I'm always up for some Fox bashin', but it's not really a big surprise that a Fox focus group included people who were socially conservative warmongers who don't like Ron Paul.

Also too, it's the MO of Ron Paul supporters to spike online polls at every opportunity.

How is this justice? Have we been awakened the next day and seen a different world in which kindness and fairness have overwhelmed the natural human instinct to grasp power by any means necessary? Has our lust for war brought us peace? It's just another day, with one less living person.

Saudi wealth, the Red Scare, CIA operations and flawed religious dogma created a high-profile Bogeyman for us to chase for nearly a decade. In the wake we have left thousands dead and injured, nations torn asunder...basically, we've shown just what level of frightened warmongers we apes really are.

Uh yeah. And I'm supposed to take seriously the CHILDREN that call everyone that disagrees with them racists, homophobes, warmongers, greedy, etc. How is someone racist for wanting lower taxes? I'm still trying to figure that one out...

Discounting the glass jaw and virgin ears, it would be less insulting if the left didn't pretend to embrace "tolerance" and "all points of view" while being so insolently insular.

I try to limit name-calling to big name doofs, not fellow sifters. If it makes you feel better, Alohabamarx, Cankles, Slick Willie, Je$$e Jack$on and Kucinich the communist Keebler Elf will never read these posts.



>> ^probie:

QM, with all the name-calling, you really are a nine year old when it comes to voicing your opinion. Which is why yours will never count.

@^Skeeve



I'm not going to bother quoting your facts. It is not necessary. They are not really applicable to my original comment nor to my point. It also does not mean that King Steve is any less of a monger of conflict. Not identifying others as warmongers also does not mean that Harper is not one. (Sure there are worse people in history and in the world but I see no reason to compare Harper to them--A list of people better leaders would be longer and more fun anyway.)

Nevertheless, King Steve is placing the biggest push on expanding military spending since World War Two. Our troops were supposed to be gone from Afghanistan in 2011. They are still there. Harper wants to extend the misson. It is a drain on our tax-dollars that we cannot afford. They should be leaving. Period.

Now, as far as my math on $300 Million I'll walk you through that:

29 Billion divided by 65 warplanes is (about) 446 Million per warplane. Subtract the price of the warplanes (I used the average price from the wikipedia page for my ballpark but we can use your numbers and see how they work out) $138 Million equals (about) $308 Million dollars.

Now, I guess that's WITH engines. But Canadians are still going to be paying about $308 Million dollars in costs above and beyond the purchase price announced advertised by "The Harper Government" to own and operate these warplanes. A total cost of nearly $1000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

If you want challenge some real lies, try www.harperlied.com you can tell them how wrong, wrong and wrong they are.



* Being ignorant of the real costs of those warplanes does not make them a defensible purchase. *

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Firstly, calling Harper a warmonger when it was the Liberal government who first sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan is ignorant. Further, the only firm pull-out date set by the Canadian government is December 2011. Harper, with the support of the Liberal party in a parliamentary vote, did extend the mission beyond 2009, but Feb 2009 was never a firm pull-out date but merely a date set to review the situation.

Second, while the Conservative government has made deals to purchase the F-35 (which is the only real replacement for our ancient CF-18s) your pricing is so insanely out of line and the "without engines" myth is pure moronic propaganda. As was shown in today's Ottawa Citizen:
"Lockheed Martin makes planes, not engines. The engine for the F-35 will be supplied by Pratt & Whitney. The government will purchase the engines from Pratt & Whitney, just as will every F-35 customer, because that company will provide the guarantee and ongoing support for the engine. Thus for purposes of the contract with Lockheed Martin, the engines are "government furnished equipment." However, the cost for the engines is built into the $9-billion overall acquisition budget."


As for $300 million each, where could you possibly get such skewed numbers?

"The Canadian acquisition price of $75 million is for the aircraft only (and yes, it does include an engine). American cost figures tend to include other program elements like spare parts, weapons and infrastructure. This is obvious; 65 aircraft at $75 million each costs $4.9 billion total -much less than the acquisition budget. If you use the overall $9-billion acquisition budget, each Canadian F-35 would appear to cost $138 million because it incorporates all those other costs."


In your haste to spread lies you not only doubled the cost of the aircraft, but you took away the engines that were included in the original budgeting.

Having a strong opposition is an important part of democracy, being ignorant is not.>> ^notarobot:

Warmonger Stephen Harper, kept the Canadian military engaged in Afghanistan past pull-out dates, made deals to purchase F 35 fighter jets at $300M each above cost and without any engines...
So it isn't surprising that Yoko Ono had the video of Stephen Harper butchering her husband's music pulled.

Warmonger Stephen Harper, kept the Canadian military engaged in Afghanistan past pull-out dates, made deals to purchase F 35 fighter jets at $300M each above cost and without any engines...

So it isn't surprising that Yoko Ono had the video of Stephen Harper butchering her husband's music pulled.

>> ^volumptuous:

Sorry Blankey.
My very close Croatian friend is quite happy that the United Nations Protection Force helped save her and her family from certain death.
Not every military action is warmongering or rooting for violence. Maybe you should take her out for coffee one day and let her tell you stories about the dead bodies in the streets and how many young school friends are dead. Then maybe you should explain to her that while it's nice that she's not dead, but the US and UN should've just let her die because to do otherwise would be supporting violence and warmongering. And noone has any obligations to help anyone else, because we may have to be taxed one dollar each, and we all know that our own personal money is more important than keeping kids from being slaughtered.
I am in no way in support of the US actions in Libya. But these conflicts are not black&white.


So, if some good is done, then policing the world is justified? Good to know. And if you can work in some "I bet you won't tell this woman her family deserved to die" bullshit, that's good for bonus points! Bravo! Go Team America!

Sorry Blankey.

My very close Croatian friend is quite happy that the United Nations Protection Force helped save her and her family from certain death.

Not every military action is warmongering or rooting for violence. Maybe you should take her out for coffee one day and let her tell you stories about the dead bodies in the streets and how many young school friends are dead. Then maybe you should explain to her that while it's nice that she's not dead, but the US and UN should've just let her die because to do otherwise would be supporting violence and warmongering. And noone has any obligations to help anyone else, because we may have to be taxed one dollar each, and we all know that our own personal money is more important than keeping kids from being slaughtered.

I am in no way in support of the US actions in Libya. But these conflicts are not black&white.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The Libyans are attempting to liberate themselves. By taking air combat out of the equation, the UN is evening the odds. The French gave us assistance in our own American revolution. Why do you oppose liberty in Egypt? Is liberty just for white people? >> ^blankfist:
We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.


Because we pick and choose who we "liberate". The comment was rather clear, I thought. I don't oppose liberty anywhere. You're trying to justify your party's warlust. Why did you oppose liberty in Iraq when apparently we were liberating the Iraqis? See how stupid that sounds? This is warmongering and more neocon/Democratic interventionism, dystopianBUSHtoday.
"Is liberty just for white people?"
Yes, liberty is only for Aryan Neo-Nazis in the South. Sigh. Come on, you're smarter and bigger than a comment like that.


Yes, we DO pick and choose who we "liberate". You are right about that. I must say I find it strange you are OPPOSED to the idea of liberating people from living under a dictator that had publicly declared his intent to commit genocide against his own people.

Yes there are plenty of other places in terrible shape that we aren't helping out. Yes, nations are choosing to help in Libya for selfish reasons. Mostly concerns over caring for refugees though, oil is a secondary concern to that cost. It remains that actions in Libya are averting a dictator from committing a genocide he had publicly declared he was going to commit, and was hours from regaining the control needed to get it under way.

Do all you people really oppose stopping a genocide and helping a people oppose a vicious dictator all because those helping are in it for themselves?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The Libyans are attempting to liberate themselves. By taking air combat out of the equation, the UN is evening the odds. The French gave us assistance in our own American revolution. Why do you oppose liberty in Egypt? Is liberty just for white people? >> ^blankfist:
We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.



Because we pick and choose who we "liberate". The comment was rather clear, I thought. I don't oppose liberty anywhere. You're trying to justify your party's warlust. Why did you oppose liberty in Iraq when apparently we were liberating the Iraqis? See how stupid that sounds? This is warmongering and more neocon/Democratic interventionism, dystopianBUSHtoday.

"Is liberty just for white people?"

Yes, liberty is only for Aryan Neo-Nazis in the South. Sigh. Come on, you're smarter and bigger than a comment like that.

I freely admit to having thought Obama was the real deal, and that it's obvious he wasn't. I think my disappointments with him aside, he was still the right person to support, given that it was only ever going to be him, Hillary, or McCain who became President. I think you're vastly overstating it when you say that Obama is "leading the charge" in Libya, but that's just how you are.

I don't really see it as "chickens coming home to roost". Obama has failed to rise to the occasion on several issues, but he hasn't gone and done anything all his own that creates new problems to be undone. Maybe this no-fly zone in Libya will become that, but this doesn't strike me as some sort of imperialist impulse from Obama, so much as him going along with the world community.

If you told me that in 2008, after Bush put together an Iraq withdrawal plan, I would've said that I pretty much expect him to follow the Bush withdrawal plan to the letter...which he has, with no sign of extending our stay there. On Afghanistan, I would've said that Obama openly campaigned on escalating the conflict in Afhganistan, and I didn't like it much, but that that did seem to be the one place in the world we had any reason to be involved in. On Libya I would've said "why Libya?" If you said "to defend pro-democratic rebels who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi", I would've said "hmm, if the UN supports that action, and the mission remains limited in scope, I would oppose it, but I would understand it".

As for Gitmo and PATRIOT, if you told me that he'd be stopped from doing either by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, I would've found that completely believable. That he's passively let the topic fade from the public stage is probably my biggest disappointment with him.

On taxes, which taxes went up? Income tax rates below $250K (and above!) are the same as they've been, and payroll taxes just got cut a bit. My federal taxes definitely went down, while my state & local have increased slightly, but Obama has nothing to do with those. The only tax increases I know of are on cigarettes, and maybe the expiration of tax cuts that began with the stimulus.

As for the democratic process, all it proved is that it takes more work than voting for President once every 4 years. I was too carried away in 2008 about how much one election would do, but it did seem like a sea change at the time.

Part of what's wrong is that people here are too complacent. Tunisia, Egypt, etc. all just managed to topple dictatorships with peaceful protests. I think if we did the same here, we could topple our oligarchy. But first we need to stop letting fear of loss make us keep our heads down...

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Oh, you're such a victim, aren't you? *raises hand* "Oh, teacher, blankfist is picking on me!"

Stop deflecting. You and DFT claimed Obama was the real deal; that he'd enact some real change. He hasn't. He received a Nobel Peace prize, yet has extended the war effort. It makes no sense to people like me, and now that he's leading the charge in Libya, your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

I know you don't regret a second campaigning or voting for a warmonger and a liar. It's all too common for people to defend their vote, and the dissonance is alarming. My father used to defend his vote for Bush saying he's better than Clinton or something irrelevant like that.

If I could go back to 2008 and make wild claims that Obama would not end the war in Iraq, he would instead extend the war into Afghanistan, and before 2012 he'd go into Libya, I wonder what you'd say. Or that he'd never close Guantanamo or repeal the Patriot Act, I wonder what you'd say. You'd probably disagree and beat the "Democrats. Party of peace." drum.

I bet you still have an Obama/Biden 2008 bumper sticker on the back of your Prius, don't you? How typical if you do.

And by the way, I made less this year because of the economy, yet my taxes went up (as did the cost of living). I thought those of us who made less than $250,000 would not have our taxes raised. Looks like that too was a lie. I'm glad we still have idiots out there who think we can change the system with the democratic process, because singlehandedly Obama has proven that to be false in his first four years.

Seeing you, I think I now understand why the entire nation of Germany gave into Nazism and thought it was a good thing.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
So what you're saying is...what? That harassing me is somehow going to reverse a UN resolution against Libya?

I do think that if you don't like something, you should get involved and change it. In this case, part of that would be trying to get like minded people to join you in some sort of petition or protest. You don't seem to have any interest in doing that.

Do you have a bumper sticker with "Don't blame me, I voted for <insert losing candidate here>!" on your car? I mean if you don't, you really should get one. It might be too on the nose though, because it's not just some humorous witticism to you; instead it's a statement of your entire political philosophy, such as it is.

Oh, and by the way, I don't regret for a second having voted for and campaigned for Obama.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wait, I thought you said if you didn't like something, then you should get involved and change it. Wasn't voting for Obama that change? How's that working out for you?

And I'm a liberal. The original liberal.

Oh, you're such a victim, aren't you? *raises hand* "Oh, teacher, blankfist is picking on me!"

Stop deflecting. You and DFT claimed Obama was the real deal; that he'd enact some real change. He hasn't. He received a Nobel Peace prize, yet has extended the war effort. It makes no sense to people like me, and now that he's leading the charge in Libya, your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

I know you don't regret a second campaigning or voting for a warmonger and a liar. It's all too common for people to defend their vote, and the dissonance is alarming. My father used to defend his vote for Bush saying he's better than Clinton or something irrelevant like that.

If I could go back to 2008 and make wild claims that Obama would not end the war in Iraq, he would instead extend the war into Afghanistan, and before 2012 he'd go into Libya, I wonder what you'd say. Or that he'd never close Guantanamo or repeal the Patriot Act, I wonder what you'd say. You'd probably disagree and beat the "Democrats. Party of peace." drum.

I bet you still have an Obama/Biden 2008 bumper sticker on the back of your Prius, don't you? How typical if you do.

And by the way, I made less this year because of the economy, yet my taxes went up (as did the cost of living). I thought those of us who made less than $250,000 would not have our taxes raised. Looks like that too was a lie. I'm glad we still have idiots out there who think we can change the system with the democratic process, because singlehandedly Obama has proven that to be false in his first four years.

Seeing you, I think I now understand why the entire nation of Germany gave into Nazism and thought it was a good thing.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
So what you're saying is...what? That harassing me is somehow going to reverse a UN resolution against Libya?

I do think that if you don't like something, you should get involved and change it. In this case, part of that would be trying to get like minded people to join you in some sort of petition or protest. You don't seem to have any interest in doing that.

Do you have a bumper sticker with "Don't blame me, I voted for <insert losing candidate here>!" on your car? I mean if you don't, you really should get one. It might be too on the nose though, because it's not just some humorous witticism to you; instead it's a statement of your entire political philosophy, such as it is.

Oh, and by the way, I don't regret for a second having voted for and campaigned for Obama.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wait, I thought you said if you didn't like something, then you should get involved and change it. Wasn't voting for Obama that change? How's that working out for you?

And I'm a liberal. The original liberal.

@Psychologic, I still think that's a pretty flimsy reason to completely denigrate his other views based on something as frivolous as religion. Instead, we get Obama who has done nothing (zero, zilch, nada) to squash the US Imperialism and end the wars. Which is more important when deciding on who to vote for? A man's personal view of religion or his nation-building interventionist warmongering?

This is why I'll never understand statists.

I haven't read those comments, but GeeSuss tends to be pretty much in line with what I believe most of the time and an overall rational guy as far as I can tell, so I'll give it a look later. Just got back from Roger Waters The Wall and chilling. Fucking amazing concert! My favorite part was when they sang the line "Mother should I trust the government" and they projected a big "No Fucking Way" across the stage. And I loved all the sellout Shepard Fairey style art during Run Like Hell. It's a shame they only showed likenesses of Bush, Hitler and Stalin and not the current warmongering President: Obama.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Glad to hear it, brother.

edit: I was talking about pennypecker and geesussfreak, not the guy in the clip.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
He's not my ideological brethren. Nothing about that statement has anything to do with my ideology. Sorry.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Thought you might want to check out the authoritarian suggestions of your ideological brethren. They are a couple of sick puppies. http://videosift.com/video/Tea-Party-Only-Property-Owners-Should-Be-Allowed-To-Vote

So hilarious.

You turn 18 and join the military and are shipped overseas. You don't own a house, because you're only fucking 18 fucking years old and you're in the military and live in fucking Seoul or whatever.

By WP's standards, you can't vote. Sure, you can go die a horrible death so WP's daddy warmongers can have their fun. But vote? NO WAY!!