Dear GOP, "Buying more weapons is NOT "investment"."

[The T]

And tics like you think welfare is an "investment."

It is an investment.

I'll bet you think loaning money to your brother in law is an investment.

An investment is an expenditure you make because you expect it to earn a return. What is the return on welfare? What is the return on any government social program?

Nothing. But If it were me?

I'd have welfare recipients out picking up trash on the roads and highways as a FAIR RETURN on investment...

But then that would be not fair to the jail system that uses that to punish law offenders...

**** it. They can wash and deatail my car...daily.

 

[Avatar4321]

And tics like you think welfare is an "investment."

It is an investment.

How does making people dependent upon others an INVESTMENT?

It's scary how often we think the same things.

 

[The T]

It is an investment.

How does making people dependent upon others an INVESTMENT?

It's scary how often we think the same things.

In rhetrospect...I see what you mean...

It's a valid question, so I defer to you that was first with it. (and ONE the poster has yet to answer with any validity).

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, Saddam was invading OTHER countries and supporting people who want to take over America. I realize that YOU live in the insular little bubble of your own mind-world, but most of the rest of us don't.

Hmm..a "half-truth" and on outright "un-truth".

Hardly a foundation to build a solid argument on..but carry on.

That never stops you people.

Right, honey. Saddam Hussein never invaded any other countries. Go tell Kuwait that. And Saddam Hussein never, ever supported terrorists in any way . . . He was a harmless, fluffy little bunny, practically the Gandhi of the Middle East.

Being accused of "half-truths" and "untruths" by someone who wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up his pants leg. Hmmm. Hardly a foundation for giving a shit . . . but carry on.

Reality never stops you people.

He was no threat to us. So why did we invade?
WMD? Nope.
Al Qaeda connection? Nope.
9/11 connection? Nope.

So, why did we invade?
We reduced the tax rate for the highest income earners (the oligarchs) from 35% to 15%. Their constitution forbid any foreign ownership. The new constitution that we wrote for them allows 100% foreign ownership and that 100% of profits can be taken out of the country untaxed. The oil sharing agreement, that was a benchmark, shared the oil. The Kurds got 10%, the Shia got 10%, the Sunni got 10%, and Bush's rich friends got 70%.

Armed robbery.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll bet you think loaning money to your brother in law is an investment.

An investment is an expenditure you make because you expect it to earn a return. What is the return on welfare? What is the return on any government social program?

Nothing. But If it were me?

I'd have welfare recipients out picking up trash on the roads and highways as a FAIR RETURN on investment...

But then that would be not fair to the jail system that uses that to punish law offenders...

**** it. They can wash and deatail my car...daily.

Why don't we bus them out to local farms to pick fruit? They can do jobs that Americans don't want to do. That will take away one lame excuse for allowing illegal immigration.

 

[bripat9643]

He was no threat to us. So why did we invade?
WMD? Nope.
Al Qaeda connection? Nope.
9/11 connection? Nope.

So, why did we invade?
We reduced the tax rate for the highest income earners (the oligarchs) from 35% to 15%. Their constitution forbid any foreign ownership. The new constitution that we wrote for them allows 100% foreign ownership and that 100% of profits can be taken out of the country untaxed. The oil sharing agreement, that was a benchmark, shared the oil. The Kurds got 10%, the Shia got 10%, the Sunni got 10%, and Bush's rich friends got 70%.

Armed robbery.

You're an idiot. None of that is true.

The Iraqis wrote their constitution. The American constitution allows 100% foreign ownership, so why is that a problem for Iraq? Profits cannot be taken out of the country untaxed. Bush's friends aren't entitled to any of the profits.

Do you know anything that's actually true?

 

[ROBESPIERRE]

Is government "investment" in new weapons going to create more jobs for Americans? If so, then it is a good idea.

But then the new weapons have to be put to good use winning wars against Americas enemies right?

What good are new weapons if they can't make America richer and more secure?

​

 

[The T]

I'll bet you think loaning money to your brother in law is an investment.

An investment is an expenditure you make because you expect it to earn a return. What is the return on welfare? What is the return on any government social program?

Nothing. But If it were me?

I'd have welfare recipients out picking up trash on the roads and highways as a FAIR RETURN on investment...

But then that would be not fair to the jail system that uses that to punish law offenders...

**** it. They can wash and deatail my car...daily.

Why don't we bus them out to local farms to pick fruit? They can do jobs that Americans don't want to do. That will take away one lame excuse for allowing illegal immigration.

Heavens NO...that would derail the still-to-come AMNESTY push Obama has planned...

watch for it...

 

[rdean]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

 

[Spoonman]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

isn't that what obama is doing in libya the man of peace

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

Wrong. But you can definitely solve some problems with force. We solved the problems of imperialism, fascism and communism with force.

That's a record that only a fool would dare to argue against.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmm..a "half-truth" and on outright "un-truth".

Hardly a foundation to build a solid argument on..but carry on.

That never stops you people.

Right, honey. Saddam Hussein never invaded any other countries. Go tell Kuwait that. And Saddam Hussein never, ever supported terrorists in any way . . . He was a harmless, fluffy little bunny, practically the Gandhi of the Middle East.

Being accused of "half-truths" and "untruths" by someone who wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up his pants leg. Hmmm. Hardly a foundation for giving a shit . . . but carry on.

Reality never stops you people.

He was no threat to us. So why did we invade?
WMD? Nope.
Al Qaeda connection? Nope.
9/11 connection? Nope.

So, why did we invade?
We reduced the tax rate for the highest income earners (the oligarchs) from 35% to 15%. Their constitution forbid any foreign ownership. The new constitution that we wrote for them allows 100% foreign ownership and that 100% of profits can be taken out of the country untaxed. The oil sharing agreement, that was a benchmark, shared the oil. The Kurds got 10%, the Shia got 10%, the Sunni got 10%, and Bush's rich friends got 70%.

Armed robbery.

Spare me your attempt to shoehorn your personal political hobbyhorse into the conversation. We are talking about war and national defense, not how much you hate George W. Bush.

Even if you managed to convince me that Saddam Hussein personally shot rainbow-painted unicorns out his ass (which you won't), it's not going to mean a damned thing to the overall subject of defense spending and its purpose and necessity in life. He was one guy, in one rogue nation.

You are not going to say anything that is going to change the fact that zeroing out defense spending so that we can use the money to plant daisies is a stupid fuckiing idea, so just move the **** on. My patience for tangent-dancing has ended. Stop wasting my time.

 

[Spoonman]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

Wrong. But you can definitely solve some problems with force. We solved the problems of imperialism, fascism and communism with force.

That's a record that only a fool would dare to argue against.

maybe we should be using force against the liberals.



god knows they wouldn't put up much of a fight

 

[The T]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

Wrong. But you can definitely solve some problems with force. We solved the problems of imperialism, fascism and communism with force.

That's a record that only a fool would dare to argue against.

maybe we should be using force against the liberals.



god knows they wouldn't put up much of a fight

They don't now put up much of a fight in the arena of Ideas...and that is where they fail.

 

[The T]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

Deflect much? How long did it take you to come up with this stretch of the truth deany-bub?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Right, honey. Saddam Hussein never invaded any other countries. Go tell Kuwait that. And Saddam Hussein never, ever supported terrorists in any way . . . He was a harmless, fluffy little bunny, practically the Gandhi of the Middle East.

Being accused of "half-truths" and "untruths" by someone who wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up his pants leg. Hmmm. Hardly a foundation for giving a shit . . . but carry on.

Reality never stops you people.

He was no threat to us. So why did we invade?
WMD? Nope.
Al Qaeda connection? Nope.
9/11 connection? Nope.

So, why did we invade?
We reduced the tax rate for the highest income earners (the oligarchs) from 35% to 15%. Their constitution forbid any foreign ownership. The new constitution that we wrote for them allows 100% foreign ownership and that 100% of profits can be taken out of the country untaxed. The oil sharing agreement, that was a benchmark, shared the oil. The Kurds got 10%, the Shia got 10%, the Sunni got 10%, and Bush's rich friends got 70%.

Armed robbery.

Spare me your attempt to shoehorn your personal political hobbyhorse into the conversation. We are talking about war and national defense, not how much you hate George W. Bush.

Even if you managed to convince me that Saddam Hussein personally shot rainbow-painted unicorns out his ass (which you won't), it's not going to mean a damned thing to the overall subject of defense spending and its purpose and necessity in life. He was one guy, in one rogue nation.

You are not going to say anything that is going to change the fact that zeroing out defense spending so that we can use the money to plant daisies is a stupid fuckiing idea, so just move the **** on. My patience for tangent-dancing has ended. Stop wasting my time.

I notice that you did not refute anything I said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

Every problem? No. Those that respond well to threats, intimidation, and force? You betcha. Good luck "reasonably negotiating" with a mugger or a serial killer or a terrorist or a crazed dictator, Spanky.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He was no threat to us. So why did we invade?
WMD? Nope.
Al Qaeda connection? Nope.
9/11 connection? Nope.

So, why did we invade?
We reduced the tax rate for the highest income earners (the oligarchs) from 35% to 15%. Their constitution forbid any foreign ownership. The new constitution that we wrote for them allows 100% foreign ownership and that 100% of profits can be taken out of the country untaxed. The oil sharing agreement, that was a benchmark, shared the oil. The Kurds got 10%, the Shia got 10%, the Sunni got 10%, and Bush's rich friends got 70%.

Armed robbery.

Spare me your attempt to shoehorn your personal political hobbyhorse into the conversation. We are talking about war and national defense, not how much you hate George W. Bush.

Even if you managed to convince me that Saddam Hussein personally shot rainbow-painted unicorns out his ass (which you won't), it's not going to mean a damned thing to the overall subject of defense spending and its purpose and necessity in life. He was one guy, in one rogue nation.

You are not going to say anything that is going to change the fact that zeroing out defense spending so that we can use the money to plant daisies is a stupid fuckiing idea, so just move the **** on. My patience for tangent-dancing has ended. Stop wasting my time.

I notice that you did not refute anything I said.

Nope, because all that needed to be refuted was your lame-ass attempt to derail the thread into your personal obsession. Just because you demand answers to off-topic bullshit does not obligate me to treat it - or you - with respect.

Get back on topic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

Wrong. But you can definitely solve some problems with force. We solved the problems of imperialism, fascism and communism with force.

That's a record that only a fool would dare to argue against.

maybe we should be using force against the liberals.



god knows they wouldn't put up much of a fight

Might hit you with their purses . . . oh, excuse me. European shoulder bags.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans think they can solve every problem with threats, intimidation and force. It's all they know. It makes them feel "safer".

You ever wonder why I keep picking on you rdean? Because every once in a while you say something that gives me the perfect opening to make you look even more foolish than you manage to do on your own.

Case in point. an actual college course in intimidation tactics for unions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4oTooyabyA]YouTube - Thuggery 101: Union Official, Professor Teach College Course in Violent Union Tactics[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckWDQbvkjE0]YouTube - Advanced Thuggery: How to College Course on Violent Union Tactics Chilling Case Studies[/ame]