If we're going to be responsible for the safety and integrity of the global shipping community we should be getting that cheddar baby.

---

If we're going to be responsible for the safety and integrity of the global shipping community we should be getting that cheddar baby.

Which is exactly why Trump has been leaning on NATO countries to, at least, pony up their obligation which they haven’t been for years. So many countries have been feeding off the American teat for so long that they become offended when asked to pay their fair share. Billions upon billions of American taxpayer dollars go towards the defense and safekeeping of other nations. Many of them developed and prosperous. Hopefully some eyes are beginning to open.

---

If we're going to be responsible for the safety and integrity of the global shipping community we should be getting that cheddar baby.

Which is exactly why Trump has been leaning on NATO countries to, at least, pony up their obligation which they haven’t been for years. So many countries have been feeding off the American teat for so long that they become offended when asked to pay their fair share. Billions upon billions of American taxpayer dollars go towards the defense and safekeeping of other nations. Many of them developed and prosperous. Hopefully some eyes are beginning to open.

Great news. So when they pony up the American people should have their tax burden reduced by the same amount. 

Works for me, best of both worlds actually.

---

Which is exactly why Trump has been leaning on NATO countries to, at least, pony up their obligation which they haven’t been for years. So many countries have been feeding off the American teat for so long that they become offended when asked to pay their fair share. Billions upon billions of American taxpayer dollars go towards the defense and safekeeping of other nations. Many of them developed and prosperous. Hopefully some eyes are beginning to open.

Great news. So when they pony up the American people should have their tax burden reduced by the same amount. 

Works for me, best of both worlds actually.

Don't hold your breath. You know how Washington works.

Speaking of holding one's breath, I'm watching a 60 Minutes segment that says the emerald triangle in California makes more money growing pot than grapes and almonds combined. I think it's time for you start Breaking Bad.

---

If we're going to be responsible for the safety and integrity of the global shipping community we should be getting that cheddar baby.

Which is exactly why Trump has been leaning on NATO countries to, at least, pony up their obligation which they haven’t been for years. So many countries have been feeding off the American teat for so long that they become offended when asked to pay their fair share. Billions upon billions of American taxpayer dollars go towards the defense and safekeeping of other nations. Many of them developed and prosperous. Hopefully some eyes are beginning to open.

I totally agree that other countries need to be spending more on national/shared defense.  They're hardly spending anything.  
You guys just told me it takes 12 American aircraft carriers plus one UK plus one French to keep the shipping lanes safe. Total 14. And we agree we want the allies to spend more.  Maybe the French and British each build one more, maybe Germany builds one, and maybe Japan builds one too. But then there'd be clearly have too many, right? There would be 18.  A waste.

The whole point of asking other countries to spend more is so we can spend less!!!

Trump doesn't get that.  Republicans don't get that.

I think we should get them to buy our carriers off of us. Or maybe, those countries would tell us that a different type of ship is really what's needed to defend shipping lanes. Maybe our whole concept of carriers being the necessary lynch pin of a group is out of date.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Which is exactly why Trump has been leaning on NATO countries to, at least, pony up their obligation which they haven’t been for years. So many countries have been feeding off the American teat for so long that they become offended when asked to pay their fair share. Billions upon billions of American taxpayer dollars go towards the defense and safekeeping of other nations. Many of them developed and prosperous. Hopefully some eyes are beginning to open.

I totally agree that other countries need to be spending more on national/shared defense.  They're hardly spending anything.  
You guys just told me it takes 12 American aircraft carriers plus one UK plus one French to keep the shipping lanes safe. Total 14. And we agree we want the allies to spend more.  Maybe the French and British each build one more, maybe Germany builds one, and maybe Japan builds one too. But then there'd be clearly have too many, right? There would be 18.  A waste.

The whole point of asking other countries to spend more is so we can spend less!!!

Trump doesn't get that.  Republicans don't get that.

I think we should get them to buy our carriers off of us.  Or maybe, those countries would tell us that a different type of ship is really what's needed to defend shipping lanes. Maybe our whole concept of carriers being the necessary lynch pin of a group is out of date.

Wonderfully aspirational and I don't disagree with it. But the fact of the matter is getting other countries to pay their fair share is easier said than done. Trump is the first president that demands they do, but you say he doesn't, so there's that.

---

I totally agree that other countries need to be spending more on national/shared defense.  They're hardly spending anything.  
You guys just told me it takes 12 American aircraft carriers plus one UK plus one French to keep the shipping lanes safe. Total 14. And we agree we want the allies to spend more.  Maybe the French and British each build one more, maybe Germany builds one, and maybe Japan builds one too. But then there'd be clearly have too many, right? There would be 18.  A waste.

The whole point of asking other countries to spend more is so we can spend less!!!

Trump doesn't get that.  Republicans don't get that.

I think we should get them to buy our carriers off of us.  Or maybe, those countries would tell us that a different type of ship is really what's needed to defend shipping lanes. Maybe our whole concept of carriers being the necessary lynch pin of a group is out of date.

Wonderfully aspirational and I don't disagree with it. But the fact of the matter is getting other countries to pay their fair share is easier said than done. Trump is the first president that demands they do, but you say he doesn't, so there's that.

Trump literally believes that the other countries are going to transfer the money to us, or at least be forced to use it to buy american-made hardware.
That's not how alliances or mutual defense work.
Maybe you want it to work that way. Or maybe you are charitably ignoring this part of Trump's rhetoric. "It's just a joke!"
Regardless, why are we demanding that certain allies spend 2% of their GDP on defense and calling it their fair share?
If that's the fair share, why are we spending 3.4% of our GDP on defense? 
By our own formulation, we are drastically overspending in this area!
Yet Trump and other Republicans are actually calling for us to spend more! Romney wanted 4%. That's insane!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Damn straight. When I'm dropping F bombs like candy and calling people names.....that's when I've had enough. And he's still arguing like a [BLEEP] chump. Petty child.

---

Great news. So when they pony up the American people should have their tax burden reduced by the same amount. 

Works for me, best of both worlds actually.

Don't hold your breath. You know how Washington works.

Speaking of holding one's breath, I'm watching a 60 Minutes segment that says the emerald triangle in California makes more money growing pot than grapes and almonds combined. I think it's time for you start Breaking Bad.

It's very very popular right now but it's like the wild wild west, nothing is regulated in any way. We came very close to doing a few hundred acres of hemp for CBD, but even that was a little unsure. For instance, the very first step in the process, buying plants, has no governing body able to oversee the quality of the plants or the genetics involved. Get one plant wrong and you're suddenly Federally illegal and cultivating the whole field under.

There are guys smarter and with loads more money than I going belly-up trying. Besides I'm still paying for my baby almonds 

---

Lol, there's the issue with you. If you think everyone else is confused then everyone isn't the one who is confused.

or I've just chosen to pick a fight about military spending with a town that more or less butters all its bread with extra military dollars... with a town where grown men go to bed at night dreaming of the day when an aircraft carrier will be stationed at mayport again... In any case I'm not the only one here agreeing that we need to cut spending on the military.

---

In case you having noticed you [BLEEP] [BLEEP], A LOT of countries want to take us down or mess with our [BLEEP] allies, none of which have the [BLEEP] capability to handle more than a handful of [BLEEP] coming their way. Like it or not we are the tip of the [BLEEP] spear when it comes to military force. So just [BLEEP] STOP. 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't mean [BLEEP]. We don't live in the world we want, we live in the one we have and that means we have to be ready for [BLEEP] to hit the fan at any moment. 9/11 taught us that. But you must not have been old enough to have felt what that did to the country or you wouldn't ask such dumb [BLEEP] questions. 

Your [BLEEP] questions have been answered.  Move the [BLEEP] on.

who do you think you are, that you can tell another person to stop talking just because you're angry? What country do you think you live in?

Son, I'm one of those people you don't piss off in real life.

---

or I've just chosen to pick a fight about military spending with a town that more or less butters all its bread with extra military dollars... with a town where grown men go to bed at night dreaming of the day when an aircraft carrier will be stationed at mayport again... In any case I'm not the only one here agreeing that we need to cut spending on the military.

---

who do you think you are, that you can tell another person to stop talking just because you're angry? What country do you think you live in?

Son, I'm one of those people you don't piss off in real life.

Don't worry, in real life I see your type a mile away and don't even engage.  I know you'd just tell me to shut up and try to hit me if I didn't shut up.  And the last thing I'd want is a woman hitting me.
Please don't mistake this personality flaw of yours for toughness.  You're not protecting the flag anymore, and you can do better.  Involve yourself in difficult conversations. Even if you don't change your opinion, you will grow.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Wonderfully aspirational and I don't disagree with it. But the fact of the matter is getting other countries to pay their fair share is easier said than done. Trump is the first president that demands they do, but you say he doesn't, so there's that.

Trump literally believes that the other countries are going to transfer the money to us, or at least be forced to use it to buy american-made hardware.
That's not how alliances or mutual defense work.
Maybe you want it to work that way. Or maybe you are charitably ignoring this part of Trump's rhetoric. "It's just a joke!"
Regardless, why are we demanding that certain allies spend 2% of their GDP on defense and calling it their fair share?
If that's the fair share, why are we spending 3.4% of our GDP on defense? 
By our own formulation, we are drastically overspending in this area!
Yet Trump and other Republicans are actually calling for us to spend more! Romney wanted 4%. That's insane!

I don't know what to say, you're all over the place. The fact of the matter is the United States is the heart of democracy around the world. If we fail it stands little chance of resisting totalitarianism elsewhere. We have an incumbent obligation and expectation to promote and defend freedom around the world, and we do. By all means, other countries that benefit should be paying more and there is an increasing push for redress. It's also good to keep proportionality in mind. During the Cold War we were spending around 5-10% GDP for defense while the Soviets were spending around 45%. While it would be ideal to turn more swords into plowshares, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are countries who want to topple America (especially at the costs the Soviets were willing to spend in money and social impoverishment) we cannot let up.

---

Don't hold your breath. You know how Washington works.

Speaking of holding one's breath, I'm watching a 60 Minutes segment that says the emerald triangle in California makes more money growing pot than grapes and almonds combined. I think it's time for you start Breaking Bad.

It's very very popular right now but it's like the wild wild west, nothing is regulated in any way. We came very close to doing a few hundred acres of hemp for CBD, but even that was a little unsure. For instance, the very first step in the process, buying plants, has no governing body able to oversee the quality of the plants or the genetics involved. Get one plant wrong and you're suddenly Federally illegal and cultivating the whole field under.

There are guys smarter and with loads more money than I going belly-up trying. Besides I'm still paying for my baby almonds 

Yeah, as the segment progressed it revealed the industry as overly bureaucratic and self defeating. At least in California. Californians looove their red tape. Not all of you, of course.

---

Trump literally believes that the other countries are going to transfer the money to us, or at least be forced to use it to buy american-made hardware.
That's not how alliances or mutual defense work.
Maybe you want it to work that way. Or maybe you are charitably ignoring this part of Trump's rhetoric. "It's just a joke!"
Regardless, why are we demanding that certain allies spend 2% of their GDP on defense and calling it their fair share?
If that's the fair share, why are we spending 3.4% of our GDP on defense? 
By our own formulation, we are drastically overspending in this area!
Yet Trump and other Republicans are actually calling for us to spend more! Romney wanted 4%. That's insane!

I don't know what to say, you're all over the place. The fact of the matter is the United States is the heart of democracy around the world. If we fail it stands little chance of resisting totalitarianism elsewhere. We have an incumbent obligation and expectation to promote and defend freedom around the world, and we do. By all means, other countries that benefit should be paying more and there is an increasing push for redress. It's also good to keep proportionality in mind. During the Cold War we were spending around 5-10% GDP for defense while the Soviets were spending around 45%. While it would be ideal to turn more swords into plowshares, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are countries who want to topple America (especially at the costs the Soviets were willing to spend in money and social impoverishment) we cannot let up.

---

It's very very popular right now but it's like the wild wild west, nothing is regulated in any way. We came very close to doing a few hundred acres of hemp for CBD, but even that was a little unsure. For instance, the very first step in the process, buying plants, has no governing body able to oversee the quality of the plants or the genetics involved. Get one plant wrong and you're suddenly Federally illegal and cultivating the whole field under.

There are guys smarter and with loads more money than I going belly-up trying. Besides I'm still paying for my baby almonds 

Yeah, as the segment progressed it revealed the industry as overly bureaucratic and self defeating. At least in California. Californians looove their red tape. Not all of you, of course.

Ha, no worries. Trust me, if I could get a farming foothold established elsewhere I'd be out of here. The overregulation is a non-direct method to erode support for farm communities in my mind.

---

Trump literally believes that the other countries are going to transfer the money to us, or at least be forced to use it to buy american-made hardware.
That's not how alliances or mutual defense work.
Maybe you want it to work that way. Or maybe you are charitably ignoring this part of Trump's rhetoric. "It's just a joke!"
Regardless, why are we demanding that certain allies spend 2% of their GDP on defense and calling it their fair share?
If that's the fair share, why are we spending 3.4% of our GDP on defense? 
By our own formulation, we are drastically overspending in this area!
Yet Trump and other Republicans are actually calling for us to spend more! Romney wanted 4%. That's insane!

I don't know what to say, you're all over the place. The fact of the matter is the United States is the heart of democracy around the world. If we fail it stands little chance of resisting totalitarianism elsewhere. We have an incumbent obligation and expectation to promote and defend freedom around the world, and we do. By all means, other countries that benefit should be paying more and there is an increasing push for redress. It's also good to keep proportionality in mind. During the Cold War we were spending around 5-10% GDP for defense while the Soviets were spending around 45%. While it would be ideal to turn more swords into plowshares, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are countries who want to topple America (especially at the costs the Soviets were willing to spend in money and social impoverishment) we cannot let up.

I think we can stay ahead of our enemies following my strategy.
The NATO countries account for more than half of global GDP.
China only spends 2% of its GDP on defense. 
I think we can let up a bit, but that doesn't mean letting China pass us plus our allies.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't know what to say, you're all over the place. The fact of the matter is the United States is the heart of democracy around the world. If we fail it stands little chance of resisting totalitarianism elsewhere. We have an incumbent obligation and expectation to promote and defend freedom around the world, and we do. By all means, other countries that benefit should be paying more and there is an increasing push for redress. It's also good to keep proportionality in mind. During the Cold War we were spending around 5-10% GDP for defense while the Soviets were spending around 45%. While it would be ideal to turn more swords into plowshares, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are countries who want to topple America (especially at the costs the Soviets were willing to spend in money and social impoverishment) we cannot let up.

I think we can stay ahead of our enemies following my strategy.
The NATO countries account for more than half of global GDP.
China only spends 2% of its GDP on defense. 
I think we can let up a bit, but that doesn't mean letting China pass us plus our allies.

Ok.

---

Son, I'm one of those people you don't piss off in real life.

Don't worry, in real life I see your type a mile away and don't even engage.  I know you'd just tell me to shut up and try to hit me if I didn't shut up.  And the last thing I'd want is a woman hitting me.
Please don't mistake this personality flaw of yours for toughness.  You're not protecting the flag anymore, and you can do better.  Involve yourself in difficult conversations. Even if you don't change your opinion, you will grow.

Lol, you of all people trying to call out someone else's personality flaw. You really are a tool.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

[quote pid='1312675' dateline='1596414638']

Yeah, as the segment progressed it revealed the industry as overly bureaucratic and self defeating. At least in California. Californians looove their red tape. Not all of you, of course.

Ha, no worries. Trust me, if I could get a farming foothold established elsewhere I'd be out of here. The overregulation is a non-direct method to erode support for farm communities in my mind.
[/quote]

California is a magnificent place, but good gawd Californians have developed a penchant to cut off their nose to spite their face. Someone should remind them of the amount of money farming generates for the state. Preaching to choir, I know.

---

Don't worry, in real life I see your type a mile away and don't even engage.  I know you'd just tell me to shut up and try to hit me if I didn't shut up.  And the last thing I'd want is a woman hitting me.
Please don't mistake this personality flaw of yours for toughness.  You're not protecting the flag anymore, and you can do better.  Involve yourself in difficult conversations. Even if you don't change your opinion, you will grow.

Lol, you of all people trying to call out someone else's personality flaw. You really are a tool.

Everyone's got one.  You need one to venture out to this part of the forum in the first place.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Trump literally believes that the other countries are going to transfer the money to us, or at least be forced to use it to buy american-made hardware.
That's not how alliances or mutual defense work.
Maybe you want it to work that way. Or maybe you are charitably ignoring this part of Trump's rhetoric. "It's just a joke!"
Regardless, why are we demanding that certain allies spend 2% of their GDP on defense and calling it their fair share?
If that's the fair share, why are we spending 3.4% of our GDP on defense? 
By our own formulation, we are drastically overspending in this area!
Yet Trump and other Republicans are actually calling for us to spend more! Romney wanted 4%. That's insane!

I don't know what to say, you're all over the place. The fact of the matter is the United States is the heart of democracy around the world. If we fail it stands little chance of resisting totalitarianism elsewhere. We have an incumbent obligation and expectation to promote and defend freedom around the world, and we do. By all means, other countries that benefit should be paying more and there is an increasing push for redress. It's also good to keep proportionality in mind. During the Cold War we were spending around 5-10% GDP for defense while the Soviets were spending around 45%. While it would be ideal to turn more swords into plowshares, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are countries who want to topple America (especially at the costs the Soviets were willing to spend in money and social impoverishment) we cannot let up.

---

in fact, america loves freedom so much it locks up more of its own than every other country, has a fake democracy between two parties and destabilizes regimes all over the world when it pleases

---

I don't know what to say, you're all over the place. The fact of the matter is the United States is the heart of democracy around the world. If we fail it stands little chance of resisting totalitarianism elsewhere. We have an incumbent obligation and expectation to promote and defend freedom around the world, and we do. By all means, other countries that benefit should be paying more and there is an increasing push for redress. It's also good to keep proportionality in mind. During the Cold War we were spending around 5-10% GDP for defense while the Soviets were spending around 45%. While it would be ideal to turn more swords into plowshares, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are countries who want to topple America (especially at the costs the Soviets were willing to spend in money and social impoverishment) we cannot let up.

---

in fact, america loves freedom so much it locks up more of its own than every other country, has a fake democracy between two parties and destabilizes regimes all over the world when it pleases

Ok.

---