Peace Prize Winner Demands $80 Billion for Nukes

Discussion in 'Politics' started by aaronman, May 14, 2010.



  1. Are you in your 80's or something?

    I'm only 24, I expect to be wandering the wastelands and fending off raiders and slavers by 30. :D
     
  2. LOL. Look. We've agreed and disagreed in the past - you probably don't remember. ;)

    I am not saying I like him. Not at all. He is a filthy politician with his own agendas, and if everyone starts at the first page, first post, you'll see that I simply said he's better than Bush (in MY opinion). It's like saying you are the best speller in a room of dyslectics. :D

    I'm 28. I have my guns, and I'll be right with you fending them off. :D
     
  3. So instea of trying to absolve Obama by invoking The Evil Bush, just admit Obama is all those things without referencing Bush.
     
  4. I'm an optimist with realist tendencies :D. I feel like this is a better fuc$-up than the fuc$-up before him.
     
  5. Are you capable of condemning Obama without referencing Bush?
     

  6. I was responding to your post, which referenced BUSH.
     
  7. Except for Aaron's original article, which only compares spending policies on Nukes, you were the one to bring up Bush.

    Stop lying.

    Can you criticize Obama without referencing Bush? Or would that be a betrayal of your Lord High Messiah?
     
  8. Yeah, I did critisize Obama without referencing Bush. See post #19. :D

    Also, last time I checked, we are in America and I can criticize whoever I want, whenever I want and so can you and Aaron. MJ may not be a freedom here, but speech is.

    EDIT: I am in America - I don't know if you or any other poster is.
     
  9. jeez you guys argue about dumb stuff

    we dont need to debate over bush to know that obama sucks balls



    so much money..
     
  10. I'm not sure if that's true; in some situations (not trying to claim we're in one) I think government spending can increase and tax rates can be lowered without generating debt.

    Say a government program was put in place that built the foundation for an industry and this infrastructure allowed this industry to boom thereafter. Isn't it possible that in a hypothetical situation like this that even if tax rates were lowered that the additional revenue from all the consumption related to this industry would - even factoring in the original government spending - fail to increase debt?
     
  11. Of course. 30% less nukes in the world should wipe out global conflict quickly and quietly.....
     
  12. So wait...he wants $80 billion to modernize our weapons facilities?

    Are you kidding me?
     

  13. :laughing:
     
  14. The world is fucked up. I strongly dislike Obama, but he is simply the president doing his job. People are completely unpredictable and more or less fucked in the head. The United States completely shits on the rest of the world, plain and simple. Sooner or later, someone in power will grow some testicals and actually try to do something to harm us. We will be safe though, because instead of fixing the underlying issues, we bought BOMBS. Like I said, the world's fucked.
     
  15. Uh, we've got another 2+ years to go here buddy...Bit premature to be celebrating.

    Politicians at all levels and on both sides are managing to pull off some record-setting FUBARs these days.

    Unfortunately, for ALL of us, I don't see common sense returning anytime soon to help.
     

Share This Page