pqr Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 ?? What? That makes zero sense. Let me put this a different way. Putting a missile defense system in Europe would be the equivalent of Russia putting a missile defense system in Cuba. We know how that ended. You stated that I should research what Russia has said about Missile Defense. If I am to take their opinion as to the feasability of missile defense then we know what they would say. As I said if we let them speak of the viability of US systems we would never have advanced, i.e. still be flying P-51s and B-17s. If you were referencing their concerns about the system they would only be concerned if they thought the system might work. Either way: either they are afraid that it might work, which makes my case, or they are telling us that it will never work and we are wasting our money which, something given the source I tend to disbelieve. The Russians are not known for making public service announcements to the US. If you are refering to the Cuban Missile Crisis with the comment "we know how that ended" those were not defensive missiles they put in Cuba, they were going to be nuclear tipped missiles aimed at us. There is a difference, a big difference. The defensive system that we are offering Europe can, hopefully, shoot down missiles. Again the Russians would only be concerned if they thought it could work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMomof4 Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Sooooo....if I were to get a job in a department store ....and thanks to my talent I was able to prevent losses in the tune of $100,000 dollars.... would it then be ok for me to start taking office supplies and discretionary spending money for my own personal use...trips to the spa...lunches...whatever. I mean, it is money that *I* am allowed to use...to my discretion.... and I *did* save the company thousands of dollars.... so isn't it my right? Alright, that was uncalled for. She wasn't stealing the money. I will be the first to admit that it looks shady. But she followed the letter of the law. Juneau was her "duty station" when she wasn't there she's allowed a per diem. She was also allowed a per diem for her children - which she didn't claim. She was also allowed lodging expenses - which she didn't claim. It certainly isn't *the way things are done*. But, it wasn't illegal and she saved lots of money doing it. These are the kind of things that make me psycho. If she had had a private chef while living in Juneau at the governor's mansion, that would have been fodder for criticism. If she'd hired a nanny to stay with her kids all the time, that would have been fodder for criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.