JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[MDlaxfan76]

And that's really your position, arm everyone to the teeth?
nah, that's obviously being facetious, sarcastic.

Nope, your financial and foreign policy positions are beyond 'left', they're way out there. Radical.
And no, 'conservative' has never meant extreme positions.

But I do understand why you seem so confused by the labels; radical left would be far more appropriate than simply saying 'far, far left'.

Here's the thing, my bet is you just intend to be provocative. I doubt that you actually want the extremes you suggest, just would rather we move directionally closer to them...in other words, just 'left'.

Again, I don't mean any of this to be offending, merely descriptive.

And my objection was not about which direction you skew, but rather the seemingly auto-response of bringing partisan politics into a policy discussion. Not helpful. But provocative, yes.

Obviously, it's the old story of everybody having an opinion just like everyone has an azzhole. What I right is not provocative, just the truth that so many of you on the right fail to address or admit to. When confronted with your own principles you retreat and act as if the question wasn't posed. It shows that you people have no real principle at all - that what you subscribe to is not principle but expediency. It's the same thing year after year. In your heart you know that's the truth.

huh?

"you people"?? Who are you lumping me in with?

"on the right"? Well, sure I'm definitely to the "right" of you, and I used to describe myself as a conservative leaning moderate Republican (however, I find myself unwanted in my party these days), but it would be a surprise to quite a few of our fellow posters 'on the right' to hear that I'm being lumped in with them.

You betcha that I'm more interested in practical, doable solutions than the hard-core "principles" espoused by the extremes...IMO, often hypocritically espoused by them.

[runrussellrun]

Sure, on the current American political/policy spectrum, you are indeed, far, far left, pretty predictably on most every issue. I can't think of any where you skew more 'right' than 'left'.

I don't have any problem with that, I don't mean it in any insulting way at all.

Never once have I ever had anyone say that my past posts on the 2d Amendment was "left".

Limited government? That's supposed to be a right wing viewpoint. Recall that I'm the one who called for reduction in the military industrial complex which (technically speaking) is right wing. Of course, that entails being a principled right winger.

Elimination of the income tax (after ending all foreign tax shelters) is a right wing viewpoint as well. Since you've read my posts then you know how I feel about that.

The problem with the right wing is its lack of principle. Anyone who says I am "far left" just hasn't read or understood anything I've said.

I don't recall your views on "2nd Amendment". Gun control, no gun control?

No, I don't think anyone would say it's 'right wing' (in the current spectrum) to call for reduction in the military industrial complex.

I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole, (best for another thread) but you'd prefer that the US generate tax revenue how? With a regressive or a progressive system? Specifically?

2d Amendment - some forum right wingers were not at all pleased at my suggestion that we need the Black Panthers in full living color armed to the teeth with bazookas and other instruments.

Reduction in government is (in principle) conservative: no standing army, foreign conflicts, no more wars.

Recall ALL the assets held overseas, use it to pay the nation's debt, usage taxes to generate revenues. Payroll taxes for social security.

A true conservative believes all this. Too bad right wingers fail to live up to their professed principles.

ALL liberals voted to kill people in Afghanistan.......fact.

just stop with this fake hate, making stuff up.

Someone was POTUSA from 2009-2017......DonTrump ?

exactly

just STOP

"ALL voters voted to kill people in Afghanistan.......fact."

As citizens of this republic, we share equally the blame for the actions of our elected officials. Stop trying to cherry-pick. This article discusses a book about our pathologiclal desire to employ the "untouchables" to do our "dirty work".

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/book ... press.html


'But the book isn’t entirely about those workers. It’s about us.

Press’s thesis is that our society confers on these workers an “unconscious mandate” to do jobs that are morally objectionable and at the same time wants those jobs to remain invisible. He takes the term “dirty work” from the American sociologist Everett Hughes, who taught for a semester in Frankfurt in 1948, socializing with the kind of cosmopolitan liberal intellectuals he felt he might find anywhere. When he asked one about Germany’s war guilt and the Holocaust, the man responded by saying German citizens hadn’t known what was going on, they’d had to join the party, they were under tremendous pressure. He added that the Holocaust “was no way to solve the Jewish problem. But there was a problem and it had to be settled some way.” To Hughes, such comments revealed the “unconscious mandate” for unethical actions, the “dirty work” that could be delegated and disavowed.'.

So, man up and take some responsibility for what YOU, as a citizen, and presumably a voter, have asked your military to do for you.

You make it seem like we live in a representative republic. Only the details in the US Constitution sayz a lil something about taking a census for providing enough REPRESENTATION per citizen. 30k to 50k, population represented, per member of the Congressional House.

At the end, TAATS........you agree.

Until, you don't want them to all be the same.

Very cute, blaming the "voters", when we vote for Congress members whose constituancy has increased, gee, how many fold.

Makes sense, to have such few "voting" members of Congress. NY Times ever write and article on the evilness that is the Congressional cap on House members?????

exactly

[PizzaSnake]

Sure, on the current American political/policy spectrum, you are indeed, far, far left, pretty predictably on most every issue. I can't think of any where you skew more 'right' than 'left'.

I don't have any problem with that, I don't mean it in any insulting way at all.

Never once have I ever had anyone say that my past posts on the 2d Amendment was "left".

Limited government? That's supposed to be a right wing viewpoint. Recall that I'm the one who called for reduction in the military industrial complex which (technically speaking) is right wing. Of course, that entails being a principled right winger.

Elimination of the income tax (after ending all foreign tax shelters) is a right wing viewpoint as well. Since you've read my posts then you know how I feel about that.

The problem with the right wing is its lack of principle. Anyone who says I am "far left" just hasn't read or understood anything I've said.

I don't recall your views on "2nd Amendment". Gun control, no gun control?

No, I don't think anyone would say it's 'right wing' (in the current spectrum) to call for reduction in the military industrial complex.

I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole, (best for another thread) but you'd prefer that the US generate tax revenue how? With a regressive or a progressive system? Specifically?

2d Amendment - some forum right wingers were not at all pleased at my suggestion that we need the Black Panthers in full living color armed to the teeth with bazookas and other instruments.

Reduction in government is (in principle) conservative: no standing army, foreign conflicts, no more wars.

Recall ALL the assets held overseas, use it to pay the nation's debt, usage taxes to generate revenues. Payroll taxes for social security.

A true conservative believes all this. Too bad right wingers fail to live up to their professed principles.

ALL liberals voted to kill people in Afghanistan.......fact.

just stop with this fake hate, making stuff up.

Someone was POTUSA from 2009-2017......DonTrump ?

exactly

just STOP

"ALL voters voted to kill people in Afghanistan.......fact."

As citizens of this republic, we share equally the blame for the actions of our elected officials. Stop trying to cherry-pick. This article discusses a book about our pathologiclal desire to employ the "untouchables" to do our "dirty work".

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/book ... press.html


'But the book isn’t entirely about those workers. It’s about us.

Press’s thesis is that our society confers on these workers an “unconscious mandate” to do jobs that are morally objectionable and at the same time wants those jobs to remain invisible. He takes the term “dirty work” from the American sociologist Everett Hughes, who taught for a semester in Frankfurt in 1948, socializing with the kind of cosmopolitan liberal intellectuals he felt he might find anywhere. When he asked one about Germany’s war guilt and the Holocaust, the man responded by saying German citizens hadn’t known what was going on, they’d had to join the party, they were under tremendous pressure. He added that the Holocaust “was no way to solve the Jewish problem. But there was a problem and it had to be settled some way.” To Hughes, such comments revealed the “unconscious mandate” for unethical actions, the “dirty work” that could be delegated and disavowed.'.

So, man up and take some responsibility for what YOU, as a citizen, and presumably a voter, have asked your military to do for you.

You make it seem like we live in a representative republic. Only the details in the US Constitution sayz a lil something about taking a census for providing enough REPRESENTATION per citizen. 30k to 50k, population represented, per member of the Congressional House.

At the end, TAATS........you agree.

Until, you don't want them to all be the same.

Very cute, blaming the "voters", when we vote for Congress members whose constituancy has increased, gee, how many fold.

Makes sense, to have such few "voting" members of Congress. NY Times ever write and article on the evilness that is the Congressional cap on House members?????

exactly

So, you take no responsibility? Duly noted.

Either change the system or pipe down. You can't wallow in the muck and complain it's dirty.

[runrussellrun]

Sure, on the current American political/policy spectrum, you are indeed, far, far left, pretty predictably on most every issue. I can't think of any where you skew more 'right' than 'left'.

I don't have any problem with that, I don't mean it in any insulting way at all.

Never once have I ever had anyone say that my past posts on the 2d Amendment was "left".

Limited government? That's supposed to be a right wing viewpoint. Recall that I'm the one who called for reduction in the military industrial complex which (technically speaking) is right wing. Of course, that entails being a principled right winger.

Elimination of the income tax (after ending all foreign tax shelters) is a right wing viewpoint as well. Since you've read my posts then you know how I feel about that.

The problem with the right wing is its lack of principle. Anyone who says I am "far left" just hasn't read or understood anything I've said.

I don't recall your views on "2nd Amendment". Gun control, no gun control?

No, I don't think anyone would say it's 'right wing' (in the current spectrum) to call for reduction in the military industrial complex.

I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole, (best for another thread) but you'd prefer that the US generate tax revenue how? With a regressive or a progressive system? Specifically?

2d Amendment - some forum right wingers were not at all pleased at my suggestion that we need the Black Panthers in full living color armed to the teeth with bazookas and other instruments.

Reduction in government is (in principle) conservative: no standing army, foreign conflicts, no more wars.

Recall ALL the assets held overseas, use it to pay the nation's debt, usage taxes to generate revenues. Payroll taxes for social security.

A true conservative believes all this. Too bad right wingers fail to live up to their professed principles.

ALL liberals voted to kill people in Afghanistan.......fact.

just stop with this fake hate, making stuff up.

Someone was POTUSA from 2009-2017......DonTrump ?

exactly

just STOP

"ALL voters voted to kill people in Afghanistan.......fact."

As citizens of this republic, we share equally the blame for the actions of our elected officials. Stop trying to cherry-pick. This article discusses a book about our pathologiclal desire to employ the "untouchables" to do our "dirty work".

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/book ... press.html


'But the book isn’t entirely about those workers. It’s about us.

Press’s thesis is that our society confers on these workers an “unconscious mandate” to do jobs that are morally objectionable and at the same time wants those jobs to remain invisible. He takes the term “dirty work” from the American sociologist Everett Hughes, who taught for a semester in Frankfurt in 1948, socializing with the kind of cosmopolitan liberal intellectuals he felt he might find anywhere. When he asked one about Germany’s war guilt and the Holocaust, the man responded by saying German citizens hadn’t known what was going on, they’d had to join the party, they were under tremendous pressure. He added that the Holocaust “was no way to solve the Jewish problem. But there was a problem and it had to be settled some way.” To Hughes, such comments revealed the “unconscious mandate” for unethical actions, the “dirty work” that could be delegated and disavowed.'.

So, man up and take some responsibility for what YOU, as a citizen, and presumably a voter, have asked your military to do for you.

You make it seem like we live in a representative republic. Only the details in the US Constitution sayz a lil something about taking a census for providing enough REPRESENTATION per citizen. 30k to 50k, population represented, per member of the Congressional House.

At the end, TAATS........you agree.

Until, you don't want them to all be the same.

Very cute, blaming the "voters", when we vote for Congress members whose constituancy has increased, gee, how many fold.

Makes sense, to have such few "voting" members of Congress. NY Times ever write and article on the evilness that is the Congressional cap on House members?????

exactly

So, you take no responsibility? Duly noted.

Either change the system or pipe down. You can't wallow in the muck and complain it's dirty.

What is your point, that we should support our elected officials, no matter what?

Umm......what I described regarding the US Constituion, and the House membership being capped some 100 years ago.......right about the time this country was in LOVE with facism and hate groups like the Klan were in full membership, and hate religions like Snoop Doggs (garbage person) Nation of Islam were born.

So, yeah, this ex military member, spends time trying to change this aspect of our enforcing /interpreting the US Constitution and the purpose of the decadal US Census.

You sure have lots of judgement and big pipes for a guy that not only doesn't want change, but refuses to even look for it.

You must fly private.......

[MDlaxfan76]

nonsense, we've been over this many times...apparently to no avail.

You've grossly misstated the Constitution.

[runrussellrun]

nonsense, we've been over this many times...apparently to no avail.

You've grossly misstated the Constitution.

Have I ?

Where, in the US Constitution, does it say the members of the HOUSE be capped ? At any number.

Be specific as to what part I have grossly misstated, especially a part that doesn't exist.

Lets discuss trumps tweets, thats new and fresh. NOT something discussed many times, no sir

ENUMERATION

what context, regarding the US Constitution, did they mean. Certainly, not capped. But, you are fine with capped ? why?

[MDlaxfan76]

nonsense, we've been over this many times...apparently to no avail.

You've grossly misstated the Constitution.

Have I ?

Where, in the US Constitution, does it say the members of the HOUSE be capped ? At any number.

Be specific as to what part I have grossly misstated, especially a part that doesn't exist.

Lets discuss trumps tweets, thats new and fresh. NOT something discussed many times, no sir

ENUMERATION

what context, regarding the US Constitution, did they mean. Certainly, not capped. But, you are fine with capped ? why?

The Constitution has a de facto not less than and not more than statement, but no requirement that it be more, simply proportionate.

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.



Yes, I'm fine with the number at present.
I'm amply represented, have multiple ways, at various levels of government, to express myself through my votes. Just like you do.

I think the folks of Puerto Rico, DC and some other US citizens aren't as well represented at the federal level, but that's a separate issue.

Gerrymandering is also an issue, but it ain't the number of Reps to voters that's of concern.

[runrussellrun]

nonsense, we've been over this many times...apparently to no avail.

You've grossly misstated the Constitution.

Have I ?

Where, in the US Constitution, does it say the members of the HOUSE be capped ? At any number.

Be specific as to what part I have grossly misstated, especially a part that doesn't exist.

Lets discuss trumps tweets, thats new and fresh. NOT something discussed many times, no sir

ENUMERATION

what context, regarding the US Constitution, did they mean. Certainly, not capped. But, you are fine with capped ? why?

The Constitution has a de facto not less than statement, but no requirement that it be more, simply proportionate.
Yes, I'm fine with the number at present.
I'm amply represented, have multiple ways, at various levels of government, to express myself through my votes. Just like you do.

I think the folks of Puerto Rico, DC and some other US citizens aren't as well represented at the federal level, but that's a separate issue.

Gerrymandering is also an issue, but it ain't the number of Reps to voters that's of concern.

proportionate, based on what?

As always, the specific question went unanswered.

Where in the US Constitution does it use language limiliting the House membership ?


Strange, that the proportionate number, in my state (Massachusettes ) has seen Congress (house) numbers for from 16 to 9. With way more people.

You may not care, but why do you mock those that do?

What harm would having another couple hundred House members?


your endless need to chime in has choked this place out. If you don't want to discuss the US Constition, Art. 2 and increasing the House membership. Don't.

Why the need to bash others is bewildering.

[MDlaxfan76]

nonsense, we've been over this many times...apparently to no avail.

You've grossly misstated the Constitution.

Have I ?

Where, in the US Constitution, does it say the members of the HOUSE be capped ? At any number.

Be specific as to what part I have grossly misstated, especially a part that doesn't exist.

Lets discuss trumps tweets, thats new and fresh. NOT something discussed many times, no sir

ENUMERATION

what context, regarding the US Constitution, did they mean. Certainly, not capped. But, you are fine with capped ? why?

The Constitution has a de facto not less than statement, but no requirement that it be more, simply proportionate.
Yes, I'm fine with the number at present.
I'm amply represented, have multiple ways, at various levels of government, to express myself through my votes. Just like you do.

I think the folks of Puerto Rico, DC and some other US citizens aren't as well represented at the federal level, but that's a separate issue.

Gerrymandering is also an issue, but it ain't the number of Reps to voters that's of concern.

proportionate, based on what?

As always, the specific question went unanswered.

Where in the US Constitution does it use language limiliting the House membership ?


Strange, that the proportionate number, in my state (Massachusettes ) has seen Congress (house) numbers for from 16 to 9. With way more people.

You may not care, but why do you mock those that do?

What harm would having another couple hundred House members?


your endless need to chime in has choked this place out. If you don't want to discuss the US Constition, Art. 2 and increasing the House membership. Don't.

Why the need to bash others is bewildering.

We'd already discussed this topic, ad nauseam IMO.
You open up an attack on others, and expect no one to respond?

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/Arti ... tion_2.pdf

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... I_S2_C3_1/

[dislaxxic]

Norman Solomon on what the media won't say: "The American people live in a warfare state"

When we hear that the war in Afghanistan was a "failure," it really depends on what vantage point one is talking about. Every war is a colossal success for the military-industrial complex and huge numbers of Pentagon contractors. We call it the "defense industry." That is a benign term.

I'm not against a defense budget. Too bad we don't have one! We have a military budget that's so much larger than a genuine defense budget would be. The profit-taking is enormous.

Where does the $700-something billion a year from the Pentagon go? Add in nuclear weapons and other items that are outside the Pentagon budget, and the number rises to $1 trillion. So much of that money is just going to these huge corporations. How often do we see a serious examination in the mainstream news media of the corporations that are making a killing, literally and figuratively, from the misery and death that's part of the U.S. warfare state?

..

[cradleandshoot]

Norman Solomon on what the media won't say: "The American people live in a warfare state"

When we hear that the war in Afghanistan was a "failure," it really depends on what vantage point one is talking about. Every war is a colossal success for the military-industrial complex and huge numbers of Pentagon contractors. We call it the "defense industry." That is a benign term.

I'm not against a defense budget. Too bad we don't have one! We have a military budget that's so much larger than a genuine defense budget would be. The profit-taking is enormous.

Where does the $700-something billion a year from the Pentagon go? Add in nuclear weapons and other items that are outside the Pentagon budget, and the number rises to $1 trillion. So much of that money is just going to these huge corporations. How often do we see a serious examination in the mainstream news media of the corporations that are making a killing, literally and figuratively, from the misery and death that's part of the U.S. warfare state?

..

I gotta give you credit Dis.. good post. Where does 700 billion plus go to fund? We know a bunch of billions from some government budget was left on the ground in Afghanistan. Who do we blame that on?

[Farfromgeneva]

nonsense, we've been over this many times...apparently to no avail.

You've grossly misstated the Constitution.

Have I ?

Where, in the US Constitution, does it say the members of the HOUSE be capped ? At any number.

Be specific as to what part I have grossly misstated, especially a part that doesn't exist.

Lets discuss trumps tweets, thats new and fresh. NOT something discussed many times, no sir

ENUMERATION

what context, regarding the US Constitution, did they mean. Certainly, not capped. But, you are fine with capped ? why?

The Constitution has a de facto not less than statement, but no requirement that it be more, simply proportionate.
Yes, I'm fine with the number at present.
I'm amply represented, have multiple ways, at various levels of government, to express myself through my votes. Just like you do.

I think the folks of Puerto Rico, DC and some other US citizens aren't as well represented at the federal level, but that's a separate issue.

Gerrymandering is also an issue, but it ain't the number of Reps to voters that's of concern.

proportionate, based on what?

As always, the specific question went unanswered.

Where in the US Constitution does it use language limiliting the House membership ?


Strange, that the proportionate number, in my state (Massachusettes ) has seen Congress (house) numbers for from 16 to 9. With way more people.

You may not care, but why do you mock those that do?

What harm would having another couple hundred House members?


your endless need to chime in has choked this place out. If you don't want to discuss the US Constition, Art. 2 and increasing the House membership. Don't.

Why the need to bash others is bewildering.

You’ve got to be kidding.

[Farfromgeneva]

Norman Solomon on what the media won't say: "The American people live in a warfare state"

When we hear that the war in Afghanistan was a "failure," it really depends on what vantage point one is talking about. Every war is a colossal success for the military-industrial complex and huge numbers of Pentagon contractors. We call it the "defense industry." That is a benign term.

I'm not against a defense budget. Too bad we don't have one! We have a military budget that's so much larger than a genuine defense budget would be. The profit-taking is enormous.

Where does the $700-something billion a year from the Pentagon go? Add in nuclear weapons and other items that are outside the Pentagon budget, and the number rises to $1 trillion. So much of that money is just going to these huge corporations. How often do we see a serious examination in the mainstream news media of the corporations that are making a killing, literally and figuratively, from the misery and death that's part of the U.S. warfare state?

..

It’s actually covered plenty if you’re looking. You may not like that the work doesn’t call it warmongering and profiteering but uses more neutral language but it’s covered frequently. What you seem to want is a biased, tone deaf assault on it. Maybe that’s perhaps useful but call it what it is.

When my FIls company builds a micro grid in Hawaii for the Navy to get off the overall electrical grid and it pays for 75-100 employees and keeps roughly 1,000 IBEW union laborers employed year round is that evil? The company only uses union labor for all it work including when they managed power plants for the DOD in Afghanistan. Clearly warmongering among all those union labor folks.

[dislaxxic]

Wow, touched a nerve there FFG? You slapped the word "evil" on it...and i don't think you can avoid that some of this vast slush fund goes toward stuff that ends up bordering on "evil".

Give us your thoughts on why this "defense" budget never gets audited...?? Curious on your take about that.

Like the interviewee in this piece, i agree that it's really a "military" budget, (and THAT'S something we certainly need) not so much just a "defense" budget. You get the difference, i bet. There's just no excuse, in my mind at least, for a budget of this size, with the innumerable items stashed away on the "black budget".

The notion that the vast array of people and companies that feed off this massive teat...shape American foreign policy...is what gets many people's goats...and that's something that really doesn;t get the kind of coverage i think you're referring to.

..

[dislaxxic]

Norman Solomon on what the media won't say: "The American people live in a warfare state"

When we hear that the war in Afghanistan was a "failure," it really depends on what vantage point one is talking about. Every war is a colossal success for the military-industrial complex and huge numbers of Pentagon contractors. We call it the "defense industry." That is a benign term.

I'm not against a defense budget. Too bad we don't have one! We have a military budget that's so much larger than a genuine defense budget would be. The profit-taking is enormous.

Where does the $700-something billion a year from the Pentagon go? Add in nuclear weapons and other items that are outside the Pentagon budget, and the number rises to $1 trillion. So much of that money is just going to these huge corporations. How often do we see a serious examination in the mainstream news media of the corporations that are making a killing, literally and figuratively, from the misery and death that's part of the U.S. warfare state?

..

I gotta give you credit Dis.. good post. Where does 700 billion plus go to fund? We know a bunch of billions from some government budget was left on the ground in Afghanistan. Who do we blame that on?

We blame the military "planners" and contractors (and their congressional enablers) that HEARD J'Biden say we were leaving but never in a million years believed he'd do it. No OTHER president had done it!

..

[youthathletics]

What you fail to see is that all those 'defense contractors' keep millions of Amercian's and small businesses employed. All the way down to the local general dollar store. Oh...and you also get the satisfaction of knowing when a missle is headed your way, they have one ready to take it out.

Maybe you can fill out one of these...

[old salt]

The US-UK-Aussie sub deal is a great thing for the free world alliance. China is stunned.
Bad deal for France, but they were offering an inferior product at an inflated price. Diesel-elec boat at nuc prices.
It will be interesting to learn about the diplomacy, or lack thereof, which lead to this contretemps.

[a fan]

What you fail to see is that all those 'defense contractors' keep millions of Amercian's and small businesses employed. All the way down to the local general dollar store. Oh...and you also get the satisfaction of knowing when a missle is headed your way, they have one ready to take it out.

We could take that same money and keep it all in the US, blowing it on all sorts of free healthcare, school, roads, etc.----and still come out ahead. We could just write "instead of on Afghanistan" in the memo line.

It's what Trump sold you, if you'll recall. 90% of Republicans cheered. America first.

But to answer cradle's question on who's fault it was we left money? Easy: Obama, who should have declared victory, and ordered an immediate orderly withdrawal all the way back on May 3rd, 2011. Our troops would have had closure, and a sense of pride in accomplishing the goal they were sent over there to attain....and we'd have a few trillion dollars more in our Treasury that we didn't waste on "mission creep".....to a mission that literally didn't exist.

And i'm sure dis will agree....... the butthurt form is hilarious.....

[old salt]

The US-UK-Aussie sub deal is a great thing for the free world alliance. China is stunned.
Bad deal for France, but they were offering an inferior product at an inflated price. Diesel-elec boat at nuc prices.
It will be interesting to learn about the diplomacy, or lack thereof, which lead to this contretemps.

Aussies all in on AUKUS :

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/15/austra ... th-u-s-u-k

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/17/austra ... the-future

[cradleandshoot]

The US-UK-Aussie sub deal is a great thing for the free world alliance. China is stunned.
Bad deal for France, but they were offering an inferior product at an inflated price. Diesel-elec boat at nuc prices.
It will be interesting to learn about the diplomacy, or lack thereof, which lead to this contretemps.

Aussies all in on AUKUS :

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/15/austra ... th-u-s-u-k

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/17/austra ... the-future

The REALLY important question is how does Biden assuage the ruffled feathers of the Chicoms?? Maybe Gen Milley is on the phone with his Chicom counterpart assuring him everything is copesetic between our 2 countries. Maybe if the Chicoms are going to nuke us the Chicom general will reciprocate in kind and call us first...