US politics circa 2011

Since it appears you have the mores to where you would "have no problem getting rid of" such wrongdoers...Why don't you get rid of the rapists and kid wrongdoers? Or could it be that you don't feel they are doing wrong? Or maybe that was just another WTF BS post.

C'mon buddy...follow the linier bouncing ball. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I said MASS baby killers.

That is what some folks believe is taking place, not sure if you are one of them.

I see very little correlation in your comparison.

Were there a clinic down the road from my house where some guy was indisputably raping women and the law was doing nothing about it, I would have no problem taking matters into my own hands. If you say you would wait for a change in law before doing something, despite my doubts, I'll just have to take your word for it.

Need any more linear?

WTF, now we have WTF, vigilante?

Military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (2009).
1. - N/A North Korea
2. - 8.5% Georgia
3. - 8.2% Saudi Arabia
4. - 7.7% Oman
5. - 7.0% Israel
6. - 6.6% Chad
7. - 5.9% United Arab Emirates
8. - 5.9% Jordan
9. - 5.4% Iraq
10. - 4.4% Sudan
11. - 4.3% United States Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Now take the total of the rest of the worlds defense expenditure and COMBINE them.
We spend as much as the rest of the world combined! That includes our allies.

Now look at our budget deficit.

WTF, now we have WTF, vigilante? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

LOL

No vigilante here, I do not believe that doctors are committing mass murder.

Now this is sick:

http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/20...or-fundraiser/

Yup, the news is biased liberal and the editorial pages are biased conservative. Kind of balanced actually. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I can see where a conservative might believe that. I agree the editorial pages are conservative, but disagree the rest of it is liberal.

My reading leads me to believe that the writing in the WSJ is quite probably the best and most unbiased journalism in the Country, and maybe the world. It does what most other publications fail to do: put the facts in the stories, and opinion on the editorial page. But then, I'm old fashioned and believe it should be that way.

Now this is sick:

http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/20...or-fundraiser/ Originally Posted by pjorourke

You do realize that the link provided has advertisments on it, thereby profiting off the very story they deem seedy to profit from.


People profit from tragedy all the time. Its the way we do business here in the good ole USofA. As one cable channel likes to say "The Price for Freedom.''

I can see where a conservative might believe that. I agree the editorial pages are conservative, but disagree the rest of it is liberal.

My reading leads me to believe that the writing in the WSJ is quite probably the best and most unbiased journalism in the Country, and maybe the world. It does what most other publications fail to do: put the facts in the stories, and opinion on the editorial page. But then, I'm old fashioned and believe it should be that way.
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I agree that the WSJ is a pretty good paper. But that wasn't my opinion, it is UCLA's: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...UCLA-6664.aspx

You do realize that the link provided has advertisments on it, thereby profiting off the very story they deem seedy to profit from.


People profit from tragedy all the time. Its the way we do business here in the good ole USofA. As one cable channel likes to say "The Price for Freedom.'' Originally Posted by WTF

So does this page. Whats your point. Thats like saying the sky is generally blue.

I suspect they are gearing up to prevent or engage in another Russo-Georgian War; I’m reasonably sure that no U.S. forces are factored into Georgia's defense budget. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Just to clarify, I finally understood that that was the GDP of each nation, not the US. I deleted that portion of my post.

So does this page. Whats your point. Thats like saying the sky is generally blue. Originally Posted by pjorourke

That is exactly what I was asking you...what is your point?

You now are coming back with what is my point for asking you your point.

Maybe that is the point....That there is no fucn point. People believe whatever they want.

Just to clarify, I finally understood that that was the GDP of each nation, not the US. I deleted that portion of my post. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

IB does not want to address that we spend more money than all other nation COMBINED on defense spending.

That's exactly my point. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You did not understand my context, when pointed out you have fallen silent.

We spend more that the rest of the world combined!

Is our GDP over half the worlds?

I think not, yet you bitch about spending and nary a peep about defense spending.

You are a state right defender yet have no problem STARTING a war with another country....you probably do not even understand that mixed up thinking.

Just to clarify, I finally understood that that was the GDP of each nation, not the US. I deleted that portion of my post. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I understand. I tried to delete my post earlier, but for some reason couldn't. I just deleted it.

IB does not want to address that we spend more money than all other nation COMBINED on defense spending. Originally Posted by WTF

Go back and read my post at #169 again. I said we do it because we can do it. Congress has that right and responsibility per the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. . . .


Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;. . . .


Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

WTF, You need to contact the Pentagon immediately. You appear to be the only person on the planet who knows exactly how much China, Iran, Russia, and N. Korea expend on military programs. Unless of course one ass umes that these closed, militaristic regimes are as open and honest in disclosures as the US is.

But, your point is well taken, the waste that is perpetually pointed out in military spending is an excellent reason to avoid putting the government in charge of health care, or pretty much anything else. As for me, I think the answer is pretty straight forward.

Forcefully re-assert the credibility of the nuclear deterrent. If you want cost effective bang for your buck, there is no substitute. And all of that money wasted on "smart weapons" to minimize collateral damage is a complete waste of money, isn't napalm a lot cheaper? Though, I'm sure, our potential adversaries all spend tons of money making weapons less likely to kill innocents, like land mines that self dis-arm after a given time period etc. Don't they?

Personally, I think the air craft carrier is an obsolete weapon system. Guided missile submarines and frigates aren't as useful for political posturing and aren't worth a damn for "humanitarian" missions but then again we shouldn't be doing those anyway. Hummm, do you suppose the US military expends more money on humanitarian missions, "than all other nations combined?"

If you want to spend less and still feel secure, you need to come up with a more cost effective way to instill fear, because nations aren't allowed to survive unless they can instill fear by some means in their potential attackers.

That is exactly what I was asking you...what is your point?

You now are coming back with what is my point for asking you your point.

Maybe that is the point....That there is no fucn point. People believe whatever they want. Originally Posted by WTF

Where did I leave that yappy dog video?