Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Post your quotes and STFU. This "argument" is concluded.
But your boy Paul Ryan is a neocon. With a lousy budget.
You got that right.
Somebody such as yourself who wants to see the United States of America fail has absolutely zero credibility in any discussion on how we spend our money.
Perhaps you should confine your posting to the cooking or travel sections, because each time you want to blast Republicans for trying to fix things, I am going to remind you that you are basically a traitor.
You go right ahead and do that, Corky.
Now, lets resume the talks about how Paul Ryan is a neocon.
And again, dipshit. Now I realize this is very difficult for a statist like yourself to understand, but the federal government or its monopoly on currency, is not America. This is has to be devestating to a statist to realize. That the people, the productive people or this country, are America. Not the parasite elitist that have hijacked it.
Nitwit.
Your argument is invalid. It is not part of the topic. It has nothign to do with Paul Ryan being a Bush Jr. Neocon pusihing for more war, less fiscal responsibility and a lousy budget that does not balance for 30 years.
And again, dipshit. Now I realize this is very difficult for a statist like yourself to understand, but the federal government or its monopoly on currency, is not America. This is has to be devestating to a statist to realize. That the people, the productive people or this country, are America. Not the parasite elitist that have hijacked it.
Nitwit.
Your argument is invalid. It is not part of the topic. It has nothign to do with Paul Ryan being a Bush Jr. Neocon pusihing for more war, less fiscal responsibility and a lousy budget that does not balance for 30 years.
You have called for the collapse of the United States of America - the sooner we go over the cliff, the better.
Are you any different than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
And again, dipshit. Now I realize this is very difficult for a statist like yourself to understand, but the federal government or its monopoly on currency, is not America. This is has to be devestating to a statist to realize. That the people, the productive people or this country, are America. Not the parasite elitist that have hijacked it.
Nitwit.
Your argument is invalid. It is not part of the topic. It has nothign to do with Paul Ryan being a Bush Jr. Neocon pusihing for more war, less fiscal responsibility and a lousy budget that does not balance for 30 years.
You have called for the collapse of the United States of America - the sooner we go over the cliff, the better.
Are you any different than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Are you going to stay on topic at all. Your argument is invalid. And more over, it is wrong. Plus your attempts to thwart the reality that Paul Ryan is a neocon pretending to be fiscally responsible, is not really working.
But you'll still defend him, wont you? Because it doesn't matter what is right, it matters what team you play for? Am I right?
Grover Norquist Takes On the War Party by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com
Conservative leader attacks Romney-Ryan for refusing to cut the military budget
by Justin Raimondo, August 15, 2012
Print This | Share This Grover Norquist is a bit of a punching bag for both the Hollywood-DC left and the neoconservative right. On the left, hes often held up as an example of everything thats supposedly wrong with the conservative movement and the GOP: his no tax hike pledge is excoriated by the Huffingtonpost-MSNBC-TPM axis of Obamaism as typical of know-nothing conservatism. On the neocon right, hes viciously attacked as an Islamist, a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood far more dangerous than, say, Huma Abedin in part because hes an influential conservative married to an Arab woman. For both groups, hes a bit of a Rasputin, with his weekly meetings of Washington-based conservative activists characterized as something between the right-wing equivalent of the Bilderbergs (or is that Bilderbergers?) and Opus Dei.
Now hes gone and done something bound to induce paroxysms of rage or disbelief in members of both groups: hes denouncing the newly-minted Republican ticket particularly Paul Ryan and his infamous budget for refusing to countenance cuts in the military, and hes doing it in style. In a talk given at the Center for the National Interest (formerly the Nixon Center), he ripped into Ryan for refusing to consider cuts in the military budget.
First, some background: The Budget Control Act, passed in 2011, calls for sequestration, i.e. across-the-board cuts in both military and domestic spending in order to (eventually, in theory) balance the federal budget. The usual suspects have been decrying this, especially Republican hawks like Lindsey Graham and the powerful Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who want to increase military spending. Their solution? Close tax loopholes and end deductions to avoid sequestration. To our Washington grandees, any income they allow you to keep for yourself is a loophole, since they own you, body and soul and they will close it if the alternative is giving up another war in the Middle East.
Norquist throws down the gauntlet at these spendthrift imperialists: We can afford to have an adequate national defense which keeps us free and safe and keeps everybody afraid to throw a punch at us, as long as we dont make some of the decisions that previous administrations have, which is to over extend ourselves overseas and think we can run foreign governments. Washington cant give marching orders to its own citizens with much effect, he averred, so why do we think we can do it in faraway Afghanistan?
He takes aim squarely at the Ryan budget, which has been adopted by the House GOP and is now at the center of the presidential campaign, characterizing it as typical of the Graham-McKeon spend-spend-spend mentality, which is an echo of the Bush years. Ryans proposed budget would increase military spending by $20 billion and is bereft of cost-cutting reforms. As Norquist put it:
Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money. I wouldnt ask Ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment.
Even in purely domestic terms Ryans budget is a farce: it projects a balanced budget in thirty years, and politically its a joke. Hes basically telling American voters they have to give up their Medicare and other benefits so that we can ensure the eternal prosperity of the military-industrial complex and maintain our overseas empire. And while Ryan is handing out goodies to the Pentagon, Graham and McKeon are saying can we steal all your deductions and credits and give it to the appropriators. The idea is that you are going to raise taxes on people to not think through defense priorities.
Ah, but we know what are the priorities of politicians like Sen. Graham, he who hailed the liberation of Libya and his now agitating for overt US intervention in Syria. To the Grahams of this world, the slightest hesitation to meddle in the worlds many trouble spots is isolationism. In the US Senate, he and John McCain and Joe Lieberman function as the three harpies of perpetual war: whenever an opportunity comes up for increased American meddling, there is Lindsey the Conqueror, and his cohorts, butching it up for the cameras. He could care less about balancing the budget unless its on the backs of little old ladies living on all the cat food their tiny Social Security checks can buy.
Well, Norquist, you must realize that this is a losing battle. Because:
Norquist, in his talk, endorsed a non-interventionist foreign policy and vowed to fight the effort to avoid sequestration by increasing taxes and leaving the military budget untouched.
Norquist has said this kind of thing before, but its the timing that makes it significant. Were at the starting gate of what promises to be a hard fought presidential election, and the Republicans have just rolled out their Achilles only to see one of the most prominent leaders of the conservative movement take a few well-aimed potshots at him. And its over what is basically a foreign policy issue: sure, Grover frames it as part of his no-new-taxes crusade, but as Garet Garrett so presciently put it in 1952:
A second mark by which you may unmistakably distinguish Empire is: Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy. That happened to Rome. It has happened to every Empire. . . . The fact now to be faced is that it has happened also to us.
I think it is beyond time that we address the bloated, wasteful, destructive and deadly military/security complex this nation has liquored up on foreign policy imperrialism. Anyone who is serious about the financial health of the US, like Ryan claims to be, should not be side stepping the "Offense Department".
Lets leave the military budget at 4-4.5% of GDP, its historic average..................
As everyone but a few clueless adolescents are aware of, it aint the military thats bankrupting the country, its the entitlements social security and medicare/medicaid.........
Drastic reform is necessary to improve those programs and keep those programs and the country solvent
The military budget can be cut heavily. It can be cut along with foreign aid, foreign base installations, the Offense Department and a host of other waste.
The entire warfare/welfare system is bankrupting the country. To say otherwise is to be clueless.
Grover Norquist Takes On the War Party by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com
Conservative leader attacks Romney-Ryan for refusing to cut the military budget
by Justin Raimondo, August 15, 2012
Print This | Share This Grover Norquist is a bit of a punching bag for both the Hollywood-DC left and the neoconservative right. On the left, hes often held up as an example of everything thats supposedly wrong with the conservative movement and the GOP: his no tax hike pledge is excoriated by the Huffingtonpost-MSNBC-TPM axis of Obamaism as typical of know-nothing conservatism. On the neocon right, hes viciously attacked as an Islamist, a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood far more dangerous than, say, Huma Abedin in part because hes an influential conservative married to an Arab woman. For both groups, hes a bit of a Rasputin, with his weekly meetings of Washington-based conservative activists characterized as something between the right-wing equivalent of the Bilderbergs (or is that Bilderbergers?) and Opus Dei.
Now hes gone and done something bound to induce paroxysms of rage or disbelief in members of both groups: hes denouncing the newly-minted Republican ticket particularly Paul Ryan and his infamous budget for refusing to countenance cuts in the military, and hes doing it in style. In a talk given at the Center for the National Interest (formerly the Nixon Center), he ripped into Ryan for refusing to consider cuts in the military budget.
First, some background: The Budget Control Act, passed in 2011, calls for sequestration, i.e. across-the-board cuts in both military and domestic spending in order to (eventually, in theory) balance the federal budget. The usual suspects have been decrying this, especially Republican hawks like Lindsey Graham and the powerful Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who want to increase military spending. Their solution? Close tax loopholes and end deductions to avoid sequestration. To our Washington grandees, any income they allow you to keep for yourself is a loophole, since they own you, body and soul and they will close it if the alternative is giving up another war in the Middle East.
Norquist throws down the gauntlet at these spendthrift imperialists: We can afford to have an adequate national defense which keeps us free and safe and keeps everybody afraid to throw a punch at us, as long as we dont make some of the decisions that previous administrations have, which is to over extend ourselves overseas and think we can run foreign governments. Washington cant give marching orders to its own citizens with much effect, he averred, so why do we think we can do it in faraway Afghanistan?
He takes aim squarely at the Ryan budget, which has been adopted by the House GOP and is now at the center of the presidential campaign, characterizing it as typical of the Graham-McKeon spend-spend-spend mentality, which is an echo of the Bush years. Ryans proposed budget would increase military spending by $20 billion and is bereft of cost-cutting reforms. As Norquist put it:
Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money. I wouldnt ask Ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment.
Even in purely domestic terms Ryans budget is a farce: it projects a balanced budget in thirty years, and politically its a joke. Hes basically telling American voters they have to give up their Medicare and other benefits so that we can ensure the eternal prosperity of the military-industrial complex and maintain our overseas empire. And while Ryan is handing out goodies to the Pentagon, Graham and McKeon are saying can we steal all your deductions and credits and give it to the appropriators. The idea is that you are going to raise taxes on people to not think through defense priorities.
Ah, but we know what are the priorities of politicians like Sen. Graham, he who hailed the liberation of Libya and his now agitating for overt US intervention in Syria. To the Grahams of this world, the slightest hesitation to meddle in the worlds many trouble spots is isolationism. In the US Senate, he and John McCain and Joe Lieberman function as the three harpies of perpetual war: whenever an opportunity comes up for increased American meddling, there is Lindsey the Conqueror, and his cohorts, butching it up for the cameras. He could care less about balancing the budget unless its on the backs of little old ladies living on all the cat food their tiny Social Security checks can buy.
Well, Norquist, you must realize that this is a losing battle. Because:
Norquist, in his talk, endorsed a non-interventionist foreign policy and vowed to fight the effort to avoid sequestration by increasing taxes and leaving the military budget untouched.
Norquist has said this kind of thing before, but its the timing that makes it significant. Were at the starting gate of what promises to be a hard fought presidential election, and the Republicans have just rolled out their Achilles only to see one of the most prominent leaders of the conservative movement take a few well-aimed potshots at him. And its over what is basically a foreign policy issue: sure, Grover frames it as part of his no-new-taxes crusade, but as Garet Garrett so presciently put it in 1952:
A second mark by which you may unmistakably distinguish Empire is: Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy. That happened to Rome. It has happened to every Empire. . . . The fact now to be faced is that it has happened also to us.
I think it is beyond time that we address the bloated, wasteful, destructive and deadly military/security complex this nation has liquored up on foreign policy imperrialism. Anyone who is serious about the financial health of the US, like Ryan claims to be, should not be side stepping the "Offense Department".
