How about tanks being built that politicians want but the military doesn't. Or every branch of the military having an intelligence outfit while the D.I.A. still exists. Or more-and-more federal agencies having SWAT teams of their own. Spending $500,000,000 on people fighting our enemies in the ME because after our enemies are dead or have fled the ****heads we dropped coin on will turn on us. Sinking $8,000,000,000 into Africa. Protecting Europe from Europe. Protecting Israel from Arabs. The War on Drugs. Military adventurism.
And I did not argue against them all, I just pointed out on some of them what would happen if it was removed. Why? Because it is easy to say "Cut it" without thinking of the consequences that would follow.
Government assistance has Congressional approval too, and to you that's wrong whereas spending trillions helping Iraqis (and Israel) is entirely justifiable. Where are your priorities because they're certainly not with your fellow citizens.
Only now we're just arguing about arguing. Which means this is a pointless conversation. We have a fundemental difference in the role of govt. I think its to defend my life and freedom. You think its to explore space or deliver the mail, to provide social services in essence.1) Disagree. Space is our future.
Real liberals don't believe in big government, banning products, Obamacare, dictated economies and outcomes etc....
The "liberals" you speak of are authoritarian fascists, and calling them "liberal" degrades the value and meaning of the term "liberal."
JYour opinion noted, the difference being that the Congress approved the war and did so across party lines including a report from the Democrat Senate Oversight committee who had the same access to information that Bush had but this is nothing more than typical diversion and ignorance of the Constitution. Provide for the Common Defense is spelled out and whether or not you think Iraq was in our common defense is irrelevant, Congress did in a non partisan wayango;1063469522]Defense from what though, Saddam's crippled military and missiles that couldn't reach the U.S.? Afghanistan was justified because of 9/11. Iraq had 0 legitimate justification.
Only in the liberal world can a bureaucrat in D.C. help solve a social problem in your local community and the cost doesn't matter. You continue to ignore the reality that social problems are state and local issues since the citizens of the state bear those costs not the Federal Taxpayer making it a state issue not a Federal one. You have offered no valid reason for the Federal Govt. to provide funding for state and local social issues other than your opinion which come from your heart and not your brain.Government assistance has Congressional approval too, and to you that's wrong whereas spending trillions helping Iraqis (and Israel) is entirely justifiable. Where are your priorities because they're certainly not with your fellow citizens.
IMO, should have bombed Iraq back to the stone age..... Also, since Iraq did in fact happen we should have stayed there. Of course Obama is an idiot playing harp strings to progressives so he didn't for his own image rather than the safety of the Iraqi people....
2) In an address to Congress almost 20 years ago Netanyahu said he wanted Israel to stand on its own power. That still isn't happening.
3) The government has no right to dictate to adults what they can & cannot do with their bodies.
4) Military adventurism conducted in the name other than protecting the actual homeland is wasted lives, resources & money.
5) So you don't think space exploration isn't important. When will it be?
6) I never said I didn't argue against them - I said I didn't argue against them all.
7) My suggestions for cuts were not a spur of the moment thing in this back-and-forth. I've talked about each one of them here or elsewhere online previously.