|
Should the non-wealthy have children?
|
| Author |
Message |
Kapkao
Unregistered
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
The fact is that if we didn't spend so much on weapons, there'd be more money to spend on other things wtithout needing to borrow it. The wealthy can easily afford to provide for the education of the masses.
And are you seriously saying there's an argument against the state provision of education? Wherever you went to school, you clearly weren't taught a great deal of human empathy, or indeed economic logic.
US defense budget is being cut by 487 billion dollars....wont make any difference in social programs.
Getting rid of the neo-cons and the tea-party folks in congress, would help immensely here
At least you actually put forth an argument, plebian. The person you respond to... not so much.
not an argument......statement of facts. From my POV
And yet you offend me with the density of your cranium!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument
2.
a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
No olive oil for your family this year. Prefects! Have the tongues of this man's elders cut out for his impudence. I don't care if you have to dig them out of their graves...
|
|
| 02-15-2012 02:56 AM |
|
 |
skyblue1
Activist
Posts: 20,612
Group: Activists
Joined: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
The fact is that if we didn't spend so much on weapons, there'd be more money to spend on other things wtithout needing to borrow it. The wealthy can easily afford to provide for the education of the masses.
And are you seriously saying there's an argument against the state provision of education? Wherever you went to school, you clearly weren't taught a great deal of human empathy, or indeed economic logic.
US defense budget is being cut by 487 billion dollars....wont make any difference in social programs.
Getting rid of the neo-cons and the tea-party folks in congress, would help immensely here
At least you actually put forth an argument, plebian. The person you respond to... not so much.
not an argument......statement of facts. From my POV
And yet you offend me with the density of your cranium!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument
2.
a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
No olive oil for your family this year. Prefects! Have the tongues of this man's elders cut out for his impudence. I don't care if you have to dig them out of their graves...
et tu Brute
I'm not anti-social; I'm just not user friendly
|
|
| 02-15-2012 03:05 AM |
|
|
Lang
Posts: 6,499
Group: Registered
Joined: Feb 2006
Status:
Offline
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
Anyone calling themselves Gaius must be forced to speak only Latin.
If you are good, you may use the word "computer" to describe technology that Gaius Julius Caesar would not have known. Including computers, grandfather clocks, and the heavy plough.
Chris Christie is so fat, I was giving a presentation and he ate my pie charts.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
PROUD DISRUPTIVE DINGBAT
http://Siochanna.deviantart.com
http://neversubmit.xanga.com/
|
|
| 02-15-2012 04:33 AM |
|
|
Kapkao
Unregistered
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
The fact is that if we didn't spend so much on weapons, there'd be more money to spend on other things wtithout needing to borrow it. The wealthy can easily afford to provide for the education of the masses.
And are you seriously saying there's an argument against the state provision of education? Wherever you went to school, you clearly weren't taught a great deal of human empathy, or indeed economic logic.
US defense budget is being cut by 487 billion dollars....wont make any difference in social programs.
Getting rid of the neo-cons and the tea-party folks in congress, would help immensely here
At least you actually put forth an argument, plebian. The person you respond to... not so much.
not an argument......statement of facts. From my POV
And yet you offend me with the density of your cranium!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument
2.
a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
No olive oil for your family this year. Prefects! Have the tongues of this man's elders cut out for his impudence. I don't care if you have to dig them out of their graves...
et tu Brute
|
|
| 02-15-2012 06:47 AM |
|
|
Crazychavo
Posts: 48
Group: Registered
Joined: Feb 2012
Status:
Offline
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
The fact is that if we didn't spend so much on weapons, there'd be more money to spend on other things wtithout needing to borrow it. The wealthy can easily afford to provide for the education of the masses.
And are you seriously saying there's an argument against the state provision of education? Wherever you went to school, you clearly weren't taught a great deal of human empathy, or indeed economic logic.
The world needs the US as a superpower. I would be very nervous if China an Russia were the 2strongest military powers on the planet. Blowing $$$$$ and thousands of lives on pointless foreign wars I can certainly agree that you could do without.
I don't see Russia and China going on a spree of aggressive wars and threatening the entire world. They are powerful countries why can't we just respect that and live in harmony, they will not tolerate as much from us as smaller less powerful countries because they don't have to. While I wish Iran wasn't trying to develop a nuclear weapon I don't really blame them. Being from a country where the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and self defense and toughness are praised as virtues above all others I get it. They don't want to be bullied around by countries like the US or Israel or any other country with nuclear weapons. The reason the US developed the bomb was to try to coerce the world into obedience. Why do you think the Soviet Union and then China wanted one too? The sad thing is as we develop more and more weapons and more and more technology that is harmful to the planet other countries feel forced to keep up in order to avoid the fate that Latin America and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan have been through. Every empire that has tried to conquer the world has failed. The American Empire will be no exception. Before now however there weren't the weapons available to destroy the world now there are and its very frightening will the sociopaths running this empire be willing to destroy the world rather than live in one where the US isn't on top.
The reason the US developed the bomb, was to end the war in the Pacific, without having to invade Japan itself. This would have cost over one hundred thousand more American lives and over a million more Japanese
That is simply not true. Why did we need to invade Japan when we were quite close to eliminating their entire navy and airforce, just for the ego satisfaction of a unconditional surrender? A few weeks before the bomb was dropped the Soviet Union and Mongolia declared war on Japan and their armies liberated most of China almost without a fight. It's a myth that no Japanese soldier were willing to surrender. Had the war not suddenly ended because of the dropping of the bomb. its likely that US backed governments would never had come to be in Vietnam or Korea or Taiwan and for whatever reason America really wanted to control those countries. The strength of the Soviet land army with more than 20 million troops and superior tanks to ours at the time were considered a threat so we had to show off our new super weapon to them. I met a Chinese person who thought the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifed because of the terrible things the Japanese Empire had done. The fact is though about a quarter of the victims of the bombing were Chinese workers taken as slaves. Bombs can't tell the difference between "good guys" "bad guys" and the innocent.
|
|
| 02-15-2012 07:34 AM |
|
|
142857
Posts: 6,148
Group: Registered
Joined: May 2010
Status:
Offline
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
The development of the atomic bomb was a scientific and historic inevitability. If America had not developed it... Then Soviet Russia, under Stalin, would have been the most likely to. As it was they had it by 1948.
Now imagine a world where Uncle Jo Stalin was in control of the only nation on Earth with nuclear weapons. Yikes!
And one only has to look at German after WWI to figure out what a good idea conditional surrenders are!!!
|
|
| 02-15-2012 10:12 AM |
|
|
Luke Mauser
Posts: 1,529
Group: Registered
Joined: Nov 2011
Status:
Offline
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
Growing up in Britain in the 80s, I remember the rhtoric on the news. The Labour Party (opposition) wanted unilateral nuclear disarmament. The Conservative government said that not having nuclear weapons would make us a target for nuclear attack by the USSR. But, of course, the vast majority of the world's nations have no nuclear capability. Not one of them has been the victim of a nuclear attack by the USSR or anyone else. We're wasting billions of pounds / dollars etc. worldwide on something that is merely a cosmetic deterrent to a non-existent threat.
Further to the previous threat, although the atomic bomb was developed to defeat Japan (and would probably have been used against Germany had the ground offensive been less effective), the nuclear arms race that followed was indeed a deliberate tactic to coerce the world into obedience, particularly by bankrupting the Soviet Union (who, quite frankly, shouldn't have played ball).
|
|
| 02-15-2012 03:13 PM |
|
|
Kapkao
Unregistered
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
Growing up in Britain in the 80s, I remember the rhtoric on the news. The Labour Party (opposition) wanted unilateral nuclear disarmament. The Conservative government said that not having nuclear weapons would make us a target for nuclear attack by the USSR. But, of course, the vast majority of the world's nations have no nuclear capability. Not one of them has been the victim of a nuclear attack by the USSR or anyone else. We're wasting billions of pounds / dollars etc. worldwide on something that is merely a cosmetic deterrent to a non-existent threat.
Further to the previous threat, although the atomic bomb was developed to defeat Japan (and would probably have been used against Germany had the ground offensive been less effective), the nuclear arms race that followed was indeed a deliberate tactic to coerce the world into obedience, particularly by bankrupting the Soviet Union (who, quite frankly, shouldn't have played ball).
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/ia...ippies.jpg
I can think of more reasons why you should do your research before opening your mouth on politics... most of them can be found on wikipedia.
Would you like me to search them up?
To put it mildly... this is why we (meaning... modern humanity) don't put armchair legislators in charge of atomic energy policy.
Play again, some time.
|
|
| 02-15-2012 09:02 PM |
|
|
Kapkao
Unregistered
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
Does anyone else besides me like to point and laugh at hippies when they take on cold war politics?
Anyone at all? 
|
|
| 02-15-2012 09:04 PM |
|
|
skyblue1
Activist
Posts: 20,612
Group: Activists
Joined: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
The fact is that if we didn't spend so much on weapons, there'd be more money to spend on other things wtithout needing to borrow it. The wealthy can easily afford to provide for the education of the masses.
And are you seriously saying there's an argument against the state provision of education? Wherever you went to school, you clearly weren't taught a great deal of human empathy, or indeed economic logic.
The world needs the US as a superpower. I would be very nervous if China an Russia were the 2strongest military powers on the planet. Blowing $$$$$ and thousands of lives on pointless foreign wars I can certainly agree that you could do without.
I don't see Russia and China going on a spree of aggressive wars and threatening the entire world. They are powerful countries why can't we just respect that and live in harmony, they will not tolerate as much from us as smaller less powerful countries because they don't have to. While I wish Iran wasn't trying to develop a nuclear weapon I don't really blame them. Being from a country where the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and self defense and toughness are praised as virtues above all others I get it. They don't want to be bullied around by countries like the US or Israel or any other country with nuclear weapons. The reason the US developed the bomb was to try to coerce the world into obedience. Why do you think the Soviet Union and then China wanted one too? The sad thing is as we develop more and more weapons and more and more technology that is harmful to the planet other countries feel forced to keep up in order to avoid the fate that Latin America and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan have been through. Every empire that has tried to conquer the world has failed. The American Empire will be no exception. Before now however there weren't the weapons available to destroy the world now there are and its very frightening will the sociopaths running this empire be willing to destroy the world rather than live in one where the US isn't on top.
The reason the US developed the bomb, was to end the war in the Pacific, without having to invade Japan itself. This would have cost over one hundred thousand more American lives and over a million more Japanese
That is simply not true. Why did we need to invade Japan when we were quite close to eliminating their entire navy and airforce, just for the ego satisfaction of a unconditional surrender? A few weeks before the bomb was dropped the Soviet Union and Mongolia declared war on Japan and their armies liberated most of China almost without a fight. It's a myth that no Japanese soldier were willing to surrender. Had the war not suddenly ended because of the dropping of the bomb. its likely that US backed governments would never had come to be in Vietnam or Korea or Taiwan and for whatever reason America really wanted to control those countries. The strength of the Soviet land army with more than 20 million troops and superior tanks to ours at the time were considered a threat so we had to show off our new super weapon to them. I met a Chinese person who thought the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifed because of the terrible things the Japanese Empire had done. The fact is though about a quarter of the victims of the bombing were Chinese workers taken as slaves. Bombs can't tell the difference between "good guys" "bad guys" and the innocent.
you need to catch up on your history of WWII
I'm not anti-social; I'm just not user friendly
|
|
| 02-15-2012 09:25 PM |
|
|
Kapkao
Unregistered
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
The fact is that if we didn't spend so much on weapons, there'd be more money to spend on other things wtithout needing to borrow it. The wealthy can easily afford to provide for the education of the masses.
And are you seriously saying there's an argument against the state provision of education? Wherever you went to school, you clearly weren't taught a great deal of human empathy, or indeed economic logic.
The world needs the US as a superpower. I would be very nervous if China an Russia were the 2strongest military powers on the planet. Blowing $$$$$ and thousands of lives on pointless foreign wars I can certainly agree that you could do without.
I don't see Russia and China going on a spree of aggressive wars and threatening the entire world. They are powerful countries why can't we just respect that and live in harmony, they will not tolerate as much from us as smaller less powerful countries because they don't have to. While I wish Iran wasn't trying to develop a nuclear weapon I don't really blame them. Being from a country where the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and self defense and toughness are praised as virtues above all others I get it. They don't want to be bullied around by countries like the US or Israel or any other country with nuclear weapons. The reason the US developed the bomb was to try to coerce the world into obedience. Why do you think the Soviet Union and then China wanted one too? The sad thing is as we develop more and more weapons and more and more technology that is harmful to the planet other countries feel forced to keep up in order to avoid the fate that Latin America and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan have been through. Every empire that has tried to conquer the world has failed. The American Empire will be no exception. Before now however there weren't the weapons available to destroy the world now there are and its very frightening will the sociopaths running this empire be willing to destroy the world rather than live in one where the US isn't on top.
The reason the US developed the bomb, was to end the war in the Pacific, without having to invade Japan itself. This would have cost over one hundred thousand more American lives and over a million more Japanese
That is simply not true. Why did we need to invade Japan when we were quite close to eliminating their entire navy and airforce, just for the ego satisfaction of a unconditional surrender? A few weeks before the bomb was dropped the Soviet Union and Mongolia declared war on Japan and their armies liberated most of China almost without a fight. It's a myth that no Japanese soldier were willing to surrender. Had the war not suddenly ended because of the dropping of the bomb. its likely that US backed governments would never had come to be in Vietnam or Korea or Taiwan and for whatever reason America really wanted to control those countries. The strength of the Soviet land army with more than 20 million troops and superior tanks to ours at the time were considered a threat so we had to show off our new super weapon to them. I met a Chinese person who thought the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifed because of the terrible things the Japanese Empire had done. The fact is though about a quarter of the victims of the bombing were Chinese workers taken as slaves. Bombs can't tell the difference between "good guys" "bad guys" and the innocent.
you need to catch up on your history of WWII
You, friend... did what I tried to do with less energy. I salut thee.
Would your family care for some wine?
|
|
| 02-15-2012 09:30 PM |
|
|
skyblue1
Activist
Posts: 20,612
Group: Activists
Joined: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
The fact is that if we didn't spend so much on weapons, there'd be more money to spend on other things wtithout needing to borrow it. The wealthy can easily afford to provide for the education of the masses.
And are you seriously saying there's an argument against the state provision of education? Wherever you went to school, you clearly weren't taught a great deal of human empathy, or indeed economic logic.
The world needs the US as a superpower. I would be very nervous if China an Russia were the 2strongest military powers on the planet. Blowing $$$$$ and thousands of lives on pointless foreign wars I can certainly agree that you could do without.
I don't see Russia and China going on a spree of aggressive wars and threatening the entire world. They are powerful countries why can't we just respect that and live in harmony, they will not tolerate as much from us as smaller less powerful countries because they don't have to. While I wish Iran wasn't trying to develop a nuclear weapon I don't really blame them. Being from a country where the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and self defense and toughness are praised as virtues above all others I get it. They don't want to be bullied around by countries like the US or Israel or any other country with nuclear weapons. The reason the US developed the bomb was to try to coerce the world into obedience. Why do you think the Soviet Union and then China wanted one too? The sad thing is as we develop more and more weapons and more and more technology that is harmful to the planet other countries feel forced to keep up in order to avoid the fate that Latin America and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan have been through. Every empire that has tried to conquer the world has failed. The American Empire will be no exception. Before now however there weren't the weapons available to destroy the world now there are and its very frightening will the sociopaths running this empire be willing to destroy the world rather than live in one where the US isn't on top.
The reason the US developed the bomb, was to end the war in the Pacific, without having to invade Japan itself. This would have cost over one hundred thousand more American lives and over a million more Japanese
That is simply not true. Why did we need to invade Japan when we were quite close to eliminating their entire navy and airforce, just for the ego satisfaction of a unconditional surrender? A few weeks before the bomb was dropped the Soviet Union and Mongolia declared war on Japan and their armies liberated most of China almost without a fight. It's a myth that no Japanese soldier were willing to surrender. Had the war not suddenly ended because of the dropping of the bomb. its likely that US backed governments would never had come to be in Vietnam or Korea or Taiwan and for whatever reason America really wanted to control those countries. The strength of the Soviet land army with more than 20 million troops and superior tanks to ours at the time were considered a threat so we had to show off our new super weapon to them. I met a Chinese person who thought the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifed because of the terrible things the Japanese Empire had done. The fact is though about a quarter of the victims of the bombing were Chinese workers taken as slaves. Bombs can't tell the difference between "good guys" "bad guys" and the innocent.
you need to catch up on your history of WWII
You, friend... did what I tried to do with less energy. I salut thee.
Would your family care for some wine?
Salut 
I'm not anti-social; I'm just not user friendly
|
|
| 02-15-2012 10:03 PM |
|
|
Kapkao
Unregistered
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
Freudian slip
I must have been thinking about French Wines and roman words in the same sentence.
|
|
| 02-16-2012 12:08 AM |
|
|
nialll
Posts: 4,174
Group: Registered
Joined: Oct 2008
Status:
Offline
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
Freudian slip
I must have been thinking about French Wines and roman words in the same sentence.
that or french greetings 
now i've opened my eyes
i can see your light
when i open my eyes
i see i'm alive
|
|
| 02-16-2012 12:16 AM |
|
|
Kapkao
Unregistered
|
RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?
Freudian slip
I must have been thinking about French Wines and roman words in the same sentence.
that or french greetings
You owe me free cyb0r along with Cynara Livilla and Amyppina Minora
|
|
| 02-16-2012 01:16 AM |
|
|
|
|
Homepage
Avatars
AutTV
Forums
Games
Chatroom
Search
Calendar
Help
