Poll

Is it.

yes. killed by colonel mustard.
20 (22.7%)
no. killed by miss scarlett
3 (3.4%)
killed by mrs. white
5 (5.7%)
killed by reverend green
3 (3.4%)
Professor Plum.
7 (8%)
killed by mrs pearooster
11 (12.5%)
with a lead pipe
3 (3.4%)
with a revolver
6 (6.8%)
with a wrench
4 (4.5%)
with a rope
13 (14.8%)
with a dagger
3 (3.4%)
with a candlestick
10 (11.4%)

Total Members Voted: 46

Author Topic: Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®  (Read 355870 times)

i agree dude I meant to say cant

I didn't mean any offense, it was just a joke.



I can't really vote with a clear mind because I don't budget for the USA. I'd rather not know their figures because, frankly, money trades between so many hands to keep track, I believe.

okay, but what difference does that make?
It means it invalidates the arguement because it is just regurgitated stuff at that point

Does anyone really want to work as a laborer in a field? They're taking jobs people wouldn't want in the first place.

And um pretty much everyone who makes a decent living cares about the economic integrity of America?
"economic integrity"

"economic integrity"
Yeah? I don't get how your chart has any releavence


Yeah? I don't get how your chart has any releavence

The top 1% alone could pay the bottom 40% to be equal to the 40-50% and still be richer than the 90-99%.

Nice contextless YouTube screenshot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

there's no excuse for them to claim they can't afford to do something


>2012

2015?

As you can see Social security and Medicare form a large part of the spending.

So why do we spend so much on military? Well not all that money goes to our military. A lot of goes into NATO defense. We have military bases all over the world. It costs money to keep them running. You got buy fuel for the ships to transport fuel, you got to buy fuel for the equipment for the things you are transporting. The military personnel occupying those bases have to get paid, we pay even for the countries we occupy to use that land for our bases. That equipment there also has to be maintained. Vehicles and weapons go through lots of wear and tear and require new parts which have to be shipped and replaced by a trained technician.

Munitions have a limited shelf life, things like missiles, bombs, grenades, etc go bad. Once they go past their shelf life, they become dangerous to operate.

We are also throwing money at these countries to fund their own militaries. However since the Cold War many countries in the EU scaled down their militaries, some even abandoned entirely. The German Bundeswehr trains with broom handles and they can barely defend themselves because of it, so they expect us to pull their asses out the fire when things go bad.

Technology also changes over time, if you don't keep up with the times then you are screwed. Poland and France for example had army fit to fight the first World War, but their army wasn't prepared to fight a war like WW2. Plus countries try to modernize whenever they can. Russia for example has begun a massive modernization program.

If you want turn your back on and pretend like everything is fine while shrinking our sphere of influence, alright. However I think we should encourage the nations we occupy to build up a force large enough that they can support that wont require us. However that isn't likely because we are seen free protection.


As you can see Social security and Medicare form a large part of the spending.

So why do we spend so much on military? Well not all that money goes to our military. A lot of goes into NATO defense. We have military bases all over the world. It costs money to keep them running. You got buy fuel for the ships to transport fuel, you got to buy fuel for the equipment for the things you are transporting. The military personnel occupying those bases have to get paid, we pay even for the countries we occupy to use that land for our bases. That equipment there also has to be maintained. Vehicles and weapons go through lots of wear and tear and require new parts which have to be shipped and replaced by a trained technician.

Munitions have a limited shelf life, things like missiles, bombs, grenades, etc go bad. Once they go past their shelf life, they become dangerous to operate.

We are also throwing money at these countries to fund their own militaries. However since the Cold War many countries in the EU scaled down their militaries, some even abandoned entirely. The German Bundeswehr trains with broom handles and they can barely defend themselves because of it, so they expect us to pull their asses out the fire when things go bad.

Technology also changes over time, if you don't keep up with the times then you are screwed. Poland and France for example had army fit to fight the first World War, but their army wasn't prepared to fight a war like WW2. Plus countries try to modernize whenever they can. Russia for example has begun a massive modernization program.

If you want turn your back on and pretend like everything is fine while shrinking our sphere of influence, alright. However I think we should encourage the nations we occupy to build up a force large enough that they can support that wont require us. However that isn't likely because we are seen free protection.

conventional militarys are useless when any sized nuclear arsenal can prevent war
although a lot of the military spending goes into R&D which is helpful for the US

OT: also as far as job stealing goes, if dirt poor mexicans can outperform americans, that's our fault not theirs.
Its obnoxious how most people who realize the potential of free markets are also against immigration

no. I did. it was me.

we should give less money to healthcare and welfare and more to NASA

conventional militarys are useless when any sized nuclear arsenal can prevent war
although a lot of the military spending goes into R&D which is helpful for the US
We've adapted ourselves pretty well to the threat of nuclear considering how far we advanced from the 80s. For example a lot of military installations are EMP protected should a nuke go off, plus most of armored vehicles have NBC shielding and filtering, so do other countries. The protective clothing for ground personnel has also improved as well.

We also have a limited ability to intercept ICBMs with systems like the Aegis, the Patriot, and the THAAD. Russia has systems like the S-300 and S-400.

However so far only WW2 has been the only conflict where a nuke has been used. Ground forces are kept to protect the missile defenses and as the non nuclear deterrent should one shield chose to not attack with nukes.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 05:09:22 PM by Harm94 »

However so far only WW3 has been the only conflict where a nuke has been used.
is that so

How many people that visit the forums have a job, and how many of those who do have a high number of foreigners working there. That would be nice to know