Gene wrote:

Bill Rood <wjrood@magnaspeed.net> wrote in
news:MTIzh.20$aF4.8@newsfe06.lga:

Gene wrote:

Bill Rood <wjrood@magnaspeed.net> wrote in news:45CEAC06.9070909
@magnaspeed.net:

I ran across this very depressing article on the support Democrats on
the Armed Services Committee have given to a massive increase in
military spending. No doubt some people will minimize the
implications of the article because it's reported on the World
Socialist Website,

but

you really can't get around the direct quotes and the campaign
contributions. Many of the Democrats mentioned here are just as

corrupt

and oblivious to the real needs of this country as were the
Republicans voted out in November. Make no mistake, this weaponry, if
approved,

will

be used to kill herders in Somalia, wedding parties in Iraq, and
generally wreak havoc all over the world. Meanwhile, our children
will be uneducated and uninsured, Medicare will be phased out through
unindexed means-testing of incomes greater than $80,000 and younger
workers will pay taxes on their "gold-plated" employer health care in
excess of the again unindexed $7,500 cap.

Write or call your Representatives and Senators to oppose this
massive increase in military spending.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/dems-f09_prn.shtml

Military spending is also spending for the VA, the retired healthcare
system, housing for the wives and families of the troops, pay for the
troops. As a retired military guy who was promised healthcare and who
was taught for many years the value of integrity along with how to
make big things small - don't even think of balancing your fucked up
budgets on my back alone. Not when civil servants are not asked to
sacrifice and the wealthy are still living in a protective bubble
furnished by Bush.

It's your fucked up budget, not mine. You support continuing our
interventionist foreign policy and all the additional weaponry and
personnel your Decider has asked for, don't you? I don't, and one
reason is I don't want it balanced on your back at all. The more we
spend on increased weaponry and increased current personnel levels,
the less we'll have available to pay your retirement and health care,
which we've committed and must honor. Nowhere have I suggested
cutting your benefits, and neither has this article.

What a laugh. I didn't vote for Bush.

But you support his "stay the course" policy (see below) and you believe
in a militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Your entire life was
based on it. But that's exactly what brought us 9-11; it was never who
we are, but what we do. You and your ilk fucked with the rest of the
world for 40 years and it finally blew back on 9-11.

You stirred up hornets nests in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Lebanon
(1958), Iraq (1963 and 1968 when YOU installed the Ba'ath and Saddam
Hussein), Vietnam (expanding the conflict to Laos and Cambodia,
triggering the genocide there), Chile (1973), El Salvador and Nicaragua
(1980s), instigating the Iran-Iraq War and arming both sides. Well, your
heroes finally ***** the wrong people and the result was 9-11. YOU
and your ilk have been the cause of most of the instability and warfare
in the world for the past 40 years, including 9-11.

And I, unlike the fucked up spineless Democratic congressmen you
elected that voted to allow Bush to conduct a war, never supported
the war.

You support the war right now, because you're not for ending it. Your
position is precisely the same as the most spineless of the middle of
the road Democrat triangulators. And don't presume to guess whom I might
have voted for, because you haven't a clue. I posted an article critical
of those very same corrupt or spineless Democrats. You apparently were
too lazy to follow the link.

There is only the defense department budget. It contains every
requirement for the Defense Department. If congress cuts the DOD
budget then Bush will still pay for the war and take the money awat
from housing, VA hospitals, retired pay and all the other personnel
requirements he will do that and the war will continue.

Wrong. Congress can be very specific as to what they fund and what they
don't. They can remove funding for specific weapons systems or on the
other hand vote funding for things even the Pentagon says it doesn't
want. It's true the President can shift funding around and illegally
short-change one thing to spend on another, but then that's an
impeachable offense if Congress has the spine to make it stick.

The supplimentals pay for the war. The budget pays for everything
else. You want to stop the war then tell your Democratic
representative to not allow the supplimental spending and then watch
him vote to allow them because he knows that the middle elects the
presidents these days
and the middle is not going to allow any soldier already in a combat
zone go without anything that protects his life because half the
country is truely greedy/stupid enough to vote for Bush and millions
of far left idiots voted for Nader knowing it was a wasted vote - twice.

You're all over the map, aren't you. Don't like Bush. Don't like
Democrats. Don't like Nader. So who do you like? Must be the RINOs.

By the way, it's entirely possible to pass a bill funding withdrawal. I
believe Feingold has introduced something like that. Also, the funding
is already there for the next several months. Nobody has to vote on
that. If Congress makes it clear there will be no funding after 12
months, that takes nothing away from "any soldier already in a combat
zone". It simply says he must be removed before the funding expires. If
he's not removed, that's the CinC's decision, not Congress's. All your
talk about not denying our troops in battle is pure drivel. Remove the
funding and they'll be out of there pronto.

I don't know what happened to today's Democrat but you folks are not
liberals in the vein of JFK or Truman or FDR anymore than the hippy
dippies were in the 1970's. The liberals of the past were American
patriots. Democrats like Audie Murphy were soldiers of the highest
order and yet choose to build America by offering a hand up.
Today's left also has it's hand out but not to help those behind them
but for a handout. You are not American liberals but more Eurolibs or
socialists who are as as selfish as an repug. You are the Democrats
who helped elect Bush with your stupid anti American ridiculous brand
of faux compassion that is reserved for every animal, plant and human
as long as it never benefits America or Americans.

Tell me how it benefits America or Americans to slaughter 70 nomads in
Somalia, or most of a wedding party in Anbar Province, or the recent
slaughter of a couple hundred Iraqi tribesmen on pilgrimage to Najaf,
two tribes who have tried to foster Sunni-Shiite unity.

The American people are starting to see the light. Over 60% understand
that our militarism makes the world less safe and terrorism more likely.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/284.php?nid=&id=&pnt=284&lb=hmpg1


It's of no benefit to me whatsoever for US corporations to control
Middle Eastern oil. Oil is fungible, and those who have an abundance of
it have no use for it but to sell it. Attempting to control it only adds
to its total cost. Control of it benefits only US elites, not schmucks
like you or me.

Already Bush is proposing tripling the cost military retirees pay for
their 'free' healthcare. What he tried to do to social security he is
doing to military healthcare. And what really lights my fire is how
you idiots think all military spending is for bombs and bullets - no
nitwit

Ah, yes. "Nitwit" seems to be one of your favorite terms, isn't it?
Wasn't it you who a few weeks back first pretended to believe we have
to stay in Iraq to help the Iraqis and called me a "nitwit"? When I
proved you were being duped by the Straussian philosophers, you
admitted to not caring one whit for Iraqis. In effect, you admitted to
being a liar and dissembler yourself, rather than bear the lable of
"dupe" or "useful idiot".

No, dimwit. You never proved anything other than your socialism.

Where are you getting this "socialism" crap? Oh, you think because I see
a germ of truth in an article in a socialist publication, I must be a
socialist! You assume that because your mind is narrow and incapable of
considering a diversity of opinion, everyone else's must be the same.
Therefor, only socialists read socialist publications.

What I did say was that Iraq never should have happened - but it did
and we have an obligation to fix what we broke.

I explained to you how our various goals are at cross-purposes. That's
why we are incapable of fixing it and should allow the Iraqis to fix it
themselves. The pottery barn rule does not apply other than paying
reparations. The applicable rule is "cleanup on isle four". If you break
a bottle of catsup, you might pay for the damage, but you allow store
personnel to clean up the mess. You certainly don't start shooting the
employees.

Only AFTER I carefully explained all this to your weak mind did you
allow as how you didn't care about Iraqis anyway, all you really cared
about was US hegemony in the Middle East, not fixing what was broke. You
dim-wittedly exposed yourself as a liar and dissembler.

You on the other hand think isolationism is the way to go. Typical.

You really aren't all that concerned with military retirement or
healthcare, are you? You're probably making big bucks somewhere in the
private sector, with healthcare from your defense contractor corporate
employer.

What a laugh - typical socialist - No dimwit I don't need my
retirement to survive but many service members do and unlike you I
don't need something to effect me personally to stand up for what is
right and just. You on the other hand are a tit sucker who's focus in
only on that tit and what you can get out of it.

In your entire life, you've produced nothing but violence and
destruction. I spent that time teaching kids, then producing computer
systems used in business. I never needed nor asked for your protection.
I have two oceans to protect me, and they would have worked just fine if
it hadn't been for you. Nobody blows themselves up or flies planes into
buildings in Sweden or Switzerland.

But I don't hold all that against you. I know your small mind is too
puny to grasp that truth, and that you were raised on all the
super-patriot propaganda and duped by our elites into fighting for their
corporate profits. Even though I personally never asked you to waste
your life doing all that, I'll honor the commitment my government made
to you and others. I'll do that not because anybody owes it to you. You
should have known better. Ignorance is no excuse. I'll do it because I
have compassion even for dumb fucks like you.

You feign concern for military retirees and families, but

your real fear is your corporate employer will lose some contracts.
You'll use any deception you can find, including claiming I've
proposed something I in fact oppose, to try to discredit my position.
You should go get a real job, like teaching in the inner city.

What a laugh. I don't do 'feign' I leave that to the greedy bastards
who's concern is not about the country but only their fat ***** - that
would be your fat ***** - right Roody

What a laugh. I'm retired I don't have a 'corporate employer'. Really
amazes you far left ***** whan you run up against a real liberal that
loves this country more than a tit mouse doesn't it?

You were a transparent nitwit then, and you're still a nitwit now.

An you are still unoriginal and dim. Now get back to suckling on
America's tit before someone else takes your spot.

You never refuted a thing I said in that earlier post weeks ago. You
were reduced to admitting perfidy in preference to being a dupe of
Straussian philosophers, which is how you showed yourself to be the
dimwit you had claimed me to be. You really have no arguments; you can
only call names and resort to juvenile insults.

all you indicate is the dire need of a national service requirement
so the entire population has some idea of the daily sacrifice their
fellow Americans make while in the service of their military.

Again, I've never proposed a national service requirement. I oppose
it. It is involuntary servitude, slavery. Besides, there is no such
thing as "universal" service because the children of the elites always
have an out if they want it.

Who said you did DimWit?

You did. If you didn't, you should learn to say what you mean and mean
what you say. You said I "indicate" the dire need of a national service
requirement. I took that to mean you think I favor a draft. You've
attributed many other positions to me that I don't take, so it was
certainly no great leap to interpret your words that way.

You on the other hand need to be stood up and propped up by the
sacrifice of others. You need a national service requirement more than
most.
There was never any such thing as Social Security one time before real
liberals fought for and won it.

You're a real piece of work, aren't you? You spend most of your post
ranting and raving about spineless Democrats then hold up Social
Security as a great accomplishment (which it is). It's those "spineless
Democrats" who refused to allow it to be gutted two years ago, and most
of the Republicans you seem to love so much call it "socialism".

You get now before thet tit runs out of milk.

No, I'll leave it for you. I earned my retirement with productive work
in the private sector that served my fellow man in at least some small
capacity. You, on the other hand, spent your entire life suckling at
government, contributing nothing whatsoever to mankind but destruction.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:55:12 -0600, Gene <CW4@USA.RET> wrote:

No, dimwit. You never proved anything other than your socialism. What
I did say was that Iraq never should have happened - but it did and we
have an obligation to fix what we broke.

IMO we can best do that by getting out of the way and letting Iran and
the House of Saud settle their own differences. Meanwhile, what Bush
wants for Iraq, he should get. Give him his rope. Saddam didn't get
quite enough.

NP on CNN:

Just as Malaki calls for unity during a speech in Baghdad today, a
massive explosion ripped through a clothing and perfume market.
Minutes later as he expressed his confidence in Iraq's security
forces, a second explosion killed more. Both explosions were loudly
audible at his rally.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bush needs all the help he can get.

Swill

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:55:12 -0600, Gene <CW4@USA.RET> wrote:

The supplimentals pay for the war. The budget pays for everything else.
You want to stop the war then tell your Democratic representative

What about telling your Republican representative?

to not
allow the supplimental spending and then watch him vote to allow them
because he knows that the middle elects the presidents these days
and the middle is not going to allow any soldier already in a combat zone
go without anything that protects his life

Which is exactly why Bush should be given whatever resources he wants
for his war. The second reason is to prove that the Democrats didn't
lose us this war by denying the Executive the resources to pursue it
as he sees fit.

because half the country is

*was*

truely greedy/stupid enough to vote for Bush and millions of far left
idiots voted for Nader knowing it was a wasted vote - twice.

*applause*

I don't know what happened to today's Democrat but you folks are not
liberals in the vein of JFK or Truman or FDR anymore than the hippy
dippies were in the 1970's. The liberals of the past were American
patriots. Democrats like Audie Murphy were soldiers of the highest order
and yet choose to build America by offering a hand up.

Just as the Republicans of today are certainly not conservatives or
patriots.

Today's left also has it's hand out but not to help those behind them but
for a handout. You are not American liberals but more Eurolibs or
socialists who are as as selfish as an repug. You are the Democrats who
helped elect Bush with your stupid anti American ridiculous brand of faux
compassion that is reserved for every animal, plant and human as long as
it never benefits America or Americans.

As with politicians, voters sometimes have trouble taking
responsibility for actions. The Naderites who decry Bush's
appointment need only look to themselves for the reason he was
elected. As for mainstream Democrats, they should have turned out the
vote.

Swill

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:55:12 -0600, Gene <CW4@USA.RET> wrote:

There is only the defense department budget. It contains every
requirement for the Defense Department. If congress cuts the DOD
budget then Bush will still pay for the war and take the money awat
from housing, VA hospitals, retired pay and all the other personnel
requirements he will do that and the war will continue.

It's not like he hasn't already cut Veterans and Education budgets.
His NCLB funding debacle is going to be laughed at for decades.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:55:12 -0600, Gene <CW4@USA.RET> wrote:

There was never any such thing as Social Security one time before real
liberals fought for and won it.

There was never any need. Social Security is a direct result of an
urbanized society. When FAMILIES lived on FARMS and had to grow their
own food and had LOTS of KIDS, they tended to their elderly
themselves. With the lousy medical care, they knew they wouldn't have
to put up with the old farts for very long.

But as birth rates dropped and society became more industrialized and
commercialized, a need was seen and SS was designed to fill it.

To get rid of SS, you're going to need to kill two thirds of the
population, shut down the cities and sharply curtail the manufacturing
and finance sectors. And then hope you can get both birth and death
rates high enough to make the trappings of a modern, wealthy,
industrialized society a thing of the past.

Of course this would require the abandonment of medical science as
well but hey, who cares really? Getting rid of Social Security is
worth destroying our country and way of life for!

/sarcasm

Swill

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:55:12 -0600, Gene <CW4@USA.RET> wrote:

There was never any such thing as Social Security one time before real
liberals fought for and won it.

There was never any need. Social Security is a direct result of an
urbanized society. When FAMILIES lived on FARMS and had to grow their
own food and had LOTS of KIDS, they tended to their elderly
themselves. With the lousy medical care, they knew they wouldn't have
to put up with the old farts for very long.

But as birth rates dropped and society became more industrialized and
commercialized, a need was seen and SS was designed to fill it.

To get rid of SS, you're going to need to kill two thirds of the
population, shut down the cities and