This is idiotic. Libertarians are against taxation on principle except where absolutely necessary. Those billions were all tax dollars which no libertarian I have ever talked to or read would have sanctioned. Kindly stop being a dick. If possible.
Roddy
Gag orders are not unconstitutional. NPA v Stuart deals with prior restraint, a restriction on the publication of information. It did not address the question of gag orders, which are restrictions on parties to a case not to discuss the case.
That was my exact reaction to the thread title. It’s gotta be a lot more than that. I’d figure somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the total, which I’m sure is a lot more than $230B. I’d expect that out of almost any government program, and when you’re throwing money into a war zone, who the hell knows what is going to happen.
Because that would cut into their repeated showing of the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright. You know, the really important stuff.
Let’s see – a nation that is ruled by the army of another country, where some people must go through military check-points to live their daily lives, where government money is stolen and horribly misspent, where the military conspires with private militias – yep, sounds like something right out of Milton Friedman.
Tell me, gonzo, do you actually try to post comments that are completely devoid of factual basis or are you totally ignorant of the basic tenets of libertarianism?
Apparently, he knows a good gig when he finds one:
Why would there be treason charges? Is there any evidence of acts necessary for treason?
Levying War against the United States? Nope
Adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort? Nope
There is no treason here. Others crimes may have been committed, but in all likelihood there is no treason―unless the money is being used to fund a secret war against the US or something.
Plus, if they actually spent any airtime on Rebublican-driven war corruption, they’d have less time to spend saying ‘tax-and-spend Democrat, tax-and-spend Democrat.’
That headline is surprisingly misleading. It’s standard US policy, having nothing to do with Bush, to take that position about all options being on the table. What was unusual, as is fleshed out in the article, is to bring that up without being asked about it.
I would expect Obama to answer “no” if asked whether he would rule out the use of force against Iran, but I would not expect him to offer that comment without being asked about it.
I don’t think it’s misleading at all, John. It simply highlights the very point you made.
As in “why in the blue blazes” are you bringing this up if no one’s asked?
I heard the sound clip of Bush making the statement this morning. Now I might just be sentimental, having gotten to know the man so well, lo these many years—but coming from Bush’s mouth, the words “all options are on the table” take on an unmistakably threatening color, clearly intended more as stick than carrot. (Excepting maybe a prizewinning carrot with the size and heft of a cudgel.)
On the diplomatic scale, about as promising as the school bully’s offer to discuss kicking my ass.
A gag order is prior restraint.
See here