Yeah, forget military spending - we're wasting money on few arty types getting nekked on stage!

Oh, the humanity!

>> ^blankfist:
I'll tell you about full of shit. Full of shit is a party that claims to be the party of peace, yet increases US hegemony and military spending. The Democrats should call themselves the party of wars and lies, but then they'd have to fight the Republicans for that title.
People like me, the Libertarians, are sick of paying for your two parties' wars.


Why do you think the Libertarian party is more likely to end the war than the Democratic party?

Do they have some sort of track record of honesty and commitment to principle that supersedes all other politicians?

Do they have a track record of being able to effectively enact policy at the national level?

Have they been tireless advocates against the war, and putting together PACs that spend money on anti-war ads throughout the years we've been at war?

Have their high-profile, influential voices in the media been using their megaphone to try to build a popular consensus for ending the war?

Or has everything they've ever said about the war been couched as an attack on the Democratic party, equating them to Republicans?

Just curious, because my two most frequent contacts have been you and Ron Paul, and it's all been some formation like "you Democrats would vote Libertarian if you really cared about the war, you warmongering hypocrites."

That's not commitment to ending the war, it's a commitment to use the topic of war as a wedge issue, Karl Rove style.

Argument completely falls apart at 3:30. Agreed that 911 and the resulting military spending has been a huge drain on the economy, but what do tariffs, subsidies, taxes and stimulus packages have to do with bin Laden?

Infrastructure and public works are easy to take for granted, since they are always there for us, but do you think more or less movie tickets would be sold if roads and highways were unsafe? Do you think more or less surfboards would be sold if public beaches did not exist or were not maintained? Do you think more or less refrigerators would be sold if there were no food safety standards?

@JiggaJonson. I'll tell you about full of shit. Full of shit is a party that claims to be the party of peace, yet increases US hegemony and military spending. The Democrats should call themselves the party of wars and lies, but then they'd have to fight the Republicans for that title.

People like me, the Libertarians, are sick of paying for your two parties' wars.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.
-@NetRunner

Read the history of my comments and you may find that I harbor no love for the enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex. I find the creation of the F-22, and C-17 a little like creating weapons platforms just so money can be wasted. In reality, is it really necessary to have a F-22 when there are Nuclear devices?

I guess it's fine to violate a nations sovereignty in the pursuit of justice, but to use military force is another thing completely. - Sarcasm. I point to the US and its relation ship with South America.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war? I also have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is the saint that he's made out to be.
-@NetRunner

It is quite clear that the Republican party is pro war. I can't argue that and to do so would betray my opinion of a corrupt party so bathed in neo-conservative foolishness.

You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.
-@NetRunner

EDIT: I shouldn't have to remind you of my stance on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporations are not people, they are conglomerations of people. But that's the problem with this country isn't it? The root of the problem, is that this country's policies are dictated by the almighty dollar, and who has the most; corporations.

What is clear to me about the Supreme Court is that it is divided by partisan ideology. They are not impartial, and pragmatic about laws. They constantly make decisions based on political ideology. For example, the 2nd ammendment. I wonder if anyone from the Judicial Branch has taken a good look at unbiased statistics (I'm not concerned with how the statistics point now, for gun or against gun). If arguments could be put in a more emotionally independent fashion, perhaps that would make a difference. To often is politics a game of ideology and emotion. Although I wonder if this solution is simply evil arbitrarily.

The military industrial complex does not demand war. Supply and Demand. The Military Industrial Complex exists out of a need to meet supply, and make a profit on it. For this I point you to Germany, a Documentary called "Bullet Proof Salesman". How do you stop supply and demand? Stop the wars, no war at all. Cut military spending. I think that would have been the best way to deal with Terrorism with good police work and diplomacy. The military is, by design, not for police work; they exist to fuck shit up.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.
-@NetRunner

The elimination of one party would leave only the other party. A situation rife for Majority Rule, which is counter to a Democratic Republic, or a Republic at all.

But know this, I agree with you that it's time for a change of scenery; republicans need the boot.

The US hasn't declared war since 1944. Congress has simply authorized the use of force. "War does not decide who is right, only who is left" - George Bernard

We could increase military spending OR actually make a real profit off of something people will keep buying anyway.

Drug dealers want it kept illegal.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

We should keep it simple. I suggest the going after military spending, which is probably the one thing we all agree on most.

I guess I was trying to think of some way to unify us on anti-corporatism.

Military spending cuts will be a monumentally hard sell when we are still engaged in combat in 2-3 countries, with conservative media still fearmongering 24/7, and Democrats afraid to appear "soft on terror", and members of both parties in love with the military pork.

I think one libertarian idea I can really get behind as a solution to corporate recklessness is a campaign to eliminate all statutory liability limits. We can sell it to the right-leaning amongst us as a chance to see if that alone makes regulation superfluous, and lets them show us hippies that our meddling isn't needed, while telling our left-leaners that it's a great way to make Lloyd Blankfein penniless, and erase BP from the face of the earth.

It seems to me that might be a legislative proposal populists from both ends of the spectrum could support.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
What if we joined forces? Why don't we 4 little fleas start a movement? We could do it right here.

I'm all for it. Except...what exactly would the movement be about?
When I shout "WHAT DO WE WANT?" What's the callback?


We should keep it simple. I suggest the going after military spending, which is probably the one thing we all agree on most. Think of all the money that goes towards building new, exotic and sexy ways of killing people, futile wars in the middle east, military aid to violent and oppressive nations, propping up corrupt dictators and regimes, WW2 era bases in Japan and Germany. Wasteful and counterproductive at a time when people are hurting in this country. I do not wish to take anything away from the soldiers, no pay cuts or cuts in medical or retirement benefits.

Is this something we can all get on board with?

What do we want? A government that works for the people, not war industry!

@NetRunner: The point I was getting at is that the soldiers wouldn't have anything to do. Given that most of them are relatively young, proper retirement seems a bit strange. On the other hand most of them (open to correction...) would be unskilled outside of army life and the economy isn't really supplying a lot of unskilled jobs these days. I think Grayson would be doing more good by focussing on education or alternative employment programs first. On the other other hand, maybe his bill might not be a waste of time and actually pass after it's been watered down. A reduction in military spending would certainly be a good thing.

At least his anti-military idiocy is consistent no matter who is in office... It isn't the war making us poor. It is the government. Before we cut the military - which serves a Constitutionally mandated role - we should cut our social spending (which has no constitutional justification) before it breaks the bank like it's doing to Europe.

This article from the NY Times pegs the issue perfectly...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html

Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net

Even IF we cut military spending it wouldn't help. Government would just take the money and pour it into a whole new set of social spending entitlements. And of course these entitlements would be just like all the others we currently have... Bloated bureaucracies that help almost no one, accomplish almost nothing, and strip away freedoms.

Europe is right now in the process of showing the world just how ineffective and destructive the 'big government' Kenseyian socialized approach to governance is. And it is this failed model that the American left is seeking to emulate with Obamacare, Cap & Trade, bailouts galore, huge unions, and unfunded liabilities. Before one cent of the military gets cut there should be a 50% cut in the budgets of every U.S. social program across the board. Bar none. The answer is small government at the state, county, and municipal level.

This will never pass. Military spending is wwaaaaay higher on the political priority list than cutting taxes. But with any luck, a few of those tea bagging morons will get the clue that the republicans have incompatible political positions. Not to let the dems off the hook. They vote for war, too. If there was a hell, every one of them would be headed there.

>> ^rougy:

Cenk's wrong.
You know, America, if you're so god-damned short-sighted, chintzy, and selfish to invest in a girl with a 4.09 GPA who has been here since she was eight years old, then you're too god-damned stupid to deserve any of the respect that you demand, even if it is at the point of a gun.


Give her a free ride, well free until she has to service that loan? Yep let's just start handing out subsidized educational loans to everyone let the tax payer take risk. Taxpayers already have enough risk; military spending and other big shit. Giving her a public loan would set a startling precedent and it would give other illegal immigrants the ability to get public loans; legally.

Also for everyone's reading.
Illegal Immigrants Myths.
http://www.urban.org/publications/900898.html

What can Obama do about those by himself? He could go after the Democratic caucus a little more than he has been. I don't think I'm the only one who noticed that Obama's rhetorical prowess (or his willingness to use it) has substantially diminished since the election.

Regarding the oil gusher - he could've NOT allowed for the expansion of offshore oil drilling in the first place (remember that?). I know it wouldn't have prevented the current fiasco, but it would have shown some backbone. He could have appointed someone competent (and not an oil industry stooge) to oversee the issuing of drilling and safety permits (I know you know about those).

Your are right - Congress is where most of the substantive issues of the day are dealt with. But Obama has such enormous political capital that he could use to sway them on many issues, but chooses to play it safe for fear of losing the 2012 election. That's no way to lead.

I like the guy too. But I like him alot less since hearing about many of the things he has done (and more importantly, hasn't done) since taking office.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Throbbin:
Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).
What can Obama do about any of those by himself, particularly the "ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER"?
Much as I like the guy, it's not as if he can just swim down there and pinch off the pipe, superman-style.
That's really a list of things you're mad at Congress for failing to act on.
Hopefully your list will get one item shorter tomorrow -- they're holding a cloture vote on the Wall Street Reform package tomorrow (and all signs point to it passing with ease).

>> ^Throbbin:

Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).

What can Obama do about any of those by himself, particularly the "ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER"?

Much as I like the guy, it's not as if he can just swim down there and pinch off the pipe, superman-style.

That's really a list of things you're mad at Congress for failing to act on.

Hopefully your list will get one item shorter tomorrow -- they're holding a cloture vote on the Wall Street Reform package tomorrow (and all signs point to it passing with ease).

Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).

And Canada still has a Conservative government.

FML.