I guess I don't see your point. What is the difference? expansive military == strong defense, no?
No. Expansive military == expanding to foreign soil. We've hit a semantic stumbling block. This type of expansion is not encouraged by the constitution in any way I know of. A strong military is strongest when protecting home borders. It weakens with wanton invasion, as we have done in the middle east. Unchecked militaristic expansion (to foreign soil) and standing armies (on foreign soil) is weakening to a military. This is not ideology. It's a fact of history. True Republicans/Conservatives/Constructionists do not like expansive military policies for this reason--so I call "conservatives" out on it as much as I can.
Problem is, we do not have any true Republicans in national government save a few who have been systematically discredited by *socially* conservative ideologues and their media outlets.
I don't have a problem with having a strong military.
Way to canopy foreign occupation under "defense". I think I'll canopy universal health care under the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and we'll be even.
"There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power. We do nothing there, why is Iraq different? THAT is the question. Why are we meddling there, and not in any place with real problems, like Somalia?"
Why should we?
Now you are starting to get it. We can't afford an expansive military policy any more. That is not a "liberal" thing, that is a practical thing. Foreign occupation requires TAXATION!!!! It's the thing you probably bitch about most with Obama, so why do you want to keep on getting taxed to pay for a war? Another hypocrite.
No one invented socialism. Socialism is a redistribution of wealth. For example, to police, to the armed forces, to the prisons, to enforcement agencies. Oh, you want *selective* socialism. Don't we all?
So be the war fraudulent or otherwise, it was still cheaper than what appears to be ahead of us. I can only hope that we aren't going to lose the farm in Vegas.
I have no idea where to put this, so you get it. First of all, since we abandoned the gold standard in this country (memorize this): MONEY IS DEBT. Or, to put it more succinctly, DEBT IS MONEY. Now, the credit (lending/debt) markets are frozen because of toxic assets (TARP stands for Toxic Asset Relief Program, in case you haven't heard of toxic assets). With the credit markets frozen, people take on less debt because they can't take on debt because banks can't lend (that is the toxicity of the toxic assets at work). As a result, the money supply shrinks. When the money supply shrinks, rich successful businessmen can't sell their worthless crap to the masses and get richer. This is bad. Even me, who is rootin' for the little guy, thinks this is bad. So who is going to borrow when no one can? Yes, the government will borrow in cooperation with the federal reserve and other nations who also have a mutual interest in keeping the wheels of commerce (i.e. peddling crap) turning.
Let's review: no gold standard, debt is money, credit markets frozen, money supply shrinks, rich get poorer, poor get way poorer, government borrows to create money because they can, rich get richer, poor stay poor.
Now you understand the mechanics of it. What don't you like?
Good. Now you will be against the military (socialism), police (socialism), prisons (socialism), drug enforcement (socialism), homeland security (socialism), and immigration enforcement (socialism). I'm glad we agree on these things.
The arguments against gun-ownership are particularly insulting in this regard.
Guy opens fire at a gun show. Everyone shoots back. Guy dies before he gets off 4 rounds. Never happened because no one is stupid enough to open fire at a gun show.
I'm rather happy I evacuated, anything else would have been foolish.
Isn't New York *full* of big buildings? Where exactly are you going to evacuate to? In these cases, I have always found it best to play the odds that the airplanes are going to hit a different building. If you look deeply into the topic and do the math, you'll see that this is a surprisingly effective strategy that incidentally won't interfere with your daily schedule.
The study makes no mention of the false positive rate. We have 7 or 8 (depending on how you count) other planets in our solar system to get a sense of that and they conveniently didn't do the measurements...OK. I'm just guessing they didn't measure the false positive rate. Of course I didn't RTFA.
It's called a "conflict of interest". It means that the study is inherently flawed by an irremediable bias. Such bias makes the study difficult to criticize because the points for criticism have been systematically avoided by the investigators. It is fair to criticize the study by noting these conflicts. An example of a "conflict of interest" would be a tobacco company's releasing a study showing that smoking is good for you.
They already invented this
on
Robotic Penguins
·
· Score: 2, Funny
while larger helium-filled designs can "swim" through the air.
"It can't be stupid if everyone else runs it," said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn again. "Macs cost more than Windows PCs."
Go back to the LemonParty, you sick, gothic troll.
What's the matter Joe? Did it push a button with you?
Why are you blaming the US government for (a) defects in software they didn't write
But Microsoft gives them opportunity to review the code for security purposes, so they should have seen this coming.
I just made that up.
But I didn't make up the fact that the US government can review the code of open source alternatives. So they screwed up in at least one of two ways: (1) no ability to recognize security holes in the software they are using, (2) choosing a closed source system. Either way, they don't get off the hook on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I don't see your point. What is the difference? expansive military == strong defense, no?
No. Expansive military == expanding to foreign soil. We've hit a semantic stumbling block. This type of expansion is not encouraged by the constitution in any way I know of. A strong military is strongest when protecting home borders. It weakens with wanton invasion, as we have done in the middle east. Unchecked militaristic expansion (to foreign soil) and standing armies (on foreign soil) is weakening to a military. This is not ideology. It's a fact of history. True Republicans/Conservatives/Constructionists do not like expansive military policies for this reason--so I call "conservatives" out on it as much as I can.
Problem is, we do not have any true Republicans in national government save a few who have been systematically discredited by *socially* conservative ideologues and their media outlets.
Now STFU and get on with your life.
Can't. Not with the threat level being orange and all. Wait 'till it's yellow.
Straw man argument....I never mentioned I was in favor of foreign occupation.
Straw man straw man. You responded to "expansive military" with "in favor of a strong defense". Get your story straight.
Because they were given the choice between a moderate and a liberal both times.
I guess it was the Grande Appointer of Candidates, second only to the Wizard of Oz, who gave them their choice. No wait, I remember. It was Fox News.
I don't have a problem with having a strong military.
Way to canopy foreign occupation under "defense". I think I'll canopy universal health care under the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and we'll be even.
"warmongering" You guys have pretty much turned that phrase into a null, much like overuse has made 'bigot' and 'fascist' pretty empty.
This coming from someone who spews the word "liberal" every third word. Again, hypocrite.
That's funny, you think Bush was a Conservative.
And why did conservatives vote for him...twice? That's the funny part.
"There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power. We do nothing there, why is Iraq different? THAT is the question. Why are we meddling there, and not in any place with real problems, like Somalia?"
Why should we?
Now you are starting to get it. We can't afford an expansive military policy any more. That is not a "liberal" thing, that is a practical thing. Foreign occupation requires TAXATION!!!! It's the thing you probably bitch about most with Obama, so why do you want to keep on getting taxed to pay for a war? Another hypocrite.
My, how compassionate and humanitarian of you.
Says a tard who gets sickened by the thought of universal health care. Hypocrite.
No one invented socialism. Socialism is a redistribution of wealth. For example, to police, to the armed forces, to the prisons, to enforcement agencies. Oh, you want *selective* socialism. Don't we all?
So be the war fraudulent or otherwise, it was still cheaper than what appears to be ahead of us. I can only hope that we aren't going to lose the farm in Vegas.
I have no idea where to put this, so you get it. First of all, since we abandoned the gold standard in this country (memorize this): MONEY IS DEBT. Or, to put it more succinctly, DEBT IS MONEY. Now, the credit (lending/debt) markets are frozen because of toxic assets (TARP stands for Toxic Asset Relief Program, in case you haven't heard of toxic assets). With the credit markets frozen, people take on less debt because they can't take on debt because banks can't lend (that is the toxicity of the toxic assets at work). As a result, the money supply shrinks. When the money supply shrinks, rich successful businessmen can't sell their worthless crap to the masses and get richer. This is bad. Even me, who is rootin' for the little guy, thinks this is bad. So who is going to borrow when no one can? Yes, the government will borrow in cooperation with the federal reserve and other nations who also have a mutual interest in keeping the wheels of commerce (i.e. peddling crap) turning.
Let's review: no gold standard, debt is money, credit markets frozen, money supply shrinks, rich get poorer, poor get way poorer, government borrows to create money because they can, rich get richer, poor stay poor.
Now you understand the mechanics of it. What don't you like?
I went to two of those tea parties.
Good. Now you will be against the military (socialism), police (socialism), prisons (socialism), drug enforcement (socialism), homeland security (socialism), and immigration enforcement (socialism). I'm glad we agree on these things.
I'd like to add that this whole "socialist vs. capitalist" nonsense is a non sequitur.
No it isn't. Military: socialism. Prisons: socialism. Police: socialism. Immigration Enforcement: socialism. Drug Enforcement: socialism. Socialism Socialism Socialism.
The arguments against gun-ownership are particularly insulting in this regard.
Guy opens fire at a gun show. Everyone shoots back. Guy dies before he gets off 4 rounds. Never happened because no one is stupid enough to open fire at a gun show.
I'm rather happy I evacuated, anything else would have been foolish.
Isn't New York *full* of big buildings? Where exactly are you going to evacuate to? In these cases, I have always found it best to play the odds that the airplanes are going to hit a different building. If you look deeply into the topic and do the math, you'll see that this is a surprisingly effective strategy that incidentally won't interfere with your daily schedule.
Then this scan won't find them
The study makes no mention of the false positive rate. We have 7 or 8 (depending on how you count) other planets in our solar system to get a sense of that and they conveniently didn't do the measurements...OK. I'm just guessing they didn't measure the false positive rate. Of course I didn't RTFA.
Riiight.
Everybody != Government of USA
Criticize the study if you have a problem.
It's called a "conflict of interest". It means that the study is inherently flawed by an irremediable bias. Such bias makes the study difficult to criticize because the points for criticism have been systematically avoided by the investigators. It is fair to criticize the study by noting these conflicts. An example of a "conflict of interest" would be a tobacco company's releasing a study showing that smoking is good for you.
while larger helium-filled designs can "swim" through the air.
It's called a blimp.
"It can't be stupid if everyone else runs it," said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn again. "Macs cost more than Windows PCs."
Go back to the LemonParty, you sick, gothic troll.
What's the matter Joe? Did it push a button with you?
Why are you blaming the US government for (a) defects in software they didn't write
But Microsoft gives them opportunity to review the code for security purposes, so they should have seen this coming.
I just made that up.
But I didn't make up the fact that the US government can review the code of open source alternatives. So they screwed up in at least one of two ways: (1) no ability to recognize security holes in the software they are using, (2) choosing a closed source system. Either way, they don't get off the hook on this one.
you should be ashamed you are not among them.
The layers should be ashamed that my techniques work!
Looks more like it is being Intelligently Designed.
So they designed it 2000 years ago and are only now starting to build it?
You know, I'm all for renewable power, but, aren't there a whole lot of starving people that this money could be feeding? Diseases to cure?
Retards-who-don't-understand-the-nature-of-capital-investment to educate?
What we are seeing here is an evolution of technology, where less adapted technologies are replaced by more adapted technologies.