Then you must think he insinuated something. I dont see anything you wrote as your interpetation. Perhaps then an explanation of what you interpeted what he meant. Or another dodge would seem more your style.
Speaking of drama queens. Who was the who went over the deep end about those un-American Dems not paying the military? Or the chowderhead comparing Obama to a slave owner?
Yep. We can all relax...until they get to the real budget challenge for this year that will involve more than a measly couple of billion dollars.
Definintion of insinuation: That which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or intimation by distant allusion Now, it may be difficult for your feeble mind to comprehend, but "hint", "suggestion", "intimation" and "allusion" are quite different concepts than literal "meaning". You thought David's insinuation had sexual overtones; I thought otherwise. You gave your opinion and I gave mine. Now, I'll repeat myself by telling you that if you want to know what David "meant" by his statement, you'll have to ask HIM. You have a terrible habit of attacking someone who doesn't agree with your opinion.
I suggest you take a remedial reading comprehension course. It might benefit you and it would certainly benefit us. You will be better able to understand what people are saying and it might give you the ability to form a coherent response. Here's a link to the College of Southern Nevada, 4601 W. Bonanza Road, Las Vegas, NV. If you're not located near that particular institution, just type in "Community Colleges Las Vegas" in your web browser and you'll receive a list of the community colleges in your area. I hope you find this helpful: CSN - Home
No government shutdown to fight about so what will we fight about? I know, why do Republicans only become fiscal conservatives when they do not control the White House? Didn't see any spending cuts under Bush for 8 years. How about increasing revenue? If the debt is really an issue, lets raise some much needed revenue and bring it down. Close some of the thousands of military bases we've had since WWII. The best military on the planet and we are losing in a country like Afghanistan. Doesn't that pretty much tell you we are spend money on the wrong type of war? I've had the recent privilege to talk with some current and ex-combat troops. They couldn't be clearer that we shouldn't be in either Afghanistan or Iraq yet we plod along fighting for 10 years and we'll still end up making a strategic exit having gained nothing for our efforts. They know it, the government knows it, and you either know it or you don't know much.
Be honest. If we concentrated on winning on either of those fronts instead trying to win a popularity contest. We'd have been done with both already. And if the US annihilated ours enemies like we should, you'd be posting how blood thirsty and inhumane we were.
So you're saying that there are no happy choices in war? Why does that not seem like such a revelation? What you are actually comparing is war and genocide. They aren't the same thing and neither are they the only two choices we have. You forget that WE created the Taliban that then gave support to Bin Laden. Bin Laden was just our own foreign policy come home to roost. It was pretty much the same thing with Saddam Hussein. So instead of looking at this as a choice between war fought on a humanitarian basis or a complete genocide, maybe we just don't fund, arm, and let loose on the world people like Saddam Hussein, Mullah Mulla Omar, Bin Laden, and the Mujahideen? All former allies. There are always consequences to our choices but we never seem to learn from those consequences or someone is making a huge profit for each time we make the same bad choice.
The problems really won't be solved until we are arguing over how much revenue increase we need along side the revenue cuts. But I don;t think anyone in office is up to the task. I haven't looked into it yet to verify but I read something the other day that this plan for 6 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years that is the 'blueprint' also includes 4 trillion in tax cuts. If true that is only 2 trillion net in 10 years. Basically 200 billion a year. Chump change.
And defense needs to be on the table. Closing bases, ending current wars, etc. Defense spending needs to get below the $500 billion a year range instead of being in the 750 billion a year range it is now. Even during the Ronnie's reign, it was only about $500 billion a year (inflation adjusted dollars).
Thats not what I am doing at all. Was WWII just genocide on our part? I dont think it was. And Huessain wasnt really an ally. Just a means to an end really.
WWII was definitely a war worth putting our blood and treasure behind. Saddam was an alley of convenience but who would have guessed that he would eventually cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American soldiers. Did you ever wonder if we made it constitutionally illegal to make profiting from supplying military equipment for the purposes of defense, would we just be involved in a lot less wars? It's just one of those products that creates more need for the same product.
If we weren't all so totally screwed, this would be incredibly funny. CBO Says Budget Deal Will Cut Spending by Only $352 Million This Year A comparison prepared by the CBO shows that the omnibus spending bill, advertised as containing some $38.5 billion in cuts, will only reduce federal outlays by $352 million below 2010 spending rates. The nonpartisan budget agency also projects that total outlays are actually some $3.3 billion more than in 2010, if emergency spending is included in the total.
They basically cut things like leftover money from other programs and things that were going to pretty much get cut anyway. I think someone has a tea party to attend to do some splainin'.