1 - 10 Next
Let's take a closer look at the 'Tower of Babel' story. This biblical story tells us that all the people of the world spoke ONE language prior to the hubris of the construction of the Tower of Babel. God saw this hubris and ordered the scattering of people and gave them all separate languages. God punished people by giving them separate languages and scattering them across the world and making them peoples. To allow the intermarriage of peoples is against God's law. To allow people with wrong skin color in a white school is against God's law. Godly conservatives know to put God above political correctness. The point is the slave holding Founding Fathers never considered themselves to be racists.
Many Tea Party people take offense at being called racist. These same Republicans think the 'Jim Crow Laws' were not racist either. They were simply following God's law. Before the Tower of Babel was constructed, all people spoke the same language, when God toppled the Tower of Babel, he instructed people to 'be separate and speak different languages.' Therefore, the Jim Crow laws, segregation and miscegenation laws were an extension of GOD'S LAW. Under God's Law, what happens when a non-white child shows up at a white's-only hospital?
Listening to Rick Santorum in the Republican debates talk about Central America makes me think he wants to bring back the 'right wing' death squads that infested the area during the inglorious Reagan years. In the 1980's, when these 'right wing' militias were butchering their fellow countrymen, and priests and nuns were dying trying to protect their own people, people like Rick Santorum cheered the butchers on. These Republicans disgust me!
Republicans promise that opting out of Social Security will bring great benefits to the young ones who would then be able to invest their social security money into the stock market? Here's what Republicans said about moving US military personnel from pensions to private 401k plans. "Wall Street is a ponzi scheme" or "US soldiers perform a dangerous task and need to be protected." Why is the stock market a great thing for people opting out of social security but not a great thing to replace the statist/socialistic military pension plans?
The annual budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has more than doubled since 2003 to a requested $132 billion for fiscal 2012. That amount is expected to rise sharply over the next four decades as lingering health problems for veterans become more serious as they grow older. Costs for Vietnam veterans did not peak until 30 or 40 years after the end of the war, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “We will have a vast overhang in domestic costs for caring for the wounded and covering retirement expenditure of the war fighters,” said Loren Thompson, a policy expert with the Lexington Institute. “The U.S. will continue to incur major costs for decades to come.”
Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July. More than 32,000 soldiers were wounded in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. The U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veterans’ disabilities.
Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces.
Over a 50-year period, that comes to $80 billion annually. Near the start of the war, the U.S. Defense Department estimated the war would cost $50 billion to $80 billion. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was dismissed in 2002 after suggesting the price of invading and occupying Iraq could reach $200 billion. “The direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you can’t easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
In response to:

Joe Biden's Debate Lies on Libya

KopfShuss Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 1:22 AM
The annual budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has more than doubled since 2003 to a requested $132 billion for fiscal 2012. That amount is expected to rise sharply over the next four decades as lingering health problems for veterans become more serious as they grow older. Costs for Vietnam veterans did not peak until 30 or 40 years after the end of the war, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “We will have a vast overhang in domestic costs for caring for the wounded and covering retirement expenditure of the war fighters,” said Loren Thompson, a policy expert with the Lexington Institute. “The U.S. will continue to incur major costs for decades to come.”
In response to:

Joe Biden's Debate Lies on Libya

KopfShuss Wrote: Oct 12, 2012 1:21 AM
Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July. More than 32,000 soldiers were wounded in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. The U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veterans’ disabilities.
1 - 10 Next