"How Is It Conservative To Add A Trillion Dollars In Military Spending?"

[MarcATL]

We would have cash for all if we would stop supporting all the planet's losers.

Meaning....?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Cash for all? Sounds like a socialist to me or commy.

He means if we didn't help poor people Wed have a bigger military.

You're guessing too. Good one though, could be what he meant.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Actually, what Rand says does not make much sense.

While it is true, perhaps, that we should PAY for any increases (and any other spending) we have in the realm of defense, it is kind of pointless to misuse the label "socialist" to address the way we currently "fund" without regard to the ability to pay for such things. that's true for military spending as well as welfare and so forth.

In the interim however, the proportion of the national "budget" (sorry, that term "budget" is obviously not quite accurate, but it will have to suffice) we spend on national defense is an important part. You liberals 9and many libertarians like Rand) DO tend to see it as a fat cow portion from which monies for OTHER things can be taken. But that is very short term and dangerously ignorant thinking.

WE are all safer when we have the military ability to fend off a wide array of present day enemies and probable future foes. And nobody said it would be cheap.

Yes, we SHOULD arrange our national affairs so that we actually PAY for it. But that's true of every other dollar in the entire budget. It is NOT true for only the military budget. Until we get a proper handle on that (zero based budgeting, tax reform, balanced budget amendment, and an actual commitment to doing all of the above), don't pretend that it is solely in the arena of the military portion of our budget that we must avoid socialism.

Rand does say lots of smart things. He tends (largely) to be consistent, too. But not always and not in this case.

The problem is, adding that amount of money, or any more money to military spending is simply not conservative. However, the Republican party claims to be conservative. Hence, the problem due to inconsistency.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The warmonger right always wants more military spending.

Ask these people, you want more spending, how much will be enough? Give us the number.

None of them can answer, because none of them believe there can ever be enough.

Moreover, to go to WHAT?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[healthmyths]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Tell that to these people!

Russia Reveals Secret Nuclear-Armed Drone Sub
High-speed harbor buster shown on TV Russia Reveals Secret Nuclear-Armed Drone Sub

Chinese Scientists Unveil New Stealth Material Breakthrough
8:16 PM ETBY PATRICK TUCKER
Planes and warships just got a lot harder to see with microwave radar.
A group of scientists from China may have created a stealth material that could make future fighter jets very difficult to detect by some of today’s most cutting-edge anti-stealth radars. Chinese Scientists Unveil New Stealth Material Breakthrough

ISIS-Linked Terror Cell Was Committed to Attack in Spain: Cops
An ISIS-linked group that was committed to carrying out a jihadist attack in Madrid was broken up on Tuesday, Spanish police said.

Should we greet them this way??? Think they'll just join arms and break out in "Kumbaya" ?
View attachment 54522

We have 5000 or however many nuclear weapons. Any country that tries to destroy us will disappear.

What more do you want?

Where are your facts???

Please tell Russia that because...

in 2013, Russia possessed an estimated 8,500 total nuclear warheads of which 1,800 were strategically operational.
Russia and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bedowin62]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Actually, what Rand says does not make much sense.

While it is true, perhaps, that we should PAY for any increases (and any other spending) we have in the realm of defense, it is kind of pointless to misuse the label "socialist" to address the way we currently "fund" without regard to the ability to pay for such things. that's true for military spending as well as welfare and so forth.

In the interim however, the proportion of the national "budget" (sorry, that term "budget" is obviously not quite accurate, but it will have to suffice) we spend on national defense is an important part. You liberals 9and many libertarians like Rand) DO tend to see it as a fat cow portion from which monies for OTHER things can be taken. But that is very short term and dangerously ignorant thinking.

WE are all safer when we have the military ability to fend off a wide array of present day enemies and probable future foes. And nobody said it would be cheap.

Yes, we SHOULD arrange our national affairs so that we actually PAY for it. But that's true of every other dollar in the entire budget. It is NOT true for only the military budget. Until we get a proper handle on that (zero based budgeting, tax reform, balanced budget amendment, and an actual commitment to doing all of the above), don't pretend that it is solely in the arena of the military portion of our budget that we must avoid socialism.

Rand does say lots of smart things. He tends (largely) to be consistent, too. But not always and not in this case.

The problem is, adding that amount of money, or any more money to military spending is simply not conservative. However, the Republican party claims to be conservative. Hence, the problem due to inconsistency.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

you're right idiot; that spending would be described as Liberal. YOU'D THINK YOU'D SUPPORT IT THEN. but every body knows the Left really hates the military

 

[bedowin62]

obama has US troops in syria

who's the warmonger leftard???

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Jeb "Goldilocks" Bush

My father invaded Iraq too little

My brother invaded it too much

... See More

 

[MarcATL]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Actually, what Rand says does not make much sense.

While it is true, perhaps, that we should PAY for any increases (and any other spending) we have in the realm of defense, it is kind of pointless to misuse the label "socialist" to address the way we currently "fund" without regard to the ability to pay for such things. that's true for military spending as well as welfare and so forth.

In the interim however, the proportion of the national "budget" (sorry, that term "budget" is obviously not quite accurate, but it will have to suffice) we spend on national defense is an important part. You liberals 9and many libertarians like Rand) DO tend to see it as a fat cow portion from which monies for OTHER things can be taken. But that is very short term and dangerously ignorant thinking.

WE are all safer when we have the military ability to fend off a wide array of present day enemies and probable future foes. And nobody said it would be cheap.

Yes, we SHOULD arrange our national affairs so that we actually PAY for it. But that's true of every other dollar in the entire budget. It is NOT true for only the military budget. Until we get a proper handle on that (zero based budgeting, tax reform, balanced budget amendment, and an actual commitment to doing all of the above), don't pretend that it is solely in the arena of the military portion of our budget that we must avoid socialism.

Rand does say lots of smart things. He tends (largely) to be consistent, too. But not always and not in this case.

The problem is, adding that amount of money, or any more money to military spending is simply not conservative. However, the Republican party claims to be conservative. Hence, the problem due to inconsistency.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

you're right idiot; that spending would be described as Liberal. YOU'D THINK YOU'D SUPPORT IT THEN. but every body knows the Left really hates the military

Stop calling yourselves "conservatives" jaggoff.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How about this? We pay for increased military spending by cutting off welfare to illegals and other able-bodied parasites the Democrats rely on for votes?

Says the guy who has no idea how much of the budget military spending consists of...

I know what welfare spending consists of.

But not military spending, as you've just confirmed.

Why don't you enlighten us then? I could use a good laugh.

You honestly don't know what percentage of the budget goes to military spending, and you haven't a clue how to find out?

Whatever it is, double it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is fact: $1 Trillion more in spending is not conservative.

I have been telling you guys that the GOP is a Progressive Statist party.

And you are merely mouthing your Democrat Parody propaganda. Seriously, Fakey. You might as well give it up. You are NEVER taken seriously since every facet of your presence here is KNOWN to be buttressed by what a phony you are.

Seriously, Ilar, no one takes you seriously, no one. The GOP is a Progressive Statist party, just as Ilar is a phony. Neo-conservatism is the downfall of America.

 

[Contumacious]

How Is It Conservative To Add A Trillion Dollars In Military Spending?"

IN THE SAME MANNER THAT A "LIBERAL" ADDS A TRILLION DOLLARS TO WELFARE SPENDING

1- borrow

2- use the federal reserve board to inflate the fuck out of the currency


we have a 20 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTtrillion deficit by BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

 

[SwimExpert]

The fact is fact: $1 Trillion more in spending is not conservative.

I have been telling you guys that the GOP is a Progressive Statist party.

And you are merely mouthing your Democrat Parody propaganda. Seriously, Fakey. You might as well give it up.

You are NEVER taken seriously since every facet of your presence here is KNOWN to be buttressed by what a phony you are.

Aren't you the guy who posts from a mental institution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is fact: $1 Trillion more in spending is not conservative.

I have been telling you guys that the GOP is a Progressive Statist party.

And you are merely mouthing your Democrat Parody propaganda. Seriously, Fakey. You might as well give it up.

You are NEVER taken seriously since every facet of your presence here is KNOWN to be buttressed by what a phony you are.

Aren't you the guy who posts from a mental institution?

And we have a winner!

 

[MarcATL]

How Is It Conservative To Add A Trillion Dollars In Military Spending?"

IN THE SAME MANNER THAT A "LIBERAL" ADDS A TRILLION DOLLARS TO WELFARE SPENDING

1- borrow

2- use the federal reserve board to inflate the fuck out of the currency


we have a 20 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTtrillion deficit by BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

So you're saying a modern-day conservative is no different than a liberal? Sure you wanna stick with that?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Says the guy who has no idea how much of the budget military spending consists of...

I know what welfare spending consists of.

But not military spending, as you've just confirmed.

Why don't you enlighten us then? I could use a good laugh.

You honestly don't know what percentage of the budget goes to military spending, and you haven't a clue how to find out?

Whatever it is, double it.

Nuff sed. LOL!

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The fact is fact: $1 Trillion more in spending is not conservative.

I have been telling you guys that the GOP is a Progressive Statist party.

And you are merely mouthing your Democrat Parody propaganda. Seriously, Fakey. You might as well give it up. You are NEVER taken seriously since every facet of your presence here is KNOWN to be buttressed by what a phony you are.

Seriously, Ilar, no one takes you seriously, no one. The GOP is a Progressive Statist party, just as Ilar is a phony. Neo-conservatism is the downfall of America.

That's the long and short of it.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[easyt65]

LINK: Senate Passes $607B Defense Bill With Ban On Transferring Gitmo Detainees - Breitbart

"The Senate-passed, $607 billion National Defense Authorization Act, among its other provisions, bans the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to mainland American prisons. This would effectively checkmate President Obama’s plans to close the Gitmo detention facility."

1. Too Little Too Late? Where was this when Obama was releasing terrorists, like the Taliban 5?

2. 7 Years Later, Obama has continued to quietly release detainees in an attempt to keep the only promise he made that the majority of Americans DON'T want him to keep.

3. This has GOT to pi$$ Obama off. I fully expect him to veto the bill

 

[Contumacious]

How Is It Conservative To Add A Trillion Dollars In Military Spending?"

IN THE SAME MANNER THAT A "LIBERAL" ADDS A TRILLION DOLLARS TO WELFARE SPENDING

1- borrow

2- use the federal reserve board to inflate the fuck out of the currency


we have a 20 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTtrillion deficit by BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

So you're saying a modern-day conservative is no different than a liberal? Sure you wanna stick with that?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

YOU GOT IT , BRO'.


NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

THEY WANT TO SCREW US IN THE NAME OF "GOD"

AND YOU IN THE NAME OF THE SECULAR STATE, THE FATHERLAND, THE COMMON GOOD, PROGRESSIVENESS, AND SIMILAR BULLSHIT


.

 

[koshergrl]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

The military is a new program?

 

[Tehon]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Paul might have made more sense had he instead used the term "fiscal" conservative. Conservatives, as we all know, have historically placed a high value on defense.