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.
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.Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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!!!
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
Quoting this so you dont forget what we were talking about.
triple post robin?
Last edited by blaknoize; 06-24-2010 at 07:18 PM.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
political bump, aka funding rally, aka, AMERICA, AMERICA God shine his grace on thee
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I have yet to see a source that says he wanted to be a war president. Your link proves MY point, not yours. Hell, you even highlighted it and still didnt comprehend it.
aw my BB post didnt go through
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Mine dont go though about half the time since the upgrade to the new VB.aw my BB post didnt go through
This is an endless debate about why we're in Iraq.
Iraq could of had the possibility to attack, could of even wanted to attack, but they didnt. Now we're there for oil and thats that. Saddam went from being powerless to a man with WMD's we cannot locate. Bin Laden is a country-wide murderer who will never be found, which is inexcusable.
No matter what historical documents u can dig up, or words from random people throughout history to dispell that fact. We're busy getting oil, beating the sht out of innocent people and blaming everyone else for who actually started this thing. We will not find the actual man at fault even though we know who he is, where he resides and who he rolls with, we will never let go of the oil there and we will use every single possible excuse to be there until we as a people (or the militants themselves) revolt against this wasteful war.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
You keep bringing up your idea that we are there for the oil, yet you cannot find a single bit of proof that anyone is profitting from it. Cant say the oil companies are because their profit margin hasnt changed and the price of crude is determined by commodities traders, not the oil companies. Cant say the govt cause the war is costing us more than oil would be. Cant say OPEC countries because the stability that is now in the middle east is keeping oil prices from that region pretty flat.
Even if this entire war was about oil I would understand it if it was actually used correctly. Oil is the lifeblood of the American economy and therefore our way of life. Since our govt decided that they were too pussy to go against the environmental idiots and let companies drill on our soil, we needed to have a source that could be counted on to be there at all times.
So this post is a contradiction? I dont need to have substantial proof. You dont have to make profits to get oil. We need the oil therefore no matter what the cost in actual dollars it is and/or man-power the fuel must come to us. The government does not need to make capital (although they are) nor do the companies assigned but with the fuel coming, general operations can proceed in daily life of this country.
I speak solely of the oil because there is NOTHING else in the country to be there for beyond oil. We are "rebuilding" the country to stall. We didnt rebuild any other country we got mad at. Vietnam, Japan, Afganstan... so why do we need to have a reason to "rebuild" Iraq? If they were a problem like the others we're labeled, then why would we assist them in anything? We fight to get people off the nuts of America (kinda) or to tell them what to do.
There's a reason to be in AFGN, no reason to be in Iraq. And there is certainly no reason (if Iraq is truely at fault for something related to the 9/11 attacks and magical collapse of WTC#7) to be there assisting them in rebuilding the country and reconstructing THEY'RE Government.
And about me not finding info on this subject. I dont need to go about looking for it when we can all simply search google or yahoo or msn or any other number of engines out there.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Businesses make our weapons.. Businesses are in business.. to well.. make profit.
How could they NOT make profit? I guess, let's start with square 1...
Someone makes our weapons. Now, I don't know who that may consist of exactly, as there are numerous manufactures, and numerous weapons. We have contracts to buy said weapons. Some folks claim these contracts aren't giving you a very good bang for the buck.
Then.. after we blow it up.. which of course, requires destroying the weapons we just purchased and the area we attacked.. We then rebuild the area.
The materials to rebuild this area, and the labor, and contractors come from somewhere. Now I'm not sure who that may exactly consist of.. as last I checked there were thousands over there... and they were recruiting for more. Let it also be said, that the very idea of blowing something up to rebuild it.. which is innately wasteful (apparently a key trait of being a neo-conservative).
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Now I find it interesting that Haliburtons stock in 2002 was worth $5 a share, and it magically skyrocketed year over year with record profits, and was doing extremely well.. and as well as that, stocks skyrocketed to $60 in 2008. Even if you think this is coincidence or aligned with market trends.. There are numerous military industrial stocks that have made record profits since the war began, and magically numerous members of our government have owned said stock.
You have to realize.. that profit is still occurring, whether you think it's too much or not enough, these companies that make up the military industrial complex are making money.. and are traded publicly all the time...
Now oddly enough, I consider your take on our military left wing propaganda, as war is the health of the state. As proven throughout history time and time again, the state takes advantage of every ounce of war in order to do as much to destroy our rights as possible. I mean at this point of time, our left president is supporting the.. again, leftist ideas of the Bush Administration. Prescription drug plan? Patriot Act? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? You know, Obama furthered the drug plan and went with a broader national health care plan, but the expansion of government involvement in health care is a concept that is a left-leaning idea... regardless of the extent. Oh.. he also re-authorized the Patriot Act, and has expanded our war in Afghanistan, expanded activity into Pakistan.. supports action in Iran. Has been instrumental in furthering sanctions on Iran.. which will eventually lead to further hostilities between us.
I don't see why you aren't a big fan of Obama, actually? He's taken everything Bush has done which IMO was about as far to the left as you can get, and impressed me by going even further left than I had even imagined possible in America without riots.
Your obsession with big government stems from the war just as much as it does the left's social programs. The only difference is war costs lives, and money destructively blowing shit up, and and social programs at least help people. Now, I could justify it if we actually had an enemy. But we are nation building in Afghanistan, as we are not searching for Al Qaeda. 15 of the members from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia to begin with. So we go to war with numerous other countries, in order to... Fight terrorism, when 15 out of what 18 terrorists weren't from any of the countries we are in?
I just don't see it. We are in countries rebuilding their government to fight the POSSIBLE spread of terrorism.. But somehow, killing someones relative is going to fight the possible spread of terrorism? It seems to me that would be what creates the terrorist is the desire for revenge and the feeling of oppression?
Anyways, I just don't see war is being any higher of standing than a welfare state. It seems like even more of a waste. I mean ultimately I suppose if everyone took care of themselves, it'd be a lot more efficient than being taxed heavily and funneling tax dollars through bureaucracy to render services.. But then again, that's why I'm about small government
Anyways, it looks like Obama has no intentions of slowing down the war, so I reckon you could at least be happy with that aspect of it..
That being the case, I think this is gimmicky legislation at best. I don't like legislation that would unfairly be biased towards people who make below 35k. I do believe the legislation is for every citizen's first 35k, but for ppl who make say 100k, as a percentage of their income, being in a higher tax bracket, it wouldn't really be near as much savings as the person who makes 35k. While I realize that they may or may not be able to afford it better, depending upon their financial obligations, it doesn't seem fair to punish someone to me for being successful.
Perhaps I'm over-thinking it though
You actually believe that defense contractors having massive growth and profits is a new concept? That has been taking place since LONG before modern warfare and into the times of the roman legions. Should we blame WWII on defense contractors too? You can easily make a case that the US invited war with Japan when we cut off oil and steel to them after their invasion of China. As it was, the oil and steel corporations were making massive profits by price gouging the hell out of japanese buyers in the couple years leading up to our embargo.
You point out some of the reasons I was never a Bush supporter on anything but his foreign policy. His domestic policy was pretty much a joke.
So why would I be a fan of Obama again? He is attacking my bank accounts with his massive tax increases. He is attacking my freedoms by eliminating my choices in my health care. He is attacking my finances and retirement by attacking Wall Street as a whole and completely ignoring the causes of the mortgage meltdown.
My obsession with big govt stems from their inability to do the most basic things with any kind of reliability. We wont even go into anything complex.
Social programs dont help anyone. They are designed to reward people for being dependent on the govt. That makes them a very easy target for vote buying programs.
Just because our enemy doesnt believe in traditional borders doesnt mean they arent an enemy.
Building a working govt is the only way to make sure al-Qeada doesnt come back. Rooting them out and killing them now is the smaller part of the battle. Making sure they dont come back will take a strong, stable govt.
Again, we are not fighting a traditional country. We are fighting a sect that has no borders. Saudi's have been strong against terrorism in their country so they do not become another Iran. It is most likely the self centered approach of the monarchy that they must do it to prevent their execution or exile, but they result is the same.
I am happy with that, but as we have already seen, his relaxed intelligence gathering has already led to more attacks, or at least attempts, on US soil than in 8 years of Bush and his intelligence gathering focus.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
