i sure as hell hope this is given proper consideration by everyone who calls themselves a conservative<
Since I consider myself a true conservative I will answer your challenge. I hadn't actually considered what the difference would be before this but the one major difference that I do see is that under obama or hillary's hands the troops are more likely to spend much less time in actual combat. Their chances of being wounded or killed will drop signifigantly! Dammit, I wanted to send in an absentee ballot with a write in for Ron Paul but now I just may have to vote for obama or hillary.
See the military industrial complex wants to keep the fighting going on as long as possible. Now you might ask why? Money and more money is being made every minute the fighting continues. I read somewhere that it amounts to about $5000 a second.!!
Check this out.
>>Also on Capitol Hill, a study by a nonpartisan research group said that as of 2006, 151 members of Congress had as much as $196 million collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the onset of the Iraq war.
The review of lawmakers 2006 financial disclosure statements by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics suggests that members holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending.
Several members earning money from these contractors had plum committee or leadership assignments, including Lieberman, Democratic Sen. John Kerry and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.<< http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1996605/posts
Thanks for the ping.
BTW, how have the cattle mutilations been going the last 8 months or so in your neck of the woods . . . neighbors etc.?
|
I'm a cynic, but I can't quite make that leap. At least not in the face of so many countervailing factors which make it difficult, if not impossible, to control events in a manner to protect such financial interests. But I agree with you in one important aspect--our political hacks are corrupt enough to try.