Profits soar amid mass layoffs

U.S. Socialist. · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
Is that how you define, "freedom"?

Yes it is. Let's review. Why shouldn't you be allowed to smoke weed? It harms no one but yourself. Why shouldn't you be allowed to go to prostitute, after all don't you believe in the free market? Why shouldn't I be able to marry a guy if I want? It's my life. The last two should be so obvious that I shouldn't have to address them. Is it really okay to have your phone tapped by the government?

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

obvious Child said:
Actually some of his points are valid. Why do we need strategic bombers anymore?

And we don't have land based ICBMs for the most part. Those don't make sense anymore. Basically one OHIO class has enough power to decimate any nation on the planet. Furthermore, non-state actors are not afraid of nukes in the same way nations are.

He's wrong on the JSF though as we do need to replace fighters. But the overruns are outrageous. Cost plus is evil.

And cutting down on bases would save money and earn alot of good will.

His last point is dead on the money. Gates was pushing just that.

Because there are still long range targets that might need to be engaged. Russia still has long range bombers.

Just think how much shorter WW2 might have been if I our troops wouldn't have had to train with wooden rifles.

atrasicarius · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
No, I'll be just as dead. But, the part you're missing, is that if I have a fifty-cal, you won't hit me with the baseball bat.

By the same token, if I have 100 nuke, you won't hit me with your 1,000 nukes, because you know you can't get them all and that I will destroy you, too. It's called, MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction. Think about it.

If I have 100 nukes, I can obliterate your country just as thoroughly as if I had 1000 nukes. That's just how nukes work. Are you going to attack me with your 1000 nukes knowing that? We don't need more than a couple hundred to form a rock solid deterrent.

atrasicarius · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
Is that how you define, "freedom"?

How would you define freedom, then?

U.S. Socialist. · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
I rest my case, sir.

How do you rest your case? I meant you are bound by a class system here. You are in Europe as well, but as I pointed out there is much more upward mobility in Europe.

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

U.S. Socialist. said:
Yes it is. Let's review. Why shouldn't you be allowed to smoke weed? It harms no one but yourself. Why shouldn't you be allowed to go to prostitute, after all don't you believe in the free market? Why shouldn't I be able to marry a guy if I want? It's my life. The last two should be so obvious that I shouldn't have to address them. Is it really okay to have your phone tapped by the government?

I don't have a problem with people smoking weed, but don't expect me to pay for the ****ing re-hab.

I could give a **** if gays get married.

My phone has never been tapped and if it has, no doubt the dudes doing the surveillance are in counseling, now, because they were bored to death...:rofl

That horse you're beating? Uh...yeah...it's dead.

U.S. Socialist. · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
Absolutely goddamn ****ing right!

If they don't like it, they should just not **** with us and it won't happen.

You fail to realize that doing so just creates more terrorism. Terrorism arises because of specific historical circumstances. We have prompted up dictators in middle-east for decades, we have exploited them and their people, and now we invade them, for no reason. You just creating more recruits for terrorist organizations.

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

U.S. Socialist. said:
How do you rest your case? I meant you are bound by a class system here. You are in Europe as well, but as I pointed out there is much more upward mobility in Europe.

There isn't more upward mobility in Europe than here. Git real.

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

atrasicarius said:
How would you define freedom, then?

I can piss off my front porch and no one can do a ****ing thing about it.

U.S. Socialist. · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
I don't have a problem with people smoking weed, but don't expect me to pay for the ****ing re-hab.

I could give a **** if gays get married.

My phone has never been tapped and if it has, no doubt the dudes doing the surveillance are in counseling, now, because they were bored to death...:rofl

That horse you're beating? Uh...yeah...it's dead.

No it's not, because all those things I listed are illegal in some if not all 50 states. That is the point we are not freest country on earth. As for tapping your phone, the mere possibility that it could happen should raise red flags.

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

atrasicarius said:
If I have 100 nukes, I can obliterate your country just as thoroughly as if I had 1000 nukes. That's just how nukes work. Are you going to attack me with your 1000 nukes knowing that? We don't need more than a couple hundred to form a rock solid deterrent.

Thank you for proving my point.

atrasicarius · Jul 26, 2011

obvious Child said:
Considering the maintence downtime on carriers, the MOST we can get rid of is 2.

I disagree. I don't think we need a constant patrol of aircraft carriers all over the world. We currently have 11, which is as many as everyone else in the world combined, and ours are a whole lot bigger than anyone else's. Pretty sure we could get by with 5 or 6.

obvious Child said:
This I agree. Aside from the B-2s. We really don't need B-52s anymore. Unless it's Megafotress style. That I would be okay with.

The thing with strategic bombers is that they're really only good for two things: carpet bombing and dropping nukes. ICBM's make the second irrelevant, and the first isn't something we want to be doing IMHO. Cruise missiles are better for taking out specific targets at long range.

obvious Child said:
You do know that some of the harriers, F-16s F-18s and F-15s are going on 30 years? It's really time to replace them.

You may have a point. I do like some of the features of the F-35, especially the vertical take off, but the project has been handled horrendously. Also, if we do get the F-35's, I'd want us to get rid of our entire force of F-15's and F-16's to save the maintenance costs. Auction them off to someone.

atrasicarius · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
I can piss off my front porch and no one can do a ****ing thing about it.

Actually, they can have you arrested for indecent exposure.

winston53660 · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
Is that how you define, "freedom"?

You mean he is not free to have his own criteria?

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

atrasicarius said:
I disagree. I don't think we need a constant patrol of aircraft carriers all over the world. We currently have 11, which is as many as everyone else in the world combined, and ours are a whole lot bigger than anyone else's. Pretty sure we could get by with 5 or 6.

That was the attitude of alot of Americans in the 1930's. Wanna tell us how that turned out? Ever hear of, "World War 2"?

The thing with strategic bombers is that they're really only good for two things: carpet bombing and dropping nukes. ICBM's make the second irrelevant, and the first isn't something we want to be doing IMHO. Cruise missiles are better for taking out specific targets at long range.

If we need to carpet bomb a target, then we're going to need those aircraft. Remember Tora Bora?

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

winston53660 said:
You mean he is not free to have his own criteria?

Sure he is. And I'm free to have mine.

See what a great country we live in?

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

atrasicarius said:
Actually, they can have you arrested for indecent exposure.

Actually, no. Not on my private property.

Indecent exposure only applies to public property.

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

U.S. Socialist. said:
No it's not, because all those things I listed are illegal in some if not all 50 states. That is the point we are not freest country on earth. As for tapping your phone, the mere possibility that it could happen should raise red flags.

It can't happen without a warrant.

winston53660 · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
Sure he is. And I'm free to have mine.

See what a great country we live in?

Then why did you question his criteria in the first place?

Oh and totally avoid his point.

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

U.S. Socialist. said:
You fail to realize that doing so just creates more terrorism. Terrorism arises because of specific historical circumstances. We have prompted up dictators in middle-east for decades, we have exploited them and their people, and now we invade them, for no reason. You just creating more recruits for terrorist organizations.

You're making excuses for the terrorists, now.

What if we had taken that attitude during WW2? "You'll just create more Nazis". Think about it.

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

winston53660 said:
Then why did you question his criteria in the first place?

Oh and totally avoid his point.

Because he questioned mine.

U.S. Socialist. · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
There isn't more upward mobility in Europe than here. Git real.

I am real. It's you is living in "America is awesome land." We do not have the highest upward mobility in the world. In fact France, Canada,Sweden,Germany,Norway, and Denmark all have higher upward mobility than we do. Economic mobility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

winston53660 · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
Because he questioned mine.

Nope, actually he made several points you avoided

Originally Posted by atrasicarius

You're right! I can smoke weed if I want, or go to a prostitute, or get married to someone of the same sex, or fly without being hassled by the government, and there's absolutely no danger of my phone conversations being randomly wiretapped.

U.S. Socialist. · Jul 26, 2011

apdst said:
It can't happen without a warrant.

Yes it can. I don't think you or a lot of people realize just how much of an assault of freedom the Patriot Act was. USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

apdst · Jul 26, 2011

winston53660 said:
Nope, actually he made several points you avoided

No, he said that I was wrong about this being the freest country in the world. His standard is being able to smoke dope, gay marriage and the patriot act.

I could give a rat's ass about the first two and the second is a strawman.

i mean, is that really all he has to disprove my comments?

Profits soar amid mass layoffs

U.S. Socialist.

Well-known member

apdst

atrasicarius

atrasicarius

U.S. Socialist.

Well-known member

apdst

U.S. Socialist.

Well-known member

apdst

apdst

U.S. Socialist.

Well-known member

apdst

atrasicarius

atrasicarius

winston53660

apdst

apdst

apdst

apdst

winston53660

apdst

apdst

U.S. Socialist.

Well-known member

winston53660

U.S. Socialist.

Well-known member

apdst

Profits soar amid mass layoffs

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency