Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9

 

2011-01-23 08:09:01
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5985|College Park, MD

dayarath wrote:

War Man wrote:

Allows us to mobilize easier without having to ask a nation permission to deploy troops at their country because we have no bases there. Having bases anywhere in the world makes things easier if we have to attack a nation.
Honestly, with current technology you can get anywhere in the world within 24 hours with a gigantic amount of forces. Not to mention the 9 supercarriers the US has in it's fleet. There is absolutely no need for bases everywhere.

Besides that, most bases are placed in already friendly countries, the EU being part of NATO, south korea being dependant on the US in case of NK aggression, the saudis having you as important training partners, I don't think you'll have to worry much about permission in case you'd ever need to ask.
Unless, y'know, it's for a stupid pointless war
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-01-23 08:09:19
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5462|Sydney

War Man wrote:

dayarath wrote:

War Man wrote:

Our military tech is important too, helps save lives. You want more American blood shed because we don't fund enough money for technology that helps reduce casualties? Numbers also mean the difference, if we go to war with a nation like China we're even more fucked than we would if we hadn't cut our funds.
Firstly having bases all over the world, namely those in Europe, seems like a fairly useless investment to me. Secondly, you can actually cut military spending without having to degrade the quality of your armed forces to African levels. (phasing out / removing outdated material faster, decreasing the size of your armed forces over time)

Going to war with China isn't realistic in, at the very least, the coming 30-50 years. Hell, probably not for the entire century.
Allows us to mobilize easier without having to ask a nation permission to deploy troops at their country because we have no bases there. Having bases anywhere in the world makes things easier if we have to attack a nation.
Which is probably why certain countries don't want bases within their borders. They don't know the motives of other countries, they want to keep theirs safe.
2011-01-23 08:09:27
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7000

JohnG@lt wrote:

War Man wrote:

dayarath wrote:


Firstly having bases all over the world, namely those in Europe, seems like a fairly useless investment to me. Secondly, you can actually cut military spending without having to degrade the quality of your armed forces to African levels. (phasing out / removing outdated material faster, decreasing the size of your armed forces over time)

Going to war with China isn't realistic in, at the very least, the coming 30-50 years. Hell, probably not for the entire century.
Allows us to mobilize easier without having to ask a nation permission to deploy troops at their country because we have no bases there. Having bases anywhere in the world makes things easier if we have to attack a nation.
And why exactly are you ok with invading sovereign nations?
keep the brownies and bananas at bay.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-01-23 08:09:28
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6283|...

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not at all. Our unemployment levels are classically very small in comparison to other nations. This recession is the exception rather than the rule. France and Germany carry 10-15% unemployment rates with or without a recession. Basically, France is in a constant state of recession and has been for decades.
Germany having reunited east and west only two decades ago is doing rather well if you'd ask me.

France however, I did not know this.
inane little opines
2011-01-23 08:10:40
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5985|College Park, MD

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

War Man wrote:


Allows us to mobilize easier without having to ask a nation permission to deploy troops at their country because we have no bases there. Having bases anywhere in the world makes things easier if we have to attack a nation.
And why exactly are you ok with invading sovereign nations?
keep the brownies and bananas at bay.
you're a banana/twinkie
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-01-23 08:11:25
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6283|...
I think you'd still need to ask permission regardless of having a base there because you can't just expand it from 5000 to 100.000 forces overnight.
inane little opines
2011-01-23 08:15:30
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7000

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


And why exactly are you ok with invading sovereign nations?
keep the brownies and bananas at bay.
you're a banana/twinkie
banana flavoured twinkie.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-01-23 13:45:43
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6638
I think obama really believes in his ( "Dreams of my Father" type ) policies and would love to implement even more of them. My guess is he wishes he could be more loyal to his core base of supporters. At this moment they feel betrayed. I don't think this is justified. I feel he may have been pressured from the democratic party to 'tone it down' and not push to much that could be seen as radical or polarizing. In short they don't want to cast votes and then be held accountable for those same votes in the next election. They just want to ride it out as is and hope the economy picks up, then take credit for it. I think it ( the economy ) eventually will recover unless he does something to scare investors and sabotage it further.
2011-01-23 14:00:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I think obama really believes in his ( "Dreams of my Father" type ) policies and would love to implement even more of them. My guess is he wishes he could be more loyal to his core base of supporters. At this moment they feel betrayed. I don't think this is justified. I feel he may have been pressured from the democratic party to 'tone it down' and not push to much that could be seen as radical or polarizing. In short they don't want to cast votes and then be held accountable for those same votes in the next election. They just want to ride it out as is and hope the economy picks up, then take credit for it. I think it ( the economy ) eventually will recover unless he does something to scare investors and sabotage it further.
Well that is easy to dismiss, because the if/when the economy recovers, it be credited by keeping Obama from damaging it any further by reigning in his bullshit agenda.
2011-01-23 14:02:31
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|7016|St. Andrews / Oslo

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

long post
So what's preventing the US from doing this? Norway sounds kinda awesome.
Umm, because its a system where the government decides for the people how they should live their lives? I dunno how many Americans you know, but we're all pretty firm in the belief that we should be free to run our lives as we see fit without government intervention.
Indeed.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

How much does it really interfere with one's personal life though? Some concrete examples would be appreciated.
Basically you're giving a large amount of your salary to the government and letting them control/influence where you go to school, what you do at school, which hospital you use, what treatment you get at said hospital, etc etc.

Americans (seemingly) tend to prefer the "work for yourself" attitude, ie keep most of your salary and spend it where you need to. Why should you, a man with no children, pay for other people's kids to go to school? Why should you, a man who's never sick, pay to cure other people's illness? Why should you, a rich man, not be allowed to pay top-dollar for a premium elementary school education for your child?

Just two different ways of seeing things. Europeans tend to be a lot more socialist than Americans. A socialist economy would never be (democratically) implemented in the US, not now anyway.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2011-01-23 14:16:49
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6638

lowing wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I think obama really believes in his ( "Dreams of my Father" type ) policies and would love to implement even more of them. My guess is he wishes he could be more loyal to his core base of supporters. At this moment they feel betrayed. I don't think this is justified. I feel he may have been pressured from the democratic party to 'tone it down' and not push to much that could be seen as radical or polarizing. In short they don't want to cast votes and then be held accountable for those same votes in the next election. They just want to ride it out as is and hope the economy picks up, then take credit for it. I think it ( the economy ) eventually will recover unless he does something to scare investors and sabotage it further.
Well that is easy to dismiss, because the if/when the economy recovers, it be credited by keeping Obama from damaging it any further by reigning in his bullshit agenda.
My feeling is basically, as long as he doesn't do anything else. He may have a chance and the country will recover. Basically he should just shake hands and do photo ops the next year. Preferably with Patriotic Americans, Boy and Girl Scouts, Amateur athletes, Spelling Bee winners and such. Just stay out and away from Government. Then he will get Re-Elected. That is my bet.
2011-01-23 14:19:52
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6283|Vortex Ring State

Jenspm wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:


So what's preventing the US from doing this? Norway sounds kinda awesome.
Umm, because its a system where the government decides for the people how they should live their lives? I dunno how many Americans you know, but we're all pretty firm in the belief that we should be free to run our lives as we see fit without government intervention.
Indeed.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

How much does it really interfere with one's personal life though? Some concrete examples would be appreciated.
Basically you're giving a large amount of your salary to the government and letting them control/influence where you go to school, what you do at school, which hospital you use, what treatment you get at said hospital, etc etc.

Americans (seemingly) tend to prefer the "work for yourself" attitude, ie keep most of your salary and spend it where you need to. Why should you, a man with no children, pay for other people's kids to go to school? Why should you, a man who's never sick, pay to cure other people's illness? Why should you, a rich man, not be allowed to pay top-dollar for a premium elementary school education for your child?

Just two different ways of seeing things. Europeans tend to be a lot more socialist than Americans. A socialist economy would never be (democratically) implemented in the US, not now anyway.
"If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all."

the work for yourself attitude works for separation of church and state too
2011-01-23 14:28:58
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Without the natural resources it wouldn't be able to sustain most of its social programs. Same goes for Norway and its oil fields. Or Canada and its mining/oil/timber. The US does not have the natural resources that those nations possess and thus it would not work.
The US has huge coal reserves, which its burning up in grossly inefficient old power stations, and it had huge oil reserves which it has burnt up in wars and 8mpg gas-guzzlers covering huge mileages in poorly planned cities.
Fuck Israel
2011-01-23 14:40:47
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6283|Vortex Ring State

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Without the natural resources it wouldn't be able to sustain most of its social programs. Same goes for Norway and its oil fields. Or Canada and its mining/oil/timber. The US does not have the natural resources that those nations possess and thus it would not work.
The US has huge coal reserves, which its burning up in grossly inefficient old power stations, and it had huge oil reserves which it has burnt up in wars and 8mpg gas-guzzlers covering huge mileages in poorly planned cities.
socialization is the answer, eh?

Government is always going to be inefficient. Would you rather have inefficient government or inefficient infrastructure?
2011-01-23 14:53:21
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6245|Places 'n such

Jenspm wrote:

Americans (seemingly) tend to prefer the "work for yourself" attitude, ie keep most of your salary and spend it where you need to. Why should you, a man with no children, pay for other people's kids to go to school? Why should you, a man who's never sick, pay to cure other people's illness? Why should you, a rich man, not be allowed to pay top-dollar for a premium elementary school education for your child?

Just two different ways of seeing things. Europeans tend to be a lot more socialist than Americans. A socialist economy would never be (democratically) implemented in the US, not now anyway.
The way I see it is that you pay taxes and therefore get to have decent roads, free healthcare if you need it, free education if you have kids, all manner of perks.
Sure it's a bit shit the government takes lots of your money and spends it on shit you don't need sometimes, but overall it works well imo.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-23 16:08:06
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Americans (seemingly) tend to prefer the "work for yourself" attitude, ie keep most of your salary and spend it where you need to. Why should you, a man with no children, pay for other people's kids to go to school? Why should you, a man who's never sick, pay to cure other people's illness? Why should you, a rich man, not be allowed to pay top-dollar for a premium elementary school education for your child?

Just two different ways of seeing things. Europeans tend to be a lot more socialist than Americans. A socialist economy would never be (democratically) implemented in the US, not now anyway.
The way I see it is that you pay taxes and therefore get to have decent roads, free healthcare if you need it, free education if you have kids, all manner of perks.
Sure it's a bit shit the government takes lots of your money and spends it on shit you don't need sometimes, but overall it works well imo.
and where exactly did you ever get this idea that healthcare or education is "free"? It is not free sheep, just because some one else is FORCED to pay it for you, does not mean it is "free". I understand the confusion, it is a typical mistake, whatever YOU don't have to pay for, and get someone else to pay for on your behalf is typically considered "free" among liberal circles.
2011-01-23 16:49:37
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6245|Places 'n such

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Americans (seemingly) tend to prefer the "work for yourself" attitude, ie keep most of your salary and spend it where you need to. Why should you, a man with no children, pay for other people's kids to go to school? Why should you, a man who's never sick, pay to cure other people's illness? Why should you, a rich man, not be allowed to pay top-dollar for a premium elementary school education for your child?

Just two different ways of seeing things. Europeans tend to be a lot more socialist than Americans. A socialist economy would never be (democratically) implemented in the US, not now anyway.
The way I see it is that you pay taxes and therefore get to have decent roads, free healthcare if you need it, free education if you have kids, all manner of perks.
Sure it's a bit shit the government takes lots of your money and spends it on shit you don't need sometimes, but overall it works well imo.
and where exactly did you ever get this idea that healthcare or education is "free"? It is not free sheep, just because some one else is FORCED to pay it for you, does not mean it is "free". I understand the confusion, it is a typical mistake, whatever YOU don't have to pay for, and get someone else to pay for on your behalf is typically considered "free" among liberal circles.
Everyone shares the payment according to how much they earn, in general, it's not free really. It's more like insurance, sure you may not use it but it's pretty useful to have in case you need it.

edit: your attitude towards guns is mine towards the NHS. Would rather have it and not need it than the alternative.

Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-01-23 17:04:10)

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-23 17:10:56
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5642|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:


The way I see it is that you pay taxes and therefore get to have decent roads, free healthcare if you need it, free education if you have kids, all manner of perks.
Sure it's a bit shit the government takes lots of your money and spends it on shit you don't need sometimes, but overall it works well imo.
and where exactly did you ever get this idea that healthcare or education is "free"? It is not free sheep, just because some one else is FORCED to pay it for you, does not mean it is "free". I understand the confusion, it is a typical mistake, whatever YOU don't have to pay for, and get someone else to pay for on your behalf is typically considered "free" among liberal circles.
Everyone shares the payment according to how much they earn, in general, it's not free really. It's more like insurance, sure you may not use it but it's pretty useful to have in case you need it.

edit: your attitude towards guns is mine towards the NHS. Would rather have it and not need it than the alternative.
Not really. Your system treats everyone equal regardless of their societal contributions. Ours demands a minimal contribution in the form of insurance premiums. Frankly, yours swings too far in favor of non-contributors.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-23 17:14:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:


The way I see it is that you pay taxes and therefore get to have decent roads, free healthcare if you need it, free education if you have kids, all manner of perks.
Sure it's a bit shit the government takes lots of your money and spends it on shit you don't need sometimes, but overall it works well imo.
and where exactly did you ever get this idea that healthcare or education is "free"? It is not free sheep, just because some one else is FORCED to pay it for you, does not mean it is "free". I understand the confusion, it is a typical mistake, whatever YOU don't have to pay for, and get someone else to pay for on your behalf is typically considered "free" among liberal circles.
Everyone shares the payment according to how much they earn, in general, it's not free really. It's more like insurance, sure you may not use it but it's pretty useful to have in case you need it.

edit: your attitude towards guns is mine towards the NHS. Would rather have it and not need it than the alternative.
So you think it is correct that since 1 citizen has done well for HIMSELF that must pay more for the EXACT same benefits to live in this country as someone who does not do well for himself? Isn't that punishing success and rewarding failure? Now why would that logic make sense to you?
2011-01-23 17:18:08
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6433|'straya

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:


and where exactly did you ever get this idea that healthcare or education is "free"? It is not free sheep, just because some one else is FORCED to pay it for you, does not mean it is "free". I understand the confusion, it is a typical mistake, whatever YOU don't have to pay for, and get someone else to pay for on your behalf is typically considered "free" among liberal circles.
Everyone shares the payment according to how much they earn, in general, it's not free really. It's more like insurance, sure you may not use it but it's pretty useful to have in case you need it.

edit: your attitude towards guns is mine towards the NHS. Would rather have it and not need it than the alternative.
So you think it is correct that since 1 citizen has done well for HIMSELF that must pay more for the EXACT same benefits to live in this country as someone who does not do well for himself? Isn't that punishing success and rewarding failure? Now why would that logic make sense to you?
You are assuming that successful people will always be successful and "failures" will always fail. You are giving someone a chance, somewhat like an investment in their future, people have rough patches.

eg. The government helps out uni students because while they might not be able to work now, there is a high chance they will be significant contributors in the future.
2011-01-23 17:19:39
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6245|Places 'n such
Yes, you aren't going to starve to death or not be able to afford what you want because the government has skimmed a few thousand off your £60k salary, whereas if they take a few thousand off your £10k salary it's more likely to have an impact.
It isn't punishing success and rewarding failure, it's taking a proportional amount of your income which isn't going to affect your quality of life in order to provide services for everyone.
So would you rather tax everyone the same amount of money a year?
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-23 17:27:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:


Everyone shares the payment according to how much they earn, in general, it's not free really. It's more like insurance, sure you may not use it but it's pretty useful to have in case you need it.

edit: your attitude towards guns is mine towards the NHS. Would rather have it and not need it than the alternative.
So you think it is correct that since 1 citizen has done well for HIMSELF that must pay more for the EXACT same benefits to live in this country as someone who does not do well for himself? Isn't that punishing success and rewarding failure? Now why would that logic make sense to you?
You are assuming that successful people will always be successful and "failures" will always fail. You are giving someone a chance, somewhat like an investment in their future, people have rough patches.

eg. The government helps out uni students because while they might not be able to work now, there is a high chance they will be significant contributors in the future.
I would rather make my own chances and my own decisions without govt. interference, thank you.  If I fail, and I have, I do not expect you to pay for it. In return how about not forcing me to pay for your failures? Deal?
2011-01-23 17:34:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

Yes, you aren't going to starve to death or not be able to afford what you want because the government has skimmed a few thousand off your £60k salary, whereas if they take a few thousand off your £10k salary it's more likely to have an impact.
It isn't punishing success and rewarding failure, it's taking a proportional amount of your income which isn't going to affect your quality of life in order to provide services for everyone.
So would you rather tax everyone the same amount of money a year?
Ahhh so you would be fine if you charged MORE for a new car, simply because you can afford to pay more, while someone who cant afford it should be charged less for the same car. 

Maybe, you would be fine if paid more for your meal at your favorite restaurant, because you can afford to pay more.

Ahhhh I bet when you buy a plane ticket, you would be fine if the first thing the ticket agent asks you is, "and how much do you make so I can adjust the sale price"?

Maybe the price of your house should be determined, not by the fair market value of the property, but by how much you can afford to pay.

You really think that logic is fair huh?
2011-01-23 17:35:43
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6245|Places 'n such
Things like benefits aren't there for "failures" they're there for people in need of them. That's not to say that the system isn't abused and flawed, but the motivation and reasoning isn't.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-23 17:40:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

Things like benefits aren't there for "failures" they're there for people in need of them. That's not to say that the system isn't abused and flawed, but the motivation and reasoning isn't.
the examples I gave in my last post, is the exact same thing, so is the logic, do you agree with it or not?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard