[Casca]

Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

[Casca]

Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

[Casca]

Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

[Casca]

Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

[Casca]

Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

[Casca]

[quote=beelzebub]If I could figure out a way to put in a bathroom there, then I’d be all set.[/quote]

Reason #46 on the 100 Reasons Why It’s Great To Be A Guy list: The world is your urinal.

[Casca]

[quote=beelzebub]If I could figure out a way to put in a bathroom there, then I’d be all set.[/quote]

Reason #46 on the 100 Reasons Why It’s Great To Be A Guy list: The world is your urinal.

[Casca]

[quote=beelzebub]If I could figure out a way to put in a bathroom there, then I’d be all set.[/quote]

Reason #46 on the 100 Reasons Why It’s Great To Be A Guy list: The world is your urinal.

[Casca]

[quote=beelzebub]If I could figure out a way to put in a bathroom there, then I’d be all set.[/quote]

Reason #46 on the 100 Reasons Why It’s Great To Be A Guy list: The world is your urinal.

[Casca]

[quote=beelzebub]If I could figure out a way to put in a bathroom there, then I’d be all set.[/quote]

Reason #46 on the 100 Reasons Why It’s Great To Be A Guy list: The world is your urinal.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Author]

Posts