Skip to main content

Who said democrats weren't for tax cuts. The great American and Representative Alan Grayson has introduced this act to cut taxes, lower the deficit, and restore some sanity to Washington.
This video covers his introduction of the act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0_TtYQEDTo

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5353/show

It is my understanding that Ron Paul has signed on as a co sponsor.

Watch the video.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
What do you even say to that? You would have had us stay out of WWII and you expect reasonable people to agree with you?


Really, with all due respect...what the hell are you talking about?

What does any of this have to do WWII...because you incorrectly claim "we tried isolationism and it didn't work"?

Not policing the world is not the same as isolationism...Noninterventionism IS NOT the same as isolationism...And we were NEITHER in the pre-WWII years...

All this was addressed in another recent thread...I guess you missed it...
quote:
What do you even say to that? You would have had us stay out of WWII and you expect reasonable people to agree with you?


Can I assume you mean that we were "isolationist" before WW2? We weren't. We were in WW2. We were involved in the affairs of countries in WW2 prior to our entry, If you want to have a discussion about WW2, that's fine. When you deem me unreasonable after reasoning that "isolationism" doesn't work by using an example of a war we were in, well, I really don't know what to tell you.
I think the real story here is that the U.S. spends more money on defense than all other nations combined. When you add the fact that NATO is second to us and our ally, that accounts for almost 75% of the worlds expenditure on military spending between us both.

We outspend Russia 10 to 1, and China 5 to 1.
Now, really, just who is the real threat?

People need to get familiar with this Neo con document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This document outlines a plan of America's imperialism in the world.

http://www.newamericancentury....AmericasDefenses.pdf

http://www.informationclearing...info/article3249.htm

This link shows Bush planned a regime change in Iraq before he became president.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

Remember "War is Peace".
More insight into this document that promotes American Hedgemony.

quote:
Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq
On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[4][18]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[19] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[20][21][22][23]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1]


9/11 was absolutely crucial to this plan. They needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to get the American public on board. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the Bush Administration at all. His was an administration built for war.

quote:
"New Pearl Harbor"
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[13]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[37][38][39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.[42]


9/11 was at the least a convenient event, at it's worse a secretly funded and purposely staged event. When looking at the Bush admin in hindsight, it's easy to believe it was on purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...New_American_Century
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
I think the real story here is that the U.S. spends more money on defense than all other nations combined. When you add the fact that NATO is second to us and our ally, that accounts for almost 75% of the worlds expenditure on military spending between us both.

We outspend Russia 10 to 1, and China 5 to 1.
Now, really, just who is the real threat?

People need to get familiar with this Neo con document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This document outlines a plan of America's imperialism in the world.

http://www.newamericancentury....AmericasDefenses.pdf

http://www.informationclearing...info/article3249.htm

This link shows Bush planned a regime change in Iraq before he became president.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

Remember "War is Peace".


Please give your cite for the 10 to 1 over the Soviets. Best I've read was four to one. A good portion of that included pay for troops, heavy airlift and the navy. The US paid their troops, vs. a serf based army paid almost nothing. Most Soviet troops got money from their family to survive. The US needed a heavy lift air force as there was an ocean to cross. The Soviet forces were right there. Likewise, the US needed a blue water navy to supply its forces and keep the trade lanes open. Numbers wise, the Soviet ground forces including infantry, tanks and artillery greatly outnumbered the NATO forces.
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
More insight into this document that promotes American Hedgemony.

quote:
Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq
On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[4][18]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[19] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[20][21][22][23]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1]


9/11 was absolutely crucial to this plan. They needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to get the American public on board. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the Bush Administration at all. His was an administration built for war.

quote:
"New Pearl Harbor"
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[13]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[37][38][39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.[42]


9/11 was at the least a convenient event, at it's worse a secretly funded and purposely staged event. When looking at the Bush admin in hindsight, it's easy to believe it was on purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...New_American_Century


OK, juggie, now your a truther. That's really going over the deep end. Your delusions make the birthers appear to be persons of sweet reason. For what reason or purpose would Bush even participate in such madness? Not, for some lavish lifestyle, he lives the life of the medium upper class. There's no great palace or signs of great wealth. He lives within the limits of good but not lavish family fortune. There's no logic to you accusations.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
More insight into this document that promotes American Hedgemony.

quote:
Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq
On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[4][18]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[19] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[20][21][22][23]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1]


9/11 was absolutely crucial to this plan. They needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to get the American public on board. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the Bush Administration at all. His was an administration built for war.

quote:
"New Pearl Harbor"
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[13]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[37][38][39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.[42]


9/11 was at the least a convenient event, at it's worse a secretly funded and purposely staged event. When looking at the Bush admin in hindsight, it's easy to believe it was on purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...New_American_Century


OK, juggie, now you're a truther. That's really going over the deep end. Your delusions make the birthers appear to be persons of sweet reason. For what reason or purpose would Bush even participate in such madness? Not, for some lavish lifestyle, he lives the life of the medium upper class. There's no great palace or signs of great wealth. He lives within the limits of good but not lavish family fortune. There's no logic to you accusations.
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
Why don't you and Ron Paul just disband the military altogether and see where that gets you.


Yeah, nobody said that. But it is generally considered bad to spend money on policing the world. The man is making very good points. The wars are a huge sink of money, and I don't understand why neocons are so for policing the world. This isn't disbanding anything, it is just making the military go by their budget.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×