We don't need them. Having a twelve foot dong is more a hindrance if it means you can't actually walk.I'm sorry, yall have no room to talk.
You don't even have nuclear carriers last I checked
Sorry, your Navy lost any room to talk when yall downsized.We don't need them. Having a twelve foot dong is more a hindrance if it means you can't actually walk.
Mostly because our halfwit politicians have outsourced our defence to you lot.I'm sorry, yall have no room to talk.
You don't even have nuclear carriers last I checked
Give me 50 years as president and there would be no welfare in the US.Mostly because our halfwit politicians have outsourced our defence to you lot.
Give me fifty years and an obedient Parliament, and things would be very different militarily speaking.
The same downsized navy that is still active in almost every world theatre? I mean yeah, I disagree with the downsizing (our government are a bunch of cunts), but efficiency is a thing.Sorry, your Navy lost any room to talk when yall downsized.
Same with your AF
That'd be trading one stupid thing for another. While I agree that the sheer amount of welfare in the US is a joke and detrimental to people and families in the long run, going full on military is just as stupid on the other end of the spectrum.Give me 50 years as president and there would be no welfare in the US.
Just military.
Give me 50 years as president and there would be no welfare in the US.
Just military
And Republicans certainly never try to play the PR game with their overseas adventures.While the Republicans aren't saints, the Democrats do seem to be the ones who fuck up and then try to whitewash their own image in the eyes of the public.
-Snip-
Er, yes...? I did say the Republicans weren't saints, but they weren't the party that, for example, tried to portray themselves as anti-slavery when the proverbial wind shifted, when they were full on pro-slavery pretty much two minutes into the past.And Republicans certainly never try to play the PR game with their overseas adventures.
We have a saying in the US military.The same downsized navy that is still active in almost every world theatre? I mean yeah, I disagree with the downsizing (our government are a bunch of cunts), but efficiency is a thing.
You don't need to send five boats to do the job of two boats, but like a lot of things, Americans didn't get that memo, haha.
That'd be trading one stupid thing for another. While I agree that the sheer amount of welfare in the US is a joke and detrimental to people and families in the long run, going full on military is just as stupid on the other end of the spectrum.
Efficiency and moderation are things, you know.
The US took one thing from its father.Based and “fuck the plebs” pilled.
I’m proud of you.
Overkill can be wasteful... unless it's a "nuke it from orbit" situation (such as Australian wildlife escaping containment into the world because fuck Australian spiders, snakes, jellyfish, and kamikaze drop bears).We have a saying in the US military.
There is no such thing as overkill, so make sure there is always more then what is needed.
The US took one thing from its father.
How to be a military powerhouse
And we took it to a new level
Overkill isn't a waste if you are the most powerful country in the world.Overkill can be wasteful... unless it's a "nuke it from orbit" situation (such as Australian wildlife escaping containment into the world because fuck Australian spiders, snakes, jellyfish, and kamikaze drop bears).
I mean... ALL politicians try to present the best possible face, or interpretation, basically unanimously to the point of lying. That's pretty much what politics is entirely about. Which isn't good of course, but is kinda inevitable when you entrust supreme executive authority to a popularity contest. It just seems weird to try and complain that it's an especially democrat thing, or maybe just sour that they're better about PR and image management.Er, yes...? I did say the Republicans weren't saints, but they weren't the party that, for example, tried to portray themselves as anti-slavery when the proverbial wind shifted, when they were full on pro-slavery pretty much two minutes into the past.
The fact that many people now believe that it was the Republicans (or rather their predecessors?) that were the "evil slavers" and that the Democrats were anti-slavery shows how effective they were at whitewashing their image... something they continue to try to do as part of their identity to this very day.
I fully expect them to try the same thing once all this AntiFa, BLM, and Alphabet Soup shit stops being useful to them/socially acceptable/tolerated.
Well yeah, but the difference is that the Republicans, to my limited knowledge, haven't tried to basically and hypocritically (or would it be grifting?) whitewash the more darker elements of their past to the public like the Democrats have done -- the slavery thing being a key example, and which they've largely succeeded at.I mean... ALL politicians try to present the best possible face, or interpretation, basically unanimously to the point of lying. That's pretty much what politics is entirely about. Which isn't good of course, but is kinda inevitable when you entrust supreme executive authority to a popularity contest. It just seems weird to try and complain that it's an especially democrat thing, or maybe just sour that they're better about PR and image management.
And then Austrailian wildlife came to South Carolina and our Bigfoot, Rakes, Dogman, Snallaghasters, Bo Hags, Plate Eyes and Whompas Cats all said.Overkill can be wasteful... unless it's a "nuke it from orbit" situation (such as Australian wildlife escaping containment into the world because fuck Australian spiders, snakes, jellyfish, and kamikaze drop bears).
He could do that in 1946.USA stopped him and asked for peace talks.Rest is History.
It seems,that American Democrats just must fuck everything they could.
Sadly true.Anthony Sutton discovered,that USA supported soviets from 1917 till at least 1970,when he lost his jog in archives.I have a saying: The reason the Cold War went on for as long as it did, is that the USA was fighting on both sides.
I mean... ALL politicians try to present the best possible face, or interpretation, basically unanimously to the point of lying. That's pretty much what politics is entirely about. Which isn't good of course, but is kinda inevitable when you entrust supreme executive authority to a popularity contest. It just seems weird to try and complain that it's an especially democrat thing, or maybe just sour that they're better about PR and image management.
That depends on how you measure empire, I suppose. The 19th century expansion across the continent was a wild success by every measure imaginable except humanitarian. Does it no longer count as empire if you successfully incorporate the new lands into your core? If the inhabitants there come to consider you their homeland, instead of some more ancestral thing you happen to be occupying by force?Not to mock the USA for it but…America is profoundly bad at the game of empire, isn’t it? Indirectly it can play it half decently, but directly? Good grief.