The most critical difference between the political right and the political left is...

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

founding a space force when we can’t put a human out there without Russian help

I think that's just why we need a space force, darling.
I certainly would like to stay ahead of the curve than try to catch up in the age of technology.
I know you and the choirboy Rightwinger mock that kind of thought.

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

So screw the orbital infrastructure? I think that's what you're saying.

We should support a smarter military, not a bloated military budget.
I've been saying this for years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's what you said. You said the right supports limited social safety nets that are private.

HUD is the only agency that places people into homes. There is no reason our tax dollars should be supporting suburban living. If you want to live in the suburbs, then make enough money to do so. But what government does is suck up taxpayer dollars to provide great housing instead of just housing. Sorry, that's an abuse of our social safety nets.

And it's the bureaucracy that places them here, because they have all the money in the world--yours and mine.

I throw in her weight because she's obviously eating way too much. Having an animal in your home is healthy? Since when? Ever notice how they clean themselves? You support this abuse as well. What you're saying is that you have no problem with taxpayers feeding her and her kids while she uses her personal money to feed her dogs and get drunk on beer or wine and smoking two packs of cigarettes. I do have a problem with that. If you don't have enough money for food, get rid of the dog, booze and cigarettes and feed yourself.

I think you make a lot of assumptions here.

Weight is a complex issue that isn't related to simply "eating too much" - as I pointed out there is also access to healthy food, affordability etc. I live in a state that has a lot of "food deserts". My town does not have a grocery store anymore - the best we have is a Dollar General and, now, a private butcher that also sells some farm produce in season. But that is new. It isn't an issue for me - I have a car. I can drive 30 miles to the a bigger town and go to Krogers. There are other communities in WV where driving to a grocery store is a lot longer - maybe 60 miles. Not everyone has a car. So what are your healthy choices? The cheapest food is usually extremely fattening. What I'm trying to say is you can't just look at someone and assume you know everything about her.

And yes, having a pet can be healthy. It's been shown to relieve loneliness, lower blood pressure etc. Maybe not for you, but for many others especially the elderly. Sometimes that is the only companion they have. Just because they are also poor, should they be robbed of that companionship? We're not talking about someone keeping a horse after all , but a dog or a cat.

Dogs and cats can be expensive. It's not just food, but after Commie Care passed, vet bills went through the roof.

What I am talking about here are necessities, not making life nice and easy for everybody. That's not what our federal government is for. And when our social programs have that explicitly in mind, it's not a wonder when those of us on the right are outraged by it.

Yes, I've seen this in my grocery story many times. When that happens, the grocery store should be allowed to contact the federal government and report what they experienced. Yes, I've seen that 300 lbs woman leave the grocery line after checkout and buy lottery tickets at the customer service window. I've been behind them leaving the store and watch them pack those groceries in a $40,000 SUV; something I could only dream of owning.

Why would healthy food be so expensive? What kind of items are you talking about here? Vegetables are relatively cheap, so are many kinds of fruits. A pot of spaghetti is only about five bucks or less to make, and it can feed a family of four, twice.

Now there is a new scam they dreamed up. They go to customers in the grocery line and ask if they can use their food stamps to buy some of your food. After they pay for your food, you give them the cash for your items they used for their food stamps. They usually ask to buy 40 bucks of your food, and sell it back to you for 30 bucks. Then they go back into the store and buy two 18 packs of beer.

Often when people talk about eating more healthy, what they actually mean is simply eating LESS.

How could that be too expensive?

Yes, those bags of frozen cooked chicken are out of this world. So are TV dinners which I see many times in the food stamp grocery cart. It's not about eating better, it's about avoiding work to prepare a meal. That's why they eat so poorly.

How do you avoid work if you are holding down two or three jobs?

I didn't understand your question at all.

 

[Norman]

founding a space force when we can’t put a human out there without Russian help

I think that's just why we need a space force, darling.
I certainly would like to stay ahead of the curve than try to catch up in the age of technology.
I know you and the choirboy Rightwinger mock that kind of thought.

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Correct and PROUD of my country. A pride that very few, if any, liberal loons can honestly claim. You're welcome, as always.

I'm not all too proud to be American, and I'm a Right Winger.
I'm not too fond of Republicans, and I'm a Right Winger.
I'm not all fond of Capitalism, and I'm a Right Winger.

I'm scratching my head wondering why so proud?

I mean a ton of wars, genocides, slavery,
then
Affirmative Action, and Multiculturalism.

About the only height so called peak era I can think of was the Moon landing done by Nazi member scientist Werhner Von Braun.
Who did such by following the blueprints of Rocket-Science by Polish-Soviet Konstantin Ciolkowski.

A lot of the greatest intellects in America, were immigrants from Europe & or the sons of recent immigrants from Europe.

Tesla, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Ulam & Teller, Nikodem Poplawski, Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, Igor Sikorsky, Frank Piasecki, Henry Ford, Steven Wozniak, Steve Jobs, John Atanasoff, Richard Feynman, Albert Michelson, John Von Neumann, Henryk Magnuski, Karl Jansky, Frank Wilczek, Jack Szostak, Martin Cooper,

Yeah but the moon landing was pretty awesome though, and soon a Mars landing. Multiculturalism will be exported back to Brazil in time.

So yes you may be correct, still the best country ever.

Werhner Von Braun was probably more Polish, than he was American.

Even though he'd be overwhelmingly a Nazi of German (Prussian) birth-right.

It was still Americans that put it all together.

Sounds like you have been having some black pills.

Well, Sobieski IS a bit dim. Just look at his avatar picture............

So says the so called "American Patriot"
Who thinks Americans paying the #1 healthcare costs in the World is acceptable.
or
we should just have Americans die in the streets from lack of healthcare.

 

[Coyote]

I totally disagree with you on that - that is just another example of assumptions. The left supports abuse? Nothing below indicates a support of abuse. No one I know supports abuse. So where do you come up with this?

Let me put it this way. It's like me saying the right doesn't support safety nets. Is that true?

It's what you said. You said the right supports limited social safety nets that are private.

That isn't an issue of "the left supporting abuse" - largely it is an issue of lack of local enforcement of basic codes and - maybe more to the point - it ignores the many occasions of people NOT HUD who also strew garbage (I know, I've seen it). It's nothing to do with supporting abuse and it's not just HUD

HUD is the only agency that places people into homes. There is no reason our tax dollars should be supporting suburban living. If you want to live in the suburbs, then make enough money to do so. But what government does is suck up taxpayer dollars to provide great housing instead of just housing. Sorry, that's an abuse of our social safety nets.

DO they? I don't think so. I think the biggest complaint with these programs is bureaucracy.

And it's the bureaucracy that places them here, because they have all the money in the world--yours and mine.

And I would you say when you see that...what ASSUMPTIONS are you making?

For one - the cheapest food, and the most accessible food I food deserts is FATTENING. Do you have any idea how many grocery stores have closed in small towns that have lost population or cities that no longer support urban grocery stores.? So..you have to throw in she is 300 lbs. Why? So she has 4 kids - so WHAT? What do you know about her? She buys dog food - good for her. Dog's offer a lot of positive health benefits to people. You against that? Welfare doesn't pay for cigarettes and wine. But again - who are you to mandate that a person can't have something good like wine occasionally? You describe a textbook description - how often do you really see that?

I don't think anyone is for actual abuse. But I seriously question how much is stereotyping.

I throw in her weight because she's obviously eating way too much. Having an animal in your home is healthy? Since when? Ever notice how they clean themselves? You support this abuse as well. What you're saying is that you have no problem with taxpayers feeding her and her kids while she uses her personal money to feed her dogs and get drunk on beer or wine and smoking two packs of cigarettes. I do have a problem with that. If you don't have enough money for food, get rid of the dog, booze and cigarettes and feed yourself.

I think you make a lot of assumptions here.

Weight is a complex issue that isn't related to simply "eating too much" - as I pointed out there is also access to healthy food, affordability etc. I live in a state that has a lot of "food deserts". My town does not have a grocery store anymore - the best we have is a Dollar General and, now, a private butcher that also sells some farm produce in season. But that is new. It isn't an issue for me - I have a car. I can drive 30 miles to the a bigger town and go to Krogers. There are other communities in WV where driving to a grocery store is a lot longer - maybe 60 miles. Not everyone has a car. So what are your healthy choices? The cheapest food is usually extremely fattening. What I'm trying to say is you can't just look at someone and assume you know everything about her.

And yes, having a pet can be healthy. It's been shown to relieve loneliness, lower blood pressure etc. Maybe not for you, but for many others especially the elderly. Sometimes that is the only companion they have. Just because they are also poor, should they be robbed of that companionship? We're not talking about someone keeping a horse after all , but a dog or a cat.

Dogs and cats can be expensive. It's not just food, but after Commie Care passed, vet bills went through the roof.

What are you talking about?

What I am talking about here are necessities, not making life nice and easy for everybody. That's not what our federal government is for. And when our social programs have that explicitly in mind, it's not a wonder when those of us on the right are outraged by it.

No one is talking about making it "nice and easy" - keeping a pet is a long way from that. Companionship of pets has known positive impacts. I won't begrudge that to anyone. In fact, we have programs to help people, especially seniors on limited means help to keep their pets. It's not a luxury, for some it is all they have.

Yes, I've seen this in my grocery story many times. When that happens, the grocery store should be allowed to contact the federal government and report what they experienced. Yes, I've seen that 300 lbs woman leave the grocery line after checkout and buy lottery tickets at the customer service window. I've been behind them leaving the store and watch them pack those groceries in a $40,000 SUV; something I could only dream of owning.

I guess I have to ask again...what does her being a 300 lb woman have to do with anything?

Why would healthy food be so expensive? What kind of items are you talking about here? Vegetables are relatively cheap, so are many kinds of fruits. A pot of spaghetti is only about five bucks or less to make, and it can feed a family of four, twice.

It is. Don't ask me why. Pasta is cheap - but not exactly "healthy" - it can be pretty fattening. Mac and Cheese - cheap but fattening. Fresh veggies are cheap. IF you have access to a full grocery. You shouldn't just assume. Sure there are cheats and those who take advantage - just like there are EVERYWHERE. But don't just assume that is what you are seeing.

Now there is a new scam they dreamed up. They go to customers in the grocery line and ask if they can use their food stamps to buy some of your food. After they pay for your food, you give them the cash for your items they used for their food stamps. They usually ask to buy 40 bucks of your food, and sell it back to you for 30 bucks. Then they go back into the store and buy two 18 packs of beer.

And that, of course is a SCAM. No argument from me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think that's just why we need a space force, darling.
I certainly would like to stay ahead of the curve than try to catch up in the age of technology.
I know you and the choirboy Rightwinger mock that kind of thought.

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

 

[Norman]

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

The purpose of the second amendment is not to win in a war. I am not suggesting it can replace a military.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

Switzerland historically hardly has had a standing military, they seemed to avoid being invaded pretty well.... They also avoided a lot of their own being killed in war, or wasting a ton of funds on military.

Now, I understand the USA deterred Russia, still the USA spent a few years back more than Russia, China, India, Britain, Brazil, Pakistan and yada yada combined.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

founding a space force when we can’t put a human out there without Russian help

I think that's just why we need a space force, darling.
I certainly would like to stay ahead of the curve than try to catch up in the age of technology.
I know you and the choirboy Rightwinger mock that kind of thought.

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

War is increasingly changing to proxies, and upheaval from within.

Actually, Poles played a leading role in this.

Polish Solidarity, Polish Ryszard Kuklinski & Polish Brzezinski played an enormous role in these proxies & upheaval from within.

It lead to the collapse of Soviets, with the help from America.

Still, now Putin's Russia seems to be playing the same game.

I think the West is falling apart, the EU is teetering on the edge, and the USA is on the edge of a potential civil war.... If you ask me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No one is talking about making it "nice and easy" - keeping a pet is a long way from that. Companionship of pets has known positive impacts. I won't begrudge that to anyone. In fact, we have programs to help people, especially seniors on limited means help to keep their pets. It's not a luxury, for some it is all they have.

I know plenty of people that don't have pets. My mother no longer has a pet and lives alone. I don't have a pet and live alone. Most of my friends don't have pets. Pets are not a necessity for anybody outside those with physical disabilities.

I don't begrudge anybody from having a pet either, as long as they can take care of the pet and themselves at the same time. But when they take care of their pets, and I'm taking care of them, I do have a problem with that.

I guess I have to ask again...what does her being a 300 lb woman have to do with anything?

Let's just say it's what I refer to as your stereotypical food stamp person.

It is. Don't ask me why. Pasta is cheap - but not exactly "healthy" - it can be pretty fattening. Mac and Cheese - cheap but fattening. Fresh veggies are cheap. IF you have access to a full grocery. You shouldn't just assume. Sure there are cheats and those who take advantage - just like there are EVERYWHERE. But don't just assume that is what you are seeing.

I've seen enough to convince me. But back to the point: it's not that conservatives are totally against social programs. I think that most in fact, are not against them. But when you seen some of the things I've seen and wrote about here. Talk to people that actually work at grocery stores, have HUD people coming home drunk at 2:00 am on a work night laughing and yelling out loud on a work night waking everybody up, you just get to the point where you hate the social programs--not because of the truly needy that depend on them, but because of the majority which are the abusers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think that's just why we need a space force, darling.
I certainly would like to stay ahead of the curve than try to catch up in the age of technology.
I know you and the choirboy Rightwinger mock that kind of thought.

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

War is increasingly changing to proxies, and upheaval from within.

Actually, Poles played a leading role in this.

Polish Solidarity, Polish Ryszard Kuklinski & Polish Brzezinski played an enormous role in these proxies & upheaval from within.

It lead to the collapse of Soviets, with the help from America.

Still, now Putin's Russia seems to be playing the same game.

I think the West is falling apart, the EU is teetering on the edge, and the USA is on the edge of a potential civil war.... If you ask me.

No, I don't foresee a civil war of any kind. A separation of the country would come first. In fact I support having two countries at this point. I'm so irritated with liberalism I wouldn't mind living with my own political kind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

Switzerland historically hardly has had a standing military, they seemed to avoid being invaded pretty well.... They also avoided a lot of their own being killed in war, or wasting a ton of funds on military.

Now, I understand the USA deterred Russia, still the USA spent a few years back more than Russia, China, India, Britain, Brazil, Pakistan and yada yada combined.

Switzerland is not a world power. And if something terrible would happen to them, who do you think they would call for help?

A lot of countries have a weak military because we are there. Being the world police is not a job created for Americans. It's just a job that was formed. And if we don't want to be the world police any longer, then think of who comes close to our strength that will take that job.

So we do spend a lot on military power. It's something other countries don't do, which is why they can afford things like socialized healthcare, and various other social goodies we don't have.

 

[Meister]

Uh....no they weren't protected before Trump, and they aren't protected now, Candi.
What does a manned space program have to do with this topic, darling?

founding a space force when we can’t put a human out there without Russian help

I think that's just why we need a space force, darling.
I certainly would like to stay ahead of the curve than try to catch up in the age of technology.
I know you and the choirboy Rightwinger mock that kind of thought.

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

Do you know how to defeat the United States?
Knock out the electrical grid.
Knock out the satellites.
We couldn't mount a counter attack, SSE.
It would bring us to our knees, it would knock out our economy....along with the world's economy.
That's how you defeat the United States....and other countries know that and working towards it.

 

[Norman]

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

Switzerland historically hardly has had a standing military, they seemed to avoid being invaded pretty well.... They also avoided a lot of their own being killed in war, or wasting a ton of funds on military.

Now, I understand the USA deterred Russia, still the USA spent a few years back more than Russia, China, India, Britain, Brazil, Pakistan and yada yada combined.

Switzerland is not a world power. And if something terrible would happen to them, who do you think they would call for help?

A lot of countries have a weak military because we are there. Being the world police is not a job created for Americans. It's just a job that was formed. And if we don't want to be the world police any longer, then think of who comes close to our strength that will take that job.

So we do spend a lot on military power. It's something other countries don't do, which is why they can afford things like socialized healthcare, and various other social goodies we don't have.

Now this is one joke of a position considering under the "greatest military" America is getting invaded like no other country.

 

[Meister]

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

Switzerland historically hardly has had a standing military, they seemed to avoid being invaded pretty well.... They also avoided a lot of their own being killed in war, or wasting a ton of funds on military.

Now, I understand the USA deterred Russia, still the USA spent a few years back more than Russia, China, India, Britain, Brazil, Pakistan and yada yada combined.

Switzerland is not a world power. And if something terrible would happen to them, who do you think they would call for help?

A lot of countries have a weak military because we are there. Being the world police is not a job created for Americans. It's just a job that was formed. And if we don't want to be the world police any longer, then think of who comes close to our strength that will take that job.

So we do spend a lot on military power. It's something other countries don't do, which is why they can afford things like socialized healthcare, and various other social goodies we don't have.

Now this is one joke of a position considering under the "greatest military" America is getting invaded like no other country.

WTH are you talking about...you're not clear.

 

[beautress]

I guess that’s a difference between the blob’s people and other Americans. El Blabo and his subjects are in favor of bigger government.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Einstein, let me help. Both parties are in favor of bigger government. Sheesh, is she 8 years old?

Having said that, protecting our country, land, sea, air, and now space....is what our government was supposed to do.
Sorry that you're not equipped to understand that.

Protecting America being invaded by immigrants?
Or protect a certain country that shall remain nameless.

I'm sure 48% of the entire World's military budget is enough.

If we lose our country, its because of a Civil War, or Immigrants.

PS.
Thomas Jefferson was initially against a standing army, and is commonly quoted by Republicans / Libertarians.

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

War is increasingly changing to proxies, and upheaval from within.

Actually, Poles played a leading role in this.

Polish Solidarity, Polish Ryszard Kuklinski & Polish Brzezinski played an enormous role in these proxies & upheaval from within.

It lead to the collapse of Soviets, with the help from America.

Still, now Putin's Russia seems to be playing the same game.

I think the West is falling apart, the EU is teetering on the edge, and the USA is on the edge of a potential civil war.... If you ask me.

No, I don't foresee a civil war of any kind. A separation of the country would come first. In fact I support having two countries at this point. I'm so irritated with liberalism I wouldn't mind living with my own political kind.

I think this is something all would benefit from:
​

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

Switzerland historically hardly has had a standing military, they seemed to avoid being invaded pretty well.... They also avoided a lot of their own being killed in war, or wasting a ton of funds on military.

Now, I understand the USA deterred Russia, still the USA spent a few years back more than Russia, China, India, Britain, Brazil, Pakistan and yada yada combined.

Switzerland is not a world power. And if something terrible would happen to them, who do you think they would call for help?

A lot of countries have a weak military because we are there. Being the world police is not a job created for Americans. It's just a job that was formed. And if we don't want to be the world police any longer, then think of who comes close to our strength that will take that job.

So we do spend a lot on military power. It's something other countries don't do, which is why they can afford things like socialized healthcare, and various other social goodies we don't have.

Now this is one joke of a position considering under the "greatest military" America is getting invaded like no other country.

Well, the only thing that could defeat a military as strong as ours is liberalism unfortunately. Liberalism is worse than cancer. The Communists wrote long ago that they will take over this military strength called the USA. But they will do so without one bullet being fired. They will takeover from within. It's what we are witnessing today.

 

[Norman]

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

Switzerland historically hardly has had a standing military, they seemed to avoid being invaded pretty well.... They also avoided a lot of their own being killed in war, or wasting a ton of funds on military.

Now, I understand the USA deterred Russia, still the USA spent a few years back more than Russia, China, India, Britain, Brazil, Pakistan and yada yada combined.

Switzerland is not a world power. And if something terrible would happen to them, who do you think they would call for help?

A lot of countries have a weak military because we are there. Being the world police is not a job created for Americans. It's just a job that was formed. And if we don't want to be the world police any longer, then think of who comes close to our strength that will take that job.

So we do spend a lot on military power. It's something other countries don't do, which is why they can afford things like socialized healthcare, and various other social goodies we don't have.

Now this is one joke of a position considering under the "greatest military" America is getting invaded like no other country.

Well, the only thing that could defeat a military as strong as ours is liberalism unfortunately. Liberalism is worse than cancer. The Communists wrote long ago that they will take over this military strength called the USA. But they will do so without one bullet being fired. They will takeover from within. It's what we are witnessing today.

Yes I agree.

700 billion on military and we can not even defend our own border. I do appreciate the strength but it is ridiculous.

 

[beautress]

I think Jefferson would not hold that view today. War back in his days were people grab their guns and go out to shoot each other. Today, many strategies have to be learned, you need to be physically fit, you need to understand and learn how to use technology to fight a war. Therefore a standing army is a necessity.

Which is why Afghanistan was over in a day.

If they could resist with stick and stones, no problem for Americans with high powered guns. All you need to do is to cause enough havoc in a big city and the tyrant is history with all legitimacy disappearing.

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

Switzerland historically hardly has had a standing military, they seemed to avoid being invaded pretty well.... They also avoided a lot of their own being killed in war, or wasting a ton of funds on military.

Now, I understand the USA deterred Russia, still the USA spent a few years back more than Russia, China, India, Britain, Brazil, Pakistan and yada yada combined.

Switzerland is not a world power. And if something terrible would happen to them, who do you think they would call for help?

A lot of countries have a weak military because we are there. Being the world police is not a job created for Americans. It's just a job that was formed. And if we don't want to be the world police any longer, then think of who comes close to our strength that will take that job.

So we do spend a lot on military power. It's something other countries don't do, which is why they can afford things like socialized healthcare, and various other social goodies we don't have.

Now this is one joke of a position considering under the "greatest military" America is getting invaded like no other country.

I believe the best soldiers who ever graced this earth are out to win for America. In fact, they have a long line of people who handed down to them a system that has saved more lives than it has taken. Thanks be to God that we have a good military that loves America and a leader who acts in their behalf, and therefore in the behalf of peace on earth. Strength and rightness truly do bring peace to places where there was none before. We have international friends who know this and help us when our soldiers have to go sort out hostilities promoted by myopic regimes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was a different day when the Constitution was written. We could never defend ourselves without a standing military in place. Hell, somebody could shoot a rocket at us half way around the world and we'd only have minutes to say goodbye to each other. Our warplanes in the future will all be drones. Not only would they save lives,but would also be able to fly at top speeds since the there is no pilot to pass out.

Switzerland historically hardly has had a standing military, they seemed to avoid being invaded pretty well.... They also avoided a lot of their own being killed in war, or wasting a ton of funds on military.

Now, I understand the USA deterred Russia, still the USA spent a few years back more than Russia, China, India, Britain, Brazil, Pakistan and yada yada combined.

Switzerland is not a world power. And if something terrible would happen to them, who do you think they would call for help?

A lot of countries have a weak military because we are there. Being the world police is not a job created for Americans. It's just a job that was formed. And if we don't want to be the world police any longer, then think of who comes close to our strength that will take that job.

So we do spend a lot on military power. It's something other countries don't do, which is why they can afford things like socialized healthcare, and various other social goodies we don't have.

Now this is one joke of a position considering under the "greatest military" America is getting invaded like no other country.

Well, the only thing that could defeat a military as strong as ours is liberalism unfortunately. Liberalism is worse than cancer. The Communists wrote long ago that they will take over this military strength called the USA. But they will do so without one bullet being fired. They will takeover from within. It's what we are witnessing today.

Yes I agree.

700 billion on military and we can not even defend our own border. I do appreciate the strength but it is ridiculous.

In our system of government, the military is irrelevant since they really can't be used for our border. Liberals don't have to face our military, otherwise they would be defeated of course. That's why I stated the only thing stronger than our military is liberalism. Again........ unfortunately.