- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 15,254
- Reaction score
- 3,208
- Location
- Beirut
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
You would think "highly" educated Liberals would do some investigation before they made absurd claims.
Every single one of those countries has been able to defend itself except for Japan. In Japan's case, they aren't legally allowed to have a real army, so not really unreasonable. In case you haven't noticed, Canada has no nearby enemies and Britain has a powerful military and nuclear weapons.
LMAO. The Chinese are going to attack Europe? The Soviets had to intention of attacking Europe, and even if they did our nuclear program was the only thing that mattered to them.
Before you laugh your ass off too much, click this link then come back and we can talk about the US subsidizing other countries defense/health care.
You can't invade Britain because they have nukes and a navy.
The U.S. military is expensive because we deploy it all over the world in offensive actions. Just defending a small countries borders doesn't cost much at all.
Sorry,but both are so small that they would'nt matter.
The only country with a blue water navy stronger than Britain is the U.S.
And if you think 201 nuclear weapons wouldn't matter, you really have a lot to learn in this world.
Should people be forced to provide goods/services for free? No.So, you believe the 'safety nets' we have in this country for families with low incomes and the indigent population should be done away with?
It should be pretty clear.I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.
It is Barack Obama who is to blame for this. For months, he stayed aloof from the out-of-control Congressional maneuvering based on a strange belief in some kind of bipartisan collective will emerging by osmosis. He never leaned the weight of his person and his office to elements of reform that has been touting as candidate and then President. He deceived the country by pursuing secret talks with the very lobbies who are the heart of disgraceful national health care situation. He entered into deals that were weighted heavily in their selfish interest rather than the national interest. In short, we have gotten from him the antithesis of what we were promised and expected -- in the substance and process of policy both. We have instead a conventionally minded politician overly respectful of the status quo and deferential to those who control and profit from it, A man with no apparent fixed convictions.
This, friends, is the "change" you voted for.Ooooh, some lefties don't like this, not one bit at all.
Particularly apt:
Ya think?
If we had prevention services, it would help. How about tax incentives or educational benefits for weight loss, quitting smoking, overcoming an addiction?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?