On Aug 23, 3:49*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.

Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say..

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.

The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes?

Dip**** idea.

On 8/24/10 4:50 PM, John H wrote:
On Aug 23, 3:49 pm, wrote:
"John wrote in message

...



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.

Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.

The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes?

Dip**** idea.


Racist.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:31:58 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:10:41 -0400, Secular Humanist
wrote:

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats, more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money. Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.


Sorry, honey. I know you stick up for me alot, but if you think that
China and Russia "are not much of a threat any more", I certainly
wouldn't go around calling others morons.

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.
Spending as much as we do on defense is foolish. That is one of the
factors that brought down the Soviets and what is keeping North Korea
in poverty.

I'm glad to see they're not and never were a threat. Given the truth of that
statement, you're correct - we've wasted a lot of money over the past 60 or so
years.

But...
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:53:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:20:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think we're spending $790B defending against China. It's a bit
more
complicated than that.

It is still far too much money. We are spending 100 billion dollars a
year in a country with a GDP of $27 billion trying to kill 40 guys.
How does that make any sense?
Bob likes to complain about Iraq but at least we toppled a dictator
who threatened Israel. I am not sure we have done anything in
Afghanistan but create more terrorists and destabilize Pakistan.

There's no way to equate the two situations. We spent $1+ trillion and
counting in Iraq. One is a war, the other is just a waste of money.


Which is which? I understand Saddam is gone but Bin Laden is still
around.

?? Not sure of your point. Iraq was a war of choice that cost us $1+T, not
counting the 100000s of ruined/lost lives. How does that equate to a few
missiles targeting China?

I was referring to the hundreds of billions we wasted in Afghanistan,
the lost/ruined lives and the damage to the fragile stability of
Pakistan accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Which would have been avoided if we had concentrated on Afg. to begin with
and stuck with it.

At least we killed Saddam. Bin Laden is still walking around.
Iraq was all about Israel anyway. The next war we will fight for them
will be Iran if Hillary fails to accomplish anything with diplomacy.
I hope she is successful but I am not optimistic.

Iraq was all about oil (for us).

I'm not optimistic either, as it's a tough problem. But, I think we won't be
doing the Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran that McCain joked about.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Aug 23, 3:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to
help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.

Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might
say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more, at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats,
more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money.
Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.

The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes?

Dip**** idea.

Whoo... so, you claiming to not read my posts was..... a lie?

"Secular Humanist" wrote in message
...
On 8/24/10 4:50 PM, John H wrote:
On Aug 23, 3:49 pm, wrote:
"John wrote in message

...



On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:17:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:41:06 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Maybe if we spent about 1% of what we are spending in the war, to
help
them, we wouldn't need to have the war.

Our military budget is almost as lopsided as theirs.

Wishful thinking. Sounds like what My brother Suckular Harry might
say.

We spend more money on defense than the whole rest of the world
combined.

Thank the Chinese and the Russians. Take away all the threats, and we
would not
need any defense budget.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

You moron. The Chinese and Russians are not much of a threat any more,
at
least not in a nuclear fashion. If anything, they're economic threats,
more
so the Chinese. We need to rethink how we spend our military money.
Another
B1 bomber (or whatever) isn't going to make us any safer. In fact, it's
going to make us less safe, since we're bankrupting ourselves to do it.

The Russians and Chinese ditched all their nukes?

Dip**** idea.


Racist.

fat coward

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.

YukonBound wrote:
admittance test
Don't you mean "admission test" or is that a Canadian term?

On 8/24/10 7:08 PM, Larry wrote:
YukonBound wrote:
admittance test
Don't you mean "admission test" or is that a Canadian term?


No, ****brain, he means admittance:


admittance

(ædˈmɪtəns)

[f. admit + -ance, cf. remittance; after Fr. and Eng. analogies in
assistance, attendance, etc. The analogical formation on L. admittens
would be admittence.]

The action of admitting, now confined to the literal sense of giving
entrance, the fig. ideas connected with admit being expressed by admission.

1.1 The action of admitting, letting in, or giving entrance; permission
to enter. Usually attributed to the person admitted: ‘our admittance (by
the porter) into the grounds’ rather than ‘the porter's admittance of
us’; thus = the fact of being admitted, entrance given or allowed. a.1.a
lit. into a place.

1593 Thynne Let. in Animadv. (1865) 97 Whene your Lordship will
vouchsafe mee admyttance to your presence. 1611 Shakes. Cymb. ii.
iii. 73 'Tis Gold Which buyes admittance. 1635 Naunton Fragm. Reg. in
Phenix (1708) I. 208 He came up per ardua‥not pulled up by Chance, or by
any gentle admittance of Fortune. a 1704 Locke (J.) There are some
ideas which have admittance only through one sense. 1731 Arbuthnot On
Aliments (J.) As to the admittance of the weighty elastic parts of the
air into the blood. 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. (1872) I. vii. ix. 238 He
gets admittance through the locked and padlocked grates. Mod. ‘No
admittance except on business.’

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:10:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.
Spending as much as we do on defense is foolish. That is one of the
factors that brought down the Soviets and what is keeping North Korea
in poverty.

I'm glad to see they're not and never were a threat. Given the truth of that
statement, you're correct - we've wasted a lot of money over the past 60 or so
years.

But...
--

In a world dominated by Mutually assured destruction, it is not a
military threat. There may be a threat to the whole planet but
strategically everyone was gridlocked if we wanted anyone to survive.

Our government has consistently over reported the Soviet threat,
whether it was the 1960 missile gap, the ability of their subs or the
capability of the Mig 25.

The reality is we are far more likely to be nuked by a terrorist
weapon than we ever were by the Soviets. Destabilizing Pakistan
certainly is very troubling in that regard.

In the late 80's more than a majority of the Soviet ICBM would not have
launched due to the 3 or 4 feet of water in the bottom of the silos.

Secular Humanist wrote:
On 8/24/10 7:08 PM, Larry wrote:
YukonBound wrote:
admittance test
Don't you mean "admission test" or is that a Canadian term?


No, ****brain, he means admittance:


admittance

(ædˈmɪtəns)

[f. admit + -ance, cf. remittance; after Fr. and Eng. analogies in
assistance, attendance, etc. The analogical formation on L. admittens
would be admittence.]

The action of admitting, now confined to the literal sense of giving
entrance, the fig. ideas connected with admit being expressed by
admission.

1.1 The action of admitting, letting in, or giving entrance;
permission to enter. Usually attributed to the person admitted: ‘our
admittance (by the porter) into the grounds’ rather than ‘the porter's
admittance of us’; thus = the fact of being admitted, entrance given
or allowed. a.1.a lit. into a place.

1593 Thynne Let. in Animadv. (1865) 97 Whene your Lordship will
vouchsafe mee admyttance to your presence. 1611 Shakes. Cymb. ii.
iii. 73 'Tis Gold Which buyes admittance. 1635 Naunton Fragm. Reg.
in Phenix (1708) I. 208 He came up per ardua‥not pulled up by Chance,
or by any gentle admittance of Fortune. a 1704 Locke (J.) There are
some ideas which have admittance only through one sense. 1731
Arbuthnot On Aliments (J.) As to the admittance of the weighty elastic
parts of the air into the blood. 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. (1872) I.
vii. ix. 238 He gets admittance through the locked and padlocked
grates. Mod. ‘No admittance except on business.’
I never said it wasn't a word, expert. It just doesn't fit in that
context. Care to try again?

Google "admittance test" and then "admission test" and let me know if
you get the same results. Here's a hint: the ratio is 29:1