true_blue_bill

Ya, real complicated! DON'T DO IT! Very complicated! It was a big mistake and the majority of Americans agree with me

Hey, at least we get the ball back now!

If you say so

But not Willis fault, he's a good back

Privately funded=underfunded Imagine if we privately funded the Iraq War?

LOL, so you have a family member who died from cancer and you still want cancer research funding cut? And that makes ME the retard???? MORON!

Sure they are wasting money, they are government after all, what has the government ever done right! [sarcasim] Why stop at 10%? Why not abolish it altogether? Do you want to get rid of NASA? Really, cutting funding is killing people. We need to get funding to our brightest indivduals so they can help. Hell, you seem to like the internet, that came about because of government funded programs. Look how much that helped everyone and expanded the economy. The sooner we find a cure for cancer the better. Again, I wish the Conservatives, the 'free market utopians' would campaign on what you propose. And I'm not against the free market, but I know that government does work and should be funded

maybe you could sue the government for funding cancer research! Wasting your tax dollars like that, horrible!

at least we have a great punter

Are ya?

Well, Clements made a great play

Ya, it's unconstitutional to pay for constitution research! Great point!

First off, there isn't 400,000 around, secondly humpty dumpty is broke and all the kings horses and..... I posted what I did to show that the original idea to inavde was flawed, it said that even with 400k it would still have failed. BTW, have you read the preamble to the Constitution yet?

Why do the refs really piss you off?

I'd just like to point out that the defense is playing really well

No way, its funny!

Hurrah!

Because its based on common sense

You can't be this stupid? Your position is so radical, so ridicilous it does not deserve a reply, but I'll give you one anyway. The government, if it has a job at all, is to protect us. Have you ever read the preamble to the Constitution you moron? And I'll take it further, even if it didn't say it was there to protect us, it should anyway. The common good it furthered by the government protecting us in all sorts of ways. If you like anarchy go try Iraq. I really wishj the Conservatives would just do us all a favor and campaign on eliminating government altogether. It would save us all a lot of trouble

The A-Train looks good!

We are the best!

Next time don't bother

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/...?eref=rss_topst ories WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now. And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos. In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs. The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library. "The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground." There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000. A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.