'Occupy' types

Yes, I believe that our military spending has helped to preserve our freedom and other peoples freedom around the world.


How so?

Also, why do we care about the freedom in oil rich countries, but not in places that have no resources? Say....South Africa?


Also, who deemed us the world wide protector of freedom? What gives us the right to bomb people unilaterally?

Yep, we don't need a military. - We need one, just one in America.
There are no pirates near major shipping lanes. - I have no problem with our ships patrolling the sea passages.
There are no Persians building mega bombs and threatening our friends or threatening to close critical bodies of water. - Do what?...lol
There are no Chinese suggesting we stay on our side of the Pacific. - It's good advice. You don't see Chinese military on our side of the world do you? Nope.
There are no Russian Tu-95s flying up and down our Alaskan coast. - We are flying drones over other people's air space. Your point?
There are no Al Queda members planning the next 9-11. - There is also a boggie man under your bed to. Didn't that scary tale get old?
There are no unstable nuclear govts in North Korea. - Funny, there is a unstable government here in the US.

Nothing about that was interesting. It's another smear piece from Fox trying to paint American youth as lazy and wanting free hand outs. It's old and shouldn't even be considered journalism. I equate FOX and TMZ on the same level. Trashy entertainment.
Soooo....not gettin' any lately?

Soooo....not gettin' any lately?


[insert your mom joke]



:cheeky-sm:tongue:silly:

since the beginning of time people have argued. most without fact or merit. very rarely does any logic play a part of these arguments. most are fact less, and logic free. that doesn't mean they don't believe in what they preach. i like the fact you back up what you say with fact. but for every " fact" you come up with, somewhere there will be a counter point. its all in what you believe. but i can guarantee you one thing, no one on this board will change their minds because of a point- counter point argument

but i can guarantee you one thing, no one on this board will change their minds because of a point- counter point argument

...no doubt and I don't really discuss this with the intentions of doing so. Most of their beliefs have most likely come about through their upbringing. (both religious and political) Once that's ingrained, it's usually their to stay. It's funny though, it was the exact opposite with me. I was raised a conservative baptist christian, and for the longest while I held those beliefs.

Yep, we don't need a military. - We need one, just one in America.
So you dont care about our global interests?
Because we would lose plenty of them without our military.

There are no pirates near major shipping lanes. - I have no problem with our ships patrolling the sea passages.
You just said our military needs to stay in America.
So which is it?

There are no Persians building mega bombs and threatening our friends or threatening to close critical bodies of water. - Do what?...lol Iran/nukes/Israel...you been reading current events?

There are no Chinese suggesting we stay on our side of the Pacific. - It's good advice. You don't see Chinese military on our side of the world do you? Nope.
The Chinese don't have a true blue water navy yet, so you wont see that for quite a while. Not to mention Taiwans peril if we left them alone.

There are no Russian Tu-95s flying up and down our Alaskan coast. - We are flying drones over other people's air space. Your point?
My point is I dont like Russian bombers in my back yard. I dont think they are there because they want to sing Kumbaya with us.

There are no Al Queda members planning the next 9-11. - There is also a boggie man under your bed to. Didn't that scary tale get old? This is exactly what people were saying on Sept. 10.
Thats about the most ignorant response to that subject I've seen in a long time. I suppose you think Mohammed Atta was a boogie man and 9-11 was an inside job.

There are no unstable nuclear govts in North Korea. - Funny, there is a unstable government here in the US. Our govt may have its issues but its not unstable, thats ridiculous.
You think Obama has no control over our military leaders?
You think a coup is always imminent?

Well, it was a legit question JR. Why do many of the far right crew want to beat the drums of war, and then turn around and profess to care/support our military men. If you cared, wouldn't you listen to them? They are saying enough. End this. Bring us home.

I was being over dramatic with the line, but I think you get the point.

1. As usual, you start with a loaded vague question which presuppose the validity of your point and make "good and logical argument" meaningless. Specifically, which members of the "far right crew want to beat the drums of war"? Please define the term "far right crew" and let me know what war drums they are beating. Without more definition, it is impossible to argue such a vague and loaded question (You may as well ask "Why do some people support wife beaters?"). What candidate is advocating military intervention in Syria? Iran? N. Korea or any other location? Or advocating an extended presence in Afghanistan? (or is it your position that the soldiers in Afghanistan should board planes tomorrow and damn the consequences?).

2. The amount of total contributions attributable to military personnel to all candidates is simply to small a sample size to draw the conclusion that military personnel support any particular candidate.

The amount of contributions directly linked to military personnel equal about 36K to Paul and ~20K to Obama and ~14K to all other Republican candidates. While many active duty personnel are clearly making some contribution to candidates, the number of active duty personnel in the US Military is over 1.3 million w/ an additional 800k in reserve formations. To me, donations (even if we equate one dollar= one person) that constitute approximately 3.5% of the entire military are not "proof" that any particular candidate, much less any particular position of any candidate, is supported by military personnel.

Lacking a poll of active and reserve military personnel, I don't think we can draw any conclusions as to who best embodies the military personnel's presidential choice.

- For the record, I support a strong military in line with T. Roosevelt's policy "Walk softly but carry a big stick". While I agree with many of Paul's foreign policy concepts, to me his isolationism (which includes, in part, w/drawing from and defunding the UN and cutting off all foreign aid) constitutes a head-in-the-sand approach that is simply impracticable for the nation (or any nation). I believe we should w/draw from Afghanistan as soon as safely possible. Further, I don't believe at this time we should be intervening in Iran, Syria or N. Korea in any way. For now, focus on getting the boots home and keeping them here.

How so?

Also, why do we care about the freedom in oil rich countries, but not in places that have no resources? Say....South Africa?


Also, who deemed us the world wide protector of freedom? What gives us the right to bomb people unilaterally?

We could start with WWI, WWII, Cuban Missile Crises, Cold War, those are the easy ones.

What candidate is advocating military intervention in Syria? Iran? N. Korea or any other location? Or advocating an extended presence in Afghanistan? (or is it your position that the soldiers in Afghanistan should board planes tomorrow and damn the consequences?).


Iran. They want to invade bad. It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering. So they use the constant fear tactic of "nuclear warfare" to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom".


My point regarding the military and campaign contributions was to show that many are tired of the pointless fighting and wars to and want to come home. Not so much as they endorse X guy over Y guy. I think they probably would more more inclined to endorse the guy who's going to bring them home as compared to the guy who wants to poke the hornets nest.