Conservative or Liberal

Conservative or Liberal?

  • Total voters
    19
DarkCorp said:
As I have also brought up, many states provide insurance to those who cannot afford it on their own, mostly through Medicaid like AHCCCS in AZ. each state has their own setup but yea, insurance is there, people need to apply. Now the quality of said insurance is a completely different monster and much more difficult to fix.
Click to expand...
You get a stroke you're fucked
 
DarkCorp said:
As I have also brought up, many states provide insurance to those who cannot afford it on their own, mostly through Medicaid like AHCCCS in AZ. each state has their own setup but yea, insurance is there, people need to apply. Now the quality of said insurance is a completely different monster and much more difficult to fix.
Click to expand...
This can't be stressed enough. In my state a family earning less that $60K a year (that's not poor) gets free health insurance. Not a penny. Ever.

If someone needs the Feds to take care of them throughout life, they're fucked already and just don't know it yet.

Sublime said:
You get a stroke you're fucked
Click to expand...
Well, wouldn't that be true anywhere? The quality of US HC isn't really the problem, it's the gargantuan costs and overcomplication of the system.
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
This can't be stressed enough. In my state a family earning less that $60K a year (that's not poor) gets free health insurance. Not a penny. Ever.

If someone needs the Feds to take care of them throughout life, they're fucked already and just don't know it yet.


Well, wouldn't that be true anywhere? The quality of US HC isn't really the problem, it's the gargantuan costs and overcomplication of the system.
Click to expand...
Not really. One of my relatives survived two hearth attacks and a stroke. All thanks to our Healthcare system.
 
Sublime said:
If I lived in the USA and couldn't afford an insurance I think I wouldn't give a shit about oversea Influence. Nuclear weapons are enough of a deterrent to avoid a war among big powers so 619 Billions dollars on military budget is way too much. Half that would still guarantee supremacy
Click to expand...

Maybe even less than that. It's embarrasingly funny how Russia and people living in caves managed to shake up a nation with 300 million people and some 800 million dollar military budged, by flying planes in buildings and using armies of trolls on all kinds of social networks. If I remember correctly, foreign fake trolls have been caught in polarizing even lokal political groups in the US, with the intention to get them to fight each other. Go figure.

Maybe more people in the US should read Sun Tzu and the Art of War, they could definetly learn something. Basically the part, that the US is investing in things they are already good at, while neglecting things they are not. Russia for example, is far from being a super power on the same level ike the US, but they have become pretty good in their influence on the internet. And despite the war on terror, with billions of dollars and countless of wasted lives, terrorism was never as dangerous like it is now.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower.


>>Seaking at the Eisenhower Library last year, (Robert) Gates talked about America's insatiable appetite for more and more weapons:

"Does the number of warships we have, and are building, really put America at risk, when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined -- 11 of which are our partners and allies?

Is it a dire threat that by 2020, the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?

These are the kinds of questions Eisenhower asked as commander-in-chief. They are the kinds of questions I believe he would ask today."<<
https://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/1329...tary-expansion-50-years-later?t=1536246076853

The Military Industrial Complex has the politics and population so much by their balls, that even suggesting cuts in the military to invest more of the money in to the infrastucture and public services, is seen by some as un-patriotic.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Maybe even less than that. It's embarrasingly funny how Russia and people living in caves managed to shake up a nation with 300 million people and some 800 million dollar military budged, by flying planes in buildings and using armies of trolls on all kinds of social networks. If I remember correctly, foreign fake trolls have been caught in polarizing even lokal political groups in the US, with the intention to get them to fight each other. Go figure.

Maybe more people in the US should read Sun Tzu and the Art of War, they could definetly learn something. Basically the part, that the US is investing in things they are already good at, while neglecting things they are not. Russia for example, is far from being a super power on the same level ike the US, but they have become pretty good in their influence on the internet. And despite the war on terror, with billions of dollars and countless of wasted lives, terrorism was never as dangerous like it is now.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower.


>>Seaking at the Eisenhower Library last year, (Robert) Gates talked about America's insatiable appetite for more and more weapons:

"Does the number of warships we have, and are building, really put America at risk, when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined -- 11 of which are our partners and allies?

Is it a dire threat that by 2020, the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?

These are the kinds of questions Eisenhower asked as commander-in-chief. They are the kinds of questions I believe he would ask today."<<
https://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/1329...tary-expansion-50-years-later?t=1536246076853

The Military Industrial Complex has the politics and population so much by their balls, that even suggesting cuts in the military to invest more of the money in to the infrastucture and public services, is seen by some as un-patriotic.
Click to expand...

Does the US spend lots on their military yes. Do other countries spend more, yes and no. The US spends a crap ton of money but to compare to other countries lets look at percentage of GDP. The US spends 3.1% of there GDP on the military, lets look at some countries that spend more and I only took ones higher then 4% or the list would get to long.

Congo Republic - 5.6
Israel - 4.7
Jordan - 4.8
Kuwait 5.7
Lebanon - 4.7
Oman - 12
Russia - 4.2 (Guess some of that cold war mentality may still be going on)
Saudi Arabia - 10.2

So although the US spends a crap ton, there are people willing to spend a bigger percentage of what they actually have.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs
 
And how many of them have an actuall chance to do serious damage to your military? You see, part of the issue isn't just the money thrown at the Pentagon, of which most ends up at defence contractors taking their sweet time to develope systems like F-35, but the status the military has gained among the general public. It sometimes feels like the US is a nation that has constantly to be at war, and if you just dare to criticise the military, soldiers or anything that has to do with the troops, you're treated like a traitor. Either support the troops or shut up! THis is, after all a relatively new evolution in the US, since they decided to have a full standing army at all times.
 
I have friends whos older family have had strokes. Strokes vary in degrees of severity and most folks can recover. In the words of Crni, its not always a zero sum game here.

Cimmerian

60K a year is over the median salary for someone in Arizona. Folks earning 60k a year have more than enough money to pay for insurance, unless they got like way too many kids.

Crni

Military funding never GUARANTEES anything. However, our budget has allowed us to remain ahead of the competition, at least for now. China is slowly ramping up their defense spending and it is predicted they will get close to parity by 2025.

Sometimes being ahead means other nations won't attack you. Only an idiot attacks an opponent at full strength. It is only when a nation drops its guard when enemies strike.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
And how many of them have an actuall chance to do serious damage to your military? You see, part of the issue isn't just the money thrown at the Pentagon, of which most ends up at defence contractors taking their sweet time to develope systems like F-35, but the status the military has gained among the general public. It sometimes feels like the US is a nation that has constantly to be at war, and if you just dare to criticise the military, soldiers or anything that has to do with the troops, you're treated like a traitor. Either support the troops or shut up! THis is, after all a relatively new evolution in the US, since they decided to have a full standing army at all times.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a different interpretation of that then me hahaha. People respect the military, its members, and the sacrifice they have made. As for protesting against the militaries actions or the conflicts they are involved in, well there is plenty of that from Vietnam until now. I could not quantify how much protesting goes on, and it has changed the outcomes and actions of the military. The US pulled out of Vietnam because the people wanted it, and complained heavily in everyway possible. This same mentality has been ongoing since then. But most keep the respect for the troops themselves, much like respecting police, fire, and ems, they understand the actions all of these people take to keep us safe.
 
I don't think there is that level of military worship here. Not like N. Korea or China or Russia.

Is there a some element of MIC, sure, but I don't believe it is as bad as the FEMA Death Camp crowd thinks it is.

Respect the troops is literally, the soldiers themselves, not contractors like Raytheon or Boeing.
 
DarkCorp said:
Sometimes being ahead means other nations won't attack you. Only an idiot attacks an opponent at full strength. It is only when a nation drops its guard when enemies strike.
Click to expand...

Attacking a nuclear power is always idiocy. Ask India and Pakistan and how many wars they had since they became nuclear powers. The point I am making is, that you could be probably a lot safer, with much less military spending here as well.

Being ahead in technology and wasting money on defence contractors are two different things. How comes that your spending so much on the defence budged, but soldiers in the field actually see relatively little of that? Let us not even talk about the way how veterans are treated when they come home and actually suffer from those sacrifices some of you mention here. Oh hey! Nice that you joined, you can fight and die for your country, but I am sorry we can't provide you with health care! Enjoy your homelessness due to pyschological issues. You're welcome!


GonZo_626 said:
You seem to have a different interpretation of that then me hahaha. People respect the military, its members, and the sacrifice they have made.
Click to expand...
With all respect, but it is this kind of attitude that always disturbs me a little.

Joining the military is voluntary thing and most people (I hope) know what they are getting in to when they decide to join their military. When I was pretty young, I seriously toyed around with the idea of joining the foreign legion, because my young, dumb and naive version of my self thought it was a 'cool' thing to do - and it would have been very easy way out of a shit ton of problems I had at that time. Today, I am glad that I havn't done it. There is nothing glamerous or particularly awesome about joining a military organisation in my opinion just look at many of those veterans that did serve many of them have scars for the rest of their lifes. And if you decide to do it then you must lean a bit on the crazy side, but that's just my opinion. Particularly as you could end up serving over seas in a potential hostile zone if you're American. The point is though, it is at the end of the day a job, you do get paid for it after all. I understand the hardship people can go trough in the military, particularly when they served in conflicts and I do respect that, veterans deserve all the help we as society can grant to them for their service. But glorifying the military as a whole? Calling someone a hero just beacuse he joined? Are we fighting the Nazis again? Well, they do seem to be marching trough the streets. In the US. But that's a different story.

See, this is where we probably differ a lot. I do not believe US Soldiers today perform their duties to protect their nation, they secure the interests of a small elite who's making a hell of a lot of money from those wars and conflicts and there is a narrative pushed down the throat of mostly young americans that serving as soldier is a patriotic duty. I mean what other reason could someone have to serve if he wasn't in a really desperate situation and needing money? Turns out, if there isn't a real 'need' for it, people usually don't want to serve. Unless, that is you create a picture in their head of promises and what I call clever marketing, that it's a duty they just have to perform as the american hero they are! Most americans however, have nothing to gain from the endless of conflicts and military campaigns we saw in the last 60 years or so. Besides, what about people working as doctors, nurses, teachers, and all the other jobs that keep a society in order? Are those not needed? We're not giving enough praise to all of those jobs in our society. And they certainly don't get paid the money they deserve for their important work. They definetly don't get the same level of praise like someone who decided to join the troops. That is, till he/she comes home as a cripple, either emotionally or physically.

I mean consider this, we have now a generation entering the military where they could end up serving in the same spot where their fathers invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Let that one sink in for a minute.

I quote:

>>By the way, the AP also reported that Obama was "greeted by cheers from the graduating cadets when he noted that they had the distinction of being 'the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.'"<<

Youre nation has been stuck in those conflicts for almost 18 years now. Can you remember the last time, your military was not in some kind of conflict or occuping hostile territory? And has it really increased your safety and lead to a better live for the occupied people, like in Iraq? Or the middle east as a whole? Or just for the average american if we are at it.
 
TBH, I disagree. Clearly, the jobs that are most respected are being in the STEM fields or being a doctor or lawyer.

Anyways, a lot of what goes into R&D is classified so you really can't say whether soldiers will benefit from new technologies. A lot of money is actually in use already with stuff like Blue Force Tracker, the experiments in creating a viable powered exoskeleton, optical camouflage, etc, etc.

Yes, some soldiers might be serving more on the private interest side but a vast majority are stationed in different countries as a deterrent to enemy attack, bases in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, for example. They also doing their duty in making sure America stays on top.
 
Crni's right. We should stop playing world police. Pull out of NATO, withdraw from our bases across the globe (especially the ones in Europe), and leave the rest of the free world to the Russian and Chinese wolves. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Just plug your ears when the Euros scream for us to come back.
 
And much like a StarCraft game, the enemy has taken over pretty much the entire map and all the resources. Guess how long it will be when he comes a knocking to finish you off?

Or in history.

Imagine if the U.S. had done nothing and allowed the Nazis to batter down the Soviets. Imagine if Great Britain, also did nothing in the shared western hatred of communism and allowed Hitler to stomp the SU flat. The full brunt of Axis might then begins to hammer GB down, and yet the Americans do nothing. Then, once GB falls, we are left on our lonesome.

Or this quote:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Neimoller

Sun Tzu said,

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Nobody wants or will use nukes. So....., combat, if any, will revolve around CONVENTIONAL, not NUCLEAR weapons. That alone stresses how important conventional weapons are. Nuclear weapons are only necessary as a MAD deterrent, that is all they ever really were for. Nukes didn't make war obsolete, only limited the scope and scale of war. Tanks are still used, fighters, bombers, ships, missiles, etc.

If we have the advantage in these areas, we win the fight without HAVING TO FIGHT. Sure those Russians and Chinese want to make trouble, but as long as America stays vigilant, nothing will come of it. However, if we let the damned hippies take over, then we have a Rome like situation where the hegemon dies not from outsides forces, but from the rot within.
 
Last edited:
TheGM said:
Literally had fucking genocides going on just 20 years ago. a active war zone in the Ukraine right now. Troops Stationed in Afghanistan. Caused the current Immigration Crisis when they Bombed Libya to smithereens. This shit golden, keep it up.
Click to expand...

Balkans? Yes, that was a bad time from early 90's to the end of the conflicts in that area. In the early 90's people, and especially USA, thought that only good things will come from the collapse of the Soviet Union. We're still waiting for those good things btw. Ask Crni Vuk and Atomkill about Balkans stuff, they know much more about it than I do.

Ukraine? Not sure if there are any good guys there. Right-wingers in Ukraine vs. Putin's boys in Russia. EU is pretty unable to bring peace, and so is USA. Trump's been very quiet about that conflict. Ask Gonzo for more info, he's from there.

Afghanistan? That's essentially USA's war with Europe/ISAF trying to help out. Had a buddy there as an officer. The Finns been trying to build relations with the locals all the while USA keeps droning brown babies living in clay huts and creating anger and hostility and losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the locals. Making Finns targets in the region and in the world in the process, great. Thanks.

Libya? Ask Hillary about all that.
 
Last edited:
Good thing none of those people are posting here. We all know military interventionism wasn't originally an american idea. Almost every conflict the US is currently in, has historical roots to former super powers. Vietnam, the whole middle east. We're talking about 200 years of Colonialism here and we see the effects of it, even to this day. But it just highlights how strategies that didn't work 200 years ago, are not going to solve issues today, like terrorism for example, or dictatorships. Americans do have a bit of a problem with diplomacy these days - and not just since Trump became President. The US has a large military, and why would you have something, if you're not using it? I mean it's all in the name of democracy. However, we 'foreigners' so to speak, know by now what that means.

It's a difference in philosophy these days, Europe tends to see the military more as Ultima Ratio (Last Resort) where in american foreign policy you often enough encounter Clausewitz "War is the continuation of politics by other means.". Not that you missunderstand me, Europeans are definelty not the better human beeings, France has dirty history when it comes to military interventions, and they certainly are much quicker in their decision to just 'bomb' the shit out of something compared to let us say Germany or Italy. But Europoe is a weird mix of militarism and pacifism in that sense, seeing as how nations like Germany, Austria, Italy and a few more had to deal with being on the loosing end of WW2. So militarism and military interventions, have been a no go for decades. And it seems this approach makes you a lot safer. And it also saves you a ton of money. Not to mention the lives of people.
 
TheGM said:
Oh I know all about that, It is just funny people just conveniently forget about how it all started as a reboot of French Adventures in North Africa.
Click to expand...

It started with the Arab spring. USA's allies (ISIS/Al Queda) were torturing and murdering Gaddafi on the street by ramming a steel pipe up his butt, ISIS/Al Queda moved in and now controls Libya and Hillary was ecstatic about the whole thing.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top