View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: |
nw30 wrote: | People are just debating who he is, and the terms of the trade. |
Well, that and whether ANY soldier is worth the release of five terrorist "generals", violation of a law Obama signed, letting a gang like the Taliban dictate terms (those five or no deal) to the POTUS, and yet more lies from the WH (e.g., today they're on Excuse #3 why he had to act without he mandatory Senate approval). |
I would file that under "terms of the trade". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MANY people here have raised hell for years about the toxic waste dump at Hanford, on the Columbia, put there in the 1940s in our frantic haste to beat the enemy to the atomic bomb. They seem to overlook completely the 18,400 airmen who died as a matter of policy in the months leading up to D Day, June 6, 1944. We were sending thousands of bombers at Germany without valid targets for one sole purpose: attract aerial attacks from Luftwaffe fighters so our new fighters could weaken the Luftwaffe before D Day. Results: decimation of the Luftwaffe contributed to our successful invasion, in a deliberate exchange for hundreds of our airmen killed each day of those last 90 days pre-invasion.
The same tradeoff occurs to this day, to a lesser numerical extent, by design. "Top Gun", and aerial warfare training in general, were deliberately designed to become much more dangerous following Viet Nam, when the Pentagon realized that more realistic peacetime training saves lives in combat. In short, more crashes in Nevada = fewer combat losses.
Pollution, my ass. Learn some history and get some perspective.
Without Hanford, or even if we had just been more diligent with the waste, we may have lost WWII, and none of that pollution would matter. The waste arguably served a purpose back then. Its continuing threat is due to decades of incompetence at the top levels of the DOE.
Last edited by isobars on Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nw30 wrote: | I would file that under "terms of the trade". |
I agree. But should the most powerful office (not man, in this case) in the world let a gang dictate the terms to him while he and his puppet National Security Adviser lie about it to us and the Congress? I vote NO. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Defense 22% of the budget. Welfare, including Iso monthly check is 10%, but is rising.
Most welfare 80% goes to children and the disabled or elderly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keycocker wrote: | Welfare, including Iso monthly check is 10%, but is rising. Most welfare 80% goes to children and the disabled or elderly. |
And if they take some away from the children, the disabled, and the elderly, then they'll have MORE to give Mikey.
After all, they're not worthy -- but he is.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Children don't receive welfare checks, their parents, or should I say their mothers (on most part) do, you have no idea how that money is spent, as do I. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
nw30 wrote: | ...you have no idea how that money is spent, as do I. |
You do?
Please elaborate.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a good idea how that money was spent by the hundred or so welfare families who have rented our sec 8 homes.
They buy schoolbooks and lunch money and all the things I buy every day.
One of our homes houses a old couple who was once homeless. They spend it on food for other homeless when they can. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our non welfare lower middle class tenants included drug addled drunken rednecks who listen to talk radio all day turned up loud. They drive new cars or pickups they can't afford that get repossessed.
And expensive gun collections.
Often unemployed.
Sometimes dead drunk when they drop off the rent check late.
One family thought my wife was Belizean not French and went on for ten minutes about traitorous Frogs being like n-/:;gers before the invasion of Iraq.
Talk radio hosts have these two groups confused.
If you were a loser before you went on welfare you will be a loser afterwards.
If you were a reasonable person before you accepted welfare, you are still that person after.
Same as non welfare.
Most people on welfare are probably conservatives from the poor southern GOP states.
Can't prove this since are no figures showing political affiliation of recipients but the GOP states dominate the welfare rolls. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|