DescentBB

The defense department says they dont want the tanks, they would prefer the money be used elsewhere. But politicians will always put their own fortune ahead of the people so they insist the tanks will be built regardless of no one in the army needing them.

It doesn't matter what they say, what they do tells you that you don't matter to them...R's....D's...it doesn't matter, because the proper prefix before their name should be POLS for 'piece of lying ★■◆●'.

You could of course vote for a third party candidate, pick any one you want and tell the POLS why you did it....

The democrats have made it clear that they will do anything to make the cuts 'hurt' to show how bad things are if you make ANY reduction. They're making things 'hurt' for the American people while saving their own pet pork and money. Why should we expect anything different from this pack of criminals?

I found it interesting that to get the air traffic control staff back to full force all they had to do was shift money from a capital improvement fund that was full and not being utilized to the payroll fund for the air traffic controller's fund. Like not allowing school kids their tours of the White House, it seems those in charge want to make the sequester look more painful than it needs be.

What surprises me, is that any of you are surprised about this.

Its only the blind and the idealogs that would think that this isnt how it works with our current government

Get a load of this one: http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/26/army- ... rs-put-th/

The Army doesn't have enough transmissions to accept new Apache helicopters, so they install a transmission in a new airframe, perform the acceptance flights, then yank the transmission and install it in the next airframe...

Will Robinson wrote:You could of course vote for a third party candidate, pick any one you want and tell the POLS why you did it....

That's all and great, if we'd get better third party candidates that weren't nutjobs straight out of the looney bin and they could get enough of a popular following to actually get elected.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You could of course vote for a third party candidate, pick any one you want and tell the POLS why you did it....

That's all and great, if we'd get better third party candidates that weren't nutjobs straight out of the looney bin and they could get enough of a popular following to actually get elected.

You don't get it. The more of a nut job the better for the effect I'm suggesting! Vote for the Sagittarians for Cheap Cookies Party for all I care, the more unworthy the better to be able to tell either of the Big Two that you would rather vote for a mud puddle than give them one more turn at the rudder!

But we have had this discussion before and it is crystal clear you don't want to help create a third party effect, you just want more of the same and for that you don't need a third party. So you should keep voting for the status quo...what we have now is your preference.

Oh, I'd like a third party. It's just that I'd like them to be halfway intelligent if they're going to run things and NOT be wedded to some corporate puppet master in the background. I do tend to vote for the Green Party whenever I think that they will get something constructive done. But I wouldn't vote for a tea partier if you PAID me.