CreateDebate


Raptor22's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Raptor22's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

You haven't the slightest clue about Armaments Minster Albert Speer and his relocation of German war industry

I would disagree

Allied bombing highly un-effective against armaments facilities

This is still debated in the most vehement of fashions among historians. To claim an absolute, without residing as an historian yourself, is simply preposterous.

You may now argue

Why do you attempt to make an argument for me? Such action is excessively patronizing.

May I remind you that Germany was very close to complete domination of Europe.

Only until they attacked the Soviets

FDR and Churchill, knew nothing whatsoever about the strength of Nazi Germany in Relation to Imperial Japan.

FDR knew the power of the the Germans. He also knew the outcome of operation Barbarossa.

the German Whermarcht employed revolutionary tactics and strategy. This, along with very advanced weaponry made them a seemingly unstoppable force.

The most important lesson from WW2 was that quantity is quality on its own

here are some eye-witness accounts of an actual test of one of these nuclear devices near the Baltic coast. This is corroborated with tests from the alleged sight. This of course cannot be definitively proven, but it is a possibility. The leaders of the Western Allies knew the threat of German Super-weapons was great, this was spurred on by a letter from Albert Einstein to FDR warning about the Nazi nuclear programme.

I can actually guarantee that there was no German nuke after February 20th, 1944.

American and Canadian navy's were in a massive expansion programme. Japan could simply not compete with this.

Americans no, Canadians yes.

Japanese strategies and tactics were also out-dated

Excluding the bonsai charges, that is so utterly false. Just try to think of the tactical significance of pearl harbor, as one example.

0 points

Let's think calmly and logically about this. First, WWII was on two main fronts, The Pacific and Europe

Do not patronize me.

Japan was not too powerful compared to other major powers at the time

The Japanese navy was arguably the dominant naval power pre-battle of midway, aided by a fighter, the mitsubishi zero that dominated the skies until later on in the war. The army it possessed, was comprised of virile men, whom would not see the pain of defeat. If this nation did not demonstrate military prowess, then you do not revere military history.

the Allies had a ''Germany First'' strategy

This evidences nothing, except perhaps the genuine plurality of European nations in the allied forces. Germany was the largest threat to the allies due to the nature of their global positioning; they were the threat for a majority of the allies. Japan being on the other side of the world, was to far away to be considered a threat to them ( the Europeans). The other allied powers, the U.S. and China, focused on Japan because of its strength and location relative to them. Yet despite this major threat, the U.S. still provided massive aid to fund the war against the Nazis, albeit indirectly. The lend lease act was certainly an integral part to the Nazis defeat.

now we can say that on a Germany vs. USSR debate alone the USSR would win.

This is so utterly false, the Germans (Hitler) were fighting on two fronts (Britain did not fall in large part to the lend lease act) and the French were not entirely defeated. Fighting on two fronts is difficult even for the most powerful militaries. Even so, the Russians were saved by the harsh condititions of their own winter; they were being pushed back quickly by the Germans, of which were supplied only for warm weather fighting (Hitler expected a decisive, quick victory). I think you can figure out the rest.

Secondly, the Allied bombing of Germany was largely in-effective against war industry and just an attempt at destroying morale.

I'm sorry but the entire argument you attempt to make is false.

1 point

The US already has a plutocratic two party dictatorship

yes, but only to alleviate the compromise process, which has obviously been nullified by neither party establishing a "party era". Regardless, calling the complex electoral process in the U.S. a dictatorship is on the outrance of common opinion; a more apt description would be a Republic comprised of a populace so blissfully ignorant, that the former adapted a new standard.

democracy isn't meant to mean voting for the lesser of two evils every four years

The U.S. was founded on the principals of a Republic, allowing power for the elite rather than the common man. A deep seeded mistrust for the common person had wedged its way into the hearts of this nations forefathers; the common man knew nothing about politics. Yet this outlandish view was after all, not a devilish mistrust; American people can only answer about 20% of political questions correctly.

The brilliant foundation from which this country formed, necessitated a voter base comprised of individuals who understood the values of one vote. Therefore, the fault belongs with the people, not the system. This maturated Republic, in which you refer as a Democracy, worked for decades under the two party system. The current political parties are an evolutionized form of politicians whom are accustomed to a nation compromised of the stereotypical common man. Fault the constituents, not the system.

1 point

This is a very very basic algebra problem. I learned this when I was 11-12.

1 point

X=.5

Y=-.5

To complete this, multiply the first equation by 7 and the bottom equation by 2 so as the two y's will cancel out. You will then be left with 52x=26 (after the two equations were combined) which will lead to the sum.of x being .5. Fill x in one equation as .5 and solve. You should be left with y=-.5

1 point

I alway's found it interesting that the USA were always happy to fund terrorism whilst it was happening in other countries but as soon as it happened in America they expect everyone to feal sorry for them and get behind them

How is this different from any other nation in the world? This level of ignorance only epitomizes the identified reason for the worlds hatred of America; they are the superpower.

1 point

Also two wrongs dont make a right so just because another nation does something bad does not justify the USA or anyone else doing the same.

I never made the case that the actions were at all justifiable, rather to the contrary; that guilt and disappointment accompany my thoughts as I think of myself as a supporter of terrorism only by paying taxes to my government. The point I intended to make was: a person whose disdain of the U.S. is based on federal support for terrorism, is adherently ignorant to the actions of common industrialized nations.

1 point

Yes during the time of the Empire Britain did not treat the nations that fell under their jurisdiction as well as they should that is historical fact but is irrelavent to this debate.

How is it at all irrelevant? It proves that the U.S. is not the anomaly Europeans so blissfully believe it is, rather following the path of worlds superpower.

look up Operation Cyclone which was when America funded the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups

I wonder what the cost would be for plagiarizing wikipedia? Don't act like you have an in depth understanding when clearly you copy and pasted then added a little of your own elaboration to someone else's work.

Yet, you clearly did not understand this was how the United States fought the Soviets in that war, in fact, that gorilla tactic is not at all unusual, especially in a nuclear world. Actually, here is what KGB General Aleksandr Sakharovsky once said: "In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon."(of the Soviet Union). Heres another from KGB chairman Yury Andropov:

"a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States."

The U.S. may have used terrorism, but not nearly to the extent of its father, the Soviet Union. The scary thing is, there are many European countries sponsoring the same thing, continually believing the U.S. is alone in its self interested support for terrorism is purely ignorance.

1 point

hough I suppose maybe American soldiers dancing in to Vietnam, covering everyone there in agent orange, napalming its schools.. Let me just explain this for people who say "wut?" There is much photographic evidence showing the after effects of this. Little 6 year old girls tripping over the limbs of their now dead friends as they rty to run away, confused as now they too have had their arms blown off and have effectively no back, as it has been completely burned off using agent orange. And whose grandchildren will still be born with hideous deformities. And the Americans still bitch they had their asses kicked.

You clearly are ignorant to the horrors of war. Americans are not the only ones to torture the civilians of their enemy's, it is the nature of warfare. The problem is, people like you only see what they wish rather than look through the roots of history only so they can satisfy their own disgusting beliefs. Here is some of the Viet Cong war crimes http://vnafmamn.com/VNWar_atrocities.html and a direct example from the article, which you should read in its entirety to maybe alleviate some of your blatant ignorance:"Viet Cong Massacre Dak Son Civilians - Song Be, Vietnam, December 6 -- Two battalions of Viet Cong systematically killed 252 civilians with flame-throwers and grenades this week in a "vengeance" attack on a small hamlet less than a mile from the capital in Phuoc Long Province"

and then maybe a few example of the Japanese of ww2 which were nearly as bad as the Nazis, except rather than Jewish, the Chinese were literally test subjects of Japanese hate experiments: http://www.eubios.info/EJ106/EJ106C.htm

1 point

"it is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Qaddafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali’s guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe’s motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about)."

http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html

It sounds like Obama didn't screw up this one, or the U.S. for that matter. Rather a european country where you reside? Anymore misinformed hatred for the U.S.?

1 point

"Your soldiers want go kill people. They think it's cool to kill people."

Based on what? You generalize based on your own misguided views. Based on what you have stated, you dint even understand the nature of the Afghan war; its not against the country rather the insurgency. What does that mean to a U.S. soldier? everyone looks like the enemy because the insurgents can disguise themselves which will obviously lead to higher numbers of civilian casualties. Most Americans do not enjoy war, much-less enjoy killing people, to even believe most are capable of such animosities is nearly more of insult to humanity.

There are countless examples of Americans terrorising countries, but it's Ok isn't it, because " It's the GODDAMN USA BITCHES!

Its not nearly as bad as what Britain did during their stint in power is it?

You know, the amount the USA spends on its army, is more than the amount every country in the world spends on its army added together. And you want it BIGGER!

Considering this statement, it seems likely you understand the worlds geography as western Europe, China, Japan Canada and maybe a few other countries because it is the next 10 countries put together. In terms of GDP, America spends 1.5% of its GDP while the next country, China spends 1.2%. So it is fairly obvious that the large allocation of funds to the U.S. military is in large part, a result in having the worlds largest economy. Oh, and actually, Obama and I, we actually believe the U.S. allocates to many resources to the defense budget and actually wish to reduce defense spending, but considering the bubble you confine your narrow mind, you wouldn't know that.

Of course it has fast cars, Hollywood, nice big houses and lots to eat

You just characterized a reason why the world hates the U.S., but don't worry, it is part of ones human condition to hate the "best".

"When I say this though, I know all you die hard assholes out there are going to complain at me"

Before you characterize me as a "die hard asshole" i just think you should know I moved from England to the U.S. in 1999.

" Only the vast, vast majority would be quite happy to shoot a mentally retarded man in the head because he committed a crime!"

Yes, actually so many U.S. citizens support needless death that England, along with a host of other E.U. nations, became our allies and support our views!

Or keep possible innocent 15 year olds with bullet holes in them so big you can fit a coke can through it and clog it up

The Americans in that photo, you blind bastard, are removing the bullets from the kid and providing other of forms of medical attention. A perfect example that MOST Americans posses levels of empathy clearly void from your mind and few American extremists.

1 point

And all throughout his campaign trail, he has shown shocking examples of his own intelligence, he appears to lack any form of critical thinking, and seems to have no consistency to what he says.

In all honesty, Romney has made his intelligence ambiguous, to me, for allowing his affiliation with the Republican party. Yet, his political preference is seemingly the reason why I see him as an intelligent being. You must remember that most of our lives are referendum in that we relive our beliefs through different actions of our daily lives, Romney does not posses such a political luxury.he appears to lack any form of critical thinking, and seems to have no consistency to what he says. This does not reflect his intelligence, moreover his morality of being; it represents the lier he is. Rather, it could enforce the idea of him being vastly intelligent, being able to jungle a diverse range of lies with relatively few gaffes is truly a political god-send. His ability to debate and defend ideologies that do not mimic his own, to me, is an astounding representation of emotional emptiness and intellectual genius.

1 point

then what the hell are you doing voting directly for the President? The only people you should be voting for are politicians in house of representatives and state legislators.

1 point

How is this even being debated? Unless China starts full out nuclear war, the Soviet Union posed a drastically greater threat to our national security.

Case in point; the Cuban Missile crisis. As previously stated, the only reminiscent idea of a greater threat to national security would be nuclear war.

2 points

Chinese bust their assess off like robots

thats one reason China cannot surpass us. Their lifestyle ousts the creative mind, obviously the most important aspect for any sort of invention or break through. The U.S. on the other hand, nourishes inventors by allowing a rather rude and easy life.

Soviet Union was never a threat to the USA. Stalin always wanted to have power within the USSR, he never thought about surpassing USA.

Did you miss the space race and the entire cold war?

Your entire argument is seemingly based on a few personal confrontations, leading to entirely false generalizations.

2 points

This argument is not only fundamentally un-constitutional, but an attempt to alleviate the power and voice of the lower and middle class. Based on the only reason for exemption of voting, it is pretty clear your argument lacks merit in addition to being an example to that very same statement. Regressing basic American rights should not be a goal of this country.

2 points

The lowest yearly deficit under Clinton was still nearly 18 billion

The surplus referred to is the public debt surplus. Meaning the administration was paying back its debt to the public.

On the point you stated, that 18 billion was down from 430 billion yearly from the first Bush. Considering Clinton took over in a economic recession, this is a pretty incredible feat. Your ability to demean that feat only provides insight to the partisanship that has engulfed the Republican party.

1 point

Fine, then Romney said he likes to fire people. He said it, just completely ignore the context around it. If you work, he likes to fire you. He flat out said it.

1 point

In its entirety, he isn’t saying literally that successful people didn't build there business. Its the juxtaposition of others that create a successful big business in addition to the great idea of one individual. In reality, it is the Romney equivalent of “I like to fire people”. The Democrats did chastise Romney for that mistake so I will not engage in the same affair.

He meant to give credit to the middle class, saying that, like the country, it takes a universal effort to create a large success. If you entirely believe exxon mobil is the result of one man, you need to stop believing in Super Hero’s.

2 points

There is a large connection between getting rid of regulations and lower taxes with a good economy.

Yeah, Bush thought that too when he took over from Clinton, look how well that worked out.

In a free market there can't be a monopoly, these regulations protect big business and corporations and make it much harder on smaller and newer businesses.

This has honestly got to be a joke. Have you any reminiscence of knowledge regarding U.S. history? There was something called the Sherman anti-trust act that was created as a result of the monopolies created in an overly free market. The deregulation allowed a few massive companies to thrive while destroying small businesses.

Not all regulations, but a good amount of them should be gotten rid of.

Your ideas and writing style all correlate to someone with meager intelligence

There proposing (and doind it) raising taxes on just the rich, not only is this not equal or fair, your pushing the rich out, money and rich people can be easily moved out of a country.

The ultra-rich on average pay a smaller percentage of taxes than you do. Mitt Romney for example, payed 13% while the American average is 20%. Exxon, a company making 5 million per hour, payed an effective tax rate of 17.6%, again below the national average. America was a country founded by the wealthy and in turn wrote a constitution to protect them selves and equivalents. The least the rich can do is pay an equal tax rate.

when they fire all their workers, close their shops and start shipping jobs to other countries... oh wait, they already are.

You don’t even know the root cause for the exodus of factory jobs. America has something called minimum wage, something the destinations of those same factory jobs, don’t have. Yet, they have the profligacy to sell their products in our country after they fired our brothers, our sisters, our family. How does America compete with those nations? TAX the big businesses that think its ok to ship jobs over seas, then sell to our people. Take away the benefit of expediting our jobs over seas. Reward those that see the wrong in hurting our economy. Most, especially the rich, are self-interested. Until you force them to come back, that money saved hiring a Chinese worker, far out weighs the moral injustice to firing an American.

1 point

It is laughable to hear people say that we're better off now.

Going from an average job loss of 700,000 a month to 4.5 million private sector jobs created sounds like a sound improvement to me.

As well as interfering to much with businesses.

That “interfering” has been with massive industries such as the auto industry. It has allowed the previously mentioned example to grow and regain a reputation of quality needed to push to the top of car sales. Chrysler as a specific example, reported a 26% increase in sales last year. That really sounds like the government is hindering that business, who knew strict quality standards were a good thing? In addition, Democrats seem to understand small business better than Republicans as well; Republicans blocked a small business tax cut that would obviously help their ability to grow and create solid MIDDLE CLASS jobs rather than favoring the wealthy.

Obama will continue to drain the middle class he's never done otherwise.

Interesting that you say that, he (Obama) wants to raise taxes on the rich to maintain tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Romney literally wants the opposite, he wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class by about $2,000 to pay for tax cuts on the wealthy.

When the Government is telling us that we need more and more government something is wrong.

FDR did the same thing, and he is widely considered the best President of the 20th century.

We're getting involved in so many things over seas and ignoring problems here. This needs to stop.

I agree. But Romney wants to get involved in Syria while Obama does not. Funny that you support Romney on that issue, it almost seems hypocritical, but I know Republicans would never be like that.

Mitt Romney has a large focus on helping the middle class and giving business more freedom so that the economy can take care of it's self.

I’ve already proven how thats false. But I’m not quite sure how cutting government spending helps middle class jobs, that seems like it would actually cause the government to fire quite a few people to accommodate the lower spending budget.

We actually know more about Mitt and Paul's life than we know about Obama’s

Did Romney give you a private report on what his policies as President would be? With most of us, his plans as our nations leader have been pretty bland and un-descriptive.

1 point

How would that restrict voting rights?

By making it harder for minorities to vote. Which is why a texas court deemed it unconstitutional

What are you talking about prop 8? It would be a big government move to ignore the majority vote would it not?

The American government was set up so that the majority still had to favor the beliefs of the minorities; minority beliefs still have a significant voice (madison wanted to protect the rich, funny enough). Anyway, this issue is the equivalent of the women’s rights issue, the country was divided in beliefs, but it was unconstitutional to deny them the rights Americans treasure. For a party that loves the beliefs of the founding fathers so deeply, its hard to believe that “All men are created equal” has fallen on deaf ears. Last time I checked, gays are people to.

We want the good parts. Not slavery and discrimination

Republicans want the power of the wealthy, reinstated.

Isn't it great? If protecting the constitution is what you mean by constant referrals then yeah.

It is and it isn’t, it was a Republic born to favor the wealthy, but for the time, inherent equality for normal white men.

I meant referring to the document, not protecting it. Enlighten me to the ways in which they do so.

1 point

The ecomony wasn't good when he got in but is is a lot worse now. If all you democrates would stop going on about what you feel is right and acted on it maybe we would be better off now. Oh wait i forgot your ideas are stupid. It is time to look at facts not opinions.

This is ignorance in such a blatant form, I really did laugh. How can you say the economy is worse then when Obama took over? We were losing 800,000 jobs A MONTH and now, in the last 29 months, we have created 4.5 million private sector jobs. This is a pretty stark difference, and honestly, I think thats just a wee bit better then when Obama took office. Now before you go on about the budget and how the stimulus sucked, lets check out those facts you know so much about. That stimulus saved 400,000 educator jobs (considering our educational rankings, we kinda need those) and countless other jobs. The only reason it didn’t work better was because it wasn’t enough (in terms of money). I mean really, look how well China’s doing, don’t you wish we did the same thing? Then contrast that to Europe’s economy (which tried more or less, those republican ideas by cutting government spending) which is so bad, it speaks for itself. Then look at our own history. Widely considered one our very best presidents, FDR created a program called the new deal, which also spent huge amounts of money to get the economy running. Funny thing is, this great president took over a decade to get the economy moving, and people are chastising Obama for an economy that will likely require an equal amount of time to fix (they are similar in their depth of economic tragedy, you know).

Anyway, back to our ideas being stupid! In fact, we are so dumb that since 1961, we dems have created 42 million jobs and you republicans have created a meager 24 million! Man, we are the stupid ones, really! Oh wait, another part of our intelligence (or lack there of) has allowed us to create the only deficit reducing presidency since that same time period (thanks Bill)!

Obama can not campain on what he did the last four years.

He can, and whats more, can campaign on what was blocked in an attempt to make him fail. The partisanship created by the republicans was absurd, you can not create a committee (which Paul Ryan was on) to make a President fail, it is totally un-American. To jog your memory of a more recent example of this, republicans blocked a tax cut for small businesses ( profit of less than $500,000) which would obviously allow them a better chance to grow in tough economic times. Unless this indeed was part of the rhetoric to make him fail, it really creates doubt about their claimed prowess of the economy. Unless you can prove your own points with facts rather than speculation, which you yourself depone, then your commonality with your representatives will be a lack of depth in which you speak.

1 point

I entirely agree. He failed to address one or even both demographics he has had extreme troubles with; latino’s and women. Ryan addresses the base of the party (as we all know), a group that in its entirety, hates Obama. This conclusion is not difficult to come by, but another factor of his equation was his (Romney’s) inability to excite those very same people; the base of the party. So in a way, Ryan will bring out that demographic, but the effect someone such as Marko Rubio would have posed a detrimental problem to Obama’s campaign. Rubio would certainly have alleviated the pain of a 20% support rate from a Latino group, and so far, a rate at which it is nearly impossible to win.


1 of 5 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]