Found this one interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RepAlanG.../0/t0_TtYQEDTo
The War Is Making You Poor Act
Found this one interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RepAlanG.../0/t0_TtYQEDTo
I saw it had to do with Grayson and closed it. Even Blender will tell you Grayson is an absolute moron.
Grayson is ace in my opinion. Your boy Rand Paul has the market cornered on "absolute moron" right now.
The bill says that by funding the wars together and through the proper processes for funding wars instead of funding them separately through "emergency" appropriations processes we can save the taxpayers enough money to eliminate the income tax on the first $37,000 for all Americans. It makes sense to me... we've been in a war for 9 years and we will probably be in for at least 2-3 more, we need to have a more consistent method of funding the war than using an "emergency" funding process. It might have been an "emergency" the first year or two, but now that its dragged on 9 years its time we adjust to it (or just end it altogether).
I agree with you. The point of emergency funding is for something you had no prior warning. I think we all knew the war needed to be funded.
I will revise my previous statement and say I do agree with most of this bill.
I will not revise the statement as I still believe Grayson is an idiot.
One problem with his stats is that no one really believes China tells the world the truth about their military spending. Another problem is that you are not comparing apples to apples when comparing our military spending to anyone else because of the pay schedules and quality of benefits and quality of life.
I seriously doubt China has the tech and smart weapons that we have though. They are struggling to build respectable automobiles and toys that don't contain lead, I doubt they could build fighter jets that compare to what we have. They also source from the Russians, but a quick google says that the PLAAF (China's Air Force) is still smaller than our own. Ours is 2nd largest theirs is a distant 3rd.
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
I agree they arent the same in technology but there is a whole fucking lot of them. They also dont have anything even approaching the Navy we have either, but their Army is actually very good from what I can find through my own quick searches. Their military works completely different than the way ours does though. They believe in using a chainsaw whereas we use a scalpel. Peace through strength is a philosophy that works and while I agree that we need to cut military spending, you have to be very careful where you cut it. Acquisitions is an absolute mess that is HUGELY expensive and FAR too slow to acquire anything. Eliminate 3 or 4 levels of bureaucracy from there and you can probably find 30 to 40B in savings on a yearly basis. On the other hand, eliminating programs such as the GI Bill and base and housing improvements will seriously degrade morale and lead to a less effective force.
There could be no better boost to morale than ending repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or a bigger kick to morale than not allowing our troops to win. This is Viet Nam all over again. We have politicians doing nothing more for the war effort other than making it impossible to win. Rules of Engagement make it impossible for our troops to defend themselves before taking causalities. Politicians from both sides of the aisle playing politics with troops strengths, dead lines, and funding. Dems like Nancy Pelosi and Chris Dodd actually calling our troops the terrorists. I can go on forever but the fact remains, combat isnt sucking morale nearly as much as limp wristed politicians sabotaging the effort on a nearly daily basis.
This "war" isn't able to be won nor was that ever the intention anyway. We declared war on a tactic, aka "terrorism" but the true reason for the war is to occupy the region, not win any war. The WMD lies were the excuses, and fighting terror was the propaganda repeatedly used as justification. It is and always was a bullshit war that is a waste of money and does not serve our interests. It's a scam used by war profiteers to make money and nothing more. "Letting them win" isn't going to boost morale for anyone fighting an unjust war, and make no mistake, any war predicated on lies is an unjust war.
Numbers don't mean shit. History has taught us this over and over again.
All i see from your post is conspiracy theories and left wing lies.
Really, when? Numbers play a important role in ANY conflict. The US has the best tanks in the world, but what happens in a wide open field when they are out numbered 10 to 1? The Germans had the best tanks in the world by a couple of generational leaps, but because there were so few of them, they didnt greatly affect the outcome. Or AF is vastly their superior, but a war with China cannot be won in the air, it will have to be won on the ground where numbers do mean something.
If you have specific points you'd like to refute then by all means do so, specifically the following:
Global war on terror - So this is a conspiracy theory or left wing lie?
Weapons of mass destruction - That's another one? Really?
War profiteering - You're either willfully ignorant or delusional if you don't see that for what it is.
Of course, if you can't do any better than broad-brush labels then don't bother. Not buying into right-wing neocon propaganda doesn't make you left-wing. I won't argue the conspiracy part, but it isn't a theory. People like you need to wake up. While you are at it, please tell me one thing we got that has been worth being in Iraq or Afghanistan and losing the soldiers we've lost, never mind the fact that the war was sold on a complete lie to begin with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country? (I'm saying how it must seem to Iraqis. Think how it would be if some other planet invaded the U.S. and spent $121,000 per American per year to straighten out our country. We'd say—Just give us the money and we'll do it ourselves.") See spreadsheet for details.
Exactly what it is claimed to be. Did you notice that from 2001 through 2009 not a single terror attack on US soil? Did you also notice how quickly that changed now that the flow of intelligence has been basicly cut off?
None were found that we as normal citizens know of. That constitutes bad, or out dated, intel, not a lie. Dont forget that when we went into Iraq more than a dozen other countries also went because of the same intel that was verified through their own sources. There was also intel found in country that suggested the weapons were there as recently as late 2001, the same time Hussein was claiming to have them ready for use and gassing the kurds.
Now why dont you give me some proof of these lies.
There will always be people that profit from war. The military has to buy food and weapons from somebody dont they? The uniformed military has also cut so many support MOS's that contractors have to be used instead of people in uniform.
Cute video that really doesnt say anything, but it does spend some time manipulating facts with some creative editing. You will also notice in my previous post where I said how screwed up the defense acquisitions system is. It is hugely wasteful and hugely inefficient and very easy to defraud. The fraud within the pentagon is monumental and anyone that has dealt with the military knows it. The problem isnt with the military side of the house though, it is with the bureaucratic side. All of those civilian appointees and high level employees learned long ago how to game the system and it will never stop happening. This isnt a problem with any single administration though, it is both sides of the aisle.
We wont go into when this info first came out though, it might disrupt your preconceived ideas.
Last edited by BanginJimmy; 05-26-2010 at 09:06 PM.
LOL, quite impressive. Terror attacks that so rarely happen didn't happen.Keep enjoying the kool aid but you might want to slow down a bit before you choke on it. Even if there were WMD's, (which there were not and this was known by our own intelligence), Iraq still had nothing to do with 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE
Since when are you informed on what the CIA, NSA and DIA know? Just because you can find a youtube video with carefully edited comments that have been scrubbed for public consumption doesnt mean you know anything.
I dont remember anyone but liberals saying they did. Hussein was a supporter of several terrorist groups, just not Al-Queda. He was also in violation of 12 or 15 UN resolutions, but we all know how spineless and toothless the UN is.
Quit believing youtube and start thinking. Hell, I an find a youtube video of Obama and Pelosi saying they were going to be the most transparent congress/White House ever. We all know how that is working out dont we.
In the video he stated, I believe, the bill he was proposing was to be instead of bills appropriating money for the next 7 or 10 years. That seems to be the time window of the current budgeting mind.
Seven (7) to ten (10) years. You don't even know what you will be doing in 7-10 years, a shit ton can happen, yet it seems -multiple- congressmen believe the war will be lasting a minimum of 7 years.
We've been in this war for going on 7 years.
Our embassies are also sovereign US territory, and they get attacked almost once a month in places like Iraq and Yemen. Also, when you say "not a single terror attack" you are leaving out the right-wing domestic terror attacks. You'd think that since the war on "terror" was "global" it would also include the homegrown terrorists. You can't just single out the terrorists you oppose and include not the ones you agree with.
Which would be?
1.) The Hutaree Militia's plot to kill law enforcement officers.
2.) The murder of Dr. George Tiller by anti abortion extremists.
3.) The guy who flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX.
4.) A plot involving 3 Neo-Nazi's in Colorado (Nathan Johnson, Tharin Gartrell and Shawn Robert Adolf ) to assassinate Obama by shooting him during a speech.
5.) A plot to assassinate Obama and 88 other African Americans involving Neo-Nazi's Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman.
6.) The church arsonists in East Texas who were indicted yesterday.
Then there are the obvious ones that were before 9/11 like Timmy McVeigh bombing the federal building in OKC, Eric Robert Rudolph bombing several night clubs and the '96 Olympics,
I could go on and on...
Militia's are not exactly right wing, they are anti-govt, no matter what govt it is.
Anti-abortion, not terror.
If I remember correctly, anti IRS, not terror.
[QUOTE=Total_Blender;39038576]4.) A plot involving 3 Neo-Nazi's in Colorado (Nathan Johnson, Tharin Gartrell and Shawn Robert Adolf ) to assassinate Obama by shooting him during a speech.
NEO-Nazi's, not right wing.
I read through about a dozen articles about the indictments, yet I saw no mention of motive, where was it that you saw anything about that?
Then there are the obvious ones that were before 9/11 like Timmy McVeigh bombing the federal building in OKC, Eric Robert Rudolph bombing several night clubs and the '96 Olympics,
anyone can go on and on about crimes committed. I dont see what point you are trying to make.
You can name anything you want to though, it still doesnt change the fact that your messiah is friends with a couple of terrorists from the 60's in Ayers and Dorn. Since you want to lump militias in with right wing, then I guess you should conclude that the black panthers of the 60's and today's NBPP are left wing.
Here is a simple question for you, would you and your messiah be defending Klansmen that hung out at a polling place during a presidential election carrying a club?
Last edited by BanginJimmy; 05-27-2010 at 06:10 PM.
You definition of what constitutes terrorism comes straight from the GOP handbook.
Mine comes from the OED:
2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized. Also transf. Cf.
So if you strike an abortion clinic or a nightclub with the intent of causing terror, then you are are a terrorist. .
Neo-Nazi's, anti-abortionists, and Christian religious zealots are all right wing.
Left Wing "terrorism" hasn't been a viable threat since the leisure suit was in style. I don't see how the NBPP or the TeaBaggers who brought guns to public demonstrations are any different. As far as I can see they were acting within their rights to have weapons in the area. The teabaggers seem to think that only they should be allowed to demonstrate with weapons and when they see the same from the left they get their panties in a twist. Not saying I agree (I am all for gun control) but you can't support the NRA "activists" and then come down on the NBPP.
again, it comes down to intent, not just he act.
So this means that environmentalists, black supremists, and muslim zelots are left wing?
Ever heard of the environmental movement?
So you are saying that you are ok with a known racist organization to be carrying weapons at a polling place during a federal election? That really does say a lot about you that you dont knwo the difference between a protest and a polling place. I'm sure you would feel the same if it was Klan members in full uniform at a polling place in Birmingham.
If you are talking about the case in AZ, it was staged and perfectly legal according to AZ law. I dont know of any other case.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...fle/index.html
The NBPP member was in violation of federal law, that isnt even debatable. I wonder why Holder, by that I mean Obama, decided not to prosecute.
All I'm going to say is this, I'm sure the troops wanted to "win" Vietnam as well, but they came back to a lack of respect for their service from their peers and their government. My father in law, a Marine.. his leg was destroyed by a land mine in Vietnam, decades later he has fought tooth and nail to get only 70% disability from the VA. Morale in the name of "winning" is bullshit as it pertains to Afghanistan, the minute our presence in that region is gone it will return to the way it was so a "win" is relative. I think on some level those soldiers on their 4th and 5th deployment would like some stability, that will boost morale.
The troops won that war in every regard. Limp wristed politicians would not let them end the war though. It would not have taken long to end that war if US troops were allowed to enter N.Vietnam. They were too worried about a Soviet or Chinese response like the Korean war.
They came back with no respect because of the liberals in the media portraying them as blood thirsty criminals.
I know this is off topic, but you agree with govt run health care. How is his case going to be any different than anyone else's when the same govt that runs the VA is running everyone's health care?
Not leaving home and their families will definitely be good for morale, but that wasnt the point I was making. To leave too soon and basicly admit defeat, like we did in Nam, will be far worse for morale than the added deployments to actually win it.
You are right about winning in Asscrackistan being a relative view. I dont think that country will ever be able to sustain itself, it simply doesnt have the natural resources to do it. I think a win there will be a govt stable enough to be able to provide law and order to its major cities and have the military strength to avoid becoming haven to terrorism. It will always require massive amounts of foreign aid to stay out of extremist hands.
The only real way to "win" a war in a place like Vietnam or AFGN is to wage a war the way the Romans did... throw everything you have at them, beat them to submission, and then assimilate them into the empire and give the people there the full benefits of said empire (trade, decent roads and infrastructure, etc) so they will not be tempted to buck.
But such a philosophy of warfare requires pretty much constant war. If we were to do that to AFGN we would have to carry that momentum into Pakistan and then Iran. I doubt very seriously the US can maintain that sort of warfare, we are not prepared for the cost both financially and in terms of human lives.
Back to the subject and definition of terrorism... you say it comes down to the "intent" and not just the act, but when the "intent" is to cause fear and intimidation to a certain group like abortion practitioners, how does that not meet the OED definition of terrorism? We have our own brand of fundamentalist extremism here in America, and they're waging a Jihad for Jesus.
I guess I can agree with your definition but where does it end? Is a violent group of proesters considered terrorism? What about a drug cartel, are they terrorists? Like I said, it comes down to intent. Bombing an abortion clinic can only be called a political statement because it is a highly publisized issue. The act alone is usually justified by calling the docs and patients murderers. It is not typically used as a rallying point for political change.
Are you saying that terrorist acts are meant to instill political changes? In that sense I am not sure if I agree... the acts of 9/11 were more to generate fear and panic than to enact any specific political changes. Of course, one could say that in the attacks/attempts I listed above, inciting fear and panic were also the primary intents rather than specific political statements.
terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism
That is the definition I like best, so I guess we could say you are correct in saying the abortion bombings would be covered under terror because of the ideological reasoning.
they put the lead in the toy soy your kid can buy it, put it in his mouth and lose brain cells. kust like anythimng owned by pepsico is now china owned so the fish from long john silvers is pollution rich!!! yummy. screw the war, sell some F@%KING PLANES and clean up the oil!!
BP=Broken Promises or brown pelicans, or british punks!!!! sorry had to rant there.
Check out my for sale threads!! 15" competition speakerbox, 1TB External hard drive, and plenty of car parts!!!
I Need some WRX, 350Z, 240SX, Really any car owner to let me do R&D for Ground Kits, Please Let me See the layouts!!!
wow in reading this did you know our government says terrorism more times that bill cosby asked for jello. if they say it enough it's real. look at movies over the last 15-20 years and half of those "fictional things" have happened, but we are too dumb to see it because we saw it in the movies. and blender if you make one alex jones comment"which i have not read an article in months" i will start blaming BP and the gov'ts oil spill on obama. "hey everyone it's obama's katrina". expect worse when a hurricane sucks that crap up and kills the US water supply. who cares. . . . ohh FEMA camps care.
Check out my for sale threads!! 15" competition speakerbox, 1TB External hard drive, and plenty of car parts!!!
I Need some WRX, 350Z, 240SX, Really any car owner to let me do R&D for Ground Kits, Please Let me See the layouts!!!
Your like a lost cause. If somehow Iraq started the war then it would justify the means to attack the country. They didnt... end of discussion. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 attacks, nothing, fuking nothing. Saddam had nothing to do with Iraq, planes crashing into buildings had nothing to do with Iraq, planes crashing into the (well the fake crash) into the Pentagon had nothing to do with Iraq oh and WTC building #7's magical structural failure had nothing to do with Iraq.
So... the only thing Iraq has to do with this equation is... hmm.. Oil. Raw Oil. Saddam didnt live in Iraq, he didnt commute to Iraq for work. Bin Laden lived in Afganistan, he also didnt commute to Iraq. So... I dont see how Iraq is involved in this.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
No one ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
I agree, Dick Cheney is a nobody. He's some sort of lizard-person or something. Definitely not human.
Meet The Press
9/14/2003
Interview with then Vice President Dick Cheney and Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
This proves absolutely nothing about 9/11. We got a tip from the Czechs, but as Cheney said, we couldnt find any evidence support that or discredit it.
Not that they really tried to prove it or discredit it. The allegations of a link were enough for them. They were not looking for a genuine link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, they just wanted any little reason to go to war. Remember that in the months leading up to 9/11 W was a laughing stock and was getting reamed by the press. He has said it many times that he wanted to be seen as a "war president".
Source?
I found MANY sources of Bush saying he dint want to be a war president, but none that said he wanted to be one.
Source? PFFT
u ever tried google.com?
LINK
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
LINK
Russert: Shouldn't the American people have the benefit of the commission before the election?
President Bush: Well, the reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried. This is a strategic look, kind of a big-picture look about the intelligence-gathering capacities of the United States of America, whether it be the capacity to gather intelligence in North Korea or how we've used our intelligence to, for example, learn more information about A.Q. Khan. And it's important that this investigation take its time.
Now, look, we are in a political season. I fully understand people — He's trying to avoid responsibility. There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made a — good calls, whether or not I used good judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power, and I look forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to the American people about why I made the decisions I made.
The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't.
I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
There's one source.
Last edited by blaknoize; 06-24-2010 at 07:18 PM. Reason: Looks like I made a triple post
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
