truth on hold Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 (edited) Edited April 16, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 (edited) ooooh.....those American-based companies making money. EEEVILLLLLL!!!!!! Â I swear...heard some bimbo on the news the other day say how even if costs and care were dead equal for the consumer, private health care (vs public) would be bad because that would mean the Insurance Companies would profit. Â But dont call them socialists, folks. Edited April 16, 2011 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 ooooh.....those American-based companies making money. EEEVILLLLLL!!!!!! Â I swear...heard some bimbo on the news the other day say how even if costs and care were dead equal for the consumer, private health care (vs public) would be bad because that would mean the Insurance Companies would profit. Â But dont call them socialists, folks. Â Â Â I hate the word "socialists". It is so over played it's ridiculous. It's just funny how the middle-class and lower are scrapping to get by, yet the wealthiest are racking in huge profits and gains. Something is seriously wrong. I'm sure it will be blamed on Obama though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 16, 2011 Author Share Posted April 16, 2011 (edited) ooooh.....those American-based companies making money. EEEVILLLLLL!!!!!! Â I swear...heard some bimbo on the news the other day say how even if costs and care were dead equal for the consumer, private health care (vs public) would be bad because that would mean the Insurance Companies would profit. Â But dont call them socialists, folks. Who in the world could interpret that as a leftist attack on profitable US companies? Â It's clearly about the defense lobby/sector, and how they're being subsidized by a US government that's on the road to financial ruin. Heck, the journalist even painted Obama in a negative light, and you still see this an an attack from the left? Â You must be high on the same pain killers as Rush. Â Get help. Edited April 16, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Who in the world could interpret that as a leftist attack on profitable US companies? Â It's clearly about the defense lobby/sector, and how they're being subsidized by a US government that's on the road to financial ruin. Heck, the journalist even painted Obama in a negative light, and you still see this an an attack from the left? Â You must be high on the same pain killers as Rush. Â Get help. Â Â You posted a clip about American Defense Contractors making money and titled the thread "America is being hollowed out from the inside." Â How the !@#$ are people supposed to interpret that, you schmuck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 I hate the word "socialists". It is so over played it's ridiculous. It's just funny how the middle-class and lower are scrapping to get by, yet the wealthiest are racking in huge profits and gains. Something is seriously wrong. I'm sure it will be blamed on Obama though. Â Irony: complaining that the bourgeois are oppressing the proletariat immediatly after you B word about the overuse of "socialism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 16, 2011 Author Share Posted April 16, 2011 (edited) You posted a clip about American Defense Contractors making money and titled the thread "America is being hollowed out from the inside." Â How the !@#$ are people supposed to interpret that, you schmuck? I can tell your head is spinning from OxyContin, Limbaugh's drug of choice. But try and focus for a moment: the issue isn't profitability. It's revenue, paid for by a Federal government which is headed toward financial ruin, to a special interest group that benefits from wars. Â Profitable companies ARE GOOD FOR AMERICA. They create jobs and pay taxes. BUT NOT THOSE that derive their revenues from a Federal government to support ongoing wars and intervention that are not in America's interests. And not even effective or they wouldn't be "ongoing" in the first place. Â Now back to your OxyContin ... Edited April 16, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 I can tell your head is spinning from OxyContin, Limbaugh's drug of choice. Â Now back to your OxyContin ... Â Stay classy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 I can tell your head is spinning from OxyContin, Limbaugh's drug of choice. But try and focus for a moment: the issue isn't profitability. It's revenue, paid for by a Federal government which is headed toward financial ruin, to a special interest group that benefits from wars. Â Profitable companies ARE GOOD FOR AMERICA. They create jobs and pay taxes. BUT NOT THOSE that derive their revenues from a Federal government to support ongoing wars and intervention that are not in America's interests. And not even effective or they wouldn't be "ongoing" in the first place. Â Now back to your OxyContin ... Â Â Â In theory. Just had to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I can tell your head is spinning from OxyContin, Limbaugh's drug of choice. But try and focus for a moment: the issue isn't profitability. It's revenue, paid for by a Federal government which is headed toward financial ruin, to a special interest group that benefits from wars. Â Profitable companies ARE GOOD FOR AMERICA. They create jobs and pay taxes. BUT NOT THOSE that derive their revenues from a Federal government to support ongoing wars and intervention that are not in America's interests. And not even effective or they wouldn't be "ongoing" in the first place. Â Now back to your OxyContin ... Â Boeing and Northrop Grumman are "special interest groups", huh? Â And you DO realize that the Pentagon buys from those companies for military efforts OUTSIDE of Iraq and Afghanistan, too....RIGHT? Â And *Im* the one on drugs........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Boeing and Northrop Grumman are "special interest groups", huh? Â And you DO realize that the Pentagon buys from those companies for military efforts OUTSIDE of Iraq and Afghanistan, too....RIGHT? Â And *Im* the one on drugs........ Â And other countries buy from them. Â And they have non-defense products (apparently jtsp has never heard of air travel). Â And they're more than just manufacturers. Â And they have plenty of non-DoD government contracts. Â But other than that, he's spot-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 And other countries buy from them. Â And they have non-defense products (apparently jtsp has never heard of air travel). Â And they're more than just manufacturers. Â And they have plenty of non-DoD government contracts. Â But other than that, he's spot-on. No one's questioning their non-defense private sector activity. Â Stay classy Lol ... give em a taste of their own medicine and they run crying foul. Â Heat meet kitchen. Limbaugh supporters, meet exit door Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 No one's questioning their non-defense private sector activity.  But what about defense spending OUTside of actual "war" activities?  Limbaugh supporters, meet exit door  Why do you keep bringing up Limbaugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 (edited) But what about defense spending OUTside of actual "war" activities? IT'S THE SAME THING AS THE RATIONALE IS ULTIMATELY FIGHTING WARS. Â Â Why do you keep bringing up Limbaugh? YOU AND CERTAIN BEHAVE LIKE SOMEONE INFLUENCED BY LIMBAUGH/FAUX NEWS: DEFEND THE WAR PARTY, LABEL THE OTHER SIDE "LIBERAL/SOCIALIST", REPHRASE THEIR ARGUMENT, ATTACK/NAME CALL Edited April 17, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Defend the war party? Which party would that be? The left had been in control for quite a while and they still have the White House but we're still at war. Several of them if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 Defend the war party? Which party would that be? The left had been in control for quite a while and they still have the White House but we're still at war. Several of them if I remember correctly. Both, that's the journalist's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 No one's questioning their non-defense private sector activity.  Profitable companies ARE GOOD FOR AMERICA. They create jobs and pay taxes. BUT NOT THOSE that derive their revenues from a Federal government to support ongoing wars and intervention that are not in America's interests  Yes, you are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Both, that's the journalist's point. Â I didn't listen to your video. I was responding to your war party comment. I noticed it was singular. Now your saying both. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 17, 2011 Author Share Posted April 17, 2011 I didn't listen to your video. I was responding to your war party comment. I noticed it was singular. Now your saying both. Nice. First time I heard "war party" was from conservative/libertarian Pat Buchanan. He was referring to the neocon mentality that acts like a party in itself within DC. Joe Lieberman would be the best example of a member. No party loyalty, because of an over riding commitment to ensnare US in foreign wars. If Dems aren't up for it, then align with Repubs. That's how the Neocon movement got started in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I have no problem with people/corporations making money. It's those who rig/scam the system that I have a problem with, and that group seems to be growing all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts