More gun sickness.

Page 7 of 8 [ 128 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

29 Dec 2012, 10:09 am

J-Greens wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

i wouldnt even say im a novice with computers,more a nightmare to who ever owns the computer im using.all the ramblings about lifestyle was to illustrate that socialized medicine would be to expensive even relative to the population.insuring 300 milliom american would be like 600 million europeans.it would take time to dig up old artices i read about places that work less actualy get more accomplished.do you save every written or electronic article you read

Well firstly, I don't save every written article I read. If I need an article to explain my point, I'll copy in the address to the reply and forget all about it.

Secondly, I don't get where you get your 300 = 600 equation from? This should help clear any confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_f ... ealth_care

the numbers are just a ballpark figure,i was simply illustrating that i would be to expensive to ensure americans.
if america cut its military budget enough to pay for health care then europe would have to start building its military and then they would have trouble paying for there health care.

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

29 Dec 2012, 10:30 am

vermontsavant wrote:

the numbers are just a ballpark figure,i was simply illustrating that i would be to expensive to ensure americans.

So if something is expensive it's not worth the investment?

vermontsavant wrote:

if america cut its military budget enough to pay for health care then europe would have to start building its military and then they would have trouble paying for there health care.

This needs urgent citation. Are you saying Europe doesn't have a military force? :lol:

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

29 Dec 2012, 10:48 am

J-Greens wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

the numbers are just a ballpark figure,i was simply illustrating that i would be to expensive to ensure americans.

So if something is expensive it's not worth the investment?

vermontsavant wrote:

if america cut its military budget enough to pay for health care then europe would have to start building its military and then they would have trouble paying for there health care.

This needs urgent citation. Are you saying Europe doesn't have a military force? :lol:

1.if you have a plan that you think would work then best of luck,i am just skeptical about how it could be paid for.

2.america and russia had the mightiest armies of the last 100 years and russia couldnt even win in afganistan and america couldnt even win vietnam

3.so what would switzerland,belgium or denmark do if they were attacked,those are some of the nations with the best health care

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

29 Dec 2012, 2:36 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

1.if you have a plan that you think would work then best of luck,i am just skeptical about how it could be paid for.

First step, nationalisation & general taxation.

vermontsavant wrote:

2.america and russia had the mightiest armies of the last 100 years and russia couldnt even win in afganistan and america couldnt even win vietnam

Don't see what relevance this is?

vermontsavant wrote:

3.so what would switzerland,belgium or denmark do if they were attacked,those are some of the nations with the best health care

Why would they be attacked? By who? Why?
And what does warfare have to do with healthcare?

I cannot see your train of thought on this point.

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

29 Dec 2012, 2:46 pm

J-Greens wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

1.if you have a plan that you think would work then best of luck,i am just skeptical about how it could be paid for.

First step, nationalisation & general taxation.

vermontsavant wrote:

2.america and russia had the mightiest armies of the last 100 years and russia couldnt even win in afganistan and america couldnt even win vietnam

Don't see what relevance this is?

vermontsavant wrote:

3.so what would switzerland,belgium or denmark do if they were attacked,those are some of the nations with the best health care

Why would they be attacked? By who? Why?
And what does warfare have to do with healthcare?

I cannot see your train of thought on this point.

it means that if the mightiest armies in the world could not win a war against a signifcantly smaller country in population.how then could small social democracies defend themselves without sacrificing there health care for an increased military.and forget help from the U.S because under your sceneo the us would have gutted there military for health care.

health care has everything to do with health because both health and the military are very expensive.

ask yourself what is realy stoping Vladamir Putin from from trying to take back the baltics,lithuania,latvia,estonia

once he has the baltics then he would go the balkans,serbia,croatia,bosnia.

once he has all of eastern europe why not go for the rest of europe

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

29 Dec 2012, 2:47 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

J-Greens wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

1.if you have a plan that you think would work then best of luck,i am just skeptical about how it could be paid for.

First step, nationalisation & general taxation.

vermontsavant wrote:

2.america and russia had the mightiest armies of the last 100 years and russia couldnt even win in afganistan and america couldnt even win vietnam

Don't see what relevance this is?

vermontsavant wrote:

3.so what would switzerland,belgium or denmark do if they were attacked,those are some of the nations with the best health care

Why would they be attacked? By who? Why?
And what does warfare have to do with healthcare?

I cannot see your train of thought on this point.

it means that if the mightiest armies in the world could not win a war against a signifcantly smaller country in population.how then could small social democracies defend themselves without sacrificing there health care for an increased military.and forget help from the U.S because under your sceneo the us would have gutted there military for health care.

health care has everything to do with the military because both health and the military are very expensive.

ask yourself what is realy stoping Vladamir Putin from from trying to take back the baltics,lithuania,latvia,estonia

once he has the baltics then he would go the balkans,serbia,croatia,bosnia.

once he has all of eastern europe why not go for the rest of europe

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

29 Dec 2012, 3:50 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

it means that if the mightiest armies in the world could not win a war against a signifcantly smaller country in population.

Er, history shows that happened hundreds of times. Numbers don't mean squat on the battlefield. Still don't see the correlation between history, miltiary and healthcare.

vermontsavant wrote:

how then could small social democracies defend themselves without sacrificing there health care for an increased military.

Er, defend against what exactly? Aliens?

vermontsavant wrote:

and forget help from the U.S because under your sceneo the us would have gutted there military for health care.

Provide citation (Which you have failed to do for any of your arguments) for this "sceneo" I created. Provide or stop lying with your failed argument.

vermontsavant wrote:

health care has everything to do with health

Yes, I know that.

vermontsavant wrote:

because both health and the military are very expensive.

So are other departments, such as, oh, I don't know, economics? :roll:

vermontsavant wrote:

ask yourself what is realy stoping Vladamir Putin from from trying to take back the baltics,lithuania,latvia,estonia

once he has the baltics then he would go the balkans,serbia,croatia,bosnia.

once he has all of eastern europe why not go for the rest of europe

And here we have your crux, some paranoid delusional fantasy of the old Soviet Union rising from the dead to invade Europe so they can launch some huge offensive to attack the US and turn you all into big soft reds, right?
Grow up.

The only major war in the near future is the US invading Iran on some terrorism BS excuse again.

Last edited by J-Greens on 30 Dec 2012, 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

29 Dec 2012, 4:07 pm

look if you want to live in some 1960's sugar coated fantasy world where there is no danger be my guest.any nation could make war with any nation at anytime.look at the US even sadly enough.lets get rid of all our militaries and see what happens.im done with this conversation

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

29 Dec 2012, 4:39 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

Our military is a bloated bureaucratic monstrosity, the only thing that gives us an edge is our equipment and our superior firepower.

If you want, you can google the colonel who conceptualizer the f16, he had to fight tooth and nail to establish his design because of all the pentagon bureaucrats and contractors who wanted to milk the system with bad designs.

BMIST was a recent system that used a Bluetooth network to track casualty information, millions went into it, and nobody used it because it was impractical. Throwing money at the pentagon so they can conjure up equipment for an operating environment they know little about is a waste.

Having a healthy and educated us population can do more for our military readiness than having a bloated military budget.

_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.

J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

29 Dec 2012, 7:37 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

look if you want to live in some 1960's sugar coated fantasy world where there is no danger be my guest.

The world was dangerous before the sixties and after. You're the one living in the past.

vermontsavant wrote:

any nation could make war with any nation at anytime

Well that's obvious. But you've failed to ask the most important question - why?

vermontsavant wrote:

.look at the US even sadly enough.

Which nation is at war with the US?

vermontsavant wrote:

.lets get rid of all our militaries and see what happens

If you want to speak with Lennon then your bang out of luck. I haven't suggested such a stupid idea. You have, repeatedly.

vermontsavant wrote:

.im done with this conversation

Finally. I'm beginning to get bored laughing at this topic anyway.

ShamelessGit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 718
Location: Kansas

29 Dec 2012, 8:16 pm

I've read the first page of comments, and this is what I think:

1. The term "Gun-sickness" sounds stupid.
2. Comparing a baseball bat and a ball to a firearm is stupid.
3. Saying that having a discussion about gun control is "politicizing" is stupid. That's what republicans always say when they don't want to have a legitimate discussion.

This debate gets really silly most of the time. I don't have a really strong opinion on this issue, but I'm fairly certain that increasing the number of guns in all places at all times like the NRA says is not the correct solution.

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

30 Dec 2012, 12:45 am

J-Greens wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

look if you want to live in some 1960's sugar coated fantasy world where there is no danger be my guest.

The world was dangerous before the sixties and after. You're the one living in the past.

vermontsavant wrote:

any nation could make war with any nation at anytime

Well that's obvious. But you've failed to ask the most important question - why?

vermontsavant wrote:

.look at the US even sadly enough.

Which nation is at war with the US?

vermontsavant wrote:

.lets get rid of all our militaries and see what happens

If you want to speak with Lennon then your bang out of luck. I haven't suggested such a stupid idea. You have, repeatedly.

vermontsavant wrote:

.im done with this conversation

Finally. I'm beginning to get bored laughing at this topic anyway.

what i meant by the sixties was naive peace loving hippies not whether the sixties were dangerous or not.
as far as i know there is a war in afganistan,which its about time to end because we will never win,gorilla warfare in badlands like terain in the foothills of the himalaya's,un winable at this point
i was being sarcastic when i said lets get rid of our militaries and see what happen,it was a retorical question,and what does lenin have to do with this

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

30 Dec 2012, 2:09 am

My solution to Afghanistan is to sign the deed over to china in a trade for waiving our debt. The mineral deposits discovered there are HUGE- especially the amount of lithium we can't just leave unsecured. The PLA would make the Afghans wish for the US troops back!

_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

30 Dec 2012, 3:11 am

John_Browning wrote:

The PLA would make the Afghans wish for the US troops back!

They'll just get all their shiny tanks, IFVs and APCs blown up all the same. You can't take over a people that don't want to be taken over; you can try to kill them all (which just points to you being the murderous invader), but that doesn't seem to work at all.

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

30 Dec 2012, 3:48 am

Dillogic wrote:

John_Browning wrote:

The PLA would make the Afghans wish for the US troops back!

China wouldn't play as nice as we do! They'd execute everyone they suspected of terrorism and move villages to labor camps until it stopped.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

30 Dec 2012, 4:04 am

John_Browning wrote:

China wouldn't play as nice as we do! They'd execute everyone they suspected of terrorism and move villages to labor camps until it stopped.

Ask them how well they did in Vietnam. Same with the USSR and English Empire in Afghanistan.

The harder you're on the population, the more people join the cause (informants in the least, to supply, housing and fighters in the best). Sure, you may have an awesome 50 to 1 kill ratio (they're always inflated by about 5 times, really), but in the end that means nothing if you withdraw because you couldn't attain your goals.

The only people who will "conquer" Afghanistan and other countries are the locals.

Some countries just don't roll over.

Page 7 of 8 [ 128 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

More gun sickness. Post Reply New Topic

More gun sickness.