacks
[quote]the economy is not a business. [/quote]
The economy is to business, what the internet is to tubes. It is a series of them. The economy is 100% about businesses and their products and services they provide. If a company produces something nobody wants, the company is supposed to wither and die. The govnernment, starting with Bush's bailouts, broke the first law of economics.
[quote]lol, deregulation is why the US is in a recssion in the first place.[/QUOTE]
How do you figure? Giving companies more freedom to produce their product, and at a lower price since they dont have to jump through as many hoops, allows people to buy more, which improves the economy.
Overregulation drives companies out of business and harms the economy.
[QUOTE=Ridge;23921939]1980? We probably were[/quote]
Obviously not.
[quote]Lost track of your argument? We were talking about why we keep military bases in foreign countries. So we dont need to use ships, was the answer.[/quote]
I was talking about peacekeeping.
[quote]He can have an opinion all he wants, but to come to our country and blast us for our laws, when his country is in the middle of an undeclared civil war is just shameful. You never see Bush or Obama going to another country and tell them they are doing things wrong.[/quote]
boo hoo, he has criticism, so what?
[quote]The economy is to business, what the internet is to tubes. It is a series of them. The economy is 100% about businesses and their products and services they provide. If a company produces something nobody wants, the company is supposed to wither and die. The govnernment, starting with Bush's bailouts, broke the first law of economics.[/quote]
The bailouts did nothing to "save" the companies. They wouldn't have failed regardless.
And first rule of economics is law of demand btw
[quote]How do you figure? Giving companies more freedom to produce their product, and at a lower price since they dont have to jump through as many hoops, allows people to buy more, which improves the economy.[/quote]
Where has that worked ever?
[quote]Overregulation drives companies out of business and harms the economy.[/QUOTE]
...Not in the least bit.
[editline]09:25PM[/editline]
Every time the economy was deregulated, the country slipped into a massive recession.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23922132]Obviously not.[/QUOTE]
Got proof that we haven't been leasing from Germany, or any foreign country we have a base on?
[quote]I was talking about peacekeeping.[/quote]So was I. Troops can get there faster and stop the hostilities sooner, if they dont have to spend weeks traveling around the globe to get to the fight.
[quote]boo hoo, he has criticism, so what?[/quote]You KNOW that had Bush gone to a country and criticized them, you'd be all over it, just as the MSM would.
[quote]The bailouts did nothing to "save" the companies. They wouldn't have failed regardless. [/quote]I'd have like to see GM fail.
[quote]And first rule of economics is law of demand btw[/quote]Fair enough. They broke the 2nd rule, then.
[quote]Where has that worked ever?[/quote]Wal*Mart. They sell the stuff for less because they buy in bulk, and so more people shop there.
[quote]...Not in the least bit.[/QUOTE]
Actually, yes. That is why when Cap & Trade was in discussion in Congress, the companies started telling people they were going to jack prices sky high, so they could afford to meet the rediculous demands of the law...
[QUOTE=Warhol;23921350]No idea what you're babbling about. [/QUOTE]
His idea of making peacekeeping easier is to put army bases everywhere so US troops can react faster, which is:
-Antagonizing
-Patronizing (to countries like Germany, for example)
-Intrusive
-Dumb
It also means that he has a very narrow definition for the word peacekeeping (Ridge, here's a hint; it doesn't just mean ''going to war'')
[QUOTE=wewt!;23922362]His idea of making peacekeeping easier is to put army bases everywhere so US troops can react faster, which is:
-Antagonizing
-Patronizing (to countries like Germany, for example)
-Intrusive
-Dumb
It also means that he has a very narrow definition for the word peacekeeping (Ridge, here's a hint; it doesn't just mean ''going to war'')[/QUOTE]
Well I'm sure that if Germany doesn't like US soldiers and their families patronizing their businesses, they can do fine without our money. And no, blowing the shit out of places is not peace keeping.
You know that the UN keeps their peace keeping forces on those same bases, right? Why does the UN need to have bases all over the world!?
[QUOTE=Ridge;23922530]Well I'm sure that if Germany doesn't like US soldiers and their families patronizing their businesses, they can do fine without our money. And no, blowing the shit out of places is not peace keeping.
You know that the UN keeps their peace keeping forces on those same bases, right? Why does the UN need to have bases all over the world!?[/QUOTE]
Because the UN is an international institution?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23923298]Because the UN is an international institution?[/QUOTE]
But they dont do any fighting, and they don't do much peace keeping. Why do they need those troops on those bases?
[QUOTE=Ridge;23923383]But they dont do any fighting, and they don't do much peace keeping. Why do they need those troops on those bases?[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to insinuate.
[QUOTE=Ridge;23923383]But they dont do any fighting, and they don't do much peace keeping. Why do they need those troops on those bases?[/QUOTE]
In case they might need them some day, which is more or less the same reason you gave for US troops, but the US army is not an international institution.
Also,
''But they dont do any fighting, and they don't do much peace keeping.''
You didn't need to say fighting, that's implied by the word peacekeeping
[editline]09:25PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;23922530]Well I'm sure that if Germany doesn't like US soldiers and their families patronizing their businesses, they can do fine without our money. And no, blowing the shit out of places is not peace keeping.[/QUOTE]
Patronizing their businesses? Do you know what the word patronizing means? And if you do, why would a military base patronize a business?
[QUOTE]
You know that the UN keeps their peace keeping forces on those same bases, right? Why does the UN need to have bases all over the world!?[/QUOTE]
Same reason you gave for the US, but you forget that:
-The UN forces are international
-The US army isn't
Socialism is bad guys, just look at Germany.
Oh wait...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.