PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on April 29, 2016, 04:25:21 PM
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/29/glenn-beck-my-campaigning-with-cruz-didnt-cause-layoffs-at-the-blaze-audio/
On the Friday broadcast of his radio show, Glenn Beck revealed that he has lost $500,000 campaigning with Ted Cruz , but said that has nothing to do with the recent firing of 40 of his employees.
-
Shocking. Lucifer continues his obsession with Beck.
Can you point out on the doll where he touched you?
-
That's a lot of money to lose, but it's his money to lose. I'm not a huge Beck fan but I'm glad there are people who are willing to stand on principle for what they believe in, to include with their money. What he did was a lot harder than just joining the Trump bandwagon simply because of his poll numbers and how well he's doing. It concerns me that those who don't support Trump (and won't) are treated as outcasts simply because they don't like Trump or his positions. Again, I'm interested to see how the general election will play out if Trump gets the nomination with regards to his level of support among Republicans. If the party truly unites behind him, he stands a very good chance of beating Hilary (poll numbers aside, we're still pretty far out).
-
That's a lot of money to lose, but it's his money to lose. I'm not a huge Beck fan but I'm glad there are people who are willing to stand on principle for what they believe in, to include with their money. What he did was a lot harder than just joining the Trump bandwagon simply because of his poll numbers and how well he's doing. It concerns me that those who don't support Trump (and won't) are treated as outcasts simply because they don't like Trump or his positions. Again, I'm interested to see how the general election will play out if Trump gets the nomination with regards to his level of support among Republicans. If the party truly unites behind him, he stands a very good chance of beating Hilary (poll numbers aside, we're still pretty far out).
I said back several months ago that Beck was hurting Cruz's campaign. When they finally get around to doing the autopsy of the Cruz campaign it will be a factor that hurt, not helped him.
-
I said back several months ago that Beck was hurting Cruz's campaign. When they finally get around to doing the autopsy of the Cruz campaign it will be a factor that hurt, not helped him.
Why do you think Beck hurt him?
-
Why do you think Beck hurt him?
I'm certain that Beck touched Lucifer in a naughty place, and as such, Lucifer has become obsessed with him.
Trump has plenty of high-profile nutso endorsements, from woman-beater/rapist Mike Tyson to people Trump has himself endorsed like Alex Jones
-
Why do you think Beck hurt him?
Beck is a loon and over the past few years he's gone further and further off the rails. There's been plenty of stories of the crazy remarks Cruz makes in his pleas to voters to support Cruz as well as his grandstanding with Cruz at events.
In my opinion the association has hurt Cruz who has had a difficult time attracting moderate voters.
-
I'm certain that Beck touched Lucifer in a naughty place, and as such, Lucifer has become obsessed with him.
Childish crap like that does nothing to help your credibility.
Nothing.
-
Childish crap like that does nothing to help your credibility.
Nothing.
That's why he is on ignore. He's nothing more than a troll, and a childish one at that.
-
Childish crap like that does nothing to help your credibility.
Nothing.
OK, then.
Why does Lucifer keep bringing Beck up? Because he's started close to a dozen threads just about him. I'm trying to explain his obsession with Beck.
-
That's a lot of money to lose, but it's his money to lose. I'm not a huge Beck fan but I'm glad there are people who are willing to stand on principle for what they believe in, to include with their money. What he did was a lot harder than just joining the Trump bandwagon simply because of his poll numbers and how well he's doing. It concerns me that those who don't support Trump (and won't) are treated as outcasts simply because they don't like Trump or his positions. Again, I'm interested to see how the general election will play out if Trump gets the nomination with regards to his level of support among Republicans. If the party truly unites behind him, he stands a very good chance of beating Hilary (poll numbers aside, we're still pretty far out).
I asked a very good friend of mine, who is a brilliant tax attorney and a strong conservative, why he supports Trump. I also asked him how Trump plans to win over the 2/3rds of Republicans who don't support him.
His answers were lacking IMO, but most disturbing was that his only response for the second question was basically that its Trump's way or the highway.
I wonder if Trump is going to sue us for our lack of support of him. That seems to be what he does when he doesn't get his way.
-
I asked a very good friend of mine, who is a brilliant tax attorney and a strong conservative, why he supports Trump. I also asked him how Trump plans to win over the 2/3rds of Republicans who don't support him.
His answers were lacking IMO, but most disturbing was that his only response for the second question was basically that its Trump's way or the highway.
I wonder if Trump is going to sue us for our lack of support of him. That seems to be what he does when he doesn't get his way.
The problem with some of you anti-Trumpkins is that you refuse to listen to any "content" and then claim there is none. I suspect if we heard from your "brilliant" friend, the description of his answer would be quite different than you relayed.
-
Ask the same questions of Hillary supporters. You will come away highly discouraged at the future of the human race.
-
The problem with some of you anti-Trumpkins is that you refuse to listen to any "content" and then claim there is none. I suspect if we heard from your "brilliant" friend, the description of his answer would be quite different than you relayed.
When does the content start? Seriously.
I watched every single debate, and Fox has covered Trump every time he takes a bowel movement. I hear the same shit over and over and over, virtually bereft of substantive content. What it is full of is a diarrhea of words meant to trigger responses from his audience, including an over abundance of "I" and "me" and very very few "us" and "we."
I will say that I haven't yet seen his foreign policy speech this week. Maybe there will be real content there, but I'm not holding my breath.
-
Beck is a loon and over the past few years he's gone further and further off the rails. There's been plenty of stories of the crazy remarks Cruz makes in his pleas to voters to support Cruz as well as his grandstanding with Cruz at events.
In my opinion the association has hurt Cruz who has had a difficult time attracting moderate voters.
I agree that Beck is a loon but I'm not sure that alone is enough to hurt Cruz. Beck is still very popular and his news network, The Blaze, is still doing fairly well (as in it's still in business as is his TV show). Yes, he's laid some people off but so have a lot of businesses recently.
-
I asked a very good friend of mine, who is a brilliant tax attorney and a strong conservative, why he supports Trump. I also asked him how Trump plans to win over the 2/3rds of Republicans who don't support him.
His answers were lacking IMO, but most disturbing was that his only response for the second question was basically that its Trump's way or the highway.
I wonder if Trump is going to sue us for our lack of support of him. That seems to be what he does when he doesn't get his way.
Most Trump supporters aren't able to clearly articulate positions that Trump has, mainly because he changes them so frequently. I've said it before, Trump is the angry vote, not necessarily the right vote. It's still too early to tell how the general election is going to go, but thus far it's starting to take shape as a Trump vs. Hillary election. If Trump does win the nomination and the general election, I think he'll make good on his promise to go after Hillary.
-
I agree that Beck is a loon but I'm not sure that alone is enough to hurt Cruz. Beck is still very popular and his news network, The Blaze, is still doing fairly well (as in it's still in business as is his TV show). Yes, he's laid some people off but so have a lot of businesses recently.
It's not the sole source that hurt the campaign, but it was a part.
-
I will say that I haven't yet seen his foreign policy speech this week. Maybe there will be real content there, but I'm not holding my breath.
I doubt you will like his foreign policy speech, but many Republicans do:
This is just a "highlight" video.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/28/a_first_gop_leaders_like_trump_speech_130417.html
One thing to think about when listening to Trump is that in order to solve a problem, you first have to admit to and understand what the problem is.
One part of his speech that I like was when he said ISIS"s days are numbered. "I won't tell them when and I won't tell them how" (paraphrasing). Contrast that with Obama and Clinton setting a date for withdrawal (ie, surrender).
-
I've said it before, Trump is the angry vote, not necessarily the right vote.
Don't take this personally because I don't disagree with most of your post: just the part above. That is a very effective piece of the Democrat talking points. The reason it is effective is that like most enduring myths, it does have some basis in truth.
But I am not voting for trump BECAUSE I am angry.
I am voting for Trump because he is angry about the same things I am angry about.
How many people can understand the difference there?
If Trump were merely the choice of the "angry vote" then Jeff and Stan would be firmly in his corner because they are among the angriest people I know.
-
Don't take this personally because I don't disagree with most of your post: just the part above. That is a very effective piece of the Democrat talking points. The reason it is effective is that like most enduring myths, it does have some basis in truth.
But I am not voting for trump BECAUSE I am angry.
I am voting for Trump because he is angry about the same things I am angry about.
How many people can understand the difference there?
If Trump were merely the choice of the "angry vote" then Jeff and Stan would be firmly in his corner because they are among the angriest people I know.
You obviously don't know me, but when it comes to giving the GOP nomination to the most liberal republican candidate ever, who I guarantee has never read the Constitution and has no reverence for the document, who has never, even once during this campaign spoken about such things as freedom and liberty, and is a bigger ego maniacal narcissist than even our current president, yea, I'm angry.
-
Don't take this personally because I don't disagree with most of your post: just the part above. That is a very effective piece of the Democrat talking points. The reason it is effective is that like most enduring myths, it does have some basis in truth.
But I am not voting for trump BECAUSE I am angry.
I am voting for Trump because he is angry about the same things I am angry about.
How many people can understand the difference there?
If Trump were merely the choice of the "angry vote" then Jeff and Stan would be firmly in his corner because they are among the angriest people I know.
There are a lot of Trump supporters who are voting for him because they are angry. They cannot clearly tell you what positions they support of his. They are more likely to tell you that he won't tolerate the B.S. anymore and he speaks his mind, which is what appeals to them and "what we need". While there are certainly people who have a better grasp on his positions (yourself included), I would argue that's the minority, not the majority.
I understand the difference you are talking about and there is a lot of truth in it. I think that video by Andrew Klavan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsHUPqhAGrk) is spot on for summing up the Trump vote.
-
You obviously don't know me, but when it comes to giving the GOP nomination to the most liberal republican candidate ever, who I guarantee has never read the Constitution and has no reverence for the document, who has never, even once during this campaign spoken about such things as freedom and liberty, and is a bigger ego maniacal narcissist than even our current president, yea, I'm angry.
I, too, am concerned by his lack of discussion about the Constitution and liberty and freedom in his speeches. It is those things, and ideas, that have allowed him to be successful and enjoy the life he is able to have. It is another reason why I have a hard time supporting him. The Democrats don't talk about it either because they know the limitations it places on the government, which they don't like. I would really like to think that that is not the same reason Trump isn't talking about, but I'm not sure at this point.
-
Hillary = guaranteed more Obama style communism, and four far left Supreme Court Justices and abolishment of the 2A.
Trump = ????
I will go with the guy that at least likes Capitalism, and says the right things about the Second Amendment.
-
Hillary = guaranteed more Obama style communism, and four far left Supreme Court Justices and abolishment of the 2A.
Trump = ????
I will go with the guy that at least likes Capitalism, and says the right things about the Second Amendment.
. . . And a guy that believes in a strong America that is actually willing and able to defend that Constitution that we cherish so much.
-
. . . And a guy that believes in a strong America that is actually willing and able to defend that Constitution that we cherish so much.
Citation needed. I've never heard him say one good word about the Constitution and a lot about how he personally will fix things (showing a complete lack of understanding of how the Constitution, federalism or separation of powers, work.
-
Citation needed. I've never heard him say one good word about the Constitution and a lot about how he personally will fix things (showing a complete lack of understanding of how the Constitution, federalism or separation of powers, work.
He often talks about the Second Amendment, and keeping it in tact. That's in the Constitution, right? He also talks about national defense. That's in the Constitution also. How about secured borders?
-
Citation needed. I've never heard him say one good word about the Constitution and a lot about how he personally will fix things (showing a complete lack of understanding of how the Constitution, federalism or separation of powers, work.
He has often said we need a strong America so that can defend ourselves. He didn't list, and I don't expect a list, of all the issues we need to defend, but without a strong America, how can we defend the Constitution? The Constitution IS the Constitution. We have it and as long as we are able to defend it, we can keep it.
Where does Cruz stand on Defense? I will look it up, but if you can explain your interpretation of his position on defense, I will definitely consider it.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/20/how-trump-could-restore-constitutional-government/
A Donald Trump presidential nomination is the current nightmare of Republicans, both conservative and establishment. A noted conservative has written that “a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would also mean the loss of … a conservative party as a constant presence in U.S. politics.” Another critic writes, gloomily: “If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be.” Establishment Republicans probably agree. Both groups would wake up the day after election day and say, “DONALD WHO?!”
Perhaps. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Republicans should be brave and see a Trump nomination as an opportunity, not a disaster; as a crisis that should be managed, not wasted. True, that contortion would require thinking that Hillary Clinton would be a worse president than Trump. For a variety of reasons, having to do with government structure, personnel, and legacies — as well as Hllry Clntn’s chractr (sorry, someone stole some of the letters) — that is surely true.
-
Ok. I looked it up (briefly).
Cruz does promote a stronger military and action against our enemies. And I believe that he has a much clearer picture of our enemies than Obama does.
He says things like "Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age."
But he also says things like " No, ISIS and Iran haven't declared war on America. (Dec 2015)". And while that is true, that doesn't man they are not "waging" war on America.
-
Hillary = guaranteed more Obama style communism, and four far left Supreme Court Justices and abolishment of the 2A.
Trump = ????
I will go with the guy that at least likes Capitalism, and says the right things about the Second Amendment TODAY. AFTER NOVEMBER HE'LL BE "FLEXIBLE."
FTFY
-
Hell, Trump is more about Cronyism than Capitalism. He completely corrupt, and uses money to buy influence.
-
Stan, I understand all that, but with Hillary we get a GUARANTEE of more Obama, with Trump at least there is a chance of better policies. I know it is the lesser of two evils again, but that's my thought.
-
Stan, I understand all that, but with Hillary we get a GUARANTEE of more Obama, with Trump at least there is a chance of better policies. I know it is the lesser of two evils again, but that's my thought.
Understood.
-
FTFY
So you PREFER a President that has stated that she doesn't think our Constitution is a good model for other countries?
You PREFER a President that has actually shown her opposition to the principles of the Constitution?
You Prefer a President that is under criminal investigation?
Got it. If you can't have it all, you don't want any of it and to hell with everyone else.
-
Got it. If you can't have it all, you don't want any of it and to hell with everyone else.
Now you are seeing the mantra of the far right ideologues.
-
So you PREFER a President that has stated that she doesn't think our Constitution is a good model for other countries?
You PREFER a President that has actually shown her opposition to the principles of the Constitution?
You Prefer a President that is under criminal investigation?
Got it. If you can't have it all, you don't want any of it and to hell with everyone else.
NOPE. I'd PREFER someone who isn't an actor demanding that we all participate in his personal world's largest reality show. He's memorized his lines, but sometimes he falls back to his personal beliefs which are decidedly liberal.
I'd also PREFER that some people would open their eyes and see that, before it's too late.
-
Now you are seeing the mantra of the far right ideologues.
If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything.
-
If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything.
I believe in a lot of things, however I don't buy the bullshit the far right ideologues have been shoveling.
-
I believe in a lot of things, however I don't buy the bullshit the far right ideologues have been shoveling.
And what would that be? Adherence to the Constitution? Separation of powers?
Just admit that you're part of the liberal cabal's efforts to put a liberal in the GOP nominee position. Win/win, right?
-
I missed it. When did America become unable to defend itself?? ???
-
And what would that be? Adherence to the Constitution? Separation of powers?
Your own ideologues don't even believe in that, unless it suits their purpose. That and the rigid "my way or else" mentality is why you are seeing the far right ideologues being diminished more and more each year.
Just admit that you're part of the liberal cabal's efforts to put a liberal in the GOP nominee position. Win/win, right?
Nice try Stan.
-
I missed it. When did America become unable to defend itself?? ???
We are at a point right now if a major conflict erupted the US does not have the man power or assets to back it up. The US military is spread too thin as it is right now and with budget cuts and manpower reductions it's a shell of it's former self.
We spend too much money defending other countries who, in turn contribute nothing or very little to the effort. The Bush Doctrine of "spreading democracy" and "nation building" has depleted our military along with a current administration that has cut and stripped away all it could.
-
Your own ideologues don't even believe in that, unless it suits their purpose. That and the rigid "my way or else" mentality is why you are seeing the far right ideologues being diminished more and more each year.
Nice try Stan.
So no answer then. Just sound bites like your candidate. Got it.
-
We are at a point right now if a major conflict erupted the US does not have the man power or assets to back it up. The US military is spread too thin as it is right now and with budget cuts and manpower reductions it's a shell of it's former self.
We spend too much money defending other countries who, in turn contribute nothing or very little to the effort. The Bush Doctrine of "spreading democracy" and "nation building" has depleted our military along with a current administration that has cut and stripped away all it could.
In addition we are putting POLITCAL CORRECTNESS ahead of mission preparedness. We are putting our soldiers, marines, and airmen at GREATER RISK due to the PC culture of this administration.
-
We are at a point right now if a major conflict erupted the US does not have the man power or assets to back it up. The US military is spread too thin as it is right now and with budget cuts and manpower reductions it's a shell of it's former self.
We spend too much money defending other countries who, in turn contribute nothing or very little to the effort. The Bush Doctrine of "spreading democracy" and "nation building" has depleted our military along with a current administration that has cut and stripped away all it could.
Its more than that. I don't believe our current leadership has will to defend us.
-
So no answer then. Just sound bites like your candidate. Got it.
Anything I post here you will simply take it, twist and contort and use your tried and true "in other words" prefacing it. And since my beliefs or philosophy doesn't follow your rigid "my way or the highway" mentality it will of course be "wrong and misguided".
And then you will remind everyone that your from Wisconsin, birthplace of the Republican Party and how pure a conservative you are.
-
Its more than that. I don't believe our current leadership has will to defend us.
Agreed.
-
Anything I post here you will simply take it, twist and contort and use your tried and true "in other words" prefacing it. And since my beliefs or philosophy doesn't follow your rigid "my way or the highway" mentality it will of course be "wrong and misguided".
And then you will remind everyone that your from Wisconsin, birthplace of the Republican Party and how pure a conservative you are.
I believe in a lot of things, however I don't buy the bullshit the far right ideologues have been shoveling.
I'm simply looking for specific examples of the "bullshit the far right ideologues have been shoveling."
After months of saying the same thing in multiple threads over the last few months, you have yet to be specific.
So you are incapable or unwilling to do so, for whatever reason. Got it - again.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/02/glenn-beck-invites-america-join-another-fast/
It’s been a difficult past week for Beck, following news of another round of mass layoffs at his troubled media empire. On Friday, after giving an impassioned “farewell address” of sorts to his 40 laid-off employees from his replica Oval Office, the former radio shock jock joined his co-hosts in donning swim goggles and rubbing his face in a bowl of crushed Cheetos to see if they could “look like Donald Trump.”
-
I'm simply looking for specific examples of the "bullshit the far right ideologues have been shoveling."
After months of saying the same thing in multiple threads over the last few months, you have yet to be specific.
So you are incapable or unwilling to do so, for whatever reason. Got it - again.
Keep grasping at straws Stan, you're actually good at it.
-
We are at a point right now if a major conflict erupted the US does not have the man power or assets to back it up. The US military is spread too thin as it is right now and with budget cuts and manpower reductions it's a shell of it's former self.
We spend too much money defending other countries who, in turn contribute nothing or very little to the effort. The Bush Doctrine of "spreading democracy" and "nation building" has depleted our military along with a current administration that has cut and stripped away all it could.
Well, if making America strong again means pulling back and focusing our resources where it really matters, our actual defense, then I'm all for it. If it's about spending trillions more on never ending snipe hunts in foreign sand boxes, then screw that crap!! The borders of America do not extend to Korea, or Germany, or Japan, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or wherever the fuck. It's time we let Europe, Asia, the Middle East and everywhere else defend themselves and work out their own problems.
BTW, I am certain we can defend ourselves now. There is no military force in the world that comes close to our current strength. I do agree that there are some that are building up and we need to keep an eye on though.
-
BTW, I am certain we can defend ourselves now. There is no military force in the world that comes close to our current strength. I do agree that there are some that are building up and we need to keep an eye on though.
Strength where? As far as man power China out numbers the US by far. The US does have the advantage with Air Power but right now has a problem with logistics in maintaining aircraft due to budget cuts.
Sea Power is another advantage, but again that has been severely cut back. Russia is building up their submarine force again and the Chinese are continuing to build on it's naval power. The one area the US has dominance over the world is the SSBN ballistic submarine force.
-
We need to have enough regulars so we don't have to call up the guard every time we need to do something.
-
We need to have enough regulars so we don't have to call up the guard every time we need to do something.
A better idea is to seriously question our "need" to do something. It's funny how some conservatives want to limit the federal government and put more power in the hands of the states... except with regard to the military. The framers of the Constitution did not see us as a country that should be prepared to invade other countries, nor did they envision us having military outposts all around the world. In fact, calling up the guard is exactly what they had in mind in times of true emergency.
It's time we worried about the defense of America and not so much the defense of foreign countries. If we did that, our military budget would be more than enough.
-
A better idea is to seriously question our "need" to do something. It's funny how some conservatives want to limit the federal government and put more power in the hands of the states... except with regard to the military.
The Constitution specifically calls for the military. Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
It's time we worried about the defense of America and not so much the defense of foreign countries. If we did that, our military budget would be more than enough.
Given how globalized the world is, sometimes defending the U.S. means doing so on foreign soil. I would much rather fight there than here.
-
The Constitution specifically calls for the military. Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
Given how globalized the world is, sometimes defending the U.S. means doing so on foreign soil. I would much rather fight there than here.
The founders distrusted a standing army immensely, and made it difficult to maintain one (ie. the 2 year appropriation cap).
Those clauses permit the military, they don't require it.
I would see very little issue with retrenchment to a National Guard type army all the time.
-
Given how globalized the world is, sometimes defending the U.S. means doing so on foreign soil. I would much rather fight there than here.
This has been the excuse of the elites for 50+ years now. Go out into the world, gin up a war "to defend freedom at home" or to "spread democracy" and the real winners are the industrial military companies who get awarded mega contracts to support the war effort. President Eisenhower warned us of this as he was leaving office and it's come true, over and over.
-
The founders distrusted a standing army immensely, and made it difficult to maintain one (ie. the 2 year appropriation cap).
Those clauses permit the military, they don't require it.
I would see very little issue with retrenchment to a National Guard type army all the time.
Even if the Russians, Chinese, ISIS, and AL Queda maintain a full time fighting force? National Defense is one of the few things the Constitution and Founding Fathers specifically enumerated as a Federal responsibility. Can we effectively defend the nation with a part time Guard/Reserve Armed Forces?
-
The founders distrusted a standing army immensely, and made it difficult to maintain one (ie. the 2 year appropriation cap).
Those clauses permit the military, they don't require it.
Indeed. After how the British acted and used their army, the founders were hesitant to keep one, but recognized the need for one.
I would see very little issue with retrenchment to a National Guard type army all the time.
In this day and age, a full time standing army is needed in my opinion. How big that army needs to be is up for debate.
-
This has been the excuse of the elites for 50+ years now. Go out into the world, gin up a war "to defend freedom at home" or to "spread democracy" and the real winners are the industrial military companies who get awarded mega contracts to support the war effort. President Eisenhower warned us of this as he was leaving office and it's come true, over and over.
I'm not advocating we get ourselves into every conflict we can find, nor am I advocating we attempt to spread democracy all over the world. I'm saying that given how the world currently works, defending the U.S. comes in many forms, some of which is having a presence overseas. Let's not forget that it also impacts trade and economics. There are countries that would love to close off shipping lanes to squeeze our economy. Should we let China run amok in the Pacific? Should we let Iran close the Straight of Hormuz or the Egyptians to close the Suez Canal?
It seems some here are advocating for total isolationism, which I don't agree with.
-
I'm not advocating we get ourselves into every conflict we can find, nor am I advocating we attempt to spread democracy all over the world. I'm saying that given how the world currently works, defending the U.S. comes in many forms, some of which is having a presence overseas. Let's not forget that it also impacts trade and economics. There are countries that would love to close off shipping lanes to squeeze our economy. Should we let China run amok in the Pacific? Should we let Iran close the Straight of Hormuz or the Egyptians to close the Suez Canal?
It seems some here are advocating for total isolationism, which I don't agree with.
Not at all. The US has deterrents in place and is used as you have described. However the political class likes to use the military as a money generating machine in the terms of military contracts to benefit their constituents. Take a close look at what Afghanistan alone has cost this country, and what real benefit have we derived from it? Take a look at the billions upon billions of dollars we have spent in Iraq and tell us today what we have derived from that?
We are the largest contributor to NATO in terms of military strength and monetary assistance, yet the countries we are helping protect donate very little, if anything to it.
-
At least Beck ended his hunger strike ;)
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/04/glenn-beck-ends-fast/
After calling for a fast as Indiana headed to the polls, Glenn Beck has finally weighed in on the news that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has canceled his campaign after losing the Indiana primary to Donald Trump.
-
The Constitution specifically calls for the military. Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
I never said get rid of the military. The Constitution does not specify how big the military has to be or where it needs to be stationed, just that it must exist.
Given how globalized the world is, sometimes defending the U.S. means doing so on foreign soil. I would much rather fight there than here.
This is the excuse given over and over again as we go on over seas adventures, but really, who is going to invade us besides some Mexicans walking over the border? Who would we be fighting over here and why would they be fighting us? Why is it so hard to envision other countries being responsible for their own defense and not dependent on us?
Lots of people like to trot out the tired old saying of "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." and follow that up with all the blah, blah, blah about WWII, but how come nobody ever looks a little further back in history to WW I? What happened then?
All the major powers of the world were in a massive arms race driven by new technologies. The world powers were distrustful and paranoid, so military spending was at an all time high and strategic alliances were formed all over the globe. It became a very dangerous tinder box and eventually blew up for the stupidest reason, sending much of the world into the worst war the world has ever known.
Does any of that sound like it might apply today?
-
I never said get rid of the military. The Constitution does not specify how big the military has to be or where it needs to be stationed, just that it must exist.
No, it governs how the military might exist, it says nothing about that it "must exist"
-
I agree that we shouldn't participate in other country's civil wars and nation building. Most of the Muslim based Middle East tribes, in European created artificial borders do not want a Representative Republic with democratic notions. It just won't work there. The best we can do is to minimize the violence toward us that comes out of this region, and that is with good intelligence with the occasional, covert special ops mission to show them we won't be f*cked with.
The focus should be protecting the U.S., but that does not mean isolationist policy. We should only keep a presence in the post WWII countries like Germany, Japan, Italy, UK, etc. Just enough to keep the Russians and Chinese honest, along with naval presence in those regions. We shouldn't be our WWII allies policemen anymore. Let them defend themselves. If an enemy goes after them we can provide support at that time, but to keep a huge bureaucracy in these countries is just wasteful, and is a product of the military industrial complex designed to line the pockets of defense contractors and politicians.
-
This is the excuse given over and over again as we go on over seas adventures, but really, who is going to invade us besides some Mexicans walking over the border? Who would we be fighting over here and why would they be fighting us? Why is it so hard to envision other countries being responsible for their own defense and not dependent on us?
It doesn't have to be an invading army. Even before 9/11 we had terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Lots of people like to trot out the tired old saying of "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." and follow that up with all the blah, blah, blah about WWII, but how come nobody ever looks a little further back in history to WW I? What happened then?
All the major powers of the world were in a massive arms race driven by new technologies. The world powers were distrustful and paranoid, so military spending was at an all time high and strategic alliances were formed all over the globe. It became a very dangerous tinder box and eventually blew up for the stupidest reason, sending much of the world into the worst war the world has ever known.
Does any of that sound like it might apply today?
I am not suggesting we have bases in every country and police the world. I am saying that we cannot completely get rid of our presence in the world. If we pull everyone out of everywhere we are, the Russians and Chinese will fill that vacuum quickly and we risk being isolated by them and we risk economic problems when we can't protect shipping lanes.
-
Love the Trump spokespeople now that they don't have to worry about the nomination anymore:
https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/728064341782626304
-
Love the Trump spokespeople now that they don't have to worry about the nomination anymore:
https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/728064341782626304
Excellent! Coast to Coast AM is next!