Posted on 03/09/2016 6:53:26 AM PST by Kaslin
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"provide for the common defense", as in spend the money necessary for a strong defense.
"promote the general Welfare", as in, to encourage concern for all citizens, not pay illegals and able-bodied citizens to goof off.
Absolutely wrong.
Here is what actually happens in DC for 3 decades.
Republican Slash the Domestic budget pump up Military spending
Democrats. Slash the Military budget pump up Domestic Spending
DC’s “Solution”: OK we will compromise we will spend more on everything.
Unless you are willing to impose across the board cuts, you are not going to get any cuts.
Here is what actually happens in DC for 3 decades.
Republican Slash the Domestic budget pump up Military spending
Democrats. Slash the Military budget pump up Domestic Spending
DC’s “Solution”: OK we will compromise we will spend more on everything.
Unless you are willing to impose across the board cuts, you are not going to get any cuts.
Neo-conservtism:
relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.
Wrong on all counts. Your assumption that “only we” can provide the troops demonstrates a fundamental ignorant of the sizes of the Muslim state military in the Gulf States and Egypt.
BWAhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
The "domestic budget" never gets slashed.
Unless you are willing to impose across the board cuts, you are not going to get any cuts.
Horsecrap. Remember "sequestration"? That meant "slash the military and reduce the rate of growth of socialism".
You're absolutely wrong.
“Neocon” is often a code word for “Jew” ...
Really very simple.
When every GOP candidate, and the DC Defense lobby “Caucus for perceptual war” were busy pushing for an armed confrontation with Russia over Syria last fall, Trump was the only one who said “Fighting Russia over Syria on behalf of ISIS is nuts, we would be stupid to do that”.
Just showed you were you are utterly and complete ignorant and wrong. Like most people losing you want to scream “racist” at the oppostion rather then think.
You just showed yourself to be completely and utterly ignorant and wrong, and arrogantly presumed to lecture me with your ignorance.
You can cling to your emotion base ignorance or you can learn some unconformable facts that challenge your opinions.
So far you seem to favor clinging to the ignorance. That is just sad.
I think you mean ignorance. And at least I'm not ignorant enough to believe that Trump could manage to make his fantasy safe zone happen without a substantial U.S. troop commitment. Even Trump himself said he'd get the Gulf States to pay for it. He didn't say he'd get them to provide troops.
How exactly does supporting the overthrow of secular dictators and replacing them with "democracies" that elect Islamists protect America from Islamo terrorist attacks or defend our freedom from Communists?
The foreign policy agenda of Linda Graham and the neoconservatives is basically on the same page as Hillary Clinton's. The only difference is that Graham tries to sell it as "fighting terrorism" while Hillary tries to make it sound humanitarian.
Thank you.
Quote:
“Defending our freedom from Communists?”
“Our” freedom? More like THEIR “freedom” you mean.
Since 1945 well over 100,000 combat deaths, millions of injured and/or disabled veterans and trillions in taxpayer dollars down the drain - and not a single shooting war won(we defeated Soviet Russia by outspending them - a victory that could be described as Pyrrhic).
Our country’s towns and cities are dying and we STILL have troops stationed all over the world defending people who hate us.
We are fools. Stupid, impoverished fools.
Uh-huh. And how would he get Iran and Russia to agree to chopping off part of Syria, in order to create this new Saudi-Qatari dominated state?
Say someone like Chris Christie who was openly willing to start WW3 over Syria. I'd call that a "warmonger."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.