Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

From today's Economist:


....though nowhere near as costly to America in terms of blood (3,100 deaths so far, versus 58,000 - in Vietnam). Total military spending for 2008 is projected at 4.4% of GDP. That is a lighter burden than during previous large conflicts: America spent more than 9% of GDP on defence at the height of the Vietnam war, 14% during the Korean war and 37% during the second world war.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Nothing says "ethics" like putting a crook on an unimportant House panel, like say, Homeland Security:



Any of you "upbeats" or "liberals" going to even try to defend this one?

Perhaps Dick Cheney can invite Jefferson on that hunting trip he's planning to take with Scooter?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Something he said about inequality?

Income inequality. Yes.

And you praised Bush for continuing Clinton's policy. Not really a vote of confidence.

Your proposition was that I would oppose something because Bush supported it, not that I would support anything Clintonian.

I asked you this same question a while back during our CAFTA discussion and said you couldn't think of anything.

Bullshit. You try this every once in a while, but I've never given you the answer you keep hoping you'll get.

And I support the Democrats much more than you support the Republicans.

Nice words, but you won't vote for one. Not even running against Pombo. I have voted for Republicans in the past, and will again. [OUTABLE]I've even worked for one.[/OUTABLE]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The charge that he's reflexively anti-Democrat is baseless. He's reflexively anti-liberal in most economic matters. That's not the same as being anti-Democratic.

He agrees with Democrats on many things. But his loyalty to the GOP keeps him from voting for one. If you're going to vote a GOP party line, talk is cheap.

Originally posted by Spanky
From today's Economist:


....though nowhere near as costly to America in terms of blood (3,100 deaths so far, versus 58,000 - in Vietnam). Total military spending for 2008 is projected at 4.4% of GDP. That is a lighter burden than during previous large conflicts: America spent more than 9% of GDP on defence at the height of the Vietnam war, 14% during the Korean war and 37% during the second world war.

Shit, that's almost free. With super savings like this you'd be crazy to buy just one war at a time. We should stock up now while supplies last.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
From today's Economist:


....though nowhere near as costly to America in terms of blood (3,100 deaths so far, versus 58,000 - in Vietnam). Total military spending for 2008 is projected at 4.4% of GDP. That is a lighter burden than during previous large conflicts: America spent more than 9% of GDP on defence at the height of the Vietnam war, 14% during the Korean war and 37% during the second world war.

This being the case, if Iraq is as crucial as President Bush has repeatedly said, why hasn't he proposed spending significantly more money on it?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ironweed
Shit, that's almost free. With super savings like this you'd be crazy to buy just one war at a time. We should stock up now while supplies last.

Either that, or buy the bumper sticker boys a .22 in addition to the pocket knife.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Atrios:

• [C]onservative political humor these days involves referencing an alternative reality that they've created. They don't need jokes, they just need to point to the fantasy world they've created ("Nancy Pelosi's big plane! ahahahahaah!") so they can have a shared chuckle about it. There's no wit needed, just an invocation of pre-existing laugh lines based on their manufactured reality.

Reminds me of the days when libs would simply cry out "Ashcroft" in any debate as a trump card.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Reminds me of the days when libs would simply cry out "Ashcroft" in any debate as a trump card.

Responding to a post about political humor with one about debating tactics is only reinforcing my point.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Responding to a post about political humor with one about debating tactics is only reinforcing my point.

Don't kill the messenger, I don't have a dog in this fight, just here observing (and trying to fit as many analogies into one sentence as possible).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
your plan for cleaning out the Pakistan border region is what again?

Since Bush himself admitted yesterday that we don't have enough troops there to repel the anticipated spring Taliban offensive, I'm having trouble seeing your point. Assuming there is one.

Yes, it would be good if we had a way to clean out the Pakistan border region. There are all sort of reasons why we can't that are not Bush's fault. One wonders, though, whether it might be easier for Pakistan to cooperate with us if we weren't in Iraq.

But this has nothing to do with securing Kabul, securing other areas, etc. And, of course, repelling the spring offensive.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Reminds me of the days when libs would simply cry out "Ashcroft" in any debate as a trump card.

If we were Republicans, we'd be doing that for another five years. (See the "blame Clinton" people)

[Spanky]

Top Ten Signs An Astronaut Is Trying To Kill You

1. Says, "This is a giant leap for mankind" as she tosses you off a bridge

2. You turn on CNN and see the Hubble Telescope focusing on your house

3. She promises to "Take you out like Pluto"

4. It sounds crazy, but you could swear Mars is following you

5. You were on the "Maury" episode: "I Had A Booty Call And Now An Astronaut Is Trying To Kill Me"

6. Her previous attempts to kill you have been postponed due to high winds

7. She poisons your Tang

8 Says she looks forward to being the first to walk on your lifeless corpse

9. Been getting threatening emails from Connie@International SpaceStation.com

10. She keeps stabbing you with a pen that writes upside down

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
From today's Economist:


....though nowhere near as costly to America in terms of blood (3,100 deaths so far, versus 58,000 - in Vietnam). Total military spending for 2008 is projected at 4.4% of GDP. That is a lighter burden than during previous large conflicts: America spent more than 9% of GDP on defence at the height of the Vietnam war, 14% during the Korean war and 37% during the second world war.

No, Spanky, no.


QUAGMIRE !!!

Get it right, will ya?

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
That's a nice cut and paste job that, again, does not answer the question. I have helpfully highlighted in red for you the ones that I think he should absolutely not be on, given the issue of financial (and obviously ethical) impropriety. Homeland security is definitely not even #5 on the list of "inappropriate committees" -- it hovers at 10 or lower. And it's not like they made him chair.

And what SAM said, of course.

Do I need to come down there and hit you with your frying pan?

I listed all the committees to show he easily he could have been relegated to the dustbin of the Ag Committee - a fine place for crooks, I might add.

And IMHO, better to have a fucking crook on the Ways and Means committee - where he can only steal money - then to have someone that is on the take affected homeland security.