On the Nature of Things | Forum

Skin Job wrote:

Hans Bulvai wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote: I talk to Joe everyday. Went weak kneed at the end of Bush, but no longer, in the mood for glass. Bolton, Romney appear to be in the mood. Just sayin.

Nobody will hit back.

Just so that I understand, we are talking about mass murder right?

Sounds like Mr. P is being whipped up by talk radio hosts.

It's dismaying how Republicans go on and on about the deficit and how broke we are, and in the next breath promise to increase military spending, and vow to turn nations into "glass." Real money saver, that.

Mr. Perfect and his ilk would have loved Nazi Germany.

Not slaughtering whole nations with robots is 'weak kneed'.

When I was young, people considered the bully the coward. The dude who needed to strike out at others who were much weaker than him was considered 'weak kneed'. Now it's the opposite.

I wish we had Conservatives who still believed in traditional American values. The lack of Conservatives in this country is a terrible thing.

Nuclear wars are cheap. Nation building ala Obama/Bush, that's expensive.

The military is a small portion of the budget.

Enki wrote:
Mr. Perfect and his ilk would have loved Nazi Germany.

I don't know, Adolf did not appear to like the Milo Doctrine.

Not slaughtering whole nations with robots is 'weak kneed'.

When I was young, people considered the bully the coward. The dude who needed to strike out at others who were much weaker than him was considered 'weak kneed'. Now it's the opposite.

I don't know, Bin Laden and AQ types are still considered cowards, by my ilk and other ilks.

I wish we had Conservatives who still believed in traditional American values. The lack of Conservatives in this country is a terrible thing.

Nuclear war is a tradition started by Democrats, don't look at me.

Hans Bulvai wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote: I talk to Joe everyday. Went weak kneed at the end of Bush, but no longer, in the mood for glass. Bolton, Romney appear to be in the mood. Just sayin.

Nobody will hit back.

Just so that I understand, we are talking about mass murder right?

Call it what you want, all I know is Joe is thirsty for it. Talked to Joe quite a bit this weekend, quite a bit. Joe not real big on murdered ambassadors and overrun embassies.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Nuclear wars are cheap. Nation building ala Obama/Bush, that's expensive.

The military is a small portion of the budget.

The US spends over three times as much on its military as its two largest rivals, China and Russia, combined. Rationalize that all you want, it makes no fiscal sense to continue spending at that level.

Err, skin job, the whole point is to spend more than your two rivals combined. Duh.

The military is the largest portion of the budget. It is greater than Medicare or Social Security.

Saying it is a small portion of the budget is what is known as 'lying'.
I never understood the desire to lie to people that know that it is a lie.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Err, skin job, the whole point is to spend more than your two rivals combined. Duh.

Over three times more than both combined? Sure, if the point is inevitable bankruptcy. It's nearly as dumb as ever expanding entitlements.

Enki wrote:The military is the largest portion of the budget. It is greater than Medicare or Social Security.

Saying it is a small portion of the budget is what is known as 'lying'.
I never understood the desire to lie to people that know that it is a lie.

25% is small. Entitlements (direct payments to individuals) are about 50%. All truth that I speak. It's so amazing that you perceive truth to be lies, I'm wondering if have an actual handicap of some sort. It would certainly explain a great deal.

You suffer from a truth deficit.

Skin Job wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:Err, skin job, the whole point is to spend more than your two rivals combined. Duh.

Over three times more than both combined? Sure, if the point is inevitable bankruptcy. It's nearly as dumb as ever expanding entitlements.

I'm factoring in the ME also. Twice as much as all combined is a bare minimum (see above chart).

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Skin Job wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:Err, skin job, the whole point is to spend more than your two rivals combined. Duh.

Over three times more than both combined? Sure, if the point is inevitable bankruptcy. It's nearly as dumb as ever expanding entitlements.

I'm factoring in the ME also. Twice as much as all combined is a bare minimum (see above chart).

What do you mean by all combined? Don't get me wrong here, I want the US to maintain a strong military, but what we have now is just ridiculous overkill. No wonder we need to drum up support for wars on a regular basis, I mean how could you not with all that hardware going to waste, not to mention feeling a need to justify its existence.

A true deficit hawk would put EVERYTHING on the table, which is why I don't take Republicans seriously in this regard.

Skin Job wrote: What do you mean by all combined? Don't get me wrong here, I want the US to maintain a strong military, but what we have now is just ridiculous overkill.

Says who.

No wonder we need to drum up support for wars on a regular basis, I mean how could you not with all that hardware going to waste, not to mention feeling a need to justify its existence.

We have many people who want to see us destroyed.

A true deficit hawk would put EVERYTHING on the table, which is why I don't take Republicans seriously in this regard.

That's because you've been suckered by the Democrat media who are pulling your strings. The Ryan budget cuts an unprecedented $5 trillion from the baseline. If you can't take that seriously then you can't be taken seriously.

Mr. Perfect wrote: We have many people who want to see us destroyed.

None of them have the means to do so.

They have the means to destroy 40-50,000 of us, which is 40-50,000 too many.

Mr. Perfect wrote:They have the means to destroy 40-50,000 of us, which is 40-50,000 too many.

Not yet they don't. And what is the $ value of those 40-50,000?

Zack Morris wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:They have the means to destroy 40-50,000 of us, which is 40-50,000 too many.

Not yet they don't. And what is the $ value of those 40-50,000?

The Japanese didn't attack PH before they attacked PH, 9-11 didn't happen before 9-11 and so forth. They definitely have the means for 40-50,000, maybe a lot more.

American lives are worth more than we spend now in my opinion. Please tell me your opinion and I'll try to make sure it gets attached to the Democrat party.

Skin Job wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:Err, skin job, the whole point is to spend more than your two rivals combined. Duh.

Over three times more than both combined? Sure, if the point is inevitable bankruptcy. It's nearly as dumb as ever expanding entitlements.

Dumber, at least with entitlements you get somethng out of it.

What's funny is that they wouldn't want to destroy us if our military wasn't occupying their countries.

Enki wrote:What's funny is that they wouldn't want to destroy us if our military wasn't occupying their countries.

Maybe, maybe not, either way you guys had 4 full years to make good on that and of course you failed to do so. In fact, we're right back where we started 9-11-01.

Enki wrote: Dumber, at least with entitlements you get somethng out of it.

Yeah, guaranteed bankruptcy, what a side benefit.

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Zack Morris wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:They have the means to destroy 40-50,000 of us, which is 40-50,000 too many.

Not yet they don't. And what is the $ value of those 40-50,000?

The Japanese didn't attack PH before they attacked PH, 9-11 didn't happen before 9-11 and so forth.

How would more military spending have prevented either? How many troops does it take to stop a nuclear weapon? Are they going to stand arm-in-arm and intercept the shockwave?

American lives are worth more than we spend now in my opinion. Please tell me your opinion and I'll try to make sure it gets attached to the Democrat party.

Then how much is it worth spending to counter these threats with the wrong solutions?

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Enki wrote:What's funny is that they wouldn't want to destroy us if our military wasn't occupying their countries.

Maybe, maybe not, either way you guys had 4 full years to make good on that and of course you failed to do so. In fact, we're right back where we started 9-11-01.

No 9/11 style attack has occurred yet.

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Enki wrote: Dumber, at least with entitlements you get somethng out of it.

Yeah, guaranteed bankruptcy, what a side benefit.

Can you explain to me how the less expensive program will make us bankrupt faster than the more expensive program?

Is there something magical about a dollar spent on healthcare that has different bankrupting properties from a dollar spent on the military?

It's funny to hear you say that American lives are more valuable than what we currently spend on the military when we could save millions of lives with better healthcare but you're against that.

It's all very strange.

I think you just like the killing. Why else would you say you favor saving american lives but oppose the measures that WOULD save lives while supporting the measures that actually make us less safe?

Zack Morris wrote: How would more military spending have prevented either? How many troops does it take to stop a nuclear weapon? Are they going to stand arm-in-arm and intercept the shockwave?

Then how much is it worth spending to counter these threats with the wrong solutions?

You can kill 40-50,000 people without nukes, easily (crop duster + open air football stadium). Remember 9-11 was an attempted attack on nearly 50,000 people.

You seem to think that people will attack you in a way you find convenient or predictable, my study of the topic draws me to opposite conclusions.

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Zack Morris wrote: How would more military spending have prevented either? How many troops does it take to stop a nuclear weapon? Are they going to stand arm-in-arm and intercept the shockwave?

Then how much is it worth spending to counter these threats with the wrong solutions?

You can kill 40-50,000 people without nukes, easily (crop duster + open air football stadium). Remember 9-11 was an attempted attack on nearly 50,000 people.

You seem to think that people will attack you in a way you find convenient or predictable, my study of the topic draws me to opposite conclusions.

Osama bin Laden said explicitly that he was attacking us because of our military bases in Saudi Arabia. If we hadn't been terrorizing the Middle-East for nearly a century they wouldn't have attacked us. They'd have attacked the Russians, Europe, China, Africa, but there is no conceivable reason why they'd travel to the other side of the planet to do war with us.