Feds to sue banks over fraudFollow

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. Hell 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.

Xarus,



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

color/colour


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

What changed in social spending that would cause our economy to spiral out of control as it seems to have done?

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.




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.




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.




/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 damn 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 damn 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 damn 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.

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

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.

You had to drag Kennedy into your crazy conspiracy diatribe too? Wow, you are a pro.

That was an 18 word post, you just caused a hurricane.

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.




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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.




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