(01-05-2023, 10:59 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2023, 10:45 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Are you against spending on defense? Because the money we spend on Ukraine is basically defense spending. And it's cheap, too, as I pointed out. We spend $800 billion a year to counter our potential adversaries, mainly Russia and China. $50 billion, so the Ukrainians can destroy the Russian army, is really cheap. And it puts a check on the possibility of a wider war. If the Russians take Ukraine, where do you think they would stop? Putin wants to reunite the old Soviet Union. There are a lot of countries who used to be part of the Soviet Union. You sound like you're in favor of appeasement. You a fan of Neville Chamberlain? Weakness invites aggression.
So you want to keep giving our money to a country that's fighting in a war to stop another country that we 'could possibly' go to war with in the future?
Well, with that sort of thinking, let's just spend all of the money and take every country out on the map and we can rule the world.. Cause, you never know, right?
Your second sentence makes no sense because "every other country on the map" has not been the victim of such aggression as we have seen in Ukraine.
And if we don't spend the money defending Ukraine, we'll be right in the situation you suggest- spending money defending a whole bunch of other countries because we ignored aggression and allowed Putin to start on his plan to reconquer the old Soviet satellites. Your suggestion that we abandon Ukraine because it costs money is penny wise and pound foolish. If we don't stand up to this aggression now, we will be in a much wider war later.
History shows that weakness and appeasement invite further aggression.
(01-05-2023, 11:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2023, 10:59 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]So you want to keep giving our money to a country that's fighting in a war to stop another country that we 'could possibly' go to war with in the future?
Well, with that sort of thinking, let's just spend all of the money and take every country out on the map and we can rule the world.. Cause, you never know, right?
Your second sentence makes no sense because "every other country on the map" has not been the victim of such aggression as we have seen in Ukraine.
And if we don't spend the money defending Ukraine, we'll be right in the situation you suggest- spending money defending a whole bunch of other countries because we ignored aggression and allowed Putin to start on his plan to reconquer the old Soviet satellites. Your suggestion that we abandon Ukraine because it costs money is penny wise and pound foolish. If we don't stand up to this aggression now, we will be in a much wider war later.
History shows that weakness and appeasement invite further aggression.
You dems sure have it out for Russia for some reason.. You blame all of your own doings on Russia. Disinformation, election hacking and interference, Steele Dossier, now wars.
We are the world's police, with no salary or benefits.. But at least they're providing you with a blaming point, right?
(01-05-2023, 07:57 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2023, 10:48 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]I vote for policy.. Not who's gonna be WWF champion.
Same reason I voted for Trump.. Policy.
Doesn't change the fact that he and many others have been acting more and more like pro wrestlers for almost a decade. Just because you claim to not care about it doesn't mean they're not doing it.
Further back than that. Jesse Ventura. The Rock will be in politics as well before his time is over. Mark it down.
(01-05-2023, 11:34 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2023, 07:57 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't change the fact that he and many others have been acting more and more like pro wrestlers for almost a decade. Just because you claim to not care about it doesn't mean they're not doing it.
Further back than that. Jesse Ventura. The Rock will be in politics as well before his time is over. Mark it down.
Fair, but Ventura centered all of his ire on other politicians. He did not make the media or intellectuals out to be enemies. So his impolite style didn't disrupt anyone's sense of or attachment to reality.
(01-05-2023, 12:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2023, 11:34 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Further back than that. Jesse Ventura. The Rock will be in politics as well before his time is over. Mark it down.
Fair, but Ventura centered all of his ire on other politicians. He did not make the media or intellectuals out to be enemies. So his impolite style didn't disrupt anyone's sense of or attachment to reality.
Lol, clearly you never read his book or heard any of his speeches.
The pro wrestling aspect is salient here because the 20 Republicans voting against McCarthy each have false, manufactured personalities which need to have a weekly storyline and conflict or else they die. This was true (is true) of Trump as well, but it wasn't his main problem.
It's better if politicians don't lie to voters and don't hurl gratuitous insults at each other in front of voters, but government has functioned here for 200 years with lies and insults. The problem with Trump and perhaps also these 20 Republicans is, you can give them what they asked for and they'll still reject the deal, whether out of spite or their own lack of understanding of what the argument is actually about. It's not just an instinctual drive to conflict. Their personality also has an instinctual rejection of consensus, even a consensus around their own ideas.
It's why the only thing Trump ever changed in the law was the tax cut. It's why it took almost his entire term to get even one dollar put towards his border wall. Negotiations with such a person never go anywhere. McCarthy is finding that out.
(01-05-2023, 12:44 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2023, 12:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Fair, but Ventura centered all of his ire on other politicians. He did not make the media or intellectuals out to be enemies. So his impolite style didn't disrupt anyone's sense of or attachment to reality.
Lol, clearly you never read his book or heard any of his speeches.
The man became a Harvard fellow. He obviously stayed in the good graces of the pundits and intellectuals.
Biden has spent 282 days — 40% of his presidency — on vacation.
[BLEEP] is wrong with you, Marty? Yes, the tweet is inaccurate, but you can clearly see what they are gunning for here. I will never understand why so many people are duped by these liars.
(01-06-2023, 07:54 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2023, 08:30 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/RealOmarNavarro/stat...d898g&s=19
I'm ready to sink Pedofornia into the Pacific..
It's interesting. And not quite as simple as the tweet indicates.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story...btq-rights
"...the bill, which was supported by the California District Attorneys Assn., the California Police Chiefs Assn. and the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault."
Per the article...
"The bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco)...."
This sounds consistent.
The more disturbing part is the 10 year gap issue, which the bill illuminates. These are pervs in sheep's clothing.
(01-06-2023, 12:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2023, 12:25 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Per the article...
"The bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco)...."
This sounds consistent.
The more disturbing part is the 10 year gap issue, which the bill illuminates.
"He noted that the 10-year age difference provision in California’s sexual offender registry law has been on the books for decades and said that none of the lawmakers criticizing the bill have attempted to change the law to address judicial discretion in cases involving heterosexual sex with a minor."
https://www.latimes.com/california/story...btq-rights
I did read it. I also did some research on Mr. Weiner. Not suprized or shocked.
(01-06-2023, 10:39 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ][BLEEP] is wrong with you, Marty? Yes, the tweet is inaccurate, but you can clearly see what they are gunning for here. I will never understand why so many people are duped by these liars.
Yes, the tweet is inaccurate. And as long as you're talking about liars, I hope you are including the guy who wrote the "inaccurate" tweet.
Marty are you advocating 24 year old men having sex with 14 year old children?
(01-06-2023, 08:36 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Marty are you advocating 24 year old men having sex with 14 year old children?
He's not. He's saying it should be illegal, but that a judge should have the same discretion in punishing it regardless of which person uses which organs.
AFAIK most other state laws already treat all sex acts equally regardless of whether males or females do them. And California did in most other situations. California had a glitch specifically with their law about underage sex.
(01-06-2023, 08:36 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Marty are you advocating 24 year old men having sex with 14 year old children?
I can not for the life of me work out how you came to that conclusion.
You moderates have been trained up nicely.
Wien keeping it real goes wrong...