Bill Maher: 'enemy combatant'

[Doppel]

That dry ice bomb does look fun.

Much of the spending on security post 911 has just been an excuse to spend money on things that don't increase security, and if we pay any attention to stats we're all pretty damned safe from terrorism anyway (and always were).

 

[HomerJS]

Nothing like good ol' Obama racking up huge deficits and expanding the role of government like handing out a $790 billion tax payer gift to some nonsense department created in a knee jerk reaction with little thought. It's because of shenanigans like this that we need to go back to Republican lead government and move away from the ludicrous spending/knee jerk reactions and gluttonous expansion of government.

You do know Dept of Homeland Security was created under Bush and that figure is since 2001. But why should I let your delusion get in the way of the truth

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You do realize that there are few, if any, politicians, pundits, etc that fully support cutting from everything. Just look at a conservative budget: cuts to welfare programs but nothing from defense or even increasing defense spending. What people want is a balanced budget, balanced spending on the things they think government should do and cuts or total removal to the things they think government shouldn't do or should do less of.

Both groups want to spend freely they just have different ideas on where to spend and how to get that money. It is a fallacy to call the modern Republican party fiscal conservatives they are just anti-progressive taxation and welfare.

Oh I'm not blind to fact that the GOP has completely dropped the ball. In fact its one of the main reasons why movements such as the Tea Party got started during the end of the Bush presidency. However you completely conceded the point that Democrats are significantly less likely (unless backed into a wall without any move to maneuver) to ever cut spending period. Oh and if you think Democrats don't believe in growing out the military (ability as a slower pace while) you well you're just as equally as guilty of buying into that fallacy.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Because the money spent on the DoHS couldn't have been better spent on something like... oh, I don't know.... education or health care? Something that would actually show definitive benefit?

Or maybe that money could of been spent better if it were left in the pockets of taxpayers who would be more than likely to spend it on things they actually need/can benefit from directly or better yet save it for I don't know something crazy like their retirement savings?

Naw that's to practical better to let people gamble wildly in a overvalued stock market showing all the signs of a bubble reinflating due to central banking policy. Besides we gotta keep the illusion that the money we are spending feeding often overly politicized, often incompetent and regularly overlapping redundant agencies in the federal government are somehow providing a greater good and a better return on our money then they actually are in life.

Along with the money spent on a centralized and politicized bureaucracy known as the Dept of Education which in the grand scheme of things does very little to actually improve the overall state of education in this nation other than serving as a lobbying tool for unions and other special interests.

I don't know how many times I've passed through security with an otherwise restricted item. I had a small swiss army pocket knife in my backpack that has been back and forth to Europe several times, and in and out of the States. It was discovered when I moved from one apartment to the next. Eight return flights and nothing.

Don't you feel safer now. Money well spent right??? /tongueincheek

LOL

 

[Darwin333]

He is so right. Much policy in this country is guided by emotion and willingly-embraced shock. Terrorism works very, very well on Americans because any time anything happens the country goes full retard.

I am surprised fireworks haven't been banned yet.

Mayer is saying what I noticed: most of these terrorists are fucking stupid and that is that.

Personally I think that our politicians purposely take advantage of the situations to instill fear in order to scare us into going along with their bullshit.

 

[Darwin333]

I agree with him because I don't think NYC is worth spending that much money to defend. The WTC and a couple thousand New Yorkers can be had for far cheaper than $790b.

Wait wut? Are you being serious?

 

[Darwin333]

Al Qaeda seems to prefer attacking NYC and similar prestige targets, so the risk is relatively minor elsewhere. Besides, my statement still holds - the replacement value of buildings and people from BFE town in flyover country is probably even less than NYC due to cost of living differences. Spending $790B to perhaps (and that's a big perhaps) save us all from the very low risk of a periodic terrorist attack is stupid. And turning it into an economic argument is hardly an unspeakable act; liberals had no problem citing costs as a reason against spending on Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative (which was designed to counter a risk just as improbable as terrorist attacks).

Wow, that was some serious backpedling right there....

While I agree that DHS is retarded and we are defending against a "risk" that is statistically less dangerous than lightning I disagree with how you came to your conclusions.

Basing the "cost" of a terrorist attack solely on the value of property damage and "people" (how much does 1 person cost by the way?) is retarded. As far as your statement about liberals, are you implying that they should be helping defeat the right on this matter or are you blaming them for the DHS spending?

 

[Darwin333]

Fuck Bill Maher.

This is the guy that wants higher taxes and government playing a larger role in society yet he then complains about the expansion of the DoHS and billions of dollars going to the DoHS on top of it.

What fuck did Bill think was going to happen when we grow out this already bloated government???

Then again he pushes out these distorted talking points disguised in his comedy routine to cater to his audience, aka democrats/leftists so as to absolve his and their views from barring any blame in contributing to this mess as government as usual mis-spends the increased tax money it collect from taxpayers by growing out the agencies like the DoHS.

So really fuck him and fuck his fan base. They get the government they deserve.

I am not trying to defend the left or Bill but you do realize that even people who do want more government spending usually want specific types of government spending, right? I don't know many people who want the .gov to spend more on anything just for the sake of spending it.

 

[zsdersw]

Fuck Bill Maher.

This is the guy that wants higher taxes and government playing a larger role in society yet he then complains about the expansion of the DoHS and billions of dollars going to the DoHS on top of it.

What fuck did Bill think was going to happen when we grow out this already bloated government???

Then again he pushes out these distorted talking points disguised in his comedy routine to cater to his audience, aka democrats/leftists so as to absolve his and their views from barring any blame in contributing to this mess as government as usual mis-spends the increased tax money it collect from taxpayers by growing out the agencies like the DoHS.

So really fuck him and fuck his fan base. They get the government they deserve.

Did you watch the video?

 

[glenn1]

I agree with him because I don't think NYC is worth spending that much money to defend. The WTC and a couple thousand New Yorkers can be had for far cheaper than $790b.

Wait wut? Are you being serious?

I'm being completely serious. We don't have unlimited resources to defend against every conceivable risk. You could just as easily justify hundreds of billions spent on defending us against an asteroid strike, alien invasion, ice age, Godzilla, or countless other remote but real risks that are just as deadly as terrorism. But we don't because we realize the cost/benefit of doing so doesn't measure up. We put an implied value on human lives all the time when making those decisions, it's just that it's harder for some to be detached about terrorism victims vs. other calamities because you're personalizing potential future victims through the 9/11 lens whereas you don't when you're discussing asteroid strike, etc.