Nail hit FUCKING head!!!!!! Bravo!!!
Top House Republican complaining that Obama administration is not fighting drug war h
- Thread starter raythat
- Start date
- Status
Nail hit FUCKING head!!!!!! Bravo!!!
B
Ben Tokin
I totally agree with a downsized military. Bulk troops are no longer needed. Special forces, drone surveillance and highly accurate missles and lasers are more effective.
We need to chop the number of intelligence agencies. We need to withdraw all forces from foreign nations and reduce our naval presence on the oceans. Satellite and drone forces are more effective.
Our huge military presence has not prevented Iran or North Korea from developing nuclear capabilities. Our military is obviously depleting our financial resources and irritating many people around the globe. However, it is necessary to maintain a deterent force with increasing technical capabilities.
We also need to eliminate all federal agencies that are not needed. The only federal agencies needed are diplomatic corps, military, downsized justice and a small oversight agency for business and financial regulation.
We would most likely require less that 1/3 or what is spent today by the federal govt.
All education, health and welfare, tax collection, etc, already exist at the state level. Why duplicate it on a national scale?
We could implement a national sales tax of 8% and eliminate the IRS and all income taxes.
Leaner government, less control and invasion of privacy, would create an economy that would benefit everyone.
We need to chop the number of intelligence agencies. We need to withdraw all forces from foreign nations and reduce our naval presence on the oceans. Satellite and drone forces are more effective.
Our huge military presence has not prevented Iran or North Korea from developing nuclear capabilities. Our military is obviously depleting our financial resources and irritating many people around the globe. However, it is necessary to maintain a deterent force with increasing technical capabilities.
We also need to eliminate all federal agencies that are not needed. The only federal agencies needed are diplomatic corps, military, downsized justice and a small oversight agency for business and financial regulation.
We would most likely require less that 1/3 or what is spent today by the federal govt.
All education, health and welfare, tax collection, etc, already exist at the state level. Why duplicate it on a national scale?
We could implement a national sales tax of 8% and eliminate the IRS and all income taxes.
Leaner government, less control and invasion of privacy, would create an economy that would benefit everyone.
B
Ben Tokin
Maybe the last article wasn't clear enough. Here, try this one:
EDITORIAL: Wave goodbye to Internet freedom
FCC crosses the Rubicon into online regulation
The Washington Times
7:02 p.m., Thursday, December 2, 2010
ASSOCIATED PRESS FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski outlined a plan to expand the federal government's power over the Internet
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.
With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped "non-public, for internal use only" to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for "openness."
The issue of "net neutrality" is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user's connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.
In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the "problematic" services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they're going to be mad. If companies don't act, they're just as likely to find irate customers who don't want their experience bogged down by others.
It's not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it's not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.
No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC's last attempt in this arena. "That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss," FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. "And now the team is about to run the exact same play. ... In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so."
Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That's why Mr. Genachowskis's proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCC should stop trying to expand its regulatory empire.
Clear enough to me... more transparency about the governments plans and activities than under bush. Thanks for the additional example, even though it is just an editorial and a propaganda piece.
I've read that our national defense budget is larger than the next 27 wealthiest armies combined, and 26 of them are our allies.... and yet people still think we should be spending more on our military? I just dont get it....how much is enough? When have we ever been invaded to need this much military. Hell, the last time we were invaded, they couldn't even stop the farmers with guns. I've read that there is som 80+ million registered guns in america, without even thinking of how many illegal firearms out there, does anyone really exepect of an invasion? Lets start getting real here. If ya want a smaller government and lower taxes, we need to start looking at where we can effectively cut enough from the budget to make a difference, and all signs point to the vastly obsese militrary spending...
Things like the Patriot Act are fine when the left is in charge. They have the good sense to know what needs to be violated and what does not.
When folks like Bush employ such tactics we really don't know if it was a valid violation of our rights or not, basically because we all know Bush was a fucking ninkompoop. No way he had the intelligence it takes to properly assess civil rights violations. And the rest of the right are more than likely out to do us harm in some fashion...and that we all know.
Only critical thinking, progressive minds should be allowed to make such serious decisions.
We can only trust what the left tells us. Even when the rhetoric seems to be completely out of phase with reality, we have to have faith that we are being led down the righteous path.
Just the fact that the left may be a bit more transparent in their violating of constitutional and civil rights should show us all that they are the wiser of the two groups.
Yes sir...wise minds must agree.
When folks like Bush employ such tactics we really don't know if it was a valid violation of our rights or not, basically because we all know Bush was a fucking ninkompoop. No way he had the intelligence it takes to properly assess civil rights violations. And the rest of the right are more than likely out to do us harm in some fashion...and that we all know.
Only critical thinking, progressive minds should be allowed to make such serious decisions.
We can only trust what the left tells us. Even when the rhetoric seems to be completely out of phase with reality, we have to have faith that we are being led down the righteous path.
Just the fact that the left may be a bit more transparent in their violating of constitutional and civil rights should show us all that they are the wiser of the two groups.
Yes sir...wise minds must agree.
Just thinking the same thing lol. Hilarious. The false left right paradigm is always amusing.
Confidential
Member
So we see a huge disconnect from the advocates of smaller government who aren't willing to tackle the military industrial complex. Why is that? Because they work hand in hand trading campaign contributions for government contracts. They facilitate the revolving door from business to government employment.
I've read that our national defense budget is larger than the next 27 wealthiest armies combined, and 26 of them are our allies.... and yet people still think we should be spending more on our military? I just dont get it....how much is enough? When have we ever been invaded to need this much military. Hell, the last time we were invaded, they couldn't even stop the farmers with guns. I've read that there is som 80+ million registered guns in america, without even thinking of how many illegal firearms out there, does anyone really exepect of an invasion? Lets start getting real here. If ya want a smaller government and lower taxes, we need to start looking at where we can effectively cut enough from the budget to make a difference, and all signs point to the vastly obsese militrary spending...
And whenever people start to ask questions about why we spend so much on defense, the quickest way to shut them up is to ask why they don't support our troops who die for our country.
It's a big steaming pile of hypocrisy. They rail against the waste of government, but only rail against social programs that are supposed to help the less fortunate (while insinuating that those less fortunate people are lazy and should pick themselves up by their bootstraps), and taxes that pay for everything.
Just a week ago we had upcoming majority leader Boehner cancel an appointment to talk with obama about tax cuts so he could stage a press conference to bash obama for cutting republicans out of talking about tax cuts. This is par for the course.
And the left has no interest in making things run more efficiently. They will make pie in the sky promises, but when they deliver, they deliver generic, ill conceived plans. Then they quickly move on to the next promise.
Neither party can say anything about fiscal responsibility.
The problem with the two party system is when one party screws up, we punish them by voting in the other guys. Unfortunately the other guys see their election as a mandate for their policies rather than the truth. And the short attention span of the collective population allows this cycle to continue unabated.
100% in agreement
TexasMonster
Member
Go ahead, cut the military, when we are attacked, and we will be if we dont have a defense, you can come crying on a forum and it will all be better.
I am no President Obama fan but I do believe that if he is elected to a second term we might see him move in a direction with grass that would please us. Right now if he were to do that my side of the isle would eat him up in 2012. I may not like his policies but he is quite possibly the smartest President we have ever had, he knows what he is doing with the grass issue. I could be wrong, he may never help us out on the issue but I have a feeling he will during a second term. All of this is just my opinion and yall should take it as such.
I am no President Obama fan but I do believe that if he is elected to a second term we might see him move in a direction with grass that would please us. Right now if he were to do that my side of the isle would eat him up in 2012. I may not like his policies but he is quite possibly the smartest President we have ever had, he knows what he is doing with the grass issue. I could be wrong, he may never help us out on the issue but I have a feeling he will during a second term. All of this is just my opinion and yall should take it as such.
Confidential
Member
Talk about painting a disingenuous picture with only black and white. Cutting defense spending doesn't equal, "not having a defense".
How about cutting the amount we waste on military contractors who over bill us for services they don't even provide?
How about cutting military programs that develop technologies to fight types of wars that won't be fought?
How about holding people accountable for the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that has disappeared overseas since the start of these hopeless wars?
Is it still fiscal responsibility to require that our military is required to make the most out of our taxpayer dollars, or is it only fiscally responsible when the GOP says it is?
TexasMonster
Member
I agree with you 100% on all that overcharging crap and fraud. I truly do. I am not here arguing that my party has its stuff together. They in fact have not had it together in my lifetime. I've never actually seen Conservatism really practiced by our govt. At least your side of the isle really practices the stuff they believe (for the most part). I would LOVE for them to hold the people accountable for the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that has disappeared overseas. I truly would. I would like to see my side go after those on my side who did it. We probably agree on a lot more than you realize, I just cant agree with reducing our military strength. That will be viewed as a weakness and in my opinion it would be a weakness. We would be attacked. I believe that.
Edited to add: Dangit Confidential, I was so trying to get back on topic and be a good IC'r.
- Status
