Skip to main content

43 replies

Conservatives/Tea Party okay with war spending?????

ButtercupButtercupPost Master
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

J JobeHall of Famer
You need to get your facts straight. I’ve never heard of the TEA party being ok with war spending. Americans are taxed more than enough to cover the poor, infrastructure, etc. Our money is being wasted by the left in Washington (just look at obama’s stimulus spending, nothing but waste) but lefties like you don’t care. I’m certain you are one of the many with their hand out wanting something else for free.

The right has complained about overspending, even within their own party. Speaking of the war, your president was gonna get us out of these wars as soon as he became president. What happen with that?

And just so you will know, we are far less safe since obama became president. It’s obvious he’s not on our side.

People such as yourself need to get your hand out of my wallet.
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
quote:
How much did the September 11 terrorist attack cost America?

Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion.
http://www.iags.org/costof911.html

I guess liberals/socialists are cool with massive urban renewal projects when large buildings and neighborhoods are destroyed.
T tcf531Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?


they dont mind spending money invading other countries and killing innocent women and children, as long as they dont have to pay for the poor old woman down the street insulin shots.
MA mad AmericanPost Master
What would you do to our enemies? Kiss their ass like our current oval office occupant. Our soldiers are killing terrorist whether you like it or not. For some reason obama is carrying on the effort. The only way for the United States to have peace is to not shrink from eliminating our enemies. And our soldiers are not killing innocent women and children. The terrorist are hidigng behind the women and children.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
You need to get your facts straight. I’ve never heard of the TEA party being ok with war spending. Americans are taxed more than enough to cover the poor, infrastructure, etc. Our money is being wasted by the left in Washington (just look at obama’s stimulus spending, nothing but waste) but lefties like you don’t care. I’m certain you are one of the many with their hand out wanting something else for free.

The right has complained about overspending, even within their own party. Speaking of the war, your president was gonna get us out of these wars as soon as he became president. What happen with that?

And just so you will know, we are far less safe since obama became president. It’s obvious he’s not on our side.

People such as yourself need to get your hand out of my wallet.


How are we less safe? Have we been attacked since Obama took office?

And my hand is not in your wallet. Chances are excellent I make more money and pay more taxes than you.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
What would you do to our enemies? Kiss their ass like our current oval office occupant. Our soldiers are killing terrorist whether you like it or not. For some reason obama is carrying on the effort. The only way for the United States to have peace is to not shrink from eliminating our enemies. And our soldiers are not killing innocent women and children. The terrorist are hidigng behind the women and children.


So the only way to deal with our enemies is to start expensive wars? Wow, that's some black-and-white thinking. How about cutting them off financially? How about better intelligence? No, let's just invade a country and push our way of life on them when they clearly don't want it.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
How much did the September 11 terrorist attack cost America?

Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion.
http://www.iags.org/costof911.html

I guess liberals/socialists are cool with massive urban renewal projects when large buildings and neighborhoods are destroyed.


What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the September 11 attacks? We were attacked by a faction, not two countries. Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were behind it, not IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

And I never at any point said terrorists don't exist and we shouldn't deal with them, or we weren't attacked, blah, blah, blah. This is going to be hard for some of you to believe but you can accept the fact that there are terrorists who hate Americans without being for the wars. So don't try to go there.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
Again, our soldiers are killing terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan.


And how long do we keep spending money on this? How do you measure enough? Neither country will ever accept our way of life and the terrorists certainly aren't going to suddenly give in.

There will always be groups of terrorists who hate us. We need to keep our focus on these groups that pop up with better intelligence - something we've lacked for a while.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
As long as it takes. Our enemies count on us surrendering and coming home with our tails between our legs. It is unfortunate that we are at war, but I would rather the war be over there than over here.


And what if we discover significant anti-American terrorist factions in Australia, Japan, France? These are countries we're generally on good terms with. Do we invade them?

Again, there will always be groups of people who hate us that live all over the world, including inside our own borders. So we invade everyone and declare war? I don't think we have enough soldiers for that.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
We do what is necessary to kill our enemies, not kiss their ass.


You didn't answer my questions. I realize you may not be a military person, but you do have a strong opinion on it. So, logistically speaking, how do we invade every country that has anti-American terrorist groups?
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
How much did the September 11 terrorist attack cost America?

Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion.
http://www.iags.org/costof911.html

I guess liberals/socialists are cool with massive urban renewal projects when large buildings and neighborhoods are destroyed.


What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the September 11 attacks? We were attacked by a faction, not two countries. Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were behind it, not IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

And I never at any point said terrorists don't exist and we shouldn't deal with them, or we weren't attacked, blah, blah, blah. This is going to be hard for some of you to believe but you can accept the fact that there are terrorists who hate Americans without being for the wars. So don't try to go there.


Osama received sanctuary from Talib. And, refused to turn him over.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
How much did the September 11 terrorist attack cost America?

Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion.
http://www.iags.org/costof911.html

I guess liberals/socialists are cool with massive urban renewal projects when large buildings and neighborhoods are destroyed.


What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the September 11 attacks? We were attacked by a faction, not two countries. Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were behind it, not IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

And I never at any point said terrorists don't exist and we shouldn't deal with them, or we weren't attacked, blah, blah, blah. This is going to be hard for some of you to believe but you can accept the fact that there are terrorists who hate Americans without being for the wars. So don't try to go there.


Osama received sanctuary from Talib. And, refused to turn him over.


The Taliban is not a country; it's a political movement. It was overthrown but has since regrouped. They're based in Afghanistan; our troops are in Afghanistan. How did they regain power if our troops being there is so effective?
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
quote:
What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the September 11 attacks? We were attacked by a faction, not two countries. Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were behind it, not IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.


Al-Qaeda was protected by the Taliban government in Afghanistan and would not surrender those who wrought 911. Since the Taliban were giving aid and comfort to those who attacked and murdered American citizens, they also became legitimate targets.

As for Saddam Hussein, google the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Congress and President Clinton made the removal of Saddam Hussein a national priority. Pardon W. for following through. As far as Saddam and terrorism, Saddam and Al Qaeda may have not forged an alliance, but Saddam Hussein was no stranger to terrorists.

quote:
WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/r...errorist-ties/72906/
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the September 11 attacks? We were attacked by a faction, not two countries. Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were behind it, not IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.


Al-Qaeda was protected by the Taliban government in Afghanistan and would not surrender those who wrought 911. Since the Taliban were giving aid and comfort to those who attacked and murdered American citizens, they also became legitimate targets.

As for Saddam Hussein, google the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Congress and President Clinton made the removal of Saddam Hussein a national priority. Pardon W. for following through. As far as Saddam and terrorism, Saddam and Al Qaeda may have not forged an alliance, but Saddam Hussein was no stranger to terrorists.

quote:
WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/r...errorist-ties/72906/


I see where you're going but, again, the Taliban is not the country of Afghanistan.

Look, there are plenty of people who disagree with our government but (I don't think) they hold everyone in the U.S. responsible for the decisions our government makes.
T tcf531Hall of Famer
as much as i disliked reagans economic policy, I LOVED his foreign policy. Instead of miring us in an unwinnable war against an idea, he would have laid the bombs to Afghanistan and asked if anyone else wanted to mess with us.
That is what should have happened this time. Winning a war against an ideal is like winning the war on drugs, never gonna happen.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
We did, Have you all forgotten we bombed Afghanistan first?

The War in Afghanistan is an ongoing coalition conflict which began on October 7, 2001,[28] as the US military's Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) that was launched, along with the British military, in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. The UK has, since 2002, led its own military operation, Operation Herrick, as part of the same war in Afghanistan. The character of the war evolved from a violent struggle against Al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters to a complex counterinsurgency effort.

The first phase of the war was the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, to remove the safe haven to Al-Qaeda and its use of the Afghan territory as a base of operations for terrorist activities. In that first phase, U.S. and coalition forces, working with the Afghan opposition forces of the Northern Alliance, quickly ousted the Taliban regime. During the following Karzai administration, the character of the war shifted to an effort aimed at smothering insurgency, in which the insurgents preferred not to directly confront the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops, but blended into the local population and mainly used improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and suicide bombings.
midknightridermidknightriderHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
Question: Where was this Tea Party when George Bush was running up the deficit? Funny, they only started complaining when Obama took office.


Like I said in the other thread...some have been complaining for years. You just weren't listening. A lot of people are starting to figure out that the Democrats aren't worth a crap and Republicans aren't much better. As long as we keep voting for them that's what we'll keep getting...business as usual. Only since the TEA Party has become a threat do people start listening and attacking.

Whether it's for defense or social programs is irrelevant, spending money we don't have is a bad thing. The government has been a poor steward of our money for years. We should have stopped digging the hole...oh, I don't know... after the first twenty years. At that point it was blatantly obvious that we couldn't continue forever.

This is merely an attempt to use past bad behavior to justify current bad behavior.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
How much did the September 11 terrorist attack cost America?

Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion.
http://www.iags.org/costof911.html

I guess liberals/socialists are cool with massive urban renewal projects when large buildings and neighborhoods are destroyed.


What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the September 11 attacks? We were attacked by a faction, not two countries. Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were behind it, not IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

And I never at any point said terrorists don't exist and we shouldn't deal with them, or we weren't attacked, blah, blah, blah. This is going to be hard for some of you to believe but you can accept the fact that there are terrorists who hate Americans without being for the wars. So don't try to go there.


Osama received sanctuary from Talib. And, refused to turn him over.


The Taliban is not a country; it's a political movement. It was overthrown but has since regrouped. They're based in Afghanistan; our troops are in Afghanistan. How did they regain power if our troops being there is so effective?



Unfortunately, for several years, Afghanistan was treated as a minor theater. The Talib hid in western tribal Pakistan. Now, with Afghanistan treated as a major theater, and the Pakistani military seriously engaged, the Talib are being seriously challenged, as are al Qaeda. The Pakistani leadership finally realized the Talib are an existential threat to them. And, their nuclear weapons, in the wrong hands, are an existential threat to the west.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?


Where did you get your info? You're mistaking the TEA party's support of the troops for support of the war. I have 2 sons in the Army, One has been in Iraq the other is in Afghanistan. The troops have my full support. However, I do feel we are wasting billions of taxpayer money. It doesn't end with Iraq and Afganistan either. We need to bring our tropps home from everywhere. Our country spends about 48% of the global spending on defense. We need to take care of ourselves and let some of these other countries start paying for their own defense.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by tcf531:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?


they dont mind spending money invading other countries and killing innocent women and children, as long as they dont have to pay for the poor old woman down the street insulin shots.


I love posts like this, It really shows your intelligence.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
Again, our soldiers are killing terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attact on 9/11. In fact Saddam , although a terrible person, hated Al Queda and didn't allow them in his country, and kept Iran in check as well.

Face it, we invaded Iraq so that American oil companies could make the profits from all that Iraqi oil, as Saddam would not give any oil contracts to American oil companies, only Indian, Russian, and French. The "war" in Iraq was fought as a surrogate army for American oil companies, and the cost will probably come close to TWO TRILLION DOLLARS before it is all done. That would have paid for a lot of infrastructure here at home, and while you right wing-nuts hate the idea of controlling medical insurance companies, our tax dollars was paying for FREE medical care for Iraqis and build them new schools and infrastructure over there.

On the other hand, because Obama has been building relationships with leaders in other countries, he is not hated by the rest of the world like Bush was, and we are getting more co-operation from our allies in intelligence gathering . Matter of fact, we have probably captured or killed more of Al Queda since he has been president than while Bush was ruining the country.
We are safer now than then, and probably will continue to improve our situation.
Bush actually quit fighting Al Queda when he decided to steal Iraqi oil and he put all his effort into Iraq. Wrong move.
Tomme73Tomme73Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?


How long has it been since WWII? Korea? We've got bases in Germany, Japan and Korea, but you're not complaining about them? Why not? We've got Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen serving all over the world. Should we just pull them all back home and let the world fend for itself?
Are you a fan of paying MORE taxes? If so, you obviously haven't been paying enough thus far. Let the ones who are all for more taxation be the ones to pay those extra taxes. Heck, why not cut Washington's payroll by 50% and divert that money to the deficit? Every Senator, Congressperson, etc should sell all of their net worth that's over $1 million and use it to fund Obamacare. That's fair, isn't it? I've been working for 20 years and still haven't reached the half-a-million mark in total earnings. Since Social Security won't be around when I retire, I'd like to opt out of paying into it and I'll take my $22,000 I've paid in as a lump sum, Uncle Sam! That will go a long way for stimulating my economy.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?


How long has it been since WWII? Korea? We've got bases in Germany, Japan and Korea, but you're not complaining about them? Why not? We've got Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen serving all over the world. Should we just pull them all back home and let the world fend for itself?
Are you a fan of paying MORE taxes? If so, you obviously haven't been paying enough thus far. Let the ones who are all for more taxation be the ones to pay those extra taxes. Heck, why not cut Washington's payroll by 50% and divert that money to the deficit? Every Senator, Congressperson, etc should sell all of their net worth that's over $1 million and use it to fund Obamacare. That's fair, isn't it? I've been working for 20 years and still haven't reached the half-a-million mark in total earnings. Since Social Security won't be around when I retire, I'd like to opt out of paying into it and I'll take my $22,000 I've paid in as a lump sum, Uncle Sam! That will go a long way for stimulating my economy.


You ask: "Should we just pull them all back home and let the world fend for itself?"

Ummm, yes. Why should we be charged with taking care of the rest of the world's problems with OUR tax dollars, especially when we don't have enough tax revenue to take care of our own?????
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?


Where did you get your info? You're mistaking the TEA party's support of the troops for support of the war. I have 2 sons in the Army, One has been in Iraq the other is in Afghanistan. The troops have my full support. However, I do feel we are wasting billions of taxpayer money. It doesn't end with Iraq and Afganistan either. We need to bring our tropps home from everywhere. Our country spends about 48% of the global spending on defense. We need to take care of ourselves and let some of these other countries start paying for their own defense.


I think Buttercup is purposely mistaking TEA Party support of the war...It seems his/her real ax to grind is the Afghan/Iraq war.

As far as the TEA Party people they have been polled umpteen times...and it seems there are at least 2 distinct camps. 40 some odd percent support Ron Paul...and another 40 some odd percent support Sarah Palin. With each NOT supporting the other's candidate...but finding common ground on opposing the gargantuan growth of the federal government.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?


Where did you get your info? You're mistaking the TEA party's support of the troops for support of the war. I have 2 sons in the Army, One has been in Iraq the other is in Afghanistan. The troops have my full support. However, I do feel we are wasting billions of taxpayer money. It doesn't end with Iraq and Afganistan either. We need to bring our tropps home from everywhere. Our country spends about 48% of the global spending on defense. We need to take care of ourselves and let some of these other countries start paying for their own defense.


I think Buttercup is purposely mistaking TEA Party support of the war...It seems his/her real ax to grind is the Afghan/Iraq war.

As far as the TEA Party people they have been polled umpteen times...and it seems there are at least 2 distinct camps. 40 some odd percent support Ron Paul...and another 40 some odd percent support Sarah Palin. With each NOT supporting the other's candidate...but finding common ground on opposing the gargantuan growth of the federal government.


I don't know whether or not all Tea Partiers support the war. What I said is the Tea Party people don't seem to have a problem with war spending, like they do for spending on other things.
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
So the TEA Party thinks they're Taxed Enough Already when it comes to helping the poor, fixing our failing infrastructure, etc., but have no issue with continued spending on the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

$900 billion is the figure that's so far been approved to spend on these wars through September 2010. (This, of course, doesn't include what we've spent since 2003.) The taxpayers are picking up that tab, yet none of you have a problem with it, or at least you never say anything about it.

So tell me, are we safer since these wars started in 2003? Seven years and we still can't pull out, is that success? How much longer do we stay and spend and when do we start spending that cash on our needs (and there are many) here at home?


Where did you get your info? You're mistaking the TEA party's support of the troops for support of the war. I have 2 sons in the Army, One has been in Iraq the other is in Afghanistan. The troops have my full support. However, I do feel we are wasting billions of taxpayer money. It doesn't end with Iraq and Afganistan either. We need to bring our tropps home from everywhere. Our country spends about 48% of the global spending on defense. We need to take care of ourselves and let some of these other countries start paying for their own defense.


I think Buttercup is purposely mistaking TEA Party support of the war...It seems his/her real ax to grind is the Afghan/Iraq war.

As far as the TEA Party people they have been polled umpteen times...and it seems there are at least 2 distinct camps. 40 some odd percent support Ron Paul...and another 40 some odd percent support Sarah Palin. With each NOT supporting the other's candidate...but finding common ground on opposing the gargantuan growth of the federal government.


I don't know whether or not all Tea Partiers support the war. What I said is the Tea Party people don't seem to have a problem with war spending, like they do for spending on other things.


And I believe you are mistaken about that...at least for about 40% of them...and really just trying to grind your ax on the war...which is fine too.

As much as it pains nobluedog, beternu, etc...the TEA Party people/supporters are not just a bunch of stupid rednecks...they are a very diverse group.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buttercup:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ferrellj:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buttercup:

As much as it pains nobluedog, beternu, etc...the TEA Party people/supporters are not just a bunch of stupid rednecks...they are a very diverse group.


You are right, they are just a bunch of Glenn Beck bobble-headed nuts that have absolutely no ability to think past a bumper sticker slogan.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
Again, our soldiers are killing terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attact on 9/11. In fact Saddam , although a terrible person, hated Al Queda and didn't allow them in his country, and kept Iran in check as well.

Face it, we invaded Iraq so that American oil companies could make the profits from all that Iraqi oil, as Saddam would not give any oil contracts to American oil companies, only Indian, Russian, and French. The "war" in Iraq was fought as a surrogate army for American oil companies, and the cost will probably come close to TWO TRILLION DOLLARS before it is all done. That would have paid for a lot of infrastructure here at home, and while you right wing-nuts hate the idea of controlling medical insurance companies, our tax dollars was paying for FREE medical care for Iraqis and build them new schools and infrastructure over there.

On the other hand, because Obama has been building relationships with leaders in other countries, he is not hated by the rest of the world like Bush was, and we are getting more co-operation from our allies in intelligence gathering . Matter of fact, we have probably captured or killed more of Al Queda since he has been president than while Bush was ruining the country.
We are safer now than then, and probably will continue to improve our situation.
Bush actually quit fighting Al Queda when he decided to steal Iraqi oil and he put all his effort into Iraq. Wrong move.


The American oil companies are significantly absent from the contracts let by Iraq to develop their oil fields. They have minority interests, at best. None of the oil companies will control a barrel of oil. They receive a fee for service, plus a bonus for developing the fields' pumping capacity.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buttercup:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ferrellj:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buttercup:

As much as it pains nobluedog, beternu, etc...the TEA Party people/supporters are not just a bunch of stupid rednecks...they are a very diverse group.


You are right, they are just a bunch of Glenn Beck bobble-headed nuts that have absolutely no ability to think past a bumper sticker slogan.


Once again, you let your prejudices and bigotries overwhelm facts!

"Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04...politics/15poll.html
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buttercup:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ferrellj:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buttercup:

As much as it pains nobluedog, beternu, etc...the TEA Party people/supporters are not just a bunch of stupid rednecks...they are a very diverse group.


You are right, they are just a bunch of Glenn Beck bobble-headed nuts that have absolutely no ability to think past a bumper sticker slogan.


Once again, you let your prejudices and bigotries overwhelm facts!

"Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04...politics/15poll.html


Next

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×