Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More Blank Checks to the Military Industrial Complex (Ron Paul)
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, 14th District ^ | 2010-05-24

Posted on 05/24/2010 10:02:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385

Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another “supplemental” appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. These are akin to a family that consistently outspends its budget, and therefore needs to use a credit card to make it through the end of the month.

If the American people want Congress to spend less, putting an end to supplemental appropriations bills would be a start. The 13 “regular” appropriations bills fund every branch, department, agency, and program of the federal government. Congress should place every dollar in plain view among those 13 bills. Instead, supplemental spending bills serve as a sneaky way for Congress to spend extra money that was not projected in budget forecasts. Once rare, they have become commonplace vehicles for deficit spending.

The latest supplemental bill is touted as an “emergency” war spending bill, needed to fund our ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The emergencies never seem to end, however, and Congress passes one military supplemental bill after another as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on.

Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie.

The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!

We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases.

With this enormous amount of money and energy spent on efforts that have nothing to do with the security of the United States, when the time comes to defend American soil, we will be too involved in other adventures to do so.

There is nothing conservative about spending money we don’t have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last

1 posted on 05/24/2010 10:02:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bamahead; Bokababe; djsherin; dcwusmc
There is nothing conservative about spending money we don’t have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.

*Ping!*

2 posted on 05/24/2010 10:03:00 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The government should fund government and that is all. No more grants and handouts to non-government organizations, no more corporate welfare etc.

It needs to stop.


3 posted on 05/24/2010 10:05:25 AM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Ron Paul is a nut.


4 posted on 05/24/2010 10:07:09 AM PDT by HospiceNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Um, defense spending is one of the few assignments given to the federal government by the US Constitution.


5 posted on 05/24/2010 10:08:54 AM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

This is exactly whereas Paul is dangerous to this nation. He of course would slice our military spending down to merely protecting the borders. Paul would pay no attention to Iran pursuing nuclear bombs, he would let them have them. No more protection for American interests abroad. No more helping deter genocide in the world. No more helping expand the cause of freedom.


6 posted on 05/24/2010 10:09:10 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually,

From Mirriam-Webster:

Empire
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control.

You make so many good points, Ron. Then you throw crap like that in the middle so that you and your followers can be marginalized as kooks.

7 posted on 05/24/2010 10:10:39 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
No more protection for American interests abroad. No more helping deter genocide in the world. No more helping expand the cause of freedom.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

8 posted on 05/24/2010 10:11:11 AM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
Um, defense spending is one of the few assignments given to the federal government by the US Constitution.

Um....if you think that policing the world has anything to do with the intent of the founders (who had a phobia of large standing armies), you don't know your history very well. BTW, the proper term to describe the status quo is "military spending" not "defense spending."

9 posted on 05/24/2010 10:12:31 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

We have bases in 160 countries. If that isn’t an empire, what is?


10 posted on 05/24/2010 10:13:28 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Erskine Childers

So I guess then you like seeing large portions of the world ruled by genocidal anti-American dictators? Whatever floats your boat.


11 posted on 05/24/2010 10:13:40 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse

“Ron Paul is a nut.”

Thanks for that cogent contribution to the thread.


12 posted on 05/24/2010 10:14:06 AM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Read (and understand) the definition of an empire. Having allies or having bases does not make an empire.


13 posted on 05/24/2010 10:14:35 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
No more helping deter genocide in the world. No more helping expand the cause of freedom.

As in ... Somalia? North Korea? China? Where do you draw the line? More importantly, what Presidents and Congressional Leaders do you trust to make those decisions?

14 posted on 05/24/2010 10:14:45 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I think Rand Paul is going to have a tough time getting elected if he doesn’t support national defense and the war on terror.


15 posted on 05/24/2010 10:15:16 AM PDT by RogerQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erskine Childers; All
Note to Ron Paul and every other isolationist, right or left:

After the events of July 16th, 1945 at the White Sands Proving Grounds in the New Mexico desert, ISOLATIONISM IS NOT AN OPTION.

16 posted on 05/24/2010 10:16:03 AM PDT by bassmaner (Hey commies: I am a white male, and I am guilty of NOTHING! Sell your 'white guilt' elsewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“There is nothing conservative about spending money we don’t have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.”

I agree.


17 posted on 05/24/2010 10:16:20 AM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Having bases in 160 countries doesn't make us an empire, it makes us idiots. The rest of the industrialized world has figured out how to get us to pay to protect them. But they certainly aren't paying us tribute or taking orders from us.
18 posted on 05/24/2010 10:16:52 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
What a lightweight he can be, claiming "Russia imploded becasue it was broke".

Russia imploded because Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher drove them broke by upping the arms race and reviving the economies of the west.

Paul is crazy nuts, every bit as nuts as the senator we all disdain, Sir Rabadash Rabs. Your worship of him is more than slightly unsettling........

19 posted on 05/24/2010 10:17:54 AM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

“...policing the world...” is a Leftist phrase created and used to demean and undermine our Constitutional treaties with allies. People who use it expose themselves as the tools they are. That usually means, Libertarians.


20 posted on 05/24/2010 10:22:13 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
So I guess then you like seeing large portions of the world ruled by genocidal anti-American dictators?

Captain O

21 posted on 05/24/2010 10:22:47 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

The states, once sovereign, are now the territories. Bambi is the emperor. The term empire just might fit.


22 posted on 05/24/2010 10:22:52 AM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clump

He’s not talking about within our borders, but outside them.


23 posted on 05/24/2010 10:24:21 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

This is a fairly good pic of him: http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2520019%2C136


24 posted on 05/24/2010 10:24:56 AM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Ah...I see the Code Pink talking points have appeared on this thread...


25 posted on 05/24/2010 10:34:33 AM PDT by Allegra (Pablo is very wily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

The constitution directs the government to provide for the common defense of our country. I didn’t say it provided for policing the world.

Military spending is mandated by the constitution. The quote from Ron Paul makes it sound like he is against military spending.

I don’t like Ron Paul. AFAIK, he is an anti-semite.


26 posted on 05/24/2010 10:35:10 AM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
This is exactly whereas Paul is dangerous to this nation

You are dangerous to this nation. Every time a breath of fresh air comes along, out scurries you and yours to insist the windows must be closed. 'There are germs in that fresh air, you say, which will poison the air we're used to breathing. You know, this stale insider air.'

If our congress were comprised of men like Paul, we would be a better and freer nation.

27 posted on 05/24/2010 10:42:41 AM PDT by Do Be (The heart is smarter than the head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
We have bases in 160 countries. If that isn’t an empire, what is?

From the text of the definition above: "having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority"

That's what.

28 posted on 05/24/2010 10:47:59 AM PDT by ScottinVA (RIP to the country I love...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
He’s not talking about within our borders, but outside them.

He's not, but I am. The federal government's growth in power and size is bankrupting the states and destroying their sovereignty. It is federal imperialism.

But his point is not entirely off the mark. I don't think it has to be all or nothing like most of the posts suggest. We can and should meet our obligations abroad and at home in a fiscally responsible manner.

He is right that if we go broke there will be nothing left for our military to defend.

29 posted on 05/24/2010 10:48:37 AM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Do Be

It is you Paul supporters who want to close the windows and keep the U.S. isolated from the world. I am all for a breath of fresh air and to allow us to use our representation in order to protect our interests throughout the entire world, to promote the cause of freedom, and to put genocidal terrorist dictators in their place when through our representation we decide it warrants it. But you and the Paulites all come running out and scream terms like “neo-con” and cry that their would be no war if America was present overseas.

If our Congress was comprised of men all like your hero Paul then freedom would be on the decline throughout the world and our National Security would become weakened.


30 posted on 05/24/2010 10:55:34 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


31 posted on 05/24/2010 10:56:37 AM PDT by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
So I guess then you like seeing large portions of the world ruled by genocidal anti-American dictators? Whatever floats your boat.

I don't really like it, but I'm disciplined enough to understand the wisdom of George Washington's insistence that, yes, we mind our own business, and refrain from foreign wars, even where the freedom of others is at stake.

32 posted on 05/24/2010 10:57:54 AM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Do Be
If our congress were comprised of men like Paul, we would be a better and freer nation.

*Ponders how to fix quote*

If our congress were comprised of men crazies like Paul, we would be a better and freer fruitier, and easier nation for Islam and anyone to destroy.

Fixed. Much better.

33 posted on 05/24/2010 11:01:43 AM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Erskine Childers

Not exactly what Washington ever said. I guess in your Paulite world whereas we do not forge any alliances, the help from the French would have never been accepted by the Founders. But it was accepted and that alliance was made thus making our own Revolutionary War partially a foreign entanglement that defies the distorted pronouncements of Paul supporters.


34 posted on 05/24/2010 11:02:55 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

BEWARE THE LEADER WHO BANGS THE DRUMS of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know ? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. — James Madison


35 posted on 05/24/2010 11:05:46 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

There’s no doubt of the proximate cause of their brokeness. The fact remains the Soviet Union was broke and it died from it. Your totally irrational hatred for Dr. Paul makes you blind to what he says. Please, seek help at once.


36 posted on 05/24/2010 11:07:08 AM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
After the events of July 16th, 1945 at the White Sands Proving Grounds in the New Mexico desert, ISOLATIONISM IS NOT AN OPTION.

Nonsense. Isolationism - properly undersood - is precisely the best reponse to a nuclear world.

I am for Fortress America. Get energy independent. Guard our borders (something that internationalists can't seem to get your minds around - they want to "invade the world and invite the world" simulaneously), end Muslim immigration, stockpile nukes, arm our population to the teeth, and then if somebody does mess with us (and not some third country, regardless of how much we might like them) destroy the agressor such that they will never, ever be able to rise again. Leave not a stone upon a stone. Sew their fields with salt. Dash the children against a stone, as it says in the Psalms.

We'd have to do that once maybe every century or so. And the rest of the time we could have peace and trade without bankrupting ourselves on saving a bunch of hapless Arabs from themselves. For the record, I could not possibly care less about Iraq. It's really just off my radar screen.

All of this internationalist crap is for somebody else. It's for some ally, or for some mad cause de jure, like "making the world safe for democracy" or "cleansing the world of evil." It's NOT for us.

And in the life of nations, we are the only ones who count.

In this mean old world of ours, you really do have to have a steely glint in your eye and a curl in the lip. I wish others well, but when push comes to shove, we really must be prepared to leave them to their fate.

Ron Paul is my President.

37 posted on 05/24/2010 11:07:23 AM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
help from the French would have never been accepted by the Founders. But it was accepted and that alliance was made thus making our own Revolutionary War partially a foreign entanglement that defies the distorted pronouncements of Paul supporters.

Why would you say that? Of course we accept the help if it's good for us. If it stops being good for us, we stop it. And we throw France under the bus when it suits us. Are you suggesting that the French acted in helping us out of some love of liberty? It was in their interests to do so at the time, and they'd throw us under the bus when it was no longer in their interests. Same for the Brits. Same of the Canadians. It's the life of nations.

Stop being so naive.

38 posted on 05/24/2010 11:09:40 AM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Nice it says “Beware”. That is fine with me but it says nothing about not protecting the nation. You are simply mis-using the quote in the case of Paul’s views. For while there is of course danger in going to or in easily accepting war there is 100 times the danger in downplaying National Security in a world with nuclear weapons and biological and chemical weapons whereas the majority of the world is run by socialist fascist dictators who want to destroy America. Paul would simply allow them to build up all around us and watch as they committed genocide against our allies.


39 posted on 05/24/2010 11:09:47 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Erskine Childers

It is you who are being naive. Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to this nation and was a openly sworn enemy of ours but Paul and his supporters prove themselves way to stupid to know how to protect this nation. By Paul’s own distorted vision he would not have accepted the help of the France.


40 posted on 05/24/2010 11:11:36 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I’ve heard said that the purpose of a federal government is to provide for the nation’s defense. Ron Paul and his surrender monkeys can still KMA.


41 posted on 05/24/2010 11:13:07 AM PDT by McGruff (So how is that Hopey Changey thingy working out for ya America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I'm clearly Ron Paul for President supporter, but it would be interesting to see how some folks would respond to Republican President (and WWII Supreme Allied Commander)Dwight Eisenhower's comment made at his farewell address:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

42 posted on 05/24/2010 11:13:56 AM PDT by OB1kNOb (When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OB1kNOb
I'm clearly Ron Paul for President supporter = I'm clearly NOT a Ron Paul for President supporter
43 posted on 05/24/2010 11:14:56 AM PDT by OB1kNOb (When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OB1kNOb

I think instead of needing to worry about a military-industrial complex we need much more to worry about all of industry being tied to government as we are seeing today. Virtually two-thirds of the world live under some sort of tyranny right now. I do not see how we need to withdraw more from the world in regards to military might.


44 posted on 05/24/2010 11:17:33 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Erskine Childers
I am for Fortress America. Get energy independent. Guard our borders (something that internationalists can't seem to get your minds around - they want to "invade the world and invite the world" simulaneously), end Muslim immigration, stockpile nukes, arm our population to the teeth, and then if somebody does mess with us (and not some third country, regardless of how much we might like them) destroy the agressor such that they will never, ever be able to rise again. Leave not a stone upon a stone. Sew their fields with salt. Dash the children against a stone, as it says in the Psalms.

I don't disagree with any of that, especially the 'invite the world' part.

But I think it's foolishly naive to believe that we can just stand idly by while a nation with a loon dictator who has an apocalyptic death wish and has repeatly threatened to annihilate not only our ally Israel, but the USA as well obtains the ultimate weapon. It is our duty to us and to our posterity to do everything in our power to prevent that from happening, up to and including a full-scale land invasion and occupation of Iran. Or simply bomb them back to the Stone Age.

Unfortunately, with this bunch in DC now, the Iranians will get the bomb. And one way or another, we'll pay the price for our inaction.

45 posted on 05/24/2010 11:22:03 AM PDT by bassmaner (Hey commies: I am a white male, and I am guilty of NOTHING! Sell your 'white guilt' elsewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse; rabscuttle385
"Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another “supplemental” appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. ....The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!"

"Ron Paul is a nut."

So is Congress not going for another supplemental appropriations bill, HospiceNurse? Is government spending "under control" and Ron Paul is wrong about our overspending? Are our military and foreign aid packages not worth $1 Trillion a year?

This is always the problem with any post to FR that includes the name "Ron Paul", because the detractors are unwilling to deal with the facts of the issues. Instead, they take turns skeet-shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message.

The fact is that Congress is spending us into bankruptcy and we can't afford the same kind of spending behavior that bankrupted and eventually destroyed the Soviet Union.

Perhaps Ron Paul is a little too much of a purist on only acting militarily when it is purely in defense of the US, perhaps not. That does not mean that he is all wrong when it comes to us looking at what we can afford in terms of foreign commitments and military spending. Maybe we need to look at taking care of ourselves and our own country's needs instead of stretching ourselves so thin patrolling the world for conflicts -- and our politicians need to worry about taking care of America, instead of being focused on championing the world.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

46 posted on 05/24/2010 11:27:59 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
in a world with nuclear weapons and biological and chemical weapons whereas the majority of the world is run by socialist fascist dictators who want to destroy America,

we go after little countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, little East European countries who most in this country never heard of.

China, Russia, North Korea are exempt from this "benevolent" policy? What are we,? The Big Bullies on the block? The war on terror is an excuse. If it were not, US Presidents would stop kissing(Bush)and bowing(Obama)to the same Saudi Princes that fund Wahhabi's in this country and who finance terrorist Sunni's' and madrassa's worldwide. The worst genocidal dictators are in Africa. Why no interest in stopping the genocide there? No oil?

47 posted on 05/24/2010 11:28:26 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Hatred? It is to laugh.

With so much target rich fun to be made, why would I reduce to hatred?

Btw, it's a liberal idea that the Soviets imploded by themselves without Reagan, and that should give you pause.......

But it won't.

48 posted on 05/24/2010 11:29:08 AM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
But I think it's foolishly naive to believe that we can just stand idly by while a nation with a loon dictator who has an apocalyptic death wish and has repeatly threatened to annihilate not only our ally Israel, but the USA as well obtains the ultimate weapon

You must mean North Korea right? Why did Bush allow crazy Kim to build nuclear bombs?

49 posted on 05/24/2010 11:32:51 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

I KNOW who was responsible for driving the old Soviets broke. I was part of that, still serving all through Reagan’s terms. THIS is about the simple fact that they spent and overspent on military things until they went broke. And the simple fact that we cannot afford to do the same.


50 posted on 05/24/2010 11:35:39 AM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson