• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$2 billion ‘kentucky kickback’ in budget

What's interesting is both of Tennessee's senators voted yes for the bill, but all of Tennessee's republican house members voted no.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yup. Which is why it makes sense to use money which was already going to be spent to be spent in a manner which prevents economic devastation.

If this $2b prevented the US from defaulting, and the $2b wasn't spent, then it could have. This is not a hard thing to understand.

I get the feeling you learned what "status quo" means recently and are intent on using it as often as you can in an attempt to make people think you are more intelligent. Of course, you clearly don't understand what it means, because it in no way represents my position.

No, I'm not supporting wasting money. What I'm supporting is understanding the reality of what we had. You don't seem to understand the reality of what we had.

Indeed it is and I never plan on doing any other, but I'm not a government and not one who is the foundation for economics across the world.

Apparently you haven't figured out the difference between an individual and a government. Hopefully someday you will.
Click to expand...

Like I said, keep supporting the status quo, keep supporting payoffs and bribes for votes, keep supporting going deeper and deeper into debt, keep supporting kicking the can down the road, keep supporting adding more and more bills that we already cant afford...sooner or later that monster you are supporting and propping up will have to be dealt with. And the longer we keep letting it go on as it has been the more people are going to be hurt by it.
 
apdst said:
C'mon, troop! Surely YOU understand that I never said there wasn't waste going on inside the DOD, but the Libbos' notion the funding the military is wasteful spending is ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...
But I don't think that is the notion that they put forth. I think most liberals believe as I do that our military is wasteful and bloated. The "spend it or you lose it" mentality has to go. The dishonest labeling of ALL liberals as anti-military simply for suggesting that we cut spending is ridiculous IMO. Im sure there are some liberals that think we don't need a military at all, however, you don't see idiots like that gain any sort of traction in the public arena.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What's interesting is both of Tennessee's senators voted yes for the bill, but all of Tennessee's republican house members voted no.
Click to expand...
That's because both of Tennessee's Senators are friggin RINO's. I've known that awhile (I live there).
 
MarineTpartier said:
That's because both of Tennessee's Senators are friggin RINO's. I've known that awhile (I live there).
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I figured this was to buy the house votes of republicans. not the senate votes. I was wrong on this one, else the house members just didn't bite...
 
MarineTpartier said:
But I don't think that is the notion that they put forth. I think most liberals believe as I do that our military is wasteful and bloated. The "spend it or you lose it" mentality has to go. The dishonest labeling of ALL liberals as anti-military simply for suggesting that we cut spending is ridiculous IMO. Im sure there are some liberals that think we don't need a military at all, however, you don't see idiots like that gain any sort of traction in the public arena.
Click to expand...

Most Libbos are going to oppose most military spending. They believe that our armed forces should be trimmed down to nothing more than a defense force, with no offensive deployment capabilities.
 
apdst said:
Most Libbos are going to oppose most military spending. They believe that our armed forces should be trimmed down to nothing more than a defense force, with no offensive deployment capabilities.
Click to expand...

oh you mean like the terms and limits placed upon the Germans by the Versailles treaty at the end of the first world war?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i'm just saying that we liberals could be sadistic and implement the same restrictions on our military like the ones placed upon the germans at the end of the first world war.
Click to expand...

Ok?......................:confused:
 
apdst said:
Most Libbos are going to oppose most military spending. They believe that our armed forces should be trimmed down to nothing more than a defense force, with no offensive deployment capabilities.
Click to expand...

I call Bull**** on your bolded comment. Let's see you back up the bolded comment there with actual facts and not right-wing rhetoric. Show us where the majority of the left want a military force with NO offensive deployment capabilities like you just claimed.

You're just spouting off bull**** now.
 
TheNextEra said:
I call Bull**** on your bolded comment. Let's see you back up the bolded comment there with actual facts and not right-wing rhetoric. Show us where the majority of the left want a military force with NO offensive deployment capabilities like you just claimed.

You're just spouting off bull**** now.
Click to expand...

Let's see you disprove it...how da ya like them apples?

How many times have we heard the Libbos whine about, "wars of choice", and say that unless the United States is attacked, that we should never go to war?
 
apdst said:
Let's see you disprove it...how da ya like them apples?
Click to expand...

You made the claim, back it up son. Oh wait, you can't because your claim is bull****. BTW, you asking me to prove a negative is a fallacy.

apdst said:
How many times have we heard the Libbos whine about, "wars of choice", and say that unless the United States is attacked, that we should never go to war?
Click to expand...

Being against the Iraq war does not equate to not wanting an offensive force as you claimed. And if the U.S. is attacked we would need an offensive force to win the war so even your lousy example still doesn't back up your claim and you have yet to prove the MAJORITY of the left believes that in the first place.

Face facts, you made a bull**** claim, got called on it and now you can't man up and admit you are wrong. Pathetic right-wing nonsense again.
 
TheNextEra said:
You made the claim, back it up son. Oh wait, you can't because your claim is bull****. BTW, you asking me to prove a negative is a fallacy.



Being against the Iraq war does not equate to not wanting an offensive force as you claimed. And if the U.S. is attacked we would need an offensive force to win the war so even your lousy example still doesn't back up your claim and you have yet to prove the MAJORITY of the left believes that in the first place.

Face facts, you made a bull**** claim, got called on it and now you can't man up and admit you are wrong. Pathetic right-wing nonsense again.
Click to expand...

You're dead wrong and you jnow you are, son.
 
apdst said:
Most Libbos are going to oppose most military spending. They believe that our armed forces should be trimmed down to nothing more than a defense force, with no offensive deployment capabilities.
Click to expand...
While I don't believe we should be strictly defensive, we should significantly pair down our offensive capabilities. We could cut our defense budget in half and still spend more than the next closest spender (China). Russia spends the same percentage of their GDP as we do and still spends less than 10% of what we do. Maybe this will put it in context. Saudi Arabia spends twice the percentage of their GDP on defense as we do. Yet the total amount of money they spend on defense isn't even 5% of what we spend. We have plenty of money sunk in to our military.
 
apdst said:
Let's see you disprove it...how da ya like them apples? How many times have we heard the Libbos whine about, "wars of choice", and say that unless the United States is attacked, that we should never go to war?
Click to expand...

More CONvoluted rhetoric! Why the CONs NEVER wage offensive war, just ask them. It is always in 'defense' of our national interests or our over seas 'friends'. So what's is this 'offensive' war of which you speak? :confused:

All but a few die hard CONs agree no more Iraqs. No more huge drains on our military which isn't well adapted to fighting irregular opponents, and our people not agreeable to long casualty lists, and our Treasury unable to sustain the huge drain on our finances.

If we think about it our 'best' war was the one in which we we attacked at Pearl harbor. It is tacky as hell for a so-called beacon of democracy to preach offensive war. Empires talk that way.
 
MarineTpartier said:
While I don't believe we should be strictly defensive, we should significantly pair down our offensive capabilities. We could cut our defense budget in half and still spend more than the next closest spender (China). Russia spends the same percentage of their GDP as we do and still spends less than 10% of what we do. Maybe this will put it in context. Saudi Arabia spends twice the percentage of their GDP on defense as we do. Yet the total amount of money they spend on defense isn't even 5% of what we spend. We have plenty of money sunk in to our military.
Click to expand...

We cut our defense budget in half in the 30's. Troops training for WW2 were training with wooden rifles and the troops defending Wake Island were using 40 year old bolt action rifles.

Cutting our offensive capabilities will cost lives.
 
notquiteright said:
More CONvoluted rhetoric! Why the CONs NEVER wage offensive war, just ask them. It is always in 'defense' of our national interests or our over seas 'friends'. So what's is this 'offensive' war of which you speak? :confused:

All but a few die hard CONs agree no more Iraqs. No more huge drains on our military which isn't well adapted to fighting irregular opponents, and our people not agreeable to long casualty lists, and our Treasury unable to sustain the huge drain on our finances.

If we think about it our 'best' war was the one in which we we attacked at Pearl harbor. It is tacky as hell for a so-called beacon of democracy to preach offensive war. Empires talk that way.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.
 
apdst said:
Thank you for proving my point.
Click to expand...

No Sir, explain your 'offensive' wars the liberals don't want the United states to wage anymore. Seems to me we have far more military to 'defend' our national interest. The cost of which is a huge drain while in peacetime and a monstrous suck hole when actually used.

Just how much of a military does a peace loving nation, such as ourselves need? As it stands we are bigger than the next dozen nations, most of whom are our 'dear friends' and allies.

But to be clear the CONs wrap ALL wars, even unprovoked wars, as 'defending our Freedoms'.... :roll:

Fact is we don't need to launch 'offensive' wars you seem to think we need the capability to fight.

So I ask, what are these 'offensive' wars YOU think we need to be able to wage???? :confused:
 
notquiteright said:
No Sir, explain your 'offensive' wars the liberals don't want the United states to wage anymore. Seems to me we have far more military to 'defend' our national interest. The cost of which is a huge drain while in peacetime and a monstrous suck hole when actually used.

Just how much of a military does a peace loving nation, such as ourselves need? As it stands we are bigger than the next dozen nations, most of whom are our 'dear friends' and allies.

But to be clear the CONs wrap ALL wars, even unprovoked wars, as 'defending our Freedoms'.... :roll:

Fact is we don't need to launch 'offensive' wars you seem to think we need the capability to fight.

So I ask, what are these 'offensive' wars YOU think we need to be able to wage???? :confused:
Click to expand...

Again, you do a great job of proving my point.
 
apdst said:
I don't need to; you're doing it for me.
Click to expand...

More CON smoke and mirrors. YOU claim the liberals want to strip away 'offensive capability', but you can't say what that capability is. You just want to spout CON slogans with no logical support for them... :roll:

Fact, it is called the Department of DEFENSE, but please tell us what offensive capability you think the Liberals would strip away???

Or have you given it no real thought and will agree to whatever a Progressive says ???? Then repeat after me- "the USofA doesn't need a military larger than the next dozen other nations."

Don't ya feel better now???? :2wave:
 
notquiteright said:
More CON smoke and mirrors. YOU claim the liberals want to strip away 'offensive capability', but you can't say what that capability is. You just want to spout CON slogans with no logical support for them... :roll:

Fact, it is called the Department of DEFENSE, but please tell us what offensive capability you think the Liberals would strip away???

Or have you given it no real thought and will agree to whatever a Progressive says ???? Then repeat after me- "the USofA doesn't need a military larger than the next dozen other nations."

Don't ya feel better now???? :2wave:
Click to expand...

I feel great! You're making me look like a genius...lol!
 
apdst said:
I feel great! You're making me look like a genius...lol!
Click to expand...

Would have to meet the folks who think you're a genius....

But you are doing the CON Dodge, what offensive capability do you think the USofA needs that the liberals would strip away?

To be able to invade a European country like Germany in WWII or the Soviets after???

Attack a nation that refuses to allow our conglomerates into their country to 'develop' their resources?

Attack a nation that refuses to bow to our dictates?

Seems that when asked a direct question you scurry away. YOU made the statement and yet you can't define the CON whine about liberals and our national defense... :roll:

That's not a genius you be looking like....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom