Lucky...

Yep, those silent masses are just stretching their fingers for the post-whoredom to begin... Just so you know, I do not agree with you. The government is not the source of inspiration for this. How many more scientists do you think a "government job" would attract? Where do you think these bio-engineers will come from? Do you think that government spending will magically create college graduates in this field? We already did that in the 1990s. What size military would suffice in your grand wisdom in the current world we live in? The IRS won't return to you what you don't claim, you can voluntarily increase your IRS withholdings and give yourself a tax increase. Meanwhile, please make sure that your increased funding is properly channeled to the proper government lab...oh wait, there isn't one...so, you'll have to fund the creation of one too. Please write up the proper charter for Congress to approve so that they can create another entitlement program... >>>>>>>>>>>>>We already did that in the 1990s. What size military would suffice in your grand wisdom in the current world we live in? I'm not talking number of troops, I'm talking number of dollars. We spend 8 times that of our closest ally, GB, so we could easily cut that to 4 times and still be superior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The IRS won't return to you what you don't claim, you can voluntarily increase your IRS withholdings and give yourself a tax increase. Meanwhile, please make sure that your increased funding is properly channeled to the proper government lab...oh wait, there isn't one...so, you'll have to fund the creation of one too. Please write up the proper charter for Congress to approve so that they can create another entitlement program... I pay my share, I'm asking that Congress and the pres allocate tax $ from everyone to go there. BTW, didn't Bush use a variation of that line? I would be careful not to follow that lead.

You are not only eloquent and articulate, you display a rare combination of confidence, humility, and empathy. Your ability to explain things in such a way as to avoid condescension, arrogance, and, most of all, elitism is unrivaled. You are truly one of the most respectable members of dropzone.com. Thank you.

Amazing! Thx for your input, it's been very valuable.

there is a difference between dissent america bashing. many on the left have gone beyond dissent into the realm of claiming america is a bad and evil country. as with anything, you can go too far. In 2000 I thought this country was a pretty descent place. I wasn't real happy all around, but moderately happy. Since then this country has gone down the shitter. So what, why care what I call this country? Will it change your day? It is so Republican toget involved in some semantic game of definitions or get feelings hurt when someone states that this country is shit. Why care? Rather we should mve for a fix, define the issues and move for a fix; this country could be great again, but we need to move away from this corporate control aspect and put the country back to the people / for the people. Of course thsi means leaving this neo-con corporate-love, which will be hard to do.

Quit talking microcosms, please, counselor, make a complete argument so we can address it.

I see your font moving, just can't find anything to substantiate a sagging economy. DJI from 3500-9800 sagging? OK. Unemp 4%....hmmm, ok, pls do support your assertion.

Oh well, so she's not real good with dates and numbers and history and stuff. But she knows how to raise her kids with good Christian ideals.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Define "need." If based on "need" then we should know what "need" means. Oh I dunno, 50 million w/o any healthcare whatsoever and millions more underinsured. Cancer claiming how many millions of lives? Do we need to be ridiculously fundamental? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems to me that you do not think that you "need" health insurance. Otherwise you would have purchased it. To me it is a "need." So I purchased it. It means I can't do some of my "wants" because I cannot afford those "wants." I do need it and can't afford it, considerring it's 1/2 ass, 10% coverage anyway. Furthermore, it's not about me, it's about many very low socio-economic classed people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>And - EMTALA has made sure that those with a "need" are treated, hasn't it? (And bankrupted a whole bunch of hospitals, too.) I dunno, you tell me. Hospitals, as a whole, are making a killinmg profit-wise; our fascist gov ensures that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>And within months he became President when FDR died. He ordered the two nukes dropped on Japan that that killed 300,000+ innocent women and children and ENDED the Second World War. Fixed it for ya.... Truman was not a good president.

I would consider it, however I would want to know more about his positions, and politcal ideals Ah, that's easy. look at the guy you voted in as president the last 2 times

There's absolutely money wasted in all areas of government spending, but what I think the denominator is should be based upon need. Do we need to spend 560B/yr on the military? Do we need to spend another 150+B per year on the Iraq so-called War in addition to the 560B? I think getting out of Iraq, cutting military spending in half and spending more toward basic healthcare and cancer research would fix so many issues we have domestically and abroad. Essentially follow their models since ours is obviously not working.

Mind your typing, please. Fixed it for you. Yes, bow to Her Porkiness; show respect

We spend over 1/2 trillion dollars on the military every year. That's 8 times the #2 spender, Britain. The US accounts for about 45% of the world's military budget, yet we are 4.5% of the world's population. OTOH, we have many people w/o medical care, about 50 million (1 in 6), and the others that have it get some 1/2 ass HMO that really doesn't defer the costs in a major sense in many cases. Socialized nations that spend far less on the military, yet they provide basic healthcare and most other nations are kicking the shit out of our currency and have been for the last 7 years. So with this information, how do you feel?

You're intentionally missing the mark...... the 1st post clearly referenced the contrast between gross military spending that could be used for a cure to cancer. As much as you say you're not a Republican, as much as you say, when prompted that you dislike the gross military spending, we all know that obviously isn't true. And if you think of all the houses that cancer spending could buy, we'd have a lot less cold people in the winter. And if you think of the number of Happy Meals that could buy - we'd never have a hungry child.... What do you estimate was the net worth of those appearing on the program last night? Why don't we take their money from them and give it to you? Then you could find the cure. Objection: Quit grandstanding! Hey, why don't we slightly increase taxes, cut the military in half, quit fucking with people around the world, increase domestic healthcare and cancer research? I bet most would agree with me.

I didn't miss the point. I hit it head on. My counterpoint to your post was that money does not solve every problem. In fact, there's a stronger argument that more money, especially when tied to government spending, creates more problems. In addition, there is not enough of a talent pool to take advantage of the billions you so wish the US would give up, leaving itself defenseless, in pursuit of a cure. The government hasn't invented anything. The government hasn't cured any diseases. It wasn't a government lab that came up with the vaccine for cervical cancer. You think the world is just despising us. I've seen different, I've been there, and done it and heard it, lived it. I've seen our coalition partners, I have friends from far away places and have never seen the levels of hate you think is out there. >>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't miss the point. I hit it head on. My piont: we could divert some of the >1/2T/yr spent on the military and spend it on cancer research; you didn't address that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>My counterpoint to your post was that money does not solve every problem. It will takes money to cure cancer, the issue at hand with this thread. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In fact, there's a stronger argument that more money, especially when tied to government spending, creates more problems. That's such a dynamic argument that we would never get back to the thread's issue if we went there, start a thread about that, until then, this thread is about gross military spending - diverting some to cancer research. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.In addition, there is not enough of a talent pool to take advantage of the billions you so wish the US would give up, leaving itself defenseless, in pursuit of a cure. Leaving itself defenselss aginst foreign invaders, or????? You were vague there. Also, I'm sure you're an expert with the number of researchers available to study these diseases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The government hasn't invented anything. The government hasn't cured any diseases. Many universities get grants to research. The dichotomy is that some universities are based upon exclusively academics, others are academics and research. http://www.ackc.org/position Government funding shows a similar picture. The National Institutes of Health,(v) the nation's medical research agency, considers cancer one of its top priorities, but kidney cancer research is under funded there, as well. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) allocates $30.5 million(vi) for kidney cancer research in its 2005 budget, compared to $310 million for prostate cancer research. And kidney cancer is far more deadly: over 12,000 people die from kidney cancer each year as compared to 30,000 from prostate cancer. But prostate cancer patients have a 5-year relative survival rate of 98%, while the 5-year survival rate of kidney cancer patients is about 63%.(vii) If we look closer at those numbers, we can see that the NCI spends more than four times the money for each prostate cancer death than it does for each kidney cancer death ­ and almost twice as much per prostate cancer patient than kidney cancer patient.(viii) Here's a big oops for your hero: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/18/bush-cancer/ The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001. But as ABC News’s Medical Editor pointed out last night, “most of that occurred in those early years under a Clinton initiative. The budget was actually cut last year and the projected budget for this year is to be cut even further.” Your hero cutting kid's cancer research, researchers on hold - so much for your assertion that there aren't enough researchers. http://www.curesearch.org/news_and_media/news_article.aspx?id=4470 In recent years, the amount of funding for childhood cancer clinical research from the federal government has been declining. In response to the most recent cutbacks, the National Cancer Institute has decreased funding which especially impacts childhood cancer research. As a result, the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), the world’s pre-eminent childhood cancer research organization, has been forced to put 20 new studies on hold and decrease enrollment in new clinical trials by more than 400 children next year. Any more insightful assertions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You think the world is just despising us. It's obvious, esp since your hero as pres. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've seen different, I've been there, and done it and heard it, lived it. I've seen our coalition partners, I have friends from far away places and have never seen the levels of hate you think is out there. Oh, just a lower level of hate? I understand. Of course when you an AR, all other non-armed people are your friends. So, let's recap: - Military expenditures way up - Cancer research funding way down ......thx for supporting my assertion with this thread

Religious fanaticism comes in shades, I agree, so I'm not addressing Christians who wish to keep their beliefs generally private and personal, just the ones that want to legislate it.

Most of the ugliness that was/is in America originated from that Christian core to which you speak. The further the government strays from Christianity/religion the better off we'll be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Take religion out of politics and you take humanity out of politics. Yea: - Salem witch hunts - Antimiscegenation laws - Racial Discrimination - State-sponsored execution, esp juvenile - a few of the beauties that came from our friend, religion....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>.The US is indeed an open book. Open enough that it still makes mainstream news in Europe what goes on over here. The world is an open book. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The bashing of our own country is something that most of us are fully aware of. As citizens it's arguable that it's our responsibility. I'll admit I get irked when I see those on the outside throwing stones, especially Europe. You get irked when our own bash too, quit being minimal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'll happily compare the US to western Europe...the world in fact. At least over here I can still stand up and try to affect change. Sure, capital punishment, CP on juveniles 2 years ago, medical care for everyone vs exclusive corporation-controlled dispensing, massive homeless rate, gross overspending on the military, Imperialism, corporate fascism, and on and on..... Europeans aren't jealous of our way of life, they're repulsed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..We're the easiest target, and the world's criticism is proof of that. When you have such abhorrent and sometimes covert domestic and foreign operations you become a target for all kinds of criticism.

Just a short reminder: "You" guys keep showing off your crime/murder/shooting ... stories here on a daily basis. (Not to talk about JR's hobby about the UK, let alone the collective bashing of your actual policians) Not "we". It's really surprising, how often "you" and your own fellow citizens bash your own country. "You" just don't realize it. Right and when some citizens dissent, others will call them unAmerican, terrorists or other ridiculous names while not addressing the issues.

And you were a Dem before her appointment, right? Whomever the R's put forward, you would have written something as equally flowery.

You're intentionally missing the mark...... the 1st post clearly referenced the contrast between gross military spending that could be used for a cure to cancer. As much as you say you're not a Republican, as much as you say, when prompted that you dislike the gross military spending, we all know that obviously isn't true.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What is it with lefties that makes you think everything must come from the all powerful state? Do you see teh contradiction? You advocatethe killing machine comming from the state, just not humanitarian elements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PLENTY of research is done every year into cancer. I give to SEVERAL organizations that do such research. You give; great, how about the funding for the killing machine being diverted to a cure? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a difficult problem and money alone will not solve it. Perhaps once the zealotous right abolishes Tinky-Winky they can then turn to Jebus for a cancer cure.

True, but once more, we could divert some of the >1/2 trillion/yr to cancer research and if a cure were found, disseminate it to the world to undo the hate created by the neo-con machine.

The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. You missed the mark, as Gawain did. Obviously intentionally. 1) The contributions were largely for a tax write-off. 2) The contributions were not from the gov, but from private people The thread was about the mass military spending that could be for cancer research....go back and read.

But no repsonse to the US killing machine, the one that spends 8 times that of the next highest spender, the UK/Britain.