It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
S.J.WI'm not disputing that there's a sect of Islam that is dangerous. What I'm saying is that the best way to fight said sect of Islam is to show them that the middle east is a fuckload more worse than the west.
See, I'd like to believe what you say, the problem is that it just doesn't mesh with reality.
Which "sect" exactly are you talking about? Sunni or Shi'a? Those are the two sects of Islam.
Again, your kumbaya approach just does not mesh with reality. Almost all data and research shows that muslim offspring in the west are considerably more radical than their parents. Almost all of the terrorists in the most recent attacks were born in Western Europe. It seems they want to turn Europe into the Middle East.
CampeadorIf this garbage is to be believed, it would indicate that every religious group is more violent than Islam.
Even in the most warped of social justice minds, you cannot actually believe this.
There is a different between thought and action. I believe sometimes killing a civilian is justified in war. I'm not a violent person, and I'm strongly against war and killing. But can you see how broad of a question "do you think killing a civilian is sometimes justified? It's too broad to take any conclusion from it. 30% of GOP voters would support bombing Agrabah. This is a fictional city from Aladdin, but 30% of republicans would support bombing it even though they know nothing of it. I know your cognitive dissonance is just going to ignore everything I say and I have accepted that. You take these very thin strawman fallacies and cling onto them in order to fit your own narrative. PS those polls were conducted and published by Gallup...
Hahahahha, Trump camp fucked up big time. I find it funny that Trump hates the Obamas but they will still use Michelles speech. I'm convinced that Trump is a pawn to destroy the republican party from within to get hillary elected.
S.J.WHahahahha, Trump camp fucked up big time. I find it funny that Trump hates the Obamas but they will still use Michelles speech. I'm convinced that Trump is a pawn to destroy the republican party from within to get hillary elected.
Honestly, if he is, I'd take 4 years of Hillary to reform and rework the GOP. The party is a disgrace.
On another note, it seems Trump is pretending to bring about change, while in reality, he is continually pandering.
"Though Mr. Trump promises to topple Washington’s “rigged system,” the opening rounds of his party’s quadrennial meeting accentuated a more enduring maxim: Money always adapts to power.
At a downtown barbecue joint, lobbyists cheerfully passed out stickers reading “Make Lobbying Great Again” as they schmoozed on Monday with Republican ambassadors, lawmakers and executives. At a windowless bar tucked behind the Ritz-Carlton hotel, whose rooms were set aside for the party’s most generous benefactors, allies of Mr. Trump pitched a clutch of receptive party donors on contributing to a pro-Trump “super PAC.”
...Mr. Trump’s team helped them quash a rule proposed by some conservative delegates that would have banned lobbyists from serving as Republican National Committee members. "
But what is truly scary are his comments about NATO. For someone who wants to "Make America Safe Again", speaking out against NATO is doing the exact opposite.
For those who are interested, read this. It is terrifying that this man has gotten so far because he truly has ZERO political or international relations knowledge.
S.J.WHahahahha, Trump camp fucked up big time. I find it funny that Trump hates the Obamas but they will still use Michelles speech. I'm convinced that Trump is a pawn to destroy the republican party from within to get hillary elected.
Dude stfu. Every political speech is a spinoff/ripoff of some other political speech dating back to the 1800's.
And who really cares what the First Lady has to say? Well besides you, who likes to jerk off to the Hilary's First Lady or first dude or whatever you call Bill.
S.J.W30% of GOP voters would support bombing Agrabah. This is a fictional city from Aladdin, but 30% of republicans would support bombing it even though they know nothing of it. I know your cognitive dissonance is just going to ignore everything I say and I have accepted that. You take these very thin strawman fallacies and cling onto them in order to fit your own narrative. PS those polls were conducted and published by Gallup...
and near 20% of democrats support bombing agrabah, what's your point? that 25% of americans are stupid?
it actually wasn't. He had a pity party because he lost, and now he is making it known he is a sore loser. It was such a good speech he now has been back pedaling all morning??
S.J.WThere is a different between thought and action. I believe sometimes killing a civilian is justified in war. I'm not a violent person, and I'm strongly against war and killing. But can you see how broad of a question "do you think killing a civilian is sometimes justified? It's too broad to take any conclusion from it. 30% of GOP voters would support bombing Agrabah. This is a fictional city from Aladdin, but 30% of republicans would support bombing it even though they know nothing of it. I know your cognitive dissonance is just going to ignore everything I say and I have accepted that. You take these very thin strawman fallacies and cling onto them in order to fit your own narrative. PS those polls were conducted and published by Gallup...
From the Abu Dhabi Center (since closed), no wonder it paints Muslims so positively.
However, thinking on it a little more, the results do make perfect sense. Given the context of the people currently being bombed, it makes sense that Muslims in the U.S. would be against bombing civilians since those civilians are much more likely to be Muslims, given current world conflicts. Just further shows where there loyalties lie.
And, as someone already mentioned, 19-20% of Democrats also supported bombing Agrabah. I remember this bullshit story clogging up my FB news feed for at least a week.
onenerdykidI just think we need to be as consistent as possible. If we deem anyone who believes in Sharia Law to be unfit for citizenship or residency, then that should be applied to anyone who truly believes in a violent ideology. But since that is just never going to happen, there needs to be line drawn- keep your beliefs to yourself and if you force them upon anyone else there will be super repercussions.
While the Westboro Baptist Church and KKK were specific examples, you know there are millions and millions of Americans who share their ideas. Violent ideas that if acted upon would (and often do) result in the same level of human suffering that acting upon Sharia Law would cause (at least from Muslim populations within the USA). Luckily, we don't see North American Muslims following/acting on Sharia Law to the same degree as Middle Eastern and Asian Muslims. They don't have the cultural safety net here that is present elsewhere and that's a huge plus for us. But I totally agree that we would need to be super diligent on who gets allowed entry, which is another bonus that the USA has over Europe at the moment.
And of course, any such group should be monitored as closely as needed. And I will be one of the first to argue that more should be done on this front.
While I agree with certain points you have made, your response still begs the question, why should Sharia Muslims be granted entry to the United States?
Sure, we have to suffer the ideologies of the KKK and the WBC. But those are domestic issues. Why then, should we feel enough guilt to allow in Sharia Muslims, who are essentially the ideological cousins of the KKK and WBC?
Doesn't the U.S. have enough problems without inviting in more? Why allow in groups that put the American citizenry at risk? If Russian neo-Nazis wanted to migrate to the U.S., I would also want to deny them entry.
McNocheit actually wasn't. He had a pity party because he lost, and now he is making it known he is a sore loser. It was such a good speech he now has been back pedaling all morning??
Why don't you think it was a good speech? If he had said the words "vote for Donald Trump" would it have been a good speech?
I disagree with much of his platform but I thought it was a very good, inspiring speech touching on freedom and common patriotic, American themes. Not one of the greatest I've heard, but very good.
roddy116I mean, do you actually think the DNC is going to be any different?
I would like to think there will be a LITTLE more policy discussion versus what the RNC had. But I doubt it. Lena Fucking Dunham is speaking at the DNC so I can't imagine it'll be any better.
.MASSHOLE.But what is truly scary are his comments about NATO. For someone who wants to "Make America Safe Again", speaking out against NATO is doing the exact opposite.
NATO is a disgrace, the U.S. is subsidizing the national defense of various European nations who pay in, and contribute, next to nothing. Russia is not the enemy, Islamic Jihad is the enemy. Unless NATO is retooled to engage Islamic terrorism, it has outlived its purpose, and exists solely to provoke war with Russia.
.MASSHOLE.For those who are interested, read this. It is terrifying that this man has gotten so far because he truly has ZERO political or international relations knowledge.
That didn't seem to bother anyone who voted for Obama.
CampeadorWhile I agree with certain points you have made, your response still begs the question, why should Sharia Muslims be granted entry to the United States?
Sure, we have to suffer the ideologies of the KKK and the WBC. But those are domestic issues. Why then, should we feel enough guilt to allow in Sharia Muslims, who are essentially the ideological cousins of the KKK and WBC?
Doesn't the U.S. have enough problems without inviting in more? Why allow in groups that put the American citizenry at risk? If Russian neo-Nazis wanted to migrate to the U.S., I would also want to deny them entry.
I don't think they are ideologically at all equivalent to the WBC or KKK.
Like all religions, there are hardliners and then there are the more easy going members who use the religon as a spiritual guide, not a way of life.
I think the us should have a tough screening policy, and should put a big chunk of money towards integration programs. I think the lack of integration programs are a big reason why any immigrant population ever has a tough time.
CampeadorNATO is a disgrace, the U.S. is subsidizing the national defense of various European nations who pay in, and contribute, next to nothing. Russia is not the enemy, Islamic Jihad is the enemy. Unless NATO is retooled to engage Islamic terrorism, it has outlived its purpose, and exists solely to provoke war with Russia.
That didn't seem to bother anyone who voted for Obama.
And now it is confirmed you are 100% ignorant almost every subject in this thread. Ever heard of little Estonia? They pay their required amount, fought alongside us in Afghanistan AND Iraq, and are in desperate need of NATO. Without NATO, they would be cannon fodder to Russia.
The threat of NATO is what is stopping Russia from taking over the rest of Ukraine and any other Baltic state.
You seem to clearly want global instability. Trump is playing right into Putin's hand (kind of funny his campaign leader used to work with a former puppet of Putin). With the withdrawal of the US from NATO, the European/Asian hegemony would be Russia.
Also, you evidently don't know how NATO contributions work. The share is calculated on Gross National income (total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country) and adjusted regularly. This is the DIRECT contributions. Here is the break down of each countries responsibility. Under this, we contributed about $500m a year which went to NATO civilian and military expenses, operational military expenses, and other expenditures.
Now, if you're to claim INDIRECT spending, sure, we do spend a lot more. However, this is due our global presence across the globe. Our expenditures for our own defense and NATO defense are not split, therefore it is difficult for us actually calculate the difference.
But to pull out of NATO? May be the 2nd stupidest thing in regards to his platform he has said, only behind renegotiating US debt.
californiagrownI think the us should have a tough screening policy, and should put a big chunk of money towards integration programs. I think the lack of integration programs are a big reason why any immigrant population ever has a tough time.
Our current program is a 1-2 year vetting process by numerous intelligence agencies. I am not really sure what else people are looking for.
In regards to integration programs, I certainly agree, but there is no way a GOP member will want to propose that, they would call it a welfare program.
.MASSHOLE.Our current program is a 1-2 year vetting process by numerous intelligence agencies. I am not really sure what else people are looking for.
In regards to integration programs, I certainly agree, but there is no way a GOP member will want to propose that, they would call it a welfare program.
The process is fine, the criteria to gain entry should be tougher IMO.
Integration programs don't mean handouts. I mean, working towards getting refugees work in similar industries as their old jobs, free, mandatory language classes and education, cooking classes and an initial stipend to spend at "small businesses" in their new community etc.
californiagrownThe process is fine, the criteria to gain entry should be tougher IMO.
Integration programs don't mean handouts. I mean, working towards getting refugees work in similar industries as their old jobs, free, mandatory language classes and education, cooking classes and an initial stipend to spend at "small businesses" in their new community etc.
I have no idea what the criteria are, so I can't really comment on the difficulty.
Oh I agree with your interpretation, but that stuff isn't "free" and the GOP certainly won't to give it to them.
.MASSHOLE.I have no idea what the criteria are, so I can't really comment on the difficulty.
Oh I agree with your interpretation, but that stuff isn't "free" and the GOP certainly won't to give it to them.
I always found it ironic that the GOP is seen as the Christian patty, yet are super against government charity. I don't think Americans give nearly enough money to charity... they'd rather keep up with the Johnsons.
.MASSHOLE.And now it is confirmed you are 100% ignorant almost every subject in this thread. Ever heard of little Estonia? They pay their required amount, fought alongside us in Afghanistan AND Iraq, and are in desperate need of NATO. Without NATO, they would be cannon fodder to Russia.
The threat of NATO is what is stopping Russia from taking over the rest of Ukraine and any other Baltic state.
You seem to clearly want global instability. Trump is playing right into Putin's hand (kind of funny his campaign leader used to work with a former puppet of Putin). With the withdrawal of the US from NATO, the European/Asian hegemony would be Russia.
Also, you evidently don't know how NATO contributions work. The share is calculated on Gross National income (total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country) and adjusted regularly. This is the DIRECT contributions. Here is the break down of each countries responsibility. Under this, we contributed about $500m a year which went to NATO civilian and military expenses, operational military expenses, and other expenditures.
Now, if you're to claim INDIRECT spending, sure, we do spend a lot more. However, this is due our global presence across the globe. Our expenditures for our own defense and NATO defense are not split, therefore it is difficult for us actually calculate the difference.
But to pull out of NATO? May be the 2nd stupidest thing in regards to his platform he has said, only behind renegotiating US debt.
Again, you try to pass yourself off as an expert, when in fact you're clueless.
"Only Poland this year joined the four other countries, out of 28 total NATO members, that are meeting the alliance’s goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. The other four are the U.S., Great Britain, Greece and Estonia."
"In total, the U.S. accounts for roughly 75% of the military spending by all NATO members. U.S. leaders for years have urged European countries to do more, saying they need to take more responsibility for their own defense."
The U.S. is being taken advantage of, the fact that almost no European nations contribute even the minimally requested 2% of GDP on defense is an absolute disgrace. Europe should spend their own money, on their own national defense.
Only a Sharia-sympathizing Clinton supporter would think that Russia trying to reestablish the Soviet Union is an actual threat in comparison to global Jihadism.
I'm not suggesting that NATO be disbanded, only that the focus shift away from Russian and to the actual threat of Islamism. Trump is correct to pressure European nations to spend their own money on their own national defense, and he should also threaten to remove countries from NATO that refuse to do so. That is perfectly rational.
With our national debt, and our continually poor economic situation, it is absolutely absurd that we should be forced to subsidize the national defense of European nations that are perfectly able to contribute to their own national defense, but are unwilling to do so.
.MASSHOLE.Our current program is a 1-2 year vetting process by numerous intelligence agencies. I am not really sure what else people are looking for.
Lies.
"Because of a spike in Middle Eastern refugees needing placement, the Obama administration has decided to rush their vetting process to three months, from the original 18-24 months."
"The Refugee Resettlement Watch, which monitors the resettlement efforts, has reported 99 percent of those relocated to the U.S. are Sunni Muslims, and they expect that trend to continue under the surge operation."
One could estimate from the results from Iraq and Jordan, that the support for Sharia in Syria to be between 91% and 74%. And yet these Sharia supporters are being "screened" a grand total of three whole months.
"Because of a spike in Middle Eastern refugees needing placement, the Obama administration has decided to rush their vetting process to three months, from the original 18-24 months."
"The Refugee Resettlement Watch, which monitors the resettlement efforts, has reported 99 percent of those relocated to the U.S. are Sunni Muslims, and they expect that trend to continue under the surge operation."
One could estimate from the results from Iraq and Jordan, that the support for Sharia in Syria to be between 91% and 74%. And yet these Sharia supporters are being "screened" a grand total of three whole months.
CampeadorAgain, you try to pass yourself off as an expert, when in fact you're clueless.
"Only Poland this year joined the four other countries, out of 28 total NATO members, that are meeting the alliance’s goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. The other four are the U.S., Great Britain, Greece and Estonia."
"In total, the U.S. accounts for roughly 75% of the military spending by all NATO members. U.S. leaders for years have urged European countries to do more, saying they need to take more responsibility for their own defense."
The U.S. is being taken advantage of, the fact that almost no European nations contribute even the minimally requested 2% of GDP on defense is an absolute disgrace. Europe should spend their own money, on their own national defense.
I'm not suggesting that NATO be disbanded, only that the focus shift away from Russian and to the actual threat of Islamism. Trump is correct to pressure European nations to spend their own money on their own national defense, and he should also threaten to remove countries from NATO that refuse to do so. That is perfectly rational.
With our national debt, and our continually poor economic situation, it is absolutely absurd that we should be forced to subsidize the national defense of European nations that are perfectly able to contribute to their own national defense, but are unwilling to do so.
And again, you are misunderstanding the way spending is allocated. I won't break it down to you again, because you clearly are incapable of reading how there are two different ways they calculate expenditures.
Here, taken from NATO:
Within the principle of common funding, all 28 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget.
Not GDP, but GNI. There is a big difference.
You're calculating both the DIRECT and INDIRECT expenditures. Indirect is where the GDP figure comes from.
"The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance and more so since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, after which the United States significantly increased its defence spending. The gap between defence spending in the United States compared to Canada and European members combined has therefore increased.
Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organisation, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare."
Since you can't/won't read that, here is the TL;DR version: Increase of US military presence globally is why our expenditures dwarf those of NATO. Our bases in Turkey, Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. cost a hell of a lot more than domestic bases that other NATO members have.
Don't want to disband NATO, just want America to leave? Or selectively choose who they support? That goes against NATO all together.
You obviously don't understand anything, and I don't know why I bother with you. I have shown you national debt is frankly a non-issue as we are a country built off debt, that our economic situation is the best it has been in over a decade, and that our military expenditures dwarf those of any EU country because we maintain a global presence. But you continue to stick your head in the sand and scream DONALD SAVE ME PLEASE DONALD.
.MASSHOLE.You obviously don't understand anything, and I don't know why I bother with you. I have shown you national debt is frankly a non-issue as we are a country built off debt, that our economic situation is the best it has been in over a decade, and that our military expenditures dwarf those of any EU country because we maintain a global presence. DONALD.
You're always good for a laugh.
You've shown that 20+ trillion dollar debt is a "non-issue" because a hack political-economist, Paul Krugman, told you so. Anyone who believes that 20+ trillion dollars in debt is a "non-issue" is a fucking idiot.
Our economic system over the past eight years has only worked to enrich those at the top through corrupt Quantitative Easing and artificially low interest rates from the Fed. The 1% have never done better than under Obama, however, that is not an indication of a strong economy. Strongest economy in over a decade? Give me a break, keep drinking that Obama kool-aid.
We maintain a global presence that we should no longer maintain. NATO nations should be forced to pony up or be expelled, and on a side note, South Korea should pay for all the defense expenditures of the U.S. at the DMZ.
You've shown that 20+ trillion dollar debt is a "non-issue" because a hack political-economist, Paul Krugman, told you so. Anyone who believes that 20+ trillion dollars in debt is a "non-issue" is a fucking idiot.
Our economic system over the past eight years has only worked to enrich those at the top through corrupt Quantitative Easing and artificially low interest rates from the Fed. The 1% have never done better than under Obama, however, that is not an indication of a strong economy. Strongest economy in over a decade? Give me a break, keep drinking that Obama kool-aid.
We maintain a global presence that we should no longer maintain. NATO nations should be forced to pony up or be expelled, and on a side note, South Korea should pay for all the defense expenditures of the U.S. at the DMZ.
Well, any economist I present to you with a point proving why is immediately called a hack. I could show you a report from economists at the IMF, a professor from Northwestern, or any other academic but you would immediately call their credibility into question for whatever reason you find sufficient. But considering we own most of our own debt, and it really is a non-issue compared to what you, and other idiots who follow Trump believe it to be.
Corrupt QE? Lol. How the hell is QE corrupt? It injects liquidity into the market. Hell, without it the entire global economy would be absolutely screwed. QE, as it stands currently, is one of the only things that saved it. Prove to me, not just use your own opinion, that QE has hurt the economy and that the alternative was better.
Economic metrics would certainly indicate its better than it has been in a decade. I don't see any evidence to the contrary. Maybe a few anecdotal stories, but 2007-2009 were some pretty shitty times if you don't recall.
So, we should stop our preventative measures, allow N. Korea to attack S. Korea, allow China to expand into the S. Chinese Sea, let Iran grow into a nuclear power, and let Russia reclaim the Baltic States?
I won't repeat the NATO explanations. You are too dense to understand it.
Really, your community college education is showing through right now. I've met some damn smart kids who went to CC's, but you are not one. You lack any ability to make a rational argument, cannot backup your evidence that you present (if you present it), and frankly are so far up Donald's ass you almost fall out of his mouth when he speaks.
CampeadorLooking strictly at the ideology of Sharia, how exactly do you come to that conclusion?
Largely because there are hugely varying levels of belief and adherence to sharia.
Based on a strict interpretation of the old testament, Christianity is real fucking bad too.
WBC and KKK are based purely on hatred, and members are ALL hateful enough to have joined. The least despicable member is still far, far more despicable than the vast majority of folks who believe in some form of sharia.
The black and white world you live in must really suck. I'd hate to be so illogical and close minded.
.MASSHOLE.Economic metrics would certainly indicate its better than it has been in a decade. I don't see any evidence to the contrary. Maybe a few anecdotal stories, but 2007-2009 were some pretty shitty times if you don't recall.
So, we should stop our preventative measures, allow N. Korea to attack S. Korea, allow China to expand into the S. Chinese Sea, let Iran grow into a nuclear power, and let Russia reclaim the Baltic States?
I won't repeat the NATO explanations. You are too dense to understand it.
Really, your community college education is showing through right now. I've met some damn smart kids who went to CC's, but you are not one. You lack any ability to make a rational argument, cannot backup your evidence that you present (if you present it), and frankly are so far up Donald's ass you almost fall out of his mouth when he speaks.
Hey there, you clown, did you forget how to count, or just the English definition of the word "decade"? It's 2016, you idiot.
Since you like to make my own arguments for me, why even bother respond? You're doing my work for me (when you should probably be focused on your shitty cubicle drone job). I feel true sympathy for your employer that is getting so thoroughly ripped off, your folks probably knew someone who got you the job in the first place.
We should stop paying for the national defense of countries that are perfectly able to fund their own national defense. How can I make this any clearer?
News flash, cubicle drone, Iran is already becoming a nuclear power, and China is already spreading its influence into the South China Sea, despite all the "strength" from our dear leader Obama.
And where does this strange theory come from where Russia wants to reestablish the Soviet Union? You have nothing to back it up. If Russia wanted to take the Baltic States, or Georgia, who would stop them? The US won't start a nuclear war for any of those countries.
californiagrownLargely because there are hugely varying levels of belief and adherence to sharia.
Based on a strict interpretation of the old testament, Christianity is real fucking bad too.
WBC and KKK are based purely on hatred, and members are ALL hateful enough to have joined. The least despicable member is still far, far more despicable than the vast majority of folks who believe in some form of sharia.
See, all the Christian references fall flat, because those Christians that you claim exist only exist in your own fantasies. The numbers, if any, are negligible.
Meanwhile, here's some UK Sharia for you (courtesy of Sharia-apologists like you):
Health authorities have recorded 5,702 new cases of female genital mutilation in just one year, official figures show, equivalent to more than 100 cases every week.
CampeadorHey there, you clown, did you forget how to count, or just the English definition of the word "decade"? It's 2016, you idiot.
Since you like to make my own arguments for me, why even bother respond? You're doing my work for me (when you should probably be focused on your shitty cubicle drone job). I feel true sympathy for your employer that is getting so thoroughly ripped off, your folks probably knew someone who got you the job in the first place.
We should stop paying for the national defense of countries that are perfectly able to fund their own national defense. How can I make this any clearer?
News flash, cubicle drone, Iran is already becoming a nuclear power, and China is already spreading its influence into the South China Sea, despite all the "strength" from our dear leader Obama.
And where does this strange theory come from where Russia wants to reestablish the Soviet Union? You have nothing to back it up. If Russia wanted to take the Baltic States, or Georgia, who would stop them? The US won't start a nuclear war for any of those countries.
2006 wasn't a great year either. But keep on thinking it was.
II see your dad being a dentist didn't stop you from going to CC.
Being able to fund a national defense does not mean it is an adequate national defense. A country like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or any other small Baltic nation could use 100% of their GDP and still struggle to raise an army that could ward off Putin and his cronies. How can I make that any clearer?
The threat of NATO prevents those countries from ever wielding it on a member.
Because Russia has openly said they want to regain the territory they once had...Which includes Baltic State members. NATO would because some Baltic States are members of NATO. Christ you're obtuse.
CampeadorHealth authorities have recorded 5,702 new cases of female genital mutilation in just one year, official figures show, equivalent to more than 100 cases every week.
.MASSHOLE.2006 wasn't a great year either. But keep on thinking it was.
II see your dad being a dentist didn't stop you from going to CC.
Being able to fund a national defense does not mean it is an adequate national defense. A country like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or any other small Baltic nation could use 100% of their GDP and still struggle to raise an army that could ward off Putin and his cronies. How can I make that any clearer?
The threat of NATO prevents those countries from ever wielding it on a member.
Because Russia has openly said they want to regain the territory they once had...Which includes Baltic State members. NATO would because some Baltic States are members of NATO. Christ you're obtuse.
You're trying so hard, it's precious.
You also seem to have a difficult time with the English language, seeing as how you said "over a decade", but sure, maybe you misspoke.
You've even resorted to using the exact same words that I used to describe you, like two-three pages back I wrote, "Christ, you are so damn obtuse" and something similar on the 10th page as well.
It makes perfect sense, you are incapable of original thought, you just regurgitate bullshit from people you deem to be authorities on any given subject, in order to try and fool people into thinking that you are not a dumb shit. I'm somewhat flattered now that you've now taken to regurgitating my words.
Lastly, if NATO is indeed so important to the nations of Europe, then they should pony up and play their part. It's really that simple.
You also seem to have a difficult time with the English language, seeing as how you said "over a decade", but sure, maybe you misspoke.
You've even resorted to using the exact same words that I used to describe you, like two-three pages back I wrote, "Christ, you are so damn obtuse" and something similar on the 10th page as well.
It makes perfect sense, you are incapable of original thought, you just regurgitate bullshit from people you deem to be authorities on any given subject, in order to try and fool people into thinking that you are not a dumb shit. I'm somewhat flattered now that you've now taken to regurgitating my words.
Lastly, if NATO is indeed so important to the nations of Europe, then they should pony up and play their part. It's really that simple.
Pretty sure you have been slinging insults my way since you can't actually form a coherent argument where you present a thesis, then facts, then facts against the counterargument, and then a conclusion. I imagine they don't teach that at your CC.
Dont flatter yourself, I would never want to be a closed-minded bigot like you.
And as as I said, read how NATO breaks down their spending. You're looking at indirect spending. No country maintains a global presence like the US, nor do they need to because it is in our best economic interests that the regions we have our bases remain stable. As a result we put forward the military required to do so.
But you prefer those ancient protectionist policies thinking they'll make America great again.
The sad thing is Campeador, I would congratulate you if you were a troll because you would have done a great job but your post history suggests you're not. I pity you. It must be sad trying to place blame on everyone else for your issues.
.MASSHOLE.Newsflash, genital mutilation is more cultural than religious, hence why it is prevalent in Africa.
Wrong again, you obtuse Sharia-sympathizer.
"A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (ﷺ) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband."
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 5271
In-book reference : Book 43, Hadith 499
English translation : Book 42, Hadith 5251
.MASSHOLE.Pretty sure you have been slinging insults my way since you can't actually form a coherent argument where you present a thesis, then facts, then facts against the counterargument, and then a conclusion. I imagine they don't teach that at your CC.
.
This is a forum, not an essay, you pretentious piece of shit.
CampeadorWrong again, you obtuse Sharia-sympathizer.
"A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (ﷺ) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband."
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 5271
In-book reference : Book 43, Hadith 499
English translation : Book 42, Hadith 5251
.MASSHOLE.Struck a nerve did I? Oh man, someone doesn't like someone a few years their junior being smarter than them.
I I said more cultural than religious. Learn to read. Never denied the religious links. But it is more prevalent in Africa regardless of religion.
That's funny, given the correlation to a single religion, perhaps if you watched the clip from David Pakman's show you'd see that. I wonder what religious group is carrying out all the FGM in the UK?
Check mate, Masshole, you unbelievable piece of shit.
CampeadorThat's funny, given the correlation to a single religion, perhaps if you watched the clip from David Pakman's show you'd see that. I wonder what religious group is carrying out all the FGM in the UK?
Check mate, Masshole, you unbelievable piece of shit.
The FGM in the UK is an undeniable issue but it is a small amount compared to what you see globally.
If if you got your head out of the clouds you would see there is more to the world than the US, UK, and ME.
