- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The reference below predates Trump but it's the most recent international comparison of military spending I could find and was itself a fact check confirmed essentially true.
1) So basically, the US already spends as much on military as all the next (7 or) 8 nations in line combined. It's unfathomable that we are cutting domestic spending across the board just so our military spending can then eclipse the top 9 to 10 nations all combined.
2) And it utterly castrates the argument that our military must be badly out of date when whatever everyone else is buying is clearly just a tiny fraction of what we keep buying year after year.
3) And, strategically, it places the US on a collision course with it's own people not unlike how decades of Soviet Union massive military spending put it on a collision course with its people, too, until ultimately the Soviet Union got broken up and ceased to be a global power for a while. Frankly, this smacks of a plan to destroy the last superpower by following the path of the demise that took down it's top competitor.
4) And finally, it suggests that the top arms supplier on the planet is afraid enough of the things it keeps selling to everyone else that instead now it wants to go nuts trying to protect itself.
Sliding around on the political spectrum happens to all countries given enough time, but just because the opposite ends are communism and fascism doesn't mean every nation is on a path to one or the other. The fact that relatively few nations in the world fall squarely on either of those is good proof it is not inevitable.
Your criteria for determining intoxication is bogus, nor did our few conversations about wine go to the details you claim. You're just making excuses to keep using the smear.
And you say our opinions of your sainthood don't bother you, but you're the guy who bans pretty much everybody else who refuses to drink your Koolaid. When you're putting your hands over your ears and yelling "na na na I can't hear you" you're admitting you're bothered by all of our counter arguments.
I think deportation is extreme. But what I don't think is extreme is prosecuting them under any and every law on the books - illegal assembly, trespassing, hate speech, suppression of free speech, violating the freedom of religion of those they object to, harassment, noise, inciting violence, etc. The do plenty worthy of getting the book thrown at them.
Although I'm not sure I know the whole story (nor probably does the general public) I do believe in fair and consistent application of laws and his case certainly sounds like he did plenty deserving prosecution. And I don't think publicity itself is an automatic to get off. If that were true then no one high profile could ever fairly be convicted of anything under the sun.
1) It worked.
2) If the Japanese (or any Axis power member) had gotten them first then make no mistake they would have used them on us.
3) Someone somewhere in the world was going to use them first. If the US had not someone else would. A couple cities had to get obliterated somewhere around the world no matter what so the horror could be established and trigger deterrence.
4) Without detonating nuclear weapons we never would have seen the birth of Godzilla!
Unless you want the simple life of a farm cow knowledge is always more beneficial than a lack of knowledge.
And even if you intend the Biblical route on this and will conclude the tree of knowledge brought only suffering then I'll counter with all the BS behind the creation and meaning of that story.