Would anyone suppose, and believe me I don’t for one moment support anything done by terrorists and fully believe they need to be brought to justice for any crime they commit in this country or against innocent civilians anywhere, that if we were to keep our noses out of other county’s business we might not have to spend so much money "defending" ourselves?
Or are we defending business in places we should not?
Is business paying their fare share for this defense?
I also wonder if anyone asked the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died in Iraq in the last 10 years if they believed in "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death" first?
I guess it all depends on your "Politics"....mmmm.....or "Religion", Is there a difference?
The days of being an isoloationist country are in the distant past. We do have national interests to protect and like it or not, oil is one of them. Unless and until we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, our presence in the Middle East is not going to end.
This is just one example about how vital national interests are served by us "projecting" our military power, none of this is going to end in our lifetimes. As for business paying their fair share, Exxon alone pays more in taxes that does the entire bottom fifty percent of taxpayers, how much do you consider enough?
but it seems like the libs on this board are really pissed off lately.
You know they are pissed off when they start eating their own. It's actually a fun sport to watch. Did you hear that your favorite city as a youth (San Francisco) is trying to ban circumcisions, but various Jewish groups are pissed that SFO would even consider this. Liberals fighting liberals is so much fun to watch, but they rarely ever hurt each other.
My favorite line from the potential ban. An Orthodox Jew says he struggles with the emotional and physical effects of circumcision. I don't know if I should laugh, which I will, or just bitch slap this guy and tell him to grow a pair.
Liberals fighting liberals. Kinda like a pillow fight, but without the hot chicks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/ushealthjewsreligioncircumcision
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 12:25:48 PM
even Willy has reverted to form.
Oh well, nature hates a vacuum. With Ben and liorr gone, Willy must have felt there was a void to fill. He has gone back to being the hateful, delusional,little maggot that he was the first few months he was here.
I think the whole circumcision thing would be a riot except there really are some rather important things to be done in Ca. like staving off bankruptcy and possible default.
As you know, I was born and raised in Ca. I have often thought about moving back, but I genuinely fear that if California doesn't fix it's problems they could do something as draconian as starting to consficate personal wealth. California problems are perhaps the most serious in the country, I for one am looking for a few safe havens to park some money. I am getting too old to start over again with nothing.
Puhleease ! Buncha "Rand cultist sheep" that wanna ban all unions & hurl this country back to the 19th century, turning it into a pre Teddy Roosevelt business monopoly/oligarchy ; you don't think this brought the "righties" out from "under their rocks" ?!-------LOL !
I'll agree ( particularly as a secular Jew ) your San Francisco analogy is the height of PC stupidity, but WTF have to do with the OP ?!
Probably the OP goes too far, but here's a point for you deficit reduction hawk-conservatives : Except for S Korea ( & possibly the Afghan/Pak
border ), why the fuck do we need hundreds of thousands of U.S troops on foreign soil ? You realize how much money this costs ? Why can't these fucking countries defend themselves?! Hell, even Rand Paul & some libertarians agree with the libs on this one.
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 1:28:07 PM
Their preference is to really haul us back biblical times slowly.
in cuts, and the Democrats asking for $6.5B. $61B out of $3.8T 2011 fiscal year budget, when the fiscal year budget in 2008 was $2.8T.
Guess what? I'm OK with cutting defense spending. Look at the 2008 vs 2011 budget comparisons, and just for the major spending programs .
Social Security - $659B vs $793B
Health Care - $659B vs $882B
Education - $101B vs $129B
Defense - $729B vs $964B
Welfare - $322B vs $495B
Those five alone are up $700B over 3 years. And guess what? Every agency is defending their budgets, from defense, to homeland security, to planned parenthood, to the IRS, to the blah, blah, blah.
A budget cut of $6.5B from the Dems. Give me a break. A budget cut of $61B from the Republicans. Give me break. I just want to go back to 2008 levels, and keep Federal spending @ no more than 20% of GDP, which historically is on the high end. Not this 25% or 30% of GDP shit.
a 5% spending cut, across the board, for ALL 5 "entitlement programs".
Of course you realize that both political parties
will NEVER let that happen.
reduction, assuming we are only talking about SSN, Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare. Let's reduce Defense back to 08 levels, which saves $225B. So now we are at $375B. You're right, this is a stupid exercise, because it will NEVER happen.
And to think I would up the ante by suggesting we get back to the 08 budget. Assume the 2011 tax revenue projections at $2.6B, and revert back to the 2001 tax rate schedule for only the rich to help cover the spread. Did I just say that? Oh shit!!!!
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 6:59:22 PM
I see...
A defense budget better than the rest of the world combined in order to be not considered an isolationist.
Maybe if we sent food, agricultural machinery, seed, medical supplies instead of shooting up most of the planet. I don't know. We might even see a return on the investment.
You don't get much back after you blow it up.
PROJECTING POWER......kinda like Big Time Wrestling?
Please explain why the rest of the developed world's participation in this manifest destiny thing called "national interests" is not so enthusiastically shared.
I own 3,000 shares of XOM (Exxon Mobil) and I think they are getting off lightly.
because we already send food, seed etc to places all over the world, and besides Iraq, where it's the insurgents that are actually doing the damage, and Afganistan, where else are we "blowing up" countries?
Ok lets say for a moment that we decide to no longer be the "baddest kid on the block" who would you like to see take over our spot as number one? after all, someone has to be the biggest and the baddest, and if it's not us, than who would you prefer? Better start praticing your Mandarin, because it won't be the Russians that will be coming, it will be the Chinese. and if you think they treat their own people badly, just wait.........
I wonder if you know what an insurgent actually is....
Oh yes...and your point is that the bottom 50million who pay on average 540 bucks in taxes each year meaning they make less than $10,000 a year are taking advantage of the rest of us....and of course EXXON...
LOLOLOLOL
I am pleased to admit I sold all my XOM shares in December and spent the last dividend check on hookers. Now THAT's what I call redistributing income!
(and, yes, I know it's up ten points since then, but I'll save even more than that by using the losses to offset other captial gains. God, I love capitalism. Note to the IRS: thanks for the pussy!)
You are both a pragmatic and a hedonistic liberal, I fucking love it. Good for you. lol
Some people say it's not possible to be both pragmatic and hedonistic, I think we are proof to the contrary.
You do know you're not really a lib, you're too fucking happy. rofl
...A liberal that's been mugged. Not that I'm really a neo-con (I can't stand those pricks, either). At base, I'm really a pragmatist -- at least in my own mind. I look at things as rationally as I can based on what I "know." Oh, and fuck you and the whore you rode in on. LOL! Which reminds me, I gotta go check BP for Cape Cod!
I don't really even know what a "neo conservative" actually is, except for the libs definition of what a "neo con" is. and from that definition, I can't stand those pricks either.
I will have to admit, you are a close to an independent as there is on this board, you lean a bit left and I lean a bit right, but only on certain issues. I think we can agree we both lean left on social issues, you a bit more than me, and we both lean right of fiscal issues and issues of national defense, with me leaning a bit further right than you on those issues. Do you think I summed it up accurately enough? Or do I need to go fuck my whore again?
Yes, you do need to go fuck your whore again. And, in that vein, I must say that some of my TER brethren up here have been very helpful in guiding this non-Masshole towards some very nice pussy!
First, the old USSR stuck its nose into Islamic affairs more than any other country in the world. It flat out conquored huge sections, and not just Afghanastan. All the Southern Republics were under Moscow's control, and Soviet rule was much harsher than anything the U.S. or isreal ever did.
But there was very little anti-Russia blowback.
In short, it is totally unrelated to whether we are where we shouldn't be. They were also, and no biggie.
Second, even when we help for humiatirian reasons they hate us. Look at the recent murder in Germany. The guy was from Kosovo. We spent millions defending the Moslems in Kosovo against Christians, and they don't have oil. But then the guy from Kosovo kills an American soldier.
Or are we defending business in places we should not?
Is business paying their fare share for this defense?
I also wonder if anyone asked the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died in Iraq in the last 10 years if they believed in "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death" first?
I guess it all depends on your "Politics"....mmmm.....or "Religion", Is there a difference?
while the Stalinists only had to cross their southern border to invade them. Russian blowback came in the form of US funding for training the anti-communist muslims fighters in Pakistan. The same people who we now call terrorists. All of this was made less noticeable because it happened under the cover of
the cold war when the US was busily supporting the subjugation of the populations of Central and South America in the name of fighting communism. Afganistan was far from the media eyes then. We will probably never know why the guy from Kosovo killed the US soldier.
It isn't a question of how far we went, but who repressed the Moslems the most. The Russians were closer, that is true.
But the fact that they occupied Moslem lands is equally egregious whether they went ten miles or ten thousand.
the cold war when the US was busily supporting the subjugation of the populations of Central and South America in the name of fighting communism. Afganistan was far from the media eyes then. We will probably never know why the guy from Kosovo killed the US soldier.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say nobody was aware of what the USSR was doing in Afghanistan. I followed it closely in The Times. More recently, they made a great movie about it called "Charlie Wilson's War."
My point was not that people were not aware of the fact. I never said that. I don't know why your whole post is addressed to something I wasn't saying.
My point was oppression of Moslems did not lead to Moslems being anti-oppressor, who ever that oppressor is. (Second point later.)
The OP implied that we were disliked because of our "oppressive" policies. (My paraphrase) My point was that Moslems were oppressed much more severely for 70 years the the USSR. They were oppressed and goverened by the tens of millions. It wasn't just Afghanistan. In fact, that was the least. The entire southern border of the USSR consisted of the "Stan" republics that the Russians conquered and ruled, imposing all sorts of restrictions on Islam and Moslems.
However, in the Moslem world there was no hostility to the USSR for the oppression of Moslems. Syria was a client state of the USSR, even though the USSR oppressed more Moslems than the US or Isreal. The same for Egypt.
My second point, again one no one addressed, is we went to war to save Moslems in Kosovo. We did nt do it for oil, becuase they ain't got no oil. We did it to help them. And then the guy from Kosovo kills Americans. Even when we help them it doesn't matter.
I know. Actually, phil, I was intending to respond to charlie's point about the Russians in Afghanistan, but somehow did it under yours. I don't, in fact disagree with what you wrote. Sorry for the confusion.
Responding to yours. I am sorry I misunderstood. It wasn't your "fault." Sometimes they seem to pop up under the wrong message. I noticed that a lot. Hell, this may end up in New Jersey, for all I know.
The Russians have their hands full of muslim terrorists in Chechnya. The US oppresses by proxy and when things dont work out we invade for a more "hands on" approach. I would say that both Russia and
the US are guilty of imperialism. I thought your point was that people dislike the US because of it's foreign policy decisions. The Russians make no bones about why they invade countries. They do it because they "can" do it. They dont say that they are spreading "freedom and democracy". If the US is disliked it is because of its hypocrisy. The US has no problem with dictators and tyrants as long as our capitalists get their fair share of the loot. But if dictator comes up short then congress starts bitching and moaning about human rights and freedom and demands to search the dictator's country looking for WMD's or drug cartels.
I'm still having a little trouble with the oil thing.............
It is interesting to note however the oil in Iraq is actually in China's hands not ours.
If you were talking about my reference to oil, I was refering to the fact that we went into Kosovo for humanitarian reasons. A lot of times when we do things, people say it is out of self-interest. I meant to point out that there was no oil there - or anything else - that detracted from the fact that we were saving Moslem lives.