The future base of the GOP

[BrianFromWA]

I was reading after I posted...your link hadn't come up yet.

I'm much more comfortable with that, though I suspect that "returning the money to the states" won't go as far as the good Gov. thinks it will. His reduction of 25%, even if it could go across the board, would still leave an annual Medicaid deficit as high as 2013's entire DoD budget.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I was reading after I posted...your link hadn't come up yet.

I'm much more comfortable with that, though I suspect that "returning the money to the states" won't go as far as the good Gov. thinks it will. His reduction of 25%, even if it could go across the board, would still leave an annual Medicaid deficit as high as 2013's entire DoD budget.

id rather spend money on healthcare than policing the globe with bombs and bullets, might just be me though

 

[BrianFromWA]

it's not just you, there's plenty of people like you.

Unfortunately, your worldview doesn't meet with the reality of the world. I'd love for there to be no need for cops or military or people that will stand up to bad guys and bullies. History has shown that that's fantasy.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

it's not just you, there's plenty of people like you.

i guess it comes down to what people would rather pay for, healthcare, or a never ending war where we supply our enemy with guns and training

 

[Denny Crane]

i guess it comes down to what people would rather pay for, healthcare, or a never ending war where we supply our enemy with guns and training

I vote for the never ending war.

No wait, no I don't.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

i guess it comes down to what people would rather pay for, healthcare, or a never ending war where we supply our enemy with guns and training

peace in our time....

 

[3RA1N1AC]

[video=youtube;8y06NSBBRtY]

 

[BrianFromWA]

Was Eisenhower for or against the Marshall Plan?

 

[BrianFromWA]

i guess it comes down to what people would rather pay for, healthcare, or a never ending war where we supply our enemy with guns and training

well, when you put it that way...

what would you rather pay for, a ponzi scheme that makes healthcare worse or not letting people bomb the White House?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

you can have a healthy military and even help out around the world without incessantly starting wars and constantly occupying other nations

too much is too much, but its hard to get the fattest pigs away from the teat

i know you like being a cog in the machine and all, but you really dont have to grease yourself

 

[3RA1N1AC]

well, when you put it that way...

what would you rather pay for, a ponzi scheme that makes healthcare worse or not letting people bomb the White House?

would you rather save sick babies, or stomp their heads in with your boots?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

and we are still talking about libertarians right? not sure where you are getting this ponzi scheme from...

and hey, if they can bomb the white house, we certainly either trained them and/or funded them

 

[DaLincolnJones]

would you rather save sick babies, or stomp their heads in with your boots?

would you rather concede a point or retort with the rediculous

 

[3RA1N1AC]

would you rather concede a point or retort with the rediculous

keep your head in the sand, everything will be just fine...

 

[BrianFromWA]

and we are still talking about libertarians right? not sure where you are getting this ponzi scheme from...

and hey, if they can bomb the white house, we certainly either trained them and/or funded them

The Ponzi Scheme is what some people call Medicare/Medicaid.
Did we train or fund the 9/11 terrorists? I must've missed that one. Did we train the madrassah mullahs? Or the Soviets? Or Hitler? Or did we (and the rest of Western Europe) just sit back and let bad guys get away with (literally) murder?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

The Ponzi Scheme is what some people call Medicare/Medicaid.
Did we train or fund the 9/11 terrorists? I must've missed that one. Did we train the madrassah mullahs? Or the Soviets? Or Hitler? Or did we (and the rest of Western Europe) just sit back and let bad guys get away with (literally) murder?

wait, did any of them attack the white house? not sure why you are arguing with yourself but its kinda entertaining, carry on

 

[BrianFromWA]

OK, I'll be brief...

I responded with what I thought was an appropriately ridiculous retort to your ridiculous strawman post. I thought that that was clear when I said "if you put it that way."

When you asked what I thought was a legitimate question, I responded with historical examples of people like you saying "forget using a military. Let's just hope bad guys don't do the bad things it looks like they're going to do." And when you asked about us training our enemies, I gave what I thought were pretty well-known examples of countries and/or dictators doing bad things to us and other innocent people, none of whom had our training or backing.

Clearer now?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

did we aid al qaeda (our sworn enemy in a never ending war) to help them overthrow gaddafi? hows that working out?

bring.

them.

home.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

the vast majority of americans want less military spending and our troops back home

my point, in my post (that you blindly attacked because you saw the words military and cut) was the first party to jump on this will have an advantage in future elections

plain and simple

 

[BrianFromWA]

you really need to read more--better yet, to understand what you're reading. This is the Prime Minister of Libya, a place where we didn't send a single troop onto the ground. In fact, almost all of the support was NATO-based. And those troops came home a long time ago (I was one).

Prior to the Libyan civil war, Zeidan was a Geneva-based human rights lawyer[5] and according to the BBC, is considered by some local observers as a strong-minded liberal.

Hardly the M.O. of Al-Qaeda, though maybe those bastards are getting sneaky with their recruitment practices.

Unless you're saying that it's our responsibility to ensure that countries police their own borders to ensure Al-Qaeda can't enter or operate there?

 

[BrianFromWA]

the vast majority of americans want less military spending and our troops back home

my point, in my post (that you blindly attacked because you saw the words military and cut) was the first party to jump on this will have an advantage in future elections

plain and simple

You can't be more off. And I write back because there are very few people on here (including yourself) who have any idea what the military does. I don't blame you for it...on the contrary, I try to help you get more information so that you can be better informed.

And if you notice, I didn't say a word about not cutting the military. I asked about the hypocrisy of "heavily cutting the military" while allowing Medicare and Medicaid to take up more than double our military expenditures....and about 6x more in spending than they bring in in revenue.

You'd rather overspend on health care than spend anything on defense, that's fine. I'd rather not. I just believe that my belief is based on an existing worldview, rather than a utopian ideal of what one wishes it would be, a world where we're more evil than the Soviets and only have enemies because we helped them become that way.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

look, im not expecting you to renounce your golden goose

my point is valid, the first party to latch on to the idea of less military involvement overseas will have a massive advantage in upcoming elections

same goes for marijuana legalization

if its the gop, more power to them, as libertarians seem to share many of their ideas fiscally

 

[3RA1N1AC]

less military spending is just a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution

 

[BrianFromWA]

LOL @ "my golden goose"...

I've said that military spending should be cut, will be cut and has been working on plans for "doomsday" cuts. But a 20% cut in the military across the board (which would be pretty crippling and start to affect things that the average Joe cares about) would only give you the cash for 1/7th of the OVERRUN of Medicare and Medicaid. Completely defunding the military and transferring every dollar to M/M still wouldn't allow you to break even there. I find it laughable that those who are talking about military spending cuts who don't acknowledge the entitlement programs. That's all.

As far as a philosophy debate over how much of a military we need--we can do that in another thread. But to bring up "significantly smaller military" as a part of a plan for "smaller gov't" won't do what you think it will do.

 

[BrianFromWA]

less military spending is just a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution

Agree.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

brian, your thoughts on gary johnsons platform...

AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AFGHANISTAN SHOULD END, our troops returned home, and the focus of our foreign policy reoriented toward the protection of U.S. citizens and interests.

With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people.
Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.
The U.S. must make better use of strategic alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests.

he is also against torture and indefinite detainment

 

[maxiep]

Limited government is dead. From now on it's about who can give more free stuff. The country has changed, and changed until it collapses. Then I hope the future generation learns Mandarin.

 

[BrianFromWA]

quickly, b/c I had a better post on this in one of the other threads...

I think it's not feasible to say that you want to "protect US citizens and interests" without having a military projected around the world. Not in today's climate or economy.

As far as AFG in particular, it's dumb to say "end military activities there." The MASSIVE MAJORITY of the populace wants us there until the ANSF can take over in numbers that would support their defense against the pakistani-based terrorist groups. It's not like Vietnam or even Iraq. We ARE making a strategic alliance right now with AFG. We're training their people on how a professional police and military organization under civilian control is run. We are on a plan to have almost all of our troops (except me and people like me) gone by Christmas 2014...it would not be smart to move that timeline just b/c a new politician were President--which is why you heard almost nothing about AFG during the entire campaign; both candidates realize that. Once 2014 rolls around and the ANSF is able to take over everywhere in the country with a reasonable chance for success, it's going to cost around 4B a year to keep funding them. At that point the AFG gov't won't have the tax revenue to handle that, but if we can keep those guys in a semblance of a professional military and police that can keep warlords and/or terrorist insurgents from wreaking havoc, a) we won't need to be there and can ensure that our troops don't have to go back.

I'm also against "torture" and indefinite detainment. I'm all for quick military tribunals for everyone. Unfortunately for them, most of them would be found guilty of a death-penalty offense and can be executed without anyone knowing until the UN has to be notified at the "end of the emergency" for tribunals affecting non-citizens found armed in support of an insurrection. That's the UN definition, not ours.

As far as "leave it to the AFG people to figure out their challenges", that's pretty irresponsible, imho. The rest of the world has contributed directly or indirectly to about 35 years of a non-functioning society that they didn't choose, but now we leave them to clean it up and figure out their own problems?

I agree that it's time to reevaluate troop deployments in Europe, Japan and Korea. But I wonder why it was ok to keep troops in Germany and Japan for 70 years (and 25 years after the end of the Cold War), but as we're going on Year 6 of "occupation" of AFG, it's time to pull the troops home without evaluation--even though the people want us there way more than the japanese or Germans or Italians ever did (maybe the Koreans wanted us there as much). Is it b/c they're Muslim?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

it's not just you, there's plenty of people like you.

Unfortunately, your worldview doesn't meet with the reality of the world. I'd love for there to be no need for cops or military or people that will stand up to bad guys and bullies. History has shown that that's fantasy.

Come on Brian, give it to us . . . "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

 

[RoyToy]

The Tea Party should be abolished.

It's not healthy.