I am really, really tired of trying to articulate my opposition to more government bail-outs. Anyone who needs further explanation must be either a CEO in line for a fat bonus, a member of the government who lives on taxpayers’ money already (so giving away more seems like no big deal), or mentally challenged. I’d say retarded, but last time I used that word I got called an unfit mother. Screw it. Anyone who thinks we need to shovel more of your and my and your kids’ and my kids’ money into the ravening maw of the Masters of the Universe is retarded. Call a spade a spade, I say.
So because I’d rather spend time with my kids than re-hash this incredibly simple concept for retarded readers, I’ll just refer you to Michelle Malkin: what she said.
Comments 16
Amen.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 4:55 pm ¶And how.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:14 pm ¶I always kind of wonder why it is that Conservatives spend so much time railing against big government* unless that big government is the military. Why is big (government) military good and big government everything else bad? Is the DOD somehow more virtuous/ethical/efficient than other federal government departments?
* Despite the fact that Bush and the GOP controlled Congress presided over the largest growth in the the overall Federal government since FDR and the biggest increase in entitlement spending since LBJ.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:02 pm ¶Because we live in a dangerous world and the military keeps us safe. If you want peace, prepare for war, as the Romans used to say.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:07 pm ¶But surely if government is by definition inefficient and corrupt then we would be better off with a private sector Military?
Healthcare keeps us healthy, and that is frankly a much greater danger to the average citizen than some hypothetical hostile military, doesn’t that mean conservatives should be just as in favor of a large government Department of Healthcare? We live in an unhealthy world fraught with pollution and disease, after all.
I’m sure we could have a long derailment about whether military action overseas actually makes us more or less safe but I’d like to stick to the original question if possible.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:35 pm ¶“* Despite the fact that Bush and the GOP controlled Congress presided over the largest growth in the the overall Federal government since FDR and the biggest increase in entitlement spending since LBJ.”
And we conservatives despise his liberal approach to Government.
Secondly, the Military is a constitutional responsibility of the government and in case you weren’t paying attention, we’ve been at war for the last 8 or so years.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:39 pm ¶Actually, the Constitution lays out a requirement to maintain a Navy, and does not specify what capabilities that Navy must have. It also specifies that an Army may be (but not must be) raised, but that no money may be appropriated for it for more than two years. Congress gets around this by appropriating it through a yearly budget. See article 2 section 8.
We are also not in a state of war with any state other than North Korea with whom there is still an active ceasefire agreement. We are engaged in several rhetorical and un-winnable wars against abstract concepts such as “Poverty”, “Terrorism”, and “Drugs”.
Back to the main question, would a private sector Military be better and more efficient than the gargantuan government monstrosity* we have now?
*The US Defense budget is more than the next fourteen military budgets in the world combined and makes up 46% of the entire world’s combined military budget.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 7:11 pm ¶“We are also not in a state of war with any state other than North Korea with whom there is still an active ceasefire agreement. We are engaged in several rhetorical and un-winnable wars against abstract concepts such as “Poverty”, “Terrorism”, and “Drugs”.”
Given that there never was a DoW on North Korea, Mr. College boy, how pray tell are we in a “State of war” with N. Korea?
And by the way, the “War on Drugs” is winnable, if we bothered to treat it like a real war and start shooting drug dealers and smugglers on sight.
Then you could win it.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 8:18 pm ¶Bowden: “Given that there never was a DoW on North Korea, Mr. College boy, how pray tell are we in a “State of war” with N. Korea?”
You’re right, the official state of War only exists between South Korea and North Korea. Therefore we are not at war with anyone at all. Thanks for reinforcing my argument for me.
You’re also right that I went to college though I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the discussion.
Bowden: “And by the way, the “War on Drugs” is winnable, if we bothered to treat it like a real war and start shooting drug dealers and smugglers on sight.”
Do I really need to point out to you that the reason they can’t do that because it is not and never could be a real war and calling it that is just a propaganda trick perpetrated by Richard Nixon? It is therefore not winnable, nor are the pretend wars on “Poverty” (LBJ) and “Terror” (W).
So why is a gigantic government-run Military preferable to a more efficient private sector one?
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 9:03 pm ¶So why is a gigantic government-run Military preferable to a more efficient private sector one?
I wouldn’t be opposed to having both, personally.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 10:02 pm ¶“You’re also right that I went to college though I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the discussion.”
Because it is obvious to me that your rationale for just about everything you say lacks originality and is nothing more than what some tenured professor who couldn’t hold a job in the real world has told you.
And you’re frequently having to be corrected. You were horribly wrong when you attacked the Catholic Church about a month ago, you were wrong today when you said a state of war existed between the US and N. Korea, then you bring up how the US treats Gays much like Islam does to women then proceed to say, “it’s beside the point.”
Whatever, Dan. That University “logic” you use as a form of debate is very disturbing.
Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 1:08 am ¶The idea of a completely private-sector military is impossible. And absurd. Talk about straw man arguments.
Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶Bowden, do you really want to get into an argument about who’s more frequently incorrect? Just because you’re incapable of admitting it when you’re wrong doesn’t mean you’re not wrong.
Or do you want to admit how hilariously wrong and paranoid you were when you claimed Obama’s Birth Certificate as a forgery? How about the fact that in this very comment stream you claimed we’re at war when we are not? Or when you claimed I was culpable for the actions of an insane murderer, a claim that even your wife pointed out was stupid?
Its also really amusing to me that you claim that I was brainwashed by a “tenured professor” when all your arguments (including that one) come directly from dimwitted blowhard propagandists like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
How can you stand being married to a graduate of one of the most liberal universities in the entire country? After all, anyone who would dare get a degree from such an morally bankrupt den of lies and liberal propaganda must be an inherently bad person.
Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶Why is a completely private sector military impossible? Please explain, and compare/contrast to other Federal government departments such as Education, Commerce, or Energy can feasibly be completely private sector, as those three departments are all ones that the Republicans have tried to eliminate in the last twenty years.
Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:14 pm ¶“Or do you want to admit how hilariously wrong and paranoid you were when you claimed Obama’s Birth Certificate as a forgery? ”
Remind me of exactly what I said again on this?
Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:26 pm ¶“How about the fact that in this very comment stream you claimed we’re at war when we are not? ”
What? Elaborate on this.
Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:27 pm ¶Post a Comment