Paul gets booed at the debate...my thoughts.

Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#77
God damn I'm going to attack this thread tomorrow if I remember. I have way too much to say to spend the time to do it right at 3am.

I do have one question, though, is nikoloslvy a Marine or is Don extending the movie quote bit? Because I would find it fascinating that he and Josh are on opposite sides of this issue, and they're both Marines.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#78
gentleman gentleman....please....

(thank you don.i understand but i dont like to use that to shut people up.thats why i dont advertise it.most folks on here would respect that to a fault and give me way to much room. never good for debate.i again thank you though.)
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#79
Because I would find it fascinating that he and Josh are on opposite sides of this issue, and they're both Marines.
i dont want to have that debate with him in public if thats the case.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#80
gentleman gentleman....please....

(thank you don.i understand but i dont like to use that to shut people up.thats why i dont advertise it.most folks on here would respect that to a fault and give me way to much room. never good for debate.i again thank you though.)
So you're either now or a former Marine? Confirm or deny, sir.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#81
i dont want to have that debate with him in public if thats the case.
I posted that before I saw this.

Yes, Josh is also a Marine.

There's no reason this has to be a junk-yard dog fight, man, I'm just saying that it's very interesting how you have such opposing viewpoints and such similar associations with the topic.

This has been a very tame thread with a lot of good viewpoints on both sides, and we have some no bullshit experts in you, NeonTaster, Josh, etc. No reason it can't continue, it's just a good idea some times to identify the people who really have some insight to a thread.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#82
its not the possible incivility that gets me.just seems a lil unprofessional.this has been a good thread though(no thanks to my rambling incoherence).
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#83
its not the possible incivility that gets me.just seems a lil unprofessional.this has been a good thread though(no thanks to my rambling incoherence).
I was just talking to the wife about this tonight at length...

Conflict != incivility. No conversation produces anything when everyone's on the same side. A good measure of respectable conflict is good for conversation.

We all respect each other in here, it's all good. (As long as MagicBob doesn't chime in)
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,923
121
753
#84
I was just talking to the wife about this tonight at length...

Conflict != incivility. No conversation produces anything when everyone's on the same side. A good measure of respectable conflict is good for conversation.

We all respect each other in here, it's all good. (As long as MagicBob doesn't chime in)
im not making myself clear(per usual).i think it may be unprofessional for two members of the armed services to use their experience to do a civilian policy battle in public (however civil the discourse it may be).
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#85
i think it may be unprofessional for two members of the armed services to use their experience to do a civilian policy battle in public (however civil the discourse it may be).
I don't think it's a problem. We almost certainly had different experiences in the Marine Corps, and I don't think that I (or you) are trying to portray ourselves as policy experts due to our military experience. "I'm a Marine, so I know more about this than you do" is not my platform. Especially since I was a helicopter mechanic who never saw any combat. My point is that my military experience is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, other than the fact that we see first hand the results of the War on Terror.
well we can definitely say when we lost cant we.these are immaterial points that are strategic and tactical questions.maybe even good ones.they however are not the cause for the start and end of wars my friend.
How do we know when we have lost the war? When all of America is speaking Farsi and praying to Allah because the terrorists have taken over? Of course that will never happen. Have we lost when it takes the greatest military on earth more than 10 years to defeat a bunch of cave dwelling goat herders (no disrespect for the military, it's not their fault)? I don't see how it is so ridiculous to define what it means to have "won" the war before we started, or at least some time after we are years into it. How can one succeed at anything if there is no definition of success? "We'll know it when we see it" is not a great policy for fighting a war.


why oh why oh why will no one read kirpatrick....yes and we doubted our mission in somila to if you remember...we pick our battles based on American interest.you may disagree as to what those interests are but that is the baseline.there is none in libia except the death of daff duck whixh the cic has taken off the table.
How did Somalia work out for us? Seems to me it turned into a cesspool of terrorists and pirates despite our intervention. What did we get out of it? Millions of dollars spent and a bunch of dead soldiers.

how is the us army gonna protect you from terrorism on the domestic front? scare em off planes? guard that border real good are ya?
Well, the premise is that not having the military in foreign countries will lessen the hatred for us that is (in part) causing the terrorism. Fewer troops deployed overseas means more funds and skilled personnel are available to guard the borders. Hell if you want to be facetious about the army guarding the borders, why not just build a giant base along the the whole border and station all the troops formerly deployed overseas there? At least this way they aren't getting killed, and they are spending their paychecks in America rather than supporting the economies of Germany, Italy, Japan, England...


In 2008 and 2009, the federal government spent tax dollars at a frenzied pace to try to rescue the financial markets from its own mismanagement. Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP which obama voted for) outlays could reach $1 trillion or 7 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product...

...yeah its not the wars.they have nothing to do with the housing crisis/economic meltdown.
We agree on this. You probably haven't read a lot of my posts, so you may not know that I disagree with almost everything the government spends money on. Although the wars had nothing to do with the economic downturn, it's still money we don't have that has to be paid for somehow.

how much does it cost to kill the threat? i dunno...is it less of a threat because it costs more money? no.
Cost benefit analysis, my friend. I recently read an article that showed that you are four times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be involved in a terrorist attack. Now, this is not to say that terrorism is not a threat, but at some point in time we need to assess whether our money is being spent wisely and whether or not there are alternatives that could produce the same or better results for less money and fewer American lives. Let's say for instance instead of fighting them over there which is dangerous and costly, what if we invest a shiltload more into making sure a fucking field mouse can't sneak into the country without someone knowing about it? At least our brothers aren't giving their precious lives in the second scenario.


you dont see a problem with a nuclear armed iran? they can get a nuke but no ICBM'S(today) huh..
I do see a problem with a nuclear armed Iran... for Israel and the rest of Europe. I think they have a much bigger interest in making sure Iran is unarmed than we do. So should we be the guys who attacks them, thus further enraging the Muslim world? Or should we let Israel and those who are actually in danger make that choice? I'm not saying it's not a problem for anyone, I just don't think it's any of our business unless they attempt to attack us. Maybe instead of starting yet another war with a Muslim country, we should improve our defenses so that it doesn't really matter who has a nuke. Make it impossible to attack America. It's not impossible now, and we have been fighting them for a decade.

i dont see iran on a global stage with a nuke working out very well for the M.E.who cares? well when shit goes bad over there they have a tendency to drag it over here regardless of how many troops we have overseas.a nuclear armed iran will be a player and not one im comfortable with.you may be.
Whether or not I or America is "comfortable" with Iran's domestic policy is irrelevant. Are we "comfortable" with Pakistan having nukes? They were the ones harboring Bin Laden while taking billions of our dollars in foreign aid, and I don't hear anyone talking about attacking them. It's none of our fucking business unless they attempt to harm us. That's like asking if I am comfortable with you having a concealed carry permit (which I am all for, just using it as an example). It's irrelevant what I feel because it is your right and I have no legitimate grounds to push my opinion on you. If I am uncomfortable with your exercise of your rights, I don't take your rights away, I make sure that I am prepared and am able to defend myself against you. Iran is a sovereign nation and has just as much right to a nuclear weapon (which they claim they are not even interested in) as Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Russia, and the United States do.


sir!!!!...who on this board was for mccain?...not i.not don.i know its not your fault for not paying attention to us during our primary season but we were not for mccain.
I wan't saying that anyone here was for McCain. My point was that people attack Ron Paul without knowing, or more appropriately, understanding, his policies. When I said that I heard people say ""I agree with everything he is saying, but John McCain is the only one who can beat Obama", I meant that in real life conversation, not on Wackbag. I was also commenting on the fact that I am not delusional about the fact that Ron Paul will almost certainly not be the next President, but he would have had a much better chance if people had followed what they felt about his policies, rather than just voting for the guy that the news said could win.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#86
He's a little guy, but he's also a Marine. He can call you "son" all he wants.
Didn't realize he was a marine and he gets my respect for that, but that doesn't give him the right to call me "son." I realize now it was meant as a joke and it went over my head but the point still stands. And it sounds like he would consider it an insult if I just granted him blanket immunity from attacking his points just because he's a vet.

Maybe it's just me, but if you're going to debate lofty topics like this (and expend as much time and passion as he does), I just think you should try and put in a tiny bit of effort to type it out at least halfway decent. I realize it's a message board about a show that likes making dick jokes, but it's just one of those things that bugs me.