i love the deep thinking of "non-liberals" LOL
Seriously, why flame liberals or conservatives here? Some people are trying to have a debate and/or serious talk here, and all you are doing is stirring the pot. "STAY ON TARGET...STAY ON TARGET"IronFerret wrote:
i love the deep thinking of "non-liberals" LOL
People on these forums seem to think that every statement applies specifically to them. I'm happy that things worked out for you, all I was trying to say is that its not that way for everyone.atlvolunteer wrote:
That's bullshit. So, because they went to public school, they are automatically going to get a shitty education? I went to public school, went on to go to college (on scholarships and later student loans and grants) and now have a BS in Electrical Engineering. I had none of the private schools and money you have, yet I was still able to better myself.
My father grew up on a farm in Western Kentucky, went to a one room school for most of his (pre-college) education, got one pair of shoes a year when he was younger, and ended up with a Masters in Accounting and his CPA. If that isn't bettering yourself, I don't know what is.
deductive reasoning at its finest
while you are waiting on your phone call go back and check your copy of the UN resolutions. I will sum up for you.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Don't think congress have authority over the internet (yet), so it should be enough to fail to get UN approval like Bush did. I just tried ringing Kofi Annan but the phone line was busy... but I'm sure he'd say no anyway so let's just assume I don't have UN backing until the war is over, ok?lowing wrote:
before you go to war against horeseman77 be sure to get approval from congress and the UN like Bush did.
Hang on a minute, I hope you aren't saying you don't support this war? (At this point UnO starts assembling a firing squad, just to be on the safe side).
"UNSCR 1441
Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
Sounds to me like the UN already allowed action based on this resolution.........or is it in your book, more talking is "serious action"??
Nope, I am all for routing out terrorist where ever they are, that includes Iraq.
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-03 17:26:10)
No it isn't and that is because people apply themselves differently, or not at all.Skruples wrote:
People on these forums seem to think that every statement applies specifically to them. I'm happy that things worked out for you, all I was trying to say is that its not that way for everyone.atlvolunteer wrote:
That's bullshit. So, because they went to public school, they are automatically going to get a shitty education? I went to public school, went on to go to college (on scholarships and later student loans and grants) and now have a BS in Electrical Engineering. I had none of the private schools and money you have, yet I was still able to better myself.
My father grew up on a farm in Western Kentucky, went to a one room school for most of his (pre-college) education, got one pair of shoes a year when he was younger, and ended up with a Masters in Accounting and his CPA. If that isn't bettering yourself, I don't know what is.
Gee I wanted to be an astronaut........I guess it is my oppressive govt. that stopped me huh??
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-03 17:37:45)
Jackass, Democrat, Liberal, all the same to me.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
These symbols were created by a political cartoonists before you were thought of. By a republican. Nuff said. Back on topic.DIEHARDBULLDOG wrote:
Ever notice Conservatives have the most powerful land animal on the planet as their mascot, the Elephant, whereby the Liberals use the Jackass? Enough said.
Edit: Technically, its the Democrats that use the jackass rather than liberals. Oh nevermind...same thing in your world.
The irony of the cartoonist you are referring to is that Democrats and Republicans were once flipp-flopped in the views they prescribe to today. The Democrats were the "Conservatives" while the Republicans were the "Liberals." This existed from the Civil War up to the rise of the Dixiecrats in the South after World War II. The Democratic Party then split, thus giving rise to the madness we call our two-party system today. Looks like the Republican Party lucked out with the Elephant, while the Democratic Party ended up with the Jackass.
Well yeah, I guess I can see that........JFK had the same "big stick" attitude that reagan had. In todays democratic party can you think of any politican that would handle 1962 like JFK??DIEHARDBULLDOG wrote:
Jackass, Democrat, Liberal, all the same to me.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
These symbols were created by a political cartoonists before you were thought of. By a republican. Nuff said. Back on topic.DIEHARDBULLDOG wrote:
Ever notice Conservatives have the most powerful land animal on the planet as their mascot, the Elephant, whereby the Liberals use the Jackass? Enough said.
Edit: Technically, its the Democrats that use the jackass rather than liberals. Oh nevermind...same thing in your world.
The irony of the cartoonist you are referring to is that Democrats and Republicans were once flipp-flopped in the views they prescribe to today. The Democrats were the "Conservatives" while the Republicans were the "Liberals." This existed from the Civil War up to the rise of the Dixiecrats in the South after World War II. The Democratic Party then split, thus giving rise to the madness we call our two-party system today. Looks like the Republican Party lucked out with the Elephant, while the Democratic Party ended up with the Jackass.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are convenient labels applied to two groups of political thought, with no consideration given to their meaning as explained by Webster's or Oxford. However, bringing up said definitions, change isn't always a good thing, but neither is stasis. Both could be applied to liberals and conservatives alike, in the form of their various political positions.
I went through step by step.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I appreciate the time to go through my statement and offer your views on it. I would like to know how I am unpatriotic or aiding the enemy because I actively do not support the war. I never said they were winning, simply that the WAR ON TERROR will become another quagmire like Vietnam. I think our views on what being a patriot is differs slightly. Furthermore, if George Bush supports our troops, why is he sending them into harms way without the necessary protection (body armor)? Personally, if I were going to subject my soldiers to war, I would want to make sure every step was taken to ensure that they are able to fight with the best equipment available. This is one case where GW does not support our troops. For what it is worth, I never called you ignorant, just the statement. I agree with your rebuttal, but do not think that it is relevant to the argument, if for the only reason that this war is not as personal as your statement is. I believe the word you meant to use is morale, not moral. Morals are ethical convictions, morale is the psychological mindset of a person. Lastly, my response was not a direct attack at you or your beliefs, you just got me started on something that I feel strongly about. Some of my statements were directed at you, and some were directed at the general forum audience. I apologize for not making that clearer. And please define "their" in "I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily." My point being that we as a nation have very convoluted morals and ethics, and it is debatable whether the US is superior to others in that regard.
You never said " their winning " ? Did you imply it? Did we win Vietnam?
Why not extra body armor? that means more Spending.
What group continuously attacks the military and its budgets?
What group always scoffs at military spending in favor of setting up yet another service for crack heads and criminals " one that is Really gonna work this time " What group is Continuously bitching about the cost of this war. On that thought.
What would the cost of WWII have been if we attacked Hitler When he took the Sudaten [sp] Land or Checkoslavakia [sp]?
Would it have been a World War ?
Would it have been as costly in lives material and resources.
If Hitler had been hindered before he could commit his even greater atrocities would FDR have had the support of every last " Deep Thinker " in the U.S.A.
Or would he be hounded like Bush is now? We all know the Answer.
And now ..moral / morale snicker.. right I new it wuz wrong ( just didn't look right ) n i new you wuld get my meaning. You win spelin kontest.
Its a relief to be exposed as a sh*ty speller. now I can just type like hell..with one finger. ty 4 not making fun of me.. " now where is my Ritalin ?"
I did say " our enemy " all through this post/thread. You secretly knew at least that I didnt mean Canada or Japan. I meant " THE ENEMY " The people I was talking about the last 10 posts. Label them as you see fit, insurgents, Terrorists, bad guys, smelly guys, guys who look like Freddy Mercury, Guys who smack our buildings with airplanes? Guys who shoot n throw rocks at US Troops. those guys, them. Or as we say in the Bronx " Dem guys "KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And please define "their" in "I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily." My point being that we as a nation have very convoluted morals and ethics, and it is debatable whether the US is superior to others in that regard
I know you got it right the 1st time why are you being deliberately obtuse? Man.
Convoluted morals and ethics? Compared to who? I will go one BIG step Further. I challenge you to show be one Nation in all History who ever Carried the Weight and responsibility of being the Worlds Foremost power any better or Even as well.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
we as a nation have very convoluted morals and ethics, and it is debatable whether the US is superior to others in that regard
To the Rube who said " I love the Deep Thought Conservatives display "
Deep thought and masturbation got us into this mess. Action will get us out. The time for deep thought has past. Action is needed.
on a lighter side, I may point out it was a Liberal who on TV announced
" We should teach our kids how to masturbate "
lol thats a lib for you. My dog figured out how to masturbate all by himself as a pup no less.
he didn't need a Federally funded Class and support group.
A conservative would want to spend that money on BODY ARMOR
Liberals are a curios lot.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-04 08:45:59)
Are you serious? I mean really...are you?Horseman 77 wrote:
I went through step by step.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I appreciate the time to go through my statement and offer your views on it. I would like to know how I am unpatriotic or aiding the enemy because I actively do not support the war. I never said they were winning, simply that the WAR ON TERROR will become another quagmire like Vietnam. I think our views on what being a patriot is differs slightly. Furthermore, if George Bush supports our troops, why is he sending them into harms way without the necessary protection (body armor)? Personally, if I were going to subject my soldiers to war, I would want to make sure every step was taken to ensure that they are able to fight with the best equipment available. This is one case where GW does not support our troops. For what it is worth, I never called you ignorant, just the statement. I agree with your rebuttal, but do not think that it is relevant to the argument, if for the only reason that this war is not as personal as your statement is. I believe the word you meant to use is morale, not moral. Morals are ethical convictions, morale is the psychological mindset of a person. Lastly, my response was not a direct attack at you or your beliefs, you just got me started on something that I feel strongly about. Some of my statements were directed at you, and some were directed at the general forum audience. I apologize for not making that clearer. And please define "their" in "I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily." My point being that we as a nation have very convoluted morals and ethics, and it is debatable whether the US is superior to others in that regard.
You never said " their winning " ? Did you imply it? Did we win Vietnam?
Why not extra body armor? that means more Spending.
What group continuously attacks the military and its budgets?
What group always scoffs at military spending in favor of setting up yet another service for crack heads and criminals " one that is Really gonna work this time " What group is Continuously bitching about the cost of this war. On that thought.
What would the cost of WWII have been if we attacked Hitler When he took the Sudaten [sp] Land or Checkoslavakia [sp]?
Would it have been a World War ?
Would it have been as costly in lives material and resources If Hitler had been hindered before he could commit his even greater atrocities.
Would FDR have had the support of every last " Deep Thinker " in the U.S.A.
Or would he be hounded like Bush is now? We all know the Answer.
And now ..moral / morale snicker.. right I new it wuz wrong ( just didn't look right ) n i new you wuld get my meaning. You win spelin kontest.
Its a relief to be exposed as a sh*ty speller. now I can just type like hell..with one finger. ty 4 not making fun of me.. " now where is my Ritalin ?"I did say " our enemy " all through this post/thread. You secretly knew at least that I didnt mean Canada or Japan. I meant " THE ENEMY " The people I was talking about the last 10 posts. Label them as you see fit, insurgents, Terrorists, bad guys, smelly guys, guys who look like Freddy Mercury, Guys who smack our buildings with airplanes? Guys who shoot n throw rocks at US Troops. those guys, them. Or as we say in the Bronx " Dem guys "KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And please define "their" in "I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily." My point being that we as a nation have very convoluted morals and ethics, and it is debatable whether the US is superior to others in that regard
I know you got it right the 1st time why are you being deliberately obtuse? Man.Convoluted morals and ethics? Compared to who? I will go one BIG step Further. I challenge you to show be one Nation in all History who ever Carried the Weight and responsibility of being the Worlds Foremost power any better or Even as well.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
we as a nation have very convoluted morals and ethics, and it is debatable whether the US is superior to others in that regard
To the Rube who said " I love the Deep Thought Conservatives display "
Deep thought and masturbation got us into this mess. Action will get us out. The time for deep thought has past. Action is needed.
on a lighter side, I may point out it was a Liberal who on TV announced
" We should teach our kids how to masturbate "
lol thats a lib for you. My dog figured out how to masturbate all by himself as a pup no less.
he didn't need a Federally funded Class and support group.
A conservative would want to spend that money on BODY ARMOR
Liberals are a curios lot.
I guess the intelligent argument is " implied " here.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Are you serious? I mean really...are you?
HAHA! You are sooo smart brother. Keep the good fight going. too funny.
JFK would not have stood up to today's Scrutiny.lowing wrote:
Well yeah, I guess I can see that........JFK had the same "big stick" attitude that reagan had. In todays democratic party can you think of any politican that would handle 1962 like JFK??DIEHARDBULLDOG wrote:
Jackass, Democrat, Liberal, all the same to me.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
These symbols were created by a political cartoonists before you were thought of. By a republican. Nuff said. Back on topic.
Edit: Technically, its the Democrats that use the jackass rather than liberals. Oh nevermind...same thing in your world.
The irony of the cartoonist you are referring to is that Democrats and Republicans were once flipp-flopped in the views they prescribe to today. The Democrats were the "Conservatives" while the Republicans were the "Liberals." This existed from the Civil War up to the rise of the Dixiecrats in the South after World War II. The Democratic Party then split, thus giving rise to the madness we call our two-party system today. Looks like the Republican Party lucked out with the Elephant, while the Democratic Party ended up with the Jackass.
It was JFK who got us into Vietnam,
The Special Forces used to refer to themselves as "Jackie Kennedy's Own Rifles "
It was called the Cuban missile "Crisis " not the Cuban Missile "Triumph "
His War record though " Good enough to really good " Could be easily attacked.
" How does a 72 knot PT boat get run Down by a 22 knot escort destroyer ?"
Bottom line, the man had balls in WWII and put himself " In Harms Way "
but We could go on.
Jack Ass. If you take a Horse and cross it with a Donkey You get a Mule.
It is always sterile and cannot reproduce.
This we can all agree would be a wonderful trait for Democrats.
Alas they do not share " all " the Mules Qualities.
A mule is Smarter than a horse will only do work it feels is not excessive.
It will not work if it becomes bored.
A Female mule is called a Jenny a Male mule is called a Jack Ass.
They are all Deadly kickers. Not as strong as a Horse but it is said "A mule Never misses "
I just thought you'd all enjoy that.
sarcasm doesn't work well here as emoticons are absent. Also, You are creating a circular argument because you came in late, Most of your angle has been hammered out. Its getting tedious.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
You're sarcasm detector is way out of whack there. .?
My point is that the war on terror will become a battle that cannot be won or lost, just a quagmire that results in countless deaths and ridiculous sums of money.Horseman 77 wrote:
I went through step by step.
You never said " their winning " ? Did you imply it? Did we win Vietnam
I find it hard to agree with this kind of thought. Look up for yourself how much of the US budget goes to defense, and how much goes to social programs. Many people often attack social programs as having an economic drain on our budget, but the truth is that it is a sliver of what we (US government) spend on defense. And I am not talking just the war, or explicit defense spending. I am talking about R&D as well as the financial aid we give to Israel and other nations who in turn buy our military machines. If you want I can find this information for you, from as non-biased a source as I can.Horseman 77 wrote:
Why not extra body armor? that means more Spending.
What group continuously attacks the military and its budgets?
What group always scoffs at military spending in favor of setting up yet another service for crack heads and criminals " one that is Really gonna work this time " What group is Continuously bitching about the cost of this war. On that thought.
Yes, it is always much easier to look back at what we should have done. Hindsight is 20/20.Horseman 77 wrote:
What would the cost of WWII have been if we attacked Hitler When he took the Sudaten [sp] Land or Checkoslavakia [sp]?
Would it have been a World War ?
Would it have been as costly in lives material and resources.
If Hitler had been hindered before he could commit his even greater atrocities would FDR have had the support of every last " Deep Thinker " in the U.S.A.
Or would he be hounded like Bush is now? We all know the Answer.
Just wanted some clarification. Yes, I know who you are talking about. My point is to show that this is not an organized group of people. The "insurgents" are a decentralized group of fighters. Hindsight shows how unsuccessful the US military has been in fighting guerrilla fighters.Horseman 77 wrote:
I did say " our enemy " all through this post/thread. You secretly knew at least that I didnt mean Canada or Japan. I meant " THE ENEMY " The people I was talking about the last 10 posts. Label them as you see fit, insurgents, Terrorists, bad guys, smelly guys, guys who look like Freddy Mercury, Guys who smack our buildings with airplanes? Guys who shoot n throw rocks at US Troops. those guys, them. Or as we say in the Bronx " Dem guys "
I know you got it right the 1st time why are you being deliberately obtuse? Man.
I am not saying that the US is a horrible country. I agree, I would not want to live anywhere else. But why do we as Americans feel the need to be the worlds foremost power? But we (the US) do not carry the weight and responsibility well. Let's use history as a lesson, and learn from past empires not to colonize or control other countries resources, as it usually leads to bloodshed.Horseman 77 wrote:
Convoluted morals and ethics? Compared to who? I will go one BIG step Further. I challenge you to show be one Nation in all History who ever Carried the Weight and responsibility of being the Worlds Foremost power any better or Even as well.
Their's being " Our enemys. " The topic of the last few posts.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"Thiers" being....? Everyone?Horseman 77 wrote:
Again, I know its Harsh, But..War is harsh.Marconius wrote:
You'll begin to run into the Patriotism vs. Nationalism debate with this question. It's not unpatriotic at all to be against a war, it just comes down to whether you particularly support War or not. Patriotism is the love and devotion you have to your country. Nationalism explains the extreme forms of patriotism, where you get the whole "with us or against us" attitude, plus feel that your country is superior to others.
Please replace my word ( Simplistic ) with ( Clear-cut ).
In War Time, I become a Nationalist. My Devotion turns Extreme. My Patriotism becomes Extreme.
Conversely I see Dissent as Extreme also.
In War time, I do believe it becomes " Exactly " a case of " US vs THEM "
That is what creates my extreme devotion to Us.
I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily.
The post you read and quoted from.
If you really want to further your argument, why do you present yourself as Confused?
Just follow along like everyone else so we don't have to field redundant questions.
( is it Thier or their ? ) drew small pictures in page margin during spelling class
Like I said...keep on bud. Your doing good.Horseman 77 wrote:
Their's being " Our enemys. " The topic of the last few posts.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
"Thiers" being....? Everyone?Horseman 77 wrote:
Again, I know its Harsh, But..War is harsh.
Please replace my word ( Simplistic ) with ( Clear-cut ).
In War Time, I become a Nationalist. My Devotion turns Extreme. My Patriotism becomes Extreme.
Conversely I see Dissent as Extreme also.
In War time, I do believe it becomes " Exactly " a case of " US vs THEM "
That is what creates my extreme devotion to Us.
I do feel my Country is Superior to theirs Morally, Ethically, Technically and Militarily.
The post you read and quoted from.
If you really want to further your argument, why do you present yourself as Confused?
Just follow along like everyone else so we don't have to field redundant questions.
( is it Thier or their ? ) drew small pictures in page margin during spelling class
edit: I started this post for a reason. Your helping me without knowing it. So keep it up.
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2006-04-04 10:30:02)
Absolutely not, the government can ( help ) and even give away Easter baskets to the poor when it has surplus cash.Skruples wrote:
The governrment should take some responsibility for helping those that get the short straw.
Note: This started a riot in Harlem. The Headline was "Easter Egg Hunt goes Wild ! " but almost every Government program good and bad gets exploited.
But to say the government is responsible "for those who get the Short Straw " Not in my view. Not at all. There should be a chance to move up and forward but should the Child of a 1st generation immigrant have the same life as Bill Gates child? or yours "A Mensa member" for that matter.
Not me, here we differ and a lot. 1000 dollars to the School means.Skruples wrote:
Its what the government chooses to spend that tax money on that is at stake here, not whether we should all be forced to split our money with the poor. Frankly, I'd rather my tax money was spent on making public schools better than helping to pay for another piece of military equipment that probably won't ever be used.
1 hilary clinton gets half.
2 They buy a new Fax for $400 because They didn't realize the old one was unplugged
3 The New Fax leaves the building (still in the box) for parts unknown.
4 Then they buy $200 dollars worth of paper which no one will unpack.
5 The paper ( still in the Box) is moved to an out of the way corner and goes out with the Evening garbage because it was kinda close the garbage pail.
6 Money Gone.
7 Send notice to Tax payer asking for $1000 more.
8 Back to 1
HERE ME GOD ! This really happens again and again and again. Don't get me started! When I worked for the phone company, she School system was my customer as was NYC Human Resources and NYC Culteral Affairs all total waste of taxpayer dollars.
Like what body Armor ?Skruples wrote:
" pay for another piece of military equipment that probably won't ever be used."
Give $1000 to the millatary They buy $600 worth of crap that works beyond belief,
Missiles go in windows, Burrow 300 feet down into bunkers while our fighting men strike at much safer distances.
Our people stay Safer then ever before in a WAR.
Our enemys colloapse before us and are reduced to planting a bomb at roadside and hoping they hurt "someone/anyone "
Our enemies Going full force cannot produce the same number of American casualties as the Los Angels crime element can.
The guy that makes the missile buys a new car gets his kid a pony and goes out to dinner once a month.
The money circulates and boosts the economy..
Further " To Ensure Peace you must prepare for War "
I would rather waste a couple Billion on an MX missile Program, Submarines and Space based Technology reserach that may never be used in the Hopes that it will prevent a Nuclear ( Nuke ya ler ) Show Down with The USSR and maybe even eventually Cause the USSR to Collapse .. ohh wait a minute..
Word yo !Skruples wrote:
If you think that I'm advocating that the rich should pay the way for the poor, you are again mistaken. I don't want to give my money away any more than you do.
Well, I wanted to know, You used it in your argument. I don't need a homework assignment or puzzle to solve my gf's Connection sux So googleing something here is like punishment. Do you want me to use obscure riding, hunting and shooting terms here. It is obvious your ducks are in a row but no one here needs to cross over a line to a descending Oxer. The true line needs no lash. Ps I like you dude! good posts!Skruples wrote:
As for 'what is Mensa', if you are asking what it is, a simple web search will tell you. If you were asking why I mentioned it, it was to illustrate that I, and other people, have been given advantages that not everyone has. I'm merely trying to point out that the playing field is not equal as many would like to believe. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. And I'm happy that I could bring your girlfriend some amusement, humor is a wonderful thing.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-04 16:49:12)
I just wanted to point out one thing about this. From everything I have heard/read the troops don't want the extra body armor. The guys who have to wear it hate it because is so damn bulky and heavy and makes it harder to move around.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Furthermore, if George Bush supports our troops, why is he sending them into harms way without the necessary protection (body armor)? Personally, if I were going to subject my soldiers to war, I would want to make sure every step was taken to ensure that they are able to fight with the best equipment available. This is one case where GW does not support our troops.
IMO the biggest problem isn't how much money someones parents make, it is parenting. If a kid's parents push him to do better, he will. If they don't give a shit, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at him.Skruples wrote:
People on these forums seem to think that every statement applies specifically to them. I'm happy that things worked out for you, all I was trying to say is that its not that way for everyone.atlvolunteer wrote:
That's bullshit. So, because they went to public school, they are automatically going to get a shitty education? I went to public school, went on to go to college (on scholarships and later student loans and grants) and now have a BS in Electrical Engineering. I had none of the private schools and money you have, yet I was still able to better myself.
My father grew up on a farm in Western Kentucky, went to a one room school for most of his (pre-college) education, got one pair of shoes a year when he was younger, and ended up with a Masters in Accounting and his CPA. If that isn't bettering yourself, I don't know what is.
I went to high school and college with a very intelligent guy who had all of the things I had, but who had kind of a crappy home life. His parents were divorced and I don't think either really tried to push him. He could have taken the advanced classes in high school, gotten his bachelors and probably gone further. He ended up dropping out of college and, last I heard, lived in a small town in Mississippi doing not much of anything. He is in mensa, though (I shit you not, he thought it might help him get a job).
Not necessarily responsible, but the government should take steps to help those that it (the government) and the citizens have repeatedly exploited.Horseman 77 wrote:
But to say the government is responsible "for those who get the Short Straw " Not in my view. Not at all. There should be a chance to move up and forward but should the Child of a 1st generation immigrant have the same life as Bill Gates child? or yours "A Mensa member" for that matter.
I get the idea, and agree that the US system is full of bureaucracy that puts a drain on financial resources.Horseman 77 wrote:
Not me, here we differ and a lot. 1000 dollars to the School means.
1 hilary clinton gets half.
2 They buy a new Fax for $400 because They didn't realize the old one was unplugged
3 The New Fax leaves the building (still in the box) for parts unknown.
4 Then they buy $200 dollars worth of paper which no one will unpack.
5 The paper ( still in the Box) is moved to an out of the way corner and goes out with the Evening garbage because it was kinda close the garbage pail.
6 Money Gone.
7 Send notice to Tax payer asking for $1000 more.
8 Back to 1
There is no bureaucracy in the Military? I find it hard to believe that the only arm of government that has needless spending is Public Education. I think your statement about school spending is relevant to the Military as well. I recommend the movie "Pentagon Wars" about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle to better illustrate this point.Horseman 77 wrote:
Give $1000 to the millatary They buy $600 worth of crap that works beyond belief,
Missiles go in windows, Burrow 300 feet down into bunkers while our fighting men strike at much safer distances.
Our people stay Safer then ever before in a WAR.
Our enemys colloapse before us and are reduced to planting a bomb at roadside and hoping they hurt "someone/anyone "
Our enemies Going full force cannot produce the same number of American casualties as the Los Angels crime element can.
The guy that makes the missile buys a new car gets his kid a pony and goes out to dinner once a month.
The money circulates and boosts the economy..
It was not the excessive military buildup by the US that contributed to the fall of the soviet union. If you would like, I will explain the reasons behind the fall of the USSR. Let me know.Horseman 77 wrote:
I would rather waste a couple Billion on an MX missile Program, Submarines and Space based Technology reserach that may never be used in the Hopes that it will prevent a Nuclear ( Nuke ya ler ) Show Down with The USSR and maybe even eventually Cause the USSR to Collapse .. ohh wait a minute..
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-04 12:55:15)
I was about to say the same thing. The military has a proven track record of poor spending habbits and kickbacks galore.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
There is no bureaucracy in the Military? I find it hard to believe that the only arm of government that has needless spending is Public Education. I think your statement about school spending is relevant to the Military as well. I recommend the movie "Pentagon Wars" about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle to better illustrate this point.
Soooo....Horseman 77 wrote:
Why not extra body armor? that means more Spending.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Furthermore, if George Bush supports our troops, why is he sending them into harms way without the necessary protection (body armor)? Personally, if I were going to subject my soldiers to war, I would want to make sure every step was taken to ensure that they are able to fight with the best equipment available. This is one case where GW does not support our troops.
What group continuously attacks the military and its budgets?
What group always scoffs at military spending in favor of setting up yet another service for crack heads and criminals " one that is Really gonna work this time " What group is Continuously bitching about the cost of this war.
A conservative would want to spend that money on BODY ARMOR
Liberals are a curios lot.
Its the liberals fault our troops don't have body armor?
Ken said BODY ARMOR by the way. They need that before they can get EXTRA BODY ARMOR.
As far as I know, they all have body armor. They dodn't have EXTRA body armor. Anyone more in the know correct me if I'm wrong.