Economy Trumps military parade to cost 92 million

Aren't these the same guys who said Trump had no chance to win?

Pardon me if I'm skeptical...
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
Define beneficial and how does it remotely benefit the American PEOPLE in any way shape or form. It does not. It was done to stop a thing that has been stopped...the spread of Communist Russia. America gains nothing from having bases in the vast majority of places they are currently in. We should remain in South Korea, Japan and perhaps Poland and thats about it...hell, the vast majority of people dont even understand why we are still in Japan, yet another reason why we should get out of most places.

As for your vindictive comment...that would be those hating on America while under its warm blanket.
Click to expand...

International stability and free trade benefit America as we are the top consumers of the world. This facilitates that.

The Monroe Doctrine was policy since 1823, but we quickly learned that the world has shrunk, so we expanded our reach. Plus we sell military technology to all of these countries while not giving over the blue prints keeping them dependent on the US.
 
PolishHeadlock said:
International stability and free trade benefit America as we are the top consumers of the world. This facilitates that.

The Monroe Doctrine was policy since 1823, but we quickly learned that the world has shrunk, so we expanded our reach. Plus we sell military technology to all of these countries while not giving over the blue prints keeping them dependent on the US.
Click to expand...

1. There has been no international stability.
2. There has been no free trade. The term is a thing to be tossed around mostly by those that have no idea what it actually is.
3. America was one of the few countries on earth not actually attacked and thus had 100% of its infrastructure after the war and would have been able to do all these things without bases ANYWHERE.
4. I do believe we would have been able to sell MORE weapons to countries if we didnt have any of OURS THERE protecting them...dup dup ditty day!
 
panamaican said:
12 billion to farmers. 92 million for a parade.

Someone remind me - how much did his administration want to cut from the Department of Education?
Click to expand...


StqjBNZ.png


-14%
 
tkotom said:
What are you basing that on? More polls?

Polls are notoriously inaccurate. You can't possibly take a poll of 1000 people and pretend to be sane and claim that it represents the entire population accurately.
Click to expand...

Polls aren't notoriously inaccurate. In fact, as time goes on, they're getting more and more accurate.

The truth is that some people are notoriously unwilling to accept polling data that contradicts their personal biases and assumptions, like yourself.
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
1. There has been no international stability.
2. There has been no free trade. The term is a thing to be tossed around mostly by those that have no idea what it actually is.
3. America was one of the few countries on earth not actually attacked and thus had 100% of its infrastructure after the war and would have been able to do all these things without bases ANYWHERE.
4. I do believe we would have been able to sell MORE weapons to countries if we didnt have any of OURS THERE protecting them...dup dup ditty day!
Click to expand...

1. lol compared to when?
2. Countries have more closed economies now compared to when? lol
3. Luckily we had the Monroe Doctrine for 120 years leading up to WWII lol
4. no basis for that
 
PolishHeadlock said:
1. lol compared to when?
2. Countries have more closed economies now compared to when? lol
3. Luckily we had the Monroe Doctrine for 120 years leading up to WWII lol
4. no basis for that
Click to expand...

1. http://war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp now you show me a time when there have been fewer wars LOL!
2. Show me when there has been less free trade LOL!
3. You did not refute what I said LOL!
4. No one defending you requires you to defend yourself thus you need more weapons...you suck at this...oh wait I forgot the LOL to make to seem like I refuted you LOL!
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
Oh look its the guy that cant read...and comically contradicts himself while saying I contradict myself. So how am I repeating myself by "posting links to sites" that are different...you are one of the dumbest people on these boards and that is saying a LOT.
Click to expand...

You mean different sites that all said the same, namely what you were trying to assert repeatedly was out and out wrong? Those different sites?
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
1. http://war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp now you show me a time when there have been fewer wars LOL!
2. Show me when there has been less free trade LOL!
3. You did not refute what I said LOL!
4. No one defending you requires you to defend yourself thus you need more weapons...you suck at this...oh wait I forgot the LOL to make to seem like I refuted you LOL!
Click to expand...

White flag accepted
 
ScottE said:
You mean different sites that all said the same, namely what you were trying to assert repeatedly was out and out wrong? Those different sites?
Click to expand...

Since your intelligence is really low I will provide you with knowledge of what these words mean.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/different
  1. not alike in character or quality; distinct in nature; dissimilar:The two brothers are very different, although they are identical twins.
  2. not identical; separate or distinct:When I asked for directions, three people gave me three different answers.
  3. various; several:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/same?s=t
  1. identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned:This street is the same one we were on yesterday.
  2. being one or identical though having different names, aspects, etc.:These are the same rules though differently worded.
  3. agreeing in kind, amount, etc.; corresponding
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/repeat?s=t
  1. to say or utter again (something already said):to repeat a word for emphasis.
  2. to say or utter in reproducing the words, inflections, etc., of another:to repeat a sentence after the teacher.
  3. to reproduce (utterances, sounds, etc.) in the manner of an echo, a phonograph, or the like.
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
1. There has been no international stability.
2. There has been no free trade. The term is a thing to be tossed around mostly by those that have no idea what it actually is.
3. America was one of the few countries on earth not actually attacked and thus had 100% of its infrastructure after the war and would have been able to do all these things without bases ANYWHERE.
4. I do believe we would have been able to sell MORE weapons to countries if we didnt have any of OURS THERE protecting them...dup dup ditty day!
Click to expand...

1.
NYT.png

2. FTS = Free Trade Agreements.
73_fig1.png

3-4. Following WW2 it didn't really matter that we had our infrastructure if we didn't have people who could purchase our products. Those bases allow us to project power over regions without having to conquer or manage them. It's not surprising that some of the strongest post-WW2 economies are also places where we have significant military presence. We dump huge money into those economies and reap the soft power benefits from doing so.

And it's not certain that we would have been able to sell more weapons to countries if we didn't have any of ours there protecting them. There's nothing to suggest that post-WW2 economies wouldn't have turned to the USSR for their military needs. The arms race was real and the Soviet Union at that time was aggressive in trying to establish greater hegemony in Europe. Our military bases served as a legitimate deterrent to their growth. Our allies bought from us and not the USSR because they knew we were committed to their defense. If we weren't there, they might have reached a different conclusion.

And given current events, both China and Russia are more than willing to step into any vacuum that we create on that hemisphere. Now, I agree that we can do with fewer bases overall but those bases serve a significant role in US power projection and that power projection supports and preserves our international economic role.
 
panamaican said:
1.
NYT.png
Click to expand...

Wow look folks, a chart showing how many deaths after the most deadly war in history shows a decline...that is clear proof that this has been the most peaceful time in HISTORY thanks to American intervention!

Seriously...lol...that was so stupid.

As for the rest of the garbage you posted, we were trading with those nations BEFORE WWII. We did not need our bases there to trade with them. History doesnt care if you know it or not. I would seriously think about going back to whatever schools you attended/are attending and slapping your teachers for failing to teach you.
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
Wow look folks, a chart showing how many deaths after the most deadly war in history shows a decline...that is clear proof that this has been the most peaceful time in HISTORY thanks to American intervention!
Click to expand...

Whew, I was worried that you weren't competent enough to understand what you seeing.


EradiatedHaggis said:
As for the rest of the garbage you posted, we were trading with those nations BEFORE WWII. We did not need our bases there to trade with them. History doesnt care if you know it or not. I would seriously think about going back to whatever schools you attended/are attending and slapping your teachers for failing to teach you.
Click to expand...

This on the other hand indicates that you're not understanding what you're reading. Yes, we were trading with those nations before WW2. However after WW2 their nations were so destroyed that they didn't have the money to continue engaging in high level trade. It didn't matter that our infrastructure is fine if our potential trade partners are not in a position to buy from us.

You seem to have willfully ignored the parts related to the role of bases in international power projection and how that matters for international trade so I won't bother explaining it again.
 
panamaican said:
You seem to have willfully ignored the parts related to the role of bases in international power projection and how that matters for international trade so I won't bother explaining it again.
Click to expand...

And you left out the context to form that argument just as he did. His argument was that our bases needed to be there so they could buy weapons from us, I argued that they do not need to be there for that to happen and it would also require them to buy more, since ours would not be there to protect them. He argued that our being there made the world more stable, I provided a link to every war in the 1900s which showed there were far MORE wars after WWII, proving him wrong as WARS do not break out if there is STABILITY...deaths in those wars has nothing to do with that.

Context. Use it or dont reply...so much for who is being ignorant.
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
And you left out the context to form that argument just as he did. His argument was that our bases needed to be there so they could buy weapons from us, I argued that they do not need to be there for that to happen and it would also require them to buy more, since ours would not be there to protect them. He argued that our being there made the world more stable, I provided a link to every war in the 1900s which showed there were far MORE wars after WWII, proving him wrong as WARS do not break out if there is STABILITY...deaths in those wars has nothing to do with that.

Context. Use it or dont reply...so much for who is being ignorant.
Click to expand...

I left in all of the context that was needed. I can't join you in the silly game where you demonstrate enough grasp of the subject to disagree with it but then claim that you can't follow the points because of a lack of context.

If you're going to play dumb, play dumb. If you're going to claim the ability to analyze the subject at a high level then do so. This middle ground thing you're trying, well it's facile.

Your link to # of wars is irrelevant since most pre-WW2 wars weren't being recorded.
 
panamaican said:
I left in all of the context that was needed.
Click to expand...

ALL context is needed in a discussion...this is why you fail. You must leave out some of it to form an arugment and therein is your accusation of me "playing dumb" while you are actually BEING dumb. You cant form an argument if you are leaving part of the points out unless you like coming to the wrong conclusions which it seems you do.

Serious question. When you mod a post/enforce the rules, do you leave out context when judging it?!? This is actually important to know...makes me wonder how many people have been banned for doing things they did not do because full context isnt important...smh.
 
EradiatedHaggis said:
ALL context is needed in a discussion...this is why you fail. You must leave out some of it to form an arugment and therein is your accusation of me "playing dumb" while you are actually BEING dumb. You cant form an argument if you are leaving part of the points out unless you like coming to the wrong conclusions which it seems you do.

Serious question. When you mod a post/enforce the rules, do you leave out context when judging it?!? This is actually important to know...makes me wonder how many people have been banned for doing things they did not do because
full context isnt important...smh.
Click to expand...

Sure. That's why you keep editing down the posts you respond to...because all context is needed in a discussion. ;)

Please keep this entertainment train running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,028
Messages
55,462,389
Members
174,786
Latest member
Santos FC 1912

Share this page

Back
Top