Lieberman suggests war on terror tax - Page 2

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 10:45 AM

The war on terror is a fucking joke.

you can't declare a conventional war on an ideology.

Scrum · 02-12-2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

The war on terror is a fucking joke.

you can't declare a conventional war on an ideology.

I guess my war on procrastination will just have to wait then.

*rimshot*

*crickets*

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

you can't declare a conventional war on an ideology.

It's not a conventional war

Why can't the war on terror in fact be a war on the ideology? Why does 'war' have to be taken so literal this time?

Phantom · 02-12-2007, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I guess my war on procrastination will just have to wait then.

*rimshot*

*crickets*

:chuckle:

this thread has long outlived its meager usefulness

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It's not a conventional war

Why can't the war on terror in fact be a war on the ideology? Why does 'war' have to be taken so literal this time?

because we're fighting it in the literal sense

Considering the best way to change an ideology in terms of nations is diplomatic relations, and we've completely cut off half the middle east from diplomacy, we're instead opting for bullets a bombs, i.e. a conventional war.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

because we're fighting it in the literal sense

That's only a small part of it. A very small part of it.

A war on ideology doesn't have to be fought solely with counter idelology. It can be fought with a mixture of ways, and you're only focusing on the war in Iraq. There are many other ways we are fighting it.

DosEquis · 02-12-2007, 12:09 PM

If this is such an important war that is worthy of funding, why not create a fund for it? WWI had the liberty bond, WW2 had its war bonds, and this is a global (aka world) war on terror. Support the troops with funding right?

Perhaps conservative are so against domestic spending that they actually want this war because the more which is eaten up by conflict then less that is available for welfare and medicare. They hate social security, so what a better way to get rid of it than spend it?

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

If this is such an important war that is worthy of funding, why not create a fund for it? WWI had the liberty bond, WW2 had its war bonds, and this is a global (aka world) war on terror. Support the troops with funding right?

Perhaps conservative are so against domestic spending that they actually want this war because the more which is eaten up by conflict then less that is available for welfare and medicare. They hate social security, so what a better way to get rid of it than spend it?

But Bush isn't really against any kind of spending

DosEquis · 02-12-2007, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But Bush isn't really against any kind of spending

If you look at our national debt, and which administrations contributed which amounts, you will find the last 3 republican "conservative" administrations will have contributed 7 of our 9 trillion.

Whats a better way to get rid of social programs? Obviously we would never get legislation passed to get rid of it as the country as a whole generally supports the social saftey nets and even support some sort of national healthcare plan. The only option left is to run up debt so high we have no choice but to pay it instead of providing the social saftey nets that "conservatives" are deathly against.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

If you look at our national debt, and which administrations contributed which amounts, you will find the last 3 republican "conservative" administrations will have contributed 7 of our 9 trillion.

Whats a better way to get rid of social programs? Obviously we would never get legislation passed to get rid of it as the country as a whole generally supports the social saftey nets and even support some sort of national healthcare plan. The only option left is to run up debt so high we have no choice but to pay it instead of providing the social saftey nets that "conservatives" are deathly against.

That really seems like a stretch. Basically you're suggesting conservatives are of the mindset "let's fuck up our country so bad that we have no choice but to cut the programs we don't like". That hardly seems reasonable. Almost seems...evil, if not downright dictatorial.

DosEquis · 02-12-2007, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That really seems like a stretch. Basically you're suggesting conservatives are of the mindset "let's fuck up our country so bad that we have no choice but to cut the programs we don't like". That hardly seems reasonable. Almost seems...evil, if not downright dictatorial.

On more than one occasion they have shown to be unreasonable, misrepresent their intentions, or just plain dishonest. I dont put it past them. Money talks.

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's only a small part of it. A very small part of it.

A war on ideology doesn't have to be fought solely with counter idelology. It can be fought with a mixture of ways, and you're only focusing on the war in Iraq. There are many other ways we are fighting it.

how so?

DHS? A huge department with an insane amount of mismanagement, overspending, and bureaucracy?

The Patriot Act? Domestic Wiretapping? The LOL@TSA?

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

how so?

DHS? A huge department with an insane amount of mismanagement, overspending, and bureaucracy?

The Patriot Act? Domestic Wiretapping? The LOL@TSA?

You seriously think the war in Iraq is the only part of the war on terror?

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You seriously think the war in Iraq is the only part of the war on terror?

did you even read what you quoted? I didn't even mention Iraq

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

did you even read what you quoted? I didn't even mention Iraq

Yes, I responded to your post, which was a response to my post in which I did mention Iraq. I can only assume you were continuing the same conversation. Perhaps I'm wrong and you just jump from one topic to another without anybody else knowing

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, I responded to your post, which was a response to my post in which I did mention Iraq. I can only assume you were continuing the same conversation. Perhaps I'm wrong and you just jump from one topic to another without anybody else knowing

no, my comment was on the OTHER things we've been "doing" on this war on terror, which have shown to be largely ineffective and extremely prone to abuse.

you said there are other ways, I pointed out several of those "other ways" and the problems associated with it. I'm not deviating on any topic here.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

no, my comment was on the OTHER things we've been "doing" on this war on terror, which have shown to be largely ineffective and extremely prone to abuse.

you said there are other ways, I pointed out several of those "other ways" and the problems associated with it. I'm not deviating on any topic here.

Oh ok, so you agree that the war in Iraq is only a small part in the war on terror, despite the problems associated with other things?

So what in the world are we arguing about?

Pro Street · 02-12-2007, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Oh ok, so you agree that the war in Iraq is only a small part in the war on terror, despite the problems associated with other things?

So what in the world are we arguing about?

My point was that the war on terror is ineffectual. And I personally feel that Iraq being part of the war on terror is bullshit, there was nothing tying Iraq to ANY terrorism on the US.

I don't see how Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror.

motivez · 02-12-2007, 02:34 PM

The war in Iraq is a diversion of attention from the real threats facing the country.. like our borders being wide open, our ports not secured, etc, etc..

Iraq never was the kind of threat to the United States that justified this kind of occupation of the country.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

My point was that the war on terror is ineffectual. And I personally feel that Iraq being part of the war on terror is bullshit, there was nothing tying Iraq to ANY terrorism on the US.

I don't see how Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror.

Since when was the war on terror specified to the 'war on American terror'? I always figured it was a global attempt to wipe out ALL terror.