Getting real in the birthplace of democracy!

[juanni]

Originally Posted by carguym14

Hahahaha-buncha dummies over there!


Er,wait a minute...........

Yeah, that was starting to sound like us,,,,,, but seeing there was no mention of MASSIVE defense spending it couldn't be.




...............juanni

[carguym14]

Originally Posted by DABTL

Now, let me think, who was President in 1980? Which Senator introduced the Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act? Which one brought out the repeal of Glass-Stegal? On, nose, could they have all been Republicans???

So, this is a good reason to end Social Security and Medicare because J. P. Morgan/Chase needs a bailout?

OK, lets not tax the wealthy, not stop the banks from gambling with government ensured deposits and break the back of the middle class so you can go back to home building.

Right.

38 Senate Democrats and 155 House Democrats voted in favor of repeal.

Only 7 Democrat Senators voted no,as well as 51 House Democrats voting no.

Bill Clinton signed it.

Can't put all the blame on the R side there dabtl.

Just reinforces that very few of them have any principles whatsoever.

[Munster30]

Originally Posted by juanni

Yeah, that was starting to sound like us,,,,,, but seeing there was no mention of MASSIVE defense spending it couldn't be.




...............juanni

National defense is one of the few duties of the central government.
Picking winners in the business world, funding pet projects, building massive airports that book no flights, funding NGO's, funding so called non profits, high speed rail projects and so on, are not duties of the central government.
Grants to lcal governments and local counties and municipalities and even states from the feds just mean the feds are taking too much from the taxpayer (both now and future taxpayers as in deficit spending) and always come with strings attached as in more federal power locally.
"Massive" defense spending keeps us strong, at the top of the food chain, so to speak, there are myriads of other spending that could be cut instead.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by Munster30

National defense is one of the few duties of the central government.
Picking winners in the business world, funding pet projects, building massive airports that book no flights, funding NGO's, funding so called non profits, high speed rail projects and so on, are not duties of the central government.
Grants to lcal governments and local counties and municipalities and even states from the feds just mean the feds are taking too much from the taxpayer (both now and future taxpayers as in deficit spending) and always come with strings attached as in more federal power locally.
"Massive" defense spending keeps us strong, at the top of the food chain, so to speak, there are myriads of other spending that could be cut instead.

Where has your beloved republican party been for the last 50 years to end, TO CUT
Picking winners in the business world, funding pet projects, building massive airports that book no flights, funding NGO's, funding so called non profits, high speed rail projects and so on, are not duties of the central government???

Plus UN rathole $$$?
Plus Corporate Welfare?
Banker bailouts, almost interest free $$$ and FED backstopping?

Doing the exactly same thing as the demos with slightly different beneficiaries!!

STOP BEING AN ENABLING HYPOCRITE!!

Massive defense spending has brought down many an empire, it will us too.




............juanni

[GuitarBob]

Originally Posted by juanni

Massive defense spending has brought down many an empire, it will us too.

Which empires?

[EPC WN]

Originally Posted by GuitarBob

Which empires?

Roman
Ottoman
British
just off the top of my head.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by GuitarBob

Which empires?

Sorry Bob, but I am not going to spend my time educating you about nutrition, history and everything else that you are so ignorant about.

Go to your library, and get some books on lets say, the British Empire (you know the empire that got tangled up in an expensive, long distance losing war in Afghanistan) and come back when you can discuss events and not just ask foolish questions.




...............juanni

[EPC WN]

We do spend more than the next 13 countries COMBINED on defense. Did that stop 9/11? How about Oklahoma City? Those Ops only ran thousands and hundreds of thousands. In response we spend hundreds of BILLIONS? Racking up a debt of tens of TRILLIONS. I'd be comfortable knowing we spend more than the next 3 countries combined. Na, scratch that. Just more than China. Save alot of money we don't have in the process.

[GuitarBob]

Originally Posted by EPC WN

Roman
Ottoman
British
just off the top of my head.

Considering that the Roman empire collapsed when it was invaded by Germanic tribes I don't think "too much defence spending" was the problem.

The Ottoman empire collapsed due to it being on the losing side of WW1, and so again I don't think their problem was "too much defence spending"

The second world war took a heavy toll on Great Britain, and likely contributed to the downfall of their empire, but I wouldn't consider dfending yourself from the nazis to fall under the catorgory of "too much defence spending"

[GuitarBob]

Originally Posted by juanni

Sorry Bob, but I am not going to spend my time educating you about nutrition, history and everything else that you are so ignorant about.

Go to your library, and get some books on lets say, the British Empire (you know the empire that got tangled up in an expensive, long distance losing war in Afghanistan) and come back when you can discuss events and not just ask foolish questions.




...............juanni

I don't know what history books you are reading, but I hope you can get your money back because the British empire didn't fall after fighting in Afghanistan.

And I'm not asking you to educate me, I'm asking for specifics so I can call you out on your bullshit.

You claimed that empires fall due to too much defence spending, and i asked you to name one.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by GuitarBob

I don't know what history books you are reading, but I hope you can get your money back because the British empire didn't fall after fighting in Afghanistan.

And I'm not asking you to educate me, I'm asking for specifics so I can call you out on your bullshit.

You claimed that empires fall due to too much defence spending, and i asked you to name one.

Bob, you have many shortcomings including the ability to read and comprehend.

I never said the British Empire collapsed solely because of the Afghan War.

You are under the mistaken idea that empires collapse because of one specific event, they don't.
They collapse because of many errors including OVER EXPANSION of the military empire where diminishing returns on high cost adventures reduce the capital that would be used for other more productive purposes.

Plus the inability to hold onto those far flung assets when challenged.

And the British Empire was in decline well before WWII.







...............juanni

[GuitarBob]

Originally Posted by juanni

Bob, you have many shortcomings including the ability to read and comprehend.

I never said the British Empire collapsed solely because of the Afghan War.

You are under the mistaken idea that empires collapse because of one specific event, they don't.
They collapse because of many errors including OVER EXPANSION of the military empire where diminishing returns on high cost adventures reduce the capital that would be used for other more productive purposes.

Plus the inability to hold onto those far flung assets when challenged.

And the British Empire was in decline well before WWII.







...............juanni

Sounds like you're trying to rewrite history to support your own political views.

You do realise that Great Britain actually had a pretty small army in comparison to other great powers at that time don't you?, and managed to build, and hold on to their empire with a relatively small force. I don't think massive defence spending was Great Britain's problem. If anything a lack of defence spending was their problem.

Oh and after the 2nd Afghan war the British placed a pro-british emir in charge of the country, and so I'm not sure if I would consider that war a loss.

[Mebsuta]

They had a lot of navy; all those dreadnoughts in WWI. Navy was their deal.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by GuitarBob

If anything a lack of defence spending was their problem.

And where o' where Bob would that money come from to increase their spending to defend territory that was uneconomically viable to defend?

That is the trouble with you big govt, big spending, nanny staters, you don't seem to grasp that there needs to be economic viability to an idea and that money just can't be scooped up out of the magic money pile and thrown at every problem.




...........juanni

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by juanni

And where o' where Bob would that money come from to increase their spending to defend territory that was uneconomically viable to defend?

Just print it of course.

[EPC WN]

Or just use your EBT!!! Can't get that tune outta my head!

[DakTo]

Originally Posted by GuitarBob

Sounds like you're trying to rewrite history to support your own political views.

You do realise that Great Britain actually had a pretty small army in comparison to other great powers at that time don't you?, and managed to build, and hold on to their empire with a relatively small force. I don't think massive defence spending was Great Britain's problem. If anything a lack of defence spending was their problem.

Oh and after the 2nd Afghan war the British placed a pro-british emir in charge of the country, and so I'm not sure if I would consider that war a loss.

Shame on you Bob for making them back peddle and quantify their positions. The British lost its luster, grand fleet and its colonies after WWI & WWII due to ehausting the ecomomic exploitation and facing masive revolution in those countries.

[juanni]

Originally Posted by DakTo

Shame on you Bob for making them back peddle and quantify their positions. The British lost its luster, grand fleet and its colonies after WWI & WWII due to ehausting the ecomomic exploitation and facing masive revolution in those countries.

Ugh......

By the turn of the 20th century, fears had begun to grow in Britain that it would no longer be able to defend the metropole and the entirety of the empire while at the same time maintaining the policy of "splendid isolation".[121] Germany was rising rapidly as a military and industrial power and was now seen as the most likely opponent in any future war. Recognising that it was overstretched in the Pacific[122] and threatened at home by the German navy, Britain formed an alliance with Japan in 1902, and its old enemies France and Russia in 1904 and 1907, respectively.[123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

Overstretched empire and not the resources $$$ to "defend territory that was uneconomically viable to defend".

Where have we heard that before?

Oh yeah, up a couple of posts.

Dak Tooy 1902 is well before WWI, the handwriting was already on the wall for the Empire,,,,,,, for those with eyes.




............juanni

[GuitarBob]

Originally Posted by DakTo

Shame on you Bob for making them back peddle and quantify their positions. The British lost its luster, grand fleet and its colonies after WWI & WWII due to ehausting the ecomomic exploitation and facing masive revolution in those countries.

Not to mention the British embracing socialism after the second world war, and the marxists meddling in colonial affairs. Plus they slowly lost their technological, and more importantly organizational edge over the colonial populations.

Plus the liberals at the time no longer believed in colonialism, and thought the natives would be better off governing themselves. But since South Rhodesia, the former bread basket of Africa, has now turned into Zimbabwe I think the liberals may have been mistaken.

[EPC WN]

Oh man!
Now they're taunting the Germans

"We'll never pay you back..."

It is getting even real-er!!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/wo...ield.html?_r=2