Furiounova
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2012
- Messages
- 4,237
- Reaction score
- 552
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
OMG did you seriously just source the Guardian? :lol:
OMG did you seriously just source the Guardian? :lol:
I stand corrected, I checked other sources since the guardian is biased. It was stupid. Now, why has obama continued the waste of american lives in afghanistan?
Well first, you need to quote your own post regarding pallets of cash and point out it does happen.
Second, Obama is a sellout and has been for a long long time so he continued the Cheney Admin policies because it was the path of least resistance.
The problem with your thinking, however, is that a number of independent economic studies have demonstrated that spending money on the military is actually one of the least effective ways to create jobs. Does it create jobs? Yes. But it ultimately comes down to priorities of where the money is BEST spent in regards to jobs creation and future strength of our nation. By your line of logic I could just as easily say that giving someone money for foodstamps(which, I imagine you are against?) stimulates the economy because it is nearly immediately reinvested in the economy and increases flow of money. You could say the same for any money the country spends domestically, so your "it creates jobs" argument holds no water. It's simply a matter of priorities, and I'd much rather see the money spent in other ways than on military.Ok, lets talk about military spending. Who gets the money spent on guns, tanks, planes, ships, humvees, uniforms, armor, rations, etc? I will tell you who gets it---american blue collar workers.
You libs seem to think that money spent on military just gets stacked up on pallets and shipped overseas----what it really does is create good paying jobs for AMERICANS, and, by the way, keep you safe.
Those pallets were sent by the state department, not DOD. What I said is that military spending creates jobs for americans. nice deflection try, but it failed.
It wasn't my first source and learned about it from other sources when it was revealed. I linked guardian because it was fast and I knew it was true regardless of their bias.
People who aren't you don't know that, so when you source a bogus site it makes your claim look false and you look like a fool.
They could ask for a better link or look it up themselves. Nbd either way and if people look at me as a fool for that link......they have bigger issues than biased sites.