Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, December 10, 2018

President Donald Trump has agreed to a request from Defense Secretary James Mattis to propose a defense budget of $750 billion for the coming year, marking a reversal from plans to shrink defense spending, an administration official confirmed to CNN. Last week, Trump appeared to call the Defense Department budget of $716 billion "crazy" in a tweet. The next day Mattis and key Republican lawmakers who oppose any defense budget cuts met with the President for lunch to discuss military funding.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

ah yes, bring out the risk charts.

#1 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-12-09 11:59 PM | Reply

You mean trump said one thing and did another instead? I am shocked!

#2 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2018-12-10 02:09 AM | Reply

Didn't the Orange Diaper Sniper just bitch about military spending on the twittler?

www.defensenews.com

Just another day of Agolf Twittler talking out of both sides of his mouth.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2018-12-10 06:56 AM | Reply

Always money for killin'!

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-12-10 09:39 AM | Reply

War porn-- enjoyed by both Democrats and Republicans alike.

#5 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 09:40 AM | Reply

He increased the Defense Budget last year too, do any of us feel safer? What a bunch of garbage. Total waste of money and an attempt to bankrupt the government in order to justify cutting SS and Medicare. I honestly hate these people.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-10 09:40 AM | Reply

Waste

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-12-10 09:50 AM | Reply

It was a waste when it was $600 billion or so.

Ironic, the country will go down in flames because of the supposed patriots among us who are riddled with short sighted greed.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-10 10:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Military Industrial Complex is a criminal enterprise which sends a subliminal message to children that violence is a legitimate solution to a problem and has spawned reactionary terrorism. Its criminal aspect is simple, do as I say, or I will kill you.

#9 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-10 10:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

War porn-- enjoyed by both Democrats and Republicans alike.

#5 | POSTED BY NERFHERDER AT 2018-12-10 09:40 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yeah? Look at the comments. Look what happened to hrc.

Another fake "Both parties" bs.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-12-10 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

#10 Another hopeless partisan lackey wearing blinders.

#11 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 11:02 AM | Reply

#10 Another hopeless partisan lackey wearing blinders.

#11 | Posted by NerfHerder

What kind of blinders do you wear to prevent you from seeing repubs are worse with military spending than dems?

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Another hopeless partisan lackey wearing blinders."

Trump 2020 for you then?

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-12-10 11:26 AM | Reply

"#10 Another hopeless partisan lackey wearing blinders."

Another simpleton without the capacity to compare the parties and comment intelligently. Any idiot can repeat stupid talking points.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-10 11:52 AM | Reply

Looks like some "special favors" were exchanged in that room. Trump always talks big so it sets expectations going into something like this. If the other people think he is going to play hardball and cut some budget, it will make them ready for deals from the start. It's just a shame he actually thinks nobody knows what he's doing and that he is smarter than everyone else. On SNL when they make fun of his son Eric, I think the jokes apply more towards Trump himself. People just humor him so he doesn't feel bad about himself.

#15 | Posted by humtake at 2018-12-10 11:53 AM | Reply

Trump says $716 billion is crazy. Less than a week later Trump requests $750 billion. I don't ever want to hear the words flip-flop from a Republican again.

BTW, it's all political theater. No matter how the Dem controlled House goes on this issue, the Republicans are going to make certain the Dems paint themselves into a corner.

And in part NerfHerder is correct. Few elected representatives, with significant MIC jobs and revenue in their districts, are going to work against this. It doesn't matter if they're D or R.

America is doomed.

#16 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-12-10 12:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

People just humor him so he doesn't feel bad about himself.

#15 | Posted by humtake

Nope. Trump's cult actually thinks he's a genius.

Any evidence to the contrary is just fake news.

They still believe the guy that lies to their face every day.

And you still work every day to defend him.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 12:04 PM | Reply

"Trump 2020 for you then?"

Nope, for YOU. The Democrats elected Trump in 2016 with their own choices. And they will do so again because they are too stupid to understand their own complicity in the MIC coup that has taken place over the past 17 years.

#18 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 01:30 PM | Reply

My guess is that he'll get some money for his wall for "national security" at the border.

#19 | Posted by autonomous at 2018-12-10 01:33 PM | Reply

"Another simpleton without the capacity to compare the parties and comment intelligently"

I comment intelligently to those who have the capacity to reply intelligently.

All of your Democrat heroes are property of the MIC. The sooner you admit that the better for you and the country as a whole.

#20 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 01:35 PM | Reply

All of your Democrat heroes are property of the MIC. The sooner you admit that the better for you and the country as a whole.

#20 | Posted by NerfHerder

You get a choice between a party who wants to spend a lot on the military, or a party that wants to spend EVEN MORE on the military.

If you don't vote for the lesser military spending party, you are supporting the MORE military spending party.

They love it when you wait on the sidelines for the perfect candidate to come along. It means more wealth and corruption wins.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They love it when you wait on the sidelines for the perfect candidate to come along"

They certainly have got you EXACTLY where they want you.

#22 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 01:49 PM | Reply

"All of your Democrat heroes are property of the MIC." - #20 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 01:35 PM

It isn't by accident that there is defense spending in all 435 Congressional Districts.

And defense spending = jobs for Americans - either directly or in support of those jobs.

The only people who really paid attention to Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech were the chiefs of the MIC, and they set about making sure enough Americans were shareholders in Defense, Inc., to guarantee its long-term survival.

#23 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-10 01:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They certainly have got you EXACTLY where they want you.

#22 | Posted by NerfHerder

You should be saying that into the mirror.

Then go look up WHATABOUTISM. It was a soviet propaganda technique intended to make it seem like there were no good options, with the intention of making people give up on trying to be involved and improve things.

You're falling for it and spreading it.

The flu and AIDS are both diseases. You have to pick one. If you don't pick one, someone else will pick for you.
Whining that you don't want to pick one doesn't change the reality that you're going to be stuck with one. And you've chosen to let others choose which you'll get. Idiot.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 02:02 PM | Reply

"Then go look up WHATABOUTISM"

Ahh, in trying to pin me to a propaganda technique you use a propaganda technique! Brilliant you are!

The Drudge Retort is a political site and is not conducive to traditional academic argument. What is being said is just as important as who is saying it. I know that may fly over your head a bit (in calling me an idiot, you give away your inner tendency towards partisan ad hom and party-specific hackery).

I am more likely to listen (academically) to someone on the site who I know is balanced and fairly impartial in their political leanings, but when a DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN toadie enters the fray, their political affiliation becomes just as important as what type of "truth" they are trying to convey.

An impartial investigator (like myself) should be expected to ask "what about the other side?" It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "soviet propaganda" shout-down you and all those like you use to quieten criticism of your beloved "less evil than the are" Democrat party.

So the next time you are all in for a nonpartisan investigation of MIC affliations between both parties, and more than willing to criticize both sides, expect me to deal reasonably with you. Otherwise, just ---- off.

#25 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 02:38 PM | Reply

Um, when in a two party system one party has a solid record of worse policies and worse leadership for the American people than the other, partisanship for the other, no matter how imperfect, is no vice.

Those who claim they are the same despite said records, are just tools of the worse party.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-10 02:43 PM | Reply

"..."less evil than the are" Democrat party." - #25 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 02:38 PM

There is no such thing, Mr. "impartial investigator."

#27 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-10 02:46 PM | Reply

"when in a two party system one part"

There is no such thing as 'second' or an 'opposition' party when said opposition party constantly betrays its own stated ideals in order to make itself feel more righteous or score superficial political points against the other.

So, votes are clearly not enough, yet Democrats focus on just the votes, and by doing so, try to appease every goddam niche group in the country, including the "support our troops" and military contingent that keep those overseas arms sales flowing and the defense budget spiraling upwards year after year after year.

The Republicans, who have been, for the past 50 years, largely a festering festoon of blossomed CRAP, have no such problem. They focus on their primitive ---------- base, and the hell with all others, that is why they are winning.

So until y'all get your heads out of your crippled donkey's backside and stop attacking the messenger it won't work out, no matter how much you bitch and complain about the RETHUGS or those like myself who you continuously, foolishly blame for the loss of HRC.

#28 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 03:01 PM | Reply

An impartial investigator (like myself) should be expected to ask "what about the other side?"

#25 | Posted by NerfHerder

An "impartial investigator" doesn't look at 2 very different things and conclude they are effectively the same.

A false-equivalency-spouting hack does.

"A flu or AIDs? Well they're both diseases so it doesn't really matter which one you get."

-mentally challenged "impartial investigator"

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 03:04 PM | Reply

#29 see #28

You know, you don't have to play 70 thousand games of tic-tac-toe with yourself in order to realize who your real opponent is.

#30 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 03:11 PM | Reply

#28

That's a whole lot of whining about the two party system we have, and the nature of politics in general, which is not helpful since the the fantasy system you seem to think we have does not exist.

And the "message" you seem to think you bring is really, really old news... used by every "leftier than thou" Puridopian that's ever posted here.

But hey, the GOP appreciates your support.... their donors especially as the, "the parties are the same" meme makes them SO happy!

Perhaps you might decide at some point that, since one party IS better than the other, you'll spend your efforts helping to reform that party rather than helping the worse party by mimicking their memes.

You could even vote 3rd party to build a new party when that vote doesn't aid the worse party.

Think about it.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-10 03:21 PM | Reply

"you'll spend your efforts helping to reform that party"

Physician, heal thyself.

#32 | Posted by nerfherder at 2018-12-10 03:23 PM | Reply

#32

Non sequitar, not an argument, but none was really expected. Many of us spend quite a bit of money and effort to change the imperfect but better party to be even better.

You know, rather than whining about the reality of politics and in doing so merely aiding the worse party.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-10 03:28 PM | Reply

You know, you don't have to play 70 thousand games of tic-tac-toe with yourself in order to realize who your real opponent is.

#30 | Posted by NerfHerder

#30 see #29.

You're still using the same "I'm waiting for the perfect candidate while the world burns" argument.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 03:32 PM | Reply

#34 see:

www.drudge.com

#35 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 03:43 PM | Reply

"Many of us spend quite a bit of money and effort to change the imperfect but better party to be even better"

#33 how many hours of advance warm-up and stretching exercises do you require before you reach back to pat yourself on the back in such an ostentatious fashion?

#36 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#33 how many hours of advance warm-up and stretching exercises do you require before you reach back to pat yourself on the back in such an ostentatious fashion?

#36 | Posted by NerfHerder

Translation - stop pointing out that I'm a more selfish stupid person than you.

People who are too selfish to help out are always resentful of those that aren't. They remind you that you're a selfish ----- and you prefer to pretend that's not the case.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#37, You are just proving my point by setting up your typical strawman and attacking who you think I am and what I do, just because I do not flaunt it on a public website like Miss Corky.

Now I fully expect you to reply to this with more of the same (rather than try to refute my original point which is that the the typical Democrat politician and their typical, jaded supporters like the private portions of the MIC thrust deeply down their collective larynxes) and have either your tag-team partners Hans or Corky flag you as 'Newsworthy' in order to make yourself feel like you've won this argument, when in fact you have LOST... and lost rather miserably.

#38 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 04:24 PM | Reply

"...when in fact you have LOST... and lost rather miserably." - #38 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 04:24 PM

How many hours of advance warm-up and stretching exercises do you require before you reach back to pat yourself on the back in such an ostentatious fashion?

#39 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-10 04:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#39 by replying to my #38 post directed to Speaksoftly you prove my point, HANS. Losers always try to gang up on the winners, especially when their underbellies are exposed. It's been fun jousting with you and two of the other resident DR madams. Good day.

#40 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 04:42 PM | Reply

Now I fully expect you to reply to this with more of the same (rather than try to refute my original point which is that the the typical Democrat politician and their typical, jaded supporters like the private portions of the MIC thrust deeply down their collective larynxes) and have either your tag-team partners Hans or Corky flag you as 'Newsworthy' in order to make yourself feel like you've won this argument, when in fact you have LOST... and lost rather miserably.

#38 | Posted by NerfHerder

I refuted your pathetic "point" long ago. It's false equivalency at its finest. Putin would be proud.

Now we've moved onto "what kind of person whines about people who are more helpful to society than they are?"

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"#39 by replying to my #38 post directed to Speaksoftly you prove my point, HANS." - #40 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2018-12-10 04:42 PM

Nope.

But it does prove my point that you have zero sense of humor.

"Good day."

Especially if you're leaving.

#42 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-10 05:10 PM | Reply

When it comes to war and the MIC. Both parties are complicit.

Bush started Afghanistan and Iraq. (With Democratic approval).

Obama had Libya, Syria, and Yemen. (Without Republican approval)

Trump has continued the on going wars.

Wars have nothing to do with political party affiliation and 100% to do with the rich maintaining control over the rest of the world.

And by the rich. I mean the .01%.

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 05:33 PM | Reply

When it comes to war and the MIC. Both parties are complicit.

#43 | Posted by ClownShack

EQUALLY complicit?

Or has one of them started more disastrous military policies than the other?

Has one of them wanted to spend more on the military?

Has one of them limited military budget growth?

Google your answers please.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 05:45 PM | Reply

EQUALLY complicit?

Did Obama end any wars? Or start more?

Did Hillary vote for or against the Iraq war?

There's a lot (a lot!) of reasons to dislike Republicans.

But both parties have blood on their hands.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 05:59 PM | Reply

But both parties have blood on their hands.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack

An EQUAL amount of blood?

Obama reduced our involvement in wars and didn't start any more.
Only breitbart reading morons try to equate libya to iraq. Don't repeat their propoganda for them.

I'm never going to say the dems are a great party, but to act like they're not better than repubs on military aggression and spending makes you simply sound ignorant.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 06:03 PM | Reply

Obama reduced our involvement in wars and didn't start any more.

Dude. We've been at war since 2001.

The wars in Libya and Syria happened. Same with Yemen.

We pulled out of Iraq. But we're still in Iraq.

We're still spending way too much money on the MIC.

You're too focused on "equally".

Don't look the other way while Democrats do what you hold Republicans accountable for.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 06:12 PM | Reply

Bush-Iraq, the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of the US which, thanks to the illegal use of spent uranium shells will foment cancers and other health problems for the rest of this planet's life.

Obama- Libya and Syria, more of the same except where Russian intervention which shifted the outcome.

#48 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-10 06:26 PM | Reply

Dude. We've been at war since 2001.

The wars in Libya and Syria happened. Same with Yemen.

We pulled out of Iraq. But we're still in Iraq.

We're still spending way too much money on the MIC.

You're too focused on "equally".

Don't look the other way while Democrats do what you hold Republicans accountable for.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack

I'm not. I'm simply intellectually capable of distinguishing between BAD and WORSE.

Tell me, how many US troops went to libya vs iraq? How much did we spend in libya vs iraq?

How many died in libya vs iraq?

Furthermore, you're overlooking the fact that libyans were under military attack from their government and an international coalition got involved to save innocent lives. Iraq was a totally voluntary peacetime invasion of a sovereign country with ground troops. No honest person can say the two are anywhere close to comparable.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 06:38 PM | Reply

I'm simply intellectually capable of distinguishing between BAD and WORSE.

This is war. People dying under a Democratic President is no different than people dying under a Republican President.

#50 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 06:46 PM | Reply

This is war. People dying under a Democratic President is no different than people dying under a Republican President.

POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2018-12-10 06:46 PM | REPLY

AMEN Honey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-10 06:47 PM | Reply

This is war. People dying under a Democratic President is no different than people dying under a Republican President.

#50 | Posted by ClownShack

Really? Is 500k people dying no different than 5k people dying?

Is spending 6 trillion no different than spending 60 billion?

Is attacking to stabilize a civil war no different from invading to grab oil?

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 06:52 PM | Reply

You're not going to like my answers. You have to understand I'm again all these wars. All of them. They're all waged for the benefit of the rich.

Really? Is 500k people dying no different than 5k people dying?
Is spending 6 trillion no different than spending 60 billion?

No.


Is attacking to stabilize a civil war no different from invading to grab oil?

We attacked to stabilize a civil war? And Iraq was simply to spread democracy.

None of the war we've taken part in, in my lifetime, have been justified.

WW2 is possibly the last war we fought for the greater good of humanity.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 07:18 PM | Reply

"Furthermore, you're overlooking the fact that libyans were under military attack from their government and an international coalition got involved to save innocent lives."

Sure. Just like in Kuwait in 1991. And Afghanistan. And Iraq. And Syria.

The fact is that the US went in to these countries thinking that each was a budding democracy...just waiting to blossom once the nefarious dictators that rules these countries were out of the way. Yet somehow, once the dictators were gone, those who followed were infinitely worse. My hope is that at some point, we realize that it's OK to support, or at least be non-interventional, with monsters who are better than the monsters who would replace them.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-12-10 08:16 PM | Reply

Really? Is 500k people dying no different than 5k people dying?

No.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack

If there is no difference between 500k deaths and 5k deaths, then you are saying 495k human lives are worth zero in your calculations.

You've gone from peace advocate to childish crybaby.

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 08:22 PM | Reply

I'm saying killing anyone is wrong. Be it one person, or one million people.

You seem to be okay with Democrats killing five thousand people because Republicans killed five hundred thousand people.

You seem okay with the wars in Libya and Syria and Yemen, to the point of dismissing them. Because the Republicans (with the blessing of democrats in Congress) went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You don't have a moral high ground here.

You're excusing atrocities and whatabouting other atrocities.

In regards to wars in the Middle East since 2001. Both parties are complicit. The wars were only for the benefit of the rich. The lives lost are unforgivable. The actions taken by our nation is criminal.

And both parties need to be held accountable.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 08:47 PM | Reply

"I'm saying killing anyone is wrong. Be it one person, or one million people."

Is one of those MORE EVIL than the other, or does that not matter?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 08:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is one of those MORE EVIL than the other, or does that not matter?

#57 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-12-10 08:49 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Greater, lesser, evil is evil.

#58 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-10 08:53 PM | Reply

You seem to be okay with Democrats killing five thousand people because Republicans killed five hundred thousand people.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack

Haha quote anything where I said I'm ok with it.

I'm just not dumb enough to say one death is as bad as a hundred.

#59 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 08:57 PM | Reply

Greater, lesser, evil is evil.

#58 | Posted by DirkStruan

So there's no difference between a shoplifter and a murderer then right?

They should get the same punishment I guess.

#60 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 08:58 PM | Reply

So there's no difference between a shoplifter and a murderer then right?

We're not comparing shoplifting to murder.

We're comparing murder to murder.

Leave the goal posts alone.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We're comparing murder to murder."

We're comparing 1,000,000 murders to one.

You aren't, though.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm just not dumb enough to say one death is as bad as a hundred.

You must not care about the one person who died. Because to that person's family it's everything.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:09 PM | Reply

Speaks, you should know better.... than to bring false analogies.... to a MORAL PHILOSOPHY FIGHT!

#64 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-10 09:10 PM | Reply

You must not care about the one person who died. Because to that person's family it's everything.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack

And you must not care about the 99 people that died, if 100 deaths are as bad as 1.

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 09:10 PM | Reply

We're comparing murder to murder.

Leave the goal posts alone.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack

You said EVIL is EVIL.

Stealing is evil and so is murder.

Therefore they should be punished the same.

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 09:11 PM | Reply

We're comparing 1,000,000 murders to one.

Again. One murder, so some rich guy can steal oil, is as atrocious as one million people dying, so some rich guy can steal oil.

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:11 PM | Reply

1 death is a tragedy 100 deaths a statistic.

#68 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-10 09:12 PM | Reply

"We're comparing 1,000,000 murders to one."

Putting a nice, easy value on human life... like coins, in a treasury.

Tell me, bloodbag: if carve you up, nice and quick like... how many people could we save with those organs of yours? More than 5?

#69 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-10 09:13 PM | Reply

You said EVIL is EVIL.

No I didn't.

"I'm saying killing anyone is wrong. Be it one person, or one million people."

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:13 PM | Reply

And you must not care about the 99 people that died, if 100 deaths are as bad as 1.

You should slow down. Your anger is clouding your reading comprehension.

I'm say killing anyone is wrong. Therefore. Everyone one of those deaths is as atrocious as the other.

I'm not making excuses saying the five thousand killed by democrats is less evil than the five hundred thousand killed by Republicans.

That would be belittling the lives of the five thousand.

I'll give you a hint. You're fighting a losing battle. You're never going to convince me killing one person is better than killing another person, or a hundred people, or a million people.

Killing anyone is wrong.

Every action we have taken since September 11th 2001, has been wrong.

Your need to pardon democrats is unnecessary. I'm not sure why you started.

#71 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:20 PM | Reply

"You're never going to convince me killing one person is better than killing another person, or a hundred people, or a million people."

Let's try it this way.
I'm going to give you a winning lottery ticket.
Do you want it to win you one dollar, or a million dollars?
You can donate the process to charity if you like.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:24 PM | Reply

"Do you want it to win you one dollar, or a million dollars?"

So human lives are just items... like currency. Got it. No dehumanization there, nosiree!

#73 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-10 09:26 PM | Reply

I'm going to give you a winning lottery ticket.

Oh boy! Make believe time.

Can it be puppies and cookies?

#74 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:26 PM | Reply

"Oh boy! Make believe time."

If that's what it takes to get you to think, fine with me.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:28 PM | Reply

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

#76 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-10 09:28 PM | Reply

Turn me once,
You go where you want.
Turn me again,
You stay till you rot.
I have no mouth,
But I live or die,
By my crooked teeth,
What am I?

#77 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-10 09:30 PM | Reply

"So human lives are just items... like currency. Got it."

Well, that's the basis for life insurance, and for wrongful death lawsuits.
You can probably even get money if someone kills your puppy, and you have a good lawyer.
Of course, that's going to cost more than... one dollar.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:30 PM | Reply

"You're never going to convince me killing one person is better than killing another person, or a hundred people, or a million people."

So then.
You can't be convinced that the Holocaust is worse than when Jeffrey Dahmer or Whitey Bulger was murdered in prison.
And you're the one on the moral high ground, right?

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:32 PM | Reply

Snoofy.

You're sitting in front of two doors. On is labeled "Democratic Party" and has one person inside it. The other room is labeled "Republican Party" and has five people in it.

You can't see anyone in either room and they can't see you.

You're given the choice of pulling a lever and killing the people in either room.

What do you do?

#80 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:35 PM | Reply

I'd walk away.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:35 PM | Reply

The fact that killing five people is worse than killing one person doesn't make killing one person good. It just makes it better than killing five people.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:38 PM | Reply

You can't be convinced that the Holocaust is worse than when Jeffrey Dahmer or Whitey Bulger was murdered in prison.

One day you'll learn about false equivalences.

Let me rephrase your statement so it's not.

"You can't be convinced that the Holocaust is worse than when Jeffrey Dahmer or Whitey Bulger murdered their victims."

No. I can't. All of it is reprehensible and I would have been against all of it.

#83 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:38 PM | Reply

It just makes it better than killing five people.

But it doesn't.

Which is why you chose to walk away.

#84 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:40 PM | Reply

No, I chose to walk away because I don't want to kill anybody.
Both of those are wrong, even as one is 5x worse than the other.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:41 PM | Reply

"You can't be convinced that the Holocaust is worse than when Jeffrey Dahmer or Whitey Bulger murdered their victims."
No. I can't. All of it is reprehensible and I would have been against all of it."

Well sure.

Let's say you only had the resources to try to stop one or the other.
Where do you deploy you resources, to save one, or to save one million?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:42 PM | Reply

"One day you'll learn about false equivalences."

False equivalence is when 1 = 1,000,000.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm saying killing anyone is wrong. Be it one person, or one million people."

#70 | Posted by ClownShack

Now you've changed from EVIL to WRONG.

This whole thread has devolved into a couple dopes doing a hell of a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend obama's foreign policy was as bad as bush's.

#88 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 09:45 PM | Reply

Both of those are wrong, even as one is 5x worse than the other.

They're equally bad.

You only view five as worse than one because five is more than one. But human life isn't more precious because more was lost.

Every life is equal. Every death is wrong.

#89 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:48 PM | Reply

"You only view five as worse than one because five is more than one. But human life isn't more precious because more was lost.'

Macro here: One is NOT as bad as six million. Period. Full stop.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-10 09:56 PM | Reply

obama's foreign policy was as bad as bush's.

War isn't foreign policy.

Bush was an incompetent fool the rich used to secure natural resources in the Middle East.

Obama was a commander in chief who beguiled us with his charm and charisma while the rich used our military to secure natural resources and destroy Syria.

But. I world consider that to be foreign policy.

#91 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 09:57 PM | Reply

obama's foreign policy was as bad as bush's.

How do you figure?

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 10:03 PM | Reply

Sorry for #92- drive-by blogging. I just read the comment in its entirety. Never mind.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 10:05 PM | Reply

How do you figure?

#92 | Posted by JeffJ

Because I'm an utter moron who thinks one death is as bad as a million deaths.

#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-10 10:05 PM | Reply

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

#76 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Ah! Now that is a vexing question. As we all know, if a woodchuck could chuck wood a woodchuck would chuck wood, so how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 10:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

No takers for my post #69, huh?

#96 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-12-10 10:21 PM | Reply

Because I'm an utter moron who thinks one death is as bad as a million deaths.
#94 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I don't think you're a moron.

You favor Democrats to Republicans. So do I.

But I'm not going to cut either any slack for unnecessary wars and the deaths of everyone caught in the middle of it.

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 10:40 PM | Reply

No takers for my post #69, huh?

#96 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

I scrolled up and read the post only because it was #69.

I haven't followed this thread very closely other than discerning that Clown kind of went off on a major tangent on this thread. He's not entirely wrong and I get where he's going, but overall I agree with those who are challenging his position a whole lot more.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 10:41 PM | Reply

But I'm not going to cut either any slack for unnecessary wars and the deaths of everyone caught in the middle of it.

#97 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I completely agree. However, here's the thing - degree matters.

It's akin to equating someone driving 5 over and someone driving 25 over simply as "speeders".

As you know very well I am an Obama critic. However, I simply cannot put all-things Iraq into the same category as all-things Libya. They aren't even in the same ballpark. We are not debating the nuances between the intimacy of a foot massage vs diving down on a chick.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 10:46 PM | Reply

overall I agree with those who are challenging his position a whole lot more.

That's fine. One million deaths is a substantial number of dead people.

But even one death. Will destroy countless lives. Shatter a family. Leave loved one in anguish.

All so some rich guy could stay rich.

#100 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 10:48 PM | Reply

I simply cannot put all-things Iraq into the same category as all-things Libya.

What about Syria?

Their nation is destroyed.

No one got anything out of it.

It was just a bloodbath for people trying to live their daily lives. .

#101 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 10:51 PM | Reply

#100 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I understand. Honestly, I get where you are coming from on this, and agree with you. Here's the thing, you don't need to convince me. The people who are mostly to the left of me on this thread are the ones who need to be convinced and you have failed so far. Try stating your position differently.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 10:54 PM | Reply

What about Syria?

#101 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

What about it? I am not convinced that a lack of from-behind leadership by Obama would have prevented what happened in Syria or Libya. As for Iraq...deposing Sadam was a moral act but it came at such a horrible cost of lives and expense.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 10:57 PM | Reply

What about it? I am not convinced that a lack of from-behind leadership by Obama would have prevented what happened in Syria or Libya. As for Iraq...deposing Sadam was a moral act but it came at such a horrible cost of lives and expense.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 10:57 PM | Reply

It was a war crime that violated the UN Charter(which we are a chief signatory to) and international law that was unjustifiable no matter how you look at it.

#104 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-10 11:00 PM | Reply

Clown,

I am enjoying this discussion but I have to bail out for a bit - gotta do some basement walking to appease my FitBit. I'll be back in 30 minutes or so...

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 11:01 PM | Reply

It was a war crime that violated the UN Charter(which we are a chief signatory to) and international law that was unjustifiable no matter how you look at it.

#104 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

We've been over this - see: Primacy Clause.

Regardless, if you can get over your perpetual case of Jefflexia you'll see that I am bashing equivalence between Iraq and Libya based on a matter of degree - Obama's policy was FAR less-damaging than Bush's.

#106 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 11:03 PM | Reply

Regardless, if you can get over your perpetual case of Jefflexia you'll see that I am bashing equivalence between Iraq and Libya based on a matter of degree - Obama's policy was FAR less-damaging than Bush's.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-10 11:03 PM | Reply

Nor when you don't hold accountable the previous administrations war crimes. You justify it and are a bearer of it's actions. BTW Both Dubya and Obama lied us into wars. Neither of them holds any moral high ground because of it. Oh and you're still wrong on Iraq.

#107 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-10 11:08 PM | Reply

losing wars is expensive

#108 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-12-10 11:21 PM | Reply

"You only view five as worse than one because five is more than one. But human life isn't more precious because more was lost.
Every life is equal. Every death is wrong.
#89 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK"

Then five deaths seems like it is five wrongs, whereas one death seems like it's only one wrong.

So, I'll take less wrongs.

And I'll see you in hell either way, joker.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 11:29 PM | Reply

"losing wars is expensive"

One man's expense is another man's profit.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 11:34 PM | Reply

So there's no difference between a shoplifter and a murderer then right?

A shoplifter is the murderer of trust.

#111 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-10 11:35 PM | Reply

Then five deaths seems like it is five wrongs, whereas one death seems like it's only one wrong.

Here's the next layer of complexity.

All six murders were done with the same gun.

We're simply quibbling over which murderer is worse.

The guy that killed the first five. Or the other guy who then picked up the gun and killed the sixth.

The first guy was worse? But the second guy knew what was happening. Had a chance to stop. But didn't.

#112 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-10 11:47 PM | Reply

Speak.

Don't know if you're still reading this thread.

Generally we agree on a lot. I understand your point and it's valid.

But. I. Personally. Feel like war, and senseless killing, is something both parties take part in. Both parties have blood on their hands. Both parties are in the pocket of the rich.

#113 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-11 12:45 AM | Reply

All that money and we lose war after war after war... we the biggest and baddest losers in the world.

There was a time when a soldier was paid with the plunder of war.. they had to deliver the goods to get their money... now we pay them in advance and they lose war after war after war and we give them bigger and badder weapons to lose war after war after war... wars declared against people fighting with home made weapons.

#114 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-12-11 06:36 AM | Reply

The losses have nothing to do with spending. America lacks the political will to win. That's good, it means we have something that resembles a conscience.

#115 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-11 09:19 AM | Reply

But I'm not going to cut either any slack for unnecessary wars and the deaths of everyone caught in the middle of it.

#97 | Posted by ClownShack

You don't have to "cut anyone slack" to acknowledge that one thing is worse than another, like a 6 trillion dollar ground invasion of a non aggressive nation for oil was worse than a 60 billion air support operation against a dictator who was attacking innocent people.

#116 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-11 11:07 AM | Reply

against a dictator who was attacking innocent people.

#116 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-11 11:07 AM | REPLY

Saddam dumped Tabun, Sarin, and VX on Halabja.

#117 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-11 12:32 PM | Reply

invasion of a non aggressive nation for oil was worse than a 60 billion air support operation against a dictator who was attacking innocent people.

Non-agressive? From the NYT in 2003:

Since [seixing power], Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that many scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a smaller yet proportional scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.

Where the comparison seems closest is in the regime's mercilessly sadistic character. Iraq has its gulag of prisons, dungeons and torture chambers -- some of them acknowledged, like Abu Ghraib, and as many more disguised as hotels, sports centers and other innocent-sounding places. It has its overlapping secret-police agencies, and its culture of betrayal, with family members denouncing each other, and offices and factories becoming hives of perfidy.

''Enemies of the state'' are eliminated, and their spouses, adult children and even cousins are often tortured and killed along with them.

Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: ''If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem.''

Get outside your self-imposed bubble Shreek, you may learn something other than what you are told to believe.

The World; How Many People Has Hussein Killed?

#118 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-11 12:46 PM | Reply

Its a lot of money to shell out to lose wars.

#119 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-12-11 01:04 PM | Reply

Saddam dumped Tabun, Sarin, and VX on Halabja.

#117 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Then an attack when he was doing that might have made sense. He wasn't doing that when we invaded for no reason other than oil and dubya's ego.

#120 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-11 01:08 PM | Reply

Get outside your self-imposed bubble Shreek, you may learn something other than what you are told to believe.

The World; How Many People Has Hussein Killed?

#118 | Posted by Rightocenter

Then we should invade every country that is doing that right? Like north korea and saudi arabia.

The fact is saddam was not attacking anyone when we attacked him.

Qaddafi was.

#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-11 01:09 PM | Reply

He wasn't doing that when we invaded

#120 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-11 01:08 PM | REPLY

So it's okay to gas people and kill civilians when you can get away with it.

That's some impressively high moral ground you have there.

#122 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-11 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So it's okay to gas people and kill civilians when you can get away with it.

That's some impressively high moral ground you have there.

#122 | Posted by sitzkrieg

I never said that. It's easy to argue against positions no one ever took isn't it? Remedial debate class.

#123 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-11 02:07 PM | Reply

The fact is saddam was not attacking anyone when we attacked him.

Qaddafi was.

Really? Not according to the UN and British Foreign Intelligence in 2002:

Britain Slams Saddam for Human Rights Abuses

By Dominic Evans
Reuters

December 2, 2002
Britain accused President Saddam Hussein Monday of gross human rights violations, from acid baths and eye-gouging to rape and mass execution, after a report was released by the UNHRC and MI-5 on recent human rights violations by Saddam Hussein.

Six days before a deadline for Saddam to hand over details of his alleged weapons of mass destruction, the UNHRC and Foreign Office officials jointly unveiled a 23-page human rights dossier outlining "the barbarity of his regime."

Three or 4 million Iraqis -- about 15 percent of the population -- had fled their homeland rather than live under his rule. Those who remained faced his "cruel and callous disregard for human life and suffering," the report said.

Political prisoners faced "inhumane and degrading" conditions, the report said.

"These grave violations of human rights are not the work of a number of overzealous individuals but the deliberate policy of the regime," the report said.

"Fear is Saddam's chosen method for staying in power."

At the Mahjar prison in central Baghdad 600-700 prisoners are split between underground cells and former dog kennels, the report said. Two large oil tanks have been built nearby to flood the prison with petrol and burn it down in an emergency.

At the "Casket Prison," prisoners are kept in rows of rectangular steel boxes until they confess or die. The boxes are opened once a day for half an hour and prisoners get no solid foods, the report said. Some prisoners survive for up to a year.

At the "Can Prison," detainees are locked in metal boxes the size of tea chests. Each box has a tap for water and a meshed floor to allow them to --------, it said.

There was no immediate comment from the Iraqi government on the joint report. Iraq has in the past rejected as lies rights allegations against it by international organizations and U.N. rights investigators.

If you are going to support ousting Qadaffi for terrorizing his people then you should support ousting Saddam for the same reason. Otherwise, hypocrisy abounds, you don't get to pick a dictator to take out because of crimes against his people just because you slavishly support the political party of the sitting POTUS.

#124 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-11 02:36 PM | Reply

If you are going to support ousting Qadaffi for terrorizing his people then you should support ousting Saddam for the same reason. Otherwise, hypocrisy abounds, you don't get to pick a dictator to take out because of crimes against his people just because you slavishly support the political party of the sitting POTUS.

#124 | Posted by Rightocenter

I'll post this AGAIN and you let me know how many times you need to read something before it sinks in.

There are plenty of terrible regimes in this world - but we don't invade them.

We didn't invade libya - we provided air support to prevent gaddafi from attacking innocent civilians.

Saddam was not doing that.

Your false equivalence game is weak. Iraq was a republican policy that failed so horribly that republicans are simply desperate to point to something comparable that a democrat did. But there is nothing to compare it to. Sorry.

#125 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-11 03:40 PM | Reply

We didn't invade libya - we provided air support to prevent gaddafi from attacking innocent civilians.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-11 03:40 PM | REPLY

BS We absolutely did invade Libya to secure the oil resources. We were lied to about that one as well.

#126 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-11 03:56 PM | Reply

I'll post this AGAIN and you let me know how many times you need to read something before it sinks in.

There are plenty of terrible regimes in this world - but we don't invade them.

We didn't invade libya - we provided air support to prevent gaddafi from attacking innocent civilians.

LOL, even Laura has got this one right:

The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion so far and played a far larger role in Libya than it has acknowledged, quietly implementing an emerging "covert intervention" strategy that the Obama administration hopes will let America fight small wars with a barely detectable footprint.

Officially, President Obama handed the lead role of ousting Muammar Gaddafi to the European members of NATO. But behind the scenes, the U.S. military played an indispensable role in the Libya campaign, deploying far more forces than the administration chose to advertise.

According to two senior NATO officials, one American and the other European, these were the critical U.S. contributions during the six-month military campaign:

• An international naval force gathered off Libya, with the dozen U.S. warships on station were the biggest contingent in this armada.

• In the opening hours of the campaign, an American submarine, the USS Florida, launched 100 cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses, crucially opening an entry corridor for the airstrikes that followed.

• U.S. tanker aircraft refueled European aircraft on the great majority of missions against Gaddafi's forces.

• When the Europeans ran low on precision-attack munitions, the U.S. quietly resupplied them.

• To target Gaddafi's military, NATO largely relied on U.S. JSTARS surveillance aircraft, which, flying offshore, could track the movements of rival forces.

• U.S. Air Force targeting specialists were in NATO's Naples operational headquarters throughout the campaign.

• U.S. AWACS aircraft, high over the Mediterranean, handled much of the battle-management task, acting as air-traffic controllers on most of the strike missions.

• Eavesdropping by U.S. intelligence -- some by aircraft, some by a listening post quietly established just outside Libya -- gave NATO unparalleled knowledge of what Gaddafi's military planned.

• The administration largely stuck to Obama's decision that the U.S. would not put boots on the ground in Libya (although the CIA did have agents inside Tripoli) but US, British and French special forces were on the ground, training and organizing the insurgents -- as were units from two Arab nations, Qatar and Jordan.

• When a desperate Gaddafi began to launch Scud missiles into towns held by the opposition, a U.S. guided-missile destroyer offshore negated his offensive by shooting down the Scuds.

"President Obama may have taken the U.S. out of the direct combat role, but he certainly did not take American forces out of the front line," Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute think tank, wrote in a recent analysis. "The European allies were hardly ‘going it alone' in this operation."

Any other myths that you want me to puncture?

America's Secret Libya War: U.S. Spent $1 Billion on Covert Ops Helping NATO

#127 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-11 04:20 PM | Reply

There are plenty of terrible regimes in this world - but we don't invade them.

We usually support them with military assistance. Taxpayers dollars. Weapon sales.

Like we did with Iraq and do with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel.

Unfortunately for Iraq. They bit the hand that fed them.

#128 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-11 04:22 PM | Reply

Any other myths that you want me to puncture?

America's Secret Libya War: U.S. Spent $1 Billion on Covert Ops Helping NATO

#127 | Posted by Rightocenter

You didn't puncture crap.

Gadaffi was actively attacking his citizens.

Saddam was not.

We spent 6 TRILLION on a ground invasion in iraq.

There was no ground invasion in libya.

Keep searching. SOMEWHERE there's got to be a democratic screwup as bad as repubublican's iraq disaster. Let us know when you find one.

Or just find something nowhere near as bad and tell us you found it so we can laugh at you some more.

#129 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-11 04:47 PM | Reply

"So it's okay to gas people and kill civilians when you can get away with it.
That's some impressively high moral ground you have there.
#122 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG"

Sounds like Game Theory to me.

You know, the basis for making informed decisions in the Capitalist paradigm.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-11 06:13 PM | Reply

"If you are going to support ousting Qadaffi for terrorizing his people then you should support ousting Saddam for the same reason."

And Trump and Obama and Bush and Clinton too.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-11 06:16 PM | Reply

"The first guy was worse? But the second guy knew what was happening. Had a chance to stop. But didn't."

It may be bad to not stop a murder, but it's not worse than actually committing the murder.

To get where you are going you have to tie it to policy. Like if you support the death penalty for a person found guilty in a sham trial.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-11 06:21 PM | Reply

Sounds like Game Theory to me.
You know, the basis for making informed decisions in the Capitalist paradigm.

#130 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-12-11 06:13 PM | FLAG:

All paradigms. You can't climb the ladder in Communism without it.

#133 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-12 09:10 AM | Reply

It is what it is in regards to blowing people up, morality when convenient. It just happens to be the most convenient whenever the party one supports is in power.

#134 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-12 09:11 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort