Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:
The 2019 military budget, approved by an 85-to-10 vote, gives America's armed forces an $82 billion increase from 2017.
 
Bernie Sanders plans to release a new proposal to cancel $81 billion worth of medical

Yeah, that plan is never seeing the light of day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:
This is my first pro Rachel Maddow post I've made, maybe the con job about Russia that the intelligence agencies did on her is slowly wearing off. 
Bernie has been consistent in his core view, that government should be for the benefit of "people", not big money or big this or that. The real shame is in looking at how effortlessly it was to pass a ONE year increase to the military budget and almost no voice against it compared to using that same amount of money to help "people" in removing medical bills from their shoulders.

Okay, then which politicians in Washington will support him and help him pass this? Certainly there must be some or this would all just be hot air.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:
The 2019 military budget, approved by an 85-to-10 vote, gives America's armed forces an $82 billion increase from 2017.
 
Bernie Sanders plans to release a new proposal to cancel $81 billion worth of medical

The military budget should be deceased by around 20%.   That being said,  I still don't agree with suspending this private debt.

But I do see your point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:
The 2019 military budget, approved by an 85-to-10 vote, gives America's armed forces an $82 billion increase from 2017.
 
Bernie Sanders plans to release a new proposal to cancel $81 billion worth of medical

There is a major difference here.  National Defense is a bedrock duty of the Federal government whereas paying off private debt is not.  If the DOD budget was reduced by $81 billion, it would go to paying off the National Debt if anything.  More than likely though it would go to infrastructure

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:
This is my first pro Rachel Maddow post I've made, maybe the con job about Russia that the intelligence agencies did on her is slowly wearing off. 
Bernie has been consistent in his core view, that government should be for the benefit of "people", not big money or big this or that. The real shame is in looking at how effortlessly it was to pass a ONE year increase to the military budget and almost no voice against it compared to using that same amount of money to help "people" in removing medical bills from their shoulders.

I used to watch Rachel Madmouth very frequently, but gave up about a couple of years ago.  She just seems to say the same things over and over and over and with long commercial breaks to pay her huge salary.

One major problem with Sanders' proposal is paying off debt already incurred.  That is entirely different from establishing programs or expanding current ones to help people. Also, this is private debt, not debt to the US government.

As I said earlier healthcare and military are vastly different.  Defense is preeminent in the Constitution and health care is not in it at all.  "Provide for the common good" is the catchall used for "people" programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Similar to you.

Not in the least.  I post articles by other people - all sorts - and your published responses to them are the same thing over and over and over again.  But to that you are entitled.  To each his own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Not in the least.  I post articles by other people - all sorts - and your published responses to them are the same thing over and over and over again.  But to that you are entitled.  To each his own.

Your articles and then your postings in defense of them and then your posts in defense of your posts are the same thing over and over and over again.  You pick articles that support your positions and the articles say the same thing over and over and over and over.

Apparently you do not want to hear a contrasting opinion.  And what you post should not be questioned.  Sounds like a certain president I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Your articles and then your postings in defense of them and then your posts in defense of your posts are the same thing over and over and over again.  You pick articles that support your positions and the articles say the same thing over and over and over and over.

Apparently you do not want to hear a contrasting opinion.  And what you post should not be questioned.  Sounds like a certain president I know.

If you don't like to read about whoppers from Individual One try avoiding a thread called Trump's Biggest Whoppers and go to The Triumph of thread or any one of JakeHolman's threads.  

I don't pick articles that support any one candidate when I post about the 2020 election.  That's BS.

Trump and International Politics is about the bleedin' leader of America.  If you think he's doing a bang up job start posting about it and get off my back.

But by all means keep responding as you wish.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

If you don't like to read about whoppers from Individual One try avoiding a thread called Trump's Biggest Whoppers and go to The Triumph of thread or any one of JakeHolman's threads.  

I don't pick articles that support any one candidate when I post about the 2020 election.  That's BS.

Trump and International Politics is about the bleedin' leader of America.  If you think he's doing a bang up job start posting about it and get off my back.

But by all means keep responding as you wish.  

Actually I ignore a lot of your posts.

That said, Trump's Biggest Whoppers is not about trump's whoppers; it is about most things Trump.  It is where most members post or go to read about Trump and his impact on US.  There are many, many posts that do not even mention Trump.

You pick articles that support the progressive/liberal/far left agenda and their candidates.  Don't deny it.  You also pick articles that are very one sided, so I (and others) try to present the other side.  Particularly from the viewpoint of actual AMERICANS who live in AMERICA and VOTE in AMERICAN elections.

If you don't want a counterpoint, don't post!

If you read my posts, you will easily see that I am totally opposed to Trump and just about everything he does.  However, he does rarely do something right.  Also, I (and others) try to point out how the DEMS can lose the 2020 elections and Trump and GOPers can win.  Just as they did in 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

'''http://www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.html
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.''' 

 

The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution. Trillions spent on regime change wars, many would argue that those wars were unlawful, and not covered by the Constitutions lawful intent.

This is irrelevant to your post to which I was responding.

You were saying that if Congress can appropriate $82 Billion for defense, they could appropriate $81Billion for Sanders' MFA plan.  I pointed out that the Constitution clearly points out national defense as a prominent requirement of the Federal government and providing healthcare is not required at all.

The lawful intent of how the US military is used is up to Congress and the Supreme Court.  Congress has funded all military operations until it decided not to.  Therefore those actions were lawful.  The SC has never ruled that a military operation was unlawful.

You are also confusing obeying lawful orders to unlawful "wars."  As a former Army officer, I am very familiar with the UCMJ and what obeying/disobeying an order means and determining what an unlawful order is.  You have cited one person's interpretation of when disobedience is warranted.  As this was in objecting to George W. Bush's Iraq War in 2003, it is irrelevant since we are still in Irag and no authority has ruled that it is an "unlawful" war.

Regardless, the issue is that the Constitution requires billions or trillions for defense, but nothing for Medicare For All.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

It's hard to have it both ways.  He speaks the truth about "Russiagate" and the Russian interference in the 2016 election in favour of Donald Trump but he also speaks the truth about corporate greed and political corruption which the "establishment" does not like to hear at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

Danny Sjursen is about as close as I can get politically, I may be somewhat farther to the left on some issues but not much, he's me in a nut shell ha,ha.

Still irrelevant to your original post and my comments.

1.  The Constitution does NOT require any expenditures on healthcare, but it does on defense.

2.  The United States has NEVER engaged in an illegal war, therefore is no basis for your post on not obeying illegal orders.  There is a monumental difference between the two.

I watched about five minutes of the video, but couldn't see watching anymore.  I also read one of Sjursen's articles on why he left (early retirement) the Army after 18 years.  Nothing wrong with another disgruntled soldier moving on, but totally irrelevant to your posts and my comments.

Now, if you want to start a thread or postings strictly regarding wars in which the US should not have become involved, have at it.  But, that has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders and funding MFA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ol' Bern wasn't screwed over in 2016, he lost fair and square. Most of the candidates who didn't

make the September debate cut are going to complain about it, which is only natural. No time

for losers. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...