Who has more influence with congress, you or Lockheed?

Bought and paid for by MIC. It is no wonder cost over runs get ignored. Innocent civilians die around the world. Our GDP under achieves. However, in the end our population has been brain washed by propaganda which glorifies war, where men with erectile dysfunction can join the military and become men and get a pay check to boot, where movie after movie shows violence and death as folks become numb to the reality of war. No, people are going to have to change their views for peace to be an option. Our founding fathers warned us about standing armies and their chilling effect on freedom and liberty. Ike warned us about the power of MIC and how we needed to act. Now it is simply too late, we have a very expensive bonerless military who invade Granada and drop bombs without boots on the ground on civilians. People flock to military airshows, and glorify all things military, and with each passing day that democracy we called America is being bought and paid for by our foreign enemies and our enemies within.

Oh, jesus, he's at it again! Somebody get the dead horse, please.

del.capslock wrote:Oh, jesus, he's at it again! Somebody get the dead horse, please.

Gladly....

del.capslock wrote:Oh, jesus, he's at it again! Somebody get the dead horse, please.

LOL, that was funny right there.

Lockheed Martin employees earn $71,000 annually on average, or $34 per hour, which is 15% higher than the national salary average of $61,000 per year.


Lockheed Martin Salaries | CareerBliss

Since the salaries of Lockheed are higher than average, they help the economy and don't require food stamps or other public assistance unlike Wal Mart and service industry jobs which pay far less.

I'd be all for campaign finance reform... even a strict public allowance.

Now we just need politicians to restrict themselves.

Not likely.

NPAatall wrote:Lockheed Martin employees earn $71,000 annually on average, or $34 per hour, which is 15% higher than the national salary average of $61,000 per year.

Since the salaries of Lockheed are higher than average, they help the economy and don't require food stamps or other public assistance unlike Wal Mart and service industry jobs which pay far less.

Are you simple or something? Where the fuck do you think Lockheed gets the money to pay those salaries? What the hell's the difference whether the government gives the money to Lockheed or pays it out in public assistance?

This shit sounds like you got a bunch of Lockheed PR crap force-fed to you like a fat goose on the foie gras farm.

del.capslock wrote:

NPAatall wrote:Lockheed Martin employees earn $71,000 annually on average, or $34 per hour, which is 15% higher than the national salary average of $61,000 per year.

Since the salaries of Lockheed are higher than average, they help the economy and don't require food stamps or other public assistance unlike Wal Mart and service industry jobs which pay far less.

Are you simple or something? Where the fuck do you think Lockheed gets the money to pay those salaries? What the hell's the difference whether the government gives the money to Lockheed or pays it out in public assistance?

This shit sounds like you got a bunch of Lockheed PR crap force-fed to you like a fat goose on the foie gras farm.

You're pretty thick aren't you? The difference is public assistance requires no product to be delivered that benefits normal Americans. Lockheed provides a product that is quite useful which generally allows you the freedom to act like you do here on this forum.

Wordslinger wrote:Thanks to all of you who joined in on this thread.  What's missing, totally, is anyone sticking up for our dysfunctional 2 party system.  Not anyone from the right or the left.

Interesting.  No??

You're right, of course, but this argument has been going on for at least 50 years. I wouldn't be surprised if there was something like it mentioned in the Federalist papers or in some of the commentary from that era.

What to do about it without fundamentally damaging our democracy is the problem.

The Citizens United decision has made things worse, but how do you get that overturned with the current make-up of the Court?

What's your suggestion? Can you--or any of us--even define the problem with any precision?

But I get your point. Now we need to find a hat to fit it--so to speak, heh-heh.

My personal feeling is that the source of the problem is not politics but "corporatism".

The dems are moving so far left that when the rejection is complete they'll turn to full terrorism.







































Just kidding... so many are partially or fully dependant on govt that we'll all get flushed by their nanny state.

Oh well... America was a good idea... individual rights... limited govt... etc.

PkrBum wrote:The dems are moving so far left that when the rejection is complete they'll turn to full terrorism.

Just kidding... so many are partially or fully dependant on govt that we'll all get flushed by their nanny state.

Oh well... America was a good idea... individual rights... limited govt... etc.

That's it, little PkrBoy, get it all out. Have your little tantrum and then go take a nap, okay.

del.capslock wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The dems are moving so far left that when the rejection is complete they'll turn to full terrorism.

Just kidding... so many are partially or fully dependant on govt that we'll all get flushed by their nanny state.

Oh well... America was a good idea... individual rights... limited govt... etc.

That's it, little PkrBoy, get it all out. Have your little tantrum and then go take a nap, okay.

Beats starting a poll to replace the administrator with the moderator.