I really hope that the great people of Massachusettes have the where-with-all to not vote Barney Frank (Elmer Fudd) back for another term. I really don't know how anyone can take that man seriously (for starters) and how, after all the mess that he persided over, they can let him stay in and ruin us even more.
I'm sure you have heard by now where he said that we need to
cut military spending by 25%:
After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.
In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.
"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."
"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."
How can anyone believe it is a good idea to cut military spending when we face the kinds of threats that we do now? How can anyone believe it is a good idea to cut military spending when our troops are in harms way on two fronts? Does he really believe that by cutting military spending by 25% that would make us get out of Iraq sooner? And if it does it wouldn't be on our terms, it would be a quick withdrawal because we dont have the money to be there and I think this would be even worse than Obama's misguided withdrawal date.
And how can he say that the Pentagon needs to pick between it's weapon's programs? Don't we want them to look into as many systems as they can to find the one that will best defend our troops in combat and us here at home?
He thinks "we don't need all these fancy new weapons"? Is he serious? What does he want our guys to go out with some revolutionary era bayonetts or something? Or better yet some rocks and sling shots? Or maybe spears. Our troops need to stay on top of the technology. They need to have the best of what is available to them so that they can get their job done and come home safe. How can we, in good consience, send them into harm's way with nothing but the best we can afford them? These very brave men and women go into harms way so that low-life POS's like Elmer Fudd there can sit back and try to cut their funding.
As part of a military family, I take it as an offense that this cartoon character of a person would even suggest this.
If they do cut spending by 25% and the military is forced to abandon some of their weapon's programs then maybe we should consider using Elmer Fudd as a human shield when we go into combat, our guys can just stand behind him with their slingshots at the ready.
By the way it's not just weapon's systems that the military budget supports. That includes all the morale and welfare money and pay.
By the way. I'm also getting really sick and tired of Obama and his camp saying that Bush only cut taxes for the rich. The Army Dude and I were talking about this the other day and I made the comment that I believed we paid lower taxes since Bush than we did before and he said we did. So I looked it up and sure enough. Bush didn't just cut taxes on the rich, he cut taxes for just about everyone. In 2000 we were in the 28% bracket in 2008 we are in the 25%. Let me tell you we are FAR from rich, so I don't buy the claim that only the rich have been helped. In fact, the lowest percentage in 2000 was 15%. Bush cut that down and now in 2008 it's 10%. that's 5%. Of course you don't hear about that part when they are shoving their talking points down our throats.
And finally.
This is just sick. I debated if I should show the picture and I am because I want people to see just how hateful and nasty people can be:
It is just sick. And it's not a hate crime by the way. But the police dept. said that if it was an effigy of Obama hanging then it would have to be looked into to see it's a hate crime, because they are evaluated on a case by case basis. All hell would break lose and then it would be a hate crime. That is beyond hateful and if it would be consider hate for one then it should for another.
Posts
