Maybe you shouldn't try to salvage this one....Skjellyfetti wrote:Protecting industries that will never win out in the long run - regardless of industry. Steel and aluminum, coal, textiles. You name it. All the same ****. Adding inefficiencies to the market and raising the price to protect a handful of jobs... while losing many more in the process.
Is this a free market post by AnalJelly? A rare burst of common sense, or just dumb luck?Skjellyfetti wrote:Protecting industries that will never win out in the long run - regardless of industry. Steel and aluminum, coal, textiles. You name it. All the same ****. Adding inefficiencies to the market and raising the price to protect a handful of jobs... while losing many more in the process.
There's a shitload of criticism for that on my facebook feed from my military sideSkjellyfetti wrote:Conks love Obama's 57 and corpse gaffes.
Now Trump has done his best to match one of them... along with his thousand others.
Why are there so many War Hawkish Conservative draft dodgers..?CID1990 wrote:
There's a shitload of criticism for that on my facebook feed from my military side
I'm seeing consistency from them on this one
Is Trump "war hawkish"? Seriously asking. AFAIK he's added a lot fewer troops to foreign wars than his predecessor.Chizzang wrote:Why are there so many War Hawkish Conservative draft dodgers..?
That one has always confused me (asking for a friend, Dick Cheney)
400% increase of troops in Syria89Hen wrote:AFAIK he's added a lot fewer troops to foreign wars than his predecessor.
400% increase is like the "fastest growing X company in America".... means there weren't many to begin with. I know under Obama at one point the US added 70,000 troops to Afghanistan.Skjellyfetti wrote:400% increase of troops in Syria89Hen wrote:AFAIK he's added a lot fewer troops to foreign wars than his predecessor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/worl ... syria.html
Adding 3,000 troops to Aghanistan
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mattis-say ... ghanistan/
Though, I guess the President doesn't make these decisions anymore. So, I guess that's what you're thinking?
You don't mind if I actually use our Presidents own words do you..?89Hen wrote:Is Trump "war hawkish"? Seriously asking. AFAIK he's added a lot fewer troops to foreign wars than his predecessor.Chizzang wrote:Why are there so many War Hawkish Conservative draft dodgers..?
That one has always confused me (asking for a friend, Dick Cheney)
Growing the military is not "war hawkish" on it's own. If it's used as a deterrent, it could actually be the opposite.Chizzang wrote:You don't mind if I actually use our Presidents own words do you..?89Hen wrote: Is Trump "war hawkish"? Seriously asking. AFAIK he's added a lot fewer troops to foreign wars than his predecessor.
I know nobody on earth actually takes the President of the United States at his word anymore
"It's a depleted - we have a very depleted military"
"I think it's going to be a pivot of spirit for the country, a period of smart deals for the country, a stronger military"
"We're going to grow the military"
What's the saying..? "Republicans want a large military, and to keep it home; democrats want a small military, and to send it everywhere."89Hen wrote:Growing the military is not "war hawkish" on it's own. If it's used as a deterrent, it could actually be the opposite.Chizzang wrote:
You don't mind if I actually use our Presidents own words do you..?
I know nobody on earth actually takes the President of the United States at his word anymore
"It's a depleted - we have a very depleted military"
"I think it's going to be a pivot of spirit for the country, a period of smart deals for the country, a stronger military"
"We're going to grow the military"
Ibanez wrote:What's the saying..? "Republicans want a large military, and to keep it home; democrats want a small military, and to send it everywhere."89Hen wrote: Growing the military is not "war hawkish" on it's own. If it's used as a deterrent, it could actually be the opposite.
I haven't heard that one. 
What about the speak softly part?CID1990 wrote:A Big Stick is not hawkish
You have to be careful quoting Teddy. Yeah - " walk softly and carry a big stick" but the guy was also known for wanting war. Read what his contemporaries were telling McKinely before TR was nominated as Assist. Sec. of Navy - they were all concerned that Teddy would start a war.CID1990 wrote:A Big Stick is not hawkish
Grizalltheway wrote:Better than nothing, right?bandl wrote: I miss her also. But she appeared in, what, 2 or 3 episodes of SV?
Yeah that one stands out more than any other to meChizzang wrote:This is probably my favorite quote from our President...
This was after he said he knew more than most Generals in our Military
"I think I have great knowledge of - for military, and I think I have better vision for Syria than a lot of the so-called great military geniuses that are saying how to fight the war with Syria."
Regardless of what TR's intentions were - the historical takeaway of the "big stick" and its connotation moving forward has always been that of the deterrent effect of a strong militaryIbanez wrote:You have to be careful quoting Teddy. Yeah - " walk softly and carry a big stick" but the guy was also known for wanting war. Read what his contemporaries were telling McKinely before TR was nominated as Assist. Sec. of Navy - they were all concerned that Teddy would start a war.CID1990 wrote:A Big Stick is not hawkish
To be fair -TR did understand that the best deterrent was a modern, capable navy. And he took great strides to modernize/upgrade our fleet.
And I don’t disagree- but let’s not ignore the historical context of the man behind that quote and his ideas on war and the military. the man that said was a huge Monroe Doctrine fan and recommended using it as pretext for war and annexation.CID1990 wrote:Regardless of what TR's intentions were - the historical takeaway of the "big stick" and its connotation moving forward has always been that of the deterrent effect of a strong militaryIbanez wrote: You have to be careful quoting Teddy. Yeah - " walk softly and carry a big stick" but the guy was also known for wanting war. Read what his contemporaries were telling McKinely before TR was nominated as Assist. Sec. of Navy - they were all concerned that Teddy would start a war.
To be fair -TR did understand that the best deterrent was a modern, capable navy. And he took great strides to modernize/upgrade our fleet.
Especially notable in this age where we have nuclear powers playing 19th century sphere of influence politics (much to the horror and chagrin of John Kerry) - yet we still have the same old people... tut tutting everyone over national defense and suggestions that our military is not fit for actual ... national defense
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
