Hey, don't count Santorum out of the race, he could come from behind very easily but it would be an awful frothy mess of stray fecal matter, lube and ejaculate. To keep the humor level up, let's hope Santorum wins enough states, to stay in the race. I, for one believe we should ignore the frothy topic and root, root, root for the Santorum of your choice. What country can provide such a dog and pony show and expect the populace not to collapse laughing? USA USA USA USA
why do people care so much about fox being conservative. CBS NBC and all the other main networks are as liberal as fox is conservative. Your not making a difference by complaining.
@MiceCrispy Its not that they're conservative that we object to, it's that they are LIARS. Not to mention unethical journalism. In any other forum in the world, journalists who are close personal friends of candidates are not allowed to interview them.
@yhwh88 It's the same on the other side. Remember the 2008 election? CBS and NBC were ogling over Obama. THE TRUTH LIVES HERE! WATCH GLEN BECK AT 9 WEEKDAYS!
As a Canadian watching the "contest" between the new Republican extremists is like getting to see a house burn down with both its residents still inside. One goes for the fire extinguisher while the other starts dousing himself and the sofa in gasoline. during witch the neighborhood gathers to roast marshmallows and watch the show.
Sorry, but in that document Santorum clearly states homosexuality is NOT like "man on child man on dog." All you gotta do is pause the video when the document comes up. I'm for gay marriage, but I am also for honest reporting. I'm just saying you might want to read the interview in context rather than snip a tidbit out.
@MrSpockV Actually, he is saying that marriage is not "man on child, man on dog, it is one thing" that one thing in his mind being man and woman, hence his opposition to gay marriage. So he is indeed comparing gay sex to pedophilia and bestiality. Santorums's comments in this interview are well-known as being a source of controversy, so I'm not sure why you think that 9 years later, you've discovered everyone else is mistaken...
@mixxycan I suppose you're correct, I just read it differently. I've only cued into politics in the last few years, so I never remembering hearing about this before
I don't get this one. I like liberal viewer alot, but i'm usually suprised by the things I learn on these vids. This one is "Fox is buttering up a republican candidate by sweeping things under the rug". To me thats much more expected/obvious than when they lie/misrepresent the news. Why's this so bad? It's inherently bad but I figure both sides red or blue do this. Whats so peculiar?
she has gay and lesbian friends ????? bullshit !!! then his answer is more bullshit , fuckin' religious bullshitters . Fucking agendas , mix religion with politics ...
stop it !! 1 more thing , she is as fake as her nose job .... ha ha
@teedonster2 i saw a picture on facebook a couple of days ago, describing this perfectly. it was a picture of some of the westboro baptist church protestors whit signs like "god hates fags" and the likes, and it said "do you remember when the riot police stopped this protest with peverspray and beatings? me neither."
You completely ignored my points. All acts I mentioned are not reproduction, yet you make it sound like any non-reproductive act, such as kissing, is the same as screwing a dog.
@vhr513 ok, well im just not going republican ever, so if you decide to go repulbican just dont vote for perry, hes going to be worse than bush was, hes just plain out stupid
@HectorElCapitan I've never seen MSNBC occulting part of a story, of course I saw Olbermann going angry on his opponents, but you just can't compare MSNBC and Fox News when it comes to the quantity of lies. Just compare their coverage of Occupy Oakland Disorders. Fox News completely occulted the fact that police began by firing Tear Gas Canister and sprayed Pepper Spray on demonstrator for no reason.
@vhr513 You mentioned Obama and how you regretted voting for him, as if voting for McCain was a better option. H.R.3863 is the for the discrimination of race and H.R.2030 is the bill for eliminating the federal minimum wage; H.R.7965 is similar to H.R.3863, except, it allows private schools who discriminate on sex, color, or creed and still maintain their tax-exempt status. In addition,Ron Paul is in favor of teaching 'Intelligent Design' in school and he's against gay marriage.
@lovesXtoXspoog Well there is the argument that marriage is a religious institution and therefore should be decided by said religions. i believe every one should have civil unions therefore equal under the government and that marriage should remain a religious thing.
@vhr513 I know Ron Pual makes lovely speechs, but have you actually looked into his policies? Ron Pual is the same man who sponsored a bill in 1979 to keep the IRS from investigating public school who may have used race to deny entrance; he's the same man who introduced a bill in 1983 to eliminate the federal minimum wage. I'm tired of loud mouth Ron Pual supporters, who come into a video and talk of how much they hate Obama, and end with "RON PUAL 2012!" Ignorant assholes.
The chickenhawks of Fox News love their entitlement of controversy - especially with remarks of gay rights and so forth. For Santorum, he attempts to change sexual advantages for everyone in the United States and pass all regulations to not allow homosexuals to have consensual sex.
It's their choice if men choose to have a relationship with their own gender but Santorum literlaly has NO respect whatsoever on the principles of man-to-man sexual orientations.
gotta love the Fux Noise bottle blond bimbo asking the moron Santorum a frothy mixture of fecal questions, seems they BOTH like to frolic in the stuff....srsly is Megyn Kelly the BIGGEST fucking idiot Fux could find or did Rupert just like her tits?
The GOP strategy is this. They will make an "underdog" and then he will win. The goal is to make the voters feel like the "rebels", to feed their inherent persecution complex, and the scripted victory feel like a "surprise". That will make the emotional high even bigger, and that emotional wave will push legislation.
Imagine replicating the Obama Fervor, but this time - it's ALL in house. The conflict only within the party... this also scores independents and discontents in the process.
Is it just me or do all the female FOX anchors act like the depressingly vapid happy hour regulars tucked into the glittering cracks of a swanky hotel bar, desperately trying to sort out their daddy issues?
@Forlo12345 "Ron Paul isn't against gay marriage, he's against the idea of it". What does that mean? How can you be against the idea of something and yet not against that thing?
@BottleConcreteBlond Easy: he would never legislate against it because his belief in freedom goes farther than his own personal beliefs. As a christian, he probably believes homosexuality is a sin (I personally disagree with him cuz I'm an atheist). But, he also firmly believes in the separation between church and state, so regardless of what he personally believes, he would never pass a law that brings religion back into government...laws against gay marriage are, therefore, unconstitutional.
@BottleConcreteBlond You aren't getting it. How many republicans do you see with the integrity to separate their own religious beliefs from government? Sure, he's not out trying to advocate for gay rights (though many of his supporters do), but at least he isn't out there actively preventing them from marrying who they choose and even says that government should have no say in the matter. Out of the entire Republican panel, he's the best choice! The ONLY best choice.
@Forlo12345 I get it, but I don't believe it. If Ron Paul was President he would do nothing for gay and lesbian people. He's just not quite as bad as most of the rest of them.
@BottleConcreteBlond Point taken, but you can't just judge someone on one issue. It's equivalent to saying that Thomas Jefferson was a tyrant because he owned slaves or that Hitler was a saint because he was a strict environmentalist. You have to look at everything Ron Paul has done, THEN cast judgement. He is against the wars, he is against big corporate monopolies, he keeps pushing to aduit the Fed Reserve, he is in favor of legalizing pot, and he wants to get rid of the IRS.
@Bankruptingliberals As for Clinton cutting defense, yeah, we could totally have spent lots of cash to stop AIRLINERS FROM BEING USED AS MISSLES. I'm positive defense cuts caused 9/11(sarc)
I'm really starting to think your last name is Palin, or you have suffered a stroke sometime this week.
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
@Bankruptingliberals ARE YOU KIDDING???? The soviets invaded in 1979, Charlie Wilson didn't get involved until 1981. Now, I don't know your IQ, but the Afghans held on all by themselves for over a year, with the world's 2nd largest Army invading their country. Just as a contrast, we took over Iraq in 100 HOURS. They were the world's 5th largest army and so superior to what Afghanistan had as far as weapons, it isn't funny.
Yes, the arms came from ALL OVER, China, Persian gulf, Egypt...
@Bankruptingliberals hahahahahahahahahaha Thanks, you just proved my point. First, Reagan did very little to hurt the USSR, Afghanistan did more, second, if Reagan doesn't have the power to spend, how THE FUCK could he bankrupt anyone?
Look douchebag, it's obvious that you're a party first, country second asshole. Do yourself a favor and try to figure out how to hide that fact.
@Rushtrdamus Well actually the Reagan administration trained and armed the Afghani fighters who fought against the USSR. Afghanistan couldn't have done what they did without the USA's support. Or at least it would have taken a lot longer and cost them more lives.
@Rushtrdamus Mostly it was Reagan who helped train our future enemies. The USA has been supporting Israel since the 50's and that's Al Qaeda's main reason for hating us. All the presidents since the 50's have been making our enemies hate us even more.
@lasoogneypubes Well, our installing bases around the middle east along with supporting Israel, not to mention our butting our noses into middle east affairs any time we felt like it. Our founders wanted NOTHING to do with involving ourselves in bullshit like we have been doing for almost a century.
@Rushtrdamus Yeah that was pretty much what I was saying. Supporting Israel is just the thing that pisses them off the most about us. If you haven't read Osama Bin Laden's letter to America, I suggest you do because it's pretty interesting. He spells out every reason why he wants America to die. I don't understand how the media could read that letter and just say that they attacked us because we're free....
@lasoogneypubes Read the Quran, THAT tells you why the muslims attacked us.
I'm guessing you aren't a fan of jews? If it was just the jews, then why wait 50 years to attack? Why partner up with the "great Satan"? Some how, your math is missing some numbers, but you're claiming to have a correct answer.
@Rushtrdamus Haha a typical retort... "You must hate jews if you don't support Israel!" Ummm... why wait 50 years? Ya know I'm not entirely sure why, maybe they were trying to win the war against Israel without going after us first? Just read the fucking letter from Osama, I know you didn't. You're just another brainwashed dumbfuck who believes everything the media tells you. The answer is right in front of your face, just do some research you stupid child.
@lasoogneypubes hahaha I don't give a flying fuck about Israel. PERIOD, I feel they have helped cause alot of our problems.
Item E on Bin Ladin's list "Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands," Hmmm, where have you seen that lately? Answer: MY LAST POST, you retard.
They attacked us because we continue to stick our fucking nose where it doesn't belong. Question? Would you allow Cuba to build a base in D.C? FUCK NO.
@Bankruptingliberals Well let's start with credit. Do we give the credit for all things bad to the dems and all things good to the Reps, like you want, or do we blame them all? Cause if you want to give spending credit to the dems during Reagans, then you also have to credit THE DEMS for the downfall of the USSR. It's REALLY wierd, you seem to want to BLAME the POTUS during Clinton's terms, but blame the congress during Reagans.
@Rushtrdamus Don't you guys credit Reagan with the longest peacetime growth in our economy? DURING A TIME WHEN YOU ALREADY CLAIM THE DEMS RAN THE SHOW? And I haven't even mentioned the huge spending that Bush and GOP congress got us into ALL BY THEMSELVES. Midicare part D, TWO UNFUNDED wars, TAX Breaks during war time(first in U.S. history BTW)
face it, ANYTHING you TRY to claim can be debunked with simple common sense.
@Rushtrdamus Spending? How about being a little more specific. It was military spending that caused the downfall of the USSR, and THAT enabled Bill Clinton`s term to cut defense spending, because the boogeyman was dead. Clinton`s surpluses were mainly caused by Reagan, its called "investment".
@luvcheney1 Sure, Kennedy did more to defeat the USSR than Reagan did. We has a little thing called the Space race(which we soundly won), And The Soviets invaded Afghanistan(they spent a decade spending billions of rubles and thousands of lives(sound familiar? Reagan spent billions and created Saddam Hussain and Bin Ladin. Not to mention hlped establish TERRORISM as a way of doing business.(Reagan's "terrorism manual")
Yes, we're still dealing with bullshit Reagan created.
Respond to this video... Reagan rebuilt the military, USSR collapsed, Clinton had fewer bad guys to worry about. Reagan did NOT repeal Social Security, MediCare, MediCaid, Food Stamps, welfare, etc. Something had to give, unless you think transfer payments are all that matters. Some think the military is actually necessary.
@luvcheney1 Bullshit, I lived on a base during Reagan, that's when military guys learned what Govt. cheese was.(welfare for soldiers). More bullshit, Clinton had MORE bad guys to worry about, most were Reagan's buddies.
Duh, I'm a vet, but as one, I can point out BILLIONS in waste fraud and abuse. I watched as THOUSANDS of rounds of .50 cal rounds were wasted for fun, at 4$ a piece. I've also watched the last 2 wars where thousands of soldier's lives were also wasted.
@Rushtrdamus Waste, fraud, and abuse abound everywhere, in every venue. Operating any enterprise in perfect efficiency is NOT the norm. Perhaps our soldiers are pure bullshit, you happen to be the expert on that. Maybe they have no respect for money, couldnt care less. But, I still have to pay for their pensions, and medical care, dont I? Being a Vet makes you an expert, like driving a car makes me an engineer. Like breathing makes me an ecology scientist. Drinking makes me a brewer. .
@luvcheney1 Have you ever watched 50K worth of bullets fired, JUST TO FIRE them? How many $2000 Tank Rounds have you wasted? Hmmmmm? I'm guessing you've never driven an M1A1? How many decades have you lived on base? No, I'm not an expert, I simply have 25 years MORE experience than MOST.
BTW, AWESOME rebuttal of my claims about our latest 2 fuck-ups, I'm guessing you agree with me?
@Rushtrdamus If what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, those individuals involved in that waste deserve to be in prison, as well as the witnesses to these actions, if they have not come forward as whistle blowers. However, waste IS a fact of life, and lack of concern over other people`s money is also reality. In the businesses I ran, the Corp figured in 2% for waste. Lack of concern, stupidity, laziness all contributed to lost profits, yet every store had waste.
@luvcheney1 "figured 2%" So, in other words they guessed. I can assure you that there is more waste in the military budget than we will ever know. I was told MANY times to help some things "go away", so that our budget was increased instead of cut. I'm guessing we could cut military spending by half and still be the greatest fighting force ever assembled.
@Rushtrdamus No, the 2% waste was figured averaging out over 1000 stores. Costs per unit were able to be figured exactly, and the results showed that % as the shortfall. I have no reason to assume a similar waste in the military, just that waste is common, everywhere. My feelings are it is far greater in the Govt. Fraud in MediCare is greater than in private Health ins. Compared to % of GDP, or total budget of 1960, the military budget has already been cut in half.
@luvcheney1 Look, I worked retail, and Govt. They BOTH "fudge" numbers to come up with "write-offs". One store at which I worked, had over $180,000 come up missing. They claimed it all under theft. That number was pure bullshit, and I'm guessing alot was simple fraud.(we never counted what was sent from corporate)
BTW, our GDP in 1960 was microscopic compared to today. And why should defence spending be tied to GDP?
@Rushtrdamus Theft, fraud exists. Wishing it didnt is silly. Trying to control it is all that is possible, and that effort is most successful when the losses mean losses to owners. In Govt, losses do not directly effect owners, as there are none. % of GDP is a concept widely used by economists, CBO, etc. It shows the burden on economy, negates effect of inflation. Read financial news, books, articles, to see. Go ahead, look up % of budget, if you prefer. Same result. Military is far smaller now
@luvcheney1 I'm guessing you don't want to answer hte last question on my last post?
Why should Military spending be tied to GDP? Should we HAVE to spend more on defense if we make more money? Military is a smaller % of GDP, but it costs WAAAAAY more than it did in 1960, not even close.
Please, please tell me you think we spend less money now than we did then on the militry, PRETTY PLEASE?
@Rushtrdamus It is a very common practice of the CBO and economists in general to use % of GDP to folllow spending and taxation issues over time,.That negates inflation from the equation, and gives a better reference than, "spending way up". Read Greenspan, Orzag, or anything financial would be nice. I will be charitable and just say the very fact you need to ask the question indicates your level of knowledge. Google: Historical Tables The White House, see Tables 1.2, 1.3, 2.3 to see concept
@Rushtrdamus Go to "Historical Tables The White House: table 4.2, note in 1962 Dept of Defense was 46.9% of the Budget, and in 2010 was 19.3%. Note this figure is percent of the BUDGET, since percent of GDP is something you dont like. However, I would say 1) smarter folks than us use % of GDP, 2) it stops the effect of inflation, and shows the relative burden on the economy, over time, We have potential enemies as well who have fast growing economies, China comes to mind. Economy fine 1962, 47%!
@luvcheney1 Hey retard, I know it's used, I'm asking why it matters? If I'm poor as hell and spend 2000 on food each year to feed myself, them become rich, can I not feed myself on the same food amount?
You also forgot to mention the 90% top tax rate in 1962. OUCH! I guess we should tax the hell out of the rich, huh?
@Rushtrdamus It matters because it negates the inflation effects over time, and it shows the burden of the military on the entire economy in a ratio that can be compared, apples to apples. As for the 90% tax rate: corp tax rate was about 50% then too, during Clinton, Corp rate was 35%, personal 39.6%. Go to same site as before, Table 1.2, and observe the tax revenues TO Govt during the 60`s, and the Clinton years. MORE revenue TO Govt under the far lower rates. Nobody PAID the high rates.
@luvcheney1 Now explain why since the 70's wages have stalled while the cost of cars, homes, etc have risen? Explain wby in 1960, CEO's made 40 times the average worker and today it's 400 times?
NOBODY PAYS THE NEW LOWER RATES, they itemize.
I notice you avoided commenting on the cost of living Rich vs. poor. The cost of our military shouldn't be any more today, and in fact SHOULD be less of our GDP. If we followed our founders, it'd be less than 1% of GDP.
@Rushtrdamus You keep changing subjects. Started on the military, being so big, I show you it isnt as big as it was,then you bring up tax policy. I answer that too, but now you are on to income inequality. You are a fucking coward, no facts or arguments, who keeps running when confronted. I dont mind disagreement, but I SEE what you are. Stupid. If you want to STAY on income inequality, I will deal with THAT TOO. Hey, STUPID, pick ANY LIB subject, I will deal with it. Run again, I will stop.
@luvcheney1 First, if you were near me and called me a coward, I would end you. Second, suck my balls you Neo-Con retard. I'm sure you're a fan of "trickle down", because you've been told it works, yet there is no proof of it working. I'm sure you think cutting taxes raises more revenue, that's bullshit, the Bush tax cuts sped up our deficits and DIDN'T stop the shit we're in now. Please, show me where I'm wrong?
@Rushtrdamus You say there is NO PROOF only because you are unaware of it. I already have sent you to Govt records before, where you can see, and I already told you. Lokk, go where I sent you, and look up the % of of tax revenue relative to GDP the high tax rates of the 1960`s gave us, and compare to far lower rates in the 1990`s. Thats just facts, stupid. Cutting those tax rates all to hell and the tax revenue increased. Fucking dunce.
@luvcheney1 There's no proof cause we JUST had ten years of lower taxes and GOLLY GEE, we're in a huge recession. You can CLAIM all you want, but reality is far different. If what you say is REMOTLY true, we should have avoided this economic mess. OBVIOUSLY cutting taxes didn't bust the vaults at the Fed the last 2 years. Please, try to spin away THAT non-increase in revenues?
@Rushtrdamus Taxes were cut in 2003, and deficits declined, tax revenue increased through 2007 because of them. The crash was due to housing bubble bursting. Didnt you notice it? Sorry, you need to be slightly more aware of the news. Homes fell in value. Mortgages became worth less money, because the asset backing the mortgage no longer had the value. Mortgages are bank assets, so the banks became broke. Reasoning out the home bubble is your homework.
@luvcheney1 Come on, dipshit, you'll have to try harder than that. Taxes were cut in 2001 and 2003. Somehow I doubt you forgot the 2001 tax cuts and simply didn't want to mention them. Revenues peaked the last year of Clintons budgets and tanked until 2005, up again in 06 and 07, and down again, all with record tax cuts.
I noticed BEFORE the bubble burst, and sold my home in 2005. How did I know? Banks were offering MULTIPLE interest only homes PER PERSON. It had to correct itself.
@luvcheney1 I'm still amazed that you thought you could get away with leaving out the 2001 tax cuts. Are you so arrogant as to think that you can just lie and nobody will notice? I mean, if you have to lie to TRY to win a debate, haven't you already lost it? You seem to rely on ignorance as your source. Why? After all, YOU claim to be right, so why not just state your case, HONESTLY and let the truth do your talking?
@Rushtrdamus Tax rate was 39.6% when Bush elected. 2001 tax cut bill dropped that rate by only 1/2 of 1% in 2001, to 39.1%. 2002 that rate fell 1/2 of 1% again, to 38.6%. The Dems wanted taxes cut slowly. But the recession that came 3/2001 had Bush want the cuts accelerated, and in 2003 they were cut another 3.6% in one year, to 35%. Do arithmetic, and find 78.3% of the cut was 2003. THAT is why. You are just stupid, thats all. Dont worry, I knew it already.
@luvcheney1 So you figured you could just leave it out because YOU deemed it useless???? First, you just lied AGAIN. "A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent;"
The ACTUAL rate drop was 4.6% for the highest rate, YOU FUCKING LIAR. The other tax cuts focused on CAP GAINS.
SERIOUSLY, HOW DO YOU SLEEP? BTW, it appears you don't really know shit, TRIG. The info is out there, and we do have GOOGLE.
@Rushtrdamus Nobody talks about all the tax brackets, because nobody wants to fuck anybody but the rich. The top rate is the one pertaining to the rich. You want to raise taxes on the poor, who dont even pay, the middle class? Bush cut taxes on all brackets, Dems OK with cuts on middle class. Read again my post, I stated the top rate fell 1/2% in 2001, 1/2% in 2002, and 3.6% in 2003. 3.6% plus 1/2% plus 1/2%= 4.6%. I thought you could add, sorry, that was an dumb expectation on my part.
@luvcheney1 hahahahaha The poor pay far more than the rich do for this country. The rich account for ess than 10%. This counrty wouldn't exist without the poor, we can easily do without the rich.
@Rushtrdamus Google "SOI tax Stats individuals" (IRS gov site), go to "Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income(AGI)", then click table 3, 2001-2008, and note this:2008 top 2% of taxpayers paid 46.27% of all income taxes. These are the ones Obama says are not paying their share. These are not the rates, but % of total inc tax paid. Note top 50% pays 97.3%, so the bottom 50% of taxpayers pays only 2.7%. You are really a fucking idiot.
@luvcheney1 And they SHOULD pay more. How much is a man's life worth? Hmmmm? Well. the rich RARELY help defend this country by serving in the military, so the POOR are the ones dying to keep us free. If the poor can die for our freedom, why can't people that benefit from that freedom pay more in taxes? The weird thing is how many so-called patriots have avoided serving(even when drafted), but now act as though they'd do anything. Example: Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Nugent.
@Rushtrdamus You said, "The poor pay far more than the rich do". Now, you say, "And they SHOULD pay more." You have denied your own original point of view, and now changed the subject to WHO enlists in military. Look it up! 2007, poorest Quintile ($0- $33K) were 10.7% of total recruits, Richest quintile ($65K- $256K) were 24.9%. Middle quintlile ($42K-$51K) were 21.7%. You are full of shit. Again.
@luvcheney1 hahahahaha Are you saying that "rich" ends at 256K or that nobody richer than 256K has ever served? Cause I don't classify 256K as even close to rich, and I'm guessing that you don't either.
Base salary for E1 is $15,748 Around $5,000 LESS than Poverty level. E6, $30,265 Your numbers are bullshit. No way in hell is 25% of the entire military made up of people making 65K to 256K. When I joined, base pay for E-1 was around 700/month.
@Rushtrdamus That means the family income of the enlisted person, stupid. A "quintile" is a group of 1/5th of the range. It just means that was the norm of the range. NOT the wages of the enlisted person, the family income of the enlisted person. YOU were the one claiming that the rich dont serve. I suspect you already new that E-1`s dont make much wages.
@luvcheney1 Of course I already knew, I was in. I NEVER met a RICH man that was rich BEFORE joining. I knew what you were up to with your QUINTILE bullshit. I have to ask, does Sarah Palin know what a quintile is? Hahahaha You use the quintile bullshit and the rest of your "ADJUSTED" crap because simple, honest, REAL numbers don't help your case. EVERYONE knows that our military is for the most part made up of this nations poor.
@Rushtrdamus "Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training". Just google demographics of the military. The Govt keeps statistics. Your premise is wrong. Why? Because you "feel" it must be. "EVERYONE knows" the military is poor, because EVERYONE is a dumb fuck who never looks up anything.
@luvcheney1 "richest" does NOT equal "rich" The Richest homeless man is still homeless.
How many millionaires are in the military? Answer as honestly as you can. Most people don't see someone that makes 256K as rich, do you? Your problem is that you let your bullshit ideology fuck up the few brains you may have been born with. NOT to mention your bullshit quintile includes those that make 64K in the "richest". I guess I must be one of the richest then. Get your head out of Rush's ass.
@Rushtrdamus Obama says those who earn over $200K are the "rich". Actually, I think he is stupid, because I dont see income as a measure at all of being rich. I see rich as being what you have, not what you earn. Plenty of dopes have nice incomes, but never accumulate wealth. I would say your net worth determines your wealth, and being rich would be in terms of that. But, I`m not the Pres, and he says $200K is rich.
@Rushtrdamus Post #2. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Libs are ALWAYS demanding the country do things for us, like universal Medical Care, public schools, Social Security, unemployment compensation for 2 yrs, etc. Dont be a lying hypocrite.
@luvcheney1 Look asshole, you already admitted that you chose NOT to serve your country, while I did. If anyone here is a lying hypocrite, it'd be the asshole CLAIMING to be a patriot while also wanting to hurt his own Govt. Why didn't you include The Fire dept., Police, or military in your bitch fest? Oh, because YOU want THOSE socialist programs, huh?
I promise you, just as many Repubes use every single program you mentioned, except for the schools, that is.
@Rushtrdamus Military is listed in the Constitution, as a legitimate Federal Govt function. See Article 1, Section8. I want a fire dept, Police dept of course, but it most certainly does NOT have to have govt employees, who fuck the private sector workers over. A local govt could just contract the service OUT. At a market rate. #1 most dangerous job, fishermen, #2 loggers, #3 pilots, #4 farmers, ranchers, #5 mining, Cops ARE #9. Give them farmer pensions. oops, farmers dont have pensions.
@luvcheney1 Actually, MILITARY isn't mentioned, the Navy and Army are. does that exclude the air-force?
If we give them Farmer pentions, we'd better give them farmer pay. Since cops make less than 52K on average, and don't get to right off 300K combines(and sell them at retirement), I'm guessing the cops still win this one.
BTW " In 2002, the average farm household income was $8,000 greater than the average for non-farm. And Farmers die at their own hands.
@Rushtrdamus Median US Household income was only $49.4K in 2010. Household means the total income in the home, and any Lib knows many women are working, and some families have kids working too. So, one cop is earning more than the average entire fucking household average. PLUS huge pensions, and benefits, and retiring at 50 or 55, etc. Go fuck yourself, you are still a fucking moron.
@luvcheney1 I get it, your ideology doesn't allow for reality to interfere with it's dogma. I mean hell, cops only risk their lives by protecting us from criminals and southerners like you. Why should we pay them better than average? Yeah, let's pay the CEO of ATT OVER 400X the average salary in america, why, because some dipshit like you thinks that somehow he creates jobs. BULLSHIT, the greatest job creators are CUSTOMERS. No customers, no BUSINESS. I'm guessing you're a Palin.
@Rushtrdamus I think the military ought to use the price (wage) of labor to attract as many people as it needs. You joined up. Good for you. I stayed out, worked and paid taxes, so you could get paid, and have the equipment, medical care, and food you ate. Good for me. I really do not see the logic in us thinking that a teacher, or a cop has more "value" than a farmer, or garbage collector. Govt workers cant work without the private sector producing the wealth they consume. Thats obvious.
"You joined up. Good for you. I stayed out," My point exactly. Why is it that the rich can avoid the bloody parts of freedom AND then bitch about paying more in money when they benefit more than most for the freedom gained? And why do conservatives seem to be the ones wanting to fight wars while coming up with good excuses to avoid actually fighting in them? The GOP has ALOT of hawks that used health and defferments to avoid serving.
@luvcheney1 BTW, when it comes right down to numbers, I'm guessing the rich make up less than 1% of actual soldiers. And most weren't rich when they joined.
"I stayed out, worked and paid taxes, so you could get paid, and have the equipment, medical care, and food you ate. Good for me" Yes, good for you, not let's make it a good thing for EVERYONE to think it's a good thing to help support their country. "Ask not what your country can do for YOU, ask what you can do for your country"
@luvcheney1 I must have missed your answer to a man's value, I'm sure it was an oversight on your part. Also, you never said if you thought it was OK for the rich to "opt out" when it comes to serving or paying. I happen to be one of those crazy people that thinks serving your country is a good thing. That's why I joined at 17. How about you, when did you join? Tee hee.
@luvcheney1 So, you can keep your bullshit, I deal in reality. This country was BUILT and FREED on the backs of poor men and when the time came for the rich to send their sons, they usually found miracle openings in the 5 year waiting lists of the Tx. Nat. Guard or had Anal Boils(Limbaugh), or shit and pissed their pants for a week without washing them and reported to MEPS(Nugent).
So please, keep talking about how taking more of a rich assholes money is the WORSE thing possible.
@Rushtrdamus "In 2003, only 14.6 percent of military recruits came from the poorest quintile, whereas the wealthiest quintile provided 22.0 percent." This is from US census Bureau Data "ZCTA" or "Zip Code Tabulation Data". In other words, pooling the military recruits home area Zip Code, by the neighborhood wealth of the zip code, as a percent of all recruits. So now, you can just go fuck yourself, you are again an idiot.
@luvcheney1 hahahaha Not buying the bullshit, Trig. "pooling" tells PART of a story, not to mention that the data is based on HOUSEHOLD income of recruits, NOT recruit income. And you still haven't said whether YOU think 256K is RICH?
"So now, you can just go fuck yourself" I'm not religious, I have REAL sex.
@Rushtrdamus Yes, welfare mothers who live in Beverly Hills are considered rich. And all the billionaires living in Watts are considered poor. Since that number is zero, it balances out.
@luvcheney1 The sad thing is that according to YOUR quintiles, YES, welfare mothers who live in BH AND join the military ARE included in YOUR numbers. It appears you don't have a very good idea how the real world works. There are BILLIONS of poor and only 1210 BILIONAIRES, so yeah, billionaires MUST make the world go round, huh?
YOU are the dumbass trying to use QUINTILES as a back-up source for your retarded bullshit. If common sense doen't work, dipshits like you turn to "quintiles"
@Rushtrdamus Are you for real? Welfare mothers can afford to live in Beverly Hills, distorting the numbers? Billionaires live in Watts? If the US Govt collected the family incomes of recruits, and made those numbers public, then using residence addresses, and census data on family incomes wouldnt be necessary. But, trash like you who hate the successful like to make bullshit claims, when evidence contradicts you. When facts contradict, deny facts, `eh stupid?
I always like how he says supposedly straight news anchor megyn kelly. Hahaha i bet she got a little dyke in her.
Yeah i know im 13
marem19 1 week ago
That man is not for the common man
pookaman3 1 week ago
it is a decision. people turn straight just like turn homo. It's a choice, get over it you attention seeking children
b3nzyme 2 weeks ago
She gave him a journalist blow job.. and he liked it.
demoniosolitario 2 weeks ago
whats wrong with man on dog --
KNOWZ
peace
SUPERKNOWZ 2 weeks ago
The narrator is gay.
PlsWakeUpAmerica 2 weeks ago
This is a ridiculous video commentary. Typical liberal bias of socialist propaganda.
PlsWakeUpAmerica 2 weeks ago
Sort of...
gmichaellogan 3 weeks ago
Hey, don't count Santorum out of the race, he could come from behind very easily but it would be an awful frothy mess of stray fecal matter, lube and ejaculate. To keep the humor level up, let's hope Santorum wins enough states, to stay in the race. I, for one believe we should ignore the frothy topic and root, root, root for the Santorum of your choice. What country can provide such a dog and pony show and expect the populace not to collapse laughing? USA USA USA USA
TotalImplosion 3 weeks ago
Santorum looks gay
mosyemessy 3 weeks ago in playlist Fox News Bias
he placed 4th.... a solid 4th. "if u aint first your last!."....ricky bobby's dad. thank you
lifeinthejon 4 weeks ago 3
There's only one REAL conservative in the 2012 GOP primary- RON PAUL!!!
tubeviewerX20 4 weeks ago
why do people care so much about fox being conservative. CBS NBC and all the other main networks are as liberal as fox is conservative. Your not making a difference by complaining.
MiceCrispy 1 month ago
@MiceCrispy Its not that they're conservative that we object to, it's that they are LIARS. Not to mention unethical journalism. In any other forum in the world, journalists who are close personal friends of candidates are not allowed to interview them.
yhwh88 4 weeks ago
@yhwh88 It's the same on the other side. Remember the 2008 election? CBS and NBC were ogling over Obama. THE TRUTH LIVES HERE! WATCH GLEN BECK AT 9 WEEKDAYS!
MiceCrispy 5 days ago
Didn't santorum drop out?
kickiwi 1 month ago
Megan Kelly would be a much more productive person with her lips around my dick and riding me reverse cowgirl.
kingkong8974 1 month ago
This broad is a nasty Fox 'News'..Republican shill..Watch her mouth..You can tell when she's about to get pissed..
801liveable 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a Canadian watching the "contest" between the new Republican extremists is like getting to see a house burn down with both its residents still inside. One goes for the fire extinguisher while the other starts dousing himself and the sofa in gasoline. during witch the neighborhood gathers to roast marshmallows and watch the show.
2live2entertain 1 month ago
Sorry, but in that document Santorum clearly states homosexuality is NOT like "man on child man on dog." All you gotta do is pause the video when the document comes up. I'm for gay marriage, but I am also for honest reporting. I'm just saying you might want to read the interview in context rather than snip a tidbit out.
MrSpockV 1 month ago
@MrSpockV Actually, he is saying that marriage is not "man on child, man on dog, it is one thing" that one thing in his mind being man and woman, hence his opposition to gay marriage. So he is indeed comparing gay sex to pedophilia and bestiality. Santorums's comments in this interview are well-known as being a source of controversy, so I'm not sure why you think that 9 years later, you've discovered everyone else is mistaken...
mixxycan 1 month ago
@mixxycan I suppose you're correct, I just read it differently. I've only cued into politics in the last few years, so I never remembering hearing about this before
MrSpockV 1 month ago
Answer to your questions in order: HELL NO! HELL YES!
bdoherty44 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Liberal viewer; you're an idiot
val058 1 month ago
@val058 One single thought does not require a semicolon.
Idiot!
OzuManful 1 month ago
Dude, they have a hardon for God.
Theres no evil there, just blatant ignorance of the actual world around them.
Axiodox 1 month ago
If America keeps voting these ignorant psychopaths into office, it will be the end of America.
kennegun 1 month ago 20
@kennegun unfortunately, I think it might also mean the end of the world.
hatface92 1 month ago
did she use quotes around "friends"? i don't see why anyone, much less someone in the LGBT community, would EVER be friends with Megyn Kelly...
WowUrFcknHxC 1 month ago
"It was a solid fourth"
Oh how I laughed. That's like saying a "consistent second to last".
voltage17121712 1 month ago
I fucking hate you...but you should love me because taking away your rights is for your own good.
dilt4 1 month ago
look at those cold, dead vacuous eyes.
thesirenrayne 1 month ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@thesirenrayne Stripper Eyes
Dferd777 1 month ago
I don't get this one. I like liberal viewer alot, but i'm usually suprised by the things I learn on these vids. This one is "Fox is buttering up a republican candidate by sweeping things under the rug". To me thats much more expected/obvious than when they lie/misrepresent the news. Why's this so bad? It's inherently bad but I figure both sides red or blue do this. Whats so peculiar?
novahcac 1 month ago
You think she's talking about Ron Paul but NOPE! Rick Santorum.
I think she just did that to troll all the Ron Paulers on the Internet. Honestly, it would be funny except that she's a stupid bitch.
Christhefireshark 2 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
huh, well he did only compare it to child molestation and bestiality, why on earth would they think he has it in for them? *HEAVY SARCASM*
IzzydaLlama 2 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
she has gay and lesbian friends ????? bullshit !!! then his answer is more bullshit , fuckin' religious bullshitters . Fucking agendas , mix religion with politics ...
stop it !! 1 more thing , she is as fake as her nose job .... ha ha
mrstudes 2 months ago
Urban Dictionary. Santorum and lulz
VindozaDM 3 months ago
Watch Megyn Kelly's difference in demeanor when she talks to a democrat compared to a republican. It's astounding.
rebukeasitis 3 months ago
It seems Santorium is tapping her.
michp38 3 months ago
WTF? a "SOLID" fourth? O*B*A*M*A. 'nuff said.
dagda825 3 months ago
How can she live with herself?
Vix847 3 months ago
Ban Fox News, ban them !
MenwithHill 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@MenwithHill First amendment allows for freedom of speech, no matter how dumb it is
GutsandGlory45 3 months ago
@GutsandGlory45 the forst amendment applies to fox "news" for some reason, but not for the OWS protesters. im so glad im not american
teedonster2 3 months ago
@teedonster2 i saw a picture on facebook a couple of days ago, describing this perfectly. it was a picture of some of the westboro baptist church protestors whit signs like "god hates fags" and the likes, and it said "do you remember when the riot police stopped this protest with peverspray and beatings? me neither."
allblue88 3 months ago
@WONDOCTORJ "REPRODUCTION"
You completely ignored my points. All acts I mentioned are not reproduction, yet you make it sound like any non-reproductive act, such as kissing, is the same as screwing a dog.
jgoemat 4 months ago
@vhr513 ok, well im just not going republican ever, so if you decide to go repulbican just dont vote for perry, hes going to be worse than bush was, hes just plain out stupid
planetmeagher 4 months ago
i think msnbc does the same for liberals
HectorElCapitan 4 months ago
@HectorElCapitan It doesn't.
NuclearRadio 4 months ago
@HectorElCapitan I've never seen MSNBC occulting part of a story, of course I saw Olbermann going angry on his opponents, but you just can't compare MSNBC and Fox News when it comes to the quantity of lies. Just compare their coverage of Occupy Oakland Disorders. Fox News completely occulted the fact that police began by firing Tear Gas Canister and sprayed Pepper Spray on demonstrator for no reason.
MenwithHill 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
I am wondering if Santorum is gay himself, some politicians that are gay, bash gays more, because of there own insecurities.
iojkloonmp 4 months ago
Megyn Kelly is the only woman I have ever truly wanted to punch in the face.
ferretburger 4 months ago
Every time Megyn starts a sentence with "Some say..." you know that she is going to throw in a GOP talking point.
ferretburger 4 months ago
@vhr513 You mentioned Obama and how you regretted voting for him, as if voting for McCain was a better option. H.R.3863 is the for the discrimination of race and H.R.2030 is the bill for eliminating the federal minimum wage; H.R.7965 is similar to H.R.3863, except, it allows private schools who discriminate on sex, color, or creed and still maintain their tax-exempt status. In addition,Ron Paul is in favor of teaching 'Intelligent Design' in school and he's against gay marriage.
lovesXtoXspoog 4 months ago
Rick Santorum is an asshole, why else would you not want gays to marry if you didn't have a problem with them being gay?
lovesXtoXspoog 4 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@lovesXtoXspoog Well there is the argument that marriage is a religious institution and therefore should be decided by said religions. i believe every one should have civil unions therefore equal under the government and that marriage should remain a religious thing.
0FlowersByIrene0 3 months ago
@vhr513 I know Ron Pual makes lovely speechs, but have you actually looked into his policies? Ron Pual is the same man who sponsored a bill in 1979 to keep the IRS from investigating public school who may have used race to deny entrance; he's the same man who introduced a bill in 1983 to eliminate the federal minimum wage. I'm tired of loud mouth Ron Pual supporters, who come into a video and talk of how much they hate Obama, and end with "RON PUAL 2012!" Ignorant assholes.
lovesXtoXspoog 4 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
LiberalViewer is a moron
bobscarver 4 months ago
@bobscarver Well according to the number of like and dislike and people sub to liberal viewer..id say you're stupid.
QCBEC 4 months ago
@vhr513 lets go obama
planetmeagher 4 months ago
The chickenhawks of Fox News love their entitlement of controversy - especially with remarks of gay rights and so forth. For Santorum, he attempts to change sexual advantages for everyone in the United States and pass all regulations to not allow homosexuals to have consensual sex.
It's their choice if men choose to have a relationship with their own gender but Santorum literlaly has NO respect whatsoever on the principles of man-to-man sexual orientations.
Ringvireot 5 months ago
Ummmm...NO?
crewkid52 5 months ago
Straight news anchor my ass
crewkid52 5 months ago
"a solid fourth"
kiel108 5 months ago
gotta love the Fux Noise bottle blond bimbo asking the moron Santorum a frothy mixture of fecal questions, seems they BOTH like to frolic in the stuff....srsly is Megyn Kelly the BIGGEST fucking idiot Fux could find or did Rupert just like her tits?
oneirishpoet 5 months ago
"that decision". omg, enough already.
MrAronymous 5 months ago in playlist Video's van LiberalViewer
The GOP strategy is this. They will make an "underdog" and then he will win. The goal is to make the voters feel like the "rebels", to feed their inherent persecution complex, and the scripted victory feel like a "surprise". That will make the emotional high even bigger, and that emotional wave will push legislation.
Imagine replicating the Obama Fervor, but this time - it's ALL in house. The conflict only within the party... this also scores independents and discontents in the process.
Callirgos1 5 months ago
Comment removed
Callirgos1 5 months ago
Is it just me or do all the female FOX anchors act like the depressingly vapid happy hour regulars tucked into the glittering cracks of a swanky hotel bar, desperately trying to sort out their daddy issues?
Callirgos1 5 months ago
@Callirgos1 You are admitting you are getting a boner. You like Fox News. Each of us has his own reason, eh?
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@Forlo12345 "Ron Paul isn't against gay marriage, he's against the idea of it". What does that mean? How can you be against the idea of something and yet not against that thing?
BottleConcreteBlond 5 months ago
@BottleConcreteBlond Easy: he would never legislate against it because his belief in freedom goes farther than his own personal beliefs. As a christian, he probably believes homosexuality is a sin (I personally disagree with him cuz I'm an atheist). But, he also firmly believes in the separation between church and state, so regardless of what he personally believes, he would never pass a law that brings religion back into government...laws against gay marriage are, therefore, unconstitutional.
Forlo12345 5 months ago
@Forlo12345 So he is against it he just says he wouldn't legislate it. I also don't think he'll do a lot of work to get equal rights for gay people.
BottleConcreteBlond 5 months ago
@BottleConcreteBlond You aren't getting it. How many republicans do you see with the integrity to separate their own religious beliefs from government? Sure, he's not out trying to advocate for gay rights (though many of his supporters do), but at least he isn't out there actively preventing them from marrying who they choose and even says that government should have no say in the matter. Out of the entire Republican panel, he's the best choice! The ONLY best choice.
Forlo12345 5 months ago
@Forlo12345 Actually, the Federal Govt has NO place in this argument at all. It is a State issue.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 I agree.
Forlo12345 5 months ago
@Forlo12345 You agree? Shit, I am looking for a fight, not agreement. Oh well, it`s a trolling life for me........
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@Forlo12345 I get it, but I don't believe it. If Ron Paul was President he would do nothing for gay and lesbian people. He's just not quite as bad as most of the rest of them.
BottleConcreteBlond 5 months ago
@BottleConcreteBlond Point taken, but you can't just judge someone on one issue. It's equivalent to saying that Thomas Jefferson was a tyrant because he owned slaves or that Hitler was a saint because he was a strict environmentalist. You have to look at everything Ron Paul has done, THEN cast judgement. He is against the wars, he is against big corporate monopolies, he keeps pushing to aduit the Fed Reserve, he is in favor of legalizing pot, and he wants to get rid of the IRS.
Forlo12345 5 months ago
@BottleConcreteBlond Gee, do something for me! Me! Me too!
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@BottleConcreteBlond
By being a polite bigot...
Callirgos1 5 months ago
@Callirgos1 Nonsensical answer.
BottleConcreteBlond 5 months ago
@BottleConcreteBlond I may be totally against the idea of MSNBC, yet still not against it, as I believe in a free press. Stupid.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
horrible nose job
Kougeki1000 5 months ago
@Bankruptingliberals As for Clinton cutting defense, yeah, we could totally have spent lots of cash to stop AIRLINERS FROM BEING USED AS MISSLES. I'm positive defense cuts caused 9/11(sarc)
I'm really starting to think your last name is Palin, or you have suffered a stroke sometime this week.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rushtrdamus 10th Amend, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note Constitution itself says poers are delegated. Note also the words, United States, States, People. They are not interchangeable. Since health Care is not a delegated Fed power, it still is legal for a State to provide it, or the people themselves. NOT Federal Govt.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@Bankruptingliberals ARE YOU KIDDING???? The soviets invaded in 1979, Charlie Wilson didn't get involved until 1981. Now, I don't know your IQ, but the Afghans held on all by themselves for over a year, with the world's 2nd largest Army invading their country. Just as a contrast, we took over Iraq in 100 HOURS. They were the world's 5th largest army and so superior to what Afghanistan had as far as weapons, it isn't funny.
Yes, the arms came from ALL OVER, China, Persian gulf, Egypt...
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Bankruptingliberals I suggest you get that dick out of yours before TRYING to sound smart.
"Without the US sending the Afghans arms, they would've been throwing stones"
HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT? Hey retard? Who's giving them all the arms to keep us there for LONGER than the russians?
Arms race? Yeah, and space race, the olympics, etc, etc....
And that support for Afghanistan led DIRECTLY to 9/11.
Thanks for proving MY POINT, Trig.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
Was reagan treated unfairly even though he came in second?
Better question... was Rick Santorum treated unfairly even though he came in fourth?
LEt us ignore Ron Paul and let Rick Sanatarium speak.
ThatBlackPanda 5 months ago
@Bankruptingliberals hahahahahahahahahaha Thanks, you just proved my point. First, Reagan did very little to hurt the USSR, Afghanistan did more, second, if Reagan doesn't have the power to spend, how THE FUCK could he bankrupt anyone?
Look douchebag, it's obvious that you're a party first, country second asshole. Do yourself a favor and try to figure out how to hide that fact.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Well actually the Reagan administration trained and armed the Afghani fighters who fought against the USSR. Afghanistan couldn't have done what they did without the USA's support. Or at least it would have taken a lot longer and cost them more lives.
lasoogneypubes 5 months ago
@lasoogneypubes No shit, one was Usama Bin Ladin. How does that shit feel? Reagan helped CREATE our last 2 enemies.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Mostly it was Reagan who helped train our future enemies. The USA has been supporting Israel since the 50's and that's Al Qaeda's main reason for hating us. All the presidents since the 50's have been making our enemies hate us even more.
lasoogneypubes 5 months ago
@lasoogneypubes Correct, kinda.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Care to elaborate?
lasoogneypubes 5 months ago
@lasoogneypubes Well, our installing bases around the middle east along with supporting Israel, not to mention our butting our noses into middle east affairs any time we felt like it. Our founders wanted NOTHING to do with involving ourselves in bullshit like we have been doing for almost a century.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Yeah that was pretty much what I was saying. Supporting Israel is just the thing that pisses them off the most about us. If you haven't read Osama Bin Laden's letter to America, I suggest you do because it's pretty interesting. He spells out every reason why he wants America to die. I don't understand how the media could read that letter and just say that they attacked us because we're free....
lasoogneypubes 5 months ago
@lasoogneypubes Read the Quran, THAT tells you why the muslims attacked us.
I'm guessing you aren't a fan of jews? If it was just the jews, then why wait 50 years to attack? Why partner up with the "great Satan"? Some how, your math is missing some numbers, but you're claiming to have a correct answer.
Go back to school.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Haha a typical retort... "You must hate jews if you don't support Israel!" Ummm... why wait 50 years? Ya know I'm not entirely sure why, maybe they were trying to win the war against Israel without going after us first? Just read the fucking letter from Osama, I know you didn't. You're just another brainwashed dumbfuck who believes everything the media tells you. The answer is right in front of your face, just do some research you stupid child.
lasoogneypubes 5 months ago
@lasoogneypubes hahaha I don't give a flying fuck about Israel. PERIOD, I feel they have helped cause alot of our problems.
Item E on Bin Ladin's list "Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands," Hmmm, where have you seen that lately? Answer: MY LAST POST, you retard.
They attacked us because we continue to stick our fucking nose where it doesn't belong. Question? Would you allow Cuba to build a base in D.C? FUCK NO.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus That's exactly what I'm trying to say... Are you drunk?
lasoogneypubes 5 months ago
@Bankruptingliberals Well let's start with credit. Do we give the credit for all things bad to the dems and all things good to the Reps, like you want, or do we blame them all? Cause if you want to give spending credit to the dems during Reagans, then you also have to credit THE DEMS for the downfall of the USSR. It's REALLY wierd, you seem to want to BLAME the POTUS during Clinton's terms, but blame the congress during Reagans.
YOU CAN'T have it both ways, you dumbass.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Don't you guys credit Reagan with the longest peacetime growth in our economy? DURING A TIME WHEN YOU ALREADY CLAIM THE DEMS RAN THE SHOW? And I haven't even mentioned the huge spending that Bush and GOP congress got us into ALL BY THEMSELVES. Midicare part D, TWO UNFUNDED wars, TAX Breaks during war time(first in U.S. history BTW)
face it, ANYTHING you TRY to claim can be debunked with simple common sense.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Spending? How about being a little more specific. It was military spending that caused the downfall of the USSR, and THAT enabled Bill Clinton`s term to cut defense spending, because the boogeyman was dead. Clinton`s surpluses were mainly caused by Reagan, its called "investment".
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Sure, Kennedy did more to defeat the USSR than Reagan did. We has a little thing called the Space race(which we soundly won), And The Soviets invaded Afghanistan(they spent a decade spending billions of rubles and thousands of lives(sound familiar? Reagan spent billions and created Saddam Hussain and Bin Ladin. Not to mention hlped establish TERRORISM as a way of doing business.(Reagan's "terrorism manual")
Yes, we're still dealing with bullshit Reagan created.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
Respond to this video... Reagan rebuilt the military, USSR collapsed, Clinton had fewer bad guys to worry about. Reagan did NOT repeal Social Security, MediCare, MediCaid, Food Stamps, welfare, etc. Something had to give, unless you think transfer payments are all that matters. Some think the military is actually necessary.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Bullshit, I lived on a base during Reagan, that's when military guys learned what Govt. cheese was.(welfare for soldiers). More bullshit, Clinton had MORE bad guys to worry about, most were Reagan's buddies.
Duh, I'm a vet, but as one, I can point out BILLIONS in waste fraud and abuse. I watched as THOUSANDS of rounds of .50 cal rounds were wasted for fun, at 4$ a piece. I've also watched the last 2 wars where thousands of soldier's lives were also wasted.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Waste, fraud, and abuse abound everywhere, in every venue. Operating any enterprise in perfect efficiency is NOT the norm. Perhaps our soldiers are pure bullshit, you happen to be the expert on that. Maybe they have no respect for money, couldnt care less. But, I still have to pay for their pensions, and medical care, dont I? Being a Vet makes you an expert, like driving a car makes me an engineer. Like breathing makes me an ecology scientist. Drinking makes me a brewer. .
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Have you ever watched 50K worth of bullets fired, JUST TO FIRE them? How many $2000 Tank Rounds have you wasted? Hmmmmm? I'm guessing you've never driven an M1A1? How many decades have you lived on base? No, I'm not an expert, I simply have 25 years MORE experience than MOST.
BTW, AWESOME rebuttal of my claims about our latest 2 fuck-ups, I'm guessing you agree with me?
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus If what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, those individuals involved in that waste deserve to be in prison, as well as the witnesses to these actions, if they have not come forward as whistle blowers. However, waste IS a fact of life, and lack of concern over other people`s money is also reality. In the businesses I ran, the Corp figured in 2% for waste. Lack of concern, stupidity, laziness all contributed to lost profits, yet every store had waste.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 "figured 2%" So, in other words they guessed. I can assure you that there is more waste in the military budget than we will ever know. I was told MANY times to help some things "go away", so that our budget was increased instead of cut. I'm guessing we could cut military spending by half and still be the greatest fighting force ever assembled.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus No, the 2% waste was figured averaging out over 1000 stores. Costs per unit were able to be figured exactly, and the results showed that % as the shortfall. I have no reason to assume a similar waste in the military, just that waste is common, everywhere. My feelings are it is far greater in the Govt. Fraud in MediCare is greater than in private Health ins. Compared to % of GDP, or total budget of 1960, the military budget has already been cut in half.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Look, I worked retail, and Govt. They BOTH "fudge" numbers to come up with "write-offs". One store at which I worked, had over $180,000 come up missing. They claimed it all under theft. That number was pure bullshit, and I'm guessing alot was simple fraud.(we never counted what was sent from corporate)
BTW, our GDP in 1960 was microscopic compared to today. And why should defence spending be tied to GDP?
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Theft, fraud exists. Wishing it didnt is silly. Trying to control it is all that is possible, and that effort is most successful when the losses mean losses to owners. In Govt, losses do not directly effect owners, as there are none. % of GDP is a concept widely used by economists, CBO, etc. It shows the burden on economy, negates effect of inflation. Read financial news, books, articles, to see. Go ahead, look up % of budget, if you prefer. Same result. Military is far smaller now
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 I'm guessing you don't want to answer hte last question on my last post?
Why should Military spending be tied to GDP? Should we HAVE to spend more on defense if we make more money? Military is a smaller % of GDP, but it costs WAAAAAY more than it did in 1960, not even close.
Please, please tell me you think we spend less money now than we did then on the militry, PRETTY PLEASE?
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus It is a very common practice of the CBO and economists in general to use % of GDP to folllow spending and taxation issues over time,.That negates inflation from the equation, and gives a better reference than, "spending way up". Read Greenspan, Orzag, or anything financial would be nice. I will be charitable and just say the very fact you need to ask the question indicates your level of knowledge. Google: Historical Tables The White House, see Tables 1.2, 1.3, 2.3 to see concept
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Go to "Historical Tables The White House: table 4.2, note in 1962 Dept of Defense was 46.9% of the Budget, and in 2010 was 19.3%. Note this figure is percent of the BUDGET, since percent of GDP is something you dont like. However, I would say 1) smarter folks than us use % of GDP, 2) it stops the effect of inflation, and shows the relative burden on the economy, over time, We have potential enemies as well who have fast growing economies, China comes to mind. Economy fine 1962, 47%!
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Hey retard, I know it's used, I'm asking why it matters? If I'm poor as hell and spend 2000 on food each year to feed myself, them become rich, can I not feed myself on the same food amount?
You also forgot to mention the 90% top tax rate in 1962. OUCH! I guess we should tax the hell out of the rich, huh?
BWAHAHAH
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus It matters because it negates the inflation effects over time, and it shows the burden of the military on the entire economy in a ratio that can be compared, apples to apples. As for the 90% tax rate: corp tax rate was about 50% then too, during Clinton, Corp rate was 35%, personal 39.6%. Go to same site as before, Table 1.2, and observe the tax revenues TO Govt during the 60`s, and the Clinton years. MORE revenue TO Govt under the far lower rates. Nobody PAID the high rates.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Now explain why since the 70's wages have stalled while the cost of cars, homes, etc have risen? Explain wby in 1960, CEO's made 40 times the average worker and today it's 400 times?
NOBODY PAYS THE NEW LOWER RATES, they itemize.
I notice you avoided commenting on the cost of living Rich vs. poor. The cost of our military shouldn't be any more today, and in fact SHOULD be less of our GDP. If we followed our founders, it'd be less than 1% of GDP.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus You keep changing subjects. Started on the military, being so big, I show you it isnt as big as it was,then you bring up tax policy. I answer that too, but now you are on to income inequality. You are a fucking coward, no facts or arguments, who keeps running when confronted. I dont mind disagreement, but I SEE what you are. Stupid. If you want to STAY on income inequality, I will deal with THAT TOO. Hey, STUPID, pick ANY LIB subject, I will deal with it. Run again, I will stop.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 First, if you were near me and called me a coward, I would end you. Second, suck my balls you Neo-Con retard. I'm sure you're a fan of "trickle down", because you've been told it works, yet there is no proof of it working. I'm sure you think cutting taxes raises more revenue, that's bullshit, the Bush tax cuts sped up our deficits and DIDN'T stop the shit we're in now. Please, show me where I'm wrong?
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus You say there is NO PROOF only because you are unaware of it. I already have sent you to Govt records before, where you can see, and I already told you. Lokk, go where I sent you, and look up the % of of tax revenue relative to GDP the high tax rates of the 1960`s gave us, and compare to far lower rates in the 1990`s. Thats just facts, stupid. Cutting those tax rates all to hell and the tax revenue increased. Fucking dunce.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 There's no proof cause we JUST had ten years of lower taxes and GOLLY GEE, we're in a huge recession. You can CLAIM all you want, but reality is far different. If what you say is REMOTLY true, we should have avoided this economic mess. OBVIOUSLY cutting taxes didn't bust the vaults at the Fed the last 2 years. Please, try to spin away THAT non-increase in revenues?
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Taxes were cut in 2003, and deficits declined, tax revenue increased through 2007 because of them. The crash was due to housing bubble bursting. Didnt you notice it? Sorry, you need to be slightly more aware of the news. Homes fell in value. Mortgages became worth less money, because the asset backing the mortgage no longer had the value. Mortgages are bank assets, so the banks became broke. Reasoning out the home bubble is your homework.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Come on, dipshit, you'll have to try harder than that. Taxes were cut in 2001 and 2003. Somehow I doubt you forgot the 2001 tax cuts and simply didn't want to mention them. Revenues peaked the last year of Clintons budgets and tanked until 2005, up again in 06 and 07, and down again, all with record tax cuts.
I noticed BEFORE the bubble burst, and sold my home in 2005. How did I know? Banks were offering MULTIPLE interest only homes PER PERSON. It had to correct itself.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 I'm still amazed that you thought you could get away with leaving out the 2001 tax cuts. Are you so arrogant as to think that you can just lie and nobody will notice? I mean, if you have to lie to TRY to win a debate, haven't you already lost it? You seem to rely on ignorance as your source. Why? After all, YOU claim to be right, so why not just state your case, HONESTLY and let the truth do your talking?
The point is, WHY LIE?
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Tax rate was 39.6% when Bush elected. 2001 tax cut bill dropped that rate by only 1/2 of 1% in 2001, to 39.1%. 2002 that rate fell 1/2 of 1% again, to 38.6%. The Dems wanted taxes cut slowly. But the recession that came 3/2001 had Bush want the cuts accelerated, and in 2003 they were cut another 3.6% in one year, to 35%. Do arithmetic, and find 78.3% of the cut was 2003. THAT is why. You are just stupid, thats all. Dont worry, I knew it already.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 So you figured you could just leave it out because YOU deemed it useless???? First, you just lied AGAIN. "A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent;"
The ACTUAL rate drop was 4.6% for the highest rate, YOU FUCKING LIAR. The other tax cuts focused on CAP GAINS.
SERIOUSLY, HOW DO YOU SLEEP? BTW, it appears you don't really know shit, TRIG. The info is out there, and we do have GOOGLE.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Nobody talks about all the tax brackets, because nobody wants to fuck anybody but the rich. The top rate is the one pertaining to the rich. You want to raise taxes on the poor, who dont even pay, the middle class? Bush cut taxes on all brackets, Dems OK with cuts on middle class. Read again my post, I stated the top rate fell 1/2% in 2001, 1/2% in 2002, and 3.6% in 2003. 3.6% plus 1/2% plus 1/2%= 4.6%. I thought you could add, sorry, that was an dumb expectation on my part.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 hahahahaha The poor pay far more than the rich do for this country. The rich account for ess than 10%. This counrty wouldn't exist without the poor, we can easily do without the rich.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus
Then unionize, and prove it.
Callirgos1 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Google "SOI tax Stats individuals" (IRS gov site), go to "Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income(AGI)", then click table 3, 2001-2008, and note this:2008 top 2% of taxpayers paid 46.27% of all income taxes. These are the ones Obama says are not paying their share. These are not the rates, but % of total inc tax paid. Note top 50% pays 97.3%, so the bottom 50% of taxpayers pays only 2.7%. You are really a fucking idiot.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 And they SHOULD pay more. How much is a man's life worth? Hmmmm? Well. the rich RARELY help defend this country by serving in the military, so the POOR are the ones dying to keep us free. If the poor can die for our freedom, why can't people that benefit from that freedom pay more in taxes? The weird thing is how many so-called patriots have avoided serving(even when drafted), but now act as though they'd do anything. Example: Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Nugent.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus You said, "The poor pay far more than the rich do". Now, you say, "And they SHOULD pay more." You have denied your own original point of view, and now changed the subject to WHO enlists in military. Look it up! 2007, poorest Quintile ($0- $33K) were 10.7% of total recruits, Richest quintile ($65K- $256K) were 24.9%. Middle quintlile ($42K-$51K) were 21.7%. You are full of shit. Again.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 hahahahaha Are you saying that "rich" ends at 256K or that nobody richer than 256K has ever served? Cause I don't classify 256K as even close to rich, and I'm guessing that you don't either.
Base salary for E1 is $15,748 Around $5,000 LESS than Poverty level. E6, $30,265 Your numbers are bullshit. No way in hell is 25% of the entire military made up of people making 65K to 256K. When I joined, base pay for E-1 was around 700/month.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus That means the family income of the enlisted person, stupid. A "quintile" is a group of 1/5th of the range. It just means that was the norm of the range. NOT the wages of the enlisted person, the family income of the enlisted person. YOU were the one claiming that the rich dont serve. I suspect you already new that E-1`s dont make much wages.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Of course I already knew, I was in. I NEVER met a RICH man that was rich BEFORE joining. I knew what you were up to with your QUINTILE bullshit. I have to ask, does Sarah Palin know what a quintile is? Hahahaha You use the quintile bullshit and the rest of your "ADJUSTED" crap because simple, honest, REAL numbers don't help your case. EVERYONE knows that our military is for the most part made up of this nations poor.
Always has been, always will be.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus "Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training". Just google demographics of the military. The Govt keeps statistics. Your premise is wrong. Why? Because you "feel" it must be. "EVERYONE knows" the military is poor, because EVERYONE is a dumb fuck who never looks up anything.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 "richest" does NOT equal "rich" The Richest homeless man is still homeless.
How many millionaires are in the military? Answer as honestly as you can. Most people don't see someone that makes 256K as rich, do you? Your problem is that you let your bullshit ideology fuck up the few brains you may have been born with. NOT to mention your bullshit quintile includes those that make 64K in the "richest". I guess I must be one of the richest then. Get your head out of Rush's ass.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Obama says those who earn over $200K are the "rich". Actually, I think he is stupid, because I dont see income as a measure at all of being rich. I see rich as being what you have, not what you earn. Plenty of dopes have nice incomes, but never accumulate wealth. I would say your net worth determines your wealth, and being rich would be in terms of that. But, I`m not the Pres, and he says $200K is rich.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Post #2. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Libs are ALWAYS demanding the country do things for us, like universal Medical Care, public schools, Social Security, unemployment compensation for 2 yrs, etc. Dont be a lying hypocrite.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Look asshole, you already admitted that you chose NOT to serve your country, while I did. If anyone here is a lying hypocrite, it'd be the asshole CLAIMING to be a patriot while also wanting to hurt his own Govt. Why didn't you include The Fire dept., Police, or military in your bitch fest? Oh, because YOU want THOSE socialist programs, huh?
I promise you, just as many Repubes use every single program you mentioned, except for the schools, that is.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Military is listed in the Constitution, as a legitimate Federal Govt function. See Article 1, Section8. I want a fire dept, Police dept of course, but it most certainly does NOT have to have govt employees, who fuck the private sector workers over. A local govt could just contract the service OUT. At a market rate. #1 most dangerous job, fishermen, #2 loggers, #3 pilots, #4 farmers, ranchers, #5 mining, Cops ARE #9. Give them farmer pensions. oops, farmers dont have pensions.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Actually, MILITARY isn't mentioned, the Navy and Army are. does that exclude the air-force?
If we give them Farmer pentions, we'd better give them farmer pay. Since cops make less than 52K on average, and don't get to right off 300K combines(and sell them at retirement), I'm guessing the cops still win this one.
BTW " In 2002, the average farm household income was $8,000 greater than the average for non-farm. And Farmers die at their own hands.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Median US Household income was only $49.4K in 2010. Household means the total income in the home, and any Lib knows many women are working, and some families have kids working too. So, one cop is earning more than the average entire fucking household average. PLUS huge pensions, and benefits, and retiring at 50 or 55, etc. Go fuck yourself, you are still a fucking moron.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 I get it, your ideology doesn't allow for reality to interfere with it's dogma. I mean hell, cops only risk their lives by protecting us from criminals and southerners like you. Why should we pay them better than average? Yeah, let's pay the CEO of ATT OVER 400X the average salary in america, why, because some dipshit like you thinks that somehow he creates jobs. BULLSHIT, the greatest job creators are CUSTOMERS. No customers, no BUSINESS. I'm guessing you're a Palin.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus I think the military ought to use the price (wage) of labor to attract as many people as it needs. You joined up. Good for you. I stayed out, worked and paid taxes, so you could get paid, and have the equipment, medical care, and food you ate. Good for me. I really do not see the logic in us thinking that a teacher, or a cop has more "value" than a farmer, or garbage collector. Govt workers cant work without the private sector producing the wealth they consume. Thats obvious.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Correct, it should, but doesn't.
"You joined up. Good for you. I stayed out," My point exactly. Why is it that the rich can avoid the bloody parts of freedom AND then bitch about paying more in money when they benefit more than most for the freedom gained? And why do conservatives seem to be the ones wanting to fight wars while coming up with good excuses to avoid actually fighting in them? The GOP has ALOT of hawks that used health and defferments to avoid serving.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 BTW, when it comes right down to numbers, I'm guessing the rich make up less than 1% of actual soldiers. And most weren't rich when they joined.
"I stayed out, worked and paid taxes, so you could get paid, and have the equipment, medical care, and food you ate. Good for me" Yes, good for you, not let's make it a good thing for EVERYONE to think it's a good thing to help support their country. "Ask not what your country can do for YOU, ask what you can do for your country"
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 I must have missed your answer to a man's value, I'm sure it was an oversight on your part. Also, you never said if you thought it was OK for the rich to "opt out" when it comes to serving or paying. I happen to be one of those crazy people that thinks serving your country is a good thing. That's why I joined at 17. How about you, when did you join? Tee hee.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 So, you can keep your bullshit, I deal in reality. This country was BUILT and FREED on the backs of poor men and when the time came for the rich to send their sons, they usually found miracle openings in the 5 year waiting lists of the Tx. Nat. Guard or had Anal Boils(Limbaugh), or shit and pissed their pants for a week without washing them and reported to MEPS(Nugent).
So please, keep talking about how taking more of a rich assholes money is the WORSE thing possible.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus "In 2003, only 14.6 percent of military recruits came from the poorest quintile, whereas the wealthiest quintile provided 22.0 percent." This is from US census Bureau Data "ZCTA" or "Zip Code Tabulation Data". In other words, pooling the military recruits home area Zip Code, by the neighborhood wealth of the zip code, as a percent of all recruits. So now, you can just go fuck yourself, you are again an idiot.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 hahahaha Not buying the bullshit, Trig. "pooling" tells PART of a story, not to mention that the data is based on HOUSEHOLD income of recruits, NOT recruit income. And you still haven't said whether YOU think 256K is RICH?
"So now, you can just go fuck yourself" I'm not religious, I have REAL sex.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 Just to be clear, if a dirt-poor person joins while living in a wealthy Zip code, HE is concidered RICH?
Oh, that makes perfect sense. Bwahahahahaha I though we were debating reality, not macro-bullshit.
"Der, according to the great Oz, The richest quintile PROVES that the military is mainly made up of Rich people"
Dude, lay off the crack.
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Yes, welfare mothers who live in Beverly Hills are considered rich. And all the billionaires living in Watts are considered poor. Since that number is zero, it balances out.
luvcheney1 5 months ago
@luvcheney1 The sad thing is that according to YOUR quintiles, YES, welfare mothers who live in BH AND join the military ARE included in YOUR numbers. It appears you don't have a very good idea how the real world works. There are BILLIONS of poor and only 1210 BILIONAIRES, so yeah, billionaires MUST make the world go round, huh?
YOU are the dumbass trying to use QUINTILES as a back-up source for your retarded bullshit. If common sense doen't work, dipshits like you turn to "quintiles"
Rushtrdamus 5 months ago
@Rushtrdamus Are you for real? Welfare mothers can afford to live in Beverly Hills, distorting the numbers? Billionaires live in Watts? If the US Govt collected the family incomes of recruits, and made those numbers public, then using residence addresses, and census data on family incomes wouldnt be necessary. But, trash like you who hate the successful like to make bullshit claims, when evidence contradicts you. When facts contradict, deny facts, `eh stupid?
luvcheney1 5 months ago