idrankwhat

That's because main stream candidates have to speak less clearly or run the risk of being unambiguous, thereby alienating potential campaign donors. Riiiight Well it certainly seems to me that the only candidates who are speaking concisely and laying out their true convictions are the ones who the media and the major donors seem to be ignoring. I heard Hannity whining about how Hillary won't take a stance on anything yesterday. Besides wanting to pluck him in the forehead for being the tool that he is, I wanted to ask him why he thought she should quit with the double speak? She's in the lead.

That's because main stream candidates have to speak less clearly or run the risk of being unambiguous, thereby alienating potential campaign donors.

Oh for Gods sake lets not get carried away now

Absurd? Au contraire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

It's not enough to fuel the fuel addiction. Food for fuel is a bad idea IMO, unless you want to kill two birds with one stone and yank the high fructose corn syrup out of damn near every product on the shelf and use that for fuel. That way you get more fuel and fewer lard asses. Of course that's likely to hurt your gains if you own any diabetes monitoring device stocks.

Minorities? No. Everyone knows he prefers slow moving old white guys. And he's so good at it that he can even get the victims to apologize

Don't forget the 40 days and 40 nights of rain in TX. Surprised that Pat Robertson didn't chime in on that one. I guess we'll have to wait until there's a Dem in the WH.

What you're forgetting Bill is that 160 mph hurricanes only count if they hit the US. And deniers beat their chests when they think they can play out the small picture to their benefit while ignoring the big one. It's not that much different than when they were crowing about "unprecedented home ownership levels" or "being greeted as liberators". Appearance is most important, regardless of the liberal bias with which reality is burdened.

Please tell me your joking! I just woke up and maybe I didnt see the sarcasm. Not joking at all. Why waste $billions annually babysitting an outdated pig of a nuclear arsenal when you can spend the money making citizens smarter or healthier. Which does more to make the country secure? Even if you don't like the idea of spending money on Americans I'd hope that you'd at least appreciate the spirit of trying to find government waste and re-route it. I hear plenty about not wanting to the government to be a "nanny" but I never hear anyone bitch about how much money we spend storing milk in caves.

Maybe the next Pres should bring Ben (of Ben and Jerry fame) Cohen into the cabinet. Here's a quote from an interview last year. "Q: What's the goal of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities? A: The mission is to fund social needs -- education, health care, world hunger, energy independence and even a little debt reduction -- at no additional cost by reducing Cold War-era weapons expenditures. Larry Korb, the former assistant secretary of defense under Reagan, identified $60 billion worth of Cold War weapons we are building every year (such as the F/A-22 fighter jet, the Virginia Class submarine, and much of the country's nuclear arsenal). For that amount of money you could repair every school in the U.S., plus you could provide health care for every kid in the U.S. who currently doesn't have it. You know those 6 million kids who die every year around the world from starvation? You could provide food self-sufficiency for all of them in addition. It's shocking stuff. And it's irresponsible not to work to make that change. That's what drives me."

The clients are the shareholders. Not necessarily. There's no guarantee that even a majority of shareholders would be American.

Regarding your post, I really dont' have the time or the inclination today to get into a long winded debate over the idea of privatizing the military (or any other topic for that matter). But I do have one question for you. In your market driven military scenario when tough decisions are made, who gets the priority, clients or shareholders?

maybe, but you have also lost control of said soldier. Being able to control your soldier should come before arming them Good point. Do mercenaries have to answer to the commander in chief? To any military officer? Or do do they just have to answer to their civilian boss, who was hired by most likely a civilian DoD subordinate?

No. Why not? We would have a better trained, better equipped,soldier, which is what you said you wanted. Why, when they're dipping out of the same pockets, are they better equipped? Why should our military train them and then pay them five times the salary when they go private? Why not make sure that the military gets the funds that are voted on in the name of "the troops"? Are you proposing moving the entire military to a free market based defense system!?!? We can get those estimates now. And something about bidding for war not only sounds smarmy, what do you do when your contractors go offshore and/or multinational? What happens when a Dubai based mercenary firm presents the most attractive bid? They also have lousy track records elsewhere and apparently exist in a zone of legal and accountability ambiguity. Even their lives live in that ambiguous zone. Their deaths aren't counted in official tallies. My suggestion is that if they want to be soldiers, then let them re-enlist.

Pro. We absolutely need a well equipped, well trained military and we need to use it wisely. Shooting all of the rounds out of your magazine doesn't make you well armed. Would you support the US moving to a subcontracted military such as Blackwater? No.

Pro. We absolutely need a well equipped, well trained military and we need to use it wisely. Shooting all of the rounds out of your magazine doesn't make you well armed.

I'm all for lowering defense spending. But I want the waste cut out. Do that and you can give every soldier a raise and a personal armored vehicle and STILL save money. But when you have a state dept or a Pentagon that can't even tell you where they spent BILLIONS, you have a real problem. Throwing money at the defense budget and supplying the troops are two entirely different things.

It is indeed a false argument. The claim is that the left is anti military. That's a very broad statement that is made in an effort to give the impression that the other party is pro military. I don't know why Daly doesn't want the airshow. Maybe he has a point about safety or maybe HE is indeed anti-militay (which I doubt but it's possible and if it's true then he's stupid). But the critical comments of a few people on specific circumstances does not paint an entire block of people. I'm not anti military but I think that waterboarding, abu gharaib, premeditated retribution murders, and beating someone over two days in the legs so hard that they die is a very bad thing. Do I blame the entire military for these actions? Hell no. Do I blame the guilty? Damn straight. And Royd, the effort to cut off funding is not an attempt to leave soldiers stranded and you know you're simply playing a talking point. It's about bringing them home. When congress cuts off funds for transport back home then you might have a point. And if I wanted to make an inaccurate blanket statement then I think I have more proof on my side that the right hates the military by: Sending them into unnecessary wars and asking them to do jobs that they aren't trained for. Poorly equipping them. Overextending them through stop loss. Hiding coffins from the press. Conditions at Walter Reed. Soldiers having to sue for medical benefits. Calling traumatic brain injury a pre-existing condition. Essentially, abusing the military to a point through over use and under supply to a point that it will take three to four years to recover. Need I say more?

Anti war folks are anti WAR. Not anti-military. It's another example of a deliberate false argument. And you're going to tell me that Murtha and Kerry are military hating libs?

Source of this bullshit please.

Somehow it always comes back to our middle east policy doesn't it

Fixed it. Man, those history book editors are really going to have to pay attention with you folks around

Where'd you get that idea? Do you have any proof or are you just basing your opinion on third party hearsay? You're kidding right?

Damn, I didn't know you could lease them! Can you still deduct them? Who takes care of the maintenance?

It's a slippery slope. First the leash....then the shock collar.