Liberals, why do you want a bigger government

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 18 Apr 2006 06:43

hah. They are indeed Adam. But yours is a little off - by about a factor of 2. The military spending budget for 2005 was actually 420.7 Billion Dollars. Yowza.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 18 Apr 2006 06:45

Oh, sorry Adam, I see now that you were only talking about the cost of Iraq.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 18 Apr 2006 08:09

That's ridiculous. You can't possible generalise like that - statements like "All liberals are blatent hypocrits" only demonstrates your general ignorance towards politics and probably life in general as well.

Hahaha. It was a joke you fool. Notice the subject matter we were discussing prior, and you mgiht get it.

Now, I'm not saying that Democrats in America don't bomb people - look at clinton for the most recent example - but the Republicans just seem to really enjoy it.

Really enjoy it? Do you have proof of that? The American military budget jumped after 9/11 of course, but Republicans generally don't spend more on the military than Democrats do. Your post still equals garbage until you can prove otherwise.

Its not a scare tactic.....it's 100% true.
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php ... Itemid=182

274 Billion dollars when I checked, thats scary isn't it?

So what if I am trying to scare people? People need to be scared of the worlds biggest arms producer, polluter and jailer, instead of being afraid that their tax dollars are going to the (gasp) POOR!!!!

Yeah, America is very scary, but you're an idiot if you are going to try to tie it to one party or another. I don't even know what point you're trying to make Adam, but this isn't a discussion about how scary/powerful America is. Saying that Republican's specifically are going to spend your taxes on bombs to kill people can be said for any country in the world with a military, but with Democrats on the converse they're going to do the exact same.

Jared/Adam, stop running away from the fact that Republicans are going to spend about as much as Democrats on the military, and generalizations like they're going to spend all your taxes on bombs is utter bullshit. And I'm arguing objectively, because I hate Republicans and Democrats equally, qhich makes it easy for me to see you guys biases.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 18 Apr 2006 10:21

They aren't going to spend either of our taxes on bombs. We live in Canada. So yes, that generalization which you feebly attempted to put in our mouths is bullshit. Why don't you actually read one of my posts, instead of proving that grade school reading comprehension is far beyond your grasp?

I was arguing that "conservatives" DO want bigger government, especially in the way of taxing their population more heavily for their own agenda.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 18 Apr 2006 14:42

I was arguing that "conservatives" DO want bigger government, especially in the way of taxing their population more heavily for their own agenda.

I know exactly what you're arguing, but the sad fact is, that isn't a Conservative posistion, it's a Neo-Conservative posistion. Don't get your facts mixed up.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 18 Apr 2006 16:59

I know exactly what you're arguing, but the sad fact is, that isn't a Conservative posistion, it's a Neo-Conservative posistion. Don't get your facts mixed up.

You keep making this assertion that they are fundamentally different. How do you back that up? Which politicians who call themselves conservatives are actually lying and are neo-conservatives?

Also, you never backed up your 'liberals want big government' statement. Was that a "joke" too? That's why I generally don't respond directly to your comments, just the comments of people who respond in your threads. What exactly are you talking about if I may ask?

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 18 Apr 2006 17:09

BainbridgeShred wrote:
I was arguing that "conservatives" DO want bigger government, especially in the way of taxing their population more heavily for their own agenda.
I know exactly what you're arguing

You really don't.

Notice the "..."

As in---The Republican party of America has "conservative" values.

Meaning that their values aren't very conservative at all, but they pretend they are.

Or also as in---Dan Feary is "intelligent".

See above example.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Apr 2006 18:55

Wow ,this thread took off like a rocket.

Republicans could be accurately described as "borrow and spend".

Instead of taxing us to death, they will saddle our children and grandchildren with "death-debt", a word I just made up while typing this sentence.

And I read that in the governments plan for a flu epidemic, is to contract foreign nations to print currency for us, should the U.S. mint be unable to de-base our currency at the normal pace.

-n

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 18 Apr 2006 22:29

HighDemonslayer wrote:And I read that in the governments plan for a flu epidemic, is to contract foreign nations to print currency for us, should the U.S. mint be unable to de-base our currency at the normal pace.

Heh -- you got that right. I found it amusing that Bernanke's Feds decided to stop publishing the M3 money supply.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 19 Apr 2006 18:45

Actually the second paragraph of the story i read, was begun with the currency thing.

When the flu does break out, I hope printing currency is not on the top of the priority list.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01_pf.html

We know we are totally screwed if there is an epidemic.

The end of the story is the most discouraging.

Homeland Security's Runge has a different concern: "One of the scariest thoughts is, if this country has successfully developed a vaccine within six months of an outbreak or our supply of antivirals is greater, there may be a rush into the United States for those things."

Apparently.... developing a successful vaccine, or having a surplus of vaccine (normally good things), is the SCARIEST thing to the men tasked with defending us.

-n

-n