McCain leadin both Hillary and Obama in National poll

[HAL 9000 96]

Great Idea. Let the 100% supporters fund the wars they seem to think are justified. That way when the shiat hits the fan we don't have to say "we told you so."

Well now we have a compromise. When you need those $h!t social programs or when yo'mamma need it don't come biatching here.

National defense is stretching it really out there. When you can find the WMDs in Iraq with GPS-encoded coordinates of US targets, let us know.

Then on top of funding it you should enlist to spearhead the GI Joe mission.

The 9-11 fear mongering will only get you laughs here at liberal VJ. LOL.

Thank you maviwaro, your showing that this is nothing but politics for you. So much for reason and logic. Your no different than the rest of us. Welcome to the VJ political club.

Life is politics, Gary. How some decide to carry that life around is up to all of us. If you want something, you pay for it. That's *common sense*... Where is the anti-logic in being willing to pay for what we need as a society yet not willing to pay for what is illegitimately obligated on all? Get real my friend. And yes... you are very correct- I am not different that any of you here. I am human.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am willing to pay for the war but unwilling to pay for all the social engineering your side wants. Is what I want any less valid than yours? It's the other side of the same coin.

Validity can be misconstrued as an equal two-lane highway my friend.

The business of death is not equal to the business of saving and improving the world. Never has and never will be.

But a bit back to the topic... here's a marriage between overspending on the business of death and giving it a blank check to do as they please:

GAO blasts weapons budget

Cost overruns hit $295 billion for dozens of Pentagon's biggest systems

By Dana Hedgpeth

The Washington Post

updated 3:29 a.m. CT, Tues., April. 1, 2008

Government auditors issued a scathing review yesterday of dozens of the Pentagon's biggest weapons systems, saying ships, aircraft and satellites are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.

The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average. In addition, none of the systems that GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management practices during their development stages.

Auditors said the Defense Department showed few signs of improvement since the GAO began issuing its annual assessments of selected weapons systems six years ago. "It's not getting any better by any means," said Michael Sullivan, director of GAO's acquisition and sourcing team. "It's taking longer and costing more."

Chris Isleib, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a written statement, "We'd like to look at what GAO has said, and then at the appropriate time make an informed comment."

The Pentagon has doubled the amount it has committed to new systems, from $790 billion in 2000 to $1.6 trillion last year, according to the 205-page GAO report. Total acquisition costs in 2007 for major defense programs increased 26 percent from first estimates. In 2000, 75 programs had cost increases totaling 6 percent. Development costs in 2007 for the systems rose 40 percent from initial projections, compared with 27 percent in 2000. Current programs are delivered 21 months late on average, five months later than in 2000.

'Also failed to deliver'

"In most cases, programs also failed to deliver capabilities when promised -- often forcing war fighters to spend additional funds on maintaining" existing weapons systems, the report says.

The GAO chose 72 of the 95 systems to examine, based on high-dollar value and congressional interest. The various systems were at different stages of the acquisition process over the last year.

The report details such projects as the Navy's $5.2 billion Littoral Combat Ship, which has had such extensive troubles that the service expects the cost of its first two ships to exceed their combined budget of $472 million by more than 100 percent. The Navy canceled construction of the planned third and fourth ships by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, the prime contractors on the project.

The government is facing higher development costs on eight major programs, including Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing's Future Combat Systems, a technology to connect unmanned aircraft and vehicles. The prices for those two programs have risen 36 percent and 40 percent, respectively, from the initial contracts, the GAO said, partly because the government wants "new and unproven technologies" and did not undertake early analysis to make sure its requirements could be met.

In a statement, Lockheed said that the Joint Strike Fighter "is performing solidly, making outstanding technical progress in the context of the most complex aircraft ever built" and that "the bedrock and the cornerstone" of the F-35 program have been "affordability and cost containment."

Skyrocketing prices

In another case, the initial contract target price of Boeing's program to modernize avionics in the C-130 cargo plane is expected to skyrocket 323 percent, to $2 billion. Another Boeing program, for a radio system, is up 310 percent, to $966 million.

"Boeing's commitment is to deliver on our promises to our military customers and meeting their requirements in the most cost-effective way possible," the company said in a statement.

The GAO's Sullivan said the reasons for the cost overruns and delays are threefold: There are too many programs chasing too few dollars; technologies are often not mature enough to go into production; and it takes too long to design, develop and produce a system.

"They're asking for something that they're not sure can be built, given existing technologies, and that's risky," Sullivan said in an interview.

Costs of some systems were driven up as much as 72 percent when changes were made to the program requirements after development of the system had begun, the report says. Half of the programs studied had 25 percent increases in the expected lines of code in their software.

Steven L. Schooner, co-director of the government procurement law program at George Washington University, said the GAO's report reveals the recurring problems the Pentagon faces with its costly procurements.

"The nature of major weapon systems development is that you have to expect that the initial estimates, and typically the initial contracts, are overly optimistic and unrealistic," he said. "Unfortunately the purchaser -- the government -- typically lacks the discipline to freeze the configuration such that the contractor has any reasonable chance of developing what it promised on time and for the price promised."

Defense Department officials have tried to improve the procurement process, the GAO said, by doing more planning and review in the early stages of a contract. But "these significant policy changes have not yet translated into best practices on individual programs," Gene L. Dodaro, acting comptroller general of the GAO, wrote in the report.

"Flagship acquisitions, as well as many other top priorities in each of the services, continue to cost significantly more, take longer to produce, and deliver less than was promised," Dodaro said. "This is likely to continue until the overall environment for weapon system acquisitions changes."

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

News Link

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Great Idea. Let the 100% supporters fund the wars they seem to think are justified. That way when the shiat hits the fan we don't have to say "we told you so."

Well now we have a compromise. When you need those $h!t social programs or when yo'mamma need it don't come biatching here.

National defense is stretching it really out there. When you can find the WMDs in Iraq with GPS-encoded coordinates of US targets, let us know.

Then on top of funding it you should enlist to spearhead the GI Joe mission.

The 9-11 fear mongering will only get you laughs here at liberal VJ. LOL.

Thank you maviwaro, your showing that this is nothing but politics for you. So much for reason and logic. Your no different than the rest of us. Welcome to the VJ political club.

Life is politics, Gary. How some decide to carry that life around is up to all of us. If you want something, you pay for it. That's *common sense*... Where is the anti-logic in being willing to pay for what we need as a society yet not willing to pay for what is illegitimately obligated on all? Get real my friend. And yes... you are very correct- I am not different that any of you here. I am human.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am willing to pay for the war but unwilling to pay for all the social engineering your side wants. Is what I want any less valid than yours? It's the other side of the same coin.

I would say that one difference is that one the side of the coin is going around telling the other side to "get out" or "move somewhere else" because they disagree with the other side's view on the war.

[GaryC 7]

Great Idea. Let the 100% supporters fund the wars they seem to think are justified. That way when the shiat hits the fan we don't have to say "we told you so."

Well now we have a compromise. When you need those $h!t social programs or when yo'mamma need it don't come biatching here.

National defense is stretching it really out there. When you can find the WMDs in Iraq with GPS-encoded coordinates of US targets, let us know.

Then on top of funding it you should enlist to spearhead the GI Joe mission.

The 9-11 fear mongering will only get you laughs here at liberal VJ. LOL.

Thank you maviwaro, your showing that this is nothing but politics for you. So much for reason and logic. Your no different than the rest of us. Welcome to the VJ political club.

Life is politics, Gary. How some decide to carry that life around is up to all of us. If you want something, you pay for it. That's *common sense*... Where is the anti-logic in being willing to pay for what we need as a society yet not willing to pay for what is illegitimately obligated on all? Get real my friend. And yes... you are very correct- I am not different that any of you here. I am human.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am willing to pay for the war but unwilling to pay for all the social engineering your side wants. Is what I want any less valid than yours? It's the other side of the same coin.

I would say that one difference is that one the side of the coin is going around telling the other side to "get out" or "move somewhere else" because they disagree with the other side's view on the war.

I have never said that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Great Idea. Let the 100% supporters fund the wars they seem to think are justified. That way when the shiat hits the fan we don't have to say "we told you so."

Well now we have a compromise. When you need those $h!t social programs or when yo'mamma need it don't come biatching here.

National defense is stretching it really out there. When you can find the WMDs in Iraq with GPS-encoded coordinates of US targets, let us know.

Then on top of funding it you should enlist to spearhead the GI Joe mission.

The 9-11 fear mongering will only get you laughs here at liberal VJ. LOL.

Thank you maviwaro, your showing that this is nothing but politics for you. So much for reason and logic. Your no different than the rest of us. Welcome to the VJ political club.

Life is politics, Gary. How some decide to carry that life around is up to all of us. If you want something, you pay for it. That's *common sense*... Where is the anti-logic in being willing to pay for what we need as a society yet not willing to pay for what is illegitimately obligated on all? Get real my friend. And yes... you are very correct- I am not different that any of you here. I am human.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am willing to pay for the war but unwilling to pay for all the social engineering your side wants. Is what I want any less valid than yours? It's the other side of the same coin.

I would say that one difference is that one the side of the coin is going around telling the other side to "get out" or "move somewhere else" because they disagree with the other side's view on the war.

I have never said that.

You may not have - but it seems to be a pretty popular view among certain folks. That and calling people's objections "unamerican".

[GaryC 7]

Validity can be misconstrued as an equal two-lane highway my friend.

The business of death is not equal to the business of saving and improving the world. Never has and never will be.

I don't see it as the business of death but as the business of protecting us. I am willing to pay any price to protect us including expensive weapon systems. I do see the social engineering as destroying our country. It creates a class of our society that is dependent on the government. Safety nets are one thing, people looking to the government to solve their problems is something else. I see the government, as it has become under the liberal ideal, as great evil that should be restricted as much as we can. It's only real use that I am willing to bankroll is the business of protecting us. That involves destroying those that want to harm us.

Great Idea. Let the 100% supporters fund the wars they seem to think are justified. That way when the shiat hits the fan we don't have to say "we told you so."

Well now we have a compromise. When you need those $h!t social programs or when yo'mamma need it don't come biatching here.

National defense is stretching it really out there. When you can find the WMDs in Iraq with GPS-encoded coordinates of US targets, let us know.

Then on top of funding it you should enlist to spearhead the GI Joe mission.

The 9-11 fear mongering will only get you laughs here at liberal VJ. LOL.

Thank you maviwaro, your showing that this is nothing but politics for you. So much for reason and logic. Your no different than the rest of us. Welcome to the VJ political club.

Life is politics, Gary. How some decide to carry that life around is up to all of us. If you want something, you pay for it. That's *common sense*... Where is the anti-logic in being willing to pay for what we need as a society yet not willing to pay for what is illegitimately obligated on all? Get real my friend. And yes... you are very correct- I am not different that any of you here. I am human.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am willing to pay for the war but unwilling to pay for all the social engineering your side wants. Is what I want any less valid than yours? It's the other side of the same coin.

I would say that one difference is that one the side of the coin is going around telling the other side to "get out" or "move somewhere else" because they disagree with the other side's view on the war.

I have never said that.

You may not have - but it seems to be a pretty popular view among certain folks. That and calling people's objections "unamerican".

I only use the term "un-American" in reference to policies that some people put forth. The policies, not the person.

[HAL 9000 96]

Validity can be misconstrued as an equal two-lane highway my friend.

The business of death is not equal to the business of saving and improving the world. Never has and never will be.

I don't see it as the business of death but as the business of protecting us. I am willing to pay any price to protect us including expensive weapon systems. I do see the social engineering as destroying our country. It creates a class of our society that is dependent on the government. Safety nets are one thing, people looking to the government to solve their problems is something else. I see the government, as it has become under the liberal ideal, as great evil that should be restricted as much as we can. It's only real use that I am willing to bankroll is the business of protecting us. That involves destroying those that want to harm us.

"Faulty" intelligence and rhetoric for democracy are not synonymous with having a threat against us. Those that are out there to "harm" us, are doing so not out of spontaneous desire but out of a long pattern of (in their opinion, much like yours with social programs in this country) what they see as someone harming them on their own turf.

If it were a matter of protection, we wouldn't have the enemies we create. But arguing cause and effect in an organized, linear fashion is sometimes a moot point with those that do not want to see beyond particular dates in history.

As for those evil social programs you despise, perhaps you should send your CV to McCain in case he decides to, although highly unlikely since he most likely will not be President, scrap them and place more emphasis on continuing the war effort you support 100%.

Or you could do the more logical thing, McCain or no McCain, and organize people to intelligently fight for the modification of current legislation, as is done in most democracies, in order to create self-sufficiency instead of so much government-sponsored dependency and welfare. Try starting first with the poor and then work your way up to the Fortune 500s that derive countless tax benefits while we foot the bill.

[GaryC 7]

"Faulty" intelligence and rhetoric for democracy are not synonymous with having a threat against us. Those that are out there to "harm" us, are doing so not out of spontaneous desire but out of a long pattern of (in their opinion, much like yours with social programs in this country) what they see as someone harming them on their own turf.

If it were a matter of protection, we wouldn't have the enemies we create. But arguing cause and effect in an organized, linear fashion is sometimes a moot point with those that do not want to see beyond particular dates in history.

There, you see? Your in effect saying we created the hatred that is causing the terror. I don't hold with that. I don't care why the hate us. I only care that they do. I don't blame America for what others do. We may not be faultless in the world but nothing we did justifies their cowardly attacks. I don't see them as an aggrieved party, I see them as aggressors bent on taking power and using us as and excuse to justify their aggression. They are duping people like you into thinking we are at fault. Remember that the terrorism started long before 9/11. Iraq is just the latest excuse and not the cause.

As for those evil social programs you despise, perhaps you should send your CV to McCain in case he decides to, although highly unlikely since he most likely will not be President, scrap them and place more emphasis on continuing the war effort you support 100%.

Or you could do the more logical thing, McCain or no McCain, and organize people to intelligently fight for the modification of current legislation, as is done in most democracies, in order to create self-sufficiency instead of so much government-sponsored dependency and welfare. Try starting first with the poor and then work your way up to the Fortune 500s that derive countless tax benefits while we foot the bill.

I do the only thing I can. First I live what I preach. I don't take advantage of the social programs I hate so much even though there were times in my life I could have. I see it as taking the easy way out. I also vote for people that closest reflect my views. McCain wasn't my first choice but at the moment is better than the alternatives. I am also teaching my family of the values of self reliance and how depending on the government is a slow march towards our own downfall.

[HAL 9000 96]

"Faulty" intelligence and rhetoric for democracy are not synonymous with having a threat against us. Those that are out there to "harm" us, are doing so not out of spontaneous desire but out of a long pattern of (in their opinion, much like yours with social programs in this country) what they see as someone harming them on their own turf.

If it were a matter of protection, we wouldn't have the enemies we create. But arguing cause and effect in an organized, linear fashion is sometimes a moot point with those that do not want to see beyond particular dates in history.

There, you see? Your in effect saying we created the hatred that is causing the terror. I don't hold with that. I don't care why the hate us. I only care that they do. I don't blame America for what others do. We may not be faultless in the world but nothing we did justifies their cowardly attacks. I don't see them as an aggrieved party, I see them as aggressors bent on taking power and using us as and excuse to justify their aggression. They are duping people like you into thinking we are at fault. Remember that the terrorism started long before 9/11. Iraq is just the latest excuse and not the cause.

As for those evil social programs you despise, perhaps you should send your CV to McCain in case he decides to, although highly unlikely since he most likely will not be President, scrap them and place more emphasis on continuing the war effort you support 100%.

Or you could do the more logical thing, McCain or no McCain, and organize people to intelligently fight for the modification of current legislation, as is done in most democracies, in order to create self-sufficiency instead of so much government-sponsored dependency and welfare. Try starting first with the poor and then work your way up to the Fortune 500s that derive countless tax benefits while we foot the bill.

I do the only thing I can. First I live what I preach. I don't take advantage of the social programs I hate so much even though there were times in my life I could have. I see it as taking the easy way out. I also vote for people that closest reflect my views. McCain wasn't my first choice but at the moment is better than the alternatives. I am also teaching my family of the values of self reliance and how depending on the government is a slow march towards our own downfall.

See what, Gary? The truth of history? Cause and effect.

Of course you don't care about the reasons for the reality we exist in. If you did you'd think twice about following a president into invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attach we suffered. Don't believe me? Fine. Ask our own government and any credible intelligence agency around the world that collects useful information. No need to argue what's been rehashed beyond the political scope here other than me not really understanding why you're quoting something that doesn't make sense since again, its obvious Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda on a Saddam - Bin Laden axis before the US invasion of 2003.

What power to be taken and from whom is really in the air isn't it? Afghanistan? Their own country. Iraq (if even remotely relevant, which is not)? Any other Arab country? NONE of our business beyond playing fair in the trade game. Of course, our addiction to petroleum will not allow that, will it? Nor will our incessant need to have enemies to fight so that "people like you" can be duped into believing there is a national threat that is out to kill us.

Now... what social programs do you hate so much that you won't even use if need be? Unemployment? Sure, there is AMPLE abuse in that system that can be dealt with if we actually enforced it. Then again, we pay into it so its money we get back if need be. But if you don't want it, then one option, as I stated above, is to re-legislate it so that if you don't want it, don't pay it and don't receive it if you need it. Same template can be applied to your favorite or least favorite social program. Not exactly my idea of modern thinking, but hey, you gotta please as many people as possible to get things done. Then, once all the hoopla is finished, and people become more self-sufficient, then there won't be a need to have such a pessimistic view of society because people will have awakened that they have the ability to be fine in a world where all conditions and opportunities actually exist in equal measure. But we don't have that world and we cetainly don't have that country. Lucky for us some programs are making that possible, contrary to what you believe.

As for teaching your family how not to rely on the government, that is good. Human ingenuity is great and in a democracy it can be bred in or out depending on how you prefer to view the world- as a positivist or as a retrogradist. I prefer to move things forward with intelligence, not by reacting based on what others say is truth just because they have power.

Edited April 1, 2008 by maviwaro

[GaryC 7]

"Faulty" intelligence and rhetoric for democracy are not synonymous with having a threat against us. Those that are out there to "harm" us, are doing so not out of spontaneous desire but out of a long pattern of (in their opinion, much like yours with social programs in this country) what they see as someone harming them on their own turf.

If it were a matter of protection, we wouldn't have the enemies we create. But arguing cause and effect in an organized, linear fashion is sometimes a moot point with those that do not want to see beyond particular dates in history.

There, you see? Your in effect saying we created the hatred that is causing the terror. I don't hold with that. I don't care why the hate us. I only care that they do. I don't blame America for what others do. We may not be faultless in the world but nothing we did justifies their cowardly attacks. I don't see them as an aggrieved party, I see them as aggressors bent on taking power and using us as and excuse to justify their aggression. They are duping people like you into thinking we are at fault. Remember that the terrorism started long before 9/11. Iraq is just the latest excuse and not the cause.

As for those evil social programs you despise, perhaps you should send your CV to McCain in case he decides to, although highly unlikely since he most likely will not be President, scrap them and place more emphasis on continuing the war effort you support 100%.

Or you could do the more logical thing, McCain or no McCain, and organize people to intelligently fight for the modification of current legislation, as is done in most democracies, in order to create self-sufficiency instead of so much government-sponsored dependency and welfare. Try starting first with the poor and then work your way up to the Fortune 500s that derive countless tax benefits while we foot the bill.

I do the only thing I can. First I live what I preach. I don't take advantage of the social programs I hate so much even though there were times in my life I could have. I see it as taking the easy way out. I also vote for people that closest reflect my views. McCain wasn't my first choice but at the moment is better than the alternatives. I am also teaching my family of the values of self reliance and how depending on the government is a slow march towards our own downfall.

See what, Gary? The truth of history? Cause and effect.

Of course you don't care about the reasons for the reality we exist in. If you did you'd think twice about following a president into invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attach we suffered. Don't believe me? Fine. Ask our own government and any credible intelligence agency around the world that collects useful information. No need to argue what's been rehashed beyond the political scope here other than me not really understanding why you're quoting something that doesn't make sense since again, its obvious Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda on a Saddam - Bin Laden axis before the US invasion of 2003.

What power to be taken and from whom is really in the air isn't it? Afghanistan? Their own country. Iraq (if even remotely relevant, which is not)? Any other Arab country? NONE of our business beyond playing fair in the trade game. Of course, our addiction to petroleum will not allow that, will it? Nor will our incessant need to have enemies to fight so that "people like you" can be duped into believing there is a national threat that is out to kill us.

Now... what social programs do you hate so much that you won't even use if need be? Unemployment? Sure, there is AMPLE abuse in that system that can be dealt with if we actually enforced it. Then again, we pay into it so its money we get back if need be. But if you don't want it, then one option, as I stated above, is to re-legislate it so that if you don't want it, don't pay it and don't receive it if you need it. Same template can be applied to your favorite or least favorite social program.

As for teaching your family how not to rely on the government, that is good. Human ingenuity is great and in a democracy it can be bred in or out depending on how you prefer to view the world- as a positivist or as a retrogradist. I prefer to move things forward with intelligence, not by reacting based on what others say is truth just because they have power.

It is obvious that we have diametrically opposing points of view. You choose to blame the US for the aggression of the terrorists. Fine, think that way. Lets just say I think you are as wrong as you can be. I think that the radical Islamic terrorists would be doing what they are doing regardless of history or our actions in the world. They want power and are being quite clever about how they are achieving it. They are playing the victim of American "imperialism" and using it as a way of garnering sympathy for their cause. I am not saying you are on their side but I am saying that since you feel it's our policies that created them your reaction to it plays into their hands. They want power. They want to spread their way of life outside their own area. They are using our own collective guilt as a way to blunt our response and it is working. I say that while you think your looking at the real reasons for the problems your being mislead. Do you understand what I am trying to say? (whether you agree or not?)

As far as the social programs I am so opposed to that I am not taking advantage of, in the past I have qualified for unemployment, welfare, food stamps, public housing, government grants for education and medicade. I have not used any of them. I feel it is wrong and did what I had to do to help myself. Even though I opposed their creation to start with I don't advocate their repeal. I do advocate restricting them to a very short time and only to those that for whatever reason cannot take care of themselves. I also think that if someone takes advantage of a government hand-out they should work for that hand-out. It wouldn't matter if it's picking up trash on the side of the road or mowing the grass at a government building. Only those that are physically or mentally unable to do useful work would be exempt. No one that is capable of doing something should get a free ride.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Say buh-bye to the White House, my Republican friends...I'm willing to wager on that.

Really? I will put a $100 bet on it. You game?

Nah, Gary. Let's wager some kind of personal belonging, a collectible or keepsake. I'll think of something and then you see if you have something comparible. That'll make it interesting.

[HAL 9000 96]

"Faulty" intelligence and rhetoric for democracy are not synonymous with having a threat against us. Those that are out there to "harm" us, are doing so not out of spontaneous desire but out of a long pattern of (in their opinion, much like yours with social programs in this country) what they see as someone harming them on their own turf.

If it were a matter of protection, we wouldn't have the enemies we create. But arguing cause and effect in an organized, linear fashion is sometimes a moot point with those that do not want to see beyond particular dates in history.

There, you see? Your in effect saying we created the hatred that is causing the terror. I don't hold with that. I don't care why the hate us. I only care that they do. I don't blame America for what others do. We may not be faultless in the world but nothing we did justifies their cowardly attacks. I don't see them as an aggrieved party, I see them as aggressors bent on taking power and using us as and excuse to justify their aggression. They are duping people like you into thinking we are at fault. Remember that the terrorism started long before 9/11. Iraq is just the latest excuse and not the cause.

As for those evil social programs you despise, perhaps you should send your CV to McCain in case he decides to, although highly unlikely since he most likely will not be President, scrap them and place more emphasis on continuing the war effort you support 100%.

Or you could do the more logical thing, McCain or no McCain, and organize people to intelligently fight for the modification of current legislation, as is done in most democracies, in order to create self-sufficiency instead of so much government-sponsored dependency and welfare. Try starting first with the poor and then work your way up to the Fortune 500s that derive countless tax benefits while we foot the bill.

I do the only thing I can. First I live what I preach. I don't take advantage of the social programs I hate so much even though there were times in my life I could have. I see it as taking the easy way out. I also vote for people that closest reflect my views. McCain wasn't my first choice but at the moment is better than the alternatives. I am also teaching my family of the values of self reliance and how depending on the government is a slow march towards our own downfall.

See what, Gary? The truth of history? Cause and effect.

Of course you don't care about the reasons for the reality we exist in. If you did you'd think twice about following a president into invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attach we suffered. Don't believe me? Fine. Ask our own government and any credible intelligence agency around the world that collects useful information. No need to argue what's been rehashed beyond the political scope here other than me not really understanding why you're quoting something that doesn't make sense since again, its obvious Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda on a Saddam - Bin Laden axis before the US invasion of 2003.

What power to be taken and from whom is really in the air isn't it? Afghanistan? Their own country. Iraq (if even remotely relevant, which is not)? Any other Arab country? NONE of our business beyond playing fair in the trade game. Of course, our addiction to petroleum will not allow that, will it? Nor will our incessant need to have enemies to fight so that "people like you" can be duped into believing there is a national threat that is out to kill us.

Now... what social programs do you hate so much that you won't even use if need be? Unemployment? Sure, there is AMPLE abuse in that system that can be dealt with if we actually enforced it. Then again, we pay into it so its money we get back if need be. But if you don't want it, then one option, as I stated above, is to re-legislate it so that if you don't want it, don't pay it and don't receive it if you need it. Same template can be applied to your favorite or least favorite social program.

As for teaching your family how not to rely on the government, that is good. Human ingenuity is great and in a democracy it can be bred in or out depending on how you prefer to view the world- as a positivist or as a retrogradist. I prefer to move things forward with intelligence, not by reacting based on what others say is truth just because they have power.

It is obvious that we have diametrically opposing points of view. You choose to blame the US for the aggression of the terrorists. Fine, think that way. Lets just say I think you are as wrong as you can be. I think that the radical Islamic terrorists would be doing what they are doing regardless of history or our actions in the world. They want power and are being quite clever about how they are achieving it. They are playing the victim of American "imperialism" and using it as a way of garnering sympathy for their cause. I am not saying you are on their side but I am saying that since you feel it's our policies that created them your reaction to it plays into their hands. They want power. They want to spread their way of life outside their own area. They are using our own collective guilt as a way to blunt our response and it is working. I say that while you think your looking at the real reasons for the problems your being mislead. Do you understand what I am trying to say? (whether you agree or not?)

As far as the social programs I am so opposed to that I am not taking advantage of, in the past I have qualified for unemployment, welfare, food stamps, public housing, government grants for education and medicade. I have not used any of them. I feel it is wrong and did what I had to do to help myself. Even though I opposed their creation to start with I don't advocate their repeal. I do advocate restricting them to a very short time and only to those that for whatever reason cannot take care of themselves. I also think that if someone takes advantage of a government hand-out they should work for that hand-out. It wouldn't matter if it's picking up trash on the side of the road or mowing the grass at a government building. Only those that are physically or mentally unable to do useful work would be exempt. No one that is capable of doing something should get a free ride.

That's all fine and easy to understand- at least the part about the blame game. Frankly, its not that I blame us for our aggressions against the terrorists. The nutjobs have their own distorted vision of the world and in it lies a very carefully calculated vision where our foreign policy does not help. Subsequent aggression does exist in reaction that only serves to bolster their numbers. That is why an intelligent approach to taking out the actual terrorists is needed, not an all out blitzkrieg that kills countless innocents and ensures more enemies in the future.

We do share some likeness with feelings towards FREE MONEY. I also think that people MUST work for these funds. That is a GREAT idea Gary. Seriously. Want a Pell Grant (increased, mind you)? Unemployment? Food Stamps? Etc? Good... The US Government (with cooperation from each individual state) will definitely help... and you will work for it either by helping your community in specific projects or in serving society and country by other means (work-study that makes sense, community service like pro bono medicine for MDs that receive gov't assistance, community beautification projects from trash collection to anything under the sun... etc). That is getting somewhere. People receive to subsist, and in the process everything improves for all. How do we fund this, by the way? VAT or a Progressive tax code, that's how.

[mawilson 2,133]

Say buh-bye to the White House, my Republican friends...I'm willing to wager on that.

Really? I will put a $100 bet on it. You game?

Nah, Gary. Let's wager some kind of personal belonging, a collectible or keepsake. I'll think of something and then you see if you have something comparible. That'll make it interesting.

What's wrong, Steven? Chicken?

[GaryC 7]

"Faulty" intelligence and rhetoric for democracy are not synonymous with having a threat against us. Those that are out there to "harm" us, are doing so not out of spontaneous desire but out of a long pattern of (in their opinion, much like yours with social programs in this country) what they see as someone harming them on their own turf.

If it were a matter of protection, we wouldn't have the enemies we create. But arguing cause and effect in an organized, linear fashion is sometimes a moot point with those that do not want to see beyond particular dates in history.

There, you see? Your in effect saying we created the hatred that is causing the terror. I don't hold with that. I don't care why the hate us. I only care that they do. I don't blame America for what others do. We may not be faultless in the world but nothing we did justifies their cowardly attacks. I don't see them as an aggrieved party, I see them as aggressors bent on taking power and using us as and excuse to justify their aggression. They are duping people like you into thinking we are at fault. Remember that the terrorism started long before 9/11. Iraq is just the latest excuse and not the cause.

As for those evil social programs you despise, perhaps you should send your CV to McCain in case he decides to, although highly unlikely since he most likely will not be President, scrap them and place more emphasis on continuing the war effort you support 100%.

Or you could do the more logical thing, McCain or no McCain, and organize people to intelligently fight for the modification of current legislation, as is done in most democracies, in order to create self-sufficiency instead of so much government-sponsored dependency and welfare. Try starting first with the poor and then work your way up to the Fortune 500s that derive countless tax benefits while we foot the bill.

I do the only thing I can. First I live what I preach. I don't take advantage of the social programs I hate so much even though there were times in my life I could have. I see it as taking the easy way out. I also vote for people that closest reflect my views. McCain wasn't my first choice but at the moment is better than the alternatives. I am also teaching my family of the values of self reliance and how depending on the government is a slow march towards our own downfall.

See what, Gary? The truth of history? Cause and effect.

Of course you don't care about the reasons for the reality we exist in. If you did you'd think twice about following a president into invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attach we suffered. Don't believe me? Fine. Ask our own government and any credible intelligence agency around the world that collects useful information. No need to argue what's been rehashed beyond the political scope here other than me not really understanding why you're quoting something that doesn't make sense since again, its obvious Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda on a Saddam - Bin Laden axis before the US invasion of 2003.

What power to be taken and from whom is really in the air isn't it? Afghanistan? Their own country. Iraq (if even remotely relevant, which is not)? Any other Arab country? NONE of our business beyond playing fair in the trade game. Of course, our addiction to petroleum will not allow that, will it? Nor will our incessant need to have enemies to fight so that "people like you" can be duped into believing there is a national threat that is out to kill us.

Now... what social programs do you hate so much that you won't even use if need be? Unemployment? Sure, there is AMPLE abuse in that system that can be dealt with if we actually enforced it. Then again, we pay into it so its money we get back if need be. But if you don't want it, then one option, as I stated above, is to re-legislate it so that if you don't want it, don't pay it and don't receive it if you need it. Same template can be applied to your favorite or least favorite social program.

As for teaching your family how not to rely on the government, that is good. Human ingenuity is great and in a democracy it can be bred in or out depending on how you prefer to view the world- as a positivist or as a retrogradist. I prefer to move things forward with intelligence, not by reacting based on what others say is truth just because they have power.

It is obvious that we have diametrically opposing points of view. You choose to blame the US for the aggression of the terrorists. Fine, think that way. Lets just say I think you are as wrong as you can be. I think that the radical Islamic terrorists would be doing what they are doing regardless of history or our actions in the world. They want power and are being quite clever about how they are achieving it. They are playing the victim of American "imperialism" and using it as a way of garnering sympathy for their cause. I am not saying you are on their side but I am saying that since you feel it's our policies that created them your reaction to it plays into their hands. They want power. They want to spread their way of life outside their own area. They are using our own collective guilt as a way to blunt our response and it is working. I say that while you think your looking at the real reasons for the problems your being mislead. Do you understand what I am trying to say? (whether you agree or not?)

As far as the social programs I am so opposed to that I am not taking advantage of, in the past I have qualified for unemployment, welfare, food stamps, public housing, government grants for education and medicade. I have not used any of them. I feel it is wrong and did what I had to do to help myself. Even though I opposed their creation to start with I don't advocate their repeal. I do advocate restricting them to a very short time and only to those that for whatever reason cannot take care of themselves. I also think that if someone takes advantage of a government hand-out they should work for that hand-out. It wouldn't matter if it's picking up trash on the side of the road or mowing the grass at a government building. Only those that are physically or mentally unable to do useful work would be exempt. No one that is capable of doing something should get a free ride.

That's all fine and easy to understand- at least the part about the blame game. Frankly, its not that I blame us for our aggressions against the terrorists. The nutjobs have their own distorted vision of the world and in it lies a very carefully calculated vision where our foreign policy does not help. Subsequent aggression does exist in reaction that only serves to bolster their numbers. That is why an intelligent approach to taking out the actual terrorists is needed, not an all out blitzkrieg that kills countless innocents and ensures more enemies in the future.

We do share some likeness with feelings towards FREE MONEY. I also think that people MUST work for these funds. That is a GREAT idea Gary. Seriously. Want a Pell Grant (increased, mind you)? Unemployment? Food Stamps? Etc? Good... The US Government (with cooperation from each individual state) will definitely help... and you will work for it either by helping your community in specific projects or in serving society and country by other means (work-study that makes sense, community service like pro bono medicine for MDs that receive gov't assistance, community beautification projects from trash collection to anything under the sun... etc). That is getting somewhere. People receive to subsist, and in the process everything improves for all. How do we fund this, by the way? VAT or a Progressive tax code, that's how.

At least we can agree on something. I realize that sometimes sh!t happens and people need help. A safety net to keep people from starving or living on the streets is only the humane and Christian thing to do. But I also feel that making people work for what they get is also the right and moral thing to do.

I know I am probably opening up another can of worms by saying this but it is an observation that bolsters my hatred for the current system. I work 2nd shift and sometimes I need to stop off at the evil Walmart to get something on my way home. One night I made the mistake of going there at 11:30 PM on the first of the month. The place was packed. I didn't understand until I noticed the place was full of women with kids in tow. Every one of them had a Link card in their hand. They were all there, baskets full of food, waiting for midnight. They were waiting for their next allotment of food stamps! There must have been 500 people there. At the stroke of midnight there was a mad dash for the check out line. All I could think of was "there is my tax dollars at work". Now don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge people eating but I saw generations of women there. Old women with their daughters with their own kids all with their own cards. It was obvious that this was a way of life for them. These were all able bodied people that could be doing something useful but instead were passing on to their kids how to live on the dole. I also wondered where were the fathers and husbands of all these women and kids? We have created an entire class of people that live off of the rest of society. That is what I really hate about the "progressive" agenda. A program is started with the idea that it will help the less fortunate and it turns into a way for people to live off of those that work. It isn't just the food stamp program or the AFDC program. It's all government programs. It's a flawed way of thinking and in the end makes it worse for all of us. It's just human nature to take the easy way out for some people and the progressive way of doing things is only making things worse.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Gary, all your posts were very well stated. Bravo I agree completely.

I also have never used any government social programs, even when I was hurting and qualified for them. I was taught you stand on your own two feet and that it is a character flaw to expect others to provide and pay your way.

In my mind it is immoral for a person to accept such funds. It only weakens the character of the person.

I contend that more people have been injured by LBJ's "war on poverty" then have been injured by GWB's "war on terror".

The war on poverty has cost between 5 to 7 trillion dollars for a war on our own people, that has destroyed them completely. That is a heavy cost to pay.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wow, this thread went into a million different directions.