First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Why do people think they deserve a free ride off of others work
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/19/10 , edited 7/19/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

Those are the reasons why we went into Afghanistan, we're the ones who started the war in Iraq because they might be a threat (and for oil), which, as I said before, is stupid because we'd have to wage a war on everyone who might be a threat, including America itself.


Nah, you wouldn't have to at all. The world doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to follow any logical anything, it just does.


I know we need to use military force to stop terrorists, but that only justifies us initially going into Afghanistan, although there is still no legitimate reason why Obama sent another 30,000 troops, on top of however many were already there, to stop 100 or less guys.


Virtually nothing anyone does every makes much sense anyway.


We didn't go into Iraq because of terrorists or nukes, it was proven years ago that the whole WMDs, Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda, and almost every other claim made by the Bush administration was a lie meant to scare us into supporting the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Criticisms_of_the_rationale_for_the_Iraq_war


Lol, nice.

I notice it said it violated international law. No big surpize, international law doesn't really mean anything anyway. In the real world in a conflict nobody would follow it anyway. Like with a nuclear war, there are international laws against MIRVS((Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) a single missile that carries multiple warheads that can each strike an indepentant target) and first strikes and such, but if a real conflict was going to break out nobody would follow that and they would use / do those things anyway. International law is nice, but it won't stop anyone from doing something.


IMO we should reduce military presence in Afghanistan because, as you and I both agree, thousands of troops for 100 guys is overkill. We should also have a plan for gradually withdrawing from Iraq. I don't know the current state of the country, but I'm sure we've done too much damage to just withdraw everyone instantly. But, as of now, there are no plans to do either.


Meh, you could always withdraw instantly and let the entire country collapse. And there probably won't be any plans to withdraw anytime soon. So might as well get over it, the only way you could make withdrawl happen, is to force it to happen, and good luck with that.

Generally speaking words accomplish nothing. Only action accomplishes. And more specifically only forceful action accomplishes, peaceful action generally accomplishes nil.


I never have and never will supported the idea of letting terrorists run free and nuke everyone, but I also do not support the idea of invading every country that might have terrorists in it. Unless it can be proven beyond all doubt that a country is a threat to our safety or the safety of our allies, there is no reason for us to go to war with them.


Then you would support the destruction of irans missile programs and nuclear programs. its not that hard to figure out 1 + 1 = 2.

Bah i forget the name of it, its like the Shiite-3 or something, is capable of getting past ABM missiles apparently, if terrorists(or anyone else for that matter) were to get their hands on that, they could nuke any city they wanted to. I think its a mini cluster bomb missile but i can't remember, but no reason it couldn't be evolved to carry nuclear or multiple nuclear bombs. If if it can deploy warhead/s that can get past an ABM missile, then no location/s within range of the missile is safe, and missiles are portable.

But in reality any country that isn't made of weak fags, the second it detects an incoming missile would shoot it down(or attempt to) and would retaliate with missiles or their own. Or at least I hope they(we) would. doing nothing and allowing yourself to get nuked and not retaliating with nukes of your own is dumb and will only lead to your destruction.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/20/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
I think they started the war by flying a plane into a building. Actually you could go so far as to say they started it in 1993 when they tried to blow up the trade center with a car bomb in teh basement.


Those are the reasons why we went into Afghanistan, we're the ones who started the war in Iraq because they might be a threat (and for oil), which, as I said before, is stupid because we'd have to wage a war on everyone who might be a threat, including America itself.


You say terrorists need to be stopped, but at the same time you want to end the war ? It doesn't quite work like that, the only thing that will stop them is some kind of force, They are not people who you can simply talk it out with. May not need an outright invasion, but some kind of force is required.

You really only have 2 options

A. Use some kind of force to stop them from acquiring and thus using nuclear weapons to kill people.
B. Don't use force and sit back and allow them to acquire nuclear weapons and thus use them to kill people

There is no option C.


I know we need to use military force to stop terrorists, but that only justifies us initially going into Afghanistan, although there is still no legitimate reason why Obama sent another 30,000 troops, on top of however many were already there, to stop 100 or less guys.

We didn't go into Iraq because of terrorists or nukes, it was proven years ago that the whole WMDs, Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda, and almost every other claim made by the Bush administration was a lie meant to scare us into supporting the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Criticisms_of_the_rationale_for_the_Iraq_war


IMO we should reduce military presence in Afghanistan because, as you and I both agree, thousands of troops for 100 guys is overkill. We should also have a plan for gradually withdrawing from Iraq. I don't know the current state of the country, but I'm sure we've done too much damage to just withdraw everyone instantly. But, as of now, there are no plans to do either.

I never have and never will supported the idea of letting terrorists run free and nuke everyone, but I also do not support the idea of invading every country that might have terrorists in it. Unless it can be proven beyond all doubt that a country is a threat to our safety or the safety of our allies, there is no reason for us to go to war with them.




How in the world can you take do people deserve a free ride and turn it into the war bull again. Man One track mind. Put away the drugs and the tie dye t-shirts will you.
1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 7/22/10 , edited 7/22/10
It is all because of standard deviation, you cannot have a standard deviation that cuts of at a certain point of wealth.

In a way, you are only living comfortably, because they are living shit. You can't have everyone with the same wealth and lifestyle.
There will always be someone coming last. That is actually a good thing, because if you remove everyone behind you, you will be last.
So in a way they are being poor FOR you.

So spread the money and be grateful, it will circulate and come back to you and even make the economy better, because you are taxing all the big companies and rich dudes and putting the money right at the bottom of the hierarchy and letting it flow up.
If you didn't, the money would stay at the top with the upper class, because the net flow of money is poor -> rich







OHHH YEAA !!!!! and I don't even study business or economics


























5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/23/10 , edited 7/23/10

tarakelly wrote:

How in the world can you take do people deserve a free ride and turn it into the war bull again. Man One track mind. Put away the drugs and the tie dye t-shirts will you.


I don't know how we got off topic, but the fact that I'm able to see connections between various issues and stray away from the main topic is proof that I don't have a one-track mind. So if you're going to insult me, do it right.

Also, I never have and never will do any drugs, including alcohol and OTC drugs, nor do I like tie-dye t-shirts. So, again, if you're going to insult me, do it right. I may be spouting hippie ideals, but I definitely don't live like one.

It's funny how you can't offer any substantiative counter-arguments to my points, so all you do is resort to baseless ad-hominem. Don't bother quoting me if you're too close-minded and butt hurt to have a logical, reasonable discussion.



Daniel9878 wrote:

It is all because of standard deviation, you cannot have a standard deviation that cuts of at a certain point of wealth.

In a way, you are only living comfortably, because they are living shit. You can't have everyone with the same wealth and lifestyle.
There will always be someone coming last. That is actually a good thing, because if you remove everyone behind you, you will be last.
So in a way they are being poor FOR you.

So spread the money and be grateful, it will circulate and come back to you and even make the economy better, because you are taxing all the big companies and rich dudes and putting the money right at the bottom of the hierarchy and letting it flow up.
If you didn't, the money would stay at the top with the upper class, because the net flow of money is poor -> rich


Unfortunately so many people are too self-absorbed to realize that. They think every poor person is in that situation because they are lazy bums who don't want to work, and they think all those people have been handed the same opportunities in life, so they should all be able to become wealthy too if they just work hard enough. It's unfortunate how out of touch with reality some people are.


Allhailodin wrote:

Nah, you wouldn't have to at all. The world doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to follow any logical anything, it just does.


This sentence doesn't really make sense, but I guess that proves your point. But if you don't expect the government to be logical and reasonable, then why get mad at them when they do something that seems unfair to you? Why protest anything they do if you can just say "oh well, the world doesn't have to make sense?"



I notice it said it violated international law. No big surpize, international law doesn't really mean anything anyway. In the real world in a conflict nobody would follow it anyway. Like with a nuclear war, there are international laws against MIRVS((Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) a single missile that carries multiple warheads that can each strike an indepentant target) and first strikes and such, but if a real conflict was going to break out nobody would follow that and they would use / do those things anyway. International law is nice, but it won't stop anyone from doing something.


So we shouldn't have any laws at all because there will always be people who break them? Just let everyone rape and steal and kill without any legal consequences?


. Generally speaking words accomplish nothing. Only action accomplishes. And more specifically only forceful action accomplishes, peaceful action generally accomplishes nil.


Wow you are really out of touch with reality. So I guess in your mind we gained all of our allies by bombing them into oblivion first.


Then you would support the destruction of irans missile programs and nuclear programs. its not that hard to figure out 1 + 1 = 2.

Bah i forget the name of it, its like the Shiite-3 or something, is capable of getting past ABM missiles apparently, if terrorists(or anyone else for that matter) were to get their hands on that, they could nuke any city they wanted to. I think its a mini cluster bomb missile but i can't remember, but no reason it couldn't be evolved to carry nuclear or multiple nuclear bombs. If if it can deploy warhead/s that can get past an ABM missile, then no location/s within range of the missile is safe, and missiles are portable.


Honestly I support the destruction of all missile and nuclear programs in the world, including America's. We have no right to tell other countries they can't have nukes when we have tons of our own. So if we're going to go around destroying other countries' nukes because someone might set them off, we should destroy our own as well, because as long as we have them then there's a chance a terrorist or someone else could set them off.
maffoo 
79814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / England
Offline
Posted 7/23/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Daniel9878 wrote:

It is all because of standard deviation, you cannot have a standard deviation that cuts of at a certain point of wealth.

In a way, you are only living comfortably, because they are living shit. You can't have everyone with the same wealth and lifestyle.
There will always be someone coming last. That is actually a good thing, because if you remove everyone behind you, you will be last.
So in a way they are being poor FOR you.

So spread the money and be grateful, it will circulate and come back to you and even make the economy better, because you are taxing all the big companies and rich dudes and putting the money right at the bottom of the hierarchy and letting it flow up.
If you didn't, the money would stay at the top with the upper class, because the net flow of money is poor -> rich


Unfortunately so many people are too self-absorbed to realize that. They think every poor person is in that situation because they are lazy bums who don't want to work, and they think all those people have been handed the same opportunities in life, so they should all be able to become wealthy too if they just work hard enough. It's unfortunate how out of touch with reality some people are.


There are some poor people who are lazy, who waste the few opportunities that they are given by not taking their education seriously, then they pass those attitudes on to their offspring. My parents both worked in offices that administered state benefits and they saw certain "benefit families" who fitted the "lazy bum" stereotype.

Granted, these people are a small minority, but the problem is that they are very visible. They stand out like sore thumbs when people walk past Jobcentres, and the media reinforces the stereotype. The people who are on benefits because they have genuinely been made redundant or are physically unable to work don't stand out so they don't change the perception.

As with so many things, it's a minority making the whole lot look bad
Posted 7/23/10

Jjilly101 wrote:

cuz they r spoiled & clueless...
http://hoodlove1.wordpress.com/
This coming from someone with little originality, while relying on others to provide substances. If that's not hypocrisy at its purest then I don't know what is.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/24/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

This sentence doesn't really make sense, but I guess that proves your point. But if you don't expect the government to be logical and reasonable, then why get mad at them when they do something that seems unfair to you? Why protest anything they do if you can just say "oh well, the world doesn't have to make sense?"


My point is, you don't have to do anything because its logical, you can always do illogical stuff instead.


So we shouldn't have any laws at all because there will always be people who break them? Just let everyone rape and steal and kill without any legal consequences?


No my point is, laws / punishments are only deterrents, they do not force people to not break them.


Wow you are really out of touch with reality. So I guess in your mind we gained all of our allies by bombing them into oblivion first.


How about if I give you an example of what I meant:

If you wanted the destruction of all nuclear weapons on earth, words / protesting would never accomplish that, you would have to do it forcefully, against the wills of all nations trying to get them, and against the wills of all nations with them who want to keep them.

Now it obviously doesn't apply to everything, but often i tend to say things in a general sense even when a general sense isn't accurate.


Honestly I support the destruction of all missile and nuclear programs in the world, including America's. We have no right to tell other countries they can't have nukes when we have tons of our own. So if we're going to go around destroying other countries' nukes because someone might set them off, we should destroy our own as well, because as long as we have them then there's a chance a terrorist or someone else could set them off.


Every country in the world will eventually have nukes anyway. The concept behind them is pretty simple. It was just a matter of time before other countries figured it out. All you can do is try to keep them out of terrorists hands.

65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/27/10
Cuddlebuns wished there was away to impress-on you that this health care plain or shame is going to coast you far more then you will understand . At your age you know every about every thing and that is normal for your age. My warnings to you and similar thinking, will not understand for at least a decade in your case maybe two. At this point and time there nothing that can be said to you that would change your mind. The sad part is it is your generation that's going to pay a high price and your standard of living if in the USA will go down. You may just want to stay at your momma house, because the government is going to soak you dry.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.