Would you like to group the violent OWS in your Left group?
Can you prove to me that all of those people in the liberals picture are in fact liberals?
Can you prove to me that all of those people in the liberals picture are in fact liberals?
It is a funny picture, but not really all that relevant or truthful.
Most of the conservatives that are die hard military and war are people that either have served or do serve in the military. And I imagine most of them are not really pro-war so much as they arent as adamantly against the notion of war. I also know quite a few poor conservatives that like their social programs.Not relevant? Where have you been the past year or two?
I'm sure that there are a few in the left picture that are conservative, just as I'm sure that there could be a few in the right picture that are liberal. I'm pretty sure slurper was referring to the fact that most conservatives are die hard military and war, while most liberals are as adamant about social programs. Dismissing the picture is one thing, but are you trying to dismiss the thought behind it?
Most of the conservatives that are die hard military and war are people that either have served or do serve in the military.
This is why I can't take seriously any "small government" conservative who is unwilling to even think about touching the defense budget. Really they're just "no more social programs, more pointless invasions" types. They like to beat their chests to the sound of us obliterating peeps with our missiles.
Very unlikely. I'd bet that these types are a very small percentage of the extremely pro-war neocon types.
Some people are just kind of ruthless--so long as they aren't the ones doing the killing.
Nobody wants to touch the defense budget. Oddly enough, in terms of overall spending, Obama and Paul Ryan (dunno about simpson-bowles) are remarkably similar. Paul Ryan pushed for something like 540billion in defense and Obama pushed for 510billion.This is why I can't take seriously any "small government" conservative who is unwilling to even think about touching the defense budget. Really they're just "no more social programs, more pointless invasions" types. They like to beat their chests to the sound of us obliterating peeps with our missiles.
Very unlikely. I'd bet that these types are a very small percentage of the extremely pro-war neocon types.
Some people are just kind of ruthless--so long as they aren't the ones doing the killing.
Nobody wants to touch the defense budget. Oddly enough, in terms of overall spending, Obama and Paul Ryan (dunno about simpson-bowles) are remarkably similar. Paul Ryan pushed for something like 540billion in defense and Obama pushed for 510billion.
Also, the extremely pro-war neocon types are a very small percentage of people that are in any way for war.
Nobody wants to touch the defense budget. Oddly enough, in terms of overall spending, Obama and Paul Ryan (dunno about simpson-bowles) are remarkably similar. Paul Ryan pushed for something like 540billion in defense and Obama pushed for 510billion.
Also, the extremely pro-war neocon types are a very small percentage of people that are in any way for war.
I think we have a different definition of die hard military. I live in TX now and it has opened my eyes to a lot of the die hard military when compared to when I lived in other states.You must have a pretty tight definition of neoconservative. The general stance is pretty popular.
$30 billion is nothing when the deficit is a trillion and the debt is 16 trillion. I would be happier if it were cut down to $450 billion. Both plans are a $100-$150 billion cut in military due to the wars ending though.$30 billion is nothing to you? To say that nobody wants to touch the defense budget is a joke. Hell, there was a $2 trillion difference over ten years, that's a lot to me. If Obama could get an even lower defense budget passed, I'm certain he would.
I think we have a different definition of die hard military. I live in TX now and it has opened my eyes to a lot of the die hard military when compared to when I lived in other states.
$30 billion is nothing when the deficit is a trillion and the debt is 16 trillion. I would be happier if it were cut down to $450 billion. Both plans are a $100-$150 billion cut in military due to the wars ending though.
I think we have a different definition of die hard military. I live in TX now and it has opened my eyes to a lot of the die hard military when compared to when I lived in other states.
$30 billion is nothing when the deficit is a trillion and the debt is 16 trillion. I would be happier if it were cut down to $450 billion. Both plans are a $100-$150 billion cut in military due to the wars ending though.
I just dont think that $30 billion difference is enough to demonize the alternative defense spending plan saying "they arent willing to touch the defense budget". Its not even a 6% difference. Had they offered up $600 billion you might have a case, but I dont think these numbers are different enough to say such things.Do you think that we are going to be able to cut the entire deficit from one program? It's going to take several cuts in spending as well as increasing revenue. $30 billion is $30 fucking billion any way you look at it.
I said cut to, and figured the billion was implied. What else would I want it cut to? $450 million? $450 dollars?Do you mean cut by $450 or cut to $450? It's a big difference.
Btw, it's $450 billion. I could kick in the extra $450 if needed.