VP Harris speech in support of Ukraine

I support helping nations defend themselves from foreign aggression

  • Total voters
    10
Libhater said:
How much of that $108B to the DHS went to securing our border, or to building a wall to secure that border? ZERO!
Click to expand...
I'd ask you to prove it, but you can't. It's not a matter of "won't", just that you can't. You lack the intellectual ability, Hater. You're great at attacking women, slinging insults and spreading both hate and lies, but you lack the ability to converse in an intelligent manner.

This is best proved by the fact both @Concart and me provided you two different links to DHS and CBP spending yet you are unable to comprehend them. Sad.
 
Libhater said:
yet I haven't seen one cent of U.S. money being allocated to protect our own border.
Click to expand...
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has a budget of over $16 billion, but you can basically triple that when you include the rest of border enforcement. So quite a bit more than a penny.
 
Libhater said:
How much of that $108B to the DHS went to securing our border, or to building a wall to secure that border? ZERO!
Click to expand...
If the money we are spending on US Customs and Border Protection is not going to secure our border, we need to disband the US Customs and Border Protection, right?
 
I disagree. It depends on the nation, the political situation between the combatants and a plethora of other causes. The idiotic simplicity of the original question should cause anyone to vote against help on the basis of blindly stepping into a war rather than considering everything involved.
 
Walt said:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has a budget of over $16 billion, but you can basically triple that when you include the rest of border enforcement. So quite a bit more than a penny.
Click to expand...
MAGAts want to cut taxes, increase the Federal budget and turn the US into a police state.

Is that what the Wharton School teaches as a sound economic plan? I doubt it.
 
Libhater said:
Did you ever take time to see what that border bill consisted of? It had nothing to do with securing our border, in fact, it allowed thousands upon thousands of illegals to enter our country unvetted.
Click to expand...

No it did not. Just the opposite? When you ask that question of someone else and you haven’t read it yourself you end up looking like a fucking Morin. It set limits on the numbers, hired more border agents, more judges, and more money directed for slowing the flow of fentanyl. Since you oppose the bill you must want more fentanyl and more people waiting for asylum hearings. Why are you for those things? Are you a drug dealer? An addict? Sad.
 
BartenderElite said:
What happened to the party of Reagan?
Click to expand...
That was an ephemeral version of the Republican Party that is not coming back. Nothing is ever static and lasting.

As Heraclitus said two millennia ago, "you can't step into the same river twice".

The party of Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, even Reagan was a party of white, Anglo-Saxon mainline Protestants. Say what you will about Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, but by disposition they tended to instill a moderate and understated temperament in the faithful (e.g., the noted belligerent atheist Richard Dawkins said he has never met an Anglican vicar who wasn't just a really nice person).

But at this point in the 21st century, far rightwing evangelical fundamentalism has displaced the old High Protestant traditions, and confrontation and apocalyptic rhetoric is far more typical of the disposition of these religious communities. They also instill a kind of team ethos, where right-wingers who aren't even really Christians will do their bidding. Just look at all the fake phony rightwing Christians on this board who never actually attend service or actively participate in a religious community.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I disagree. It depends on the nation, the political situation between the combatants and a plethora of other causes. The idiotic simplicity of the original question should cause anyone to vote against help on the basis of blindly stepping into a war rather than considering everything involved.
Click to expand...

So, specifically Ukraine. What say you.
 
Cypress said:
That was an ephemeral version of the Republican Party that is not coming back. Nothing is ever static and lasting.

As Heraclitus said two millennia ago, "you can't step into the same river twice".

The party of Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, even Reagan was a party of white, Anglo-Saxon mainline Protestants. Say what you will about Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, but by disposition they tended to instill a moderate and understated temperament in the faithful (e.g., the noted belligerent atheist Richard Dawkins said he has never met an Anglican vicar who wasn't just a really nice person).

But at this point in the 21st century, far rightwing evangelical fundamentalism has displaced the old High Protestant traditions, and confrontation and apocalyptic rhetoric is far more typical of the disposition of these religious communities. They also instill a kind of team ethos, where right-wingers who aren't even really Christians will do their bidding. Just look at all the fake phony rightwing Christians on this board who never actually attend service or actively participate in a religious community.
Click to expand...
An excellent analysis and agreed. Sad too. As Nancy Pelosi said, "this country needs a strong Republican party, and we do, not a cult, but a strong Republican party."

At the moment, we have a cult and, as you stated, I doubt the Republican Party is coming back. The Libertarian Party is the next best option, but it needs to trim out the kooks and flesh itself out with former traditional Republicans to become a viable conservative party.


www.newsweek.com

Nancy Pelosi: U.S. Needs Strong Republican Party, Not a Cult

The House Speaker said she wants the GOP to "take it back to where you were when you cared about a woman's right to choose, you cared about the environment."
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Concart said:
No it did not. Just the opposite? When you ask that question of someone else and you haven’t read it yourself you end up looking like a fucking Morin. It set limits on the numbers, hired more border agents, more judges, and more money directed for slowing the flow of fentanyl. Since you oppose the bill you must want more fentanyl and more people waiting for asylum hearings. Why are you for those things? Are you a drug dealer? An addict? Sad.
Click to expand...
MAGAts were for the border bill before they were against it. LOL
 
Concart said:
So, specifically Ukraine. What say you.
Click to expand...
In Ukraine's case, no. We really have no dog in that fight. It makes zero difference if Ukraine is part of Russia (or the Soviet Union before that) or not. Which dictator runs it isn't going to make a difference to the US. Ukraine other than being an agricultural breadbasket has no real economic or strategic value.
 
Ukraine was leaning toward Europe and the US. They wanted to trade with the US and Europe. They were Western in many values. They were afraid of Russia. Putin proved their fears were well grounded. Putin took their options away. He is not pro-choice. Russia is making lots of enemies right on their border. In some ways, there will never be peace between them. When an enemy blows up your cities and kills your families, you will remember.
 
Nordberg said:
Ukraine was leaning toward Europe and the US. They wanted to trade with the US and Europe. They were Western in many values. They were afraid of Russia. Putin proved their fears were well grounded. Putin took their options away. He is not pro-choice. Russia is making lots of enemies right on their border. In some ways, there will never be peace between them. When an enemy blows up your cities and kills your families, you will remember.
Click to expand...
Pro-Russian, American traitors won't ever agree. They want whatever Trump wants and Trump wants to hand Ukraine to Putin on a platter.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Would you negotiate with a dictator to give up significant parts of your country? Why? Why not?
Click to expand...
Why: Because victory on Z’s terms are not achievable without the total commitment of the West.
Why not: If victory was achievable ~ or ~If the West were committed to victory on Z’s terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top