|
jneil2007 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Real revolution is coming get ready. After the economy collapses they will try to throw out the constitution and give us a currency with Canada and Mexico, maybe more countries who knows. NAFTA and the security and prosperity partnership are stepping stones to it.
codyberrey53 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Ron Paul!!!!!!!
TheUndergroundLegend (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
┏┓
┃┃
┃┃┏┫┃┏┳━━┓┏━━┓┃┗━┳━━┳━━┳━━┓
┃┃┣┫┗┛┫┃━┫┃┏┓┃┃┏┓┃┏┓┃━━┫━━┫
┃┗┫┃┏┓┫┃━┫┃┏┓┃┃┗┛┃┗┛┣━━┣━━┃
┗━┻┻┛┗┻━━┛┗┛┗┛┗━━┻━━┻━━┻━━┛
LilGunzOfficialVids (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
A Vote for Ron Paul 2012 from Wisconsin!! For the first time i would be more then happy to say President Paul after he gets ELECTED! Vote or Die
TwinSmoke (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@bull864 You are STILL wrong. That link I gave you earlier shows the TOTAL amount spent on wars since 2001. Why don't you link me something supporting your assumption. I'm patient. But it shouldn't take that long to find since you're so matter of factly about it. So I'm waiting. Show me something other than just you blabbering. Thanks.
bull864 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@TwinSmoke Yes, we HAVE spent $4 trillion on wars since 2001!! I don't know why you can't understand that there are OTHER costs associated with wars besides combat. As a soldier, you should know that. In fact, you DO know that, you just choose not to count that as a war cost.
Look, I'm not on here to defend Obama, so please don't get started on that issue. I'd rather be dead than vote for him. I'm ready to get our budget back down to 2000 levels, which was less than $2 trillion.
TwinSmoke (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@bull864 "We have spent $4 trillion on the wars since 2001" Those were your words, not mine. You specifically stated WARS. But now you change your tune. I happen to have a photographic memory. So you can't say something 4 days ago, change what you initially said and expect me not to notice. By the way, before Nobama took office, this nation brought in 2.6 trillion dollars a year. It's a little less now. But it's still over 2 trillion. MORE than enough to pay for our war.
bull864 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@TwinSmoke No sir, I made it clear that we spent $4 trillion on the wars in the Middle-East. I never said that was just combat spending. Maybe you interpreted it that way, but that's not what I said. You said we spend (and have spent) $50 billion a year on the wars in the Middle-East. If you just meant combat spending, that's a different issue. The bottom line for me is $4 trillion dollars and thousands of lost lives for nothing is way too much. Maybe for you it isn't.
TwinSmoke (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@bull864 A: All I'm referring to is "combat" spending. You made it clear earlier that you claimed that we spent 4 trillion on "combat" spending. Now your story is changing and why? Because I proved you wrong and you can't deny that. If you'd like, I can quote you.
By the way, active military members haven't even STARTED spending money yet. Wait till we have a nominee and THEN let's see if Paul still got the most money. I was THERE and I know how it works. Just admit you were wrong.
bull864 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@TwinS I'm counting just what we spent in the Middle-East. That's it! Nothing more. It isn't just combat spending, but what we spend on health care, gasoline, rebuilding infrastructure, paying contractors, and the billions of cash we have given the Afghans and Iraqis.It adds up to $4 trillion whether you want to admit to it or not.
I'm allowed to have an opinion about our military because I'm a taxpaying American. And since active military members prefer Ron Paul,I'm in good company. |
