Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?

User: JLeague



Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in Strongest country on 2010-12-17 11:57:28

Is ignorance bliss? It seems I'm a little late to the discussion, but I had to put in my two cents here. They could not win without firing a shot, for a number of reasons. First of all, our debt to China isn't nearly as large as many people seem to believe. We have become a "debtor nation"- although I'm not sure your education is quite up to par on that term (considering the fact that you undersized China in population by 300 million, which is quite a sum considering the fact that the US has roughly that number of people; and considering your even worse blunder by stating that China is "by far larger than the U.S georgraphically" when in reality the United States is slightly bigger in terms of land mass) so I will explain what a debtor nation actually is. A debtor nation is one that profits from being in debt in certain ways (super basic definition, probably not totally correct, but it gets the point across.) In our case, all currencies are currently based on the dollar in certain ways through the world bank. We owe debt to a great many countries, and it is advantageous for us to owe a certain degree of debt. Sure, our debt to China is out of control, but in a military confrontation that would barely be a problem. We could devalue the dollar, and then simply revalue in afterwards, losing credit with our investors, but we would most likely be forgiven, considering the fact that most of the world currently backs the US (with the ideas of free trade and whatnot) over China. It is totally legal to do so. From that point on, although they have the largest military in the world, their military is far worse trained and they are currently building two aircraft carriers (which can not even be compared with 2 of our 13, as ours are far larger, and we are currently building two more, far more advanced carriers). Our planes are far superior along with pretty much everything else that our military has to offer. Our economy is also far larger and far more secure, and our government is in far better standing. Now, if you would like to enlighten me with a degree on international relations or China studies of some kind; or if you would like to overwhelm me with knowledge of which I am currently unaware, I welcome it. However, I would suggest against it for your sake. Ignorance can be bliss for someone in your position.

Posted in Your Stance on American Wars on 2010-09-27 11:59:45

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I hope that was a joke. War is a male activity? First of all, you flaunt your complete ignorance of any kind of history by calling war an activity, and suggest that people revel in war. Sure, some people do enjoy some aspects of war after it has been romanticized, but for the most part nobody is for war just to have war. There are reasons behind it. Secondly, women partake in war along with men. Cleopatra started a Roman civil war to gain power, Elizabeth the First went to war primarily over religion. Catherine the Great was a big time Russian conquerer. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. Granted, men make up the majority of most sections of the armed forces in any country, but women also share in the sacrifice by giving their permission for their sons, husbands and fathers to go off to war. Anyway, that was really stupid. And as for the Revolution, according to your definition of a civil war, it was a revolution, not a civil war. The United States declared its independence, printed currency, and sent ambassadors all over the world. As for the civil war, it depends on your point of view. Considering the fact that the Confederate government was never actually recognized as a country by the Union, who believed that they were bound by the constitution and without the right to leave the Union, it was a civil war. Temporarily, however, the south could have considered it a revolution. I appreciate your thinking, however, and I may be wrong. That is just my understanding. As for the first comment, I really do hope that either you are joking, or that the 2010 at the end of your name marks your entrance into grade school, in which case your lack of knowledge on a subject on which you so readily commented would be acceptable.

People said the same things in the 1970's. And then the 80's. They have been talking about this for quite a while, and they will keep talking about it. Although it is true that women are doing far better than males in school, what most poles do not take into account is that this number will plane off. You mentioned that just recently the increase in women's power has risen sharply, and any calculus or statistics course can tell you that most all real world graphs plane off. You also mentioned that you believe men will maintain their positions of power in the engineering industry and the military. As we move towards a far more technologically based world, engineering is where most of the business will be in the future. Look at Google and Microsoft! As for the military, you understate its importance. President Obama is a rare exception not having served in the military. With the exception of he and Bill Clinton, every President since World War 2 has served in the military (FDR did not, he attempted to join the navy but could not, as he "contracted measles". He did, however, serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1913. He offered his resignation when the First World War came around so that he could serve, but was denied by the President.) Some of the stuff in this pole is off the wall too. The thing about guys painting their nails is ridiculous. Finally, you site the specific education of the takers of this pole. I have multiple problems with the way in which you do this. 1) You have no proof that these women did what they say they did. 2) You fail to site what their degrees are in. My father still tells the story of a wedding party a friend had at Harvard, with many of the professors in attendance, who had extreme expertise in their fields, but when asked about politics had unsupported view points that were quite often off the wall. 3) Most importantly, you fail to include the nature of these degrees. They could be from great colleges or an online college. Degrees mean nothing these days without backing. If you can give me absolute proof that one of these women (or yourself, for that matter) studied issues like these at a top school, like Harvard, Princeton or Georgetown University, then I would love to talk to you about it.

Posted in USA is good or bad? on 2010-04-14 00:56:33

I'm pretty sure you got one person to comment though.

Posted in USA and the world on 2010-04-14 00:49:25

hahaha- since when did the soviet union save us? we were an ocean away last time i checked and I apologize, i forget who supplied the russians? who spent the most money on WW2? who liberated western Europe? the United States could've been in berlin too, but they let the russians take it for political reasons patton's tanks were stationed 24 hrs from berlin- look it up