Political Discussions for "Adults"

~~patrice oneal~~ · 07-15-2017, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Devaluation.

please elaborate.

OccultHawk · 07-15-2017, 08:50 PM

You go bankrupt two ways: real slowly then all at once. Once we default or over exploit quantative easing the dollar collapses and we're left in a condition of hyper-inflation. The super rich will know it's coming and already be invested in foreign currency. We'll be left with our dicks in our hands.

~~patrice oneal~~ · 07-15-2017, 09:01 PM

well i don't know much about any of that

but i do know that the military is only half of that pie chart

and i also know that its so hard to fight the "military industrial complex" in congress in part because many districts would see a loss of jobs if that spending was cut

i'm not even necessarily against the idea of tightening down and trying to cut costs where it's efficient to do so. but in terms of grand strategy... being a military superpower is a plus. a big plus. that is why our main rivals in the world our russia and china. because they are the only two who even come close to competing with us.

so reverting to a much more insular, isolationist approach where we only allocate the necessary funds to "defend the country" rather than to defend all our strategic interests abroad... i can't see how that wouldn't take away from our current spot on the global totem pole. to me it sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it too

OccultHawk · 07-15-2017, 09:34 PM

Being a pretend military power isn't doing me any good, personally.

RoxyRollah · 07-16-2017, 03:37 AM

You guys figure out Patrice O'Neal was J.W.B?

OccultHawk · 07-16-2017, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Very disingenuous argument

The US is way past being a military power and into total overkill it's not an exaggeration to say we could half our military and still be nothing to **** with

The Taliban still exist. Kim Jung Un does whatever he wants. ISIS probably has spent less than a fraction of 1% or what we spend in a day but we can't wipe them out. Our military is designed to fight a style of warfare that doesn't exist anymore. If it's so mighty and powerful show me an example of a successful military conclusion over the last 50 years.

DwnWthVwls · 07-16-2017, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxyRollah

You guys figure out Patrice O'Neal was J.W.B?

Of course, he makes no attempts to hide it. Hi Roxy.

Trollheart · 07-16-2017, 02:51 PM

What do you guys think of the concept of embedding? I watched a programme recently where reporters admitted that they're basically told what they can report, where they can go (which is probably for the best, with their safety in mind) and though they didn't say it, I'd wonder if the footage they get is highly editorialised by the army before being released. Still, it's long been said that the Vietnam War was lost in the sitting rooms of America, as every evening audiences watched the bodies of dead GIs coming home. So is reporting from the warzone a good idea, and if so, is embedding the way to go, or should reporters be allowed to go where they want, if they agree to take the risk? How sanitised is the version of the truth we get from embedded reporters? Does anyone have opinions either for or against?

RoxyRollah · 07-16-2017, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Of course, he makes no attempts to hide it. Hi Roxy.

Very true...what's up pumpkin

RoxyRollah · 07-16-2017, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

What do you guys think of the concept of embedding? I watched a programme recently where reporters admitted that they're basically told what they can report, where they can go (which is probably for the best, with their safety in mind) and though they didn't say it, I'd wonder if the footage they get is highly editorialised by the army before being released. Still, it's long been said that the Vietnam War was lost in the sitting rooms of America, as every evening audiences watched the bodies of dead GIs coming home. So is reporting from the warzone a good idea, and if so, is embedding the way to go, or should reporters be allowed to go where they want, if they agree to take the risk? How sanitised is the version of the truth we get from embedded reporters? Does anyone have opinions either for or against?

Who doesn't love corporate controlled media and regurgitated talking points....?

07-15-2017, 08:50 PM	#232 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,033	You go bankrupt two ways: real slowly then all at once. Once we default or over exploit quantative easing the dollar collapses and we're left in a condition of hyper-inflation. The super rich will know it's coming and already be invested in foreign currency. We'll be left with our dicks in our hands. __________________ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND: https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

07-15-2017, 09:34 PM	#234 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,033	Being a pretend military power isn't doing me any good, personally. __________________ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND: https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

07-16-2017, 02:51 PM	#238 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,970	What do you guys think of the concept of embedding? I watched a programme recently where reporters admitted that they're basically told what they can report, where they can go (which is probably for the best, with their safety in mind) and though they didn't say it, I'd wonder if the footage they get is highly editorialised by the army before being released. Still, it's long been said that the Vietnam War was lost in the sitting rooms of America, as every evening audiences watched the bodies of dead GIs coming home. So is reporting from the warzone a good idea, and if so, is embedding the way to go, or should reporters be allowed to go where they want, if they agree to take the risk? How sanitised is the version of the truth we get from embedded reporters? Does anyone have opinions either for or against? __________________ Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

07-15-2017, 09:01 PM	#233 (permalink)
~~patrice oneal~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 18	well i don't know much about any of that but i do know that the military is only half of that pie chart and i also know that its so hard to fight the "military industrial complex" in congress in part because many districts would see a loss of jobs if that spending was cut i'm not even necessarily against the idea of tightening down and trying to cut costs where it's efficient to do so. but in terms of grand strategy... being a military superpower is a plus. a big plus. that is why our main rivals in the world our russia and china. because they are the only two who even come close to competing with us. so reverting to a much more insular, isolationist approach where we only allocate the necessary funds to "defend the country" rather than to defend all our strategic interests abroad... i can't see how that wouldn't take away from our current spot on the global totem pole. to me it sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it too