billvon 2,412 #26 November 16, 2012 >Geez man, ya gotta stop thinking it was written like a tech manual. Or an atlas, or a farmer's almanac, or an analysis of future politics, or a science book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #27 November 16, 2012 Quote Put a little simplistically, every euro an unemployed European doesn't have to pay at the docs' office and is thus able to save to pump back into his own country's economy - because the US-supplied defense umbrella frees up more euros to pay for his social safety net - is a dollar paid out of an American taxpayer's pocket. If, in his gut of guts, a conservative American resents paying for some other unemployed American's social safety net entitlements, why the hell does he tolerate being forced to pay for, say, an unemployed Frenchman's social safety net? At least the money some American "welfare queen" spends on soda and ciggies stays in the American economy. Ideologically, it's conservative Americans who are really getting fucked up the ass by this. Because Defense (an unpalatable euphemism, as you've pointed out) spending is a huge giveaway and form of corporate welfare to defense contractors! That's why conservatives love it."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blueblur 0 #28 November 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI read my Bible everyday. I truly believe we are in the End of Days. It will take some time to play out. When the armies gather for the showdown at Armageddon there is now mention of a great power from the west. Why do you think your different from all of the other generations that believed they were living in the end of times? The NT clearly states that those living at the time the Gospels were written would see the second coming of Jesus. Geez man, ya gotta stop thinking it was written like a tech manual. Then why do you live and preach "The Holy Word of God" as the end all be all of God's Will? That would be a tech manual to me... There was another thread where you and others vehemently claimed the Bible was THE ONE WORD OF GOD and was not to be questioned or interpretted differently. But here you are interpretting it differently when it is pointed out to have a MASSIVE contradiction in stating the people in those times would see the second coming of Christ...In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts. - RiggerLee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #29 November 16, 2012 Quote I read my Bible everyday. I truly believe we are in the End of Days. It will take some time to play out. That sounds like something someone in the Bible said.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #30 November 16, 2012 Quote Quote I read my Bible everyday. I truly believe we are in the End of Days. It will take some time to play out. That sounds like something someone in the Bible said. Hey! Chuteless said it first ..... ! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #31 November 17, 2012 QuoteSo why weren't those countries with navies invading Canada prior to WWII, when the "US Umbrella" wasn't in place? Your argument lacks logic. All apologies to the Monkey Man who started this thread. I am sure Canada was the last country on his mind when he made his post. I am sure he was thinking of all the crap that is going on in the Middle East. So blame me for making the observation that Canada has gotten off easy relying on the US for it's defense in the last half century. But professor ... yawn ... are you that obtuse ... or just argumentative to not know there was a time in Canada's history where the Canadian governments (this includes Liberal governments) spent money on national defense and Canada at one time in it's history actually had a reasonably competent and capable navy and also punched above it's weight in both World Wars. But that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. But I guess the professor would refuse to acknowledge this reality because it does not fit into his agenda. So sorry Chuck, my bad for bringing this all up. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #32 November 17, 2012 Quote Quote Put a little simplistically, every euro an unemployed European doesn't have to pay at the docs' office and is thus able to save to pump back into his own country's economy - because the US-supplied defense umbrella frees up more euros to pay for his social safety net - is a dollar paid out of an American taxpayer's pocket. If, in his gut of guts, a conservative American resents paying for some other unemployed American's social safety net entitlements, why the hell does he tolerate being forced to pay for, say, an unemployed Frenchman's social safety net? At least the money some American "welfare queen" spends on soda and ciggies stays in the American economy. Ideologically, it's conservative Americans who are really getting fucked up the ass by this. Because Defense (an unpalatable euphemism, as you've pointed out) spending is a huge giveaway and form of corporate welfare to defense contractors! That's why conservatives love it. The irony about the DOD is it could easily become either self sustaining or even a surplus generator if corporations and/or countries that benefited from them actually had to pay for their services. As for the religion differences thing, atheism is the solution for government. Saying there's no proof to back up one's beliefs is factual. Any opposing religious opinion simply becomes' a government sponsored "my god(s) can beat up your (gods)." Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #33 November 17, 2012 Right there with ya brother! MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #34 November 17, 2012 >The irony about the DOD is it could easily become either self sustaining or even a >surplus generator if corporations and/or countries that benefited from them actually >had to pay for their services. They do. We call these payments "taxes." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #35 November 17, 2012 Quote>The irony about the DOD is it could easily become either self sustaining or even a >surplus generator if corporations and/or countries that benefited from them actually >had to pay for their services. They do. We call these payments "taxes." I was referring to other countries and corporations directly. Besides, taxes don't directly pay for the DOD today. That's part of the issue as most taxes go to the general budget and aren't earmarked so there is no correlation.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #36 November 17, 2012 QuoteBut that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. What can we Americans say? You're welcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #37 November 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteBut that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. What can we Americans say? You're welcome. In my first post of the thread I did say "Thank You" and was criticized by two people. One was a Brit turned Yank and the second was a fellow countryman. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #38 November 17, 2012 Quote Quote Quote But that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. What can we Americans say? You're welcome. In my first post of the thread I did say "Thank You" and was criticized by two people. One was a Brit turned Yank and the second was a fellow countryman. SICC. Ya gotta be tough, or die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #39 November 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. What can we Americans say? You're welcome. In my first post of the thread I did say "Thank You" and was criticized by two people. One was a Brit turned Yank and the second was a fellow countryman. If you're referring to my response, I indicated I hold a different opinion. My apology if you felt that was specifically critical of yours, or the American's for that matter. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #40 November 17, 2012 Just curious John, what was it that you disagreed with? That Canada can spend more money on it's social programs because it does not need to spend a whole lot on defense? Or did you disagree with my statements that Canada relies on the US for it's national defense? I don't recall saying anything about agreeing or disagreeing with the US's foreign policy, so it has to be one of the first two? By the way ... the crap going on in the Middle East is not good. I certainly don't want to see a war between the Arab states and Israel. But it looks like it can't be stopped. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #41 November 17, 2012 QuoteJust curious John, what was it that you disagreed with? That Canada can spend more money on it's social programs because it does not need to spend a whole lot on defense? Or did you disagree with my statements that Canada relies on the US for it's national defense? I don't recall saying anything about agreeing or disagreeing with the US's foreign policy, so it has to be one of the first two?Quote I took no position for/against your opinion, and still don't. I simply shared that I hold a different one. And was subsequently surprised that was taken to be critical of yours. QuoteBy the way ... the crap going on in the Middle East is not good. I certainly don't want to see a war between the Arab states and Israel. Interesting that Israel is now opposed apparently by Egypt and Turkey. Three countries that seemed to share a commonality of foreign military aid and foreign allegiance. QuoteBut it looks like it can't be stopped. Time will surely tell. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #42 November 17, 2012 Quotewas subsequently surprised that was taken to be critical of yours I probably lumped you into something unwarranted. For that I apologize. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #43 November 17, 2012 Quote But that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. I'm confused. You've acknowledged that you don't need a strong military because the big brother's got your back. You've acknowledged that you therefore get useful stuff you wouldn't have if you had to pay for a strong military... yet you still seem to want a strong military. Why?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #44 November 17, 2012 QuoteI'm confused. You've acknowledged that you don't need a strong military because the big brother's got your back. You've acknowledged that you therefore get useful stuff you wouldn't have if you had to pay for a strong military... yet you still seem to want a strong military. Do you think I agree with the Liberal Party of Canada and their anti-military stance and their Big Government nanny state? Have a look at this ad they put out during a 2006 election campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68toCAiPIjo Oh and they lied (not the first time either), they did make it up. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #45 November 17, 2012 QuoteQuote But that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. I'm confused. You've acknowledged that you don't need a strong military because the big brother's got your back. You've acknowledged that you therefore get useful stuff you wouldn't have if you had to pay for a strong military... yet you still seem to want a strong military. Why? Testosterone poisoning?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #46 November 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm confused. You've acknowledged that you don't need a strong military because the big brother's got your back. You've acknowledged that you therefore get useful stuff you wouldn't have if you had to pay for a strong military... yet you still seem to want a strong military. Do you think I agree with the Liberal Party of Canada and their anti-military stance and their Big Government nanny state? I don't know - hence, I'm asking a question. If you acknowledge that you don't need a particularly strong military and that your country saves a huge amount of money by not spending on defence, why are you angry that you don't have a strong, expensive military?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
CanuckInUSA 0 #42 November 17, 2012 Quotewas subsequently surprised that was taken to be critical of yours I probably lumped you into something unwarranted. For that I apologize. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #43 November 17, 2012 Quote But that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. I'm confused. You've acknowledged that you don't need a strong military because the big brother's got your back. You've acknowledged that you therefore get useful stuff you wouldn't have if you had to pay for a strong military... yet you still seem to want a strong military. Why?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #44 November 17, 2012 QuoteI'm confused. You've acknowledged that you don't need a strong military because the big brother's got your back. You've acknowledged that you therefore get useful stuff you wouldn't have if you had to pay for a strong military... yet you still seem to want a strong military. Do you think I agree with the Liberal Party of Canada and their anti-military stance and their Big Government nanny state? Have a look at this ad they put out during a 2006 election campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68toCAiPIjo Oh and they lied (not the first time either), they did make it up. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #45 November 17, 2012 QuoteQuote But that all changed when the Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s demonized the military and slashed funding. I'm confused. You've acknowledged that you don't need a strong military because the big brother's got your back. You've acknowledged that you therefore get useful stuff you wouldn't have if you had to pay for a strong military... yet you still seem to want a strong military. Why? Testosterone poisoning?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #46 November 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm confused. You've acknowledged that you don't need a strong military because the big brother's got your back. You've acknowledged that you therefore get useful stuff you wouldn't have if you had to pay for a strong military... yet you still seem to want a strong military. Do you think I agree with the Liberal Party of Canada and their anti-military stance and their Big Government nanny state? I don't know - hence, I'm asking a question. If you acknowledge that you don't need a particularly strong military and that your country saves a huge amount of money by not spending on defence, why are you angry that you don't have a strong, expensive military?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
