CUBAREY

Members
  • Content count

    10107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CUBAREY

  • Birthday January 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Some where within the space-time continuom
  1. political meme's & lolz

    It's not an extra 717 billion, that is the annual Defense budget. More then a quarter of that goes for salaries and to pay pensions. A second large component (about a third of the budget) goes for training and maintenance of the equipment. Much of the rest of the budget goes either to fund actual military operations or replacement and upgrades to equipment. We spend more because unlike the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Syrans, etc. we much prefer to pay for equipment and tactics that drasticly limit our own causalties. Human wave tactics are still part of the military playbook in China, Russia, and Iran while we mopved away from such tactics in the aftermath of the civil war.
  2. Help me understand: religiosity

    Well no, the problem with the story you cited is that some Priest;s Love their perishioners a bit too much.
  3. Trump Presidency

    Actually no there is nothing in the Bible that calls much less requires that nonbelievers be stoned, that penalty is for the who blasphemy which can apply to a much broader and narrower subest of people. "Christianity is, or at the absolute minimum was at some point in its history, just as bad as Islam is now." I am not arguing that it was not. I am arguing that such behavior came in the case of Christianity slanted interpretations of the blbical text while in Islam it comes from the direct words of the text. Also the passages in the bible you cite are all in the Old Testament, and it's clear to everyone that Christians reinterpreted much of the Old Testament starting with Jesus himself.
  4. Trump FP

    except for Ty noone actually believes that Trum;p wants to totally disengage from the world. He wants a paradign shift that has the US deal with the rest of the world in terms most favorable for the US. As to the isolationist spirit of the the Founding fathers: Madison: " "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? ... In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. .." Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." "Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." Jeffereson: "In the transaction of your foreign affairs, we have endeavored to cultivate the friendship of all nations, and especially of those with which we have the most important relations. We have done them justice on all occasions, favored where favor was lawful, and cherished mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms. We are firmly convinced, and we act on that conviction, that with nations, as with individuals, our interests soundly calculated, will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties; and history bears witness to the fact, that a just nation is taken on its word, when recourse is had to armaments and wars to bridle others." "To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in others...." http://library.intellectualtakeout.org/content/founding-quotes-noninterventionist-and-isolationist-positions-foreign-policy Do you want more because I can find similar statements from just about ever Founding fathers" This tradition was followed throughout the 19th century: Until the late 19th century, the presidents who followed Washington saw themselves as adhering to his views, seeking to keep the United States out of European and international affairs. In 1823 President Monroe encapsulated that position in his "Monroe Doctrine": And in 1863 President Lincoln's Secretary of State, William H. Seward, addressing the war of France with Mexico, reminded the Ambassador to France that: Really your comment simply reveals a rather complete lack of knowledge concerning the views of the Founding Fathers and American foreign policy in general. The US did not become an "interventionist nation until the turn of the 20th Centrury when McKinley/Roosevelt assured in the Age Of Empire. We returned to our non-interventionist mode after the First World War and only truly became intenationalist/globalist after the Second Wolrd War when we alone in the West were left whole by the War and faced the existentialest threat of Internantional Communism. The question after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War is to what extent is American globalism necessary (if at all).
  5. Trump Presidency

    In Mathew and Corinthians it states to shun the unbeliver not to kill him. Laviticus and Dueteronomy talk about what punishments God will cause to be inflicted on the unbeliever. In neither case is there a call for an individual to kill another because of his apostachy unlike the Koran where each believer is said to have an obligation to convert (forcibly if needed) subjugate (if the believer is a person of the book, ie Christian or Jewish) or kill them.
  6. political meme's & lolz

    In the best scenerio UNiversal health care would add $560 billion to annual government expenditures. That would leave 157 billion to finance universal college tuition. Now a lot of people choose less expensive state schools and two yer institutions because of the costs. You mandate free college education costs would obviously increase even from those that we now encounter (and the government already pays for a significant cost of the present costs for college education beyond tuition payments.). Thus if you totally stop all defense spending you still do not have nearly enough to cover universal healthcare and universal free universal college tuition. Further, my main point was that according to Ty's views of the exisitential nature of the Russian threat and the desirability of the US to subsidize the defense costs of it's European NATO allies you would still need to maintain a rather hefty American defense budget. Of course if we could change the dynamic with russian relations and make the Europens py their fair share their might be a sizable "peace" dividend that might go to lowering my taxes or paying for your college tuition (or more likely some of both).
  7. Trump FP

    1. We are not attempting to crash the Turkish currency. It was already crashing when Trump made his tarrif twit. The reaction in the market on Friday was due to the total mistrust of the Edrogan government and the knowledge that the Turkish Central Bank was making decisions that destroyed the value of the Turkish Lira to bolster the Turkish government. Further the christian preacher is not even the visable part of the Iceberg in our relations with the present Turkish government more like the visible pimple topping a gigantic inflamed Boil. Fact is that there is very little that the US could do to keep the Turkish Lira from crashing in the international markets. Further, as an economic crisis might be the only thing that will erode support for the Edrogan government I can see why some may not view the collapse of the Turkish currency as all bad. The situation between Canada and Suadi Arabia is rather different. We (the US and the West, i.e Britian, France, Germany, Italy, etc) see Saudi Arabia as a moderating force in the middle east especially now with Turkey becoming a rogue state whose policies are decidedly anti-western. The US and other leading nations thus have a large stake in keeping decent relations with Suadi Arabia (especially since they play a very constructive role in OPEC which is still a factor to the well being of our economies). The large western countries also have rather large important economic ties with Saudi Arabia. Further, the current Saudi government has been relatively liberal when it comes to women's rights and liberalizing the country as a whole. It's thus not surprising that the US, UK, Frnace et. al. have refrained for the most part in criticizing the present Saudi Crown Prince and his efforts to modernize the country. Canada on the other hand has been a diplomatic Gadfly with the Canadian ambassador repeatedly public calling out the Saudi's. It's diplomatic virtue calling at it's worst. That is why the US and other western countries have basicly left Canada out to dry on this issue. Canada's actions while likely domesticly popular have not been seen by the western allies as either helping the situation in Saudi Arabia (public attempting to shame the Saudi's into releasing women's rights activists almost certainly has the effect of the Saudi's making it plain that they will not be pushed around and will in fact lengthen the time till the activists are released from custody). The dispute between Canada and Saudi Arabia is thus analogous to the neighborhood kid throwing rocks at the vicious dog kept by a neighbor. You might want the neighbor to control his dog but you are neither surprised nor supportive to the neighborhood kid who throws one to many rocks and is then bitten by the dog. Canada was Virtue signaling, it was doing so repeatedly, such actions were counterproductive to having Suaid Arabia work constructively with the West. Thus it's not surprising that no western ally has sided with Canada in their dispute with Saudi Arabia and why even the UK that is ostensibly helping reconcile the parties have faialed to criticize the Saudi's actions Also just an aside I find it both hyporcritical and ludicrous for you to blame the Trump Administration for over reacting with Turkey over the detention of an American citizen and then yell at the Trump Administration for not sticking up for Canada when it causes an international incident with Suadi Arabia over the detention of people who have no connection with Canada.
  8. Trump Presidency

    "6 is also true (counting people who used to be afilated with Nazis/KKK, still are, or were and have never renounced their ties)" So to you the correct political posture in 2017 is to ask every conservative "are you or have you ever been a member of the Klan or Nazi Party? If he fails to answer with the appropriate answer and give names of of present members I guess you would then bar them from all government service and be okay with setting up private organizations that would drive them from private industries! "That would be because a lot of people take Communism and, same as you thinking they are the same thing or just wanting to lie to people, slap the label of Socialism on it." Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, never described themselves as Communists they were very clear that they were Socialists aiming for Communism. The Problem with"Democratic Socialism" is that it still believes that the means of production should be owned by the state. That Some believe that they can achieve initial power through democratic means does not answer the issue of forcibly divesting private citizens of their property. "Just like how, for all their similarities in hating people different than them and trying to murder them, Christianity and Islam are not the same." Difference of course is that nothing in the Christian bible calls upon Christians to forcibly convert the unbeliever. Also at least the Jihadists acknowledge that they are following the dictates of Islam and the Koran unlike so-called democratic socialists who play the game of democracy but with the intent of changing the rules once they come to power.
  9. political meme's & lolz

    Well let's see: You see Rssia and Putin and Russia as an existential threat but are okay with the Europeans getting a free ride in NATO. Exactly how are you going to pay for protecting the US and Europe from the threat of Russia? Hint, having a LBGT+ fund raiser is not going to get you the desired amount of money to defend against the Devil Putin. Also 717 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to financing universal medicare and college tuition.
  10. Trump Presidency

    "Pretty clear he has no actually basis for any of this and just hardline supports/attacks anyone who disagrees with him." Well it's pretty much his praises those he sees on his side (or at least does not criticize them) and blasts those that criticize him. That he holds in special contempt those that were previously on his side and which he objectively helped is true, but I see nothing special or deplorable about that. "Also, the failure "the other things on the list" to stop trump speaks more about the cancer of white nationalism in the republican party - or at least how much "country club republicans" will put up with in order to get their tax cuts/deregulation (ie, they'll put up with anything) - than it does as an endorsement of those positions." Same can be said about the left's attitude of ANTIFA, the economicly idiotic comments by "democratic socialists" and your own personal support of HRC in 2016. The left and you personally will overlook a lot as long as the people making those statements or actions support your policy positions.
  11. Trump Presidency

    "6.) There are now 5 former klansmen/Nazis running on the republican ticket in the fall" And how many "Socialists" are running in the democratic ticket in primaries and in the fall? "5.) said that murders/domestic terrorists/ethno-nationalists were “fine people” No he did not he said that their were fine people on both sides of the Charlottsvile protests. You can be a fine person and be misled into rallying with despicable people (happens all the time on the left when regular left leaning people come out at the same events as ANTIFA). As for the rest of the things on your list, they are all things that were known before the election and did not stop Trump's election. More importantly, they were all things that Omaraosa knew about long before she took a job in the White House or in Trump's businesses for that matter. Thus her actually believing that he is a racist is more then a little bit suspenct. Also, you do not rent to black people becuase you are a racist but you repeatedly hire and put into positions of power and influence a black woman? Seems to me that the latter indicates that his previous actions should be attributed to something other then Trump being a racist.
  12. Trump FP

    Except of course that most of NATO is not actually "working in" increased defense budgets. At best most of NATO since 2014 have stopped lowering their defense budgets. Now if you commit to increasing, i.e (doubling or tripling your defense budget in 10 years, then you actually need to beign to increase the budget from year one and we are now in year 5 without ny sign that they will even come close to the 2% level at the end of the 10 year period. As to the fact they have choosen to spend much of their government funds on domestic welfare programs instead of defense over the years is true and they are quite within their rights to do it. Except, that they also want to be in NATO protected by the defense umbrella of the US. The price of being in NATO is spending around 2% of their GNP on defense. They have a choice continue ignoring defense expenditures and insure the breakup of NATO (or at least their ulster) or do as they have agreed and spend the money the have committed to on defense.
  13. political meme's & lolz

    Except of course that most of the western provinces of Canada are much more politically atuned to Jeusland then they would the to USC.Also I serious doubt that PA, Michican and Wisconsin would join the USC, since they voted for Trump and have more in common with Tennesse then with California or NY.
  14. Big Tech Monopolies

    "It is against the rules to circumvent it like that." "Can you cite where it says that in the TOS?" "If your account has been restricted from live streaming, you are prohibited from using another channel to live stream on YouTube. This applies for as long as the restriction remains active on your account. Violation of this restriction is considered circumvention under our Terms of Service and may result in termination of your account. " https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853834?hl=en "In my experience with Youtube and Youtubers this is not the case. I have seen people with multiple channels for different things (such as say a cooking show vs a tech review show) and I have seen these people get strikes so they can't livestream on one channel so they just one of their other channels. Now these were not tiny channels but they weren't in the millions of subscribers either so maybe they just went under the radar or something." Such a practice would be a direct violation of the above noted policy. A similar practice that will also result in Youtube terminating an account is using a channel ostensibly owned by another person (usually a family member ) to circumvent the policy. In such cases Youtube will normally terminate the accounts of both individuals. It's uncertain whether the policy would apply to someone being a guest on someone else's channel as long as t the restricted person does not have control of the stream. So supposedly Alex Jones could appear on Louder with Crowder or Ben Shapiro's channel and be interviewed about the suspension of his channel without running afoul of the Youtube rules as long as Jones did not have editorial control of the interview.
  15. Big Tech Monopolies

    Well if you want to be accurate and analogize Youtube and Alex Jones situation then you have to take account of a couple of things. The Terms of Practices amount to an enforcable contract between YouTube and creators. Youtube could have certainly stated that it could ban any creator at anytime for any reason without explanation or notice and been within it's rights to do it. Why it likely did not was that very few creators would have spent the time and effort to create a going channel if they could be banned for no reason. Therefore, Youtube promulgated its terms of Service which states that creators can be given "strikes" their right to stream or post new videos suspended for a period of time or their channels totally banned for violations of the Terms of Service. Once, it promulgated those terms it cannot simply decide to suspend or ban a creator for any reason. In effect the terms of Service act as a contract between Youtube and creators. Youtube can change those terms going forward but it cannot apply new rules to situations that did not violate their rules when commited. Moreover, it has a legal obligation to comply with its own rules. Further like in the employment context, the fact that a company has a policy that states it can fire an employee if he does X is limited by the need to show that the conduct of the employee clearly violated X and moreover, it may very well beheld liable even if the employee committed if the employer does not follow a consistent policy when X is violated. Thus, if 5 employees commit X but only one employee is fired and the employer uses the fact that the employee commited X to fire him, then the employee might very well have an actionable cause under which to sue the employer even in right to work states. Similarly, while it can be argued that Jones violated Youtubes Terms of Service, it did not disclose what specific videos or content violated those terms of service. Further, it's almost certain that whatever Alex Jones did to violate the terms of service are legally indistinguishable from acts which other (liberal commentators) creators have also violated but which they were not closed down for. Now since, Youtube is owned by Google and they have very deep pockets and a rather strong interest in seeing their right to run Youtube as they see fit, it's highly unllikely that Jones himself would be willing to pay the rather large legal fees that it would take to sue Youtube and Google. That however, does not mean that he or others may not in the future file such a suit (and ultimately win).