Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Feds to sue banks over fraudFollow

#102 Sep 07 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
That's not to say that Defence spending isn't too high right? I think it's been pretty clearly established that shadow is crazy.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#103 Sep 07 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
gbaji wrote:


The point is that we only need to look at Social Security to see that you're wrong. The other stuff just makes you that much more wrong. Sadly, if history is any indicator, in a week you'll have conveniently forgotten this and still be insisting that defense is the number one expense our Federal government has.


Your numbers are wrong. The money set for contractors alone is over 600B and that's NOT including any of our defense projects.


Over what time period? My numbers are from the CBO and show the actual amount of money spent in each area. You're taking some projected cost over some extended period of time.

We spent $700B on Social security last year. That's not the cost over 10 years, or the projected cost for the program for its entire lifetime. That's the one year cost of that one program.


Quote:
You expect me to believe your figures when we're policing most of the Middle East right now, either on or off the record.


My figures are directly from the Congressional Budget Office. Which is where you go if you want to know how much things actually cost the government.


Quote:
I'm interested what you have against Paul. He's supported by the military more than other candidate for a reason. You know the people that know the real deal. These sleazy media outlets don't have a clue. I don't think you understand what's it like to risk your life based on a lie. I was there day 1 in Iraq and I worked with the CIA/Green beret/Seals/British forces etc. I know how much this war costs, don't insult my intelligence. I was there and I know how much it costs to wage a war/police a country.



I'm not insulting your intelligence. You are by not actually looking up the costs of these things and comparing them. Yes, I'm sure our efforts in the wars cost a "lot" of money. But how much is that? Can you actually tell the difference between $10B and $100B? Is there any time anyone actually directly sees things of those values? I know it's hard to comprehend, but the numbers don't lie.

And even if you know how much it costs to fight those wars, do you know how much it costs to provide social security and medicare? Can it occur to you that those cost a **** of a lot more? Yes, a **** of a lot more than what is already a **** of a lot of money! Amazing, isn't it? If you think that the costs of our defense budget is extreme, shouldn't you think more so about the costs of those social programs?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Sep 07 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's not to say that Defence spending isn't too high right? I think it's been pretty clearly established that shadow is crazy.


I try not to write anyone off. Smiley: wink

As to defense spending being too high? "High" is a relative term, right? It's high relatively speaking compared to the last couple decades, but defense spending in those decades is very very low relative to historical levels. In 2010, we spent 4.7% of GDP on Defense. That was the lowest amount spent on defense for like 40 years. It wasn't until the mid 90s that our defense spending started trending so low, and many people (like myself) think it was a mistake to do so.

Regardless of where you feel we should be though, current spending on defense is not "high" in a broader historical context.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Sep 07 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
I like my new computer chair paid for with tax dollars. It vibrates and is so amazing on the lower back. Smiley: inlove
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#106 Sep 07 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,757 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I like my new computer chair paid for with tax dollars. It vibrates and is so amazing on the lower back. Smiley: inlove


That's so not fair, mine doesn't vibrate. Curse these public/private partnerships, we need more government funding now! Smiley: mad
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#107 Sep 07 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
gbaji wrote:

Over what time period? My numbers are from the CBO and show the actual amount of money spent in each area. You're taking some projected cost over some extended period of time.

We spent $700B on Social security last year. That's not the cost over 10 years, or the projected cost for the program for its entire lifetime. That's the one year cost of that one program.


I want to give you credit for using CBO. I use them a lot myself and normally respect their findings. Unfortunately, these expenses don't count for anything off the books. You have any idea how much money is gone towards finding Bin laden alone? Black OP projects are why you hear the jokes in pop culture about 50k for a toilet seat. But because I can't prove the actual figure for Black OP projects, I'll have to settle for this graph that does a good job of explaining the fallacy of CBO's results. I realize the graph is for 2008, but keep in mind things have gotten worse, not better.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Quote:

I'm not insulting your intelligence. You are by not actually looking up the costs of these things and comparing them. Yes, I'm sure our efforts in the wars cost a "lot" of money. But how much is that? Can you actually tell the difference between $10B and $100B? Is there any time anyone actually directly sees things of those values? I know it's hard to comprehend, but the numbers don't lie.

And even if you know how much it costs to fight those wars, do you know how much it costs to provide social security and medicare? Can it occur to you that those cost a **** of a lot more? Yes, a **** of a lot more than what is already a **** of a lot of money! Amazing, isn't it? If you think that the costs of our defense budget is extreme, shouldn't you think more so about the costs of those social programs?


You realize that Social security was paid into, right? These wars and nation building are only a drain on the country's funds. If we never stayed in Afghanistan after our initial removal of the Taliban in 2001, we wouldn't be 14 trillion in debt now. How do I know this, do the math yourself.

Here is the budget for 2012.


Defense-related expenditure 2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[18][19] Calculation[20][21]
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion


Now here is a graph for the budgets from the 80's to post 9/11. Notice how low the military was during the 90's.
[img=http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending]
#108 Sep 07 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
That's so not fair, mine doesn't vibrate. Curse these public/private partnerships, we need more government funding now! Smiley: mad
It's actually quite disgusting. The excuse I keep getting when I bring it up is "it's just a drop in the bucket." I've said it before, we could cut like 20% from the budget and not be hindered in the least.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Sep 07 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
If we never stayed in Afghanistan after our initial removal of the Taliban in 2001, we wouldn't be 14 trillion in debt now.
Just note, we'll never leave Afghanistan or Iraq. They're this generation's Korea.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#110 Sep 07 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
Why is it called a "defense" budget when they're offensive wars being fought?
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#111 Sep 07 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Just note, we'll never leave Afghanistan or Iraq. They're this generation's Korea.


If we continue to elect establishment(bought and paid off) presidents, you could be right. Perry, Romney, Bachmamn, and Obama are just a few of these names. If the FED is closed and the currency is stabilized, the debt will become a surplus in less than 8 years.
#112 Sep 07 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's "Fed", not "FED". It's not an acronym for something, it's an abbreviation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Sep 07 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Over what time period? My numbers are from the CBO and show the actual amount of money spent in each area. You're taking some projected cost over some extended period of time.

We spent $700B on Social security last year. That's not the cost over 10 years, or the projected cost for the program for its entire lifetime. That's the one year cost of that one program.


I want to give you credit for using CBO. I use them a lot myself and normally respect their findings. Unfortunately, these expenses don't count for anything off the books. You have any idea how much money is gone towards finding Bin laden alone? Black OP projects are why you hear the jokes in pop culture about 50k for a toilet seat.


I think you're missing the value of the figures I'm using. Those are not budget projections. They are actual amount of money spent in each category for each year. That's why I don't have numbers for 2011. That year isn't done yet. There is no such thing as "off the books" in this context. If the money was spent that year, it shows up in that years spending. It may show up as a whole bunch of $50k toilet seats, but the money spent on black ops shows up in the totals. It has to. Every dollar that the Department of Defense receives is accounted for by the Treasury.


Quote:
But because I can't prove the actual figure for Black OP projects, I'll have to settle for this graph that does a good job of explaining the fallacy of CBO's results. I realize the graph is for 2008, but keep in mind things have gotten worse, not better.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm


Yeah. I've seen that chart before too. See my point about Debate tactic #5. Everyone claims that the "official" numbers are really false and that their numbers are the "real numbers". But when someone claims that, it's usually because they're trying to spin something. An objective look at the chart should indicate this to you right off the bat.

The problem is that they are double counting things. As I said, some of the funding which could be associated with defense does come out of discretionary domestic budget (like veterans benefits for example). That's part of that $150B they include in the "current military" part of the chart. But then they count that again in the "past military", and then they decide to count interest on the debt as past military again (despite the fact that interest on debt shows up in another section of our budget as well). Pretty much the entire "past military" portion is BS. It doesn't count because the dollars spent paying for past military operations comes out of each years current defense and defense related domestic spending budgets. It's already accounted for. You can't count that twice.

Similarly, the whole "additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget’s misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the “war on terror.”" bit makes no sense. What is that? We're just pretending that our military costs us more than we actually spend on it because we feel jilted that it cost more than some imagined promise? Um... Why? We spend each year what we actually spend each year. Just because I told you that we'd spend $500B on defense and we end out spending $600B on defense doesn't mean you get to add an extra $100B on top of that as some kind of penalty or something. We still spent what we spent.


You honestly don't read that and immediately think "This is BS"?

Quote:
You realize that Social security was paid into, right?


And? Are you saying that a dollar taken from me in the form of payroll taxes is somehow less valuable than a dollar taken from me in the form of income taxes? And let me remind you that *you* were the one who made a claim about the relative cost of our military compared to social security and medicare. Seems like a bit of a cop out to make that claim and then defend it by saying that costs for those things don't count because they're paid for with a different type of tax.

Quote:
These wars and nation building are only a drain on the country's funds. If we never stayed in Afghanistan after our initial removal of the Taliban in 2001, we wouldn't be 14 trillion in debt now. How do I know this, do the math yourself.


Despite your claims, you really have no clue how much we actually do spend on our military. More importantly, you seem to have no grasp of the difference in costs between our normal peacetime defense spending and spending during the last decade. Let's do some simple math:

Spending for defense in 2000 was right about $300B/year. Here's the spending for every year since then, and a figure showing the difference between that and what we spent in 2000:

 
2001	306.1   - 300 = 6.1 
2002	349.0   - 300 = 49.0 
2003	405.0   - 300 = 105.0 
2004	454.1   - 300 = 154.1 
2005	493.6   - 300 = 193.6 
2006	520.0   - 300 = 220.0 
2007	547.9   - 300 = 247.9 
2008	612.4   - 300 = 312.4 
2009	656.8   - 300 = 356.8 
2010	689.1   - 300 = 398.1 


Add all of that together and we get $2043B. That's the absolute maximum we could possibly blame on increased costs for defense. This does not take inflation into account and assumes that every single dollar of increased defense budget was involved with the "War on Terror" in some way.

I could do similar math on the "domestic" budget as well, but even if we assumed that every single dollar increase in that budget was also involved in the War on Terror (and it clearly can't have been), we still only end out with a similar total number (around $2T). Even if we assume a ridiculous interest rate, that still can't possibly account for more than about 1/3rd of our total debt.


When you actually do the math, instead of just talking about doing it, it becomes abundantly clear that defense spending cannot be blamed for our current debt problems. Want to know why? Here are those same years, but with the deficits in place and for fun I've put the results of that defense delta calculation next to each years deficit:


 
Year    Deficit    Defense difference 
2001	-32.4      6.1 
2002	-317.4     49.0 
2003	-538.4     105.0 
2004	-568.0     154.1 
2005	-493.6     193.6 
2006	-434.5     220.0 
2007	-342.2     247.9 
2008	-641.8     312.4 
2009	-1,549.7   356.8 
2010	-1,371.1   398.1 


See a problem? In no year does the difference in defense spending after 2000 (remember that's not inflation adjusted, so the real numbers should be lower) and that years total defense budget equal much less exceed the deficit for that year. In most years, especially after Obama takes office, it's not even close.


Want to still try to claim that defense is a major factor to our current debt problem? It's not. The numbers prove that it's not.

Here is the budget for 2012.

<bunch of BS>

Doesn't matter. You're tossing out projections and questionable math with assumptions which simply cannot be supported with the facts.


Quote:
Now here is a graph for the budgets from the 80's to post 9/11. Notice how low the military was during the 90's.
[img=http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending]


Yes. I'm well aware of this. I pointed this out in my own post. Defense spending in the 90s was abnormally low in terms of the broader historical context. I'll also point out that after a decade of that low military spending, we ended out with a nuclear armed North Korea, a soon to be nuclear armed Iran, and a massive growth in organized religious based terrorism culminating in the 9/11 attacks. I think it's hard to argue that we got a lot of bang for our buck by saving that money back then.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Sep 07 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Defence spending is absolutely a major part of the deficit in that it's a major part of spending. You can't just say it doesn't count. It's only part of the picture, but it still accounts for a significant percentage of costs, and so saying it has nothing to do with the deficit is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with shadow's numbers though.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#115 Sep 07 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's "Fed", not "FED". It's not an acronym for something, it's an abbreviation.

Or FED.
#116 Sep 07 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Defence spending is absolutely a major part of the deficit in that it's a major part of spending. You can't just say it doesn't count. It's only part of the picture, but it still accounts for a significant percentage of costs, and so saying it has nothing to do with the deficit is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with shadow's numbers though.


I didn't say that it has "nothing to do" with the deficit. I'm countering statements which grossly overestimate its contribution to that deficit though. The numbers kinda don't lie. In 2007, we had a deficit of $160B, and total Defense spending of $548B. In 2010, we had a deficit of $1294B, and total Defense spending of $689B. So Defense spending went up $141B over that time period, and deficit increased by $1134B. The only possible fair share of that deficit increase which can possibly be blamed on Defense is the total amount that Defense spending increased over that time period, right?


I'm more than willing to say that Defense spending is responsible for $141B of that deficit increase. But that's not even remotely close to the far out claims being tossed around out there.

I'll even go a step further: Total defense spending increased by 25% over that time period (a big jump to be fair). Interestingly enough, Total spending economy wide *also* increased by 26% ($2728 to $3455). So I'll even agree to say that defense spending increased similarly with other spending increases and we should absolutely cut it by similar amounts. The problem is that while conservatives are certainly willing to cut Defense spending as necessary to bring that portion of our total spending back on track, Democrats have shown absolutely no willingness at all to do anything even close to equivalent in other areas of the economy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117 Sep 07 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Defence spending is absolutely a major part of the deficit in that it's a major part of spending. You can't just say it doesn't count. It's only part of the picture, but it still accounts for a significant percentage of costs, and so saying it has nothing to do with the deficit is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with shadow's numbers though.
Look, he's going to keep using the "It's just a drop in the bucket" argument. It's ********* like him that get National Guard Armories $4,200,000 worth of Up Armored Humvees a year before the unit is deployed and none of those vehicles go with them.

That's four million dollars of tax payer money for people that won't really use them except one every few months, and left them to sit for a year.

Drop in the bucket.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 Sep 07 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Defence spending is absolutely a major part of the deficit in that it's a major part of spending. You can't just say it doesn't count. It's only part of the picture, but it still accounts for a significant percentage of costs, and so saying it has nothing to do with the deficit is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with shadow's numbers though.
Look, he's going to keep using the "It's just a drop in the bucket" argument. It's @#%^tards like him that get National Guard Armories $4,200,000 worth of Up Armored Humvees a year before the unit is deployed and none of those vehicles go with them.

That's four million dollars of tax payer money for people that won't really use them except one every few months, and left them to sit for a year.

Drop in the bucket.


Great prediction of my response there Lol! Don't quit your day job to become an online psychic anytime soon.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Sep 07 2011 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Great prediction of my response there
I know. You're predictable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Sep 07 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
gbaji wrote:


Yes. I'm well aware of this. I pointed this out in my own post. Defense spending in the 90s was abnormally low in terms of the broader historical context. I'll also point out that after a decade of that low military spending, we ended out with a nuclear armed North Korea, a soon to be nuclear armed Iran, and a massive growth in organized religious based terrorism culminating in the 9/11 attacks. I think it's hard to argue that we got a lot of bang for our buck by saving that money back then.


I don't agree with your philosophy. It's war mongers like you that caused our debt problem in the first place. You seem to forget the Cold War. I know this might sound crazy to you, but nukes in Korea or Iran doesn't concern me. The reason is simple if you allow common sense to prevail. Korea doesn't have the tech to hit us with a nuke on our soil. Even if they did, we have defensive systems in place. The same goes for Iran and they aren't about to use a nuke or missile attack on us or Israel. The reason is because they aren't stupid. All that money we're wasting when it's not needed is just plain sad.

9/11 happened because of our bad foreign policy, nothing else. If you had spies all over your country that were plotting to get rid of their leaders, what do expect to happen? If we stop ******** around with those people, we wouldn't need to spend a dime on militarism. Israel has enough weapons to fight the entire Middle East if need be and that's the other reason why we were attacked. All we do is make these countries more powerful by fighting them. People love fighting for a lost cause and that's this Holy War to them.

In conclusion, I don't agree with you. I have personal experience and contacts within the military and I know how stuff works. I don't believe for a moment our total costs of these wars are transparent. I'd go as far to say it's much worse than the numbers I originally posted. But you don't want to believe me because CBO's estimate is easier to comprehend for you. I'd bring up how the recession is directly tied to the wars and you'd just make some other excuse or take my words out of context. I'll leave you with something that I realized a long time ago. All these "experts" that you wish to believe over your own common sense is what got us in this mess in the first place. We listened to professional bankers and businessman and what happened... oh wait... The worst recession since the Great Depression. I don't even want to touch how our country has become a police state since 9/11. I mean you gotta love cameras on every pole and how the Patriot Act is able to snoop on you. People can call me crazy all they want. Those that do can't explain this mess and they rather put their blind faith in con artists that continue to kill the American dream. I've never been more disappointed to be American than right now. So many people are so clueless as to our real problems. The Fed is pulling all our strings and yet all we can do is ***** and moan on a message board blaming the left or right for these problems. I guess critical thinking and common sense is a lost art. Oh well...
#121 Sep 07 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
We've switched Shadow's decaf coffee with regular. Let's see if he notices the difference...


Dude. Seriously lay off the conspiracy sites.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 7:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Sep 07 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The Fed is...

Tonight, I've made more of an impact through this board than most of you can ever dream of.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Sep 07 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,757 posts
gbaji wrote:
Dude. Seriously lay off the conspiracy sites.

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#124 Sep 08 2011 at 12:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
gbaji wrote:
We've switched Shadow's decaf coffee with regular. Let's see if he notices the difference...


Dude. Seriously lay off the conspiracy sites.



I'm not going to insult you for this remark because you don't know any better. Honestly, I would love to hear a reason to explain all this mess. I suppose you could sum it up with one word... greed. The Fed is a private bank and they've admitted they will just print money if things get bad. I know from first hand experience how much money our government wastes on every single agency. I don't mean money wasted for having the agency either, just **** poor management. I'm really curious what you think is wrong with this country. Are people just so stupid we keep falling into debt? I'd also love to hear your theory about Iraq. Everyone in the military knew there were no WMD's before the invasion and yet we came anyways. Once we told the people that there was no WMD's, we decided to rebuild the nation with radicals. Meanwhile KBR/Haliburton is pumping oil from the fields all day and night. I should know, I was there watching them do it. But that's all a conspiracy too, right?
#125 Sep 08 2011 at 12:20 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
39 posts
Does anyone who finds shadowwhatever crazy also find George Carlin's theory that America was bought and sold long ago also crazy? I'd say he was intending the statement as a humorous observation but watching his debate on Bill Maher's show kinda makes me doubt that.
#126 Sep 08 2011 at 1:07 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,466 posts
Shadow wrote:
World military expenditure in 2010 is estimated to have reached $1.62 trillion in current dollars *via link provided*;

shadow wrote:

Here is the budget for 2012.
...
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion



So Um the US makes up 63-87% of the WORLDS total military expenditure? (maybe a bit less on each end because its been 2 years.) I thought it would have been more (eyeroll)

Quote:
2006 -434.5 220.0
2007 -342.2 247.9
2008 -641.8 312.4


06 the defense spending increase is more than 50% of the deficit.
2007 the defense spending is more than 50% of the deficit.
2008 the defense spending is nearly 50% of the deficit.

The years post are irrelevant in comparison due to the fact that the country has still not recovered from the 08 recession.

The previous years chewed up the surplus/balanced budget, and deficit free washington Clinton left, with the lowest employment in US history. Bush had 3/8 years tied up in military deficits, and left washington in tatters. (not to say Obama has done much better) But then again I think you are both idiots.


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#127 Sep 08 2011 at 2:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,958 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We've switched Shadow's decaf coffee with regular. Let's see if he notices the difference...


Dude. Seriously lay off the conspiracy sites.



I'm not going to insult you for this remark because you don't know any better. Honestly, I would love to hear a reason to explain all this mess. I suppose you could sum it up with one word... greed. The Fed is a private bank and they've admitted they will just print money if things get bad. I know from first hand experience how much money our government wastes on every single agency. I don't mean money wasted for having the agency either, just **** poor management. I'm really curious what you think is wrong with this country. Are people just so stupid we keep falling into debt? I'd also love to hear your theory about Iraq. Everyone in the military knew there were no WMD's before the invasion and yet we came anyways. Once we told the people that there was no WMD's, we decided to rebuild the nation with radicals. Meanwhile KBR/Haliburton is pumping oil from the fields all day and night. I should know, I was there watching them do it. But that's all a conspiracy too, right?


Yet they require a trigger from the federal gov't to legally increase the money supply. Something like The QE packages.

It's not some hidden shadow group directing the printing, it's your elected reps.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#128 Sep 08 2011 at 3:54 AM Rating: Good
**
580 posts
I find it offensive that we are spending 300mil on a plane that can take one anything in the air whhen we already had a plane that did that. The one good thing that has come from supporting Israel is the combat data collected from F-15 against its rivals. Low and behold the F-22 is merely a bridge to unmanned fighters why couldn't we upgrade the F-15s to do get to this same goal oh wait Boeing has plans to build a stealth version that can be sold to our allies and the cost per plane is projected at 100mil. That still half of what the F-22 was projected to cost when first announced. Who are we going to fight that any of this would help us win.

Its really all moot though who can even think about fighting the US in a set piece war or pose any real threat to our shores. Hint Russia is still the only nation that could pose and still pose more of a threat to every single living soul in the North America. While We worry about a terrorist getting a hold of one nuke there is at least 10k pointed at your head fight now. Just like Watchmen pointed out even if that waste of money the Missile defense program stop 99% of them it really wouldn't matter. **** all it serves is to provoke mistrust between to nuclear Super powers(they are still one when it comes to WMDs) with Russia's early warning system decaying and half blind. So people are scared of some guy with a towel rapped around his head.
____________________________
.
#129 Sep 08 2011 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
So Um the US makes up 63-87% of the WORLDS total military expenditure? (maybe a bit less on each end because its been 2 years.) I thought it would have been more (eyeroll)

YES. I keep SAYING THAT~! The figure that the USA military budget is over half of the total of the entire world is frequently quoted throughout the world's media.

It's part of why I think your political system is pretty nuts. As I've said before, you could cut back your military spending so much and STILL be the world's foremost military power.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#130 Sep 08 2011 at 7:53 AM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Xarus,

Quote:
Defence spending is absolutely a major part of the deficit in that it's a major part of spending.


No it's not. It's obvious you don't know what the word major means; nor do you know how to spell defense.

That aside how can you sit there and say with a straight face that aprox 25% of something is a major part of anything?




Edited, Sep 8th 2011 9:54am by varusword75
#131 Sep 08 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Defence actually is a correct spelling.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#132 Sep 08 2011 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
Defence actually is a correct spelling.
Smiley: grin color/colour

Quote:
That aside how can you sit there and say with a straight face that aprox 25% of something is a major part of anything?

you don't like the word major? Use significant then, I don't care, I think my point was pretty clear.
25% is a major chunk of anything. It's not a majority, which is different, but it's certainly significant. However even if your illiterate *** doesn't like that word, I wasn't trying to hide the actual percentages or anything.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 9:54am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#133 Sep 08 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Defence actually is a correct spelling.
Smiley: grin color/colour
What's sad is that was just an obvious ploy to try to distract people who notice he slips and uses European spelling regularly.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#134varusword75, Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 9:12 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Xarus,
#135 Sep 08 2011 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,949 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Xarus,

Hey I'm a Ron Paul supporter so don't come at me with military cuts blather and think i'm going to blink. However, it's disingenuous to lead people to believe that military spending has anything to do with what's wrong with DC. Anyone who really wants to deal with the problem understands this is a social spending crisis.


As Ron Paul wants to end any foreign engagement and close US bases abroad, apparently the "anyone" you're talking about doesn't include Ron Paul himself.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#136 Sep 08 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Xarus,

Hey I'm a Ron Paul supporter so don't come at me with military cuts blather and think i'm going to blink. However, it's disingenuous to lead people to believe that military spending has anything to do with what's wrong with DC. Anyone who really wants to deal with the problem understands this is a social spending crisis.
What changed in social spending that would cause our economy to spiral out of control as it seems to have done?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#137 Sep 08 2011 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Well, we had to pay out a lot more of those $400,000+ life insurance policies in the past ten years.

Oh wait, that came out of the defense budget, too.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 11:59am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Sep 08 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We've switched Shadow's decaf coffee with regular. Let's see if he notices the difference...


Dude. Seriously lay off the conspiracy sites.



I'm not going to insult you for this remark because you don't know any better.


You're the one who used a link to warresisters.com as a source. I may not "know any better", but you've ensured that all I know of you is that you take a site like that at face value without questioning their numbers or conclusions. If you don't want people to think you get your information from conspiracy sites, perhaps you should not use a conspiracy site to support your positions?

Just a thought.


Quote:
Honestly, I would love to hear a reason to explain all this mess. I suppose you could sum it up with one word... greed. The Fed is a private bank and they've admitted they will just print money if things get bad. I know from first hand experience how much money our government wastes on every single agency. I don't mean money wasted for having the agency either, just **** poor management.


Yes. Government is wasteful and inefficient. I know that. It's one of the reasons I'm a conservative and favor small government. But "small government" doesn't mean "no government". It means limiting government to doing only those things it must do. At the federal level, this means it should arbitrate between the states, act as our representation to other nations, engage in foreign policy, and yes... maintain a military.

Government inefficiency is a constant. We're not going to change that, nor should we use that as an argument for eliminating any specific government agency or action. We ought to make that determination based on whether that's something that the government must do in the first place.


Quote:
I'm really curious what you think is wrong with this country. Are people just so stupid we keep falling into debt?


I believe we should stop trying to do things with the government that the government is not only not good at, but should not be involved in. I happen to also believe that people like you, hammering away with your message of how military spending is wasteful are just muddying the waters and not helping the situation. Yes, all government spending is wasteful and inefficient. But some things *must* be done by a federal government and we should judge those things based on that and not simply because it's inefficient.

Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I just can't drive this point home hard enough. What you are doing, unintentionally or not, is basically giving those who love big government a wedge issue to use to prevent the reduction of all those things you and I presumably do agree need to be cut and/or eliminated from our federal government. You give them an easy strawman to point at and allow them to create a false equivalence between spending cuts on social programs and spending cuts on the military.

You make it harder to cut *anything* at the federal level because of your position. I'm sure you're unaware of this, but that's the truth as I see it.


Quote:
I'd also love to hear your theory about Iraq. Everyone in the military knew there were no WMD's before the invasion and yet we came anyways. Once we told the people that there was no WMD's, we decided to rebuild the nation with radicals. Meanwhile KBR/Haliburton is pumping oil from the fields all day and night. I should know, I was there watching them do it. But that's all a conspiracy too, right?


/shrug. That's a whole topic on its own, and I'm not sure how this has anything at all to do with the topic at hand. You do see, however, how by lumping military spending in with social spending, you've actually changed the topic from one about the economy, to one about WMDs in Iraq? That's how you and your position (and that of Ron Paul) aren't helping. The left does well enough at distracting from the issue at hand and changing the subject without conservatives making it that much easier for them.

Every time Ron Paul goes off on a tangent about how our military spending is too high, he just gives ammunition to the Democrats to say "Yeah. It's too high. So lets cut that instead of the stuff we like". At the risk of repeating myself, that's not really helping.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Sep 08 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
rdmcandie wrote:

06 the defense spending increase is more than 50% of the deficit.
2007 the defense spending is more than 50% of the deficit.
2008 the defense spending is nearly 50% of the deficit.

The years post are irrelevant in comparison due to the fact that the country has still not recovered from the 08 recession.


How are the years after that irrelevant? We didn't have a debt problem until those later years, so that seems very very relevant. If we'd continued at the revenue/spending levels (including defense budgets and Bush tax cuts) that we had at the time, absent housing bubble crash, we wouldn't have a debt problem.

That's the big fly in the ointment of the claim that defense spending (and Bush tax cuts!) are to blame for our current deficit. The numbers clearly show that during the time period when those tax rates were in effect and we were increasing our defense budget to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy was sustainable. Our debt percentage was decreasing just prior to the bubble collapsing. Clearly, those things were not causing massive problems then.



Quote:
The previous years chewed up the surplus/balanced budget, and deficit free washington Clinton left, with the lowest employment in US history. Bush had 3/8 years tied up in military deficits, and left washington in tatters. (not to say Obama has done much better) But then again I think you are both idiots.


Ok. First off, that's not how deficits work. Secondly, you're cherry picking one part of our spending and singling it out for blame.


Imagine we live in a country called "Hypothetical Land". In this country, we have tax revenues of $1T. We also have a super simple budget whereby everything is either "military" or "non-military". Imagine that right now, we spend exactly $500B on military, and $500B on non-military. We have a balanced budget, right? Now imagine that we increase the non-military spending by $500B, but change nothing else. We now have a $500B deficit. Now, one could look at the $500B deficit and then look at the $500B we spend on the military and conclude that if only we weren't spending so much on the military, we wouldn't have such a large deficit. But that would be moronic, right?

By just comparing defense spending to deficit, you are doing exactly that sort of silly illogical statistics. It's meaningless. We could pick any part of our spending and choose to blame our deficit on that. You have to look at the whole.

And when we look at that whole, what we see (in real numbers) is that during a time period when our total spending increased $730B, our defense spending increased by $141B. So that's the portion of that increased deficit which we can blame on defense spending. But clearly, other spending represents a larger portion of that deficit. When we add in about $400B of lost revenue, due not to tax rate changes, but to a reduction in economic activity, we can say that defense spending is an even smaller part of the whole resulting deficit increase.

We can look in a lot of directions to find reasons for why our deficit is so high right now, but narrowly targeting defense spending is just way off the mark.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140 Sep 08 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
gbaji wrote:

/shrug. That's a whole topic on its own, and I'm not sure how this has anything at all to do with the topic at hand. You do see, however, how by lumping military spending in with social spending, you've actually changed the topic from one about the economy, to one about WMDs in Iraq? That's how you and your position (and that of Ron Paul) aren't helping. The left does well enough at distracting from the issue at hand and changing the subject without conservatives making it that much easier for them.

Every time Ron Paul goes off on a tangent about how our military spending is too high, he just gives ammunition to the Democrats to say "Yeah. It's too high. So lets cut that instead of the stuff we like". At the risk of repeating myself, that's not really helping.


You attacked my integrity by claiming I was brainwashed by conspiracy sites. The reasons why we're in Iraq is nothing short of a conspiracy. It's proof that the government is using the "war on terror" to expand the empire. Was Saddam really a threat to us? Nope. Was Saddam supporting terrorists? Nope unless you count those Iranian freedom fighters that are against Iran's dictatorship. You realize that the Green beret were inside Iraq 6 months prior to the war right?

This isn't about WMD's, I'm talking about corruption. The Bush admin sent up a false flag just to expand the empire and their pockets. The reason why my point is relevant is because we cannot afford to nation build all over the world. We need to pull out of these countries and secure our own borders. I don't care what the DEM's think about military spending. All they care about is cutting defense to fund welfare programs. I know it's too **** much money to be wasted on a fruitless effort. We're not any safer pre-9/11 and we've lost so many freedoms in the process.

I'm not going to play politics with you. I'm for our Constitution and freedom. That's what our country was founded on and why we're supposed to be different than all other countries. There is a good reason why the USA become the best country in the world. But some people like you seem to forget what made this country great. You talk about all these government agencies/programs and how they must exist. We'll you prove yourself wrong yet again. We didn't always have all these agencies bleeding our country's resources dry. We don't need the IRS, FEMA, the FCA, or countless other programs. The states can handle things themselves if we stop handcuffing them by electing "establishment" candidates.

I'm curious who you plan to vote for in the 2012 election. I'm predicting you'll say Romney or Perry. The dirt on those 2 bums is longer than a laundry list at the whorehouse. They aren't going to fix a **** thing. Poor people will still be poor and on welfare, the dollar will continue to drop, we'll have hyper inflation which hurts the elderly, and the rich will get richer. You can talk all the political double talk all you want to, but the bottom line is we don't need another Bush. I also don't approve of the way you take Ron Paul's message out of context in regard to spending. Paul knows as I know why we're in financial turmoil. The middle class is hurting and when that happens, the economy follows their lead. I suppose you want the Fed to keep printing more money. Oh by the way, did you hear what perry said about social security? He called it a ponzi scheme which is exactly right. The government raped these coffers(surplus)to pay for these illegals wars and now they want to pretend that SS is killing the budget now. We know that the defense budget is out of control. I'm not saying that to appease to the left either. I'm saying it because I know from first hand experience. We're in Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for their **** poppy fields. I'm sick of it and so are a lot of people. It's time for a Revolution and to say goodbye to the establishment.
#141 Sep 08 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
You attacked my integrity by claiming I was brainwashed by conspiracy sites.

You got him all wrong. Gbaji was calling you "brother".

What's your stance on the bin Laden situation room photos, birth certificate, Bill Ayers and the terrifying Odinga connection?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#142 Sep 08 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,285 posts
this conversation between gbaji and shadow is like trying to decide who to cheer for in the fight between the Westboro church and the KKK



I am so conflicted.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 4:24pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#143 Sep 08 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:

You attacked my integrity by claiming I was brainwashed by conspiracy sites. The reasons why we're in Iraq is nothing short of a conspiracy. It's proof that the government is using the "war on terror" to expand the empire. Was Saddam really a threat to us? Nope. Was Saddam supporting terrorists? Nope unless you count those Iranian freedom fighters that are against Iran's dictatorship. You realize that the Green beret were inside Iraq 6 months prior to the war right?


This paragraph should be right next to the definition of "irony" in the dictionary.

Quote:
I'm curious who you plan to vote for in the 2012 election. I'm predicting you'll say Romney or Perry. The dirt on those 2 bums is longer than a laundry list at the whorehouse.


So in the nearly certain event that either Romney or Perry are nominated by the GOP, you will effectively cast a vote for Obama by not voting for either of them? That seems... foolish.

The thing about politics is that it's always a balance between idealism and pragmatism. Those who don't figure that out will end out being ruled by those who do.

Quote:
Oh by the way, did you hear what perry said about social security? He called it a ponzi scheme which is exactly right.


And yet, you wouldn't vote for him. Why? Because he's not Ron Paul? Do you honestly think that Ron Paul would really do anything differently if he were somehow magically to become president? He's selling you a dream that can't become reality and wouldn't work even if it did. Like I said before, you need to balance idealism and pragmatism.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Sep 08 2011 at 10:24 PM Rating: Good
**
580 posts
If we ask SS, medicare, and medicaid to give we must ask the same of the DoD and homeland crap. Really who's going to attack the hick towns that got grants that have less people then died on 9/11. Every program should be cut back.
____________________________
.
#145 Sep 09 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
gbaji wrote:

So in the nearly certain event that either Romney or Perry are nominated by the GOP, you will effectively cast a vote for Obama by not voting for either of them? That seems... foolish.

The thing about politics is that it's always a balance between idealism and pragmatism. Those who don't figure that out will end out being ruled by those who do.


No if I voted at all, it would be a write in vote which can still be done. By refusing to answer my question, you have proven a lot to me.



Quote:


And yet, you wouldn't vote for him. Why? Because he's not Ron Paul? Do you honestly think that Ron Paul would really do anything differently if he were somehow magically to become president? He's selling you a dream that can't become reality and wouldn't work even if it did. Like I said before, you need to balance idealism and pragmatism.


I wouldn't vote for him because Perry is a crook. Ron Paul has been saying these things for over 30 years. Now because his views are finally taken more seriously, you have his competitors using words like "Ponzi" and "Fed". The bottom line is it's you that are mistaken. You shouldn't judge a candidate on their speaking points, you ought to pick them based on their record. It's funny that nobody can find any dirt to sling at Ron Paul. I don't expect magic out of Paul, but I do hope to see some changes. The rich are getting richer and more corrupt because as all politicians put it, it's all because of lobbyists. The difference between Paul and these other candidates is that Paul doesn't have a record as a flip flop. For those that voted for Obama, look at all his campaign promises and look at which of them he even tried to pass. Obama sold us on a dream, but he never lifted a finger.

Lastly, I support our constitution and freedom, there aren't any choices but Paul. I'm sick of the nation building and the wars. Oh by the way, if history is any indicator, Paul will be killed by some lone crazy man. Anyone who has gone against the system is dealt with according. JFK blown away :P
#146 Sep 09 2011 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
You had to drag Kennedy into your crazy conspiracy diatribe too? Wow, you are a pro.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#147 Sep 09 2011 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Our economy is ruined because some Mexican gardener was being lazy and didn't trim the grassy knoll.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#148 Sep 09 2011 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
Our economy is ruined because some Mexican gardener was being lazy and didn't trim the grassy knoll.
That was an 18 word post, you just caused a hurricane.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#149 Sep 09 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
If we ask SS, medicare, and medicaid to give we must ask the same of the DoD and homeland crap. Really who's going to attack the hick towns that got grants that have less people then died on 9/11. Every program should be cut back.


Agreed. As I pointed out earlier (in this thread? I've lost track!), defense spending has increased on a pace with spending in all other areas. So we absolutely need to cut it in similar proportion.


The problem is that if the round of domestic spending cuts that went on earlier this year (which were left over from last years budget btw) is any indication of what the Dems will do, they'll get us all to agree to cut spending, then they and the GOP will agree on defense spending cuts and get those put down on paper right away (cause we all agree to them, right?). Then, once those cuts are finalized, they'll attempt to negotiate out of cutting any of the stuff they care about.

This is exactly what they did earlier this year. So forgive me if I'm a bit suspicious of anything other than an absolutely firm promise to make specific cuts to specific programs. Every time a Democrat gives a vague promise of cuts, I immediately assume they're going to find a way to wiggle out of it down the line if they can. That's what they've done in the past, so it's the pattern of their own behavior. It would be a mistake not to pay attention to it.

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 2:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Sep 09 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
No if I voted at all, it would be a write in vote which can still be done. By refusing to answer my question, you have proven a lot to me.


Proven what? That I'm concealing something from you which I have openly stated for years now (and in a thread on this very forum like just yesterday)? My preferred GOP candidate 4 years ago was Romney. I still think he's the best choice out of the current GOP pack (haven't seen anything yet to change my mind, although you never know). This is hardly a secret. What did you expect?


But on the subject of your vote, let me repeat my statement about pragmatism versus idealism. While I'm sure somewhere "out there" exists a completely perfect conservative candidate, I'm more interested in making sure that a liberal candidate doesn't win office than holding out for that perfect choice. It is not a matter of "perfect candidate or bust". It's a matter of choosing the better candidate out of those who can win. Given the way our electoral college system is set up, that means that you either vote for the GOP candidate, or the Dem candidate. Any other vote is thrown away.

As a conservative, if you vote for anyone other than the GOP candidate you are effectively casting half a vote for Obama. So unless you honestly believe that you'll be no worse off under Obama than Romney or Perry (or whomever wins), then you are being a monumental idiot to vote for anyone else. BTW, this is part of what I meant by "not helping". I'm all for raising issues. But don't vote for the issues candidate instead of the guy who is the best match to your own positions *and* has a real chance to win. That's a surefire way to ensure that you lose ground on your issues instead of gain ground.


Quote:
I wouldn't vote for him because Perry is a crook.


Um... Ok. So pretend that the only two possible winners are Obama or Perry. You'd rather Obama win? Which is the "better" candidate? It's not just about who is perfect.

Quote:
Ron Paul has been saying these things for over 30 years. Now because his views are finally taken more seriously, you have his competitors using words like "Ponzi" and "Fed".


Yes. That's the purpose of an issues candidate. To raise the issue on a national level and make them have to be addressed publicly. But you don't actually vote for the issues candidate in a write-in when he loses to the more mainstream candidate in your own party. The point of raising these issues is to try to get the mainstream candidates to adopt more similar positions on those issues as well. If the result is splitting the party vote and helping someone who holds the exact opposite position on those issues to get elected, then you have hurt your cause, not helped it.

Quote:
The bottom line is it's you that are mistaken. You shouldn't judge a candidate on their speaking points, you ought to pick them based on their record.


Do you know anything about his record? And not just what you've read on pro-Paul sites? Honestly, about the only consistency in his voting record is that he does whatever seems to generate the most controversy. Again, that's clever marketing for an issues candidate, but not a great record to base real leadership on.

Quote:
It's funny that nobody can find any dirt to sling at Ron Paul.


Kinda depends on how you define "dirt". I suspect this is really just ignorance on your own part.

Quote:
I don't expect magic out of Paul, but I do hope to see some changes. The rich are getting richer and more corrupt because as all politicians put it, it's all because of lobbyists. The difference between Paul and these other candidates is that Paul doesn't have a record as a flip flop.


Well, except for the time in 2003 when he voted no on a bill that would protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, then in 2004 voted yes on a bill that limited frivolous lawsuits, then in 2005 he again voted no on a bill that would limit frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers. All of this despite claiming to be staunchly pro 2nd amendment, property rights, and free markets. So he's either being inconsistent about supporting the second amendment, or he's being inconsistent about opposing frivolous lawsuits, or he's being inconsistent about believing in a free market.

But I'm sure, since you mentioned his voting record, that you already know all about this and have a perfect explanation.

Quote:
For those that voted for Obama, look at all his campaign promises and look at which of them he even tried to pass. Obama sold us on a dream, but he never lifted a finger.


Yes. And this is who you'll be voting for if you write in Paul's name in the next election. So I guess you want Obama to serve 4 more years.

Quote:
Lastly, I support our constitution and freedom, there aren't any choices but Paul.


Yeah. Because he's the only person on earth who cares about freedom and our constitution. Geez dude. Take your head out of the punch bowl for a second and look around.


Quote:
I'm sick of the nation building and the wars. Oh by the way, if history is any indicator, Paul will be killed by some lone crazy man. Anyone who has gone against the system is dealt with according. JFK blown away :P


Yeah. Because the political establishment really feels threatened by Ron Paul. Ron Paul cares about Ron Paul. He knows that by being controversial and "different", he can attract a core group of fanatical followers who'll praise the ground he walks on, and who'll follow him around chanting his name. More importantly, they'll toss tons of money his way so he can keep his job in Congress.

Oh and speaking of flip-floping (or just being inconsistent). He's a man who claims to believe in term limits, but apparently not for himself. If he was a true idealist, wouldn't he voluntarily step down? And then there's that whole pledge in support of transparency with regard to campaign donations, but voting against exactly that when it came to passing any legislation. He's also one of the worst offenders in terms of keeping secret donor lists.

But he's got nothing to hide and he's an open honest man with your own best interests at heart! He told you so, so it must be true!!!

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 5:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 Sep 09 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
gbaji wrote:


The problem is that if the round of domestic spending cuts that went on earlier this year (which were left over from last years budget btw) is any indication of what the Dems will do, they'll get us all to agree to cut spending, then they and the GOP will agree on defense spending cuts and get those put down on paper right away (cause we all agree to them, right?). Then, once those cuts are finalized, they'll attempt to negotiate out of cutting any of the stuff they care about.

This is exactly what they did earlier this year. So forgive me if I'm a bit suspicious of anything other than an absolutely firm promise to make specific cuts to specific programs. Every time a Democrat gives a vague promise of cuts, I immediately assume they're going to find a way to wiggle out of it down the line if they can. That's what they've done in the past, so it's the pattern of their own behavior. It would be a mistake not to pay attention to it.

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 2:34pm by gbaji


I hope you're not referring to Obama. He's caved in on everything the GOP has asked for in the last 2 years. Obama's given the right wing's 93% of what they ask for if you pay attention. Obamacare is the only thing he passed that the GOP hated, but it's so flawed it will be repealed anyways. I'm more concerned about the 40% tax hike to the medical industry. I know most of my push towards cuts has been to defense, but I would also cut health care costs too. The wealth of the average citizen isn't very good right now so any cuts to social programs would be a huge mistake. I would like to see the defense budget cut and the money diverted to infrastructure. We need new roads, bridges, water pipes, and fiber optics. Instead of wasting that money in the Middle East, we need it spent here in the US. I think for all our disagreements, we probably both can agree that America needs jobs and a stable dollar. As Ron Paul said the other night, you can buy a $3.50 gallon of gas with a piece of silver which is just sad. The value of our currency is pathetic.

Another issue that I like to see pushed is our own energy programs. The US owns 75% of all energy surplus yet we rely on the Middle East too much. I've said it before to others that if the US took away the world's dependence on oil from the Middle East, terrorism would also decline. Most terrorists like the Taliban/Halibaz are supported by Saudi oil. No oil, no money, no problem. Even with the oil, they are like a bunch of stoneage Flintstones with rpg's and ak47's. Our satellites have begun to collect solar energy that can be converted to natural energy on Earth.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, sperly, Anonymous Guests (33)