Remember These Names

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]JeffR wrote:

A bunch things that no one takes seriously.

JeffR[/quote]

Your so predictable. Always making every argument out to be Democrats vs. Republicans. Its all black and white in your dilluded world.

Of course, any individual that is semi-sane realizes that the world is not like this.

As far as the military receiving enough money, it does receive plenty of funding. The problem is that the money is going to areas of the military that don’t necessarily need to get it. The Air force for example is getting, and has received the bulk of military spending for many years now. It is however, the Marines and Army who are doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It just needs to be distributed (allocated) more logically.

Dustin

22

[quote]Dustin wrote:

It just needs to be distributed (allocated) more logically.

Dustin[/quote]

It is distributed logically. The big companies building the expensive stuff can afford to bri…, hire ex- senators an congressmen as consultants when their terms are over which is why the US spends a shitload on these gadgets and not on run of the mill combat equipment.

See the Rumsfeld doctrine.

Add a small military adventure every ten years and a neverending war-on-whatever-sounds-halfway plausible and the money goes from the American taxpayer to “defense” contractors.

It is like the war in 1984, the only purpose is to use up resources.

Eisenhower was no fool, God, he even warned you on television.

Or maybe carrying a big stick AND speaking softly is just too much for some people.

23

Remember THIS:

Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds – $2.3 Trillion
(CBS) On Sept. 10, 2001 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, “the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy,” he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

“In fact, it could be said it’s a matter of life and death,” he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day - Sept. 11–the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten…

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion – that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

“We know it’s gone. But we don’t know what they spent it on,” said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

BTW, if you had to make an announcement you LOST $2.3 TRILLION–what better day than “Sept. 10, 2001”?

Coincidence #1349

24

[quote]orion wrote:
Eisenhower was no fool, God, he even warned you on television.

Or maybe carrying a big stick AND speaking softly is just too much for some people.[/quote]

Ike never said that.

Correct party. Correct century.

The guy who said it had great chest development.

I was going to encourage you to read more American History. However, I don’t want you around. Further, I don’t want to become an enabler.

JeffR

25

[quote]dustin wrote:
JeffR wrote:

A bunch things that no one takes seriously.

JeffR

Your so predictable. Always making every argument out to be Democrats vs. Republicans. Its all black and white in your dilluded world.

Of course, any individual that is semi-sane realizes that the world is not like this.

As far as the military receiving enough money, it does receive plenty of funding. The problem is that the money is going to areas of the military that don’t necessarily need to get it. The Air force for example is getting, and has received the bulk of military spending for many years now. It is however, the Marines and Army who are doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It just needs to be distributed (allocated) more logically.

dustin[/quote]

I’m not going to get into another dead end debate with you.

You need to pay for your education. No more freebies.

I will say that your moral relativism and circular logic must be quite unsatisfying.

I’ll bet you are about as much fun in person as a cow pattie.

Gems like, “What does bad mean?” probably flow from your head like snot.

JeffR

26

Where the money goes…

Halliburton charging $100 PER LOAD to do laundry for the troops (and doing a shitty job), outsourcing torture, etc

I think its fair to say the privatization of the military is one of the top two reasons why Iraq fell apart.

We’re already about 2000 times over the GOP’s estimated budget for Iraq–but its the Dems fault they can’t get more money. Cuckoo.

27

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Where the money goes…

Halliburton charging $100 PER LOAD to do laundry for the troops (and doing a shitty job), outsourcing torture, etc

I think its fair to say the privatization of the military is one of the top two reasons why Iraq fell apart.

We’re already about 2000 times over the GOP’s estimated budget for Iraq–but its the Dems fault they can’t get more money. Cuckoo.[/quote]

Unfortunately, there are Republicans on this board that claim to be well informed that state Halliburton has nothing to do with the Military.

I wish I could proclaim myself to be brillaintly informed, and at the same time be deathly ignorant.

28

Jeff,

How do you feel about the atrocities that were taking place under the Bush admin. at the Walter Reed hospital?

I am also interested in your take on Bush’s continuing veto of war funding bills?

Should we not vote for Bush next election? LOL

29

[quote]Dustin wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Remember all the nonsense about “we support the troops?”

When an individual(s) says, “I (we) support the troops”, that’s like saying, “I (we) support teachers”.

Actually, you could put “firemen”, “butchers”, “prostitutes”, “policemen”, or “trashmen” in place of “troops” and it would mean the same thing…nothing. The slogan means absolutely nothing.

Its simple propaganda and it works. People like Jeff can accuse people he doesn’t like (anyone that isn’t republican) of not “supporting the troops” if said individual says something derogatory about Bush or the War itself.

It’s quite convenient for the simple minded. They don’t have to debate or discuss the issues. They can just say, “you don’t support the troops”, or “You must hate America and the military”.

We see it in this discussion board all the time.

Dustin

[/quote]

Amen brother!

30

[quote]JeffR wrote:
dustin wrote:
JeffR wrote:

A bunch things that no one takes seriously.

JeffR

Your so predictable. Always making every argument out to be Democrats vs. Republicans. Its all black and white in your dilluded world.

Of course, any individual that is semi-sane realizes that the world is not like this.

As far as the military receiving enough money, it does receive plenty of funding. The problem is that the money is going to areas of the military that don’t necessarily need to get it. The Air force for example is getting, and has received the bulk of military spending for many years now. It is however, the Marines and Army who are doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It just needs to be distributed (allocated) more logically.

dustin

I’m not going to get into another dead end debate with you.

You need to pay for your education. No more freebies.

I will say that your moral relativism and circular logic must be quite unsatisfying.

I’ll bet you are about as much fun in person as a cow pattie.

Gems like, “What does bad mean?” probably flow from your head like snot.

JeffR

[/quote]
JeffR

Dustins reference to your democrat vs. republican mentality and his view that the war is more complicated than what you propose has nothing to do with moral relativism! It is a critque of the points you try and make.

31

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Here are the names of the Senators who voted to cut off funding for the Armed Forces in Iraq.

From www.senate.gov.

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Please remember them when you enter the ballot box.

JeffR
[/quote]

Err…Ok?
The list of senators with balls…yes I’ll remember.

You should post the list of those who will eventually be making this same vote, in other words the ones currently too afraid of the 28 percenters.

32

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
JeffR

Dustins reference to your democrat vs. republican mentality and his view that the war is more complicated than what you propose has nothing to do with moral relativism! It is a critque of the points you try and make.

[/quote]

For simple minded folk, if it is ‘more complicated’ it is immediately placed with the opposite extreme, in this case, moral relativism. There is no middle ground, not enough brain cells to support it.

33

[quote]malevolence wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
JeffR

Dustins reference to your democrat vs. republican mentality and his view that the war is more complicated than what you propose has nothing to do with moral relativism! It is a critque of the points you try and make.

For simple minded folk, if it is ‘more complicated’ it is immediately placed with the opposite extreme, in this case, moral relativism. There is no middle ground, not enough brain cells to support it.[/quote]

mal, zep, petey, etc,

I’m not exactly sure why you twirps keep crowning yourselves the brain trust.

It says something that in all this time your pals haven’t come up with anything better than “we are against Bush.”

Yet, you have the audacity to lecture the proactive about brains.

One question I’d like each of you to consider (if you can): Have you ever considered that it’s YOU who are wrong?

For myself, I’ve said from day one that Iraq was a tremendous risk.

However, it cannot be said to be more risky that 1776. Remember the foe. Remember what the polling stated at that time.

Again, I ask you with all sincerity, what if it is YOU who are on the wrong side?

JeffR

34

[quote]JeffR wrote:

How about the people on that list who voted for the war and are now trying to harm the soldiers.

[/quote]

It is common knowledge to everyone except Republicans the war was based on data mined information. What was voted for, was false, and misleading.

It is actually pretty simple, we have no reason to be in a civil war in Iraq. The troops should be re-deployed and aimed at eliminating the enemy that actually attacked us.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt the majority of American citizens vote for Al Gore?

35

[quote]JeffR wrote:
malevolence wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
JeffR

Dustins reference to your democrat vs. republican mentality and his view that the war is more complicated than what you propose has nothing to do with moral relativism! It is a critque of the points you try and make.

For simple minded folk, if it is ‘more complicated’ it is immediately placed with the opposite extreme, in this case, moral relativism. There is no middle ground, not enough brain cells to support it.

mal, zep, petey, etc,

I’m not exactly sure why you twirps keep crowning yourselves the brain trust.

It says something that in all this time your pals haven’t come up with anything better than “we are against Bush.”

Yet, you have the audacity to lecture the proactive about brains.

One question I’d like each of you to consider (if you can): Have you ever considered that it’s YOU who are wrong?

For myself, I’ve said from day one that Iraq was a tremendous risk.

However, it cannot be said to be more risky that 1776. Remember the foe. Remember what the polling stated at that time.

Again, I ask you with all sincerity, what if it is YOU who are on the wrong side?

JeffR
[/quote]

KIlling is wrong. I am on the right side, the side against killing, further more, needless killing. Remember Haditha?

I am on the side of not torturing people. Torturing people is wrong. Buying cab drivers from Pakistan because Pakistan says they are a terrorist, then torturing the, and detaining them without habea corpus is wrong. I am not on that side.

You are on that side. You are wrong on many many levels.

36

[quote]JeffR wrote:
malevolence wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
JeffR

Dustins reference to your democrat vs. republican mentality and his view that the war is more complicated than what you propose has nothing to do with moral relativism! It is a critque of the points you try and make.

For simple minded folk, if it is ‘more complicated’ it is immediately placed with the opposite extreme, in this case, moral relativism. There is no middle ground, not enough brain cells to support it.

mal, zep, petey, etc,

I’m not exactly sure why you twirps keep crowning yourselves the brain trust.

It says something that in all this time your pals haven’t come up with anything better than “we are against Bush.”

Yet, you have the audacity to lecture the proactive about brains.

One question I’d like each of you to consider (if you can): Have you ever considered that it’s YOU who are wrong?

For myself, I’ve said from day one that Iraq was a tremendous risk.

However, it cannot be said to be more risky that 1776. Remember the foe. Remember what the polling stated at that time.

Again, I ask you with all sincerity, what if it is YOU who are on the wrong side?

JeffR
[/quote]

Jeff, it is not an issue of Right and Wrong. That is the whole point. There are not two sides to this. Your inability to see that(let alone understand that) resonates with every post you make.

37

[quote]malevolence wrote:
JeffR wrote:
malevolence wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
JeffR

Dustins reference to your democrat vs. republican mentality and his view that the war is more complicated than what you propose has nothing to do with moral relativism! It is a critque of the points you try and make.

For simple minded folk, if it is ‘more complicated’ it is immediately placed with the opposite extreme, in this case, moral relativism. There is no middle ground, not enough brain cells to support it.

mal, zep, petey, etc,

I’m not exactly sure why you twirps keep crowning yourselves the brain trust.

It says something that in all this time your pals haven’t come up with anything better than “we are against Bush.”

Yet, you have the audacity to lecture the proactive about brains.

One question I’d like each of you to consider (if you can): Have you ever considered that it’s YOU who are wrong?

For myself, I’ve said from day one that Iraq was a tremendous risk.

However, it cannot be said to be more risky that 1776. Remember the foe. Remember what the polling stated at that time.

Again, I ask you with all sincerity, what if it is YOU who are on the wrong side?

JeffR

Jeff, it is not an issue of Right and Wrong. That is the whole point. There are not two sides to this. Your inability to see that(let alone understand that) resonates with every post you make.[/quote]

0 for 2.

Anyone on the left open to the possibility that they are wrong?

If the answer is no, it brilliantly illustrates your close mindedness.

JeffR

38

[quote]petey wrote:

KIlling is wrong. I am on the right side, the side against killing, further more, needless killing.

I am on the side of not torturing people. Torturing people is wrong. Buying cab drivers from Pakistan because Pakistan says they are a terrorist, then torturing the, and detaining them without habea corpus is wrong. I am not on that side.
[/quote]

Therefore, you are the ultimate supporter of the Iraq invasion.

No better example of the things you oppose than saddam hussein.

Oh, wait, Bush led.

Got it.

You are incredibly transparent.

JeffR

39

[quote]JeffR wrote:
malevolence wrote:
JeffR wrote:
malevolence wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
JeffR

Dustins reference to your democrat vs. republican mentality and his view that the war is more complicated than what you propose has nothing to do with moral relativism! It is a critque of the points you try and make.

For simple minded folk, if it is ‘more complicated’ it is immediately placed with the opposite extreme, in this case, moral relativism. There is no middle ground, not enough brain cells to support it.

mal, zep, petey, etc,

I’m not exactly sure why you twirps keep crowning yourselves the brain trust.

It says something that in all this time your pals haven’t come up with anything better than “we are against Bush.”

Yet, you have the audacity to lecture the proactive about brains.

One question I’d like each of you to consider (if you can): Have you ever considered that it’s YOU who are wrong?

For myself, I’ve said from day one that Iraq was a tremendous risk.

However, it cannot be said to be more risky that 1776. Remember the foe. Remember what the polling stated at that time.

Again, I ask you with all sincerity, what if it is YOU who are on the wrong side?

JeffR

Jeff, it is not an issue of Right and Wrong. That is the whole point. There are not two sides to this. Your inability to see that(let alone understand that) resonates with every post you make.

0 for 2.

Anyone on the left open to the possibility that they are wrong?

If the answer is no, it brilliantly illustrates your close mindedness.

JeffR

[/quote]

Here’s a hint: I’m not on the left.

40

[quote]malevolence wrote:
JeffR wrote:
malevolence wrote:
JeffR wrote:
malevolence wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
JeffR

Dustins reference to your democrat vs. republican mentality and his view that the war is more complicated than what you propose has nothing to do with moral relativism! It is a critque of the points you try and make.

For simple minded folk, if it is ‘more complicated’ it is immediately placed with the opposite extreme, in this case, moral relativism. There is no middle ground, not enough brain cells to support it.

mal, zep, petey, etc,

I’m not exactly sure why you twirps keep crowning yourselves the brain trust.

It says something that in all this time your pals haven’t come up with anything better than “we are against Bush.”

Yet, you have the audacity to lecture the proactive about brains.

One question I’d like each of you to consider (if you can): Have you ever considered that it’s YOU who are wrong?

For myself, I’ve said from day one that Iraq was a tremendous risk.

However, it cannot be said to be more risky that 1776. Remember the foe. Remember what the polling stated at that time.

Again, I ask you with all sincerity, what if it is YOU who are on the wrong side?

JeffR

Jeff, it is not an issue of Right and Wrong. That is the whole point. There are not two sides to this. Your inability to see that(let alone understand that) resonates with every post you make.

0 for 2.

Anyone on the left open to the possibility that they are wrong?

If the answer is no, it brilliantly illustrates your close mindedness.

JeffR

Here’s a hint: I’m not on the left.

[/quote]

Oh, great another “independent.”

Let me rephrase: For the guys on the left (independents)…

Better?

JeffR