knapplc Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 It's not missing...the Captain wants to live in Montana. And he will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for him. And he will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Perhaps he will need... two wives. 2 Link to comment
Moesker Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 The US doesn't "love war". Now, we haven't been scared to go to war and we believe a strong defense is important. But, that doesn't mean we as a population just loves going to war. If you polled the US population, you would find that a vast majority believe it is important to maintain a strong military but at the same time, hope and pray we never need to use it. Of course the population doesn't love it...but they never are the ones making the call are they? 2 Link to comment
NUance Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 The US doesn't "love war". Now, we haven't been scared to go to war and we believe a strong defense is important. But, that doesn't mean we as a population just loves going to war. If you polled the US population, you would find that a vast majority believe it is important to maintain a strong military but at the same time, hope and pray we never need to use it. Of course the population doesn't love it...but they never are the ones making the call are they? That's the way it is with a LOT of big decisions. The decision makers decide upon something that impacts a bunch of other people, but doesn't negatively affect themselves. Like all the U.S. mfg plants that were closed in the 70s, 80s and 90s. The CEOs who closed those plants weren't put out of work. And it's not like their kids were going to be working on some factory floor somewere. In fact the CEOs (and other decision makers) actually profited from each plant closing when their stock options rose due to a bump in incremental profits. So the CEO actually made out better by closing a U.S. factory, even though it put a thousand American workers out of a job. The same thing happened with the health care legislation a few years back. Congress passed the healthcare bill that applies to all citizens—except themselves. They put in a little known amendment that set up a separate, sweetheart deal for their own special Congressional healthcare coverage. Or we could talk about taxes. Congress regularly passes tax hikes. Yet *they* don't pay any federal income tax themselves. They are exempt. And, getting back to the topic of this thread, when Congress (and the President) get us into a war they know that it will kill and maim many tens of thousands of Americans. But their own families will go largely unscathed. And lobbyists will line their pockets. Sorry for the thread derail. /gets off soapbox. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 The US doesn't "love war". Now, we haven't been scared to go to war and we believe a strong defense is important. But, that doesn't mean we as a population just loves going to war. If you polled the US population, you would find that a vast majority believe it is important to maintain a strong military but at the same time, hope and pray we never need to use it. Of course the population doesn't love it...but they never are the ones making the call are they? So.....you are saying the President LOVES to go to war. I don't know of one President that just loved to go to war. I know some that weren't scared to go to war. But, I don't know of any that just woke up in the morning saying...DAMN...I hope I can find someone to attack today. Link to comment
huKSer Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Maybe they didn't shut the screen door before they submerged. 2 Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Somewhere James Franco is VERY afraid Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 US loves $$ War == $$ $$ gets US more war toys US loves war toys How about we settle on saying the U.S. Military Industrial Complex loves war, since it's good for business, and leave it at that? Link to comment
Moesker Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 The US doesn't "love war". Now, we haven't been scared to go to war and we believe a strong defense is important. But, that doesn't mean we as a population just loves going to war. If you polled the US population, you would find that a vast majority believe it is important to maintain a strong military but at the same time, hope and pray we never need to use it. Of course the population doesn't love it...but they never are the ones making the call are they? So.....you are saying the President LOVES to go to war. I don't know of one President that just loved to go to war. I know some that weren't scared to go to war. But, I don't know of any that just woke up in the morning saying...DAMN...I hope I can find someone to attack today. I am saying that there are many politicians that do love to go to war and probably profit pretty well by doing so. That is why the US gets to play world cop almost every opportunity to do so. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 The US doesn't "love war". Now, we haven't been scared to go to war and we believe a strong defense is important. But, that doesn't mean we as a population just loves going to war. If you polled the US population, you would find that a vast majority believe it is important to maintain a strong military but at the same time, hope and pray we never need to use it. Of course the population doesn't love it...but they never are the ones making the call are they? So.....you are saying the President LOVES to go to war. I don't know of one President that just loved to go to war. I know some that weren't scared to go to war. But, I don't know of any that just woke up in the morning saying...DAMN...I hope I can find someone to attack today. I am saying that there are many politicians that do love to go to war and probably profit pretty well by doing so. That is why the US gets to play world cop almost every opportunity to do so. Who? Link to comment
Red Dead Redemption Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 Maybe they didn't shut the screen door before they submerged. Lmao /thread Link to comment
Red Dead Redemption Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 US loves $$ War == $$ $$ gets US more war toys US loves war toys How about we settle on saying the U.S. Military Industrial Complex loves war, since it's good for business, and leave it at that? Do you like gladiator movies? Link to comment
Moesker Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 The US doesn't "love war". Now, we haven't been scared to go to war and we believe a strong defense is important. But, that doesn't mean we as a population just loves going to war. If you polled the US population, you would find that a vast majority believe it is important to maintain a strong military but at the same time, hope and pray we never need to use it. Of course the population doesn't love it...but they never are the ones making the call are they? So.....you are saying the President LOVES to go to war. I don't know of one President that just loved to go to war. I know some that weren't scared to go to war. But, I don't know of any that just woke up in the morning saying...DAMN...I hope I can find someone to attack today. I am saying that there are many politicians that do love to go to war and probably profit pretty well by doing so. That is why the US gets to play world cop almost every opportunity to do so. Who? This is from 2008...hopefully you are not naive enough to think anything has changed. According to the latest reports, 151 members of Congress invested close to a quarter-billion in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the watchdog group OMBWatch. Congressmen gave themselves a loophole so they only have to report their assets in broad ranges. Thus, they can be off as much as 160 percent. (Try giving the IRS an estimate like that.) In 2004, the first full year after the present Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers—both hawks and doves—invested between $74.9 million and $161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to the Republicans’ “only” $577,500. As the war raged on, so did the billions of profits—and personal investments by Congress members in war contractors, which increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006. Investments in these contractors yielded Congress members between $15.8 million and $62 million in personal income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who garnered the most income from war contractors between 2004 and 2006: Sensenbrenner got at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaped at least $2.6 million. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees which oversee the Iraq war had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DoD contracts. War hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (IConn.), chairman of the defense-related Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted for Bush’s war, had stock in defense companies, such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007. Of the 151 members whose investments are tied to the “defense” (war) industry, as far as we know, not one of them offered to donate their bloodstained profits to the national treasury to offset the terrible debt they have imposed. Has one of them even offered to donate one cent of their war profits to lessen the debt that increases more than $1 million a minute? When our boys and girls are wounded the government bills them to return their reenlistment bonus. They have to return any pay they received while they were hospitalized. They have to pay for their helmets and uniforms that are destroyed in the hell of war. But they keep on fighting for these politicians’ right to keep their war profits. • Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $3,001,006 to $5,015,001 • Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $250,001 to $500,000 • Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Tex.) $162,074 to $162,074 • Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) $115,002 to $300,000 • Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $115,002 to $300,000 • Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $100,870 to $100,870 • Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) $65,646 to $65,646 • Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $50,008 to $227,000 • Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) $50,001 to $100,000 • Rep. Stephen Ira Cohen (D-Tenn.) $45,003 to $150,000 http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/151_congressmen_derive_financi.html Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I don't like the investments. However, that doesn't mean these people just LOVED sending our young men and women off to die in a war. Link to comment
Red Dead Redemption Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 I don't like the investments. However, that doesn't mean these people just LOVED sending our young men and women off to die in a war. Then it's a good thing that nobody said that's what anybody loves about war. Are there other things that nobody said that you'd like to discuss? Link to comment
Moesker Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I don't like the investments. However, that doesn't mean these people just LOVED sending our young men and women off to die in a war. I don't like the investments. However, that doesn't mean these people just LOVED sending our young men and women off to die in a war. No, they LOVE to look out for themselves. Troops and other peoples money are irrelevant to their own interests. Link to comment
Recommended Posts