Never offer a bureaucracy a blank check. What we now have is a sprawling terrorism-industrial complex. There are now 17 different intelligence agencies and so you have bloated budgets and alot of duplication going on. Yes we haven't had another attack since 9/11 but it's not because of all these expenditures we put into the national security apparatus. The Underwear Bomber came so close to actually blowing up and airplane and the reason why he was able to get onto the airplane was because his name was misspelled by one letter and so his name didn't pop up on the computer system. Autofill is available on Google for christ sakes but for all the money we put into these databases it was this little glitch that almost got a plane blown up.
Republicans Are The Problem
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- third party
Never offer a bureaucracy a blank check. What we now have is a sprawling terrorism-industrial complex. There are now 17 different intelligence agencies and so you have bloated budgets and alot of duplication going on. Yes we haven't had another attack since 9/11 but it's not because of all these expenditures we put into the national security apparatus. The Underwear Bomber came so close to actually blowing up and airplane and the reason why he was able to get onto the airplane was because his name was misspelled by one letter and so his name didn't pop up on the computer system. Autofill is available on Google for christ sakes but for all the money we put into these databases it was this little glitch that almost got a plane blown up.
Both parties are equally responsible for the way politics is. To be clear, while the elephants are not well liked by the general public, the donkeys dont poll much better. Their unfavorables are up there with republicans. People hate politics completely. My reason for hating the system is because so many in Washington have their priorities in the same order 1) make sure party and ideological mates are doing well 2) make sure constituents are satisfied 3) make surd the country is doing well. Always the way its been and will always be.
Bureaucracy is the lifeblood of gov't whether it's state or federal. That's why so many are opposed to big gov't.
Those two items were direct results of the aftermath of 9/11. Both were necessary IMO, i dont mind when parties go back on their values for things that have to be done. The DHS has been okay, there are just some entities that have to be taken put of it. Sometimes you have to take chances you normally wouldnt to improve things, thats what Bush did (with help from the democrats) with the Patriot Act and the DHS.
The Times Square Bomber wasn't caught by the intelligence agencies, it was street vendors who noticed a smoking car. The Underwear Bomber wasn't caught by the intelligence agencies, it was technical failure. It was private citizens who stopped these acts not the intelligence agencies. Do you see something wrong with this?
So according to your logic there's no need for intelligence gathering agencies whose purpose it is to protect our citizens and the interests of the nation. We should just use street vendors and Joe Schmoe.
No. Read my previous posts. There are now 17 intelligence agencies and we've poured in billions of dollars into the national security apparatus and as a result we have private citizens breaking up terrorist plots, see something wrong with this? It's bloated and there is too much duplication with all these new agencies sprouting up.
Mayhem
Banned
Are you serious with this bullshit? :surprise: What's the point of having beliefs if they no longer apply when things get a little rough? I thought that the Republican Party was the one to have around when times get hard? Sure, as long as we can "go back on our beliefs".
As long as you geniuses aren't giving me any serious responses, how about not responding to this: If the billions that have been spent on DHS, TSA, post-9/11 hysteria; had instead been split appropriately between DoD, CIA, FBI and Coast Guard (port security), would we be more safe, as safe or less safe then we are now?
:clap:
They are both pretty bad. From an outside viewpoint that doesn't support either or any party I still think the republicans are the worse of the two and are gaining in their crappyness over democrats time goes on.
That isn't some endorsement of democrats. Saying they are better than republicans is damning with faint praise.
That isn't some endorsement of democrats. Saying they are better than republicans is damning with faint praise.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Republicans are not the problem. The problem (and this goes for both sides) is the people who are not willing to compromise on their vision of the country and believe that their ideas are the only valid and justifiable ones. Instead of listening, debating and coming to a solution that works for all they'd rather entrench themselves in their respective positions and deny that the opinions of the man sitting opposite of them have no merit at all. This completely ruins the political atmosphere and is the biggest problem with politics wherever you look. When you become a politician and you're elected to office your allegiance to the party you ran under is supposed to take a backseat to the fact that you represent the people who didn't vote for you as well. Instead of this, however, the current political system seemingly rewards those who are most capable of alienating voters on the other side of the political spectrum, and that's not the way it is supposed to be.
Conservatism is a fucking scam. I feel sorry for the rubes who fall for their shit.
Because Socialism is so great? Go tell that to those who live in Venezuela or to those who lived under a communist regime under the USSR. Have you ever asked yourself how bad people are living under socialist governments. "Socialism is the equal distribution of misery" as Reagan said and it is still true today. Just look at how badly mismanaged are democrat sanctuary cities or even some democrat states. Without the rich that you seem to dislike, there would be no firms and no jobs for everyone and probably no economy working well.
Well according to these sites https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings and v, yes but you can't in all objectivity compare a country with less than 60 millions inhabitants with one which has 300 millions inhabitants. What might work for a smaller country might not work for the larger one. Just remember about the USSR and how the standard of living was very low. Criminality has risen significantly in Sweden during the last decade and they are now paying a huge price for their laxist immigration policies but also for their social welfare system being abused. Danemark and Finland might be the only two exception as Scandinavian countries doing well with a more or less socialist government at their head. Switzerland is a conservative country where only people with a lot of money can live, nothing comparable with Danemark and Finland, every person insures herself at her own level of revenues. As the saying goes by "Bad government results from too much government.", and it is still true to that day. I don't think that a hard working and law abiding citizen wants to see its taxes spent into a system where money will be used for assisting and paying healthcare and social security to those who have never contributed to pay taxes nor even financed social security. This is the kind of system that has been implemented in France 4 decades ago and that has been subject to fraud and massive abuse.
I'm a hard working and law abiding citizen and I have NO problems with paying taxes so that everyone has equal access to health care and social safety nets. The contribution I make to public funded health care in Australia is a tiny fraction of what I paid for just my own family's insurance in the states.
In fact, I'd even go a step further and say I'd be fine with more public funded housing and tertiary education. Because despite what tucker's been telling you, you don't make a prosperous society by keeping a huge chunk of it poor, uneducated, and homeless.
Theopolis Q. Hossenffer
I am in America, not of it.
They did tell you in school about the differences between Socialism and Dictatorship right? Rule of the minority backed by the army equals dictatorships. The definition of Socialism is that the Government controls the means of production and decides what will be made and who will make it. Never a good plan. The problem today is that there hasn't been such a concentration of wealth in so few hands since the early 20th century. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Ford, JP Morgan all controlled a vast portion of wealth. Back then the Leaders(when we had a few) realized that unlike our Masters today, some of the wealth must be shared with the masses to avoid anarchy. When all hope is lost people figure What the hell, as the Donald would say, What do we have to lose? Big time Capitalists seem to think that anytime the word Socialism is said out loud the mobs(or the Army, I never can be sure which is coming) are going to go into your home, throw you out and then take all your stuff. Not gonna happen. You do realize most of the world is Socialistic to some extent or another? What is Social Security and Medicare but a gigantic welfare program. All the National Healthcare systems as well. I have already in 8 years gone through everything and a lot more that I ever put into the program. Unemployment insurance is just a handout. Sure Employers pay into it but nowhere near enough to cover it. Medicaid, Section 8, Snap, all Welfare. Do you want to return to the days of you don't work you don't eat? Tenement housing? Babies dying before age one? People dying of infections or disease because they don't have any money or "insurance". In parts of the world today there are countries where if you don't have money you can't go to the Hospital or see a Doctor. Old people eating scraps or living on rice and cornflakes? I am old enough to have seen some of that. In Illinois until the late 1960's if a parent applied for assistance of any type the state required the children of the applicant to pay a certain amount directly to the parent as family support. I know this because my parents had to give money to my Dad's Mother for years until the law was changed. If this is the world you want to return to just admit it and tell everyone to bleep off and die. I believe in Capitalism because it works. But in a sensible type where the future is planned for not just tomorrow's stock price. Where workers are paid well enough to buy the products they make(See Ford, Henry). Where there is enough incentive to make a good living by working and hope for a better tomorrow. That should be the future. Not what we have now. People giving up and either not bothering to vote or voting for a jackass to destroy the system. Guess what? We are the System.
Similar threads
