I already slapped him on ignore because of another thread in here: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=331453&page=2 This guy knows absolutely nothing about how the Internet works, and I tried to go into detail how data is routed, and how what he said was nonsense. Giving detailed examples of how data is transferred from country to country. He then said what I posted was "meaningless", and that he was right (even though he could not explain even the basics of how this impossible task would be accomplished. I have written him off as a useless troll, and placed him on ignore. What he says is of no importance. I doubt if he could tell the difference between an IP Stack and a Smoke Stack.
Says the guy who has just had his ass handed to him on another thread and calls people trolls because he cannot refute their arguments and then jumps to a totally different unrelated thread to continue the abuse. Says a lot about you not me that does.
We spent a fortune on the war on poverty since Vietnam and have nothing to show for it. Poverty declined more in the decade before the War on Poverty then in the 45 years since. Meanwhile, military superiority has kept our casualties low, and the world a fairly safe place for the last 30 years since the big Reagan buildup. One bit of spending shows real measurable progress, the other shows no progress whatsoever and a debt burden that is choking the working class. You want more of the latter though? - - - Updated - - - Do you ever post arguments or just conclusory statements and insults?
I didn't lay blame at one party over the other. It is YOU who are trying to focus only on a narrow point in a much broader scheme. I don't support either party because of this problem. Sure, but that is not the defense system we have. Our defense forces are used to gain and protect access to markets for private interests. Said private interests are the same corrupters of the government. Therefore, said private interests use the government for private gain and to externalize the costs of access to markets onto the taxpayer. THAT is why we spend more than the rest of the world combined on military spending. The MIC is facilitated by the government, not created by it. You'd do well to read the works of Antony Sutton. I know they're available online in PDF form to read for free. The history you think you know is at best incomplete.
Yea, of course without the military and it's funding we would not have the Internet (most readily forget that was a research project by, for, and paid for the US military), cell phones (Heady Lamar and her Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum patent for the US Navy), or one of tens of thousands of items that began as military research and expanded to civilian uses. And no, he only insults and dismisses anything he does not like, claiming his opponent was "destroyed". Quite laughable really.
For a person who you say you are ignoring your sure spend a lot of time criticising me,thats two posts in a row now.You are just angry that I have pissed on all your silly arguments. Funny to watch.
You go on professing that Bill Gates' company, Microsoft, has nothing to do with Bill Gates' non-profit organization and their hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions made in the 2012 election cycle. People might start to believe it if you repeat it loud and often enough.
I agree with you, yet war is far too profitable for the people in charge to stop. War is a job creator. If you can position yourself as a government contractor then you can sell $100 hammers and you can hire people in your town to make them. In high tech areas you could build drones and sell them for $10,000,000 and have employees with high tech skills and provide really good jobs. War is good for the economy for some privileged people. On the coast you can build destroyers for both the sea and the air. Some of those jobs are the highest paying jobs. Being in the military is a good job in itself. Retire from the military with lifetime benefits and full veteran medical benefits. And it is not only the wars themselves that are profitable. Lots of doctors and nurses are needed for wars, hospitals, and rehab too not to mention contractors to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure. "The Economic Consequences of Peace" are simply too costly. "War Is A Racket" a high paying racket. We need as many destroyers as we can get to boost the economy.
More of the same. Save this response so you can copy and paste it for all future posts and save yourself some time. - - - Updated - - - Broken Window fallacy. Large military spending doesn't make us more prosperous, it makes us more secure.
Explain how we are more secure? How did 9/11 happen if we are more secure? No one since 1812 had attacked us on our home soil until Pearl Harbor and 9/11. If large military spending really made us more secure then 9/11 could not have happened. The military budget for the year 2000 was over 1/2 $Trillion dollars. That did not stop 19 men who used $3 box cutters to hijack four jetliners, kill 3000 Americans, and attack the Pentagon.
Tell you what, can you prove a connection? I see a connection between the two about as much as I see in the Rockefeller Foundation being a front for Chevron Oil. In other words, none. Other then in the minds of Conspiracy Theorists I admit. And in case you missed the news, Microsoft has not been Bill Gates' company for 13 years!
And your grasp of history is as bad as the rest of your logic. Look back earlier in this thread, and you will see we already busted this faulty belief. Here, check out the history of this little town in New Mexico called Columbus, which was burned to the ground in 1916. This is "Faulty Logic 101". You have apparently not heard of something, therefore it does not exist. But there have been planned attacks, attacks, and successful attacks at that. Just because you have not heard of them is not my fault.
Who is the largest individual shareholder and chairman of Microsoft, hotshot? You realize that a CEO doesn't necessarily own a company, right? $550k to campaign finance in 2012. Annoymous as to where the money came from. 501 c3 corps exist specifically to allow huge borders of wealth to use their wealth to manipulate the system anonymously. PS, if you think that non-profit organizations are completely separate from the business entities their benefactors own, you're even less aware than I previously thought.
Mushroom, I asked a question. How does a large military keep us more secure? We had a large military when Pearl Harbor was bombed and we had a large military on 9/11. Those were major attacks. I am not referring to skirmishes.
It keeps nation states from thinking they can wage war against us. As far as terrorists go, spending on anti terrorism has kept us safer. We disnt spend much on anti terrorism before. Military supeririority is where we spent money and it has kept casualties low. Ak47s are still lethal, our losses are low not because our enemy isn't dangerous on their home turf, we are just fielding the most powerful and well trained military in the history of humanity and by a far shot. - - - Updated - - - We did not have a large military in WW2 during Pearl Harbor. We built one afterward.
Yea, with a whopping 6% of the stock. Ohhhh *shudder* Actually, we did not have a "large military". In fact, our military was pretty damned pathetic. Our most powerful tank was the M2 (already an antique at the time), and we had less then 100 of them. In December 1941, our military was largely a joke, leftovers from World War I, and a few inter-war ships and aircraft, of no real threat to anybody. As Hitler was sweeping across Europe with his 3,500 Panzer III tanks: The US had around 100 M2 Medium tanks: And this is what I am used to again. You are proven wrong, change the argument to something equally as invalid, and I bet you are just going to change it once again since I have pretty well proven the US did not have a "large military" at the time of Pearl Harbor. What we had was an embarrassing collection of obsolete junk, which was good for little more then training and making courageous suicide runs as a way to distract the enemy as out less-obsolete equipment tried to actually do something useful. And to answer your question with a question, how does having a smaller military keep us more secure? With your logic, we remove all guards from banks, then they will not be robbed anymore, right? Because obviously it is the guard that causes bank robberies.
There is a better way. The Purse and The Sword by Edwin Vieira We do not have to live in constant wars. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and on and on.
And once again, no answer. At least I love your consistency. As for something and get nothing in return.
Having a large military is not going to save anyone from attack, that has already been proven thru out history and of course your examples of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor bear that out.
Well no the US took over a year to push the Germans out of North Africa and defeat the Japanese navy. It has planned a huge increase, but that all had to be changed when the war started. What Pearl Harbor and 9/11 tell me is the pro-active defence policy is best. Attack you enemy before he can attack you. Of course in WW2 the US couldn't attack Japan. However before 9/11 the US had many chances to go into Afghanistan or get the Taliban to kick Bin Laden out. Because it has the military capabilities to do so, it had choices. That is what a large capable military gives you, you still have to make the correct choice.
since Obama killed the Death Star proposal, we just have to settle for a floating Star Destroyer. May the Force be with you when they work out the bugs.
You obviously missed my point. America was attacked even though it had a big military at the time of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Russia was attacked in WW2 by the Germans even though it had a huge army.The British were attacked in India even though they had the biggest best army in the world at the time(19th century). History is littered with states with huge armies getting attacked. So no I am not wrong, having a huge army does not stop you getting attacked.
the USSR had a lot of soldiers, but barely half of them had even a rifle. that's not an army, that's a uniformed slave labor workforce.
read up on Stalingrad. old Joe Steel was more afraid of the Red Army more than he was his buddy, Adolf.
