GOP plans Constitutional Amendment banning all abortion as national convention platform

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Guys n' gals, I got more here than I have a chance to reply to. I just got back and had 15 messages, one, unjustly I think, from a moderator.

First principals:

1) Is the USA a great nation? Do people depend upon it to lead the free world? Yes, I think. Most recently, while I'm opposed to doing so, the invasion of Libya was done at our behest, with powers like Italy asking if we really had to do so. Kosovo, similar.
2) Same question of Sweden. No, I think.
3) The world is a complex place and a global order is necessary to maintain that, including free sea lanes, international commerce, respect for intellectual property, etc. We look to the US and its many times that of other countries combined air craft carrier space. Sweden largely bowed out.

Can you imagine I'd be insulted if someone wrote, "hey, thanks for spending so much on military to defend the free world while we don't... we put our money into having better health care coverage than you... and by the way, I'm glad people like you don't live here." In answer, yes, I was very insulted.

Do any of you really need links to back any of that up?

Gorfias:
Guys n' gals, I got more here than I have a chance to reply to. I just got back and had 15 messages, one, unjustly I think, from a moderator.

I don't think it was unjust. You ripped Sweden as needing "better countries to prop it up." Flamebait 101.

Gorfias:

Rather than the cowardice of using moderators to censor your opponents, how about using your words like big boys?

Oh, stop it. Now you're accusing "liberals" of using the moderators to "censor your opponents?" Really? On this fucking site, where moderation is, I have observed, as arbitrary as the day is long? That takes balls.

Take a look at how many "liberal" names around here have the word "BANNED" underneath them before you start playing the victim card.

And yes, "opinions" can be flamebait (and thus, a violation of forum rules) if they are presented in such an inflammatory manner. If you don't like it, take it up with the moderation staff and let me know how that works out for you.

Donuthole:

Gorfias:

Rather than the cowardice of using moderators to censor your opponents, how about using your words like big boys?

Oh, stop it. Now you're accusing "liberals" of using the moderators to "censor your opponents?" Really? On this fucking site, where moderation is, I have observed, as arbitrary as the day is long? That takes balls.

Take a look at how many "liberal" names around here have the word "BANNED" underneath them before you start playing the victim card.

And yes, "opinions" can be flamebait (and thus, a violation of forum rules) if they are presented in such an inflammatory manner. If you don't like it, take it up with the moderation staff and let me know how that works out for you.

Let's see. I've been called a liar and troll for expressing my opinion. Obscenities and insults are flung high and regularly at me. Someone implied their country better than mine, especially in that I don't live in it and I responded in some fairly mainstream way, and I'm the one engaged in flamebait? I don't think so.

Admit this: for starters, You are far more likely to use swear words than am I.

Gorfias:
I responded in some fairly mainstream way

Even if one accepts that the premise of the US "props up" Sweden is a "mainstream" one, that doesn't make it correct and your "support" for your assertion has been woefully lacking.

Gorfias:
Is the USA a great nation?

Depends entirely on how you define great.

Do people depend upon it to lead the free world?

No.

Most recently, while I'm opposed to doing so, the invasion of Libya was done at our behest, with powers like Italy asking if we really had to do so.

That would be why France called for action first then.

Same question of Sweden. No, I think.

So you base your judgement of nations purely on their military strength, aggression, and your far right nationalistic delusions. Gotcha.

The world is a complex place and a global order is necessary to maintain that, including free sea lanes, international commerce, respect for intellectual property, etc. We look to the US and its many times that of other countries combined air craft carrier space. Sweden largely bowed out.

Because Sweden cares more about helping its citizens that deluding itself that 6 aircraft carriers are necessary in a world where no one else has more than 2, and both of the next 2 largest blue water navies are US allies.

Gorfias:

Admit this: for starters, You are far more likely to use swear words than am I.

So what? Is swearing against the rules now? On THIS site?

What you got pinched for is no more fair or unfair than a ton of other comments that were deemed warning or suspension worthy that I've seen on this site.

EDIT: Amazing. As I was in the process of typing this response, I received a warning notice for a post I made over 24 hours again. I'll give anyone here three guesses as to whom that post was directed, and the first two don't count.

Gorfias:
Most recently, while I'm opposed to doing so, the invasion of Libya was done at our behest, with powers like Italy asking if we really had to do so.

This is complete fiction.

For starters, we never invaded. Airstrikes =/= invasion.

Secondly, the British were there first and did just as much as the U.S. did. Revisionist history much?

Amnestic:

Gorfias:
I responded in some fairly mainstream way

Even if one accepts that the premise of the US "props up" Sweden is a "mainstream" one, that doesn't make it correct and your "support" for your assertion has been woefully lacking.

Read the work of Mark Steyn. That will help.

DJjaffacake:

Gorfias:

Do people depend upon it [the USA] to lead the free world?

No.

I don't think any right winger, particularly Mark Steyn, would agree with you.

Donuthole:

Gorfias:

Admit this: for starters, You are far more likely to use swear words than am I.

So what? Is swearing against the rules now? On THIS site?

I think a reasonable person would find your use of them provocative to write the least. I don't believe in using moderators though, I want to argue points.

Donuthole:

For starters, we never invaded. Airstrikes =/= invasion.

You have an interesting vocabulary. If Canada starts bombing runs in Arkansas, I'll remember you wrote that.

[quote] Secondly, the British were there first and did just as much as the U.S. did. Revisionist history much?

Link? I just recall reading US tried to act like we were dragged into it, and that the Italians were asking us if it really had to happen as they didn't want to do it. Sounds likely to me.

Gorfias:

Read the work of Mark Steyn. That will help.

Wikipedia:
He is published in newspapers and magazines, appears on shows such as those of Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Sean Hannity.

Steyn believes that what he describes as "Eurabia" - a future where the European continent is dominated by Islam - is an imminent reality that cannot be reversed.

Steyn was an early proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2007 he reiterated his support.

Anything else I need to know? The dude's a nutjob. What, specifically, should I be paying attention to?

No vague statements, no deflection, no calls for me to go read some other guy's work. Give me something which shows, unequivocally, that Sweden is being propped up by the U.S.

Gorfias:

Link? I just recall reading US tried to act like we were dragged into it, and that the Italians were asking us if it really had to happen as they didn't want to do it. Sounds likely to me.

Fair enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

It was the French who started, not the Brits. That's my bad.

19 March 2011: French[69] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces with strikes against armoured units south of Benghazi and attacks on Libyan air-defence systems, as UN Security Council Resolution 1973 called for using "all necessary means" to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack, imposed a no-fly zone, and called for an immediate and with-standing cease-fire, while also strengthening travel bans on members of the regime, arms embargoes, and asset freezes.[18]

Wiki's cited source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

The U.S. was instrumental in establishing the no-fly zone; however, we didn't take the lead on enforcing it, the French did.

Gorfias:
Read the work of Mark Steyn. That will help.

I'll pass.

Gorfias:
I don't think any right winger, particularly Mark Steyn, would agree with you.

I'm pretty confident that in an entire half of the political spectrum there is someone that agrees with me on this, especially outside of the US.

Donuthole:
Secondly, the British were there first and did just as much as the U.S. did. Revisionist history much?

Not to be pedantic, but technically the French were there first.

Edit: Never mind, you noticed by yourself.

Here's another thing ... Gorfias, why do you think any of us here care if Mark Steyn agrees with us. Mark Steyn is a two-bit hack. I'm glad he doesn't agree with me.

Gorfias:
I've been called a liar and troll for expressing my opinion. Obscenities and insults are flung high and regularly at me.

You've been called a liar and a troll for lying. Consistently. Constantly, in fact. Never, EVER listening to reason. Never admitting that you are wrong about anything, even after literally EVERY source, even fucking Free Republic, disagrees with you.

Is it any surprise, then, that when Poe's law dictates that it is literally impossible to tell the difference between someone who is genuinely that dumb, and someone who is being intentionally infuriating to get people to say things, and you start doing such things, people start calling you a lying troll? Take the "You didn't build that" comment. It has been explained to you more times than I am willing to count what that statement actually meant. You have admitted this several times. And yet you STILL lie about it. Why? Everyone knows that you're lying. Nobody stands a chance of believing you. So why would you lie about it? I can think of only two reasons, and neither reflect positively upon you as a person.

Amnestic:

Gorfias:

Read the work of Mark Steyn. That will help.

Wikipedia:
He is published in newspapers and magazines, appears on shows such as those of Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Sean Hannity.

Steyn believes that what he describes as "Eurabia" - a future where the European continent is dominated by Islam - is an imminent reality that cannot be reversed.

Steyn was an early proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2007 he reiterated his support.

Anything else I need to know? The dude's a nutjob. What, specifically, should I be paying attention to?

No vague statements, no deflection, no calls for me to go read some other guy's work. Give me something which shows, unequivocally, that Sweden is being propped up by the U.S.

Sorry, that's where I get my information, and I don't think him a nut job. In his books, like "America Alone" and "After America" it isn't just Sweden riding on our tail: it's pretty much the entire free world. When I see how much air craft carrier space the USA has in comparison to the rest of the free world, I'm inclined to agree.

Want a link? Might take a bit. I had a good one way back before "Rolling Thunder" got banned. Been through this before.

Gorfias:

Amnestic:

Gorfias:

Read the work of Mark Steyn. That will help.

Wikipedia:
He is published in newspapers and magazines, appears on shows such as those of Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Sean Hannity.

Steyn believes that what he describes as "Eurabia" - a future where the European continent is dominated by Islam - is an imminent reality that cannot be reversed.

Steyn was an early proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2007 he reiterated his support.

Anything else I need to know? The dude's a nutjob. What, specifically, should I be paying attention to?

No vague statements, no deflection, no calls for me to go read some other guy's work. Give me something which shows, unequivocally, that Sweden is being propped up by the U.S.

Sorry, that's where I get my information, and I don't think him a nut job.

Your lack of critical-thinking skills does not invalidate Amnestic's statements. "Eurabia" is a paranoid fantasy.

arbane:

Sorry, that's where I get my information, and I don't think him [Mark Steyne] a nut job.

Your lack of critical-thinking skills does not invalidate Amnestic's statements. "Eurabia" is a paranoid fantasy.

Is it? One can be incorrect, or worried about something without being mentally ill.

http://www.amazon.com/Marked-Death-Islams-Against-West/dp/1596987960/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334490784&sr=1-1

Geert Wilders may be incorrect, or right. What's relevant is he is a major person and I think it is wrong to be dismissive of him regarding his concerns.

You guys are being dismissive of Mark Steyn's "American Alone" and "After American". I think you should not be. Most Conservatives agree with me.

Stagnant:

Gorfias:
I've been called a liar and troll for expressing my opinion. Obscenities and insults are flung high and regularly at me.

You've been called a liar and a troll for lying. Consistently. Constantly, in fact. Never, EVER listening to reason.

Donuthole should be able to tell you of my recently admitting I was wrong about something. I think I even apologized.

As for Roanoke: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-367998-case-government.html

Krauthammer begs the Romney campaign to play the whole Obama speech over and over again.

Everyone should be able to understand we can disagree about this without flinging insults.

Gorfias:
When I see how much air craft carrier space the USA has in comparison to the rest of the free world, I'm inclined to agree.

And those aircraft carriers are used for what exactly? I pointed this out before, although it turns out I got the number wrong, you've got even more unnecessary carriers. Not one of the other countries in the world that have aircraft carriers is a threat to the USA or the "free world." The only one that could even vaguely be considered a threat (and only if you're a far right cold war fantasist dickhole) is Russia with one. Fucking one! On what possible fucking grounds are eleven carriers necessary. Between them, the other members of NATO have six. Eleven carriers are not necessary.

DJjaffacake:

Gorfias:
When I see how much air craft carrier space the USA has in comparison to the rest of the free world, I'm inclined to agree.

And those aircraft carriers are used for what exactly? I pointed this out before, although it turns out I got the number wrong, you've got even more unnecessary carriers. Not one of the other countries in the world that have aircraft carriers is a threat to the USA or the "free world." The only one that could even vaguely be considered a threat (and only if you're a far right cold war fantasist dickhole) is Russia with one. Fucking one! On what possible fucking grounds are eleven carriers necessary. Between them, the other members of NATO have six. Eleven carriers are not necessary.

I used to think the entire Navy was unnecessary. Someone then pointed out to me that they, and their carriers, may be the most important single item in the global order game. They're like mobile military bases.

And if someone in the middle east were to try to cut off Sweden's oil supply, those carriers could be used to help liberate that supply chain... even if those trying to cut if off don't have carriers themselves.

I write of oil, but in fact, I've read the USA needs about 40 elements not even found in the country (they listed aluminum.) I imagine Sweden needs that Global order as well but, according to writers like Steyn, largely keeps in the back seat and lets the USA do the fighting. So you can see why I'd feel insulted if you write that Sweden has it better than the USA. It is like adding insult to injury. We don't think you guys help enough, and then gloat over what you do with your extra cash.

Gorfias:

DJjaffacake:

Gorfias:
When I see how much air craft carrier space the USA has in comparison to the rest of the free world, I'm inclined to agree.

And those aircraft carriers are used for what exactly? I pointed this out before, although it turns out I got the number wrong, you've got even more unnecessary carriers. Not one of the other countries in the world that have aircraft carriers is a threat to the USA or the "free world." The only one that could even vaguely be considered a threat (and only if you're a far right cold war fantasist dickhole) is Russia with one. Fucking one! On what possible fucking grounds are eleven carriers necessary. Between them, the other members of NATO have six. Eleven carriers are not necessary.

I used to think the entire Navy was unnecessary. Someone then pointed out to me that they, and their carriers, may be the most important single item in the global order game. They're like mobile military bases.

And if someone in the middle east were to try to cut off Sweden's oil supply, those carriers could be used to help liberate that supply chain... even if those trying to cut if off don't have carriers themselves.

I write of oil, but in fact, I've read the USA needs about 40 elements not even found in the country (they listed aluminum.) I imagine Sweden needs that Global order as well but, according to writers like Steyn, largely keeps in the back seat and lets the USA do the fighting. So you can see why I'd feel insulted if you write that Sweden has it better than the USA. It is like adding insult to injury. We don't think you guys help enough, and then gloat over what you do with your extra cash.

Sweden isn't dependent on oil. In 2006, the majority of its electricity came from nuclear and hydroelectric power. I doubt the oil Sweden does use comes significantly from the middle east, since Russia and the North Sea are closer and more readily accessible.

And you do know it's not necessary to invade countries to get aluminium right? "Let's the USA do the fighting," have you considered maybe they're just not interested in fighting? Oh, and stop giving Mark Steyn as a source, it's already been pointed out why he's unreliable.

DJjaffacake:

And you do know it's not necessary to invade countries to get aluminium right? "Let's the USA do the fighting," have you considered maybe they're just not interested in fighting? Oh, and stop giving Mark Steyn as a source, it's already been pointed out why he's unreliable.

Steyn is a major source for me. No one has really offered me anything that makes me think him unreliable. Sorry.

And why, if someone has you over a barrel, don't you need to invade someone or pay exorbitant amounts for aluminum? What did Mr. Miaggi say? You have good fighting abilities so you don't have to fight.

If you are right.... and you could be... the United States is wasting a hell of a lot of money better spent. Steyn, the guy you think unreliable? Things you are wrong on this.

DJjaffacake:

Gorfias:

DJjaffacake:

And those aircraft carriers are used for what exactly? I pointed this out before, although it turns out I got the number wrong, you've got even more unnecessary carriers. Not one of the other countries in the world that have aircraft carriers is a threat to the USA or the "free world." The only one that could even vaguely be considered a threat (and only if you're a far right cold war fantasist dickhole) is Russia with one. Fucking one! On what possible fucking grounds are eleven carriers necessary. Between them, the other members of NATO have six. Eleven carriers are not necessary.

I used to think the entire Navy was unnecessary. Someone then pointed out to me that they, and their carriers, may be the most important single item in the global order game. They're like mobile military bases.

And if someone in the middle east were to try to cut off Sweden's oil supply, those carriers could be used to help liberate that supply chain... even if those trying to cut if off don't have carriers themselves.

I write of oil, but in fact, I've read the USA needs about 40 elements not even found in the country (they listed aluminum.) I imagine Sweden needs that Global order as well but, according to writers like Steyn, largely keeps in the back seat and lets the USA do the fighting. So you can see why I'd feel insulted if you write that Sweden has it better than the USA. It is like adding insult to injury. We don't think you guys help enough, and then gloat over what you do with your extra cash.

Sweden isn't dependent on oil. In 2006, the majority of its electricity came from nuclear and hydroelectric power. I doubt the oil Sweden does use comes significantly from the middle east, since Russia and the North Sea are closer and more readily accessible.

And you do know it's not necessary to invade countries to get aluminium right? "Let's the USA do the fighting," have you considered maybe they're just not interested in fighting? Oh, and stop giving Mark Steyn as a source, it's already been pointed out why he's unreliable.

Can't believe I'm gonna side with Gorfias on this one, but...

With rampant piracy in African and southern Asian waters, fighting is inevitable. Plenty other people want there to be no fighting, but the reality is, without patrol ships to ward off attackers, or to fight back when they get bold, water-based trade would be much, much more treacherous. Saying "well maybe we don't want to fight" is ignoring this glaring fact, as though not fighting is an option that is discarded. And those aren't the only shipping lane with hostiles in it.

image

This is a map of pirate attacks in 2008. It's been getting worse year after year. Fighting is needed to preserve order, as there will always be an element of chaos that attempts to disrupt that order.

Gorfias:
Let's see. I've been called a liar and troll for expressing my opinion.

Incorrect. You were called a liar (not by me) because you lied. If you had merely expressed your opinion, nothing would have been said. But you made a claim about an objective fact that did not match reality, and you did it intentionally and knowingly. Ergo, you lied.

We've been over this before. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying. Saying your country is better than Sweden and saying your country propped up Sweden with your only justification for that claim being that Sweden was neutral in the war would be a perfect example of the kind of thing that makes people (again, not me) call you a liar.

This isn't hard.

Gorfias:
Everyone should be able to understand we can disagree about this without flinging insults.

No, we should not. Because facts are not subject to debate. Facts are facts, regardless of what you want them to be. Obama did not mean what you keep saying he meant. The USA did not prop up Sweden. Fact. You lied repeatedly. Fact. These things are not matters of disagreement. A poster (not me) calling you a liar when you have lied repeatedly is not an insult. It's a factual description.

wintercoat:

DJjaffacake:

Gorfias:

I used to think the entire Navy was unnecessary. Someone then pointed out to me that they, and their carriers, may be the most important single item in the global order game. They're like mobile military bases.

And if someone in the middle east were to try to cut off Sweden's oil supply, those carriers could be used to help liberate that supply chain... even if those trying to cut if off don't have carriers themselves.

I write of oil, but in fact, I've read the USA needs about 40 elements not even found in the country (they listed aluminum.) I imagine Sweden needs that Global order as well but, according to writers like Steyn, largely keeps in the back seat and lets the USA do the fighting. So you can see why I'd feel insulted if you write that Sweden has it better than the USA. It is like adding insult to injury. We don't think you guys help enough, and then gloat over what you do with your extra cash.

Sweden isn't dependent on oil. In 2006, the majority of its electricity came from nuclear and hydroelectric power. I doubt the oil Sweden does use comes significantly from the middle east, since Russia and the North Sea are closer and more readily accessible.

And you do know it's not necessary to invade countries to get aluminium right? "Let's the USA do the fighting," have you considered maybe they're just not interested in fighting? Oh, and stop giving Mark Steyn as a source, it's already been pointed out why he's unreliable.

Can't believe I'm gonna side with Gorfias on this one, but...

With rampant piracy in African and southern Asian waters, fighting is inevitable. Plenty other people want there to be no fighting, but the reality is, without patrol ships to ward off attackers, or to fight back when they get bold, water-based trade would be much, much more treacherous. Saying "well maybe we don't want to fight" is ignoring this glaring fact, as though not fighting is an option that is discarded. And those aren't the only shipping lane with hostiles in it.

image

This is a map of pirate attacks in 2008. It's been getting worse year after year. Fighting is needed to preserve order, as there will always be an element of chaos that attempts to disrupt that order.

Fighting inevitable? Sure.
Pirates an issue? Absolutely.

Neither were the issue though, the issue was the claim that Sweden is capable of having the standard of living it has, only because USA props it up.
That has not been backed up.

nyysjan:

wintercoat:

DJjaffacake:

Sweden isn't dependent on oil. In 2006, the majority of its electricity came from nuclear and hydroelectric power. I doubt the oil Sweden does use comes significantly from the middle east, since Russia and the North Sea are closer and more readily accessible.

And you do know it's not necessary to invade countries to get aluminium right? "Let's the USA do the fighting," have you considered maybe they're just not interested in fighting? Oh, and stop giving Mark Steyn as a source, it's already been pointed out why he's unreliable.

Can't believe I'm gonna side with Gorfias on this one, but...

With rampant piracy in African and southern Asian waters, fighting is inevitable. Plenty other people want there to be no fighting, but the reality is, without patrol ships to ward off attackers, or to fight back when they get bold, water-based trade would be much, much more treacherous. Saying "well maybe we don't want to fight" is ignoring this glaring fact, as though not fighting is an option that is discarded. And those aren't the only shipping lane with hostiles in it.

image

This is a map of pirate attacks in 2008. It's been getting worse year after year. Fighting is needed to preserve order, as there will always be an element of chaos that attempts to disrupt that order.

Fighting inevitable? Sure.
Pirates an issue? Absolutely.

Neither were the issue though, the issue was the claim that Sweden is capable of having the standard of living it has, only because USA props it up.
That has not been backed up.

And that wasn't the part I was responding to. I was responding to the "well maybe we don't want to fight" quote. Not fighting isn't feasible because outside forces make it so. And a large portion of the fighting is done by the U.S. navy.

wintercoat:

nyysjan:

wintercoat:

Can't believe I'm gonna side with Gorfias on this one, but...

With rampant piracy in African and southern Asian waters, fighting is inevitable. Plenty other people want there to be no fighting, but the reality is, without patrol ships to ward off attackers, or to fight back when they get bold, water-based trade would be much, much more treacherous. Saying "well maybe we don't want to fight" is ignoring this glaring fact, as though not fighting is an option that is discarded. And those aren't the only shipping lane with hostiles in it.

image

This is a map of pirate attacks in 2008. It's been getting worse year after year. Fighting is needed to preserve order, as there will always be an element of chaos that attempts to disrupt that order.

Fighting inevitable? Sure.
Pirates an issue? Absolutely.

Neither were the issue though, the issue was the claim that Sweden is capable of having the standard of living it has, only because USA props it up.
That has not been backed up.

And that wasn't the part I was responding to. I was responding to the "well maybe we don't want to fight" quote. Not fighting isn't feasible because outside forces make it so. And a large portion of the fighting is done by the U.S. navy.

Yes, but do the Swedish need to fight?
Is someone attacking them?
Is there an imminent threat of war only being held check by the constant fighting of USA military?
The point was that Sweden is not fighting anywhere, because they don't want to fight, and, quite frankly, have no current need to fight.

It's not that you are wrong in your point (you are not), just that i find your point be completely outside the argument.

captcha: just friends

nyysjan:

wintercoat:

nyysjan:

Fighting inevitable? Sure.
Pirates an issue? Absolutely.

Neither were the issue though, the issue was the claim that Sweden is capable of having the standard of living it has, only because USA props it up.
That has not been backed up.

And that wasn't the part I was responding to. I was responding to the "well maybe we don't want to fight" quote. Not fighting isn't feasible because outside forces make it so. And a large portion of the fighting is done by the U.S. navy.

Yes, but do the Swedish need to fight?
Is someone attacking them?
Is there an imminent threat of war only being held check by the constant fighting of USA military?
The point was that Sweden is not fighting anywhere, because they don't want to fight, and, quite frankly, have no current need to fight.

It's not that you are wrong in your point (you are not), just that i find your point be completely outside the argument.

captcha: just friends

Do they use items shipped through dangerous shipping lanes? Do they rely on these shipping lanes like everyone else in the world? Would their economy suffer if pirates were free to do as they please?

The original point Gorfias made had to do with the U.S. navy and how much work they do while others sit back, happily allowing the U.S. to do all the work. It was about global stability and the fact that there are indeed countries who take that stance. Not all do. Some are out there as well, but by far the biggest presence is the U.S.

Everyone relies on water-based shipping. Everyone. To say that you don't need to help protect shipping lanes because it's not on your back door is ludicrous. To say that you don't want to help because another country is already doing the work is selfish. To then lambast the U.S. for having the means to protect these dangerous waters and calling it excessive is insulting.

wintercoat:

nyysjan:

wintercoat:

And that wasn't the part I was responding to. I was responding to the "well maybe we don't want to fight" quote. Not fighting isn't feasible because outside forces make it so. And a large portion of the fighting is done by the U.S. navy.

Yes, but do the Swedish need to fight?
Is someone attacking them?
Is there an imminent threat of war only being held check by the constant fighting of USA military?
The point was that Sweden is not fighting anywhere, because they don't want to fight, and, quite frankly, have no current need to fight.

It's not that you are wrong in your point (you are not), just that i find your point be completely outside the argument.

captcha: just friends

Do they use items shipped through dangerous shipping lanes? Do they rely on these shipping lanes like everyone else in the world? Would their economy suffer if pirates were free to do as they please?

The original point Gorfias made had to do with the U.S. navy and how much work they do while others sit back, happily allowing the U.S. to do all the work. It was about global stability and the fact that there are indeed countries who take that stance. Not all do. Some are out there as well, but by far the biggest presence is the U.S.

Everyone relies on water-based shipping. Everyone. To say that you don't need to help protect shipping lanes because it's not on your back door is ludicrous. To say that you don't want to help because another country is already doing the work is selfish. To then lambast the U.S. for having the means to protect these dangerous waters and calling it excessive is insulting.

Arm the ships, increase size of crew, sail further from the coast, choose different routes, simply reduce imports and start building more stuff back home.
USA does do a service in patrolling sea routes, but hardly to the point where other nations can only exist as they are because of the protection of it, USA stops patrols tomorrow, and there will be some bumpy times for world economy, but not to the point where the rest of the world would crumble.

Gorfias:

arbane:

Sorry, that's where I get my information, and I don't think him [Mark Steyne] a nut job.

Your lack of critical-thinking skills does not invalidate Amnestic's statements. "Eurabia" is a paranoid fantasy.

Is it? One can be incorrect, or worried about something without being mentally ill.

If one is worried about a rational, realistic thing, sure. Worrying that Islam is going to conquer Europe, however, is not rational in any way, shape or form. Really, anyone who freaks out about "we're all going to be speaking Muslim!" can be safely classified as a paranoid lunatic.

nyysjan:

wintercoat:

nyysjan:

Yes, but do the Swedish need to fight?
Is someone attacking them?
Is there an imminent threat of war only being held check by the constant fighting of USA military?
The point was that Sweden is not fighting anywhere, because they don't want to fight, and, quite frankly, have no current need to fight.

It's not that you are wrong in your point (you are not), just that i find your point be completely outside the argument.

captcha: just friends

Do they use items shipped through dangerous shipping lanes? Do they rely on these shipping lanes like everyone else in the world? Would their economy suffer if pirates were free to do as they please?

The original point Gorfias made had to do with the U.S. navy and how much work they do while others sit back, happily allowing the U.S. to do all the work. It was about global stability and the fact that there are indeed countries who take that stance. Not all do. Some are out there as well, but by far the biggest presence is the U.S.

Everyone relies on water-based shipping. Everyone. To say that you don't need to help protect shipping lanes because it's not on your back door is ludicrous. To say that you don't want to help because another country is already doing the work is selfish. To then lambast the U.S. for having the means to protect these dangerous waters and calling it excessive is insulting.

Arm the ships, increase size of crew, sail further from the coast, choose different routes, simply reduce imports and start building more stuff back home.
USA does do a service in patrolling sea routes, but hardly to the point where other nations can only exist as they are because of the protection of it, USA stops patrols tomorrow, and there will be some bumpy times for world economy, but not to the point where the rest of the world would crumble.

Pirates take hostages as they're after money, not destruction. What do you think will happen if you arm the crew? And if you meant actually putting gun batteries on the ships, are you insane? Do you realize how high it would push the cost of shipping, and therefor the cost of practically everything? Some of us are still going through a recession you know.

People tried sailing further from the coast. Not only is it more dangerous, but the pirates chased them anyways. The Somali pirates don't care how far out you go, they will chase you down, even to the middle of the Indian Ocean.

There are two major trade routes from the Asian coast to Europe. You either sail around Africa or around S.America. Neither is a safe route, whether due to natural dangers or pirates. Do you realize how expensive shipping almost around the entire world would be for India based companies instead of risking the African waters? And sailing north of Russia is out of the question. Nobody wants to sail north of Russia, not even Russia.

How is stuff supposed to be made locally if the materials can't be found locally? Instead of the manufactured goods being shipped, it would be materials. It wouldn't solve the problem, it would just change the cargo.

Shipping is a dangerous business. It has always been a dangerous business.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
Let's see. I've been called a liar and troll for expressing my opinion.

Incorrect. You were called a liar (not by me) because you lied. If you had merely expressed your opinion, nothing would have been said. But you made a claim about an objective fact that did not match reality, and you did it intentionally and knowingly. Ergo, you lied.

We've been over this before. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying. Saying your country is better than Sweden and saying your country propped up Sweden with your only justification for that claim being that Sweden was neutral in the war would be a perfect example of the kind of thing that makes people (again, not me) call you a liar.

This isn't hard.

Wintercoat just above you sure makes your Sweden statements look like your "you didn't build that" statements. You look like a loon.

For those who would like the entire, "you didn't build that" speech go to :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

I've got to keep re-posting that so people can make up their own mind.

One of us sure is lying, if not to others, to ourselves. It's like you are on your 4th beer, a guy known to everyone to be a tea toatler says, "my, you are on you're 4th beer" and you call anyone that notes what the guy really wants is for you to drink less if not no alcohol.

Obama's derision of the individual and glorification of government are about the growth of governmant, which many on this board want, and want it from him, and believe he'll give it to them. No. It isn't hard.

Gorfias:
Wintercoat just above you sure makes your Sweden statements look like your "you didn't build that" statements. You look like a loon.

For those who would like the entire, "you didn't build that" speech go to :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

I've got to keep re-posting that so people can make up their own mind.

One of us sure is lying, if not to others, to ourselves. It's like you are on your 4th beer, a guy known to everyone to be a tea toatler says, "my, you are on you're 4th beer" and you call anyone that notes what the guy really wants is for you to drink less if not no alcohol.

Obama's derision of the individual and glorification of government are about the growth of governmant, which many on this board want, and want it from him, and believe he'll give it to them. No. It isn't hard.

Let's see here:

Barack Obama:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

He wasn't saying "you didn't build you business." He was saying that somebody else invested in the roads and bridges and other such things that made it possible for you to have the business. Bit of bad grammar, but that's it.

This whole "you didn't build your own business" thing is a pathetic distortion manufacture by Fox and the GOP, nothing more. Anyone with sense would know what he was talking about.

nyysjan:
Yes, but do the Swedish need to fight?
Is someone attacking them?
Is there an imminent threat of war only being held check by the constant fighting of USA military?
The point was that Sweden is not fighting anywhere, because they don't want to fight, and, quite frankly, have no current need to fight.

It's not that you are wrong in your point (you are not), just that i find your point be completely outside the argument.

The argument about piracy is that pirates don't give a toss what flag you're flying, they'll board if they can. If you don't use your navy against pirates, your ships are pretty much fucked in case of an attack.

While if you do, you do your part in fighting the problem and deserve the occasional stroke of luck if another nation helps out one of your ships. And if you do it enough, many pirates don't attack your ships. I think most pirates who know their stuff won't attack French vessels for instance? Why? Because most of them will remember that France hunts pirates down, even after they disembark. The same can be seen with French peacekeeping soldiers and warlords. Warlords don't fuck with French soldiers. Why? Because if they do, they're coming for them and their reign is over. Last one to make that mistake was in Ivory Coast, and France responded firsy by bombing the Ivorian airforce off the face of the earth, and French troops ended the months long civil war in days in revenge for the attack on them.

Basically, when it comes to dealing with the world, you'll always find there's some groups that cannot be reasoned with, and need to be shot at untill they behave.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked