Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by vonork, Aug 8, 2004.
From the NYtimes:
Wow, that's just about the coolest thing I've ever seen. I like option two
I am laughing at the complete lies told about the opium and nuclear theft!
You can also add that all that money spent in that way (as mentioned in the times graphic) would also have generated employment back at home which would have been a huge secondary benefit.
But then who cares, when you can shoot in a texan cowboy style?
How about all the money that is wasted on Social Security (that my generation will never see, anyway)? I would rather put money towards Iraq than towards people who are lazy and look down upon people my age for no reason at all. If someone was a veteran and needed the money, then okay, but not the average joe.
Even if I agree with you that social security is a waste of money (which I am far from agreeing) how does that justify this particular jamboree in Iraq? When did one waste justify another?
I at a loss there completely. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
What's really astounding, is how much cheaper it is to rebuild Afghanistan (which WOULD be a huge hit on terrorist-recruiting and popularity) than to conquer Iraq (which has about the exact opposite effect).
And Zarn, your comment is frankly disgusting.
Because of course, everyone on soacial assistance is lazy and have age prejudices . It's not like any of them have mental or physical disorders that keep them from being able to earn a complete living.
Great article (or an image)
However, what does hiring 100000 new police officers, excessive funding on coast guard, port and airliner security and new divisions in the army bring to my mind? Oh, now I remember, it's part of the police state politics!
Or, in the case of social security, they could very well be hardworking, red-blooded Americans who worked all their lives and have retired and now deserve some money to live on.
Hardly, it's part of being realistic.
I didn't say ALL. You just assumed all. You would be surprised how much of it is going to people who don't need it. Veterans are the only (somewhat healthy) people that should receive anything.
Hm you got this from the NY Times. I wouldn't trust it. It is one of the most liberal papers in the U.S.
Yeah and all liberals are evil and cannot be trusted
Yep - Only strong, loyal warriors should be allowed to get support from the government they voted for!
The NY Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world.
He's talking about a propaganda bias. The NY Times has one, that's why it doesn't mention that money can easily have come from elsewhere.
Regardless of source, I think those numbers are fairly accurate, but hey, since you can't disprove the numbers, might as well say the source is unreliable.
And adding police members does not constitute making a police state, it is about making your citizens safer, and feel safer.
1. Vet down on luck
I'm against average joe getting it, because of age or lazyness. It's the way capitalism works.
Yeah, if you're enough towards the right everyone else seems to be a commie
Separate names with a comma.