It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ATODASO
the emerging police state is not about better protection, it's about making a buck.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
a reply to: ATODASO
Of course arms manufacturers profit from the government buying weaponry. But that's not my point. My point is, the government doesn't profit from the government buying weaponry. They lose money.
Unless you can provide an instance of a politician receiving a bribe. If not, then you have nothing.
Therefore, the only way the government benefits from buying weaponry is to ensure national security and to promote order. And that is a good thing. Using this false idea that the government is starting wars to make a buck makes national security seem like a bad thing to the ignorant people who would believe it. This puts us all at risk.
I'm not saying that the government isn't overly intrusive. But, I am saying they aren't killing Americans for money.
originally posted by: ATODASO
yes, i am l33t as hell, and totes have that transcript kicking around on a thumbdrive somewhere in my secret lair. lol
nope, i just think you can extrapolate some reasonable conclusions from the data. if that data, which includes sales stats and money trails doesn't give you the same picture, that's your business.
maybe it just isn't as lucrative as killing brown people in other countries.
yet.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
You drank the whole pitcher of kool aid, didnt you?
originally posted by: ATODASO
originally posted by: smithjustinb
You drank the whole pitcher of kool aid, didnt you?
i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, but i'd encourage you to look into the matter further, starting with the links i posted.
i know there are a lot of good people who want to see u.s. citizens safe on the homefront, but the people responsible for wholesaling LRADs and sound weapons to your local p.d. aren't among them.
peace.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
I have looked into the matter. None of the links you posted prove any government malice.
They are irrelevant. Just as you looked into it and didn't find any concrete evidence of government officials receiving profits directly from arms manufacturers, neither have I. Nor has anyone.
Maybe not. But, if they were involved in manufacturing a reason to go to war, the government would not protect them from prosecution. They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.
They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.
originally posted by: ATODASO
in short, i don't have to prove malice, just incompetence.
oh jeez, not while actually in office, or at least not in any way that would be traceable. you give up being ceo of halliburton when you become vice president, but you sure as # don't give up your shares.
i don't know what to do with this "bribes" herring you keep chucking at my head. bribes aren't necessary in a well-functioning plutocracy.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: smithjustinb
They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.
so i take you believe the government and anyone who works for it is completely malevolent.......they have the best interests of the people....can you provide any evidence of this occurring ?
originally posted by: smithjustinb
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: smithjustinb
They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.
so i take you believe the government and anyone who works for it is completely malevolent.......they have the best interests of the people....can you provide any evidence of this occurring ?
I'm assuming you meant, "benevolent". No I don't think they all are that selfless. Can I provide and example of a selfless act? Of course. Can I provide evidence of a selfish act? Certainly. But, what I can't do is provide evidence of politicians risking American lives in order to directly make a profit from a weapons manufacturer. Because it doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, anyway. The OP needs to prove that politicians are directly profiting from weapons manufacturers.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
Yes you do have to prove malice.
"They" being the ones who authorized the military campaign.
Any form of direct profit for politicians from weapons manufacturers will suffice.
originally posted by: ATODASO
originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
Let's see how that "no more free military gear" bill works out.
Bet the price of something (court,traffic infraction,taxes, various fees) goes up considerably if it passes
offset it with a donut tax.
originally posted by: ATODASO
a reply to: MarlinGrace
haha, awesome.
actually, it looks like state-level politicians are the best bet for checking this kind of excess.