Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry " wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it requires. Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain. Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face today. The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera. These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. |
#82
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:
"Harry " wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it requires. Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain. Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face today. The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera. These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. |
#84
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it requires. Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain. Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face today. The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera. These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise? Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. |
#85
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry ?" wrote in message ... On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it requires. Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain. Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face today. The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera. These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise? Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't see won't spook you. Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers have on your mind. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/ |
#86
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/13/10 9:27 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message ... On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it requires. Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain. Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face today. The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera. These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise? Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't see won't spook you. Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers have on your mind. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/flajimsucks Sorry, flajim, but I have no interest in reading tomes from right-wing **** slingers. Surely you are not trying to deny that the military and its contractors wipe each others' asses during and after "service." |
#87
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 9:27 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message ... On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it requires. Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain. Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face today. The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera. These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise? Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't see won't spook you. Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers have on your mind. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/flajimsucks Sorry, flajim, but I have no interest in reading tomes from right-wing **** slingers. Surely you are not trying to deny that the military and its contractors wipe each others' asses during and after "service." Change it to public servants, lobbyists, contractors and I will agree. O'Bama promised he would change all that. That promise was broken within days, maybe even hours or minutes. Gotta watch that boy of yours. He's practicing slight of hand but he isn't very good at it. It would help if you took your blinders off. |
#88
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
says... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it requires. Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain. Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face today. The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera. These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about military procedure, etc. |
#89
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#90
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message news ![]() On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:15:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: A lot of people didn't "like" Reagan or Carter but we didn't have outright hatred. I am saying that Clinton was the start of the great divide we see now. You just don't see it because you were not the "out" party at the time. You don't impeach a president without a significant number of the American public supporting the measure in the house. When Chris Mathews invented the Red Blue thing the division just got a name and the unity of the country went down hill from there. That's quite a different statement from what you said originally. Sure, Clinton inspired people to hate. Are you blaming him for it? Seems to me that the people doing the hating are the ones with the problem. If anyone is to blame it is the media that poured gasoline on a smoldering fire. I was just putting a stick in the time line when this started. Folks on the left don't see it because he was your guy. When it went the other way your guys went as nuts as the worst "wingnuts" you were criticizing. I think you're somewhat right that the media isn't doing their job. Anyone who takes Fox seriously probably has brain damage. MSNBC is mostly entertainment, but at least Olbermann doesn't lie. It has swung back the other way now and you think Obama can do no wrong and the people who are on the other side are nuts. Not true. He's criticized plenty by Olbermann and many others on the left. I'm not particularly left wing, except socially. The rhetoric didn't even change much You have the legitimacy argument "Bush stole the election" (electoral college deniers) Which he did by proxy of the Supreme Court. There's little doubt that it was a political decision and not a judicial one. Even the language of their decision say it. "Obama is allowed to be president" (birthers) That's just loony tunes. The two are not comparable. If you actually look at policy, not much changed since Bush 1. Big business is still calling the shots.The wars go on and we are going broke because of it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Woman proves gun effective | General | |||
OT Michael Moore proves he is the sicko | ASA | |||
Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy | ASA | |||
Ellen proves the Good Captain Correct! | ASA |