Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Even collectively it would be a very very uphill battle for the enemy given the current strength of our armies. And yes, I can advocate for military spending cuts when there is no risk of war or when it is found that money is being wasted.Individually? Maybe. Collectively? Everyone? Not so sure. And if you think otherwise, I certainly hope you are never one of those who bitches when anyone ever suggests that we can afford to trim some fat from the defense budget. After all, you just suggested that we have a military that is large enough, and well enough equipped that we can, single-handedly, take on the entire world.Well then, the rest of the world had best behave themselves. Besides, we have the military strength to crush anyone so they wouldn't be foolish enough to damage themselves further over something already damaging.I was using them as an example. Further, we kinda can't just "let Iran rot', in terms of medicinal needs. Because - and again, this is presuming the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry - as soon as we decide that Iran doesn't deserve basic. Medical. Provisions who long do you think it will be before every other nation in the world starts to worry about what happens when we decide we don't like them very much? Like I siad - "War of the Drugs", or "The Great Pharma Wars". Yeah...nationalizing pharma would be a diplomatic nightmare.Who cares about Iran? Let them rot. Besides, if things were really dire we could just change our stance towards them and permit trade for pharmaceutical purposes.I actually suggested that with Pharma, on another forum, and it was pointed out that such nationalization would end up being a diplomatic nightmare. How do you get necessary drugs - antibiotics, etc - to countries that we are not allied with. Iran, for instance. We, as a government, are not allowed to do business with them. Period. So, if we nationalized our pharmaceutical industry, how does Iran get its drugs? It wouldn't be long before the world found itself embroiled in the "Drug War"; a war not for land, or ideology, but for control of the pharmaceutical industry.I agree that oversight is needed as in our 100% for profit world, greed and materialism will undoubtedly take hold if not kept in check via certain methods. I can't think of any specific checks and oversights I'd pass and I'd advise dealing with firms and companies on an individual case by case basis. Perhaps firms that depend very very very heavily on government support or are found to be dangerous to public wellbeing or utterly corrupt should be nationalized at least partially.
Sooo...you're talking about Trump doing this in 4 to 6 years? Okay. If Trump managed to get himself elected - and that's a pipe dream in, and of itself, just to be clear - I don't see him surviving, politically, beyond his first term. I further promise you that every single Justice on the Court would refuse to retire. He would have to wait for one to die to get another chance to nominate. So, if he were to try to attempt that during his first term, it wouldn't be "Trump's USSC". They would skewer his stupid law.You forgot about a Branch. Congress Passes the law. Trump (Gods help us) signs it. All 500 of the Fortune 500 files immediate briefs with the Supreme Court, and asks for an injunction against implementation of the law. The Supreme Court then runs its collective quill pen through the law. It didn't last a week, let alone 6 months.
Read it again...you're trying to do too much in this thread....."TRUMP'S USSC"...remember, he could have up to FOUR justices to replace.
Even granting your optimistic opinion of our military might. Just what president do you think would be insane enough to ever put us in that situation?Even collectively it would be a very very uphill battle for the enemy given the current strength of our armies. And yes, I can advocate for military spending cuts when there is no risk of war or when it is found that money is being wasted.Individually? Maybe. Collectively? Everyone? Not so sure. And if you think otherwise, I certainly hope you are never one of those who bitches when anyone ever suggests that we can afford to trim some fat from the defense budget. After all, you just suggested that we have a military that is large enough, and well enough equipped that we can, single-handedly, take on the entire world.Well then, the rest of the world had best behave themselves. Besides, we have the military strength to crush anyone so they wouldn't be foolish enough to damage themselves further over something already damaging.I was using them as an example. Further, we kinda can't just "let Iran rot', in terms of medicinal needs. Because - and again, this is presuming the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry - as soon as we decide that Iran doesn't deserve basic. Medical. Provisions who long do you think it will be before every other nation in the world starts to worry about what happens when we decide we don't like them very much? Like I siad - "War of the Drugs", or "The Great Pharma Wars". Yeah...nationalizing pharma would be a diplomatic nightmare.Who cares about Iran? Let them rot. Besides, if things were really dire we could just change our stance towards them and permit trade for pharmaceutical purposes.I actually suggested that with Pharma, on another forum, and it was pointed out that such nationalization would end up being a diplomatic nightmare. How do you get necessary drugs - antibiotics, etc - to countries that we are not allied with. Iran, for instance. We, as a government, are not allowed to do business with them. Period. So, if we nationalized our pharmaceutical industry, how does Iran get its drugs? It wouldn't be long before the world found itself embroiled in the "Drug War"; a war not for land, or ideology, but for control of the pharmaceutical industry.
You're right! Who on earth would be insane enough to challenge us? 19 aircraft carriers isn't optimism, it's an absolute monopoly on the seas.Even granting your optimistic opinion of our military might. Just what president do you think would be insane enough to ever put us in that situation?Even collectively it would be a very very uphill battle for the enemy given the current strength of our armies. And yes, I can advocate for military spending cuts when there is no risk of war or when it is found that money is being wasted.Individually? Maybe. Collectively? Everyone? Not so sure. And if you think otherwise, I certainly hope you are never one of those who bitches when anyone ever suggests that we can afford to trim some fat from the defense budget. After all, you just suggested that we have a military that is large enough, and well enough equipped that we can, single-handedly, take on the entire world.Well then, the rest of the world had best behave themselves. Besides, we have the military strength to crush anyone so they wouldn't be foolish enough to damage themselves further over something already damaging.I was using them as an example. Further, we kinda can't just "let Iran rot', in terms of medicinal needs. Because - and again, this is presuming the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry - as soon as we decide that Iran doesn't deserve basic. Medical. Provisions who long do you think it will be before every other nation in the world starts to worry about what happens when we decide we don't like them very much? Like I siad - "War of the Drugs", or "The Great Pharma Wars". Yeah...nationalizing pharma would be a diplomatic nightmare.Who cares about Iran? Let them rot. Besides, if things were really dire we could just change our stance towards them and permit trade for pharmaceutical purposes.
Sooo...you're talking about Trump doing this in 4 to 6 years? Okay. If Trump managed to get himself elected - and that's a pipe dream in, and of itself, just to be clear - I don't see him surviving, politically, beyond his first term. I further promise you that every single Justice on the Court would refuse to retire. He would have to wait for one to die to get another chance to nominate. So, if he were to try to attempt that during his first term, it wouldn't be "Trump's USSC". They would skewer his stupid law.You forgot about a Branch. Congress Passes the law. Trump (Gods help us) signs it. All 500 of the Fortune 500 files immediate briefs with the Supreme Court, and asks for an injunction against implementation of the law. The Supreme Court then runs its collective quill pen through the law. It didn't last a week, let alone 6 months.
Read it again...you're trying to do too much in this thread....."TRUMP'S USSC"...remember, he could have up to FOUR justices to replace.
That's not even close to what I said...You're right! Who on earth would be insane enough to challenge us? 19 aircraft carriers isn't optimism, it's an absolute monopoly on the seas.Even granting your optimistic opinion of our military might. Just what president do you think would be insane enough to ever put us in that situation?Even collectively it would be a very very uphill battle for the enemy given the current strength of our armies. And yes, I can advocate for military spending cuts when there is no risk of war or when it is found that money is being wasted.Individually? Maybe. Collectively? Everyone? Not so sure. And if you think otherwise, I certainly hope you are never one of those who bitches when anyone ever suggests that we can afford to trim some fat from the defense budget. After all, you just suggested that we have a military that is large enough, and well enough equipped that we can, single-handedly, take on the entire world.Well then, the rest of the world had best behave themselves. Besides, we have the military strength to crush anyone so they wouldn't be foolish enough to damage themselves further over something already damaging.I was using them as an example. Further, we kinda can't just "let Iran rot', in terms of medicinal needs. Because - and again, this is presuming the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry - as soon as we decide that Iran doesn't deserve basic. Medical. Provisions who long do you think it will be before every other nation in the world starts to worry about what happens when we decide we don't like them very much? Like I siad - "War of the Drugs", or "The Great Pharma Wars". Yeah...nationalizing pharma would be a diplomatic nightmare.
Not sure how you got that from my post, but...okay. Thanks for stopping by. have anice day.Sooo...you're talking about Trump doing this in 4 to 6 years? Okay. If Trump managed to get himself elected - and that's a pipe dream in, and of itself, just to be clear - I don't see him surviving, politically, beyond his first term. I further promise you that every single Justice on the Court would refuse to retire. He would have to wait for one to die to get another chance to nominate. So, if he were to try to attempt that during his first term, it wouldn't be "Trump's USSC". They would skewer his stupid law.You forgot about a Branch. Congress Passes the law. Trump (Gods help us) signs it. All 500 of the Fortune 500 files immediate briefs with the Supreme Court, and asks for an injunction against implementation of the law. The Supreme Court then runs its collective quill pen through the law. It didn't last a week, let alone 6 months.
Read it again...you're trying to do too much in this thread....."TRUMP'S USSC"...remember, he could have up to FOUR justices to replace.
Ah, so you're a socialist...I should have picked up on it earlier....I'm done here.
Is Free Market Capitalism the answer to all our economic woes?
Well then, please clarify. I'm all ears.That's not even close to what I said...You're right! Who on earth would be insane enough to challenge us? 19 aircraft carriers isn't optimism, it's an absolute monopoly on the seas.Even granting your optimistic opinion of our military might. Just what president do you think would be insane enough to ever put us in that situation?Even collectively it would be a very very uphill battle for the enemy given the current strength of our armies. And yes, I can advocate for military spending cuts when there is no risk of war or when it is found that money is being wasted.Individually? Maybe. Collectively? Everyone? Not so sure. And if you think otherwise, I certainly hope you are never one of those who bitches when anyone ever suggests that we can afford to trim some fat from the defense budget. After all, you just suggested that we have a military that is large enough, and well enough equipped that we can, single-handedly, take on the entire world.Well then, the rest of the world had best behave themselves. Besides, we have the military strength to crush anyone so they wouldn't be foolish enough to damage themselves further over something already damaging.
What I asked was what president - as in President of the United States - would ever be stupid enough, or insane enough to put us in a position where we had to risk facing the combined military might of the. Entire. World? You do get that national leaders have done that before? Augustus? Alexander? Hannibal? Napoleon? Hitler? Invariably, it end up not working out so well for the nation, and it's leader who does this.Well then, please clarify. I'm all ears.That's not even close to what I said...You're right! Who on earth would be insane enough to challenge us? 19 aircraft carriers isn't optimism, it's an absolute monopoly on the seas.Even granting your optimistic opinion of our military might. Just what president do you think would be insane enough to ever put us in that situation?Even collectively it would be a very very uphill battle for the enemy given the current strength of our armies. And yes, I can advocate for military spending cuts when there is no risk of war or when it is found that money is being wasted.Individually? Maybe. Collectively? Everyone? Not so sure. And if you think otherwise, I certainly hope you are never one of those who bitches when anyone ever suggests that we can afford to trim some fat from the defense budget. After all, you just suggested that we have a military that is large enough, and well enough equipped that we can, single-handedly, take on the entire world.
None of those leaders did what you described. We should not be constrained out of being afraid of things that aren't terribly threatening. Are we to just roll over if the world were to suddenly start collectively making demands of us? Besides, earlier you stated that foreign nations would act. Our president cannot directly control foreign nations. It is not a war we'd want but we should not simply bend the knee out of fear. I advocate defense.What I asked was what president - as in President of the United States - would ever be stupid enough, or insane enough to put us in a position where we had to risk facing the combined military might of the. Entire. World? You do get that national leaders have done that before? Augustus? Alexander? Hannibal? Napoleon? Hitler? Invariably, it end up not working out so well for the nation, and it's leader who does this.Well then, please clarify. I'm all ears.That's not even close to what I said...You're right! Who on earth would be insane enough to challenge us? 19 aircraft carriers isn't optimism, it's an absolute monopoly on the seas.Even granting your optimistic opinion of our military might. Just what president do you think would be insane enough to ever put us in that situation?Even collectively it would be a very very uphill battle for the enemy given the current strength of our armies. And yes, I can advocate for military spending cuts when there is no risk of war or when it is found that money is being wasted.
You're right! Who on earth would be insane enough to challenge us? 19 aircraft carriers isn't optimism, it's an absolute monopoly on the seas.
I'm not, but you are certainly entitled to your uneducated opinion.Is Free Market Capitalism the answer to all our economic woes?
Yes. You're just using the term "regulation" for socialism
I would submit that it is not. When one looks at our economic history, the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth, not because of unregulated free market capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War Two. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book 'Bad Samaritans' every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.
It might also be pointed out that, in modern times, every nation of the EU that adopted free market reforms under IMF 'structural adjustment' policies all failed miserably and poverty actually increased.
Now, don't misunderstand me. That is not to say that I am a supporter of communism, or socialism. Rather, that it seems that a blended version of capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of governmental oversight is the most effective way to build a thriving economy. Now, for those who submit that they agree, then where do they suggest that the "line" should be drawn? What is "reasonable' government oversight?
I get it, this is a goof post, right?So the assholes can pour their poison into our air and rivers again? Not a chance. You cut back on their extremes by taking over the agency but the EPA is a useful watchdog.
Anarchy would be better than the oligarchic crony capitalist shit show now in operation.You think "capitalism" means anarchy. It doesn't. It just means economic freedom, freedom of choice. And that is a very good thing all the time. Government sucks at making our decisions for us
Why would they do that? Oh, right, you were indoctrinated to believe that....sorry....Eliminate the EPA...as Trump is proposing......
So the assholes can pour their poison into our air and rivers again? Not a chance. You cut back on their extremes by taking over the agency but the EPA is a useful watchdog.
Black markets flourish quite readily, when there's a demand to be met. Those are as self-regulating as you get.Again, at what point in our history, can you point to a largely "self-regulated" market, that allowed us to flourish?
