Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:The Tea Party has one unified stance? Well, this is breaking news, sir! Crack out the champagne!
Night Strike wrote:I'm all for diminishing the number of bases we have around the world. I also hate how the president and Congress keep bickering back and forth about which planes and ships we need to build based on which jurisdiction makes those assets. And how there was a report just today or yesterday about how the latest plane order has come in hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. That money needs to stop being wasted.
Unlike people like Ron Paul, I do believe a strong US military is the only military capable of preserving world peace and stability. Without a strong military, either China will overrun the world, or Muslim Terrorists would throw it into utter chaos. That's one reason why I wouldn't vote for him.
Night Strike wrote:Unlike people like Ron Paul, I do believe a strong US military is the only military capable of preserving world peace and stability. Without a strong military, either China will overrun the world, or Muslim Terrorists would throw it into utter chaos. That's one reason why I wouldn't vote for him.
Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
BigBallinStalin wrote:The US military on foreign soil substitutes the US allies' need to pay for their own military (or expand their own military) in order to secure their own interests. Without an international US military, the former parasites will have the incentive to develop their own armed forces, thus preventing your chaos-terrorism account and that lovely bit about China.
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?
original tea party members who support ron paul's politics are in favor of cutting military spending. check out paul's platform, seriously. he's way different from the sarah palin tea party.
saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:The US military on foreign soil substitutes the US allies' need to pay for their own military (or expand their own military) in order to secure their own interests. Without an international US military, the former parasites will have the incentive to develop their own armed forces, thus preventing your chaos-terrorism account and that lovely bit about China.
I agree with BBS, however, promoting military co-dependency by keeping the puppet states weak also serves U.S. foreign policy.
Baron Von PWN wrote:The political description of Tea partier is just about the most useless political term in political history. Anyone and their pet gerbil can be a goddamn tea partyier. The only pre-requisite seems to be being able to say "I'm a tea-partier" Bonus points if you have a circle of friends who meets at the local fast food joint to bitch about politics. At this I think I'll just jump on the band wagon. I too am a Tea partier. I also beleive the tax payer is taxed enough already. Income taxes should be abolished in their place all US farms should be collectivized by the state, the revenue generate by these state farms should make up for the lost income taxes, if that's not enough lets just nationalize beer. There I got rid of income taxes and have reduced the deficit through market gumption! I'm the best tea partier ever!
Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, have at it with Phatscotty and Night Strike... I will attempt to enjoy seeing them argue why we need military bases in Germany and South Korea to protect our national defense.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:In any event, have at it with Phatscotty and Night Strike... I will attempt to enjoy seeing them argue why we need military bases in Germany and South Korea to protect our national defense.
Third post of the thread I clearly said I wouldn't mind closing some of our international bases. However, I do think the two you listed are important. Germany because it is our massive military hospital where our injured troops first go when they leave the current war theaters while South Korea is important due to the constants threat from North Korea. We could probably close the base in Japan (or maybe the South Korea one and keep Japan open) as one that is probably no longer needed.
Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:In any event, have at it with Phatscotty and Night Strike... I will attempt to enjoy seeing them argue why we need military bases in Germany and South Korea to protect our national defense.
Third post of the thread I clearly said I wouldn't mind closing some of our international bases. However, I do think the two you listed are important. Germany because it is our massive military hospital where our injured troops first go when they leave the current war theaters while South Korea is important due to the constants threat from North Korea. We could probably close the base in Japan (or maybe the South Korea one and keep Japan open) as one that is probably no longer needed.
There isn't "one" base in Japan and South Korea. Heck, there's more than one Air Force base in Japan, never mind Army and Navy. And Germany's got Army posts spread throughout the country. You can literally get lost almost anywhere in the country and find your way to a close Army base.
Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?
original tea party members who support ron paul's politics are in favor of cutting military spending. check out paul's platform, seriously. he's way different from the sarah palin tea party.
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?
IDK what you are talking about, or how you come to the assumption the Tea Party is against cutting military spending.
Phatscotty wrote:Military needs to be cut. Everything needs to be cut. What part of everything do you fail to understand the last 100 times I said as much? Oh, not enough to stop Woody from creating a thread questioning futher.
Woodruffs attempt to bedazzle the Tea Party fails.
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?
IDK what you are talking about, or how you come to the assumption the Tea Party is against cutting military spending.
I don't know how you can avoid that conclusion, by observing those the Tea Party allegedly swept into Congress and how they're reacting to the idea of cutting military spending. Unless you're just closing your eyes to it, which is a distinct probability.Phatscotty wrote:Military needs to be cut. Everything needs to be cut. What part of everything do you fail to understand the last 100 times I said as much? Oh, not enough to stop Woody from creating a thread questioning futher.
Woodruffs attempt to bedazzle the Tea Party fails.
YOU are not the Tea Party, Phatscotty. What YOU say doesn't change policy at all. What those the Tea Party elected say and what those the Tea Party elected DO FOR POLICY is what matters. You should try paying attention to what they're doing.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users