Forum Klix.ba

Ma jok, nuklearno oruzje odrzava i pravi neki civilni department of nuclear energy ili tako nesto.

Po 538 dot com

Final election projection is 349 prema 189 u korist Obame...

Landslide...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ ... ction.html


Inache samo 15-ak posto probability da dobijemo filibuster-proof senate (60 seats).

jefferson wrote:ID pitas ti kako amerikanci mogu birati Republikance nakon 8 godina?
Glupi, eto! Jesil zadovolja?
Kako ti objasnjavas (ovo sam te vec pitao) da vecina, znaci preko 50% glasaca bira stranku cija personifikacija izadje na TV i kaze da ljudi zasluzuju NEKA , ali NE SVA ljudska prava?
Da nebude zabune radi se o Bakiru Izetbegovicu!

Drugo, amerikanci trose najvise na vosjku, ali opet manje i od Kine i od Rusije gledajuci procentualno koliki je vojni budzet naspram GDP-a.
I da, odrzavanje nuklearnog oruzja ide pod vojni budzet jer je nuklearno oruzje u sastavu USAF-a!

provjeri to ponovo,varas se
20 ili 30 milijardi godisnje sto ide za odrzavanje,ne spada u vojni budjet,vec ima posebnu stavku u budjetu
sto se tice bakira,ja bi bio najsretniji kad bi on zavrsio u zatvoru,da mu se sva imovina za koju ne moze da dokaze porijeklo,da mu se oduzme i podjeli sirotinji
nisam zadovoljan tvojim odgovorom,jer oni nisu glupi,problem je negdje drugo

On Wednesday, the House passed a mammoth defense bill by a 392-39 vote. It's expected to clear the Senate with little difficulty next week.

It was part of a trillion-dollar stop-gap measure to keep programs running through next March, allowing lawmakers to skip town without passing a final budget. The Associated Press reports, "The legislation came together in a remarkably secret process that concentrated decision-making power in the hands of a few lawmakers."

In keeping with the tradition of recent years, Bush held a gun to his own head and threatened to pull the trigger if his demands weren't met. According to the AP, "To earn President Bush's signature rather than a veto, House and Senate negotiators dropped several provisions he opposed. They include a ban on private interrogators in U.S. military detention facilities and what would have amounted to congressional veto power over a security pact with Iraq."

In other words, Congress also maintained recent tradition, swearing not to give Bush a blank check and then whipping out their pens and signing a blank check.

The number that the House sent to the Senate for "defense" -- $612 billion for the coming year -- is eye-popping. Imagine a stack of 612,000 million-dollar bills. Quite a pile.

That number's a sham, however. The budget calls for $68.6 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009. War costs this year totaled $182 billion, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

The House passed the Brobdingnagian spending measure 11 months after George W. Bush vetoed a bill -- one passed with a lot of bipartisan support -- that would have added $7 billion measly dollars per year to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, covering 4 million more uninsured children. You'd be hard-pressed to find a clearer sign of national psychosis.

Here's what "defense" spending looks like in the era of Bush's "War on Terror," according to official figures:


(click for larger version)
But that's just the cash to feed the gaping maw of the Department of Defense. Throw in a bit more than $50 billion for Homeland Security, around $20 billion for the nuclear arsenal in the Department of Energy's budget, about $10 billion for the Coast Guard, a similar number for foreign "security assistance" and maybe another $125 billion -- according to one estimate -- in other defense-related programs scattered throughout the federal budget.

Bush also requested $91 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2009, up from $72 billion just three years ago. A generation of damaged young men and women are going to cost more and more as the years go by -- many post-traumatic injuries, for example, don't manifest themselves for 10 or more years after people get out of combat. In 2000, nine years after the first Gulf War, 56 percent of those who had served in that conflict were receiving disability payments.

But wait, as they say on late-night infomercials, there's more!

All of this only finances our current military adventures. We're still paying for Korea and Vietnam and Grenada and Panama and the first Gulf War and Somalia and the Balkans and on and on. Estimates of just how much of our national debt payments are from past military spending vary wildly. Economist Robert Higgs calculated it like this:

I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year's ratio of narrowly defined national security spending--military, veterans, and international affairs--to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 91.2 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2006. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government's net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending.
In 2006, he came up with a figure of $206.7 billion for interest payments on past militarism. Add it all up, and we're talking about at least a trillion dollars in military and homeland security spending. If there were a million-dollar bill, you'd have to stack a million of them to reach a trillion dollars.

Of course, very little of this is "defense." This is empire spending, pure and simple ...
What's that? You want health care, education, affordable housing, 21st-century infrastructure?

ld wrote:

jefferson wrote:ID pitas ti kako amerikanci mogu birati Republikance nakon 8 godina?
Glupi, eto! Jesil zadovolja?
Kako ti objasnjavas (ovo sam te vec pitao) da vecina, znaci preko 50% glasaca bira stranku cija personifikacija izadje na TV i kaze da ljudi zasluzuju NEKA , ali NE SVA ljudska prava?
Da nebude zabune radi se o Bakiru Izetbegovicu!

Drugo, amerikanci trose najvise na vosjku, ali opet manje i od Kine i od Rusije gledajuci procentualno koliki je vojni budzet naspram GDP-a.
I da, odrzavanje nuklearnog oruzja ide pod vojni budzet jer je nuklearno oruzje u sastavu USAF-a!

provjeri to ponovo,varas se
20 ili 30 milijardi godisnje sto ide za odrzavanje,ne spada u vojni budjet,vec ima posebnu stavku u budjetu
sto se tice bakira,ja bi bio najsretniji kad bi on zavrsio u zatvoru,da mu se sva imovina za koju ne moze da dokaze porijeklo,da mu se oduzme i podjeli sirotinji
nisam zadovoljan tvojim odgovorom,jer oni nisu glupi,problem je negdje drugo

On Wednesday, the House passed a mammoth defense bill by a 392-39 vote. It's expected to clear the Senate with little difficulty next week.

It was part of a trillion-dollar stop-gap measure to keep programs running through next March, allowing lawmakers to skip town without passing a final budget. The Associated Press reports, "The legislation came together in a remarkably secret process that concentrated decision-making power in the hands of a few lawmakers."

In keeping with the tradition of recent years, Bush held a gun to his own head and threatened to pull the trigger if his demands weren't met. According to the AP, "To earn President Bush's signature rather than a veto, House and Senate negotiators dropped several provisions he opposed. They include a ban on private interrogators in U.S. military detention facilities and what would have amounted to congressional veto power over a security pact with Iraq."

In other words, Congress also maintained recent tradition, swearing not to give Bush a blank check and then whipping out their pens and signing a blank check.

The number that the House sent to the Senate for "defense" -- $612 billion for the coming year -- is eye-popping. Imagine a stack of 612,000 million-dollar bills. Quite a pile.

That number's a sham, however. The budget calls for $68.6 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009. War costs this year totaled $182 billion, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

The House passed the Brobdingnagian spending measure 11 months after George W. Bush vetoed a bill -- one passed with a lot of bipartisan support -- that would have added $7 billion measly dollars per year to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, covering 4 million more uninsured children. You'd be hard-pressed to find a clearer sign of national psychosis.

Here's what "defense" spending looks like in the era of Bush's "War on Terror," according to official figures:


(click for larger version)
But that's just the cash to feed the gaping maw of the Department of Defense. Throw in a bit more than $50 billion for Homeland Security, around $20 billion for the nuclear arsenal in the Department of Energy's budget, about $10 billion for the Coast Guard, a similar number for foreign "security assistance" and maybe another $125 billion -- according to one estimate -- in other defense-related programs scattered throughout the federal budget.

Bush also requested $91 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2009, up from $72 billion just three years ago. A generation of damaged young men and women are going to cost more and more as the years go by -- many post-traumatic injuries, for example, don't manifest themselves for 10 or more years after people get out of combat. In 2000, nine years after the first Gulf War, 56 percent of those who had served in that conflict were receiving disability payments.

But wait, as they say on late-night infomercials, there's more!

All of this only finances our current military adventures. We're still paying for Korea and Vietnam and Grenada and Panama and the first Gulf War and Somalia and the Balkans and on and on. Estimates of just how much of our national debt payments are from past military spending vary wildly. Economist Robert Higgs calculated it like this:

I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year's ratio of narrowly defined national security spending--military, veterans, and international affairs--to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 91.2 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2006. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government's net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending.
In 2006, he came up with a figure of $206.7 billion for interest payments on past militarism. Add it all up, and we're talking about at least a trillion dollars in military and homeland security spending. If there were a million-dollar bill, you'd have to stack a million of them to reach a trillion dollars.

Of course, very little of this is "defense." This is empire spending, pure and simple ...
What's that? You want health care, education, affordable housing, 21st-century infrastructure?

Ne vidim chemu ovolika rasprava o vojnom budzetu

Da dodam... Obama kada pobijedi uopche ne mora da slijedi Bushev budget za slijedechu godinu.

Ovo sto je Bush izbacio je pishanje u magli (whatever that means)

ma eto malo smo se zapetljali.

hajmo se vratit na temu - a to je deranje guzova republikancima.

zar stvarno mislite da ce samo izbor novog predsjednika nesto promijeniti toliko drasticno pa ste toliko uzbudjeni obaminom pobjedom? mnoge stvari ce ostati iste i nastavit ce se jer kontinuitet neke globalne politike je trajao manje vise i u periodima bush sr.-clinton-bush jr. mnogo se vise toga krije iza tog jednog covjeka i mnogo vise ljudi upravlja nekim stvarima gdje imaju cak i vecu moc od samog predsjednika.
daj boze da nisam u pravu.

eksi?

jeza u ledja wrote:ma eto malo smo se zapetljali.

hajmo se vratit na temu - a to je deranje guzova republikancima.

dobro si
bas gledam mccaina drzi govor u koloradu i nekako mi opasno kaslje,ne izgleda mi bas ok
i nesto kontam,zamislite horora,da mccain pobijedi i usljed isrpljenosti,godina,bolesti padne na bolnicki krevet i prevrne ocima
i palin da preuzme predsjednicku poziciju
a joj,to bi bila zona sumraka

go,obama,go
ako slucajno na neku foru ili prevaru kao 2000 pobijede,na ulice,uhapsite palin i posaljite je meni,da je ja malo propitam
bas mi drug se lozi na nju samo tako

jefferson wrote:ID pitas ti kako amerikanci mogu birati Republikance nakon 8 godina?
Glupi, eto! Jesil zadovolja?
Kako ti objasnjavas (ovo sam te vec pitao) da vecina, znaci preko 50% glasaca bira stranku cija personifikacija izadje na TV i kaze da ljudi zasluzuju NEKA , ali NE SVA ljudska prava?
Da nebude zabune radi se o Bakiru Izetbegovicu!

Drugo, amerikanci trose najvise na vosjku, ali opet manje i od Kine i od Rusije gledajuci procentualno koliki je vojni budzet naspram GDP-a.
I da, odrzavanje nuklearnog oruzja ide pod vojni budzet jer je nuklearno oruzje u sastavu USAF-a!

Zapravo samo mozda 10% od tih 40% koji glasaju za republikance nakon 8 godina katastorfalne politike su stvarno glupi neobrazovani i nesposobni da shvate realnosti sto je zapravo dobra manjina u odnosu na neke druge zemlje u svijetu. Ostalih 30% su radikalni nacionalisti, prikriveni rasisti ili hriscanski fundamentalisti. Medju takvim je najvise debeloguzih bjelaca mnogi od kojih su svoje bogatstvo stekli na ledjima bivseg robovlasnistva, obespravljene latinske i druge imigracije i pljackanjem bliskog istoka. Ti nisu nimalo glupi i dobro znaju sta ih ceka ako Obama dodje na vlast. Mora se shvatiti da je Bushova politika bila vrlo losa za vecinu ljudi ali i vise neko profitabilna za elitnu manjinu.

ld wrote: bas mi drug se lozi na nju samo tako

'Drug' jel?
Reci 'drugu' nek stane u red.

karanana wrote:zar stvarno mislite da ce samo izbor novog predsjednika nesto promijeniti toliko drasticno pa ste toliko uzbudjeni obaminom pobjedom? mnoge stvari ce ostati iste i nastavit ce se jer kontinuitet neke globalne politike je trajao manje vise i u periodima bush sr.-clinton-bush jr. mnogo se vise toga krije iza tog jednog covjeka i mnogo vise ljudi upravlja nekim stvarima gdje imaju cak i vecu moc od samog predsjednika.
daj boze da nisam u pravu.

...

Dado dijasporitus wrote:

jefferson wrote:ID pitas ti kako amerikanci mogu birati Republikance nakon 8 godina?
Glupi, eto! Jesil zadovolja?
Kako ti objasnjavas (ovo sam te vec pitao) da vecina, znaci preko 50% glasaca bira stranku cija personifikacija izadje na TV i kaze da ljudi zasluzuju NEKA , ali NE SVA ljudska prava?
Da nebude zabune radi se o Bakiru Izetbegovicu!

Drugo, amerikanci trose najvise na vosjku, ali opet manje i od Kine i od Rusije gledajuci procentualno koliki je vojni budzet naspram GDP-a.
I da, odrzavanje nuklearnog oruzja ide pod vojni budzet jer je nuklearno oruzje u sastavu USAF-a!

Zapravo samo mozda 10% od tih 40% koji glasaju za republikance nakon 8 godina katastorfalne politike su stvarno glupi neobrazovani i nesposobni da shvate realnosti sto je zapravo dobra manjina u odnosu na neke druge zemlje u svijetu. Ostalih 30% su radikalni nacionalisti, prikriveni rasisti ili hriscanski fundamentalisti. Medju takvim je najvise debeloguzih bjelaca mnogi od kojih su svoje bogatstvo stekli na ledjima bivseg robovlasnistva, obespravljene latinske i druge imigracije i pljackanjem bliskog istoka. Ti nisu nimalo glupi i dobro znaju sta ih ceka ako Obama dodje na vlast. Mora se shvatiti da je Bushova politika bila vrlo losa za vecinu ljudi ali i vise neko profitabilna za elitnu manjinu.

Upravo tako, a ja sam takvih debelguzih, odvratnih bogatuna upoznao gomilu, pogotovo ovdje u Tx. Ne gade mi se kojekakvi ruralci koji navijaju za Palin i ne znaju bolje. Ali debele bjelacke seljacke guzice koji se dave u parama i hoce jos jos mi se gade vise nego najgori neprijatelj.
Nemate pojma koliko u ovoj zemlji ima takvih. A bar jedno 75% kongresmena su bas ti.

Primjer takvog jednog govneta je nesto poput ovog:

jeza u ledja wrote:

Dado dijasporitus wrote:

jefferson wrote:ID pitas ti kako amerikanci mogu birati Republikance nakon 8 godina?
Glupi, eto! Jesil zadovolja?
Kako ti objasnjavas (ovo sam te vec pitao) da vecina, znaci preko 50% glasaca bira stranku cija personifikacija izadje na TV i kaze da ljudi zasluzuju NEKA , ali NE SVA ljudska prava?
Da nebude zabune radi se o Bakiru Izetbegovicu!

Drugo, amerikanci trose najvise na vosjku, ali opet manje i od Kine i od Rusije gledajuci procentualno koliki je vojni budzet naspram GDP-a.
I da, odrzavanje nuklearnog oruzja ide pod vojni budzet jer je nuklearno oruzje u sastavu USAF-a!

Zapravo samo mozda 10% od tih 40% koji glasaju za republikance nakon 8 godina katastorfalne politike su stvarno glupi neobrazovani i nesposobni da shvate realnosti sto je zapravo dobra manjina u odnosu na neke druge zemlje u svijetu. Ostalih 30% su radikalni nacionalisti, prikriveni rasisti ili hriscanski fundamentalisti. Medju takvim je najvise debeloguzih bjelaca mnogi od kojih su svoje bogatstvo stekli na ledjima bivseg robovlasnistva, obespravljene latinske i druge imigracije i pljackanjem bliskog istoka. Ti nisu nimalo glupi i dobro znaju sta ih ceka ako Obama dodje na vlast. Mora se shvatiti da je Bushova politika bila vrlo losa za vecinu ljudi ali i vise neko profitabilna za elitnu manjinu.

Upravo tako, a ja sam takvih debelguzih, odvratnih bogatuna upoznao gomilu, pogotovo ovdje u Tx. Ne gade mi se kojekakvi ruralci koji navijaju za Palin i ne znaju bolje. Ali debele bjelacke seljacke guzice koji se dave u parama i hoce jos jos mi se gade vise nego najgori neprijatelj.
Nemate pojma koliko u ovoj zemlji ima takvih. A bar jedno 75% kongresmena su bas ti.

Primjer takvog jednog govneta je nesto poput ovog:

svaka stoji

jeza u ledja wrote:

ld wrote: bas mi drug se lozi na nju samo tako

'Drug' jel?
Reci 'drugu' nek stane u red.

jeza u ledja wrote: hajmo se vratit na temu - a to je deranje guzova republikancima.

ona je, jelde, repubilkanka?

omar little wrote:

jeza u ledja wrote:

ld wrote: bas mi drug se lozi na nju samo tako

'Drug' jel?
Reci 'drugu' nek stane u red.

jeza u ledja wrote: hajmo se vratit na temu - a to je deranje guzova republikancima.

ona je, jelde, repubilkanka?

Provaljen si Jeza deriguze nijedan

karanana wrote:zar stvarno mislite da ce samo izbor novog predsjednika nesto promijeniti toliko drasticno pa ste toliko uzbudjeni obaminom pobjedom? mnoge stvari ce ostati iste i nastavit ce se jer kontinuitet neke globalne politike je trajao manje vise i u periodima bush sr.-clinton-bush jr. mnogo se vise toga krije iza tog jednog covjeka i mnogo vise ljudi upravlja nekim stvarima gdje imaju cak i vecu moc od samog predsjednika.
daj boze da nisam u pravu.

nece promjeniti drasticno,to je prosto nemoguce,ali ako obama/biden tim pobjedi,to znaci definitivan pocetak promjena

omar little wrote:

jeza u ledja wrote:

ld wrote: bas mi drug se lozi na nju samo tako

'Drug' jel?
Reci 'drugu' nek stane u red.

jeza u ledja wrote: hajmo se vratit na temu - a to je deranje guzova republikancima.

Provaljen si Jeza deriguze nijedan

Je li ko jos vidio "Nailin' Palin"

jesam ja

ovdje nema predizborne sutnje. ovi i dan danas idu i campaignuju. cak idu i na biracka mjesta i lobiraju.

Ne mogu citati 112 stranica, ali da li iko komentarise onoga supka Libermana sa McCainom ?
Taj supcina umalo nije postao VP sa Al Meded Gorom koji je otkrio internet .

I dodje taj istorijski dan! Go Obaaaaamaaaaaaaaaa!

Ja mislim da Huso vodi utrku

Mozel meni laiku sto se tice americkih izbora neko objasniti funkcionisanje ovih elektorskih glasova