(07-10-2018, 04:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was going to discuss the actual geopolitical arena in 2012 vs now. Maybe even explain the context of the above.
But the bold suggests some heavy partisanship that a few around here would normally complain about so I won't add fuel to the fire.
My partisanship is the side of laughing at hyperbolic hysteria and hypocrisy.
I also thought Lucie's "does this photo finally prove Hillary sacrifices babies to satan?"-style breitbart article posting was equally embarrassing.
You guys have really taken this whole 2 party rivalry thing to the next couple levels. I mean, hell... just the other day I looked at P&R and 9 of the 16 threads on the first page were all started by you, and all included "Trump" in the title, and had all been made within the last handful of days. Maybe it's worse because there's not the Lucie diluting your obsession with their obsession.
I mean, this is a thread that calls 1/2 (or 40%, or whatever) of the country anti-American traitors. You don't see a problem with that?
We all know Trump is looking at the bottom line numbers and even if every country pays the 2% of GDP, the US will still be paying for the bulk of NATO Defense Spending.
The US right now is paying over $600 billion compared to Germany's over $30 billion. If everyone pays the 2%, the US will save about $300 billion.
I think the US GDP is up to $19 or $20 trillion and Germany is at around $4 trillion.
The US will pay the most.
What's wrong with everyone paying their "Fair Share"?
Once the US gets that $300 billion, maybe we will get the "Space Force", lol
(07-10-2018, 04:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My partisanship is the side of laughing at hyperbolic hysteria and hypocrisy.
I also thought Lucie's "does this photo finally prove Hillary sacrifices babies to satan?"-style breitbart article posting was equally embarrassing.
You guys have really taken this whole 2 party rivalry thing to the next couple levels. I mean, hell... just the other day I looked at P&R and 9 of the 16 threads on the first page were all started by you, and all included "Trump" in the title, and had all been made within the last handful of days. Maybe it's worse because there's not the Lucie diluting your obsession with their obsession.
I mean, this is a thread that calls 1/2 (or 40%, or whatever) of the country anti-American traitors. You don't see a problem with that?
He's POTUS. He DAILY makes claims that are false. He is under investigation.
The stories SHOULD be about him and not 2012.
If I post something false or wrong just let me know.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-10-2018, 04:25 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: We all know Trump is looking at the bottom line numbers and even if every country pays the 2% of GDP, the US will still be paying for the bulk of NATO Defense Spending.
The US right now is paying over $600 billion compared to Germany's over $30 billion. If everyone pays the 2%, the US will save about $300 billion.
I think the US GDP is up to $19 or $20 trillion and Germany is at around $4 trillion.
The US will pay the most.
What's wrong with everyone paying their "Fair Share"?
Once the US gets that $300 billion, maybe we will get the "Space Force", lol
"Fair share" is a dirty phrase when talking about taxes here.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-10-2018, 04:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My partisanship is the side of laughing at hyperbolic hysteria and hypocrisy.
I also thought Lucie's "does this photo finally prove Hillary sacrifices babies to satan?"-style breitbart article posting was equally embarrassing.
You guys have really taken this whole 2 party rivalry thing to the next couple levels. I mean, hell... just the other day I looked at P&R and 9 of the 16 threads on the first page were all started by you, and all included "Trump" in the title, and had all been made within the last handful of days. Maybe it's worse because there's not the Lucie diluting your obsession with their obsession.
I mean, this is a thread that calls 1/2 (or 40%, or whatever) of the country anti-American traitors. You don't see a problem with that?
I'll accept a defense with actual facts and sources and not "libs hate trump" "Stop talking about Trump" "That (fill in the blank) isn't a real topic to attack Trump on" (there never is with his supporters)...you get the jist.
Many of the fine folks around here (on both sides) back up their assertions with a link or a source. That should be encouraged (maybe especially encouraged) even if it's a longish read or very in depth.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-10-2018, 04:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I missed Lucie; he kept the forum balanced.
I'd contend that it is balanced. Maybe not by thread starters but by those who participate. It could be that some people need to step up on the other side? Maybe they don't care as much since the people they support are in charge? Don't know.
I just post what I find interesting. Participation in the thread is voluntary.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-10-2018, 02:52 PM)Millhouse Wrote: To be fair, I remember Mitt Romney calling out Russia during the 2012 campaign debates, and criticizing the Obama administration and others for not being more critical. He considered Russia the U.S.'s number 1 political enemy in the world.
Now I am not defending Trump here or others in the GOP, but when the GOP candidate of 2012 debated with Obama on this, but taking the very anti-Russian side, it should be noted.
Point well made.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(07-10-2018, 04:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My partisanship is the side of laughing at hyperbolic hysteria and hypocrisy.
I also thought Lucie's "does this photo finally prove Hillary sacrifices babies to satan?"-style breitbart article posting was equally embarrassing.
You guys have really taken this whole 2 party rivalry thing to the next couple levels. I mean, hell... just the other day I looked at P&R and 9 of the 16 threads on the first page were all started by you, and all included "Trump" in the title, and had all been made within the last handful of days. Maybe it's worse because there's not the Lucie diluting your obsession with their obsession.
I mean, this is a thread that calls 1/2 (or 40%, or whatever) of the country anti-American traitors. You don't see a problem with that?
When Trump and his supporters quit fawning all over Putin.... The love fest should disgust any true American. Republicans secretly meeting in Moscow, Trump going into the summit alone with no help against Putin. Kim played Trump. KIM of all people. Putin is about to run circles around him and get all the American Intel, and no one will be in there to stop Trump. All it'll take is a compliment. This should scare everyone. He already gave the Russians some significant Israeli intel. Imagine what he's about to give up to Putin not understanding the significance of what he'll tell.
Say what you want about Obama, but he nor the Democratic party never admired and preferred Putin over any POTUS regardless of party like you guys do/have. Treacherous.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(07-10-2018, 05:16 PM)jj22 Wrote: When Trump and his supporters quit fawning all over Putin.... The love fest should disgust any true American. Republicans secretly meeting in Moscow, Trump going into the summit alone with no help against Putin. Kim played Trump. KIM of all people. Putin is about to run circles around him and get all the American Intel, and no one will be in there to stop Trump. All it'll take is a compliment. This should scare everyone. He already gave the Russians some significant Israeli intel. Imagine what he's about to give up to Putin not understanding the significance of what he'll tell.
Say what you want about Obama, but he nor the Democratic party never admired and preferred Putin over any POTUS regardless of party like you guys do/have. Treacherous.
Nope just Gorbachev over Reagan. Everyone should just be like me, and assume any Russian leader is a POS.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(07-10-2018, 04:25 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: We all know Trump is looking at the bottom line numbers and even if every country pays the 2% of GDP, the US will still be paying for the bulk of NATO Defense Spending.
The US right now is paying over $600 billion compared to Germany's over $30 billion. If everyone pays the 2%, the US will save about $300 billion.
I think the US GDP is up to $19 or $20 trillion and Germany is at around $4 trillion.
The US will pay the most.
What's wrong with everyone paying their "Fair Share"?
Once the US gets that $300 billion, maybe we will get the "Space Force", lol
These numbers are not correct.
US military spending is $600 billion for the ENTIRE WORLD. We spend well under 2% of our military budget on NATO. If all NATO countries spent 2% on defense we would not get any refund or money back in any way. Most NATO countries don't spend 2% on defense because they do not consider themselves the world police who have to have tens of thousands of troops in east Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific.
(07-10-2018, 06:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: These numbers are not correct.
US military spending is $600 billion for the ENTIRE WORLD. We spend well under 2% of our military budget on NATO. If all NATO countries spent 2% on defense we would not get any refund or money back in any way. Most NATO countries don't spend 2% on defense because they do not consider themselves the world police who have to have tens of thousands of troops in east Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific.
So you don't think all members of NATO should pay the targeted 2% or are you just saying?
My understanding is that it is 2% of the GDP not the Military Spending for the ENTIRE WORLD.
(07-10-2018, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you don't think all members of NATO should pay the targeted 2% or are you just saying?
My understanding is that it is 2% of the GDP not the Military Spending for the ENTIRE WORLD.
I am saying that counting the entire US military budget ($600 million) to NATO spending is incorrect. That money is spread out all across the world.
I suppose all NATO countries should spend 2%, but we are not paying as big of a share on NATO as some people claim. And even if the other NATO countries all spent 2% we would not get anything back. We would still spend just as much worldwide as we do right now.
(07-10-2018, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am saying that counting the entire US military budget ($600 million) to NATO spending is incorrect. That money is spread out all across the world.
I suppose all NATO countries should spend 2%, but we are not paying as big of a share on NATO as some people claim. And even if the other NATO countries all spent 2% we would not get anything back. We would still spend just as much worldwide as we do right now.
We pay around 22% of the direct funding to NATO, The problem comes with indirect funding. For instance Germany pays the second most in NATO direct funding, but it only commits 1.2% of their GDP to Military Spending. So that may explain why France and England were the 2 countries to join us in the bombing of Syria. Germany couldn't afford the gas.
(07-10-2018, 04:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: He's POTUS. He DAILY makes claims that are false. He is under investigation.
The stories SHOULD be about him and not 2012.
If I post something false or wrong just let me know.
Yeah, normally I'd be one to call for some sanity but we were sick of electing boring politicians so we instead elected an ultra-celebrity who bases his entirely livelihood around being as over the top as possible so it's hard to wonder why stuff started getting so crazy from 2016 onward.
This makes me wonder who the most "holy crap, this person is president?!" person the left-wing could fire back with after the Trump era is done. Tom Cruise comes to mind, but there has to be a more insane lefty celebrity nutbag out there that I'm not thinking of at the moment. Maybe there is a future president we can all accept and respect and not make a big deal about on this list? Hmm, I'm looking at Jane Fonda. There we go...imagine the left-wing going ape and putting Jane Fonda in office and then wondering why half the country is constantly talking about what an insane president we have.
(07-10-2018, 07:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, normally I'd be one to call for some sanity but we were sick of electing boring politicians so we instead elected an ultra-celebrity who bases his entirely livelihood around being as over the top as possible so it's hard to wonder why stuff started getting so crazy from 2016 onward.
This makes me wonder who the most "holy crap, this person is president?!" person the left-wing could fire back with after the Trump era is done. Tom Cruise comes to mind, but there has to be a more insane lefty celebrity nutbag out there that I'm not thinking of at the moment. Maybe there is a future president we can all accept and respect and not make a big deal about on this list? Hmm, I'm looking at Jane Fonda. There we go...imagine the left-wing going ape and putting Jane Fonda in office and then wondering why half the country is constantly talking about what an insane president we have.
(07-10-2018, 07:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, normally I'd be one to call for some sanity but we were sick of electing boring politicians so we instead elected an ultra-celebrity who bases his entirely livelihood around being as over the top as possible so it's hard to wonder why stuff started getting so crazy from 2016 onward.
This makes me wonder who the most "holy crap, this person is president?!" person the left-wing could fire back with after the Trump era is done. Tom Cruise comes to mind, but there has to be a more insane lefty celebrity nutbag out there that I'm not thinking of at the moment. Maybe there is a future president we can all accept and respect and not make a big deal about on this list? Hmm, I'm looking at Jane Fonda. There we go...imagine the left-wing going ape and putting Jane Fonda in office and then wondering why half the country is constantly talking about what an insane president we have.
Alec Baldwin. With his temper it could be quite entertaining.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(07-10-2018, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course he should, He could point to those being redirected to fund things stateside such as the VA and/or homeland security/border security.
I wrote my response hastily,
...and my current answer was awful. Yeah Europe should spend more on defense.
(07-10-2018, 04:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My partisanship is the side of laughing at hyperbolic hysteria and hypocrisy.
I also thought Lucie's "does this photo finally prove Hillary sacrifices babies to satan?"-style breitbart article posting was equally embarrassing.
I get what you're saying, but that's still unfair. One can't possibly place these threads on the same level as "Hillarys satanic baby" stances. I don't care about Trump's driver either, but at least it's not completely made up stuff.
(07-10-2018, 03:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: "Gov. Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida. You said Russia ... the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years," Obama said.
(2012)
(also 2012)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Yet oddly, you weren't furiously jerking yourself raw in a virtue signaling frenzy then. Why?
Ohhhh i forgot we are living the god damn twilightzone.
What year was Crimea invaded? What year did Russia have a massive effort to interfere in our election. When was Russia jamming our war machines and helping Syria counter us. When were we made aware of Russias efforts to undermine us in Afghanistan. When was it Russia bragged about undetectable nukes?
Obama handling the russian threat with kid gloves was probably his biggest blunder. Now a more bold russia has an American president on his knees giddy with joy and his mouth wide open.
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
I wrote my response hastily, 
