You are playing hypocrite again too. You change subjects all the time to avoid answering a hard question. The topic was government spending and thats what I'm posting on. Snoots point.

"Throwing billions at a tax-evading subsidiary of the past employer of the former vice president despite a demonstrable track record of electrocuting soldiers and civilian support workers because of shoddy, low budget work performed by unqualified and underpaid third-world imported labor is not "military spending"."

Your contention is this is fine when its for supposed military operations, but not fine domestically. That's poor thinking.

"If our Army is relying on our roads and bridges to maneuver then we have bigger problems than infrastructure. Namely an invading military occupation. Since we have only fought overseas in our collective lifetimes your point is lost on me."

That's because you are a knucklehead. The military does use public roads/rails to deploy. It also relies on the taxpaying public to buy its equipment. No economy, no taxes no army.

"It would be immoral NOT to spend what we need to in order to support our troops that WE put into harms way."

Who is we? YOU put our military in harms way by voting for the administration that picked a fight with the wrong guy. Osama Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq.

O3V

"A: We were attacked and were fighting a war that was in response to that attack." Another discussion maybe?

"It would be immoral NOT to spend what we need to in order to support our troops that WE put into harms way."

But not the friggin orgy I see every day, man!!!! I served nearly 27 years (with distinction.... If I may, and the shit I see, makes me wanna puke!! I send letters too!!!!!

Straight up bullshit.... and I just see the bottom feeders. Makes me ashamed!

Germain or not, I had to toss this in.

Rush... I couldn't give three "shits". He just ain't on my map.

Best

Mike

--
64 220 (RIP, now he's parts on the hoof) - 65 220 - 68 220 (almost ready for the road), and a 66 130 (35k miles last year)

Here is that lie again: "We were attacked etc..." Yes, the US was attacked, agreed, but not by Iraq. The US was attacked by Saudis, but the US didn't have the nerve to attack them. "Gee, your big brother just punched me, so I will smack his little brother." The US is still in Iraq because (just like Viet Nam) it is too hard to let go without leaving chaos behind. 'Nam healed itself after many years, as will Iraq once the US leaves. Support the troops by all means, just don't support the greedy buggers that sold Dubya on the war in the first place.

I suppose the planet needs polar opposites to survive, not sure why. So now we have the Republicans and the Chinese Communists to fulfill that role in the way the planet works, politically. In my mind, a radical is a radical, regardless of which end of the spectrum they come from. Perhaps it is time for both philosophies to become closer to the center for all of us to survive.