Brainless, selfish no tax advocates hurting our military

[The T]

The Feds take in trillions of dollars every year and the one item of spending that is authorized by the Constitution is our defense.

Here is an idea. Allocate the required amount of money needed to pay for our troops in the field and then dole out what is left to the other programs.

Sounds plausible by me. nd if they fall short? They can CUT domestic crap before they DENY our troops ANYTHING they need before *I* will give one more RED CENT to these wasters of protoplasm.

 

[Darkwind]

No, but I'm also not willing to waste any more lives in the pursuit of that goal.

They have all the time in the world. We can stop pursuing that goal. They will not however.

Yet if we began practicing non-interventionism those who want to irrationally cause us harm will find it harder to find others willing to carry out their goals. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, and the military occupation of 130+ countries has not made us any safer.

Sorry, but I find that a pipe dream.

Pandora cannot be put back into the box. The world is far to small anymore and two oceans will not protect us.

I am curious as to what interventionism you are talking about though..

 

[The T]

Every war has required higher taxes and sacrafices by the American public except IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.

The selfish stinking American public led by the no more taxes zealots have not had to sacrafice.

Our brave soldiers and their families are shouldering almost the entire suffering and burden of these wars.

Bush had the audacity to LOWER taxes on the wealthiest Americans while our soldiers did not have the equipment or the number of soldiers needed in Iraq.
And then as the our soldiers return they are not receiving the benefits they require and deserve.

I am not for higher taxes but if that is what it requires to take care of our soldiers we must do it.

DON'T GIVE ME THIS BS THAT WE CUT IN OTHER AREAS TO GIVE TO THE MILITARY. IT IS NOT HAPPENING. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED FOR 9 YEARS. DON'T MAKE SOLDIERS SUFFER FOR OUR SELFISH REFUSAL TO PAY ANY MORE TAXES.

Sarah Palin is refusing to even consider an increase for our soldiers. If we choose to fight a war it has to be paid for.

In my opinion, the most offensive thing anyone can do - politician or citizen - is to use the military or our war dead to score politican points.

Agreed.
This is about individuals risking their lives for all of us. Our soldiers and their families need to be taken care of better than any Wall Street exec, professional athlete etc. Our society and government is not doing this right now.

This is not a time to play politics.

This not a time for citizens to be selfish and consider their own needs above the individuals that are sacraficing for them.

Good on ya. Ten YOU wouldn't mind advocating Congress stop their waste of domestic horseshit like the *NEW Lousiana Purchase* [Landrieu] to buy votes for failed legislation, eh?

 

[Darkwind]

The Feds take in trillions of dollars every year and the one item of spending that is authorized by the Constitution is our defense.

Here is an idea. Allocate the required amount of money needed to pay for our troops in the field and then dole out what is left to the other programs.

Sounds plausible by me. nd if they fall short? They can CUT domestic crap before they DENY our troops ANYTHING they need before *I* will give one more RED CENT to these wasters of protoplasm.

Absolutely.

 

[Darkwind]

EVERYONE MUST SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!!
Obama must do what Bush was scared to do; ask Americans to sacrafice to support our military.

The "no more taxes" extremists must realize the harm they do when their philosophy is applied to our troops.

If we are going to fight a war we all must sacrafice to support the soldiers and the military. If not we need to get out right now.

Too many conservatives are being absolute idiotic hypocrites by calling for large troop increases but will not support a war tax surcharge on all Americans to support the war.

What part did you miss?

We already have more then enough money for the troops in Afghanistan. Just take the amount needed from the trillions that are collected and then dole out what is left over to the other spending.

Bingo. These people already are bleeding the American people DRY...and according to the Constitution? They (Congress) are charged with maintaining a Military.

So it seemns to me that they should spend more wisely before coming to the people for MORE money as the deficit is already at record levels (thanks DemocRAT Congress/Obama).

I'd say CUTS are in order on other things before they come to bleed us more.

Congresscritter OBI can piss up a ROPE.

I'd say cuts are in order period.

 

[ElmerMudd]

EVERYONE MUST SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!!
Obama must do what Bush was scared to do; ask Americans to sacrafice to support our military.

The "no more taxes" extremists must realize the harm they do when their philosophy is applied to our troops.

If we are going to fight a war we all must sacrafice to support the soldiers and the military. If not we need to get out right now.

Too many conservatives are being absolute idiotic hypocrites by calling for large troop increases but will not support a war tax surcharge on all Americans to support the war.

What part did you miss?

We already have more then enough money for the troops in Afghanistan. Just take the amount needed from the trillions that are collected and then dole out what is left over to the other spending.

Bingo. These people already are bleeding the American people DRY...and according to the Constitution? They (Congress) are charged with maintaining a Military.

So it seemns to me that they should spend more wisely before coming to the people for MORE money as the deficit is already at record levels (thanks DemocRAT Congress/Obama).

I'd say CUTS are in order on other things before they come to bleed us more.

Congresscritter OBI can piss up a ROPE.

The cuts did not happen under Bush and a conservative congress. If they cannot be done under a conservative administration it will not be done under a liberal administration.

While both sides argue political philosophy soldiers are coming home with limbs blown off and are not being taken care of.

Get out of Afghanistan or have war surcharge tax on all Americans to take care of our soldiers.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They have all the time in the world. We can stop pursuing that goal. They will not however.

Yet if we began practicing non-interventionism those who want to irrationally cause us harm will find it harder to find others willing to carry out their goals. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, and the military occupation of 130+ countries has not made us any safer.

Sorry, but I find that a pipe dream.

Pandora cannot be put back into the box. The world is far to small anymore and two oceans will not protect us.

I am curious as to what interventionism you are talking about though..

I named some of them. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, murderous sanctions, our military's occupation of the Middle East, and how many dead civilians?

 

[California Girl]

Every war has required higher taxes and sacrafices by the American public except IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.

The selfish stinking American public led by the no more taxes zealots have not had to sacrafice.

Our brave soldiers and their families are shouldering almost the entire suffering and burden of these wars.

Bush had the audacity to LOWER taxes on the wealthiest Americans while our soldiers did not have the equipment or the number of soldiers needed in Iraq.
And then as the our soldiers return they are not receiving the benefits they require and deserve.

I am not for higher taxes but if that is what it requires to take care of our soldiers we must do it.

DON'T GIVE ME THIS BS THAT WE CUT IN OTHER AREAS TO GIVE TO THE MILITARY. IT IS NOT HAPPENING. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED FOR 9 YEARS. DON'T MAKE SOLDIERS SUFFER FOR OUR SELFISH REFUSAL TO PAY ANY MORE TAXES.

Sarah Palin is refusing to even consider an increase for our soldiers. If we choose to fight a war it has to be paid for.

In my opinion, the most offensive thing anyone can do - politician or citizen - is to use the military or our war dead to score politican points.

Agreed.
This is about individuals risking their lives for all of us. Our soldiers and their families need to be taken care of better than any Wall Street exec, professional athlete etc. Our society and government is not doing this right now.

This is not a time to play politics.

This not a time for citizens to be selfish and consider their own needs above the individuals that are sacraficing for them.

**** off using our troops to make your stupid whiny points.

It this ******* damned bunch of corrupt assholes didn't keep wasting our money on their stupid ******* pet projects and crap, then there would be plenty of money to spend on the things that they are CONSTITUTIONALLY obligated to do.

 

[The T]

What part did you miss?

We already have more then enough money for the troops in Afghanistan. Just take the amount needed from the trillions that are collected and then dole out what is left over to the other spending.

Bingo. These people already are bleeding the American people DRY...and according to the Constitution? They (Congress) are charged with maintaining a Military.

So it seemns to me that they should spend more wisely before coming to the people for MORE money as the deficit is already at record levels (thanks DemocRAT Congress/Obama).

I'd say CUTS are in order on other things before they come to bleed us more.

Congresscritter OBI can piss up a ROPE.

The cuts did not happen under Bush and a conservative congress. If they cannot be done under a conservative administration it will not be done under a liberal administration.

While both sides argue political philosophy soldiers are coming home with limbs blown off and are not being taken care of.

Get out of Afghanistan or have war surcharge tax on all Americans to take care of our soldiers.

So your prescription is to TAX MORE?

-WRONG-

When the Congress shows some fiscal responsibility will I ever even THINK of such a premise.

And *YES*...I noticed you had to get yer "BOOOOOOOSH* Hit in there too...Think I worship him? He was derelict of the VETO PEN Domestically as well.

And guess where that leaves YOUR arguement with me?

WANTING another scapegoat. Enjoy your search. *YOU* won't find it with *ME*

 

[ElmerMudd]

Any thought given to policy as the problem more so than money? I know it has to be money when you talk to a liberal, but still....

Try giving a widow or widower who lost their husband or wife in Iraq or Afghanistan "policy" to support their family.

When a soldier comes homes with a leg missing from an IED try giving him or her "policy" to take care of an artificial limb and the cost of rehab.

When a soldier comes home with PTS try using "policy" to pay the years of therapy they will need.

You do not want to share in the sacrafice of war and you are making excuses.

 

[Darkwind]

Yet if we began practicing non-interventionism those who want to irrationally cause us harm will find it harder to find others willing to carry out their goals. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, and the military occupation of 130+ countries has not made us any safer.

Sorry, but I find that a pipe dream.

Pandora cannot be put back into the box. The world is far to small anymore and two oceans will not protect us.

I am curious as to what interventionism you are talking about though..

I named some of them. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, murderous sanctions, our military's occupation of the Middle East, and how many dead civilians?

Lets see. Two wars? They attacked us, remember? And for what?

We had troops in Saudi Arabia when we went to the defense of an ally when Iraq invaded them, and threatened our energy supply? You do realize we have a right to look after our own interests, right?

Murderous sanctions? you blame the people enacting the sanctions and not the country that the sanction were placed against? How backward is that?

We did not occupy any country in the middle prior to 9-11-01 and if you want to place blame for dead civilians, blame the terrorists.

 

[ElmerMudd]

No, but I'm also not willing to waste any more lives in the pursuit of that goal.

They have all the time in the world. We can stop pursuing that goal. They will not however.

Yet if we began practicing non-interventionism those who want to irrationally cause us harm will find it harder to find others willing to carry out their goals. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, and the military occupation of 130+ countries has not made us any safer.

I do not disagree with an isolationist philosophy.

But when our economy is part of and driven by the global economy it makes a isolationist political philosophy very difficult.

 

[Darkwind]

Any thought given to policy as the problem more so than money? I know it has to be money when you talk to a liberal, but still....

Try giving a widow or widower who lost their husband or wife in Iraq or Afghanistan "policy" to support their family.

When a soldier comes homes with a leg missing from an IED try giving him or her "policy" to take care of an artificial limb and the cost of rehab.

When a soldier comes home with PTS try using "policy" to pay the years of therapy they will need.

You do not want to share in the sacrafice of war and you are making excuses.

We have more then enough funds for any deployment of troops and any war we are involved in. We also have more then enough funds to take care of our heroes. In that we have been very lacking.

But there is no need to raise taxes to provide these things.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sorry, but I find that a pipe dream.

Pandora cannot be put back into the box. The world is far to small anymore and two oceans will not protect us.

I am curious as to what interventionism you are talking about though..

I named some of them. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, murderous sanctions, our military's occupation of the Middle East, and how many dead civilians?

Lets see. Two wars? They attacked us, remember? And for what?

We had troops in Saudi Arabia when we went to the defense of an ally when Iraq invaded them, and threatened our energy supply? You do realize we have a right to look after our own interests, right?

Murderous sanctions? you blame the people enacting the sanctions and not the country that the sanction were placed against? How backward is that?

We did not occupy any country in the middle prior to 9-11-01 and if you want to place blame for dead civilians, blame the terrorists.

Neither Afghanistan, Iraq, nor Pakistan attacked us.

You do realize that we don't have a right to do whatever we want around the world, right?

I think you've got it backwards. Sanctions do not hurt the government they're aimed at, but the people that must suffer under that government. The people that lose friends and families are going to point the blame at the country enacting those sanctions.

Yes, we occupied many countries prior to 9/11, and we also bombed countries and had sanctions on countries in the Middle East prior to 9/11 as well. Clinton was no non-interventionist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They have all the time in the world. We can stop pursuing that goal. They will not however.

Yet if we began practicing non-interventionism those who want to irrationally cause us harm will find it harder to find others willing to carry out their goals. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, and the military occupation of 130+ countries has not made us any safer.

I do not disagree with an isolationist philosophy.

But when our economy is part of and driven by the global economy it makes a isolationist political philosophy very difficult.

I don't advocate isolationism, but non-interventionism.

 

[ElmerMudd]

In my opinion, the most offensive thing anyone can do - politician or citizen - is to use the military or our war dead to score politican points.

Agreed.
This is about individuals risking their lives for all of us. Our soldiers and their families need to be taken care of better than any Wall Street exec, professional athlete etc. Our society and government is not doing this right now.

This is not a time to play politics.

This not a time for citizens to be selfish and consider their own needs above the individuals that are sacraficing for them.

**** off using our troops to make your stupid whiny points.

It this ******* damned bunch of corrupt assholes didn't keep wasting our money on their stupid ******* pet projects and crap, then there would be plenty of money to spend on the things that they are CONSTITUTIONALLY obligated to do.

While "the corrupt assholes" waste our money the soldiers pay the price ten times more than the average citizen.
The soldiers need to be taken care of while "the corrupt assholes" and the citizenery play their cat and mouse games.
War surcharge tax or out of Afghanistan.

 

[Darkwind]

This all comes down to a matter of priorities.

The number one job of the Federal Government is to ensure the security of our nation.

This means it takes precedence over EVERYTHING else.

1. We ensure that our troops are adequately equipped.

Bush screwed that up, but then so has every Democrat President in modern times. When you cut the Defense budget, you are under equipping our troops.

2. We ensure that our heroes and their families are cared for when they do finally come home.


Every President in our history has fucked this one up. This means ALL medical needs are taken care of for not only the Hero, but for their family as well. We simply cannot repay the debt we owe them for their sacrifice.

It is the number one job of our Government to ensure that we are safe. It is sad that this has to keep being repeated over and over.

All other spending comes AFTER we take care of our Defense.

Period.

 

[California Girl]

Any thought given to policy as the problem more so than money? I know it has to be money when you talk to a liberal, but still....

Try giving a widow or widower who lost their husband or wife in Iraq or Afghanistan "policy" to support their family.

When a soldier comes homes with a leg missing from an IED try giving him or her "policy" to take care of an artificial limb and the cost of rehab.

When a soldier comes home with PTS try using "policy" to pay the years of therapy they will need.

You do not want to share in the sacrafice of war and you are making excuses.

**** off using our heroes for your partisan point scoring, you little piece of shit.

 

[Darkwind]

I named some of them. Two wars, bombing Pakistan, murderous sanctions, our military's occupation of the Middle East, and how many dead civilians?

Lets see. Two wars? They attacked us, remember? And for what?

We had troops in Saudi Arabia when we went to the defense of an ally when Iraq invaded them, and threatened our energy supply? You do realize we have a right to look after our own interests, right?

Murderous sanctions? you blame the people enacting the sanctions and not the country that the sanction were placed against? How backward is that?

We did not occupy any country in the middle prior to 9-11-01 and if you want to place blame for dead civilians, blame the terrorists.

Neither Afghanistan, Iraq, nor Pakistan attacked us.

You do realize that we don't have a right to do whatever we want around the world, right?

I think you've got it backwards. Sanctions do not hurt the government they're aimed at, but the people that must suffer under that government. The people that lose friends and families are going to point the blame at the country enacting those sanctions.

Yes, we occupied many countries prior to 9/11, and we also bombed countries and had sanctions on countries in the Middle East prior to 9/11 as well. Clinton was no non-interventionist.

Bullshit they didn't. They harbored, supported and gave aid to those who planned and attacked us. You realize that they don't have the right to do whatever they want in the world, right? You do realize that even in the community of nations on this planet, there are consequences for actions or inaction's?

I don't have it backwards. It is the responsibility of the governments that sanctions have been placed against to care for their citizens. If they simply will not comply with the demands, then they are wholly and fully responsible for the condition of their populace. You act as if sanctions are doled out willy-nilly without any thought to what will happen.

Sorry, I just don't agree with your idea of non-interventionism. Until such time as we can maintain our society without the need of outside energy, we have a right (as do other nations) to look out for our best interests. But we did not, prior to 9-11-01, occupy a single country anywhere in the world, let alone in the middle east.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Any thought given to policy as the problem more so than money? I know it has to be money when you talk to a liberal, but still....

Try giving a widow or widower who lost their husband or wife in Iraq or Afghanistan "policy" to support their family.

When a soldier comes homes with a leg missing from an IED try giving him or her "policy" to take care of an artificial limb and the cost of rehab.

When a soldier comes home with PTS try using "policy" to pay the years of therapy they will need.

You do not want to share in the sacrafice of war and you are making excuses.

**** off using our heroes for your partisan point scoring, you little piece of shit.

This is not about partiasanship.

This is a huge injustice in our society that liberals, conservatives, independents, you and I are all responsible for.

Pull your head out of your partisan fog to see who is being affected.

There is someone just like you serving our country right now. The difference between you and them is they are risking their life, living dug in a dirty camp in a god forsaken part of the world. They are not being compensated adequately and when they come home they are not given appropriate benefits.

It is up to you and me and all Americans to solve this injustice and to not be simple minded and blame it on partisan politics. That is a cop out.